1920's goodness

There will be a proper blog post here soon, but for now, a little intermezzo will have to do.

I've been on a short break and came home with a cold. So, I haven't had a lot of time for sewing. However, all the fabric for my 1920's dress has been cut so I should be able to start on it quickly.

In the mean time, I've had some more inspiration for 1920's dresses and more confirmation for my colour choice:

This lovely display of garments from the 1920's is on show at the V&A in London right now (it is just part of a small display of their own collection. A new large fashion exhibit, all about underwear, will open in April).

Old friends

Recently, I went over to my parents' house and had a look at old pictures found at my grandmother's house (she is moving into a nursing home). 
Those provide a very interesting look into our family's history and I and my father (who is a keen amateur photographer) also enjoy their aesthetic qualities (at least, in the case of all those black-and-white pictures. old colour pictures tend to degrade badly over time).  
My grandparents were a very kind and warm couple who kept in touch with all their old friends. As a result, there were also a lot of photographs of people who are not part of our family. 
Today, I thought I would share two of those.
I actually know who the people in these pictures are (my grandmother wrote names on the backs of many of the pictures). 

This is the wedding picture of the parents of a childhood friend of my grandmother's. In 1918. Being Dutch, the husband would, despite his uniform not have spent the past years in the trenches (the Netherlands were neutral in WWI). And isn't it interesting to see a short wedding dress, before 1920?

And this picture shows the same couple, with another couple they were friends with, on a visit to the caves of Han, in the Ardennes in Belgium (these limestone caves are still a major tourist destination in the region. I have been there too). I guess that, like the wedding picture, this photograph was taken by a professional. It is just too focussed and well-lit for an amateur picture of the time (for one taken by people of limited means, that is). 
And if you look closely at the lady's skirt (the lady on the right), you will notice that she is wearing the same dress as in the wedding picture... 
Of course, this trip might have been their honeymoon but I just don't know. I do know it was very common to pick (or make or have made) a dress for your own wedding which could still be worn after it (with or without alterations).

All in all, I just think these pictures are really beautiful. I have two Gracieuses from that year, maybe I could find a similar dress pattern as a tribute...     

Action pictures!

As promised, I have some action pictures of my new climbing top.

If you noticed these look different from earlier bouldering pictures, you would be right. Different venue and a different photographer. This time, my friend A was kind enough to take some pictures and we were not climbing at Klimmuur Den Haag but at bouldering hall Delfts Bleau.

In this one, you can really see that arrow on the back. 
Obviously, it would work even better if I made that in a bright colour. The silvery under-layer of the fabric in the arrow is reflective but is would really need something like flashlight to stand out. And it was just too light for that yesterday.

And I like this one because it gives some sense of the odd twists and turns you often get into when climbing. And all of them show quite a bit more upper body muscle than I thought I had...

Oh, and wearing this top yesterday also gave me the chance to try out. I'm quite happy with it. The shelf bra is comfortable, the straps are the right length and that V-front stays in place really well. 

Is this the real thing?

This caught my eye a while ago. In fact, I have no idea why I haven't blogged about it before. 
This is the thing: Getting a general idea about how fashion changes over the decades is fairly simple. But if you get beyond that, read period sources and get an idea about the smaller trends and hypes that lasted maybe only one season, you get a different picture. And that's where interesting things happen. Many of my favorite looks from the late 1940's and 1950's fit into that category: Interesting designs that won't show up in a general view of those decades. I've shown examples of that in blog posts for a while and it was an important reason to start using Pinterest. But how great would it be to see some of those designs in real life?

I haven't had that chance yet but I think this is half-way there: The Gemeentemuseum here in The Hague is working on creating an online database of its collections (of fine art and crafts) and one of the things that is on there already is the haute couture wardrobe of opera singer Else Rijkens (1898-1953)(I'm sorry but the information is only in Dutch for now).  All the pieces on the site seem to be from the late 40's and early 50's. This may mean the museum still has to document the rest (I guess they are still working on it, that would be the only reasonable explanation for the variation in quality of the pictures) or maybe this was the time when the lady's career was in full bloom and she could afford haute couture. 
However... This means that what's already there covers my favorite years in fashion history!

And when I was browsing this database a few weeks ago, I noticed this dress:

Although it looks lilac in the picture, it is described as grey. And just look at that amazing skirt: Ray-of-the-sun style plissé from a zig-zag yoke... Wow.

