The Farthing layouts

Please forgive my coming to this particular story a decade late - I have just discovered these posts, and am working my way through - but it is a delight to see a railway scene with beautifully dressed ladies and gentlemen.  As one who goes weak-kneed at a crinoline, and flounces round in a frock coat at any opportunity, it is a shame there are not more layouts thus.

 

As a useless piece of information, I believe the (otherwise wonderful) Charles Frederick Worth of Paris decided the 'full' (round, bell) crinoline passe in 1862, his designs moving towards one with a flatter front and more Edwardian 'bustle' shape.  And do not get me started on the replacement of 'white tie' evening dress with casual 'black' by the Prince of Wales/Edward vii. in the '80's...

 

Wonderful blogs, and I look forward to reading more as time allows.

Many thanks. There is no such thing as useless information, I think.

 

The figures seen here are modified Preiser ones, using plastic putty to add beards.

 

 

 

Since then Andrew Stadden has introduced an excellent range of Victorian and Edwardian figures which may appeal (no connection). His OO range is here: https://www.acstadden.co.uk/shop-3

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Mikkel

I am much obliged for your kind hints as to the Victorian figures.  The more I do of the basic scenery on my layout, the more it needs its own figures, but I have not the courage yet to try any modifying.  I have an idea for a 'micro-layout' when the competing OO 19th-C. carriages are released and an attempt with Miliput clay to model ladies in full crinolines.  I had seen Andrew Stadden's range, and have them in mind...

 

Instead of droning on till your eyes bleed about frock-coats, may I recommend to you the 'bible' of 19th C. costume: Cunnington & Cunnington's 'Handbook of English costume in the nineteenth century', Lond.: Faber & Faber, 1959.  The 2d ed. is a reprint, the 3d has an additonal chapter on children's clothing, if you are interested.  They wrote volumes on the 20th C., as well, which might be if use.  With all good wishes.

Thanks for the reference to Cunnington's books. They may also be of interest to Chris who modifies figures for his Victorian Traeth Mawr layout:

 

 

I am not on my own computer at the moment, (I hope to get it back as my grand daughter has returned to school and hopefully does not need it any longer for online lessons), but I have a link to Roger Vaughn who used to have a website of old Victorian photos and in it has photos dated by year from about 1850 or so, so that you can see the fashions year by year.  Also There is a site called Barrington House, which I think is based in the US but it has yearly fashion plates, again from the 1850s.  These I think are English/European as they differed slightly from US ones and are very useful.

 

The Stadden figures in crinolines are very good, and he has some sitting down.  @5&9Models has some early Victorian figures as well to make a change.  His blog is also worth following, London in the 1850s.

 

I do model 1895 and some ladies have been converted to look the part, mainly the 'posh' ones as they can afford high fashion, the others remain Edwardian, and I ignore that.

 

Interesting thought.  Many years ago, I heard a football supporter saying that when they went to away games up north the fashions were about 9 months behind those of London.  (Nowadays as every town has the same shops then that is not the case.)  The further away from London that you go, and lower down the social order, the more you can justify 'out of date' fashions.

 

Finally, and I have said this before on my thread, in 'Grandfathers London', which is a book of photographs of ordinary people in 1875, there is a lady half on the photograph in clothing of the 1850s, without the crinoline.  I understand that the second hand, and third, fourth and fifth hand market was quite strong so you can, to a point have older styles.

 

I really should be building coaches but often get distracted with figures, and then they talk to me and I have to write down what they say!  Once I get some buildings up I shall have to have a Blog to reveal what they said.

15 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

The further away from London that you go, and lower down the social order, the more you can justify 'out of date' fashions.

 

Finally, and I have said this before on my thread, in 'Grandfathers London', which is a book of photographs of ordinary people in 1875, there is a lady half on the photograph in clothing of the 1850s, without the crinoline.  I understand that the second hand, and third, fourth and fifth hand market was quite strong so you can, to a point have older styles.

 

 

I think you should always have older styles. People could only have up-to-date fashion if they could afford it and the vast majority of them couldn’t. Most clothing was as you say third, fourth even fifth hand, either hand-me-downs or bought from second hand shops. There are some fabulous and inspiring photos of what most folks wore in ‘Dickens’s Victorian London’ by Werner and Williams, ISBN 978-0-09-194373-8 and ‘Images of Lost London’ by Philip Davies, ISBN 978-1-909242-04-3. But these  fascinating books come with a health warning, you will be up ‘til the small hours as once opened they are almost impossible to put down!

