[QUOTE=dangermom]
Fooey. I just bought a corset pattern (on clearance at Hancock’s!) and now you show me a kit. I don’t know if I’m actually going to make one; I want to make an 1850’s dress for pioneer-y type things, and it ought to have a corset if I’m going to be authentic (which I always want to do) but really–it’s just for church stuff and there’s not exactly a burning need to wear a corset. My ambition is to sew the dress on my treadle sewing machine instead of my modern one–but it might be enough of an accomplishment to get it done at all…
[/QUOTE]
You probably don’t want to hear this, but sewing machines weren’t produced for home use until 1860. So if you want a spiritually draining exercise in authenticity, the whole bloody thing should be sewn by hand. In candlelight. Might as well use an electric machine! 
[QUOTE=tashabot]
On edit: Is this what you’re talking about? Cuz I think I could make one of those, no problem.
[/QUOTE]
Yep! At least, it LOOKS like it. I know for a certainty that “Odd Bodkin” is NOT the name on my label (which is in storage, so I can’t read it for you), but perhaps they bought the design. I hope they’re making them of the same quality material. If you want to make one, use at least three layers, one of them a very thick canvas and the outside a very thick brocade. Because there are no metal stays, the material has to do the holding-in work. $89 is actually a great price for the piece - I think mine was $120 or so at Faire about 5 or 6 years ago.
I don’t mean to be snarky about undercut, but they do drive me batty. As you found out, they aren’t the right shape for nice cleavage. The Renaissance ideal was a straight tube-like torso, with gently swelling curves up on top, not out in front. The bodice, after all, was the boob supporter before there were bras. A totally undercut bodice doesn’t support anything at all.
This would have been pretty flirty for the time. This is the one the teenage girl is wearing and her mother is yelling at her to put on a shawl or something so she’s decent! But still, it’s within the realm of acceptable.
This is just painful to look at. Not only is it a bizarre choice of materials, but there’s not a whit of support, and her boobs are too curvy within it. Ugly and impractical. Not a likely choice for a woman who would have owned at most three outfits.
This is pretty good for, say, the daughter of a shop-owner. Not something you’d be working the fields in, but not up to court standards, either.
This makes my teeth hurt. I hope I don’t have to explain why.
This, shockingly enough, really isn’t too bad. The sleeves are way too long for a working girl - not only would they be in the way, but they’re a total waste of expensive fabric - but the bodice isn’t bad. Notice how half of her breasts are down in the bodice? That’s what you want. She has an awful lot of cleavage showing, which tells us her charms are probably for sale, but NOT her shoulders, which is accurate. Shoulders were NOT for public display, not even for whores.
This is a good solid peasant’s bodice. Her boobs are restrained for all the bending and stooping she’s going to do in the field or kitchen. Her last-year’s-best-skirt is this year’s topskirt, tucked into a rope belt to form pockets for carrying vegetables from the field or some bits of yarn from the market. My only quibble is that it’s an awfully white shift for a poor woman who likely didn’t have Clorox in her laundryroom.