Posted on 4 Comments

Timeless Trends Galaxy Mesh Corset Review

This entry is a summary of the review for the “Galaxy Mesh” hourglass standard length corset. If you would like more complete information and side notes about the corset, you can watch the video on YouTube here:

Full disclosure: The hourglass corset featured in this review is one of the four new designs I helped create for Timeless Trends in 2015, and I am a retailer for Timeless Trends. If you’re interested in learning more about the corset and you would like to support this site, I’m incredibly proud to say that the galaxy mesh corsets (and over 100 other styles of TT corsets) are available here in my shop!

Fit, length Center front is 11.5 inches long, the princess seam is 10 inches (5.5 inches above the waist, 4.5 inches below the waist), the side seam is 9.5 inches and the center back is 13 inches long.
When I measured this before wearing, the ribcage was 28.5″ (rib spring of 6.5″), the waist was 22″ and the hip was 32″ (hip spring of 10″). Gently rounded ribcage and cut over the hips, just meeting the iliac crest.
Material Single layer of good quality synthetic corsetry mesh, which stretches less than the “fishnet” style netting in many other OTR corsets. The front and back layers are made from the galaxy mesh fabric which is soft to the touch, like a really soft jersey, not quite flocked but brushed material – and that is laminated directly to cotton twill. The boning channels are also made with this reinforced galaxy material.
Construction 6-panel pattern (12 panels total). Panel 1-2 converge downwards, and panels 3-4 make the curve over the hip.
The panels were assembled together and boning channels laid down on outside – one bone on the seams and one bone in the middle of the panel. On the inside where the seams are, plush velvet ribbon was laid down to protect your skin against any pokey seams from the mesh.
Waist tape One-inch-wide waist tape, made from black grosgrain ribbon and secured down at each boning channel. Full width (extends from center front panel to center back).
Binding Matching strips of galaxy fabric, machine stitched with a slight top-stitch on both outside and inside (may have been done on a single pass). No garter tabs in this corset as they would be visible under the mesh.
Modesty panel By default, TT corsets don’t come with a back modesty panel, but boned and floating modesty panels are available for separate purchase.
In the front, there is a 1/2 inch wide modesty placket, finished in matching galaxy fabric.
Busk 10” long, with 5 loops and pins, equidistantly spaced. Standard flexible busk, which is reinforced with a flat steel adjacent on either side.
Boning 24 bones total in this corset, 11 on each side. Single boned on the seams and also single boned in the middle of the panels with ¼ inch wide spirals. The bones sandwiching the grommets are flat steels, 3/8″ wide, as well as the flat steels adjacent to the busk.
Grommets There are 28, two-part size #0 grommets (14 on each side). They have a small flange and are spaced equidistantly, and finished in gunmetal grey / pewter. Rolled nicely in the back, and washers present.
Laces ¼ inch wide, black, flat, nylon, shoelace style lacing (standard workhorse laces).
Price Available in galaxy mesh, but also a plain black mesh is coming in the future!
Sizes range from 18″ to 36″, $119 USD.

 

Galaxy Mesh hourglass standard length underbust corset. Pattern by Lucy’s Corsetry, styling by Vanyanis, and produced by Timeless Trends.

Final Thoughts:

While the pattern of the hourglass corset was on myself and Sarah (and about 2.5 years old now so nothing new), the stylist, Lowana of Vanyanis, definitely outdid herself on this piece. For many years, TT and myself had said that we might not ever carry mesh corsets – when the factory had experimented with using mesh as a corset material in the past, it was often sports mesh / fishnet style material that’s so popular nowadays, but they hadn’t been able to find a way to have the corset withstand the longevity tests. TT and myself have a lifetime warranty on all our corsets, but most types of affordable mesh simply can’t last a lifetime, and we wanted to be able to confidently stand by our guarantee.

However, during her last trip to Bangkok, Lowana was able to source the same good quality corsetry mesh used by so many reputable corsetieres, and it completely changed our stance on mesh corsets! I can also tell Lowana’s input in the spacing of the boning (one on the seams and one in the middle of the panels for a more even and comfortable distribution), and her characteristic velvet ribbon protecting the wearer from the seam allowances on the inside (corsetry mesh can be “pokey” when cut and the velvet adds a cushion).

If you’re interested in learning more about the corset and you would like to support this site, I’m incredibly proud to say that the galaxy mesh corsets (and over 100 other styles of TT corsets) are available here in my shop!

