Now, for a little math.

First, I am going to assume that there were eight panels, partially because asymmetry didn't seem all that common, at least in the Greenland stuff. So, lets take an average width of 10 cm for all eight panels - that gives an 80 cm (31 inch) circumference at the waist. That is a fairly tight fit for a reasonably skinny person. If we assume 10 panels, that goes to 100 cm (39 inch waist seam), unless we start to factor in the gathering or some panels having smaller waist widths. Anyway, ballpark 10 panels sounds reasonable at this point.

However, with the bottom of the panels (the longest surviving is 69 cm, aka 27 inches tall) are about twice the width of the top of the panels, the lower hem would only be roughly 200 cm in circumference (74 inches), which doesn't make for a very full skirt, esp in comparison to the Greenland, where No. 38 has a hemline of 300+ cm (120+ inches). I am concerned that a circumference of 200 cm will not give the desired, commonly illustrated fullness. Admittedly, I do not have a ruler on hand to measure the diagrams, and maybe the bottom of the panels are missing. So, is the bottom is really more like 2.5 times the top width, and there are 10 panels, then maybe 250 cm might work out, but would still be on the narrow/skimpy side.

Actually, 10 panels is rather weird, you either have to place panels centered in the front and back, or along the side. Given a choice, I'd go with the front/back, leaving a seam at the side. 12 panels would work to have seams both at the center front/back and sides, but that would require a fair amount of gathering, and I am concerned that only the one panel shows gathering. Why would only some of the panels be gathered, while another is curved "to give a smooth fit over the hips"?

Any thoughts?

This is how I make my skirts. I don't have my math handy, but I went through pretty much the same process as you.

I determined that it would be a very effective use of fabric, with little waste for a skirt. I liked how well these panels could be cut in trapezoids from one rectangle of what I understood at the time to be a period width of fabric. (I think I was assuming 22" - this was several years ago).

My first try was, I think, 8 panels, in the days when I did supportive smocks. The skirt was way too narrow.

I've been using 12 panels, partly for fullness, partly because with modern fabric width it works out nicely to 3 panels. I wouldn't go for less, I think the drape would be wrong, based on a skirt where I cut the tops too wide and had too much gathering at the back.

I think that the extra fullness was gathered or pleated into the back. The gathers on afew panels makes perfect sense - you have a set waist circumfrence that you have to set into a bodice that fits *you*. The number of panels gathered might depend on the size of the wearer. It makes 1 desigh able to fit many. Also, there's small pleats in the vander weyden with the servant in green wearing the air filter hat.

Don't take everything Kay Staniland says as gospel, when it comes to small, off-hand conjecture. Somebody on another list I'm on met her, and asked her about the flawed button diagram. She said she was just makin a guess about how it might have been done - essentially, no more educated a guess than we're all capable of making.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nikki:
Thanks Charlotte - nice dress!

I made a mock up using 10 panels and 2.5 times the width at the bottom and it was way not wide enough at the lower hem, so I've decided to increase the bottom width a bit more. I might go up to 12 panels, but them trim the narrow end down a bit, because I'm not looking for a whole lot of pleating...

---