I've been reading and reading and reading, and now I'm sick of it, so: photos!
A few weekends ago, my mother and I went to Marblehead and took a little time to go through a whole closet full of photos...a surprising number of which were of the Adam Mocks, the Augustus Heyls, and their children Jacob Mock and Marie Anna Heyl Mock, who are the main subject of my inquiry.
I found more photos of Marie Anna in clothing we have, and some in clothing we don't, but all are helpful. I also brought a photo album to Brooklyn, but I will have to think more about how I want to go about documenting and using those photos before spending the time scanning.
Some photos have been incorporated into Ken Scheyder's wonderful genealogy, and so here I present to you The Striped Silk Blouse. My classmate Jimena and I talked for a long time on Monday about what it should be called, based on our preliminary knowledge of contemporary terminology: a shirtwaist/waist? a bodice? It's never worn with a skirt of the same silk, but could a silk top and woolen bottom be called a suit? Of course, without color in the photos we cannot know if it was always worn with the same skirt, which may or may not enlighten us....
It seems as though there were many kinds of "shirtwaists" or "waists", which I found in the Jordan Marsh catalogs and Harper's Bazaar issues of the 1890s. We usually think of shirtwaists as white cotton, so often associated with the Gibson Girl and the working woman, but I am finding quite a range of "tops" under that name. Perhaps kind of like the word "top".
This garment is primarily of silk, white-ground faux-chiné floral overlaid with black stripes. There is velvet trim at the collar and cuffs, as well as at the sides and top of the plastron front, and finally in a small knotted swag of sorts across the mid-chest. For even more late nineteenth century splendor, there are accents of black lace "augmented" with multi-colored sequins, clear glass and gold seed beads, faux pearls and white lace.
The inside is lined with white polished cotton, boned with an unidentified material, and has the typical inch-wide grosgrain waistband, here in white. This waistband is marked, "Ramsyer, Boston", who is a rather elusive tailor. More research to be done there. However, she does have at least one other bodice with this marking, which is significant--and for another post.
She wears this bodice often for photographs, obviously on different days, and in various manifestations. Changing hats, sometimes with fur...was this her favorite dress? Her best? The most expensive? Or maybe the incidence is a coincidence, and based on "surviving" photos. However, a "Yes!" to any--or all--of those questions is very possible.
Hat, voluminous sleeves, tiny earrings (diamonds?). The picture of 1890s restraint.
Portrait with husband, Jacob Henry Mock. Note: a little less volume in the sleeves, and the sort of imperfect presentation of what is a boned and fitted "top". Dark skirt.
Another portrait, now alone. On the porch somewhere?
This one is regrettably harder to see, but is a great full-length portrait. One thing I love is that it feels sort of formally posed...but no one bothered to move the garden hose? This is probably the same day as the first (same hat), or perhaps even the "full version", but here we can see that beautiful dark skirt. She is holding gloves and a...fan? Something feathery. Shoes hard to see, but look to be leather (probably black?), and slightly worn, honestly.
Family portrait! I suppose, based on this cohort of photos, that it is possible these were all taken on the same day; I wonder which made me think otherwise? Anyway, Jacob H. Mock, Marie Anna Heyl Mock and Philip A. Mock in back. Then little Freddie Mock, Adam Mock (patriarch) and Eva Mueller Mock (matriarch) and little Elsie. Freddie is wearing some kid-sized fireman's gear; he would eventually become the "Mascot" for the Roxbury Veterans Firemen, of which his grandfather Adam was an enthusiastic member. I wonder if he asked to wear these or was asked to?
I wonder also if this was taken in their home? See the left side of the photograph; was a screen put up? I thought maybe it was an "accident" to show the nice things in their home, but then wouldn't they have just taken the photo in the parlor? I wonder what the vogue was for portraits at the time. Perhaps
Joan Severa will help me answer that later. Anyway, does this look like a mistake? Maybe a better version, in which the illusion of a photography studio is upheld, can be found elsewhere? I do like this version of her in context; with an older woman and a younger, as well as in concert with the male fashions of all age groups. More like this to come!
