nonasuch:historicaldress:WOMENS DARK GREEN RIDING HABIT, MID 1880sCirca 1885 womens 3-pc wool knit r

nonasuch:historicaldress:WOMENS DARK GREEN RIDING HABIT, MID 1880sCirca 1885 womens 3-pc wool knit riding ensemble in Scheele’s green consisting of jacket, high detachable collar, skirt & pants, fitted jacket with brass buttons down center front, boned bodice, high breast pocket at left, skirt with bustle & hooks to accommodate the knee for right side rider, matching pants with padding in left knee, inside right thigh & seat, right side button closure & stirrups.fun fact: this riding habit is CHOCK FULL of arsenicCounter fun fact: No, it probably isn’t. This isn’t Scheele’s green. Scheele’s Green was a much brighter emerald green, and was a pigment mainly used for panting leather and paper, and no so well suited for fabric. (The relevant bit in that linked post is the big block of text after the first 5 pictures.)A lot of 19th century dyes did contain arsenic compounds, but the green ones were not the worst offenders, so even if this does have arsenic in it I highly doubt it’s “chock full”. Actually, having just read the auction site description it says it has moth holes in the skirt, and since arsenic was used to repel moths I’d say chances are good that this outfit has little to none in it!Here are some quotes from a very well researched article on the subject.“Indeed, most reports of people becoming ill because of fabric and papers are associated with deep blue and red colors, not green. The green gowns likely got their ill reputation because of the the pigment’s name “Paris/Emerald/Scheele’s Green,” when in actuality, any color of dye could contain arsenic compounds. In addition, there were still plenty of green dyes that did not use arsenic at all. Even if a gown is dyed with copper arsenite, the wearer would get only a tiny dose since the arsenic-infused fashion fabric rarely comes in direct contact with skin thanks to the dress lining, petticoats, corset cover, corset, and chemise worn underneath it.““Stockings, on the other hand, were a bigger problem than dresses. Many contained more arsenic than dress goods and since they were worn directly on the skin, they led to far more illness.““The majority of sufferers were not the high-class women wearing the gowns, but the lower class factory workers, painters, wallpaper installers, and laundresses who spent long hours exposed to the chemicals in a time before safety equipment and monitoring.“ “Many of these “deadly fashion” stories served to ridicule fashion or exaggerate a few incidents into an epidemic rather than portray accurate fact. However, we do love a good horror story that makes our modern world seem safer than “back then,” so such stories keep getting circulated. Eventually it becomes difficult to discern what’s truth and what’s been tacked on for shock value. Historical sources can contain mistakes and new research often disproves historical “fact”.” -- source link

More pics about