Category Archives: Resources for Costumers

Vintage Fur and Feather Update with Useful Links

Ad for Albrecht fur coats, Delineator, Nov. 1917.

Just because a fur coat is 100 years old does not necessarily mean that you can sell it without a permit. And you need to know your bird species if you are selling vintage hats. In fact, you need to know your animal products, from feathers to ivory to crocodile to tortoiseshell, snakes — and more.

I have updated my recent post about a Vintage Store that was raided by California and U.S. Federal agencies last year. The owner is currently facing prosecution. After posting, I found a useful factsheet from the U.S. government. Click here: it is a two page pdf that can be printed and posted for reference.

If you sell or collect vintage clothing, you may not realize that “antique” or vintage status does not exempt all furs, feathers, and other animal products from regulation. Some vintage items made from listed animals can be sold if you have a permit. But for some items made from endangered species, there are no permits and very limited exceptions.

“Some wildlife laws prohibit all sale or purchase of products made from a protected species. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects more than 1,000 wild birds native to the United States) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.” — U.S Fish and Wildlife Service “Can I Sell It?” Factsheet.

Here is what the “Can I Sell It?” factsheet says about feathers from endangered and threatened species:

“Taxidermied migratory birds or migratory bird feathers and parts: With some limited exceptions, sale of any type prohibited regardless of age of the specimen. (Exceptions involve limited purchase and sale of certain captive-reared and sport-taken migratory waterfowl.)
Examples: Victorian songbird collections, vintage women’s hats, and feather boas. [My boldface]
Of course, you have to be able to recognize which feathers and furs are on the endangered or threatened list (a very long list, called CITES Appendix 1). Identifying them on vintage clothing is complicated by the very old practice of altering fur and feathers from common domestic species to resemble rare or exotic species. Is that a bald eagle feather [“Sale prohibited regardless of age”]  or a turkey feather that has been doctored to look like one? Could that vintage “jaguar skin” coat really be jaguar [prohibited,] or is it rabbit fur cleverly dyed?
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service says,
“For us to answer your questions accurately, you must be able to tell us the species involved, including the scientific name, if possible.” — “Can I Sell It?” Factsheet.
 What kind of “wolf” fur is this? Hint: It’s probably not Manchurian, and definitely not wolf. More like Rin Tin Tin.

Manchurian Wolf Dyed Dog Fur trimmed coat from Sears, 1931.

At least it’s not a member of an endangered Canis Lupus (i.e., wolf) family….

My mother, around 1945. Was she literally “putting on the dog?” (That expression — meaning “dressing to make a display of wealth” — dates to the 19th century.)

Another passage from the “Can I Sell It?” factsheet:

“Grizzly bear, jaguar, or other U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened: No interstate or international sale of any type regardless of age, without a permit. Sale within a State allowed unless prohibited under State law. Examples: Taxidermied specimens, rugs, clothing, and other fur articles.
Sometimes a permit is needed to sell products made from protected species. Trade is regulated by state, federal, and international agencies — so you need to check with all that apply.  Investigators from both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted the raid on Cicely Ann Hansen’s vintage clothing store.
If only it were possible to ask “The Bird on Nellie’s Hat” what species it is!
Women's hats with feathers, Delineator, Nov. 1917.

Women’s hats with feathers, Delineator, Nov. 1917. The mania for egret feathers on hats eventually led to the formation of the Audubon Society, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Read about it here.

In 1905, George Bernard Shaw complained to the management of an opera house about having to sit behind women who wore dead birds on their hats. To read his entertaining letter, click here.

