Elizabeth's face mold (Josephina's) has a longer neck than the original face mold. So if you put them against one of the original dolls they are taller.
I think board members have decided that the height difference is in the head. Clothes should be the same length.
It's not just the photography, girls. I just tried all the outfits (except E's Christmas gown, don't have it) on Felicity. Only two appear "normal" Felicity gown length.
I am going to download pictures and write my reviews now. I'll get them up asap.
For what its worth, I have noticed that both my Addy and Isabel (Marisol) are taller than Felicity. That may be related to the different face molds but I dont know for sure. Its another reason why Im irritated about Elizabeth, shes supposed to be tiny, not taller than my Lissie! [img]confused.gif[/img]
I have seen pictures where colonial dresses only go down to ankles and not down to the feet. But I don't know what the accurate answer is.
I do know that it wasn't until the 1800s that little girls wore the shorter dresses and older girls wore the long dresses. Back in colonial days children were seen as miniature adults and were not treated differently or dressed differently.
If I had little girls who had to wear long dresses all the time, I would make sure the hem was above the ankle just so they wouldn't constantly be dragging in the mud. I can't imagine all the tedious handwashing of those long garments. [img]eek.gif[/img] Plus, it doesn't take long for a dragging hem to wear out. Just look at the hems on jeans that are too long. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Julia
Remember, though, that well-off girls in colonial times would have been "indoors" more than anything else.
One of the tricks used with babies was to put them in such long skirts that they would trip before they reached the fire.
Here's an article on children's clothing:
http://www.history.org/history/cloth...en/child01.cfm
Reading about women's clothing is helpful, too, because girls' clothing was patterned after it:
http://www.history.org/history/cloth...en/anatomy.cfm
http://www.history.org/history/cloth.../wglossary.cfm
In all the pictures I can find online, the dresses worn by the upperclass come to at least the ankles.
My feeling is that they're all a teensy bit short, and the dolls are at 1/3 scale, so an inch off would be like a real girl wearing a skirt that's three inches too short.
But hopefully it won't keep Elizabeth fans from buying the outfits . . . they look very pretty! [img]smile.gif[/img]
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ September 08, 2005 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Melissa ]</font>
I think AG designed these dresses to look ankle length. Which is well documented as a length colonial girls and women wore. They shouldn't cover the shoes.
The problem is the girls have such short legs that ankle and mid calf are about the same length.
I do think the longer dresses look better, but I don't think these dresses are quite short enough to be inaccurate.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They may be designed to be ankle length, but they are not. None of my Felicity's older dresses (Rose Garden, Summer & Traveling) cover her shoes. I'd consider them ankle length. The riding habits are the same.Originally posted by Skittl1321:
I think AG designed these dresses to look ankle length. Which is well documented as a length colonial girls and women wore. They shouldn't cover the shoes.
Both new tea dresses are well above the ankle, especially with the pocket hoops. If you lay them flat, the summer dress is a little over an inch longer than Elizabeth's blue tea dress. Felicity's yellow tea dress is slightly shorter than the blue. Here is a photo of the blue tea dress bottom:
Blue Tea dress
And here is my Felicity in her Traveling gown:
Felicity in Traveling
ETA: Felicity is wearing her pocket hoops in both pictures.
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ September 08, 2005 02:12 PM: Message edited by: jrtmom3274 ]</font>
After reading the articles I see that it was essential that these young girls wear their undergarments. How is that posssible if the dresses are too tight to begin with?
<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ September 08, 2005 02:27 PM: Message edited by: allthingsag ]</font>
I agree the blue dress does look to short. Were we complaining about the traveling dress too? I think that one looks good.
Short or not, the new tea dresses are beautiful
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks