Just a short post to elaborate on the previous one and to clarify it. First of all, Melissa asked to see the pattern sheet... Well, hmm, of course you can but that really was a slightly masochistic question.
I just scanned a corner of the actual pattern sheet. Yes, this is what you were supposed to trace your patterns from (and I've been told that the value of these magazines on the collector's market is largely depended on their not having tracing marks on those pattern sheets...)
And as for instructions... Any woman can sew, right? It was part of your upbringing.
This was all you got in the way of instructions: some general information (seam allowance not included, some pattern pieces may be on the pattern sheet in two parts on the pattern sheets so you have to fit them together. that sort of thing) and drawings of the clothes with their size, which line to follow for the pattern, the amount of fabric needed (which sounds more useful than it really is because the standard width apperently used to be 90 cm) and a describtion of the pattern pieces. There aren't even any fabric lay-out drawings until the mid 1960's issues. A pattern with a truly unusual feature might come with some cryptic remark about how to accomplish that, but generally, you were on your own.
In fact, I'm happy to have the drawings of pattern pieces because that will allow me to try and borrow some little style tricks without tracing an entire pattern. Which may well be what I'll end up doing most.
Also, several of you commented on the nice clothes in the pictures I posted. However, there are only a few patterns with each magazine. Those were on pages marked with a picture of a tracing weel (pointed out in red here. don't worry that's photoshop).
In this page, the maturnity and baby clothes on the right page are on the pattern sheet, the lingerie on the left page isn't.
So, the nice swagger coats and those stylish dresses didn't come with patterns (and indeed I adore the pockets of dress 2 and the neckline of 3).
Also, just for fun:
This is the Marion 1952 sizing table. Top bracket are ladies sizes, with measurements for bust, waist and hips. the middle bracket is for childrens sizes, which are determined by chest size and 'overall length' (of what? the child? Probably not because I'm pretty sure no-one is only 1.02 meters tall at 14... It might be leg length or that of some unknown sort of standard garment). The third bracket is for menswear which was sized not only by chest, waist and hip measurement but also by collar size. I know that's a standard for men's shirts so I guess it makes sense.
We tend to think that sizes back then ran way smaller, but guess what... size 38 is for a 88 cm bust. So is size 38 in today's Burda. Ok, Marion assumes a smaller waist and a larger hip but the differences there are only 2 cm each, which is half a size. And Marion sizes went up as far as 52, for a 124 cm bust. And it seems like the 'average' size was 40 or 42...
I may study this a bit more and come back to it in a later post.