Does this dress usually have an AG tag somewhere on it? I have no doubt it is authentic as it was sold to me that way and I do not doubt the word of the seller at all. I ask because, now that I have it in hand, I actually don't care for the fabric that it's made of, I never realized how cheaply it's made. Having only ever seen it in pics in the catalog or online, I had no idea. I'm considering reselling it because of this, and I'm afraid people might question it's authenticity, is it common for it to not have a tag?
Ours is PC and both the dress and the apron have a tag, but it is possible that not all of them were tagged.
The fabric of the apron is thin, a batiste I believe. The dress itself is a taffeta, like Felicity's meet/travel gown and Chirstmas gown.
Thanks so much Lindsey! Those are great pictures, but I do have a question. I'm trying to figure out how to put this, but does the brim of the hat have 2 pieces of material, in other words, is the top, smooth piece of satin a different piece than the bottom (gathered) piece of the hat? Do you know what I mean??
I do know what you mean, but no, it is one piece of satin. It is smooth on top, then folded over the sides, and then gathered in the center. The fact that there is a lot of fabric coming together to one central point necessitates the gathers.
If you make your piece of satin with twice the diameter of your hat, then lay your hat upside down and then gather it, you should make out okay. (Though you may want to hem the edge first.) This is actually a great project, because it really doesn't matter much what the straw hat looks like, since it is covered in satin anyway. Have fun and please post pictures of what you come up with, if you don't mind.
(edited to repost pics since picasa did their "upgrade" and pre-upgrade pics seem to no longer work)
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2011 8:13:13 GMT -5 by libbysey
We bought this horse to be Elizabeth's horse, as Felicity obviously has her Penny. I think that the lighter color looks nice with her.
I give this horse an A+. She is so much prettier in person than the AG stock photos. Her hair is soft and silky and we have not had any trouble with it frizzing, although a bit of static which is easily remedied. The hair is a pale, pale blonde, almost white.
Her coat is soft and lighter and more yellow than the stock photos, which make it look tan.
Unlike Penny, her bridle is removable, which is helpful when hooking her up to a sleigh or carriage. It velcros in two places under her neck.
Edited to fix broken picture link.
Last Edit: Aug 13, 2011 18:30:32 GMT -5 by kitandkat
My daughter is 3, will be 4 in the beginning of Dec., she does fit easily into the XS. The S was way too long when I tried it on her (in April, I think). She generally wears a size 3, if that is any help. She weighs about 30lbs and is of average height.
It is true that girls in Felicity's time did not wear underwear.
If the gown looks like it is from Marie Antoinette's era than they got it right, because Marie Antoinette became queen of France in 1774. Elizabethan was much earlier-late 1500's through the early 1600's/Renaissance.
I really like this dress. The pale green is beautiful. Like all of Elizabeth's outfits, it does not have any pocket slits (unfortunately). The gold petticoat goes all the way around, which was a pleasant surprise, as I was expecting a faux-petticoat like her summer gown. It is not a separate piece though, it is attached at the back seem. That helps so that girls don't lose it, I guess. The choker is very nice and I love the headband. I did not have the problems that some of the other reviewers had with putting it on. The thing that I don't like is the slippers. The fact that they have a soft bottom does not bother me as much as the fact that they are pointy, which is what makes them look like elf shoes. They are tight also.
Overall, I would give this outfit a B+. An A+ if the shoes were better and it had pocket slits.
I love the portrait dress. My daughter got it for Christmas and loves it also (she is 3). The dress is a sunny yellow with white ribbon bow and pink flowers. The bonnet is adorable and I especially like the matching shoes. They are made of the same fabric as the dress and not the typical plastic shoes. They have tulle trim to match the lining ruffle at the bottom. The dress is pretty long. The ruffled lining portion goes to the top of Bitty's feet. Twins are the same height as Bitty baby, so it would be the same length.
The only reason I can see that this is inaccurate is the eyelet (at least I think it's eyelet) on the sleeves and neckline. Eyelet lace was not around back then. Shift dresses were getting more and more popular at that time and by the 1780s they were being worn by women of all ages. Lissie would have been wearing them all the time in her teens. A linen dress would have been more feasible for Felicity since linen was cheaper than cotten, a luxury fabric, but I guess it would work well for Elizabeth.