Posted on 2 Comments

Did Victorian Women Break In Their Corsets?

 

Many moons ago, one of my Tumblr followers asked: “Did people season their corsets in the 19th century?”

Short answer:

Not really. But they molded to the body much faster than many corsets made today, and some corsets came out of the factory already seasoned, in a sense.

Long answer:

Victorian corsets were usually single layer and molded quickly to the body

The vast majority of corsets in the 1800s were utilitarian, daily pieces – often a single layer of cotton, with lap seams that were either wide enough to hold a bone, and/or separate channels that were sewn on externally or internally. I have tried some single layer corsets and MANY multiple layer corsets, and single layer corsets always mold to the body faster and season very quickly. If you’ve ever had a mockup fitting, think of how well the single-layer mockup fits you, and how much heavier and stiffer the final corset feels in comparison, even with the same or similar measurements.

I also own some single layer corsets – some homemade, some factory samples, and some that were deliberately commissioned as a single layer like my Bizarre Design corset, and they have all felt fairly broken in after only 1 day.


Victorian corsets had a different construction (and shorter stitches)

In the case of those single-layer homemade mockups or samples that I’ve worn for extended amounts of time, they also started falling apart faster too, mostly at the seams. But why wasn’t this the case in Victorian corsets?

I remember at the Symington museum collections where they have dozens of antique corsets from the 19th century you can touch and study – there were hand-written factory specs of many corsets, but one of them in particular caught my eye because this one said that it was sewn with a stitch length of 26 stitches to the inch (the stitches were less than 1mm long!).

Check out the teeny tiny stitch length on this antique corset, as compared to the busk knobs or my thumb – even in “non tension bearing” seams like the quilting or boning channels!
(From the Symington Collection: Leicestershire County Council Museum Service)

Compared that to an OTR corset today, which has about 8.5-9 stitches per inch. (Of course, thread quality strength matters too, not just stitch length.) With a shorter stitch length, there is less “sliding and redistribution of the threads so you get less of a shear force. And with lap seams, flat felled seams, or seams straddled by a boning channel, these types of seams put much less stress on the thread compared to, say, the sandwich method that is popular today.


Whalebone (baleen) molded to the body with body heat and perspiration

Remember that prior to steel, the corsets contained whalebone which were thinner, lighter and – when exposed to warmth and moisture – the baleen became very malleable and could be bent in pretty much any direction. So when the corset is put on, the warmth and perspiration from the body would soften the corset more – and when the corset was removed, the bones would get the chance to cool and dry out, but could retain the shape of its wearer.

Steel bones do not have these same properties, especially some of the cheaper, rigid, less-comfortable flat steel bones often found in budget OTR corsets.


Side note: Second-hand / hand-me-down corsets were more common than you think!

Anthropologist Rebecca Gibson has studied the skeletons of impoverished French women from the 1800s and she said that it wasn’t uncommon for corsets to be be passed down from mother to daughter, or from mistress to maid – hand-me-downs and 2nd-hand purchases were a thing in the 19th century! So in that sense, the corset was already very much seasoned, but Gibson’s research also showed that just because they were seasoned doesn’t necessarily mean that they fit well – because the corset might not have matched their measurements.


Some corsets were steamed and “pre-seasoned” before being sold

After the industrial revolution in the 1830s, some factories actually steam molded their corsets which is kind of like rapid seasoning before it ever sees a body. Here’s one example from the V&A museum:

1887 steamed and molded wedding corset, Edwin Izod. Courtesy of the V&A Museum, London, UK. Click through for more info.

Quote from this page:

To improve shape, performance and comfort, manufacturers claimed numerous inventions. One of the most successful was the steam-moulding process developed by Edwin Izod in 1868, and still used in the 1880s to create elegant corsets such as this one. The procedure involved placing a corset, wet with starch, on a steam-heated copper torso form until it dried into shape. The result was a beautifully formed corset, whereby ‘the fabric and bones are adapted with marvellous accuracy to every curve and undulation of the finest type of figure’ (The Ladies’ Gazette of Fashion advertisement, London July 1879).

 


Victorians were accustomed to restrictive, non-stretch clothing

Almost all clothing today contain at least a small amount of spandex/lycra for comfort and positive ease. With the exceptions, say if someone puts on a nice work suit with no stretch they think it’s confining enough – imagine when they put on a corset for the first time and they’re introduced to the concept of negative ease! I’ve found that when someone is new to wearing corsets, they have a much more positive association with it if they only wear a corset gently for a small amount of time and build up from there (as opposed to taking 6 inches off their waist immediately and wearing it like that for 12 hours). As Ann Grogan of Romantasy says, “You wouldn’t put on a pair of 6-inch stilettos and run the Boston Marathon, would you?”