It made me think of something I had pinned a while before that:

This dress from Beatrijs magazine. 
It appeared as an illustration for an article about practical fashion (basically about fashionable alternatives to the on-trend narrow skirts). The whole article talks about Dutch reality (rain, cycling) versus Parisian style (those narrow skirts, high heels, taking a taxi when the weather is less than nice) and yet they've chosen to publish it with pictures of glorious couture dresses...

There are clear similarities between the dresses in these pictures. First of all that amazing skirt, and both were created by the same designer: Jacques Griffe. They also have the same colour: Grey. 
After that, things get a bit sketchy. Else Rijkens's dress is made from silk taffeta, the one in Beatrijs from thin wool. The collars are different. It's not just a matter of buttoning up or down. You can see a simple notched collar in Beatrijs's picture which is obviously not there on Else's dress. And the dress in the magazine doesn't have a self-fabric belt. 
The front dart may be in different places but that's hard to tell from these pictures. The sleeves may the same.
The most curious bit of information is, again, in the written text: The woolen one appeared in the Beatrijs magazine of 20 April 1951, the dress in the museum is listed as being from 1952/1953...
The only explanation I can come up with is that the magazine may have used very recent pictures. Pictures which were taken at the same time that designs became available to order by couture customers. That might explain some delay, but not likely more than a year. Is it possible that designers in the early 1950's allowed their customers to order their favorite designs from previous seasons? Or could the museum simply be wrong about the date? 

Said pretty things...

Yesterday's post was already getting a bit long and adding these would have been a a bit 'off topic'. So the pretty things which distracted me from my Luttorloh plans get a post all of their own.

The blouse I am working on is from a pattern from March 1922 but the shape was already popular in 1918. How I know that? Not just because it is the exact same shape as the one worn by lady Mary (from Downton Abbey) in the picture in yesterday's post. I've got real, period proof.

This is the cover of Gracieuse magazine of July 1918.

Doesn't this dress look like something Lavinia Swire would wear? (sorry, Downton geeky-ness is showing badly). More importantly: Look at the bodice. It's the exact same shape as the one I'm making. The only difference is in the waistline. Which I won't use in my blouse anyway.

In fact, I think I've found a whole new appreciation for the fashion of the late 1910's and early 1920's. 

All these images come from the same magazine.

Yes, they don't look like something you would wear just like that nowadays but they are really nice...

In some ways, the natural height waistlines makes these seem more wearable than many 1920's fashions.

I really should try and make a dress like this...

Lutterloh choices

For the past two days, I've been pondering my options for the next Vintage Pattern Pledge item. I want to use my other pattern-enlarging-to-size system this time. You may be familiar with this one: Lutterloh.
I've seen it mentioned before on blogs and definitely on We Sew Retro so I assume this system has some international fans. The earliest publications I've read about (I haven't researched it, this is purely based on what other people blogged about) are from the 1930's. And it's still there. Unfortunately, that modern website doesn't have any information on the history of the brand but the system is still basically the same.

Like Frohne (which is, by comparison, probably no more than a short-lived competitor), Lutterloh offers its customers books with pictures of the designs and miniature patterns. To scale these up to size, Lutterloh relies on a special grading ruler.

This little thing. You have to attach a tape measure at one end, overlapping the 8. I'll take some pictures of how this works when I start on enlarging my pattern.
The system seems to rely on the idea that the human shape obeys certain rules, which has me a bit worried. This text comes from the introduction to the system in my books: 

When a human being is fully grown, the most important measurements of his limbs barely change anymore. One will only, based on predisposition, get fatter or thinner. Every human being only gets 3.5 times as large as he was at birth. Per size, there are, on average, just 3 groups (not counting dwarfs and giants). To make the sewing patterns usable for these three groups, it is desirable for very slender tall people and very short fat ones to adjust for the differences in waist length, sleeve and skirt length by lengthening or shortening the pattern pieces.

Okaaayy. So according to Lutterloh, there are no different body types (since the rest of the text suggest that the three groups refer to 'tall', 'medium' and 'short')... And where does that "3.5 times" thing come from? I'm pretty sure everyone, as an adult, exceeds 3.5 times his or her birth weight and height.
And that was also all the information given about height adjustments. Basically, you should just figure it out as you go along. And then we should remember that making muslins was certainly not common practice in the past.
Of course, this system doesn't enlarge in the same way as Frohne so its 'false' shortening or lengthening might be less. I'll tell you when I find out. 

