|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 30, 2015 15:49:12 GMT
I'm trying to wrap up the research for the WWI nurse's uniform I'm making for next year's CostumeCon, so I can get to work making it. Part of the research has been on what that nurse would have worn under her uniform (can't get the right lines without the right undies). I've hit several sites that claim the US banned the use of steel for corset boning and used the metal saved to build two warships, but no one's providing any documentation of that claim.
Gotta admit, I'm skeptical. Not just because I've also found corset advertisements from the war years, one of which specifically claims that the US War Industries Board classed corsets as "essential". But come on -- it's a corset, not body armor. There doesn't seem to be that much steel there.
(Pattern ordering will take place as soon as the tax refund shows up, and one of them will be for a reproduction 1910s corset, so I'll be able to tell you exactly how much steel would have been in that corset soon.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 30, 2015 17:55:04 GMT
I'm trying to wrap up the research for the WWI nurse's uniform I'm making for next year's CostumeCon, so I can get to work making it. Part of the research has been on what that nurse would have worn under her uniform (can't get the right lines without the right undies). I've hit several sites that claim the US banned the use of steel for corset boning and used the metal saved to build two warships, but no one's providing any documentation of that claim. Gotta admit, I'm skeptical. Not just because I've also found corset advertisements from the war years, one of which specifically claims that the US War Industries Board classed corsets as "essential". But come on -- it's a corset, not body armor. There doesn't seem to be that much steel there. (Pattern ordering will take place as soon as the tax refund shows up, and one of them will be for a reproduction 1910s corset, so I'll be able to tell you exactly how much steel would have been in that corset soon.) ever seen a Lane Cedar Chest Freedom Latch? but I agree - unless it was a wood hulled ship I doubt there was enough steel in the entire corset industry to completely build two ships. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 31, 2015 16:35:46 GMT
I know someone who works with costumes and the like, she's a professor in fact. I'll ask her since even if she doesn't know the answer off the top of her head she could probably get an answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 2, 2015 0:25:48 GMT
Got the answer; which is that basically no one in the 1940's was wearing corsets - they'd gone out of style in the 20's. My friend is a star, as she has not only provided two links that show you exactly what they would have been wearing, but they are sites where you should be able to get what you need/want. She uses those from the second link for shows; www.whatkatiedid.com/en_us/product/465/harlow-6-strap-deep-garter-beltwww.herroom.com/rago-9357-lacette-open-bottom-body-briefer.shtmlBoth would be worn with a slip over them...Makes you understand the myth about women taking forever to get changed and having larger suitcases. Presumably they needed 30 different items of underware plus instruction books for a week long trip. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 2, 2015 1:20:29 GMT
Got the answer; which is that basically no one in the 1940's was wearing corsets - they'd gone out of style in the 20's. My friend is a star, as she has not only provided two links that show you exactly what they would have been wearing, but they are sites where you should be able to get what you need/want. She uses those from the second link for shows; www.whatkatiedid.com/en_us/product/465/harlow-6-strap-deep-garter-beltwww.herroom.com/rago-9357-lacette-open-bottom-body-briefer.shtmlBoth would be worn with a slip over them...Makes you understand the myth about women taking forever to get changed and having larger suitcases. Presumably they needed 30 different items of underware plus instruction books for a week long trip. Good to get that information from your friend, but Antigone was talking about WW1 notWW2 uniforms. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2015 1:33:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 2, 2015 2:48:58 GMT
The correct answer for WW1 era is;
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 2, 2015 7:18:59 GMT
The thing about saving steel....
I have heard this one before, and a likely explanation.
Steel was in short supply, so they banned its use in "Many things" including steel re-enforced underwear.
The "Many things" added up to about two warships worth of raw steel.....
Many things included smaller cars, use of plastics (Bakerlite etc) where possible, wood even, and much more recycling.
It wasnt just the underwear that contributed to the two ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 2, 2015 10:42:57 GMT
An addition; While steel was used, when it was rationed they simply shifted to using whale bone - which is/was traditional for corsets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Feb 3, 2015 2:37:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 3, 2015 3:16:34 GMT
the link includes digital copies of the photos in the exhibit. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 12, 2015 15:17:59 GMT
Finally got the corset mockup to the point where I felt safe ordering the components for the real thing (insert obligatory grumbling about Reconstructing History's wonky size chart here).
All the metal boning I bought, plus the metal busk (front closure), came to 6.7 ounces. So one pound of steel would make just under 2.4 corsets.