Soft children’s corded stays, for no waist reduction – fastened by buttons in front, and contains no bones (not even baleen). (From the Symington Collection: Leicestershire County Council Museum Service)

For this reason, I consider the seasoning process as important for a novice’s body, or probably more important for the body, than it is for the corset.

Victorians, on the other hand, had no stretch in their clothing per se (although pleats and gathers do what they can), and wore stays from childhood. Now, these stays wouldn’t take much (if anything) off their waist, they were corded stays and fastened with buttons instead of laces – but they would be quite snug and be close to fitting their natural waist measurement – such that their waist circumference was probably held more or less constant even as the rest of their body grew.


Tightlacing was less common; light reductions were more the norm

Props to Alexa for pointing this out: Most Victorian women didn’t tightlace, but rather their corsets were worn more for support (bust support and back support), supporting the heavy skirts, and perhaps gentle cinching. So even when worn daily, their wear might not be as rigorous as someone who laces down 6-8 inches and wears it 23/7 today.

This one study from the Victorian era mentions that corsets were typically laced with a reduction of 1.5 to 4.5 inches, with the average being just 2.5 inch reduction from the natural waist (26.5 inch natural waist, and 24 inch corseted waist). When you consider that a reduction of 2-3 inches is recommended during the modern seasoning process, it’s really not all that different from how many Victorians wore their corsets all the time.


How long was a corset supposed to last, anyway?

This antique corset was guaranteed to not break for 12 months! This implies that other brands or makes may not have lasted that long with daily wear.
(From the Symington Collection: Leicestershire County Council Museum Service)

Another thing to consider is how long a typical corset lasted back then. Some corsets boasted that they’re guaranteed to last 12 months, which implies that many other corsets didn’t last that long (but, as we know from Gibson’s research, hand-me-downs were not uncommon so they probably got a few years of use, and they mended and repaired where they could).

Some Victorian women may have bought a new corset every few years or up to multiple times in a year, depending on the family’s wealth, the quality of the corset, and the amount of wear and tear on the corset from the woman’s activities. But they would likely find it unreasonable to expect a corset to last 5-10 years or up to a lifetime, the way that some people consider modern corsets to last.

So although Victorians didn’t having a seasoning regimen the way it’s been popularized today, their corsets were very different to modern corsets. Today, corsets come out of the factories fairly flat, and often contain multiple layers of fabric (often a mix of fibers too, like polyester). They’re decidedly crunchy due to the starch and sizing, and they contain almost exclusively steel bones (which don’t change properties when exposed to body heat), AND also consider the fact that that people today are not used to wearing restraining clothing.

I hope this answered the question as to why seasoning was probably not done during the Victorian era, but was also likely not required.

If you have any comments or questions on the matter, leave a comment below!

Posted on Leave a comment

Glamorous Corset “Jenna” Sweetheart Overbust Review

This entry is a summary of the review for the “Jenna” overbust corset in blue satin, made by Glamorous Corset. If you would like more complete information and side notes about the corset, you can watch the video on YouTube here:

 

Fit, length Center front is just short of 15 inches long, the princess seam is 15.5 inches (9 inches above the waist, 6.5 inches below the waist), the side seam is 14 inches and the center back is 12.75 inches long.
Bust spring is 7″, hip spring is 9″. The silhouette is gentle (modern slim).
Material The fashion fabric is blue satin, and the lining is black cotton twill.
Construction 5-panel pattern (10 panels total). Panels 1-2 give space for the bust, and panels 2-3-4 make the curve over the hip. Constructed using the welt-seam method.
Waist tape One-inch-wide waist tape, secured “invisibly” between the layers of fabric. Full width (extends from center front panel to center back).
Binding Matching strips of blue satin, machine stitched on both outside and inside. Stitched in the ditch on the outside, and topstitch inside. There are also 6 garter tabs (3 on each side).
Modesty panel 6 inches wide, unstiffened, made from satin on the outside, and black cotton twill on the inside. Attached to one side of the corset with a line of stitching (easily removed if desired). In the front, there is a ¼ inch wide modesty placket, finished in blue satin.
Busk 14” long, with 6 loops and pins, the bottom two are a bit closer together. Stainless steel busk which is very slightly wider and slightly stiffer than standard.
Boning 20 bones total in this corset, 10 on each side. Double boned on the seams with ¼ inch wide spirals. The bones sandwiching the grommets are flat steel (probably stainless steel).
Grommets There are 28, two-part size #00 grommets (14 on each side). They have a small / medium flange and are spaced equidistantly, and finished in silver. There are a few splits on the underside of the grommets, and due to the choice in laces, they don’t catch much.
Laces Black, ¼” wide flat nylon “workhorse” shoelace. They are a bit springy, but they hold bows and knots well and they are long enough.
Price Available in sizes 18″ up to 30″ closed waist (in blue).
For black and white satin, size range is 18″ – 40″
For sizes 18-30″ the price is $79 USD, and sizes 32″ – 40″ are $84 USD.
Available on the Glamorous Corset website here.

