4 ms·

But why stored in a secret pocket?

by russfink 3y ago

dools 3y ago
Pockets are for the help, this is a nice dress so a secret pocket is probably the only type of pocket they'd want.
- toyg 3y ago
  Still, why would an elegant woman carry a weather report encoded in telegraph jargon...?
  - WeAddValue 3y ago
    Maybe she didn't know it was a weather report encoded in telegraph jargon and instead thought it was some kind of crypto puzzle that she kept handy to work on in idle moments.
  - pimlottc 3y ago
    It could have been part of her job: > Rivers Cofield also notes that the dress – although beautiful and fancy to our modern eyes – was not exactly what someone would wear to a ball. It was more like the ‘business casual’ of the day, and to her that does indicate it might have been worn to work. > Chan has also documented that a number of women worked as clerical staff at the Washington, D.C. offices for the Army Signal Service in the 1880s. https://www.noaa.gov/heritage/stories/cryptogram-in-silk-dress-tells-weather-story https://www.noaa.gov/heritage/stories/cryptogram-in-silk-dre...
thaumasiotes 3y ago
As dools notes, female clothing doesn't usually have pockets. So if you want a pocket at all, it will probably be a secret pocket.
- Sprocklem 3y ago
  My understanding is that that was not true of clothing of that era. That being said, the description of the pocket is unclear and it may have been a normal pocket, which would have been built into the folds of the dress so as not to be overtly visible. ETA: If memory serves, pockets disappeared from women's clothing as skirts became more form-fitting in the 1910s and 1920s.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > If memory serves, pockets disappeared from women's clothing as skirts became more form-fitting in the 1910s and 1920s. Definitely not true considering this quote from 1899: > No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless. (as quoted from https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-s... ) According to the article, female clothing has just never had pockets: > Once upon a time, everyone carried bags. In the Medieval era, both men and women tied their bags to the waist or wore them suspended from belts; these bags looked very much like Renfaire fanny packs. As the rural world grew more urban and criminals more sophisticated, people cunningly hid their external pockets under layers of clothing to hinder cutpurses; men’s jackets and women’s petticoats were outfitted with little slits that allowed to you access your tied-on pockets through your clothing. > Only in the late seventeenth century did pockets make their move to become part of men’s clothing, permanently sewn into coats, waistcoats, and trousers; women’s pockets, however, failed to make the same migration. Lacking built-in pockets, women continued to hide their tied-on pockets, which were large, often pendulous bags. > The French Revolution changed everything. While the mid-eighteenth century lavished in rococo, wide skirts that screamed decadence and wealth in their yards and yards of fabric, the end of the eighteenth century whispered restraint. Skirts pulled in close to the body, the natural waist crept ever upward, and the silhouette thinned to a slender column. This neoclassical look had no room for pouchy pockets, yet women still needed to carry their stuff. The reticule, a small, highly decorated purse, was born — and like a pernicious poltergeist, it has never really gone away. To hear the article tell it, demanding pockets in their clothing was an early form of women's liberation around the period you describe, but one that failed.

But why stored in a secret pocket?

dools 3y ago

Pockets are for the help, this is a nice dress so a secret pocket is probably the only type of pocket they'd want.

toyg 3y ago
Still, why would an elegant woman carry a weather report encoded in telegraph jargon...?
- WeAddValue 3y ago
  Maybe she didn't know it was a weather report encoded in telegraph jargon and instead thought it was some kind of crypto puzzle that she kept handy to work on in idle moments.
- pimlottc 3y ago
  It could have been part of her job: > Rivers Cofield also notes that the dress – although beautiful and fancy to our modern eyes – was not exactly what someone would wear to a ball. It was more like the ‘business casual’ of the day, and to her that does indicate it might have been worn to work. > Chan has also documented that a number of women worked as clerical staff at the Washington, D.C. offices for the Army Signal Service in the 1880s. https://www.noaa.gov/heritage/stories/cryptogram-in-silk-dress-tells-weather-story https://www.noaa.gov/heritage/stories/cryptogram-in-silk-dre...

thaumasiotes 3y ago

As dools notes, female clothing doesn't usually have pockets. So if you want a pocket at all, it will probably be a secret pocket.

Sprocklem 3y ago
My understanding is that that was not true of clothing of that era. That being said, the description of the pocket is unclear and it may have been a normal pocket, which would have been built into the folds of the dress so as not to be overtly visible. ETA: If memory serves, pockets disappeared from women's clothing as skirts became more form-fitting in the 1910s and 1920s.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > If memory serves, pockets disappeared from women's clothing as skirts became more form-fitting in the 1910s and 1920s. Definitely not true considering this quote from 1899: > No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless. (as quoted from https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-s... ) According to the article, female clothing has just never had pockets: > Once upon a time, everyone carried bags. In the Medieval era, both men and women tied their bags to the waist or wore them suspended from belts; these bags looked very much like Renfaire fanny packs. As the rural world grew more urban and criminals more sophisticated, people cunningly hid their external pockets under layers of clothing to hinder cutpurses; men’s jackets and women’s petticoats were outfitted with little slits that allowed to you access your tied-on pockets through your clothing. > Only in the late seventeenth century did pockets make their move to become part of men’s clothing, permanently sewn into coats, waistcoats, and trousers; women’s pockets, however, failed to make the same migration. Lacking built-in pockets, women continued to hide their tied-on pockets, which were large, often pendulous bags. > The French Revolution changed everything. While the mid-eighteenth century lavished in rococo, wide skirts that screamed decadence and wealth in their yards and yards of fabric, the end of the eighteenth century whispered restraint. Skirts pulled in close to the body, the natural waist crept ever upward, and the silhouette thinned to a slender column. This neoclassical look had no room for pouchy pockets, yet women still needed to carry their stuff. The reticule, a small, highly decorated purse, was born — and like a pernicious poltergeist, it has never really gone away. To hear the article tell it, demanding pockets in their clothing was an early form of women's liberation around the period you describe, but one that failed.