I was listing this 1935 Excella catalog in the Etsy shop, and I fell in love with this. The one on the left. The one with the collar that could be mistaken for wings. The Dumbo of dresses, if you will. Isn’t it amazing?
The seams. The buttons. The topstitching. Everything combines to make it a memorable garment to enter a room in. This is why I love the 30s so much. It hugs the curves but can stand alone in it’s style. You wouldn’t even need much in the way of accessories for this look to sing. And lest you think that that collar would indeed take flight — NO. The topstitching would help it stay in place just fine.
I got this 1931 McCall Quarterly catalog recently. When I was listing it in the Etsy shop today, I came across this article, and it made me smile.
“Sports frocks are somewhat uniform in style. Street dresses have many characteristics in common. But the afternoon costume is another story.
In fact, the formal day mode is varied to the point of appearing irresponsible. But there is really a chic purpose behind each of its moods.
The three models that you see on the right were created for early afternoon hours. and underemonious events. Their formality hints of the casual…in simplicity of lines…fabrics taht are not too elegant…skirts that clear the floor by about ten inches.
For later hours and more formal occasions, designs become a little more feminine, fabrics a ilttle more elegant and skirts quite a bit longer. Sleeves may be either long or short. For a change you may prefer the full-length sleeve in the same from with an ankle length skirt. This combination has a provocative new look about it. “
They go on to talk about choosing accessories: gloves long enough to wrinkle at the wrist, and purses chosen as ornamental, not utilitarian.
It’s funny to look at this with today’s eyes, as we would likely never consider these beautiful garments to be irresponsible or even anything but elegant. But then again, today’s sportswear is anything but elegant, and thinking of an afternoon dress has likely never occurred to the majority of the population. I love this insight into the psychology of fashion in the 30s. It’s one of the reasons I love studying fashion so much, and why, as Miranda Priestley so eloquently put, it’s not just a blue sweater.
Joan Crawford as Letty Lynton, 1932. Dress by Gilbert Adrian.
In 1932, the film Letty Lynton was premiered, and with it, one of the most iconic dresses in screen history. Joan Crawford was costumed by the legendary fashion designer Gilbert Adrian, in a dress full of frills and ruffles, and those sleeves. Ms. Crawford, blessed with naturally broad shoulders, was blessed by Mr. Adrian to be dressed in suits and gowns with even broader shoulders, in order to make her waist look proportionally smaller. And what a look that was!
Adrian turned fashion on its access with his broad-shouldered look, and was a genius at fashion marketing, thinking six months forward in fashion so that his gowns didn’t look dated in the time it took to film the movie and get it to market. Depending upon who you believe, there were millions of this style of dress marketed in the months and years following this one showing up on the silver screen. It was a major movie moment. This, of course, is subject to media hype, as it would seem that we’d see some in vintage fashion now.
So when I came across this 1978 pattern, Letty is the first person I thought of. It’s not a dress, though. It’s a wrap top and tiered skirt, but those sleeves have Gilbert Adrian written all over them. I wonder if that’s what the designer had in mind when it was created?
Of course, it could be that the designer was thinking of flamenco, especially given the girl with the maraca on the left, but either way, it’s a cute look that would look great either together or separate.
Have you ever seen a dress like this, wherein it appears to have a matching bolero, but in fact it’s an illusion? If so, let me introduce you to the fauxlero.
Fauxlero is a fake bolero, in case you haven’t surmised. It may have free pieces that attach in back, or if may be completely sewn down, but either way, it looks like a cropped jacket but isn’t. You don’t see this much anymore, because clothing companies want cheap garments and don’t care much about design, but it’s a super clever — and cute — idea. Most of the ones I’ve seen are from the fifties and 60s, but there are some newer ones in the 80s, when the fifties revival happened.
I didn’t come up with the term. I first saw it on the Dress a Day blog, but it’s a great term for describing what’s going on here. The nice thing about a fauxlero is that it is so waist-friendly. It whittles the waist and also creates a waist where one may not exist. You also don’t have to worry about setting your jacket down somewhere and forgetting it. And there are so many ways to construct it. Use a matching or contrasting fabric, whichever works best. Isn’t it cute? Click on images to purchase.