 

Posted on 1 Comment

A Brief History of Hysteria

The history of the “medical condition” of hysteria is a long, winding, somewhat convoluted one. In its earliest definitions, hysteria was a term to describe trauma or disease of the uterus (hence the word “hysterectomy” to remove the uterus) – or even to describe a vengeful or mischievous uterus that detached itself from the pelvic region and wandered around the body.

4000 Years Ago, Ancient Egypt:

It’s said that the concept of the wandering womb came about around 4000 years ago in ancient Egypt, although the term “hysteria” wasn’t coined until around 2400 years ago by Hippocrates. Now, in general there was some stuff that Hippocrates got right – indeed he’s considered the father of western medicine. But he had some really interesting and wrong ideas about the uterus.
In old Greek, “hystera” (without the i) referred to the womb, which is where we get terms still used today like “Hysterectomy” – removal of the uterus.

2400 Years Ago, Ancient Greece:

Hippocrates lived around 400 BCE, and wrote / taught about the “wandering womb” – that the uterus was not anchored in place but was like an animal with a mind of its own, traveling around inside the body and wreaking havoc on other tissue and organ systems like a delinquent. All the symptoms caused by the womb’s antics is what they collectively described as hysteria.

The wandering womb was said to cause heart problems, liver problems, respiratory problems, it could cause a host of neurological issues, everything from headaches, to epileptic seizures (known as “Hercules’ Disease”), to unexplained paralysis (which might now be classified as conversion disorder).

Symptoms of hysteria include:

  • Sleeping too much, or too little.
  • Becoming disinterested in past hobbies, or too interested or obsessive in hobbies.
  • Showing apathy or lack of care, or having anxiety, irritability and caring too much.
  • Having high libido, or low libido.
  • Being too quiet and mute, or being too talkative and loud.

I think you get the idea. There was a very narrow range of “acceptable behavior” and if a lady swung too far out of that range on either side, she could be diagnosed with hysteria.

1500-500 Years Ago, Middle Ages in Europe:

In the middle ages, hysteria was tied to sorcery, witchcraft and demon possession and so – naturally – of the treatments was exorcism. Hysteria was a disorder of exclusion – if every other known disease had been ruled out and doctors couldn’t come up with an official diagnosis, then they believed that it was a disease brought about by something “intangible” and “not well understood” and therefore a result of the devil. And of course, since women were thought to have brought about original sin (re: Eve and the serpent), women were thought to be either naturally prone to “evil”, and/or more naïve and impressionable to evil spirits. Exorcism often involved physical and mental torture of the patient, and many women didn’t survive this “treatment”.

150 Years Ago: Victorian Era in Europe:

By the 19th century, at the height of Victorian fashion, hysteria had become a blanket term for emotional, sexual or mental disorders suffered exclusively by women. Some people blamed quintessentially “feminine” objects and garments for the disease (like corsets!) while other people thought that corsets helped prevent hysteria. But honestly, when I first started researching the history of hysteria, I was surprised by how little it was tied to the corset (the real history of corsets and stays are only close to 500 years, while hysteria is 4000 years old, so this is unsurprising).

Hysteria was a particularly popular diagnosis in the 18th and 19th centuries – in fact the 2nd most diagnosed condition after fever. According to author Laura Briggs, one doctor in the 19th century had a 75 page publication listing all the possible symptoms of Hysteria (and said that list was still not exhaustive)! It was estimated that 25% of the female population was affected by hysteria in some form or another. So Hysteria was still this vague, catch-all, umbrella diagnosis that could manifest in any different ways (it had hundreds or thousands of different “faces”) – as long as the patient possessed a uterus. If you, as a lucky owner of a uterus, disturbed the peace in any way, you could be diagnosed with hysteria and hauled away to a sanitarium or insane asylum.