16 hours ago, 5&9Models said:

 

I think you should always have older styles. People could only have up-to-date fashion if they could afford it and the vast majority of them couldn’t. Most clothing was as you say third, fourth even fifth hand, either hand-me-downs or bought from second hand shops. There are some fabulous and inspiring photos of what most folks wore in ‘Dickens’s Victorian London’ by Werner and Williams, ISBN 978-0-09-194373-8 and ‘Images of Lost London’ by Philip Davies, ISBN 978-1-909242-04-3. But these  fascinating books come with a health warning, you will be up ‘til the small hours as once opened they are almost impossible to put down!

 

I am much obliged to both of you for the 'Grandfather's...' and 'Dickens's...' refs., and heartily recommend both 'Images of Lost London' and 'Panoramas of Lost London' - neither cheap but worth every penny.  Clothes took a long time to die: the toffs passed them on to their staff, who sold them on to clothes merchants, which ended up in Petticoat Lane, and eventually they were worn in the slums of St Giles, or shipped out to the Empire.  Most women of all classes wore both corsets and crinolines (and later bustles instead of the latter).  I am rushing this at work, but can recommend several yards of books of contemporary accounts, and especially the wonderful 'London In The Nineteenth Century' by Jerry White.  There are refs in the latter that will keep you reading for the rest of your life, should you be so distracted.

 

Sorry, can post more inspiring titles later if of interest.

This discussion prompted me to have a look at the clothing shown in contemporary paintings. Of course, they are rather biased, aiming for that "wow" effect.

 

 

Abraham Solomon, 1854. Source: Getty Images (embedding permitted).

 

Abraham Solomon, 1855. Source: Getty images (embedding permitted).

 

William Powell Frith: "The railway station" (Paddington). 1862. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Large version here.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Mikkel

William Powell Frith says this about the costumes in a few of his pictures - I'm not sure what to make of it in terms of the history of fashion:

 

"My grandmother, who long survived the squire [her husband], lived and died in the last house that remained of the Powell property, leaving me as a legacy her wedding-dress, which I have found an excellent "property" as a piece of costume.  Dolly Varden wears it; Sophia Primrose, of immortal "Vicar of Wakefield" fame is dressed in it in several pictures - to say nothing of one or two "Brides of Lammeroor" and others;..."  (William Powell Frith "My Autobiography and Reminiscences").

 

I dare say that close study of "The Railway Station" would reveal said wedding dress - Frith himself appears in the picture just to the left of the man with the fur collar (bowler hat and mutton chops) more or less in the centre.

 

Kit PW

 

edit - The V & A has a collection of objects and images which is worth a look (search "fashion" on their website).

Edited March 11, 2021 by kitpw

Here is the link to The Barrington House.  They say their site is still under construction but it has not changed for years.

 

This is the Roger Vaughn collection.

16 hours ago, kitpw said:

I dare say that close study of "The Railway Station" would reveal said wedding dress - Frith himself appears in the picture just to the left of the man with the fur collar (bowler hat and mutton chops) more or less in the centre.

 

It's a fascinating painting. There's a discussion of it here. Apparently it drew up to 1000 visitors a day when first displayed. There are some nicely modellable scenes:

 

 

 

I was puzzled by the gentleman below. At first I thought he was smoking (there's a challenge for you Chris: A 4mm pipe), but looking again I'm not sure.

 

 

14 hours ago, ChrisN said:

Here is the link to The Barrington House.  They say their site is still under construction but it has not changed for years.

 

This is the Roger Vaughn collection.

 

What a resource those sites are. Of course they are all dressed for the occasion, but if I understand correctly railway journeys were also cause for dressing up.  Looking at the Edwardian era, I have noticed this style in some Edwardian station photos, a rather different appearance from the cheerful bright dresses we normally see modelled. A big city phenomenon, perhaps.

3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

What a resource those sites are. Of course they are all dressed for the occasion, but if I understand correctly railway journeys were also cause for dressing up.  Looking at the Edwardian era, I have noticed this style in some Edwardian station photos, a rather different appearance from the cheerful bright dresses we normally see modelled. A big city phenomenon, perhaps.

 

Mikkel,

My impression is of looking at Edwardian photos is that the blouse/shirt and skirt was a very common choice for day wear.  To this would be added a jacket and coat to keep warm.  It was a style that became popular through the 1890s, but before that it was mainly dresses.  I am not sure how often women changed through the day as well, eg, blouse and skirt morning and going out, dress for receiving visitors for afternoon tea.  Again, I think this habit was dying out.

 

I am not sure when exactly the wearing of mourning clothes died out.  Earlier in the era it was very common, and for different periods of time.  There was a comment in a book somewhere from a young lady that the styles and colours this year were really nice and she hoped no one she knew would die so that she did not have to go into mourning.  There are not many ladies seen on layouts in black, although purple was also a mourning colour apparently.

 

When the Third Class Cambrian Saloon is finally built it will be populated with ladies from the local Temperance Society.  They will mainly be in dark clothing some of which will be black.

 

The Stadden range is mainly coats or jackets and skirts, (Mainly?  4 out of 5.), so not too bad.

