Butterick’s Delineator magazine featured an eight pattern “Forecast” wardrobe (at $1.00 per pattern) in January of 1928. (However, unless you needed two evening dresses and two evening wraps, you would only need 6 patterns for the “wardrobe.”) The illustrations, by L. Frerrier, used the SS Ile de France for background. Although Frerrier illustrated all the sets of Forecast Wardrobe patterns for Delineator, this two page layout was the most elaborate.
Daytime Fashions of the Forecast Wardrobe
“Daytime Patterns of the Forecast Wardrobe,” Butterick 10B, 10F, 10A and 10 C, Delineator, Jan. 1928, page 30.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 B, Butterick, January 1928.
“Incrustations” seems to mean applied trim.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 F, Butterick, 1928.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 A, Butterick, Jan. 1928.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 C, Butterick, Jan. 1928.
The vestee can be seen in the opening between the lapels of the tunic. It is “on the bodice which holds the skirt.” The skirt is suspended from the shoulders, and does not have a waistband. Again, a cluster of artificial flowers trims the shoulder.
Evening Patterns of the Forecast Wardrobe
“Evening Patterns of the Forecast Wardrobe,” Butterick 10 D, 10H, 10E, and 10G; Delineator magazine, January 1928, page 31.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 D, Butterick, January 1928.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 E. Butterick, Jan. 1928.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 G, Butterick, Jan. 1928.
Forecast Wardrobe pattern 10 H, Butterick, Jan 1928.
Usually, the uneven hemlines of the nineteen twenties were allowed to hang below the hem of the coat, but in this case, the dipping hem of the coat is designed to match and cover the “high in front, low in back” hem of the “robe de style” evening gown. The “robe de style,” with its relatively snug bodice and full skirt, is usually associated with designer Jeanne Lanvin. In lightweight taffeta it was often suggested for bridesmaids and young women, but in velvet or dramatic colors it was a “grand entrance” gown for sophisticated women.
witness2fashion 
Once again I am impressed by how complicated these patterns are. The looks are also quite distinctive, so it would be pretty obvious if you made the same dress in two different fabrics (although I guess you could change up some of the details.) I would love to hear your thoughts on why some patterns go up to a size 44 bust, while others stop at size 40 or smaller. How did the designers decide to exclude the larger breasted, possibly matronly, woman?
This is just a hypothesis: maybe it had something to do with fitting the pattern on the pattern tissue. I’ve noticed that, when the same design was offered under two different pattern numbers, one for teens (or children) and one for adult women, sometimes the top and skirt patterns were sold separately for adults, but both top and skirt were included in the smaller sizes. I guessed that it had to do with how many pieces of tissue would be used in the manufacture … and with making the customer feel that she was getting her money’s worth in the envelope. Of course, these were probably pre-cut patterns, so I may be completely wrong about how the factory figured its costs.
Thanks for this idea–something I never would have thought of!
When you make patterns “from scratch,” transferring a muslin prototype to paper, and from paper to fabric, you spend a lot of time figuring out the optimum cutting layout. Now that job can be computerized — but for one-of-a kind garments the old “human brain” way is still faster.
Pingback: Ninety Years Ago: Fashions from January 1928 | witness2fashion