During "Ping Pong Salvage", J&A threw Mythtanic on a scale, and it weighed just under 28,000 pounds. By my math, that would be the steel-equivalent of 67,200 corsets. And let's face it -- anything worthy of being called a warship is gonna be bigger than Mythtanic. If nothing else, it'll be armored, which will add more steel. HMS Dreadnought's armor belt was 11 inches thick at the waterline.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 12, 2015 15:43:55 GMT
Finally got the corset mockup to the point where I felt safe ordering the components for the real thing (insert obligatory grumbling about Reconstructing History's wonky size chart here). All the metal boning I bought, plus the metal busk (front closure), came to 6.7 ounces. So one pound of steel would make just under 2.4 corsets. During "Ping Pong Salvage", J&A threw Mythtanic on a scale, and it weighed just under 28,000 pounds. By my math, that would be the steel-equivalent of 67,200 corsets. And let's face it -- anything worthy of being called a warship is gonna be bigger than Mythtanic. If nothing else, it'll be armored, which will add more steel. HMS Dreadnought's armor belt was 11 inches thick at the waterline. that's a lot of corsets. an Iowa class battleship displaced 45,000 tons. that comes up to about 215 MILLION corsets. the us population in 1943 was about 136.7 million. assuming about half were women, that adds up to roughly 8 corsets per woman to generate enough steel for two Iowa class vessels. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 13, 2015 0:03:18 GMT
I don't know what the correlation between displacement and actual weight is, if there is an actual correlation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 13, 2015 2:52:32 GMT
I don't know what the correlation between displacement and actual weight is, if there is an actual correlation. there is a direct correlation. the boat will displace an amount of water equal to its weight. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 13, 2015 11:30:47 GMT
The articles I'd found online indicated that displacement varied with the density of the surrounding water (salt water being more dense than fresh water, a boat will have lower displacement in the ocean than in a lake) and assumes a full load (so it's not just steel, but food, fuel, and ammo). But if it's close enough to weight of steel for a corset-based estimate, let me dig out my calculator.
The first successful attack by a destroyer on a German U-Boat was HMS Badger's ramming of U-19 in October 1914. Badger is listed as displacing 990 tons, I'm guessing that's the British long ton rather than the US short ton. If so, it weighed 2,217,600 pounds, and used the steel equivalent of 5,322,240 corsets. If Wikipedia is using the short ton instead, the weight is 1,980,000 pounds and the corset-equivalent is 4,752,000.
The US census is taken in years evenly divisible by 10. In the 1920 census, the population of the US was just a bit over 106 million. I haven't hit the right clickbox to break that down by gender, but this whole thing is a ballpark anyway. Let's assume 50% were females old enough to be wearing corsets, that's 53 million potential corset-donors. Using the lower figure, each woman would need to donate just over 11 corsets to produce one warship of Badger's displacement. And the myth calls for two.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 13, 2015 14:31:06 GMT
The articles I'd found online indicated that displacement varied with the density of the surrounding water (salt water being more dense than fresh water, a boat will have lower displacement in the ocean than in a lake) and assumes a full load (so it's not just steel, but food, fuel, and ammo). But if it's close enough to weight of steel for a corset-based estimate, let me dig out my calculator. The first successful attack by a destroyer on a German U-Boat was HMS Badger's ramming of U-19 in October 1914. Badger is listed as displacing 990 tons, I'm guessing that's the British long ton rather than the US short ton. If so, it weighed 2,217,600 pounds, and used the steel equivalent of 5,322,240 corsets. If Wikipedia is using the short ton instead, the weight is 1,980,000 pounds and the corset-equivalent is 4,752,000. The US census is taken in years evenly divisible by 10. In the 1920 census, the population of the US was just a bit over 106 million. I haven't hit the right clickbox to break that down by gender, but this whole thing is a ballpark anyway. Let's assume 50% were females old enough to be wearing corsets, that's 53 million potential corset-donors. Using the lower figure, each woman would need to donate just over 11 corsets to produce one warship of Badger's displacement. And the myth calls for two. the denser salt water will have less volume displaced, but the same weight. - and I pulled my number from the lowest of listed displacements - the other numbers being listed as combat ready in specific theatres. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 14, 2015 5:32:22 GMT
Again the Corsets were only ONE of a long list of items that had the steel replaced.
Why did Plastics become so popular?.. because steel was in short supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 14, 2015 14:03:02 GMT
Again the Corsets were only ONE of a long list of items that had the steel replaced. Why did Plastics become so popular?.. because steel was in short supply. and silk. but yes, my mother's Lane Cedar Chest has a plastic "victory latch" because they were making the steel available for the war effort - along with the card entitling them to a steel replacement latch after the war was won. - which probably makes it more valuable than if they'd actually gotten the replacement latch. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 14, 2015 14:49:12 GMT
Again the Corsets were only ONE of a long list of items that had the steel replaced. Why did Plastics become so popular?.. because steel was in short supply. True, but that's not what those websites are claiming. |
|