I was listing this super cute pattern in the shop this morning and saw that it touts “the new narrow shoulder look,” so of course I had to investigate. This pattern is from 1971. Simplicity must have been on the cutting edge of fashion at that point, because I find no references to the narrow shoulder look in newspapers of that year, nor of 1970. I do, however, see references in 1972.
Papers of that time defined the narrow shoulder look at having a shorter shoulder area as well as a higher sleeve head. It was also the fashion for mens’ jackets, with one article saying that this had been the fashion for men in the early 1950s as well. It’s not often in those days that you saw a collision of mens’ and womens’ fashion, unlike today with all of our unisex clothing.
Here are a couple of other examples of the narrow shoulder look. The combination of the short shoulder and the high sleeve head make the arms look longer, for a very flattering look.
Love the tailoring on the first one. It is super feminine and whittles the waist. The second one, 5186, is also called “the Navajo Look,” for reasons I will have to investigate.
Since the original pattern, 9446, is from 1971 and other two are in the 5000’s and 1972, I think the first one was likely an original pattern of the narrow shoulder style. I can see some of the Romeo & Juliet influence of the early 70s here, following the 1968 film by Franco Zeffirelli. The sleeves aren’t in true Juliet style like some patterns of the era, but they are definitely quite full — not unlike coming out of the leg o mutton sleeves of the 1890s and into the 1900s. Fashion echoes history as it changes.
I know that a lot of people take issue with puff type sleeves, and I don’t think I’d wear them now as I have gotten fluffier in my old age, but I used to love them back in the day. This style would not only elongate the arms but it would (obviously) narrow the shoulders — a big plus for someone with linebacker shoulders like me!
I’d make this in the shorter length. What do you think?
I came across this pattern in my stash, and immediately knew it was from 1986. How, you ask, did I know? Well, dear readers, it is because I wore an exact replica of this dress on formal night on a cruise in 1986.
I bought the dress at Penney’s, and accessorized with an onyx and rhinestone necklace with matching earrrings. I believe that this was the night that we sat at the captain’s table. In either event, we closed the night out at the disco, where I dance with the captain to none other than the Human League and Lisa Lisa and the Cult Jam (my nickname is Lisa Lisa to this day in certain circles).
That particular cruise will go down in history being noted as the first cruise I went on. We got to go for free, because my then-fiance-now-ex-husband won a contest as a McDonald’s manager and got the tickets as a reward. The managers were allowed to take someone with them, so I told his very single buddy that he was taking my best friend, who he had barely met. We girls shared a room, and the guys shared a room. Mostly they just did stupid things like constantly moving the plants in the hallway, at times putting them into their room, and finding that there were always replacements put out immediately. Where they kept all those plants was beyond me.
In either event, it was a three day cruise to the Bahamas, and other than the previously mentioned shenanigans, I don’t remember much because we were 22, fueled mostly by alcohol for those three days, and I’m pretty sure we never slept at all. Made for great memories which all came to light again when I saw this pattern. It was a great dress. I still have the jewelry. And honestly, I don’t think any cruise I’ve taken since has matched it as far as fun – and that’s saying a lot, because I’ve been on some great cruises.
I listed this pattern the other day in the Etsy shop. I’d never seen this series before. It’s called the Sew for Fun series, and the patterns came out in 1974 and early 1975. The styles are the cute boho/cottagecore patterns so popular in the time. This one features a maxi dress with Gunne Sax vibes. It can be made in the shorter mini length as well.
Note: I had a pair of clogs exactly like the ones in the photo.
The patterns featured mainly dresses and tops, are were made in both Miss and Misses’ sizes, with different pattern numbers for each. There are at least two that are unisex: one is a top and the other is for a swimsuit/swim trunks. But the funny thing is those little extra patterns.
This particular one features a stuffed mouse, because every cottagecore girl of the seventies wanted a stuffed mouse, right? I thought at first that it was a pincushion, which obviously any sewist could use. And a young beginning sewist might be pleased to create her own personalized mouse pincushion, right? Only it’s not. It’s a stuffed animal, which seems a little odd paired with the cute dress. But it gets weirder.