We’ve discussed the many “symptoms” of hysteria, but what were the causes?

Some claimed that hysteria was due to the uterus becoming too dry and light. (Did the uterus become a helium balloon and just float off somewhere else in the body??) So doctors recommended ways to keep the uterus moist and weighted…. Except not really, because another source said that hysteria was caused by too much fluid retention in the pelvic region, specifically because the female was not purging her body of “female sperm”. (!?!!?)

In the 1700 and 1800s they also blamed “bad air” for hysteria, so when a woman “got the vapours” it meant their womb was acting up. You might have heard of smelling salts which were used to rouse fainting women (this worked by creating a sharp inhalation reflex, which was said to oxygenate the body), but the salts also were supposed to help with hysteria. Smelling salts were not pleasant in aroma; they were made with ammonia. Taking in the pungent odors through the nose at the top of the body was thought to repulse the uterus so it would be driven down through the body. Doctors also recommended applying sweet perfumes and scents to the groin to lure the uterus back to its assigned seat, so to speak.

As you can imagine, there was a lot of contradiction and nobody could really agree as to what caused hysteria, what the mechanism is, or how to cure it.

The horrific “treatments” in the name of hysteria:

Smelling salts, while not pleasant to actually smell, was probably one of the ‘preferred’ treatments for mild hysteria. Others recommended spreading dung on the upper lip or in the genitals (which is anything but hygienic).

Hippocrates said that pregnancy could keep the uterus anchored in place and prevent it from wandering – but the caveat, he says, is that the action of childbirth could cause the uterus to act up again and encourage it to wander. So, he seems to have implied that regular relations with one’s husband to keep the patient like constantly impregnated would be the answer.

Rachel Maines, author of “The Technology of the Orgasm”, has written extensively about the “treatment” for hysteria involving what we would now consider sexual abuse. Forced vigorous pelvic massages – manual stimulation administered by the doctor, or this task could be delegated to the nurse or midwife. According to this chapter in her book, when doctors complained that they were getting too tired stimulating the patient or it took too much of their time, that’s when sexual vibrators were developed as a popular substitute.

Lucy’s Added Thought: Even though hysteria is millennia older than the Victorian era, perhaps one of the reasons why it seems to be so intertwined with this era (apart from more literacy and more surviving written documents about the disease during the 1800s), is that there seems to be this connotation that compared to all other times in history, the 18th and 19th centuries in Britain seemed to be the most sexually repressed and these values were said to be spread to other cultures and countries around the world through colonialism during this era.

1885: Sigmund Freud and Male Hysteria:

Sigmund Freud was erroneously blamed for the widespread belief of the wandering womb, when really the theory had existed for millennia. When I looked more into it though, Freud started learning more about Hysteria from Jean-Martin Charcot around at the end of the 19th century, around 1885. Charcot popularized the theory that men could suffer from hysteria as well, especially soldiers. Many of the symptoms Charcot described would later be known as “shell-shock” and then post traumatic stress disorder. Freud put forward the belief that female and male hysteria was basically the same thing, related to anxiety neuroses – which was sort of laying down more framework for what we now know as anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, dissociative disorders, and PTSD although that wasn’t what they was called yet.

So in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Freud and Charcot and a few others were working to reclassify many of hysteria’s symptoms into new diagnoses, admittedly a lot of those were also wrong and often harmful and now rejected too – but they did claim that hysteria was a psychological, neurological and emotional disorder presented by survivors of trauma. It was not physical disease reserved only for those who own a uterus, and they promoted hypnotism and talk therapies. Freud even diagnosed himself with hysteria at one point, but there was so much resistance around male hysteria from the rest of the medical community that he flip-flopped and started calling hysteria a “feminine” disease again later on.

Meanwhile there was still a lot of messed up shit happening in the name of “treatment”. It seems that spreading dung on yourself and exorcism had both fallen out of favor by this time (thank goodness), but of course there was still sexual abuse and smelling salts as I had mentioned earlier, they were also injecting things into the uterus, cutting or burning away the genitals with fire or chemicals (Dr John Harvey Kellogg was said to be particularly supportive of female circumcision), using electroconvulsive therapy or shock therapy, among other stomach-churning things. And this was all happening well into the 20th century.