So, now I just have to pick a pattern. I own three Lutterloh books, one from 1954 and two without date which overlap partly. Those two are definitely earlier. The designs there are an odd blend of 1940's and sort of 1950's which leads me to date them to 1947 or 1948. The time when the New Look was slowly gaining fashion ground. 
Ideally, I want to make something which is not just nice but also appropriate for this time of year, a sort-of-new-to-me style and can be made in a fabric from my stash. And that wish-list makes things difficult.

For one, it basically rules out the many wonderful things in the 1954 book.

Even though I quite like this sporty little jacket...

Then, this dress became my favorite. Cute look and basic enough to make weirdness in the sizing easy to spot and fix. But really a summer dress.

So. Other options. I love these but I'm not so sure I've got the right fabrics for them. 

Or of course, I could be sensible and make a blouse...

This one shouldn't even be on this list. It has plissé and that means it's impossible.

And how about this dress. A real 1940's look but not really 'me'.

I really don't know. Every time I look through the books again, something may leave the list and something else may be added. What do you think?

Just checking in

Ok, this is not what I had planned. Despite ending last week with a not very serious but energy draining cold (which I then, unfortunately, passed on to E), my 1965 Frohne dress was almost finished on Saturday. But just when I was doing the last bit of topstitching, the thread got stuck somewhere around the bobbin. This is annoying but it can happen. So, I switched the machine off, cut off the bits of thread attached to the dress, took the bobbin out and carefully pulled free the rogue bit. So far so good. Then, I wanted to put the bobbin back in. It wouldn't go in. Despite not having used a great deal of force, it seemed like I had dislodged the housing for the bobbin. 
That was on Saturday, late in the afternoon, so the only thing to do was to make an appointment at the sewing machine store at the earliest possible moment. Tuesday.

With my poor sewing machine out of action, I have started on a new project on the knitting machine. It's coming along nicely but I don't have anything to show yet.
I should have taken pictures of my 1965 dress (it's only missing a bit of topstitching under the left arm) but winter is really starting to set in now and the last two days were of that depressing kind on which it doesn't seem to get light at all. So, not the best time for taking pictures.

Hopefully, there will be a quick return of daylight, energy and a functioning sewing machine. 
For now, I'll leave you with one of the more unexpected images which I found while taking pictures (last week or so, when the light was better) for my Pinterest boards:

Yes, it's a lady from 1951 wearing an elegant knitted suit but look at that CUTE KITTEN!!

Aging gracefully, 1950's style

Ok, I had really planned to have some nice pictures of my new coat to share with you today. However, life and circumstance intervened once more. Other things to do, low energy and the weather which turned at the very moment I could have gone out for those pictures, to be precise.
However, with some luck E's schedule will allow us another try on Monday or Tuesday when he should be home fairly early.

Instead, I thought I would share these images which I added to my Pinterest boards today.

I don't have a separate board for 'vintage style at a certain age'. I picked both of these images from magazines from the 1950's simply because I liked the styles. 

Of course, this first one is incredibly glamorous. It must have been back in 1951 and it still is today. Who wouldn't want to age like that... 
Obviously, girdles and the like, which were common at the time, would have helped one to keep and show off a figure like that. We wouldn't consider such things very comfortable but at the time, they were credited with providing welcome 'support'. 
I also love her super-sophisticated hair-do with the grey bits clearly visible and just adding to the overall air of distinction.

This second one, from 1956, is a bit more 'lady of a certain age next door'. Which makes sense because this image illustrates one of the patterns offered by the magazine while the first one belonged with an article about fashion. This lady doesn't have such a killer figure and her dress has the sensible long sleeves which can be used to hide a variety of beauty issues. But despite being a bit more sensible and covered-up, her dress is very much in line with the fashion trends at the time (that type of skirt drape was a hit that season) and she looks both comfortable and rather dignified in it. 

I'm not a specialist on this topic, mostly because, let's face it, I don't have to. Not yet. However, three years in the bridal business (where you also get to meet many mothers of brides) and countless conversations with my mother and aunts have told me about the minefield of dressing when you get older. Depending on style, circumstances and body type, most women can only follow 'regular' (=for young women) fashion up to anything between 40 and 55. 
After that, it's hard to find really good looks. Mainstream fashion is for younger women but the only alternative often seems to be aimed at a much older audience. There is the option of embracing a certain 'signature look'. That can work really well but carries the risks of becoming a bit of a cliche. 
Of course it's dangerous to jump to conclusions based on just a few magazines, but it doesn't seem like there was such a great gap 60 years ago. Mainstream fashion and the reigning beauty ideal looked less 'young' so following those from a distance might have been easier for longer.

