Regency vs. natural form

[green_martha]

Or in other words : the best laid-out plans never hold long enough to make it.
At argyronete's wedding on Saturday I wore my 1895 ball gown and that got me thinking again.
I'm indecisive again about my wedding dress. I clearly have a soft spot for anything between 1870 and 1900, AND I already have some pattern bases for that. But on the other hand, I have a hard time with the weight of it all when I'm tired - on Saturday I had to change into a lighter costume by the beginning of the dinner. The week before had been a little rough, but I don't expect the week before my OWN wedding to be anything more restful. I also have the simplicity regency patterns that I bought last time I was in Paris, and I have some ideas that would work with my fabrics and be pretty cool - certainly not entirely period but that's not the most important point about it.
*ponders ponders*
In the meantime, I decided I'd tackle all the drawing and organizing stuff and my Mom's outfit first.

Comments

[scottishlass.livejournal.com]

Ca va, Marthe. Here is Una from the green Fantasy Forum. :)
If you are concerned with the weigt of the 1870's to 1900's costumes, then yes, go for Regency. During a wedding you need to stand quite a lot of time, in church, at the reception etc. so a Regency dress would be much more comfortable than a tournure. Just make sure you don't stand in a draft or something and catch a cold. Even non-authentic regency patterns tend to be on the fluffy and light side rather than warm (Short sleeves, not many layers etc.).

Have fun and good luck for your wedding, you will be a wonderful bride, no matter which era you will be dressing in. :D

[green-martha.livejournal.com]

Thanks !
The bustle is already ruled out, my Home Geek said a big NO to anything with wires.
Anyway, Regency won. I'm in the process of cutting out the Simplicity short stays.