1920 – 1980: The Fall of Hysteria:

Hysteria as a diagnosis plummeted drastically after the 1920s in part due to women’s suffrage, but also a huuuuuge factor was because so many people, men and women, across different countries and cultures, started to present symptoms of PTSD during and after WW1 and WW2 that doctors could no longer deny its association with experience and trauma, and that it had nothing to do with gender. However, hysterical neuroses was still mentioned in the DSM-II in 1968, and was only officially deleted when they came out with the DSM-III in 1980.

 

Like I said before, Hysteria has about 4000 years of history, and it’s a convoluted history. Obviously there were multiple and contradictory hypotheses that existed at the same time about both the cause of Hysteria and the symptoms as a result of the condition, and also there’s a lot of disagreement about the timeline of it and who believed what about it prior to the 1900s. Also it’s worth noting that I am not a historian (I’m trained in modern biology) but I’ve tried to touch on events as fairly as possible in this article and clear up some misconceptions about hysteria.

I’ll post links below if you want further reading on this topic. Comment below and let me know the most absurd thing you’ve heard about hysteria!

 

Links for Hysteria (for further reading):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30041838

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/maines-technology.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25273494

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

Did Victorian era doctors use vibrators to treat hysteric female patients with orgasm therapy?

Posted on 3 Comments

Outfit of the Night: Monica Dress (with Gemini Corset)

 

Today I’m doing an OOTD of my Morticia dress from Pinup Girl Clothing. This is the older version with the side zip (I have never tried their updated version which is just closed on the side and you have to shimmy into the dress). I purchased this dress back in early 2014, so this dress is almost 4 years old and is still in good condition.

This has become my go-to “little black dress”. I’ve worn this to business dinners, friends’ weddings, my graduation last year, etc and I’ve been able to dress it up to look more formal, or dress it so it’s more appropriate for business settings, so it’s fairly versatile. This is the size small, and it has fit me at every weight from 125 to 150 because it’s quite stretchy. It’s got some powermesh from the underbust to mid-thigh, so at the higher weight my dress was a bit squeezy (but I’m accustomed to corseting so snug clothing is nothing new).

There are upsides to having a zipper: it makes getting into and out of the dress easier of course, but the downsides include the zip possibly getting caught on all the ruching and breaking the teeth. Also the side with the zipper can look a little lumpy and create an asymmetric silhouette – and I find this to especially be the case if I’m not wearing a corset. If you are corseted, it seems to be a little less noticeable, but the asymmetry is still there.

The neckline is somewhat adjustable, it is not “Elvira” levels of plunge, but it has a fairly defined sweetheart. But if you are more modest, you can pull up the ruched jersey to fully cover your bust, and it tends to stay nicely in place – I’m not typically worried that the fabric is going to fall or shift or move. But if you want to be sure, you can always add brooch in the center front to pin it in place and create a somewhat square neckline.

This dress also has enough support in the bust that I’m able to go braless in this dress. It has a non-stretch satin lining in the bust, and I actually find it’s more comfortable to go braless. The dress kept me very supported – no movement of my bust, even on the dance floor – but some people don’t like the way it flattens their bust, so if you’re in that group, you can feel free to wear a structured bra underneath and it will contribute to more roundness and projection of your bust.

Under this dress I’m wearing one of my Gemini corsets, which has a gently rounded top and bottom to prevent any points showing from under the dress. And like I mentioned when I reviewed the convertible dress from Victoria’s Secret – the plush ruched material, as well as the fact that it’s a matte fabric and a dark color, help to camouflage any edges. But if you want even more of a smoothing effect, you can wear high-waisted control top underwear or tights, which nicely smooths over the edges even under dresses that are thinner than this one. I’m wearing these ones over my corset and under my dress.

This dress is one of the pricier ones I’ve ever purchased, it was $168 USD when I purchased it new nearly 4 years ago. I have to admit, in the past year or so I’ve been buying retro fashion almost exclusively from second-hand buy and sell groups on Facebook. I’m part of PUG Swap & Sell, as well as the Canada Only PUG and Rockabilly Swap & Sell. You have to be ON TOP of it if you want to catch a Monica (especially size small or medium), because those things get snatched up within 5 minutes. But you know me, I love a deal and I especially love second hand clothing because it gives them a new life and prolongs their use before ending up in a landfill.

If you have this dress, what do you think of it? If you’ve tried one with a zipper and without, tell me which you prefer? Let us know in the comments!