sewing, sewing patterns, vintage clothing

New York Pattern 120

New York pattern 120. Mid-1930s.

This is a beautiful pattern from the 1933-1936 range. It has the small NRA (National Recover Act) seal on the bottom left front of the envelope. NRA patterns were from the 1930s-1940s. This one has the smallest logo I’ve seen. It’s a fabulous style — look at those cuffs! Interestingly, it also does not say “Gold Seal Pattern” like many New York patterns do, so this is an early one.

The thing I find most interesting is that it has Joan Bennett written on the front. When you compare it, you can see that it’s actually done in her signature:

Photo: History for Sale.

This is interesting to me because I’ve never seen a pattern of this era that was associated with an actress except Hollywood Patterns and Star Patterns. Hollywood, of course, was known for their patterns with stars’ photos in an oval on the front right cover, and they included them in their catalogs too. Star Patterns often had full body photographs of the actress. I’ve only seen a few over the course of time. But I’ve never seen a New York pattern associated with an actress, so this is kind of cool.

Joan Bennett was an immensely popular actress of the era, so I’m not surprised that they chose her. I’m just wondering how many more of these there are out there. Sadly, this one is missing the instructions, so I don’t know if there is anything on the instruction page about Ms. Bennett. If you know anything about them, drop me a line, because I’d love to know.

sewing, sewing patterns, vintage clothing

My Day

This is what my afternoon looks like. This truck is currently heading toward my house, ETA in two hours, straight from Texas. It contains five sewing pattern cabinets (YAY – I need them!) and ten thousand new-to-me vintage patterns.

TEN THOUSAND PATTERNS.

Dear Lord, what have I done to myself? Oh well, one grabs these things when one grabs these things, so I’m actually pretty excited. Husband, not so much, but he hasn’t really spoken badly of it. No matter, it’s my work to do anyway. It’s taken six months of planning this in the middle of a pandemic and a broken supply chain (and a knee replacement for the person at the other end of the delivery), but we persevered and now it’s happening. I’ll be interested to see what I find in there, and you’ll be seeing more lovelies, I’m sure.

Pray for me. Light a candle. Send good juju. I’m gonna need it in order to fit all of this into my workspace! More will be revealed after the unloading.

sewing, sewing patterns, vintage clothing

I found them!

No sooner had I posted the last post about Cut-Ready to Sew week, then I found the five patterns the store would cut for you. These are all Pictorial Review, from 1931.

Pictorial Review 5506, pajamas ensemble of silk shantung. Sold for $7.62.
Pictorial Review 5514, sport ensemble of white shantung. Sold for $5.09.
Pictorial Review 5701, afternoon frock of printed voile. Sold for $1.01
Pictorial Review 5755, town frock of Picardy crepe. Sold for $3.46.
Pictorial Review 5391, play suit of Zephyr print. Sold for 95 cents.

I think I’d buy both the 5506 and the 5701. I love the seams in that dress, but picture myself lounging in those pajamas. Keep in mind that the prices listed included the pattern AND the fabric, and the cutting was done for free. What a deal!

vintage clothing, vintage fashion

Fabulous Friday: Swimsuit Eye Candy

Dubarry 1485B, mid-1930s.

Today, we are celebrating the warmer weather and coming up spring, so i present to you Du Barry (or Dubarry, depending upon what you like to say) 1485B. It’s from somewhere in the mid-to-late 30s. I thought at first that it was a playsuit, but it’s not — it’s a swimsuit. Isn’t it cute? It’s tiny — a bust 30 — but I love it nonetheless.

Du Barry patterns were sold exclusively at Penney’s, just like Superior patterns were sold at Sears. That’s why you see less of them — you couldn’t find them at your average five and dime store. I find that Du Barry patterns have edgier styles for the era, the envelopes are generally full color, and the illustrations are really nice. Superior tended to have two-color illustrations (usually black on a blue or white envelope) and they were more sensible, rather than trendy fashions. Feel free to prove me wrong!