There are major differences in media treatment as well: These 1950's magazines were primarily housewives with young(ish) children living at home but (based on the reader's letters they published) read by all kinds of women, from teenagers to grandmothers. And they tried to address the issues each group might be facing with dressing advice being for the student-nurse on a tight budget one week and for the upcoming mother of the bride the other. In all my vintage fashion, sewing and knitting magazines, there is a mixture of designs for all ages.
Nowadays, you may still find that mixture is sewing or knitting magazines but never ever ever in fashion ones. 

Again, I don't claim to really know what I'm talking about here. I just know the ladies in these vintage pictures look great and just about every present-day mother-of-the-bride I've ever met was really struggling.

(P)interesting

A short while ago, I mentioned joining Pinterest. As I announced, I 've been adding images and creating new boards gradually and I'm not even close to half-way through my magazine collection yet.

And yet, certain patterns start to emerge... Of course, some things, like the amount of images in each issue of a vintage magazine have nothing to do with my preferences but other things are pretty telling.

I knew I liked skirts with flounces. That's why I made one. And they were among my reasons for liking the years 1949 to 1951, and starting with adding those. But really, there is some seriously lovely stuff there. I know I already made a flounce dress, but I may need another. Or a suit...

And then pockets. Like many seamstresses, I like my clothes to have pockets. I also like pockets to be a design feature. And I'm not afraid of wearing a garment with eye-catching hip pockets. But there's such a selection, even just in those few years I've looked at now. And I love so many of them.

And after that, there are other things I didn't even particularly know I liked. The lovely fitted suits with blouse-y backs which Dior made in 1950 for example. And styles for which I haven't even come up with a category yet. 

I guess I'm just a sucker for the minor trends of the years after the introduction of the New Look. Which almost makes me accuse myself of fashion history snobbery but I swear it isn't. These are things I picked because I love them. Of course, when I get on to the later 1950's, there should be more full-skirted dresses (when fabric restrictions disappear) which I also love. However, as a pattern maker, I'll always be drawn to both clear lines and clever inventions and in the years around 1950, there were so many of those. Even if the 'general public' might not recognize any of these as "typical" for their time, I know they are that and more and I can enjoy them (this was a reason for me to be disappointed with the "Fabulous Fifties" exhibit at the The Hague Gemeentemuseum two years ago. Too much of a broad sweep of an era which has so many fascinating smaller and shorter-lived trends).

I know many people complain about Pinterest being a terrible time-suck (and of course, I'm not a very active user) but for now, I'm happy I put it the effort. It has helped me to go from vaguely knowing what I like to a clearer picture. A picture which may get more complete as I upload more images, from more years. Or it may get diffused, of course. Either way, I think I'll like playing the game for a bit longer.

Oh, and obviously, you can follow me on Pinterest to explore all those vintage trends yourself.

The roaring twenties

Did you hear about the Vintage Pattern Pledge? And do you remember that I took that pledge back in February?

Although I'm usually pretty bad at anything sew-along-like, I thought I should be able to live up to my promise to sew up five vintage patterns this year...

So far, I've done nothing of the sort. I feel like I can kind of blame the work-trouble but that's not really an excuse. I plan to make amends though.

I thought I could start with an era I've never sewn from, which is way out of my comfort zone and which might not work for my body type: The 1920's.

My only source of patterns for this decade are my wonderful Gracieuse magazines. So, that will mean tracing the pattern from a very complicated pattern sheet and sewing barely-there instructions.

The magazines I own are not evenly distributed across the decade. Gracieuse was published two times per month and I have most issues between nr. 14 from 1920 and nr. 15 from 1923, then nothing until nr. 2 from 1926 and then every issue between 1 from 1927 and 24 from 1929. As a result of that, I think I miss a few steps in the development of look of the decade.

Oh, and there's only a selection of patterns from the magazine on each pattern sheet, with only one size per design. I have focussed on designs which are my size, or the one above or below. And I didn't pick anything with impossible details like plissee.

Without further ado, I'll show you my picks from the roaring twenties, in chronological order:

In the early twenties, garment shapes are very loose and rather similar in shape. They are often fabulously decorated though. 

1. I thought I could make the middle dress: It has a decoration which I could make (unlike the many embroidered examples) and with that collar, there is more definition to the bodice than in a lot of the dresses from these years.

It is a pattern for a teenage girl but with a shape as roomy as this, I think that wouldn't be a problem.

2. The blouse on the left. Pretty much the standard shape for the years 1918 to 1922 but with the added flavour of that draped sash bit at the bottom. Embroidery design is included with the pattern. 

It might just work in a very non-period-accurate way when worn with trousers.

3. Towards the end of 1923, the silhouette starts to slim down. I was rather happy to see that. The second dress from the right is in my size. However, I've found so many nicer patterns in the magazines that came after this one...

4. And then there is that single issue from 1926... 2 is always a good one with lots of designs for late New Year's and upcoming Carnival's parties and this one has some wonderful flapper dresses. The fabulousness of this single issue makes me sorry to miss out on 1924 and 5. It would have been nice to see more of the transition to this year.

The dresses in the first picture are both on the pattern sheet in close enough sizes. The dresses in the second picture are wonderful and I wish I had the patterns for those.

5. The narrower fit continues for the rest of the decade, with variations in hem length and height of the waistline (although it always remains below the natural waist). These designs are both in my size, but the it's that casual coat which I think is worth considering.

6. The dress on the left. A chic day dress with an interesting front drape.

7. Hats! That iconic hat shape of the 1920: The cloche. The two on the right are on the pattern sheet. Actual cut-and-sew patterns for the hats themselves, not just for the decoration.

8. The dress in the middle, with the cute capelet. This style is known in Dutch as "stijljapon" which translates to English as "style dress". It's the name given to dresses with a full skirt gathered to a short-ish (for the era) bodice. As an alternative to the usual sleek look at the time, it was popular in summer and party dresses for slender (and probably young) women.

9. The dress on the left. Another cute caplet, now on a dress with the slim silhouette you would expect from the 1920's  I also like the diagonal waistline and the flounce at the side.

10. Another hat! And that scarf is connected to it at the back.

11. The dress on the left. I'm not completely convinced but I kind of like that flouncy decoration on the bodice.

12. Both of these party dresses are in my size and they are both nice (the one on the right is another "stijljapon")

13. The classy day dress on the left is the one I'm thinking about here. And yes, I seem to like the skirts with asymmetrical and/or different length flounces.

14. The one on the left and the one on the right. Yes, those flounces again.

15. I could actually make all of these: The two dresses on the left are the same one, in front and back view. It's a simple dress with a cape-bit at the back and just one size too large. The style dress is in my size but maybe a bit too sweet. The third dress (fourth picture) displays a great use of different materials and the last one has such clean lines that it might still look edgy and modern today.

Oh, just an intermezzo. These are period photographs of ladies wearing suck party frocks.

16. More party wear! There is no pattern for second dress but it's the third one I like the best anyway.

17. And more. Here, there is no pattern for the second dress from right and it's the one on the left I really like.

18. And more yet. Here the ones on the left and the right come with patterns. The one on the right is an interesting variation on the style dress.

19. Tired of party dresses yet? I hadn't realized they were all so close together. The three on the left have patterns in or near my size. And it's the first one I prefer. Quirky and glamorous.

20. Oh, and what about this very stylish coat with cape?

21. And more party dresses. The very frilly one on the right is in my size, the chic sleek black one unfortunately not. However, that pretty thing on the left is only one size too big...

22. These dresses were intended for wedding guests. The second one is for a mother of the bride and comes in a large size. The others are options. I really like that first one.

23. Bridal dresses... Both are possible but I think the second one is really classy. 1920's wedding dresses are not as different in shape from 'normal' formal wear as those of today, so I could use a pattern like this.

24. Back to daydresses. The middle one, in the business-like check fabric and with the jaunty flounce.

25. And these sporty numbers. Mostly the one in the middle. Those interesting shapes are largely just stitched-on decoration.

26. And another bride... But isn't that a great dress? The guest's dress on the right is another option.

27. And some daywear to finish: two great dresses with flouncy details.

28. The suit (yes, according to the text, that's a suit) on the left and the coat on the right.

To be honest, I want to start with a something I could wear in this time of year and make from the materials I have in my stash. So, that counts out the coats and suits. I am quite keen on trying a hat though. 

For dresses, I think my 'short-list' now consists of: 9, 13, 15 (all of them), 16, 19, 21 and 22 (the ones I pointed out above)...

What do you think? Any favorites?