 

Disclaimer:  I sound like an expert but I am not really.  Like most things with me my knowledge is fairly superficial, my comments have come from the observations of photos.  

21 hours ago, Mikkel said:

This discussion prompted me to have a look at the clothing shown in contemporary paintings. Of course, they are rather biased, aiming for that "wow" effect.

 

 

Abraham Solomon, 1854.

This is actually the 1855 revised version. In the original 1854 painting the young man is chatting-up the young lady while her father sleeps. However, it was so controversial Solomon had to repaint it so the father and young man were conversing and the ladies chastity remained intact!

On 12/03/2021 at 11:59, ChrisN said:

Disclaimer:  I sound like an expert but I am not really.  Like most things with me my knowledge is fairly superficial, my comments have come from the observations of photos.  

 

Chris, many thanks for the insights. I wouldn't  belittle your knowledge from observation of photos. They can often tell you more about the reality of things than studies of policies, rules and period articles,  which tend to be based on principles and ideals, or the authors' personal interpretation.

 

 

On 12/03/2021 at 12:18, 5&9Models said:

This is actually the 1855 revised version. In the original 1854 painting the young man is chatting-up the young lady while her father sleeps. However, it was so controversial Solomon had to repaint it so the father and young man were conversing and the ladies chastity remained intact!

 

Ha, now that you mention it I can see it in her eyes!

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Mikkel

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

Ha, now that you mention it I can see it in her eyes!

 

I reckon she preferred the first version too! 

May I just take my hats off to you gents at your abilities to modify your figures.  As one struggling to paint my two 1970's ModelU figures, endlessly touching-up errant spots from previous colours, I have no idea how Mikkel manages to manipulate facial hair as well! 

 

Sorry I have missed the above postings.  I will try and reset my 'notifications' and return to read the contributions in more detail a.s.a.p.  Best wishes and thanks in haste.

On 11/03/2021 at 13:43, Mikkel said:

This discussion prompted me to have a look at the clothing shown in contemporary paintings. Of course, they are rather biased, aiming for that "wow" effect.

 

 

Abraham Solomon, 1854. Source: Getty Images (embedding permitted).

 

Abraham Solomon, 1855. Source: Getty images (embedding permitted).

 

William Powell Frith: "The railway station" (Paddington). 1862. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Large version here.

 

Some photos from my family albums - doubtless dressed up for the photographer. They date from the 1860s, with some later ones. There are other albums in the folder with photos from the first half of the 20th Century. http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/album/1276568

An interesting collection, thanks for sharing that Phil. It's a good idea to upload these on the web for a broader audience and future generations, I hadn't thought about that. 

 

I like the photo of Mr Dutheridge and dog. The photos from your grandfather's collection feature some interesting potential for architectural modelling. Chepstow bridge with Brunel's bridge behind it, not least!

 

 

On 09/03/2021 at 15:39, C126 said:

 

I am much obliged to both of you for the 'Grandfather's...' and 'Dickens's...' refs., and heartily recommend both 'Images of Lost London' and 'Panoramas of Lost London' - neither cheap but worth every penny.  Clothes took a long time to die: the toffs passed them on to their staff, who sold them on to clothes merchants, which ended up in Petticoat Lane, and eventually they were worn in the slums of St Giles, or shipped out to the Empire.  Most women of all classes wore both corsets and crinolines (and later bustles instead of the latter).  I am rushing this at work, but can recommend several yards of books of contemporary accounts, and especially the wonderful 'London In The Nineteenth Century' by Jerry White.  There are refs in the latter that will keep you reading for the rest of your life, should you be so distracted.

 

Sorry, can post more inspiring titles later if of interest.

 

I purchased a copy of 'Lost London' at not too exorbitant a price, half the original I think.  Now being a Lundun lad I find it fascinating, as I have walked some of these streets, and even driven around some of them.  Some have gone completely, others just the buildings have changed, or not.  I will get my lads to look for a copy of the volume on the East End for Christmas, somebody must have taken a picture of my dad, surely?

Unable to resist the allure of a well-dressed lady, I splashed out on Andrew Stadden's figures - who needs boring brick-work to finish a layout when you can feast your eyes on a crinoline or silk topper? - and they are stunning.

 

 

These are my favourites at the moment, with the fullest skirts.

 

 

 

The above is the full set, sorted by skirt size, three at the back being more of an Edwardian outline.  And here come the gentlemen, sorted into coat style (frock coat single-breasted, double-breasted, tail-coat, 'sack coat')...

 

 

I am the figure top row, 2d from right, to have a cane added.

 

My photography is hopeless, and adding a coat of primer does not enhance the detail, but as you can see I have started playing around with sample 'slabs' of colour, an acrylic set picked up during the virus confinement at Wilko's.  How you gents can get such precise detail on your figures I know not, but I hope with practice I can get some sort of decent finish.