I have heard this before, that eyelet lace was not yet invented, but I do not believe it to be true. It could have been invented around this time and if so, would have been considered the height of fashion. I have not been able to find much on the web as to the considered date of invention, but I did find this....
“In 1814, Lord Montgomerie died in Spain (one account says Sicily) of consumption and his widow, Lady Mary Montgomerie returned to their estate in Ayr, Scotland. She brought with her a beautiful baby’s christening gown, made by a French needle worker. This gown had delicate eyelet embroidery and overcast fillings, fine satin stitches and beautiful lace stitches that were inserted in the cut out spaces within the design. Lady Montgomerie lent the christening gown to a Mrs. Jamieson, the wife of an Ayr cotton agent and asked her to duplicate the designs on the gown, and then to teach the poor women in the Ayr district the technique, thus creating a much-needed income for the families. Mrs. Jamieson, together with her two daughters, all of whom were accomplished embroiderers, studied the beautiful overcast filling stitches and patterns, added more lace filling stitches and then in turn taught the technique to outworkers, who were mainly farmer’s wives and their daughters.”
Granted this is 1814, but it was from an estate and therefore would be a bit older than this date. It may have been a Christening gown of Lady Montgomerie or her husband, which would date this gown to colonial times or even of their parents, as christening gowns were sometimes passed from generation to generation, which would date the lace to as early as the 1750's or earlier.
If eyelet lace was not yet invented, it was shortly after. I do believe that it did exist during Felicity's time. This outfit is not as historically inaccurate as some claim.
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2009 9:15:59 GMT -5 by libbysey
I didn't even have the dress out of the box before the material snagged. The light green color is sort of "off" to me and not very pleasing. I really just don't understand the hat at all. It looked like a flying saucer on my doll's head.
The only positive thing about this ensemble is that at least I didn't pay full price.
If you tie the ribbons behind her head beneath her ponytail, you can pull it a little tighter and it will bend down on the sides, therefore eliminating the "flying saucer" as you put it.
I really like this outfit A/A- (A+ if it had pocket slits.)
The stitching on the petticoat is a little bit darker green than the green of the outfit. Although I wasn't sure if I liked the bright green color at first, it actually looks very nice on PM Felicity (daughter doesn't have Elizabeth yet). The green of her eyes is complemented nicely by the green of the dress. There are three cute little buttons on the faux stomacher which I think are darling.
Unlike some other Mattel dresses, this is roomy enough for a PM body.
It does not come with socks. I do not believe that you are expected to dress Elizabeth without socks, however. You are expected to use her meet socks. I do not know why most of Samantha and Nellie's outfits come with tights or socks and Felicity and Elizabeth's do not (except for Felicity's spring gown, of course).
The shoes are nice, plain white and can be worn with many other outfits. I like when there is mix and match potential between outfits.
The hat is the same straw hat used for Felicity's summer and tea dresses, but is covered in white satin. It is cute, but lacks mix an match potential. Nothing matches the bright green accents.
I purchased this 2 days before it went on sale, so although I missed the sale bargain, I am glad that I got it before it was retired. I did get free shipping which softens the full-price blow a bit.
It really is much nicer in person than it looked in the catalog/online.
I give the wooden guitar an A for an adult collector, B for a child.
It is very nice, but I understand why AG switched it to plastic. Although my daughter's is fine, may other people have had broken tuning pegs and/or strings. If you are giving it to a girl, the plastic one is a better bet.
My daughter has both the wooden version and the newer plastic one as well. The wooden one does not have any of the crazing that others are complaining about- the quality is great.
Side by side, they look almost identical, except, obviously, for the color of the ribbons. The wooden one has a burgundy one which is quite a bit longer so that you can tie a bow where it meets the head of the guitar. The plastic one has a salmon-pink one which matches her birthday dress quite well-in fact it is almost identical to the color of the hair ribbon for her spring gown.
Another difference is that the wooden version had the ability to turn the tuning pegs while the plastic one they are fixed.
I have to say that neither looks "cheap" to me, they both appear to be quality construction.
Last Edit: Oct 15, 2008 16:29:07 GMT -5 by libbysey