Support Frock Flicks with a small donation! During Snark Week and beyond, we’re grateful for your small, one-time contributions via PayPal or monthly pledges for exclusive content via Patreon to offset the costs of running this site. You can even buy our T-shirts and swag. Think of this like supporting public broadcasting, but with tons of swearing and no tax deductions!
Although Snark Week has me about to keel over, I promised you an Actual Research post reviewing Maria Theresia‘s (2017-19) costumes:
Starting with our second Snark Week, I’ve picked a shitty frock flick to recap, because I love sharing the blow-by-blows with you. This year, I asked you to choose what film/series I should recap, and the clear winner was Maria Theresia (2017-). This is an Austrian-Czech miniseries about Empress Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress and empress/queen of Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Transylvania, Mantua, Milan, Lodomeria and Galicia, the Austrian Netherlands, and Parma, beginning in 1741 and reigning through 1780. The series had two (LONG) episodes in 2017, two more in 2019, and apparently a further two more are planned. I’ll recap the four existing episodes this week, and on Friday I’ll do some actual research and talk about what the production got right, and where they messed up, in the costumes.
Given my level of exhaustion, and the fact that they were the focus of my recaps, I’m going to restrict myself to talking about the women’s fashion. The series has a few quick moments in the early 1720s, then jumps forward and spends most of its time in the 1730s and 1740s, so that will also be my focus.
Now, the problem is that 1. the early 18th century isn’t as well documented as the later (no fashion magazines existed, fewer surviving garments, and portraiture tended to show more mythical/allegorical/formal styles than the more relaxed portraits of the late 18th century), and 2. this is an era of distinct regionalism in fashion, which starts to blur in the late eighteenth century (see: fashion magazines created, among other trends) — what was worn in Central Europe was slightly different from France or England or Sweden or Spain or Russia, and all of those were slightly different from each other too. So I’m going to try to focus on the Austrian/German area, but back to that poor documentation issue, I may need to pull from French sources sometimes. Sorry!
Also important to know is that there were strong distinctions between the formal, often regulated clothing worn for court functions (and those varied from court to court, so what was worn in Versailles wasn’t necessarily what was worn in Vienna), and the clothes worn for unofficial occasions (which could span “hanging out at home on the couch” to “fancy party”).
Let’s look first at court dress in early-mid 18th century Austria/Germany and compare it with the costumes show in Maria Theresia. Then we’ll look at less official dress.
Court Dress in Maria Theresia
Despite all my cautioning about differences, women’s court dress in the mid-18th century followed a particular look, which was based on the dresses worn in the late 17th century:
This court gown was worn in Sweden, but it was cut in the French style. Sofia Magdalena’s coronation gown, 1772 | Livrustkammaren.
The dresses were made of three main elements:
- A cone-shaped bodice that was boned and made with stiffened materials (so it was both a fashion garment and a corset in one), with a just-off-the-shoulder neckline, front point, back closure, and lace sleeves:
The front comes to a V; there are tab around the waistline hidden by the skirt; the silhouette in front is straight up and down and then curving away from there; the neckline is broad and forces the shoulders back.
It does indeed lace closed in back, but the lacing holes are hidden UNDER the fashion fabric. Here, the dress is laced loosely (due to its fragility) so you can see the hidden lacing strips. Note also the tab visible at the back right hem.
What the back looks like laced closed.
- A petticoat worn over side hoops whose width varies depending on the exact period and the formality of the occasion. Sofia Magdalena’s dress is from her wedding, so her hoops are huuuuuuuuuuge. The petticoat is the “underskirt” in the big image above.
-
The train, which is what we would call an “overskirt.” It opens in front, and is pulled back to varying degrees over the hoops, and then extends a few to a gazillion feet in back.
Here’s some examples of Austrian/German court dress from the 1730s-40s:
Louis Caravaque, Benigna Gottliebe von Trotta genannt Treyden (1703-1782), Duchess of Courland, 1730s, National History Museum of Latvia
After Antoine Pesne, Portrait of Wilhelmine of Prussia, Margravine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (1709-1758), c. 1734, via Wikimedia Commons
Gabriello Mattei, Portrait of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (1717-1780), c. 1736-40, Uffizi Gallery
Maria Theresa as Queen of Hungary, 1740-41, Hungarian National Gallery
Now, let’s look at some of the court style-dresses in Maria Theresia and get more specific. One problem is that I’m not entirely sure WHEN they meant something to be a court dress and when they didn’t, so in some ways this is going to be “times Maria Theresia got the court dress right”:
Unfortunately this is all we see of this court dress, but the neckline and its lace trim, as well as the lace sleeves, look good.
