tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post8443469331030839625..comments2024-03-25T02:21:22.982+01:00Comments on petit main sauvage: 1930's fashion photographsLaurianahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16602295642057814667noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-71837333871316251202015-03-17T09:27:31.312+01:002015-03-17T09:27:31.312+01:00Hi Sofie. That's the thing with 1930's sty...Hi Sofie. That's the thing with 1930's styles: Looking at the illustrations, you often expect a garment to be bias cut but, judging from the patterns in my collection, very few actually are. My 1937 pattern is supposed to be cut on grain and that's what I did. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the sleek dresses worn by celebreties of the day were usually bias cut but dresses for normal women inspired by those were not. After all, cutting on the bias takes a lot of fabric and the 1930's were a time of economical hardship in many parts of the world.Laurianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16602295642057814667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-38516599812660568432015-03-17T09:24:06.355+01:002015-03-17T09:24:06.355+01:00Hi Michou! Great to see you here on the blog ;)
Of...Hi Michou! Great to see you here on the blog ;)<br />Of course I don't mind the long comment... Not like this, when it's just because you have a lot of interesting things to tell, which are all appropriate. <br />You are definitely right about the developments in under- and shape wear and about the how the model's pose and the camera angle can influence the look. <br />But still, my magazine collection gives me some idea about the changing silhouettes of the 1920's and 1930's and those usually suggest a closer fit for the late 1930's, just like the pictures in this post. That's why I was surprised when the 1937 pattern was so big on me...Laurianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16602295642057814667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-37673160887215343812015-03-13T21:01:53.599+01:002015-03-13T21:01:53.599+01:00Oh, thank you so much :-) What is your ravelry nam...Oh, thank you so much :-) What is your ravelry name? Would you like to add me?<br />Pictures on my blog really are not my strongest point :-DMichouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09003510784033892918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-76346356238313343702015-03-13T19:44:03.385+01:002015-03-13T19:44:03.385+01:00And a couple of layers of soft flowy undergarments...And a couple of layers of soft flowy undergarments help with the soft lines.Sofiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210730639316984465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-9286599223740018342015-03-13T19:42:14.980+01:002015-03-13T19:42:14.980+01:00Actually I think the frequent seam lines on the bo...Actually I think the frequent seam lines on the bodice of thirties dresses give the use of bias away. Seams on the bodice of many of the close fitting drapey garment go on the diagonal. I'm guessing that it's because the bodice or all of the dress is cut on the bias and that makes the seams mostly on grain or cross grain wich prevents seams stretching out of shape.Sofiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210730639316984465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-9268717629976402652015-03-13T19:28:31.532+01:002015-03-13T19:28:31.532+01:00For those drapey garments of the thirties I believ...For those drapey garments of the thirties I believe bias cut was very important to get that look of "just skimming the body".<br /><br />Did your pattern have instuctions for on grain or bias cut? The model looked to me to be one that benefits from bias cut. It elongates the lines and snugs the garment closer to the body when worn wich might make the too large size just right.Sofiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210730639316984465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-78581650317687918252015-03-13T17:25:16.826+01:002015-03-13T17:25:16.826+01:00How interesting Michou. I like the detail on the u...How interesting Michou. I like the detail on the undergarments, that's such an important factor. Shame I can't read your blog, the pictures are good! I also like your knitting on Ravelry which I have seen sometime ago.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10167754830312947336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7553172421381359137.post-53669662346699318072015-03-13T16:26:37.098+01:002015-03-13T16:26:37.098+01:00I really wouldn't bother that much about body ...I really wouldn't bother that much about body shape because women always came in all shapes and still they would all have worn pretty much the same dresses - especially in the 20ies and 30ies. <br />Many years ago I dived into the world of clothing of these years - make it 1927-1943 and I am quite good nowadays in deciding which year is shown. So when you take a look at the late 20ies, skirts were worn fitted at the hips (and at the waist underneath those blouses!) and reached the part between knees and calves. The waistline began to reappear little by little and was back 1930. BUT the form of the dress itself did not yet change: the top was still quite loose (no darts coming from the waist), the seam between top and skirt still near hipline. The hemline went down and the belt gave the silhouette. <br />Undergarments were still "only" for wearing comfort and hygiene, not for forming the figure - that explains the straighter figure shape in the early 30ies. Next came girdles for the hips whereas the bust was still only clothed not that much formed - makes the figure look smaller in the hips and quite straight at top. The way the models stood and posed helped making them appear more like the idealized drawings. Also the slightly higher waist makes hips appear less pronounced. <br />When in the midthirties hemlines began to rise a little bit and bras offered more support, the waist was at a natural hight - the figure shape seemed to be more curvy. The tops of dresses became a bit tighter too, the hemline gathered more width and the basic pattern itself was more close to the figure, too - those shapes you could make with your own block quite easily.<br /><br />Sorry for writing so much, but perhaps this helped a bit? Last year I tried to make an early 30ies-dress using pattern making instructions from 1932 - it was a desaster. And I began to think that I might not be the right shape for it. But a few weeks ago I started again and actually now love the shape on me - although my hip-waist ratio is not small :-D<br />You can have a laught at this one - way too small :-D<br />http://www.michou-loves-vintage.de/wordpress/lauwarm-tendenz-warm-oder-vielleicht-tendenz-kuehl-oder-doch-warm-oder/Michouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09003510784033892918noreply@blogger.com