And with that, I also bring you my all-time favorite swimsuit from the movies: the 1930’s swimsuit Kiera Knightley wore in Atonement (also one of my all-time favorite movies and books). I feel like this swimsuit didn’t get enough notice at the time. And remember swim caps?

Kiera Knightley, in Atonement.

Those little front cut outs remind me of a Fallout Shelter sign, which is perhaps prophetic for the upcoming war. Is this a two piece swimsuit, or is that a modesty panel? Here’s the back.

Kiera Knightley, in Atonement.

Again, look at those details. This movie had SO much great fashion (beyond just the iconic green dress), and I feel like this one got lost in the fray over that gown. I absolutely love it. The white plays off of Kiera’s character’s innocence in everything that happened from this moment on. This swimsuit has so much prophecy in what is to come.

Now I’m going to have to watch the movie again. If you haven’t seen it — DO. Like NOW. Have a great weekend.

1920s fashion, vintage clothing, vintage fashion

Annie Got Her Garter Purse

This is a new thing for me. I came across a pattern from 1916, for a crocheted garter purse. Interesting. I’ve seen garter guns and garter flasks, but an actual purse is new to me.

I found a 1914 article that talks about the “new fad” of garter purses. It mentions it as an alternate to carrying a bag, and different from the custom of tucking one’s cash into one’s stockings — inconvenient and rather scandalous when you need to pull out money in public. The article mentions that they were made in suede, in bright colors like emerald and violet, and consisted of a series of flat pocketbooks attached to a strap, then carefully strapped to one’s leg.

Going back further, a 1905 article talks about how unhygienic putting money into your stocking is, and states that a banking house of the time offered female patrons garter purses, which led to them being made at home. Here is the illustration of the garter purse (left) and the “old way” of putting money into one’s stocking (right):

The one the bank offered ladies had a steel band to hold it in place. Homemade ones had elastic straps, which was considered safer “in the case of a fall or robbery.” Garter purses were advertised as Christmas gifts between girlfriends, and were even sold with powder and powder puffs in two sections, with another section for money to be kept.

The earliest article about garter purses mentions stocking that were made with a chamois pocket to keep valuables in as the first type of garter purse. It wondered if the fad would catch on. It seems to have morphed into the 1905 styles mentioned above, and were commonly used to carry keys, money and valuables. Men tended to marvel at women’s ability to remove money from their garter purses unnoticed. This is because women wore them with slashed skirts and would simply make an excuse to remove themselves momentarily, slip out of sight and get their money out, then return seconds later, cash in hand. Women know how the magic works, don’t we?

A later article from 1920 mentions the unfortunate Mrs. E.M. Lied, who went shopping in Kansas City with her jewels tucked into her garter purse. She arrived home to find that she had unfortunately put the purse on upside down and her jewels had been lost, to the tune of $5000. Lost were a three inch diamond brooch, a platinum lavalliere with three diamond pendants, a fancy dinner ring set with diamonds and Oriental sapphires, and three diamond rings. That’s over $65,000 in value today. Methinks that Mrs. Lied likely took to her bed after this.

It also appears that garter purses did not keep women from being robbed, as bandits grew wise to the fad and would pat women down for them and grab them during a robbery. Moral of the story: don’t carry your valuables with you. Another alternative is a belt wallet, where the wallet attaches inside the belt and rests against your belly, but as for me, I just leave my stuff at home.

1950s fashion, designers, vintage clothing

Fabulous Friday: Goddess

Dovima and the Elephants, 1995, by Richard Avedon.

