yeah, I agree. I also think they were written nicer and made things more like a mini story or history lesson, but it was cute.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The new Meet outfit has a shift as well, but her shift is like a cotton short sleeved slip...not anything at all like panties.Originally posted by MissCurlyCat:
I think the old meet outfit came with a shift under it. Hmmmm, strange..........
Melissa, It would be nice if the description in the old catalogs was still in the new ones. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
Bren [img]graemlins/rose.gif[/img]
yeah, I agree. I also think they were written nicer and made things more like a mini story or history lesson, but it was cute.
Here are Catherine Carey Logan's under garment (She was kind enough to let me take a picture). This is a Dear America doll, and Catherine Carey Logan is supposed to be from 1763.
The 'Pants' are connected with the shift. Dear America dolls have such detail.
<center>
</center>
Nope! No underwear in Colonial times!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for this! I knew about the undergarment issue but was always wondering how women got on.When underwear were necessary for a woman (if you catch my drift) she wore a kind of belt with full length pants under it.
I think that's what the undershift takes the place of.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks