Ok, I know it's the end of August. Most people have returned from their summer holidays, schools are starting again and soon, it will be autumn. But here in the Netherlands, it certainly doesn't feel like summer is over yet. We've had some of the hottest days of the year in this past week.
So, when I thought about showing you a vintage magazine today, I knew I couldn't go for a late August or a September issue (I usually try to kind of match the date). Those are always about autumn fashion and I'm wearing my hot-weather-clothes today...
So, instead, I chose De Gracieuse no. 14 (two magazines a month, so that's the second one for July) from 1931. The cover may not look very summer-y but this is sort of the holiday edition.
The headlines of each page suggest the sort of lifestyle the sophisticated lady who subscribed to this magazine might enjoy (De Gracieuse is mostly a magazine for well-to-do ladies and those who sew for them).
Like these coats and suits: "For travel"
"For a trip abroad"
"For trips to the mountains" (this is a Dutch magazine so a trip to the mountains is always a trip to a foreign country). And there on the right: Culottes!
"Outfits for early and late afternoon"
"The thin summer dress for the seaside resort"
"The latest novelties for the trip"
"Cotton for summer dresses"
"Plain, striped and checked fabrics for water sports". Based on the images here and in other issues of the magazine, water sports for ladies in the 1930's basically meant being near the water and sailing, but look! Three pairs of beach pyjama's!
Such lovely outfits and such an intriguing peek into the lives of the happy few.
That is the title on this issue of Gracieuse magazine. It's magazine nr. 19 from 1933, to be precise (it was published twice a month).
I has been ages since I last showed you any vintage pattern magazine goodness here so I thought it was high time.
I've photographed whole pages this time so you can get an idea of the lay-out of the magazine. I just love the art deco design of the title here on the first page:
The first page always has a short article about the current trends in fashion. This one is about the new suits for autumn. The outfits in the drawing are the magazine's own designs though, and the reader could order the patterns for them.
Then, we get "new elegant dresses for tea and cinema visits". Such an interesting concept. I wouldn't have guessed that those activities would call for the same kind of outfit. Maybe it is just because both are informal public outings.
The next page is dedicated to "the evening gown". The second one from the right, the black dress, is the design I sewed up (with lots of trouble) earlier this year.
"Suits from new wool fabrics for autumn"
"The short fur coat"
"The new blouses"
"Simple wool dresses with wide shoulder decorations". These are 1930's silhouettes the way we all recognize them!
The last page with sewing patterns always has a lot of back views and some simplified versions of the designs which have already been shown.
After that, there are the craft pages with embroidery designs and other craft projects and one or two other articles. And somewhere on a separate sheet of paper is the supplement with the patterns... Usually on both sides but every once in a while, one side is full of embroidery patterns instead. This magazine is one of those so I was actually quite lucky that it included a design I liked in my size...
Here it is! My dress from a pattern from 1933...
I've had plenty of trouble with it, probably largely down to the fabric I chose. And I was nervous about trying a 1930's design right from the start. The illustrations are always very lovely but the silhouette seems so different from mine... And my previous efforts were less than successful (one was awful, the other one not a real success).
This is the pattern I used: An evening gown from Gracieuse magazine from October 1933. The one on the left. It is one of very few patterns in my collection (from 1930 to the beginning of 1934) which uses bias cut skirt pieces. Of course I knew working with fabric on the bias is tricky but I hoped it would be worth it.
I used fabric from my stash, a striped cotton blend, for the skirt and bought soft black tule for the bodice (it is worn over a camisole). Of course, using stripes made things a lot more difficult. I would have to try and match them, at least at center front and back. At first, I also tried to match the stripes at the side seams but that caused to many issues with the fabric. And I didn't need more issues with that... This turned out to be the kind of material that just keeps on growing. In the end, I've had to unpick and re-sew them twice, the second time after letting the loose panels hang for a week. And even now, the side seams are not entirely free from pulling.
The bodice wasn't easy either. So many angles. Soft tule is a kind of material which gets gathered up by even loose stitches so I had to stitch it on tissue paper for all those little seams. And then pull the stuff away again, obviously.
There's a double layer of it in the bodice and a single one in the sleeves. Unfortunately, the cut outer edges of the wide, fluttering sleeves have a tendency to get stuck to each other.
Hemming the dress was a bit of an adventure in its own right. With patterns on tracing sheets, like this one, you usually get only a part of the skirt pieces with the measurement to which you should lengthen them. I had done that but it's didn't seem very precise in this case. I made sure the side seams matched in length but that was all I could really do on paper. And then the pieces were cut on the bias, in that ever-growing fabric and stitched, un-picked and stitched again. The bottom of the skirt was very uneven so I asked E to help me pin the hemline. The poor man didn't know what he was getting into... It took quite a while and he didn't like it but he did a good job. Pinning a hemline and then marking the positions of the pins with chalk so they wouldn't be lost if some of the pins fell out. The length of the skirt was determined by its shortest point at one of the side seams. As a result, it's ankle length now. I might have cut the pieces a little longer...
On its own, the dress's bodice is rather loose but, as you can see in the illustration, it was always meant to be worn with a belt. The silhouette is still unfamiliar to me but it is better than I expected.
Ok, that 1930's dress project is now officially driving me crazy. You know I thought from the start that styles from this decade might not work for me. And my choice of fabric proved tricky from the very start. What I haven't told you yet is that it continued to cause problems. I sewed those long skirt seams in the same way in which I've sewn other bias cut garments in the past, only to find that they pulled horribly. In the end, I had to unpick all of them and re-sew them while stretching the fabric as much as possible... While still trying to match those stripes, of course. The bodice, with all its angles and made from very soft tule, came with its own set of challenges.
After all that, it looked like I had done it. I had sewn everything together, taken it in slightly in the process and now it was flowing smoothly and didn't look bad. I did noticed that the wide flare of the front pieces had stretched out quite a bit on the bias, so hemming would be a bit of a challenge too. So, I let it hang for a bit.
Today, I tried the dress on again so E could pin the hemline.
And now it looks like this:
I knew the hem was very uneven. That's not really a surprise with a fabric that stretches a lot on the bias. And I don't really worry about the fact that the (un-hemmed) side seams don't even reach the ground. And ankle length dress is fine. What I do really worry about is the state of the seams though. Every bit of skirt seam that hangs freely (as in "is not also pulled at from the side") is pulling again. Of course, I could blame myself for letting the dress hang out but I'm sure it would also hang out if I would wear it. The obvious solution seems to be to re-stitch the seams again... I really don't feel like doing that though. And last time, I already tried to stretch the fabric so how much is doing that again really going to help?
Do you have any advice or should I just give up on this one? (I might try again in a different fabric but not right now)
I'm having another go at making a 1930's dress... The previous two attempts didn't (really) work out (the first one was a huge shapeless sack with tiny holes for the neck and arms and the second one became more or less wearable after a lot of tinkering) and even the blouse I tried first was less than a complete success. On the one hand, I'm starting to think the styles of this decade are just not for me. On the other hand, I don't think I have a crazy kind of shape, my bust and hip measurement even belong to roughly the same size on the 1930's Gracieuse sizing chart, so there seems to be no reason why I could not make it work. Maybe I am just too used to the 1950's aesthetic.
Anyway, last weekend, I had another look at the options I put on my Pinterest board. I didn't just look at the pretty pictures on my computer, no, I looked them all up in their magazines and had a look at the pattern pieces. I have noticed before that some illustrations which look really complicated and interesting actually have very ordinary patterns. And sometimes, it's the other way round.
Studying the patterns and considering the time of year limited the number of options considerably.
In the end, I decided to go with this dress:
The one on the left, an evening dress from October 1933. This is one of only two designs on my board which is (partly) cut on the bias.
Every time I've talked about 1930's dresses here, I get comments about how 1930's dresses should be cut on the bias. Now, I'm sure this was true for those sleek show-stopping dresses worn by Hollywood starlets but it certainly wasn't true for what normal women wore every day. It makes sense really, who would want to use the most fabric-hungry style of cutting in a time of serious economic crisis?
Based on my original patterns, I would say bias cut was very rare (to non-existent) in designs for normal people until 1933. From that year, it shows up occasionally. Usually in skirts and most of the time for evening wear.
In this design those skirt pieces, which start in points above the waist, are cut on the bias. the short bodice and flutter sleeves are supposed to be made from a double layer of tule.
I rather like the shape of those pieces. The oddly shaped armscye and the circular sleeve...
To preserve the 82-year-old pattern sheet, I'm tracing the pattern this way. It is tricky but it works.
The fabric I'm using is this very soft cotton with beige and black stripes. I have close to four meters of it but unfortunately, it has these wide beige stripes at every meter or so. If I had had four 'panels' of stripes, I would have used those and cut without those wide stripes but I don't. I have no other choice than to try and incorporate them into the look.
The fabric was really annoying to cut. Before I could even lay out the pieces, I had to cut off the selvedges because they were pulling the edges in. Without selvedges, the stuff is incredibly shifty and moves around all the time. It should make for a nice fluid drape to the final product but it's a nightmare to cut and I have no illusions about what it will be like to sew...
I'm trying to match the stripes at center front and back. I'll have to see about the sideseams. The bodice will be black tule.
I'll start sewing tomorrow. Hopefully, it will be third time lucky!
At the moment, I'm looking at things and making plans. I have two simple t-shirt-like tops and a pair of shorts which haven't made it to the blog yet but those are not particularly exciting.
Oh and fortunately, that blue top for my grandmother turned out well, it looks very good on her and she really likes it.
I was all set to make that striped 1950's dress because it would be great for the not very warm summer weather we've had so far but this week, the weather is turning.
I was also enjoying lingerie making again and I don't think I'm quite done with that yet. Oh, and I could actually use a practical, sort of sporty swimsuit or bikini...
But right now, I am looking at other things. Vintage patterns. I am considering trying a 1930's look once more. Third time lucky maybe?
I've already brought this up in the We Sew Retro Facebook group and the ladies there gave me some very good advice. The thing is: Those fashion drawings look great but after two failed attempts, I keep asking myself "How would that dress look with hips?".
To make up my mind, I've made a Pinterest board with all those designs from Gracieuse magazine which I like and have a pattern for in a size sort of near mine.
I already see I should pick the year carefully. In 1930, dresses are still quite loose and the waistline sort of wanders somewhere a bit below the natural waist (still on the way up after a decade lower down). By mid-1931 a waistline is forming. Those dresses often have a bodice which blouses over the skirt at from the waist up. I think that could be an option. Later, you start to see more wide belts. And then, by 1934 those shoulders are really starting show...
I've never been a fan of the giant shoulder look which is why I think I may go for a design from 1932 or 1933. Those dresses often have volume at the top of the body but it's soft, for example in the form of capelets or flounce sleeves.
Gracieuse stopped including a pattern sheet in 1934 and the original owner of that part of my collection didn't renew her subscription. After that year, she seems to have relied on occasionally buying other magazines. So, I have some magazines from later in the decade which still include patterns too. Maybe I should add those to my list of options as well...
Of the things I like so far, many day dresses seem a bit too warm for this time of year.
I also can't stop loving jumpsuits but I kind of want a dress...
And today, I just realized this: So far, I thought a day dress would give me the best chance of making something which I could wear normally (which is what I want) but I might be wrong. Like in many summers, the maxi-dress is once more a fashionable warm weather option this year.
So, I wouldn't stand out that much in what is actually a 1930's summer evening gown design... These were even meant to be made in printed fabrics and I think I mostly have printed cottons with the right kind of hand.
Today, I thought I would show you some more from my collection of vintage (sewing) magazines. And try and show one of the reasons why I love having several issues of the same magazine, over a span of time.
You see, when you read about fashion history, it's all too easy to start thinking there's one distinctive look per decade. One silhouette by which you can easily recognize it. It's easy to start believing that because there is some truth to it. Looking back, there are distinct shapes which belong to, roughly, each decade of the 20th century. In some cases, there is a clear starting date for something new, like the introduction of the New Look for spring 1947.
However, things are, of course, more complicated than that. New silhouettes don't just spring into existence (even the New Look had careful precursors and its acceptance was slow and gradual), they can be a clear departure from what went before but more often, they evolve slowly from it. In the broad gestures of a short history of fashion, it's easy to overlook that process. When you are faced with a stack of magazines from the time itself, the little changes come to the foreground. The magazines compare the fashion they bring to their readers with that of last season or last year so they point out and magnify changes we, outsiders, might not even have noticed.
To give you a bit of an idea about this, I've put some images from the early 1930's side-by-side. All are from the sewing magazine Gracieuse. These are the numbers 8 (the magazine was published twice a month, so that's the one for the second half of April) from 1930, 1932 and 1933 (I thought I had included 1931 as well but it seems I forgot). I've combined pictures for similar kinds of clothes, really different things which are not featured in the other years are shown separately.
From 1928 to 1930, the cover is printed in colour, with a photograph or drawing on pale blue, from 1931 onwards there's a big full-colour fashion drawing on a white background. The great thing about these covers is that they are the only visual information about the colours fashionable at the time.
Simple day dresses. Please ignore the fact that only in 1932, they decided to look ahead to the warmer weather to come.
Here, you can see how the silhouette of 1930 is still in transition. It's not a real 1920's style anymore but those belts and horizontal seams are not at the natural waistline. Two years later, they are. And a year after that, sleeves get more attention and more decoration and shoulders are slightly more angular (also in the style of illustration)
In the 1932 issue, they also included some more glamorous dresses, those with stripes are on the left and those with dots on the right. These show some of the flamboyance 1930's fashion is also known for, next to the tailored styles of the sportier dresses and suits. Oh, and the elbow at the join actually belonged to a lady near the fold of the page but the light on her was so bad I cropped the image.
Walking outfits. From 1930 and 1932. There are dresses with some jackets for 1930 and suits with coats and blouses for 1932. I'm pretty sure that's just the choice made in each magazine and not representative of all walking clothes worn in those years.
But look at the difference in skirt length! And again, there's a slight shirt in the style of the drawing: From very straight-line ladies, to ones with slight curves.
And a major change in hats, in this case a transition from something which looks very much like a 1920's cloche to a fairly typical 1930's hat shape.
This particular issue of Gracieuse was a pretty sporty one in 1930: There were also tennis dresses!
And in 1933, there was a double page feature with sports and weekend clothes. I particularly like this one because it includes what look like real trousers.
So, just a couple of looks you might have wanted to make 82, 83 or 85 years ago... Any preferences?
And now my 1937 dress is finished!
It may not look very different from its picture in my previous post but it is: The zipper has been sewn down in its entirety, the back neck/ front panel/ scarf-thing has been finished properly, everything has been hemmed. It's a finished dress!
As you can probably tell, I didn't change the fit of the sleeves or the hem length. The sleeves are quite comfortable like this and I don't think they look over-the-top. It doesn't look 'normal' by 21h century standards but it doesn't have to, after all, it is a design from 1937. Which is also why I kept the hem length prescribed in the pattern.
By now, I'm feeling almost embarrassed about my earlier complaining... After all, all I really had to change was the size. The proportions of the dress were fine. (I'm glad I traced the pattern, rather than cutting it out)
I'm still a bit undecided about the look. The dress is comfortable, there are details I like but I'm not sure. And I still think it photographs better than it looks, which is unusual.
In this picture, you can see the design lines a bit better.
I think I will make this dress again later in the year, in a very soft cotton, with short sleeves and a long scarf in the same fabric. That should match the style better.
Because after all, this is an interesting dress: Curved panels, narrow A-line skirt with some extra flare at center front, center front/scarf, darted sleeve heads.
I didn't follow all the instructions (which are clear and well illustrated). You were supposed to fold back the seam allowances on some panels and topstitch those on. I know that's a normal method of construction in 1930's and 1940's patterns but I didn't like the idea. Pressing seam allowances which are both curved and partially on the bias is an almost certain way to stretch them out of size and shape. So, instead I stitched the seams normally and topstitched afterwards.
I also didn't make the front closure with fabric loops and covered buttons. It's a nice feature but fiddly to make and it could weigh down the delicate fabric quite a bit. Because this dress was going to be kind of a wearable muslin, I decided not to bother.
I'm sure I'll wear the dress at home (in fact, I'm wearing it right now) and I am interested in trying out more 1930's and 1940's looks. I am still getting used to it though.
And of course, this is my first creation for the 2015 Vintage Sewing Pattern Pledge...
Wow! You've come up with so many great comments about my attempt at making myself a 1930's dress. Both here and on We Sew Retro-Sew and Tell.
Among many other things, I've learned that: Yes very soft and limp fabrics are very important for the 1930's look, the original dresses my have been very unshaped and fashion illustrations are very fanciful whatever the era...
In the mean time, I've finished the dress and I will take proper pictures and talk a bit more about it and the experience of making it in the weekend. Oh, and for those of you who wondered about the (short) length: I followed the pattern exactly. The only reason it's longer in the first muslin is that I didn't fold up the 3 5/8" hem there. I had also expected the dress to be longer but the waist length is right and the hem hits my leg at the same point as it does in the illustration.
Today, I thought it would be nice to look at some fashion photographs from the 1930's. I figured that would be the best way to learn about what was considered to be the proper fit of a dress, what an ideal body shape looked like and how the fashionable silhouette changed over the decade.
These first pictures are from the Dutch Mode- en Handwerkalbum from spring 1933.
Shapes are not that loose (not really close-fitted either but certainly not as baggy as that first toile of mine) but belts are definitely not used to cinch waists, like in the 1950's. And the ideal figure seems to have very little difference between waist and hip. Nor between bust and waist, for that matter.
This one image comes from the French sewing magazine La Femme Elegante which, unfortunately, only published photographs of its knitting patterns. The shape seems pretty much unchanged.
The following pictures are probably the most interesting in relation to my dress. They are from the same year, 1937 but the dress I made came from the USA, these pictures were published in the German magazine Beyer's Mode.
This first suit actually looks quite 1940's to me. And isn't it great they've printed the illustration of the same outfit next to it?
The dresses, on the other hand, look as you would expect for 1930's. Pretty sleek fitting though. And is it my imagination or has the waist-to-hip ratio increased a bit?
There are more design elements which add width at the hips: The occasional A-line skirt, tunics, peplums. All of that makes me feel like these styles would be friendlier to a girl with hips...
Oh, and there are pyjama's in this magazine, meant to be worn in the morning, at home. Those trousers are very wide but rather alluring in those thin drape-y fabrics.
And finally, a couple of pictures from Libelle. These are from there report about the Paris shows for autumn/winter 1939/40 so it shouldn't be surprising that everything here looks 1940's.
And can I draw any conclusions based on this? Well... Some, I think. Of course, all the pictures above are carefully styled, photographed and retouched images of (very likely) professional models. Normal women probably didn't look quite so sleek and poised. It does tell us something about the beauty ideals at the time though. According to these pictures, on the perfect figure, fashionable dresses should fit smoothly. That perfect figure is not super-skinny but has very few curves at the beginning of the decade and slowly gains shape towards 1940. Quite to my surprise, there were no huge shoulders in any of these images (I have seen those in pictures from the 1940's). Gathered, pleated or darted sleeve caps and extra room at the upper arm, yes, but no high padded constructs.
So, it seems I wasn't wrong in wanting my 1937 dress to fit more closely but I probably can't get a 'real' 1930's look because my body shape isn't right for that.