After Jean-Étienne Liotard, Portrait of Empress Maria Theresa, 1743-45, National Museum in Warsaw
Maria Theresa’s wedding gown is pretty spot on, except the bodice should have tabs, there should be a separate trained overskirt, and the lacing should be more hidden.
I’m betting large sums of money they were inspired by this portrait … and in there defense, I don’t see the train/overskirt here | Attributed to Martin van Meytens, Portrait of Maria Theresa of Austria (1717-1780) or her sister Maria Anna (1718-1744), c. 1741, Hungarian National Museum
Maria Anna’s dress gets a similar pass to MT’s wedding dress, although ditto the trained overskirt, I’ve never seen the fabric mixing like they do here, and I’d expect wider hoops for such a formal occasion.
I’m also giving mom’s wedding dress a pass (note it has what is presumably the train/overskirt!), although you don’t normally see the center front made of a different fabric like that…
What you usually get is what you see here on the REAL MT’s mom, which is lace, embroidery, jewels, or other trim laid on top of the dress fabric | Johann Gottfried Auerbach, Portrait of Elisabeth Christine, Empress of Austria and Queen of Bohemia and Hungary (1691-1750), 1735, Christie’s
Another dress I’m giving an okay to is this lace-trimmed dress…
Because you see similar trim application in portraits, although I’m thinking that’s embroidery | Martin van Meytens, Portrait of Maria Theresia (1717-1780), 1747-49, Deutsches Historisches Museum
The one dress with the main problem is mom’s court-dress, which has a high-low overskirt, which 1. didn’t exist and 2. would make it a jacket, not a dress:
The short overskirt length would only be seen on a jacket, which this is not.
And high-low hems didn’t exist.
With the switch (to more money? more time?) in episodes 3 and 4, the main court dress passes the “okay given they had a budget” test:
This is probably the best official court dress in the production… except the bodice trim is of questionable quality, and it’s missing the train (overskirt).
Fashionable Dress in Maria Theresia
Alright, this is where things get a lot harder … back again to the issue of limited documentation. Here’s a brief rundown of fashionable dress options in the 1730s-40s, from least cutting-edge to most:
The “Robe”
Okay, it was called the “robe” in France, I’m not sure what they called it in German-speaking areas. It’s a cone-shaped bodice, generally with support built-in like the court bodice, but comes up higher on the shoulder. It can be worn with one or two skirts (if two, the overskirt would be split in front). Sleeves are elbow-length, initially cut into shape, then later with a pleated cuff. Some closed in front, especially when they were worn over a stomacher, and some closed in back with the same hidden lacing you see in court gowns.
Back-opening | Joseph Anton Fischer, portrait of Empress Maria Theresa (1717-1780), when Archduchess, and her sister, Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria (1718-1744), 18th century, Sotheby’s
Front-opening | Francesco Carlo Rusca, Herzogin Philippine Charlotte von Braunschweig (1716-1801), 1735-37, Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten
Back-opening with overskirt | Antoine Pesne, Sophie Dorothea von Preußen, née von Hannover (1687-1757), 1737, Charlottenburg Palace
Front-opening | Joachim Martin Falbe, Henriette Amalie of Anhalt-Dessau, 1740-45, Schloss Mosigkau
Front-opening with stomacher | Johann Ulrich Schellenberg, Portrait of a Woman, 1745, via Wikimedia Commons
This is a young girl’s style, hence the later date, but notice the back opening | English gown, 1760, Victoria & Albert Museum
This is what this blue gown is supposed to be.
Although note no hidden back-lacing…
This is what they’re drawing on. I questioned the sleeves and waistline pearls; I stand corrected on the sleeves, but I’d still argue those pearls are supposed to make this look mythological or allegorical | Andreas Møller, Erzherzogin Maria Theresia (1717-1780) im Alter von elf Jahren, Kniestück, c. 1727, Kunsthistorisches Museum
There’s a lot more of these:
I complained about the execution of the cross-over bodice here.
