The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-11-03

dear old sou go on, but all the while l
was wondering whether the young ladies
he talked of were not first in his mind;
and, manlike, he thought it was the
clothes, but he couldn't tell me just what
they wore. I got the approximate date,
and it was between 1842 and 1848 or 1852,
for it appears that there were two distinct
ideas in his mind. One was that when
they swept into a room, my dear, they
looked like queens, so they did, he said.
After he was gone 1 looked the matter
up, and l find that IN 1S42 they wore
hoops and flounces and great wide stripes
and plaids on their street attire and bon
nets like Shaker hoods, with floating
wells, and such mites Of sunshades that
were made SO that they could be tilted to
ons side or the other or lie fat against the
handle like a fan. The ball dresses were
a large in the skirt as the street gowns
and were lavishly trimmed with garlands
of flowers In ~festoons and punches, and
the waists were cut OF square SO as to
shew the rounded shoulder. There were
berthas and short pulled sleeves, and the
waist was laced in as closely as it possibly
could be drawn. That style of ball dress
is the foundation Of those Of today, minus
the hoop, but with many little artistic
touches not drssmed of then.
The riding habit had its hoop, and tho
skirt was full and straight around and
from ~ to 2 yards long and weighted by
leaden molds at the bottom. The coat
BASQUE was not very different from those
OF today, but the hat would make two such
as they now wear, and there was a long
flowing veil. The skirt fell nearly to the
ground and was as dangerous as 1t could
be, but the floating and sweeping effects
were what they wanted then, and they
got them by length and breadth.
1t was in this period that the bloomel
costume was invented and worn by Mrs.
Gerrit Smith. When she first attempted
to wear boomers in New York, she was
nearly mobbcd. Being o lady of great re-
fnement, she gave up to the current OF
opinion and dragged a pile of sweeping
skirts after her for the rest of her sweet
life, and Mrs. Bloomer took up the plan.
and, being of an aggressive nature, shs
wore hers in face Of opposition and leo
tured on dress reform. The costume had
a pair of Turkish trousers, not very full,
reaching to the ankles. There was a
founced skirt, worn with hoops reaching
Just to the knees, and a mannish cutaway
coat with collar, tie n vest. 1t might
have looked better without the hoops, but
as it looked with them I don't blame the
boys. But the world moves, and we rather
like tho looks of the girls In their bicycle
suits now. The time was not ripe for
pants In 1s42, but 1t appears to be in 1894.
i imagined the beautiful girls my friend
was telling of who were at their zenith In
1862. / found that the hoop had multi
piled by ten in circumference. Flounces
were still favoritcs, and foul to ten were
put on the enormous skirts, and the waists
were cut long on the shoulder SO as to give
a graceful droop to the shoulders. The
sleeves were what we now call bishop, OF
they wore bell shaped and had white lace
or fine muslin embroidered undersleeves.
We have the bishop sleeve now, but we do
not have the undersleeve. The sweep"
and circumference of these skirts were
enormous, and that made a coat or cloak
of o special build necessary to accommo-
date them.
Black silk for summer and velvet fol
winter were almost de rigueur. A lin
shawl was worn sometimes. The coats
were trimmed with some s%prawling pat
tern and had great bell sleeves stiff1y lined.
The bonnet was small and tied unde the
chin with wide ribbons, and all the trim
ming dropped. Perhaps one reason why
the blessed old man still cherishcs the
memory of those beautiful girls is because