Hi Gwen, I know this problem well. At first glance, the obvious solution is to start taking a little off the waist on each piece, or simply drafting the pattern as if you had a smaller waist measurement in the first place.

However, I think you may be talking about the same issue my partner Demi has - an apple shaped figure, where your weight is carried at the front and pulling that in across your belly, halfway down like a sack of potatoes, is very uncomfortable indeed.

I have made a corset for Demi, and it was somewhat successful, but I do hear you on the difficulties of fitting plus size figures; I still consider them a challenge now so don't for a moment think that there's something wrong with your skill level. My solution with Demi's waist was to think of the "waist" - the narrowest part of the corset - being in the same place as her underbust. That, she told me honestly, is the narrowest part. We smoothed down over her belly and made that part as flat as possible with straight pieces, whilst also keeping it comfortable, making sure the corset covered her belly at the bottom edge.

Don't think of trying to force your figure into the standard shape; think instead of enhancing what you have, a subtle but important difference.

There are some terrible flaws in Demi's corset that I'm still not happy with, but my second attempt should be happening in early 2010, workload permitting! Good luck!

Dear Gwen,

I would strongly suggest looking at trying some different styles of corset to give you a better defined waist.

Later Victorian period corsets with the separate "Hip Bucket" piece seem to work better on larger figures as they create a definite line between the waist and the hip. A corset that smooths over this line using just vertical pattern pieces will always struggle to create a good looking waist unless there is a big difference in the measurements already.

If you have a good squeezability factor around your middle ;0 you should be able to reduce it substantially more than your hip measurements. Typically I draft a corset pattern that is only 1-2" smaller on bust and hip (to avoid "muffin top") and 4-6" smaller on the waist. Another very flattering style is that of the "wench type" flat fronted stays which make the most of cleavage, allowing the spread of the tabs to give a nice illusion of a much smaller waist.

You can also use other excellent optical tricks, such as creating a beautifully over curvy front panel in a lighter contrasting fabric to the rest of the corset. Or try cutting shot fabrics on different grains to reflect light in different ways in the panels.This really works, as well as making a more exciting corset.

Gwen,

I feel that to reduce/supress a waist more than two inches is moving from corsetry as it was worn to 'tight lacing,' which is another field! That poor flesh has to go somewhere and to quote my grandmother, "If your stays are too tight, it shows in your face."

Why not use the construction lines and boning flatteringly? You say you are 'generously proportioned,' so why not let the focus of the corset be on your bust?

Dear Laura,

I have only made repro stays for film and theatre and personal use, so I've always used rigiline for the front full boned panel piece. Of course you can sew right over rigiline, although you do need to hold it in the right curve as you sew the horizontal boning on. I always sewed all the verticals first then held the panel in shape while I machined the horizontal pieces right on top of the others.

I suspect that, much like making tabs, this is one of those things that was actually a lot easier when sewing by hand as the original stays would have been!

You definitely don't want to split the bones at the horizontal or vertical "joins", as that will cause the corset to kink at the cut point.

If you definitely wanted to use cane or synthetic whalebone, I think I'd probably draw up a grid where the boning was to go, onto the back of the double thickness of fabric. Then sew all the silhouttes, sewing squares and triangles, constantly stopping and cutting the thread when one shape was complete, and starting the next shape (kind of like drawing round each pane in a window rather than trying to draw the frame...) leaving the cross sections like neat little open crossings, then thread the bonings both up and across.

Laura,

If you are making up the stays as they would have been, it is easier to achieve.

On one pair of stays I have looked at, the lining was unpicked and I could look inside. The vertical bones had been sewn between two layers, then a third layer was added and the vertical bones inserted there. Attention was paid by the maker to ensure that the stays were aesthetically pleasing to look at from the outside.

It becomes more difficult when recreating for performance as the maker is hoping to find a quick method to emulate the original method - so far I have not found one!

Any stays I have viewed have always been rigid and glue has usually been used. They always seem to be such rigid garments; I am unsure whether this total rigidity is due to time passing or if they were actually this rigid when first worn. I have reconstructed many of the 'corsets' I have viewed, but have not done so with the earlier stays - I just used their patterns for creating costumes for performance. I do not think my hands could stand the wear and tear necessary to reconstruct one!

Hi Laura,

My experience with that pattern started with using Rigilene years ago, and that was a piece of cake to machine over; you just boned vertically, laid a horizontal piece over the top and machined that sucker down right over the first set of boning.

I'm guessing you want to go a little more authentic than that! Unfortunately it gets a little more complex here. I believe the consensus is still to bone vertically from top to bottom, and then add horizontal boning channels, sewing (possibly by hand) between the bones.