This is what that kind of cross-over bodice SHOULD look like | Johann Friedrich Schmidt, Countess Sophia Albertine of Erbach-Erbach, Duchess of Saxe-Hildburghausen (1683-1742), 1740, Seitenroda, Museum Leuchtenburg, Gemäldesammlung
Fitted Jacket-Style Bodices
Cut similarly to the robe, but with a short skirting attached to the bodice hem.
Antoine Pesne, Prinzessin Luise Ulrike von Preußen als Schäferin, 1738, Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten
Dance in a Pavilion by Nicolas Lancret, 1730-5, Charlottenburg Palace
These are basically missing from Maria Theresia.
Riding Habits
Styled like men’s suits on top, but worn with skirts:
Louis de Silvestre, Anna Orzelska in riding habit, 1730, Łazienki Palace
Georg Desmarées, Portrait of Theresa Benedicta of Bavaria (1725-1743), 1740, Schloss Hämelschenburg
Antoine Pesne, Portrait of Sophie Marie Gräfin Voss (1729-1814), 1746-51, Charlottenburg Palace
Portrait of Elisabeth Christine of Braunschweig-Wolfenbuettel (1691-1750), spouse of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, Schönbrunn Palace
The show has a number of these, although their’s are usually proper riding habit jackets worn over other styles of gowns instead of with their own matching petticoat:
This is probably the best of the bunch.
It’s a ringer for this portrait | Robert Harvie, Portrait of a lady, 1747, Christie’s
The Contouche
Called the robe à la française in France and the sacque or sack in England, this was open in front over a stomacher, with vertical pleats along the front edges; in back, it had structured pleats that went from neck to hem:
Robe à la Française, 1765-70, French, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Antoine Pesne, Portrait of Elisabeth Christine von Braunschweig-Bevern, Prussian queen, c. 1739, Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg
Tibout Regters, Portrait einer adeligen Dame, 1743, via Wikimedia Commons
Antoine Pesne, Portrait of Luise Ulrike Prinzessin von Preußen (1720-1782) mit Maske in der Hand, c. 1744, Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg
Johann Georg Ziesenis, Portrait of Christiane of Zweibrücken, wife of Karl August, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, 1748, Schloss Arolsen, Stiftung des Fürstlichen Hauses Waldeck und Pyrmont
There’s a lot of these in Maria Theresia:
This is good from the back.
In front, it’s missing its robings (the pleats that should follow the gown line from shoulder to hem), plus it’s too long-waisted.
This is supposed to be a contouche, but as I outlined in that recap, it’s missing its side and side front skirts.
It’s also missing its center-front opening in favor of some serious weirdness (read the recap for my attempt to figure it out).
This one looks great.
Ditto, except that purple is WAY too bright for the 18th century.
Another great contouche.
Specific Nitpicks in Maria Theresia
Now, let’s do what Snark Week does best!
Sewn-In Stomachers (and Petticoats)
I complained a lot about sewn-in stomachers, and got a few questions about them. Let me break it down:
The way one wears a stomacher-ed gown is to first put on your stays (corset), hoops or hip/bum pads (if worn), underpetticoat, and petticoat. Then, the stomacher is pinned or basted to the stays (in the 1770s-80s, there was a style where the stomacher could be sewn to the gown, in which case it split center front). THEN the gown is put on, and pinned or basted to the stomacher/stays at the front edges. Check out this video from the National Museums Liverpool for a live demo; scroll back if you want to see the stomacher being pinned into place:
Look again at Elisabeth Christine von Braunschweig-Bevern. Can you see how the gown (which ends at the side front) is clearly laid OVER the stomacher? This stomacher actually has a center front seam, so it could be sewn into place and opened at its CF.
The problem with the costumes in this production is the stomachers are often sewn into place, with the gown opening in back, which is ridiculous. As I outlined in my back-lacing rant, there’s no need to open a gown in back if it already opens in front, as it would to show the stomacher. It also just LOOKS clunky, as there’s clearly no overlay of the gown. Why would they do this? It’s probably easier for the dressers to have everything sewn together, there’s less margin for error or continuity problems.
This “stomacher” is clearly a sheer black fabric sewn on top of the dress.
Same fabric, sewn to the bodice.
Lace applied on top of the bodice.
Patterned fabric sewn to the bodice.