Some of these patterns are paired with hats or purses, which makes sense to me. Hats were big in this era, and everyone can use a sun hat. Purses are also a no-brainer. But there are also odd items like garment bags, a wind breaker (for sitting on at the beach, not the jacket), and even a tent. Each of them has a little sewing lesson with it, which is great, but the projects they include are so weird. Like the wind breaker one. If you want to teach someone to make a casing, have them make a pair of elastic waist shorts. But I don’t make those decisions.
I wonder who came up with these little extras, cause they just seem so odd. I get that they were trying to make sewing fun, especially for the Miss crowd, but somehow I am not sure that they thought it all the way thru. It’s one of the more random ideas put out by the sewing pattern companies.
I like to read vintage magazines with my husband. He loves to cook, so we have lots of interesting discussions about the recipes and presentation ideas women’s magazines have. I was thumbing through an issue of Good Housekeeping from 1946, and wow, was it interesting. It is a thick issue — 334 pages! It includes everything from short stories to recipes to the macabre articles about how to avoid suffocation (!) and what you should do if your house is on fire.
Important side note, from someone who has had a house fire in the middle of the night: the fire department said that sleeping with your bedroom door closed gives you and extra ten minutes if a fire breaks out, because it decreases your exposure to smoke. But I digress.
I was looking, of course, at the sewing patterns they advertised which, surprisingly, were Simplicity, not Good Housekeeping. Since McCalls and Ladies’ Home Journal had their own lines of patterns, I’m surprised that they weren’t doing the same. They did at some point, because I have a few from the sixties, including this Geoffrey Beene delight:
Good Housekeeping pattern 2, 1960s.
But what I found most interesting was that Good Housekeeping put out their own clothing line. I thought at first that the article was just hawking different designer labels, like most do, but when I read it in detail, I realized that they had their own Good Housekeeping Facts First label. In looking around, they applied this label in some of their ads for patterns, and I can’t find any clothing for sale with this label. Interestingly, the article does not tell you where you can buy them locally, or even by mail order. You had to write to the magazine to ask where they were available locally. This seems very cumbersome, especially in today’s click and buy world, and I wonder how long this sales model was sustainable. In looking around, they applied this label in some of their ads for patterns, and I can’t find any clothing for sale with this label, so perhaps it was not for long.
As the fashion industry began to hit its stride after World War II, new fashions began to be seen. Dior’s New Look, of course, was one. Dresses began to be made with voluminous amounts of fabric that weren’t allowed during wartime rationing. In New York, a contest for “Gown of the Year” was held.
14 designers were asked to submit their designs, and they were worn by socialites at the ball. The jury was all men (!), and included Basil Rathbone, Richard Aldrick (a producer), and singer Morton Downey. The winner? Jean Desses, who had not only never been to the US before, but had never exhibited a dress here.
The ball gowns were worth a total of $7650 and were designed by Sophie, Jo Copeland, Christian Dior (New York), Henri Bendel, Ceil Chapman, Mme. Garnett, Desses, Carrie Munn, Lilly Dache (who I didn’t realize designed dresses, as she was known for hats), Oleg Cassini, Charles James, Omar Kiam, Nettie Rosenstein, and Adrian. Shown here (designers as listed above, from left to right).
The winning gown, with Msr. Desses on the right.:
Photo: Life Magazine.
The Christian Dior, New York dress, constructed 80 yards of lace and tulle just in the skirt:
Photo: Life Magazine
The Carrie Munn design. Is that skirt quilted?
Photo: Life Magazine.
The (fantastic) Adrian dress:
Photo: Life Magazine.
No word on the criteria for design or judging, other than it needed to be considered as Gown of the Year. I don’t know if they continued this contest yearly, or if it was just to jumpstart the fashion industry, but I’d love to see something like this today. I doubt we’d see it, as designing for a contest is probably too cost prohibitive for today’s fashion houses, but it sure would be interesting to see. With some female judges this time, please?
I love this little blue robe. I’d trim it in eyelet, because I just love eyelet. That being said, the shorter version is cute too, isn’t it?
My first question is about the pocket placement. It seems high, especially on the blue one. I think that the way it’s cut means that they need to be placed high, but doesn’t it look a bit wonky?
My other question is, what the heck is that girl pouring? Purple Kool-Aid? Was it a Netflix and chill day, or was she giving Sissy Kool-Aid for breakfast? Is it some weird science experiment? I need to know.
The Vintage Fashion Librarian 