This may be the first post I’ve done about Dovima, but it most likely won’t be the last, because I. Love. Her. She is truly a goddess, to my eye, and the most iconic model in fashion history, with perhaps the exception of Carmen Dell’Orifice. Actually, she is the most iconic, but Carmen has had a longer career, by virtue of living longer and modelling into her 80s. But Dovima. ::sigh::

Dovima hit the fashion scene in the 40s, and worked into the 60s. She came from an era where models brought their own accessories, shoes and makeup, and did things on the fly. They did their own hair, they did their own makeup, and often the photos were done in any location they could find quickly, especially after a fashion show, when all of the photographers were vying for pictures of the same garment. This is why you will see so many photos of that era outside, where they ran to shoot after a show, or in front of a plain backdrop. It’s some of the most recognizable fashion photography ever done.

The models of that era had an elegance you don’t see now. Dovima was especially so. The way she placed her hands and tilted her head could not be replicated. Her relationship with also-iconic Richard Avedon was muse and mentor, as he considered her one of the last elegant models and she trusted him to capture beautiful images. He shot the unforgettable image above, Dovima and the Elephants, shot at a circus in Paris and featured in Harper’s Bazaar in 1955. The original dress was the first one Yves St. Laurent did for Christian Dior, and it is now housed at Newfields Art Museum in Indianapolis. I have stood and stared at it in awe many times, imagining the scene as Dovima created the image of soft and hard, old and new, elegance and animal instinct. It evokes a lot of emotion for me.

Dovima, for all of her elegance, lived a complex life. Married three times, and the face of both Dior and Balenciaga, she ended up broke in Florida, waitressing at a pizza joint. She had a particular affinity for abusive men, and according to other models of the era, would sometimes arrive at their apartments in the middle of the night, crying about what had been done to her. They wanted to help her, but she always fell back into relationships with the wrong men. She retired from modelling as Camelot crumbled and the mod era arrived, never to be seen on camera again. She died from liver cancer in Florida in 1990, but her images will live forever.

Dovima, by Richard Avedon, 1955.
sewing patterns, vintage clothing, vintage fashion

Centennial Promos

1970 was the 100th anniversary of McCall’s Patterns. To celebrate that milestone event, McCall’s put out a promo ad in its patterns, advertising color prints of Godey’s Lady/s Book illustrations from 1870.

For the unenlightened, Godey’s Lady’s Book was the Vogue of it’s day. It was not actually a book, but instead a monthly magazine published specifically for women. It was published from 1830 to 1878, after which it was sold, continuing to be published as Godey’s Magazine until 1896. It was significant for the scope of its contents, which included poetry, art, and articles, including those about political causes. Its significance cannot be denied, due to its huge readership.

Each issue contained a beautiful fashion illustration in the front, and these are what McCall’s reissued in 1970 for its anniversary. In addition, each issue also included a pattern and instructions for a dress, much like other women’s magazines did later, such as Beldon’s in the UK, Ladies’ Home Journal and McCall’s in the US. Looking at these magazines gives a huge insight into the evolution of fashion.

As far as I can tell, there is no true connection between James McCall and Godey’s, but the flyer for the prints notes that Mr. McCall came over to the US from Scotland in 1870, when he started his pattern company. Perhaps they chose Godey’s prints because they were in the public domain, so the cost of doing the prints would be less than if they paid an artist to do a rendition. Perhaps they chose not to put out historical patterns of 1870 for the centennial because there wasn’t a big revivalist/reenactor movement at the time. They were probably anticipating the 1976 bicentennial revival, so perhaps they didn’t want to jump the gun. Regardless of the reason, they chose some of the most beautiful fashion illustrations of fashion history to print, so it was a nice choice, for those who love fashion and art.

The prints that McCall’s sold for their anniversary were “printed in Italy,” which I suppose made them fancy to women of the day. The printer was in Milan, and was Amicare Pizzi S.P.A. They were done in eight color prints, as opposed to the normal 4 color prints of the day. They were embossed as well and were said to be ready for framing without a mat. They were sold for $2, including postage, which converts to about $13.50 today — a bargain! As far as I know, McCall’s did not do a 150th anniversary promo in 2020. Perhaps they think that putting out their retro reprinted patterns is enough. What do you think?