Embellished contrasting fabric sewn in as the center front panel.
Things got a lot better in episodes 3 and 4, except I want to know why this black contouche’s stomacher looks laid on top of the gown rather than vice versa:
Not Enough Corsets
Stays (the 18th-century term; “corset” is 19th century, but it’s a shorthand more people understand) seem to come and go in this production. Particularly in episodes 3 and 4, you get some lovely bodice silhouettes like this one:
See how smooth the front of that bodice is? There’s no individual, defined breasts. And then the shape curves away to the sides.
I’ve pretty much never seen actual boob shapes under a gown/corset in the 18th century, except for some outliers in the very late century. Yes, especially in the first half of the century, support for the breasts and torso could be build into the gown, like in the court gown and robe. But the resulting silhouette should looked “corseted” and smooth; and if support isn’t build into the gown, separate stays should be worn.
Look at Philippine Charlotte von Braunschweig’s smooth silhouette.
That’s why all these boobs annoyed me:
We should not be seeing that dent below her bust.
Ditto.
Tripled!
Weird Trimming
Okay, so they did generally PLACE the trim in the right spot — center front of the bodice or occasionally along the side fronts of a contouche/française. But the aesthetic just SO wasn’t 18th century. I get it, they’re trying to do a lot without a lot of money or time, so these modern equivalents save both.
Court gowns often featured embroidery along the front in a stomacher-esque, upside-down triangle pattern.
Or across the front of the gown | Antoine Pesne, Portrait of the Queen of Prussia Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Bevern (1715 to 1797), c. 1735, via Wikimedia Commons
And there were often jewels worn at the bodice center front.
Gowns like the contouche usually had trim down the side fronts of the gown, and on the stomacher.
And along the side fronts of the overskirt.
This blue gown is one of the more successfully trimmed gowns.
This one is acceptable.
Nicely done!
The scattered pearls are weird. It’s too abstract for 18th century!
I have never seen faceted beads as gown trim in this period.
I may never recover from the iridescent plastic sequin applique debacle of 2020, although I know suspect they may be plastic pearls instead of sequins.
Comparing the original portrait with the finished gown I can see where they were going here … but this just DID NOT read well on film.
I have never seen a contouche/française with vertical trim in back.
This was just SO modern bridal, plus the white lace at the neckline and cream lace on the bodice front are jarring.
Shitty Wigs
Okay, so yes, as everyone knows, white hair was super popular throughout the 18th century. What is frequently misunderstood is the fact that this was done by applying powder — lots and lots of powder — to the hair. Yes, white and grey WIGS existed, but these were primarily worn by men and still had powder applied. Unless a woman was losing her hair, they nearly always wore their own hair, and most often it was powdered within an inch of its life.
Can you see the powder along her hairline?
So I could have accepted the shitty white wigs in episodes 1 and 2 IF I were supposed to believe it was the woman’s own hair. But given how MT kept switching between white and blond, and the fact that we see her natural brown hair on her wedding night, this was a big no for me.
Sometimes white!
Sometimes blonde!
Wait there’s her own hair!
Things got better in episodes 3 and 4 when they started using the actress’s own hair. But the problem is the hairstyles they used — while actually quite pretty — were more late 1750s through 1770s than 1730s-40s. Don’t believe me?
1730’s hairstyles
1740’s hairstyles
Instead, in episodes 3 and 4, we get hair more like this 1772 style:
Augustin Pajou/Sèvres Manufactory, Madame du Barry (1746–1793), 1772, Metropolitan Museum of Art
It’s pretty! But it’s not 1740s.
MAYBE 1750s?
And, to say for the thousandth time, 18th-century women did not wear full wigs IF they could avoid it. They wore hairpieces, sure, which they worked their own hair into for a natural look. So every time you see a scene like this, join me in scoffing:
Nope!
Anachronistic Gown Styles
And finally, there were a number of gown styles worn that were decades too early:
“Zone” front gowns, with the overdress cut with an inverted V shape opening in front, were fashionable in the 1770s-80s.
Dresses and jackets with cutaway overbodices: Family group by James Millar, 1774-80, Yale Center for British Art / The Oliver and Ward Families by Francis Wheatley, c. 1778, Yale Center for British Art / The Sharp Family by Johann Zoffany, 1779-81, National Portrait Gallery/ Harriet Milles by John Downman, 1780 / Jacket (“pierrot”), c. 1790, France, Kyoto Costume Institute
This kind of fitted back gown, with the skirt cut separately, is 1770s at the earliest.