 

My partner bought me this for my birthday:

 

 

... which goes into even more detail than the 'joint volume' I cited earlier.  If anyone has any queries they think might be answered by this book, please do not hesitate to ask me to check.

 

Quite where I am to put these figures when finished, on a 1970's B.R. (S.R.) Goods Yard, I have no idea.  But they were too good to resist when I had a few quid in my pocket.  Hope this is of interest.  Best wishes to you all.

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by C126

26 minutes ago, C126 said:

Unable to resist the allure of a well-dressed lady, I splashed out on Andrew Stadden's figures - who needs boring brick-work to finish a layout when you can feast your eyes on a crinoline or silk topper? - and they are stunning.

 

 

These are my favourites at the moment, with the fullest skirts.

 

 

 

The above is the full set, sorted by skirt size, three at the back being more of an Edwardian outline.  And here come the gentlemen, sorted into coat style (frock coat single-breasted, double-breasted, tail-coat, 'sack coat')...

 

 

I am the figure top row, 2d from right, to have a cane added.

 

My photography is hopeless, and adding a coat of primer does not enhance the detail, but as you can see I have started playing around with sample 'slabs' of colour, an acrylic set picked up during the virus confinement at Wilko's.  How you gents can get such precise detail on your figures I know not, but I hope with practice I can get some sort of decent finish.

 

My partner bought me this for my birthday:

 

 

... which goes into even more detail than the 'joint volume' I cited earlier.  If anyone has any queries they think might be answered by this book, please do not hesitate to ask me to check.

 

Quite where I am to put these figures when finished, on a 1970's B.R. (S.R.) Goods Yard, I have no idea.  But they were too good to resist when I had a few quid in my pocket.  Hope this is of interest.  Best wishes to you all.

 

 

I hesitate to comment on Mikkel's thread about people, but I will.  They do kook good,  A word of advice, it is better to start with the faces and then work outwards as it is easier not to get paint on where you do not want it.  I am not sure the figures at the back are more Edwardian, they just do not have such a big crinoline.  I saw aphotograph recently of a lady, a titled lady, from the 1860s who had a very long dress that obviously was made to go over a crinoline, but she was not wearing it.  What is surprising is that she had her photograph taken like that.  I like it that you have a figure of yourself.  I have a couple, and of my wife, but neither look like me.

 

Mikkel has written in this blog an in his thread on how he paints his superb figures.  My technique is to use a large magnifying glass with built in lamp, then  putting both elbows on the table I hold the figure in one hand, the brush in the other and I touch at least my little fingers together.  This way if I shake, both hands shake together.

 

Keep up the good work.  You will just have to make a diorama, or have them in a corner looking lost.

3 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

I hesitate to comment on Mikkel's thread about people, but I will.  They do kook good,  A word of advice, it is better to start with the faces and then work outwards as it is easier not to get paint on where you do not want it.  I am not sure the figures at the back are more Edwardian, they just do not have such a big crinoline.  I saw aphotograph recently of a lady, a titled lady, from the 1860s who had a very long dress that obviously was made to go over a crinoline, but she was not wearing it.  What is surprising is that she had her photograph taken like that.  I like it that you have a figure of yourself.  I have a couple, and of my wife, but neither look like me.

 

Mikkel has written in this blog an in his thread on how he paints his superb figures.  My technique is to use a large magnifying glass with built in lamp, then  putting both elbows on the table I hold the figure in one hand, the brush in the other and I touch at least my little fingers together.  This way if I shake, both hands shake together.

 

Keep up the good work.  You will just have to make a diorama, or have them in a corner looking lost.

 

Dear Chris, Thank you for your kind words and much-appreciated advice.  Figure-painting is something I have put off, but these were just too good to resist.  I assumed one did the 'big colours' first, and finished with the detail (the smaller the area the less likely one was to slip).  I have noticed both how my eye-sight would benefit from an illuminated magnifier and my hands from being steadier now I am past the half-century.

 

Another concern is trying to keep the layer of paint thin enough to maintain the exquisite detail.  I was sorry to see the primer 'reduced' some facial expressions.  Do people prefer slightly thinned enamels rather than acrylics?  Another aspect to explore...  Many thanks again.  Neil.

For those who like a good bit of scandal, here's the original version of Abraham Solomon's First Class, as mentioned by @5&9Models back in March:

 

 

Notice that in this version the young man is a Sporting Gentleman; in the revised version he has become a Naval Officer and therefore of unimpeachable good character. 

An art historian would probably tell us that, yes, the young man is a Sporting Gent but the fishing rod also refers to the compliments for which the young lady is angling (rather successfully by the looks of it:  if the newspaper tells us anything, it didn't take long either).

 

Kit PW