Take a look at the Godey’s Book illustration examples on Amazon, eBay and Etsy.

sewing, sewing patterns, vintage clothing, vintage fashion

Home Patterns

I was trying to date this particularly beautiful Ladies’ Home Journal pattern, and came across some interesting information. Note that the envelope says that Ladies’ Home Journal patterns are manufactured exclusively by The Home Pattern Company. This company was apparently dreamt up in 1904 by the people at Ladies’ Home Journal — probably trying to jump on the burgeoning sewing pattern business.

In 1907, the company held a dinner for “men in the pattern trade” — can you imagine? Only men were allowed? Sheesh. But I digress. Over 200 people attended. The toastmaster was the head of Home Patterns, Theron McCampbell. Mr. McCampbell said in his speech that his company was the “first to issue fine draft patterns,” and also the first to invite customers to meet with the officials face to face. He said that after three years in business, the Home Pattern Company now had 400 employees, sold in 2000 merchants across the country, and that in the last quarter, their printing bill had been nearly $150,000. Not a shy host, he. Apparently the biggest complaint amongst the speakers of the group was that “women were not made to fit their clothes, as designers of patterns insisted that they ought to be.”

Think about this. I’m not 100% sure what they mean, but I take it that they didn’t think women fit their patterns, or knew how to fit them, but they didn’t invite any women to the dinner where they complained about it. How does this make any sense? As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “women belong in every place where decisions are being made.”

In 1910, Home Patterns had an ad out, stating that they thought that American women could dress as stylishly as the French, and offering the chance for any woman who submitted a design to them to have her pattern printed for distribution. All they had to do was send in a rough sketch. Indeed, Home Patterns put themselves out there as being progressive, and really played down “old fashioned patterns.” It appears that the experts that they sent out to meet with women about their patterns were women themselves, but the officers of the company were always men.

It all appears to be rather short-lived, however. The Home Pattern Company disappeared from packaging certainly by 1920, and likely before 1915, when mentions of them disappeared from the newspaper. Ladies’ Home Journal continued to issue patterns into the 1970s though. It’s likely that the Home Pattern Company was absorbed somehow into the larger company. They continued to issue patterns for years, just under the Ladies’ Home Journal name.

sewing, sewing patterns, vintage clothing, vintage fashion

Smartfit Patterns

I came across an ad insert in a 1932 Pictorial Review pattern, and my interest was piqued. It is for the Smartfit Foundation Pattern, designed for your figure, and available where Pictorial Printed Patterns were sold. It states that once the pattern has been adjusted to your personal figure, all fitting problems are gone. It says that it can be used with any tissue paper pattern and that you will always get a perfect fit. It appears that this was advertised as a new item in 1931 and by the end of 1932, it was gone. I haven’t been able to locate any, so I’m really interested.

The ad I have is for a 16 page instruction book that cost $1.50, which was pretty pricey for the 1930s. It appears that it was perhaps like a sloper pattern, as the ads say it was used to make a perfect muslin master pattern. The address is “Smartfit Foundation Pattern” in New York, so although it seems to be associated with Pictorial Review, they were sold under the Smartfit name. I haven’t located any yet. If you have one, please share it with me, as I’m really keen to see what they look like. I am not even sure if it’s an actual pattern, as much as it’s a booklet, because ads call it a “sewing course” as well. I’m really intrigued to think that it may be the precursor to the Golden Rule / Lutterloh pattern system.

I also found the sizing interesting. They call a 5’7″ woman average. That’s not even average now. And the “little woman” size is cute, but still wouldn’t fit my 4’11” grandmother, who was of the age at the time to use their patterns (and who worked for Pictorial Review). Interesting, yes?

Let me know what you think. I’m always on the lookout for new and interesting things about patterns, aren’t you?

Have a grand day,

Lisa