Robe à l’Anglaise, British, 1776 / Robe à l’Anglaise, American, 1785-95
Ditto.
Tripled.
There’s tons more I could say, but I’m about to keel over from Snark Week exhaustion, so I admit defeat and won’t be discussing the coronation gown. I’m sorry!!
What questions do you have, and information can you share, about women’s fashions in the 1730s-40s and the costumes of Maria Theresa? Weigh in in the comments!
Under the picture of Sofia Magdelena it says Coronation Gown and under your Detail pics it says Wedding Gown. I believe both are in existence, so I’m going to believe it’s a typo due to extreme weariness. So far I’m enjoying the comparison.
Thanks for doing this, Kendra! I feel like I learn so much both in snarky and more serious takes. :-) I really want to read about the construction of these things now. Thinking of going mid-18th C for a cosplay next fall so I’m all eyes! Kudos!
Wow what a marathon! And so interesting to read your analysis of why one’s reaction to these things is almost visceral. I see something else that’s more of an overall approach issue including and beyond the specifics here. The colour palette is wrong. The pink wedding dress is a cool based modern pink, not the rich warm, soft pink of a naturally dyed colour, and the constant use of 80s electric blue hurts my brain. The difference between this and the deep greeny navy in portraits is just..ungh. So this gives the whole thing a 1980s school production vibe. And then as well as the hidjus sewn in stomachers, all the sewing and cutting has a pedestrian quality to it that just feels like costume hire dresses made from a simplicity costume pattern. The Grandma’s living room curtain brocades are everywhere. They don’t sit right, don’t read anything like silk. They lack silk’s vibrant personality in the way it moves. I understand budget constraints as it is a huge productiom and I imagine not much is for hire from this era, hence the zone front invasion, but so much could have been done to improve things – spraying the white nylon laces with cream or gold spraypaint gives them a rigidity and robustness that looks far more authentic. Doing this to all that white bridal trim on the blue gown would have helped. Obvs before it was put on.
Well as always could hav been worse, could have been MQODenim.
I saw some of the gowns from Series 2 live, and as I recall, Maria Theresia’s gowns (plus riding habit) were all silk (at least some were duchesse, I recall), while some of the lesser characters were not. And yes. The colour palette of some of them was pretty offending in real life as well. :P
P.S. At least some of the brocades allegedly came from a factory in Italy that specialises in historical fabrics. So they may have made the mistake of trusting them implicitly and using fabrics that were not clothing fabrics. Because lack of easily available info (see my elaboration below).
Will you look at the panniers on that coronation/wedding gown! Good thing the ceremony, whichever it was, took place in a cathedral with BIG doors!
Fantastic rant! I learned sooooo much. Appreciate the video very much. Now get some rest.
It doesn’t seem that the costumes were made to appeal to modern aesthetics,and it is easy to find referenced portraits which makes it crystal clear that the designers tried,though the results are not that good.The fabrics and lace were horrible,and budget for those things could have made it much better as in the latter episodes.
Thank you so much! See, I had no idea what a stomacher even was, or how you were meant to put it on, until you linked that video. I may be a mad history enthusiast but like I said, mostly in the ancient world and not really a clothing expert, so you need to explain these things like I’m five. Greatly enjoying snark week!
Re the shape of the boobs not being visible: I’ve had to read a fair amount of 17th- and 18th-century porn (you KNOW you’re a costume geek if you read an account of the Marquis de Sade’s trial for hiring a clutch of prostitutes and accidentally poisoning one with Spanish fly, and all you can remember is what he and his manservant were wearing), and it’s noticeable that it’s quite rare for the writer to refer to ‘breasts’ or any plural slang term; instead you get ‘her bosom’, singular. It really seems almost as though the randy male of the era thought of the bust as a single phenomenon, since that how he normally got to see it.
Everything about this comment is glorious, and I would like to thank you for it. :D :D :D
On the subject of stomachers, shouldn’t they also be wearing jewelry stomachers (devant de corsage) on grand occasions? Those brooches they used seem awfully small and every day for an empress.
Many thanks for all these details here. Great work.
Is that dress with the sequin applique WAFFLE KNIT fabric?
I missed this by not being a regular reader! I actually saw the physical gowns from episodes 3 & 4 at an exhibition here in Czechia and have photos! (Some of them, including that riding habit which I was admiring in real life for having gotten it mostly right.)
… I’d have to upload them somewhere. But I have photos if you’re interested. :-)
As a former costumer I see 3 huge problems 1) overall badly fit gowns 2) non historicaly built gowns, and 3)cheaply rendered gowns and hair. And they all come down to dollars ..
The fit can be a situation that actresses cause in spite of a designers best intentions. If an actress refuses to wear stays, who do you go to? The producers don’t care about historic accuracy they care about keeping to budget and to schedule ($). Making your star comfortable may accomplish both of these. Over and over in your view the most successful looks are those worn by larger actress, ladies that are perhaps more sensitive to looking their best. Perhaps these ladies literally spent more time in fittings and were willing to have themselves tighter laced to achieve the cone shape, and KEEP it tightly laced all day of shooting. recall the revealed back lacing that you noticed. What I noticed is that it had been loosened at bust line level) Remember actresses are expected to work in costume between 13 to 18+ hours a day, even the most dedicated reenactor rarely maintain that many hours for a day let alone a shooting schedule of 2-3 months 5-6 days a week. Keeping the production moving becomes the mantra. If that means loosening things, that’s what it means. And sloppy looking gowns are the result.
There is no excuse for badly researched production. Historic pattern books have information that puts you on the right road to making a gown so the only reason could be $$$. In their defense, can producers afford to spend the money to create a court gown that takes 100s of hours to recreate accurately? reenactors lovingly do this for themselves, we do it to make it perfectly, but we do it for free. if you have a budget too small to make 500 1730-40s court gowns that is the producers fault. Details go out the window, so you look for ways to cut corners. Can we reuse the same pattern a few times? or you just fail the period to save fabric and hours.
“Cut the tabs/ robing, no one will know” I can hear the sentences in my head. A dream project that you look forward to, can turn into a nightmare because of budget.
As to badly dated styled wigs. Well that is very frustrating for costumers, we can suggest a look to hair stylists but they make their own mistakes. If they are turned on by the big hair of 1780s; well a cooing whisper in the actress ear in the chair and 1780s hair is what you get, failing the entire look.
I’ve been a professional and a reenactor I hate bad work but can sympathize with their challenges.
I also feel like part of the problem here is that here in Czechia we’re a bit behind on “historical accuracy” in costume, especially for this particular era, so actually as more or less the first local undertaking that made an effort at 18th century this isn’t too bad and a huge improvement over previous local attempts at the era (I don’t even know what the last previous attempt at the era was – but almost certainly it would have been a fairy-tale, which is never subject to the same rigorous historical scrutiny)… It’s still a bit of a disaster for those who know, but at the same time, I can see where they made an effort and where their challenges lay, and it isn’t just budget (although in a way, budget probably plays a role even in this). It is like so:
The costume designer is Czech. There’s a lot more info available in English – even in terms of museum garments to view online; definitely in terms of correct construction techniques and pattern shapes. Far, far less in Czech. I can imagine it may have been quite a project for the costume designer just to research and find out what sources to use, considering this was probably his first foray into the era; I’ve been looking into historical costuming for years and years now, and I’ve seen how little there is easily available in Czech, especially if one wants to know the practical aspect of “how do I make this thing so that it looks like that” rather than just “look at these paintings and read this general account of the era”. And how only in the past couple of years the situation is slowly improving e.g. in terms of online colletions (and there’s still next to no 18th century, compared to how many extant dresses there are in foreign collections). And that may well be one of the reasons the costuming improved in the second series – more time to research, get his hands on resources, and learn from mistakes.
They also proudly used brocades from a factory in Italy that makes historical fabrics – which also felt maybe more like furnishing fabrics to me. So overall it felt rather like “they definitely made an effort but there’s room for improvement that could be solved with more easily available Czech research into the era in the future”.
18th century is super-popular with costumers elsewhere but around here… costumers / reenactors focus on earlier eras, SCA-style basically. Or later (Regency / Napoleonic). 18th century is a bit of a blank in Czech costuming circles and only now starts being done seriously here and there, probably under influence from abroad… So this must have been, on the whole, quite a shot in the dark.