Some Useful Links About Threatened and Endangered Species

Here is an endangered and threatened species list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It’s alphabetized by Latin names, but the common names are also given.
Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act include several kinds of egrets; a full endangered and protected birds list can be found by clicking here (common English and scientific names are given.)
Click here for an overview of the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) program. Unfortunately, the CITES appendices are in scientific classification format, so look up the scientific name for your problematic animal before visiting CITES. For example, search “Latin name for gray wolf” and you will find it is Canis Lupus. Then you will be able to find out if the animal is on an endangered species list.
But first, before you think of buying or selling, you need to identify what the garment or object is made of. The Vintage Fashion Guild Fur Resource can help you identify furs, crocodile, alligator, etc. The listings will expand if you click on the {…} symbol. Then, checking if you need a permit to sell your garment is up to you.

2 Comments

Filed under 1900s to 1920s, 1920s, 1920s-1930s, 1930s, 1930s-1940s, 1940s-1950s, 1950s-1960s, 1960s-1970s, Hats, Late Victorian fashions, Musings, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Resources for Costumers, Vintage Accessories, Vintage Garments: The Real Thing

The Second Dart: A 1920’s Pattern Alteration for Busty Women

“The Reason for the Second Dart,” by Sarah Churchill. From a series about sewing pattern alterations that appeared in Butterick’s Delineator magazine in the 1920’s. This is from the July 1927 issue, page 26.

We tend to think of nineteen twenties dresses as shapeless tubes, but that’s not necessarily true. Dresses might have shirring or smocking or pintucks to create a small amount of fullness over the bust, or they might have a small bust dart — or even two!

This brief article from Butterick’s Delineator magazine shows how to alter a dress pattern to accommodate a full breasted figure.

The woman with a lorgnette (!) advises her friend on the way to eliminate a fitting problem caused by a larger than average bust.

The cut out dress is pinned together and tried on inside out. You can see that the pattern does have a bust dart in the side seam, but the dress fits poorly. The side seam curves toward the front. (And the dart seems too high….)

” ‘I cut this dress by those instructions you are always cheering for,’ announced the young woman of the illustration, ‘but it scoops in under me in the back and sticks out in front, and whatever does this queer long wrinkle mean?’ It meant, that ‘queer’ wrinkle, running from the bust to the underarm seam in a long curving sweep, the the frock was pushed out of place by the bust. This in turn, meant that the bust is larger than is average. The type of figure which is very full in the bust is often correspondingly narrow through the back, and the sum total of inches registered by the tape measure will indicate an average size for a figure not actually average.” — Sarah Churchill

This reminds me of the fitting room saying that “The wrinkle points to the problem;” that long wrinkle starts at the side seam and points up, toward her bust point.

This woman does not have an “average” twenties’ figure. (And clearly, she is not wearing a bust flattener.)

The problem of buying patterns (or, worse, brassieres) by the measurement taken around the fullest part of the bust is not new to me. A friend who is 5′ 10″ and athletic wears a size 38 A bra. She has a big ribcage (37″), a broad back, and small breasts. But another woman who also measures 38 inches around the fullest part of the bust may have a narrow back, a 34 inch ribcage and large breasts. Her bra size would be 34 D. And that is the kind of figure that the woman in these illustrations has.

“However, all is not lost. The frock merely needs a little adjusting — another dart to the front at each side.”

The extra fabric that created the long wrinkle is pinched out by unpinning the side seam and creating a second bust dart, which pulls the side seam into a line perpendicular to the floor. Delineator article, July 1927.

“This gives the bust the room it needs and the frock falls as it should. The back is now an inch or so longer than the front. We shall cut this off with a free hand swing since it is a one-piece frock and no complications to be encountered, and all will be well. The frock now hangs smartly. In this case, chic depended on a little dart!” — Sarah Churchill, Delineator, July 1927, p. 26.

After the second dart is created, the side seam hangs correctly and the full bust does not distort the dress.

“To those who wonder why I did not deepen the dart already in the frock, I would point out that a second dart distributes the fullness with better effect. [W2F: I also suspect that, since the dress is already cut, there might not be enough seam allowance for one, deep dart.] However, if the frock had started out with two darts, I would have deepened both evenly…. For the depth of the dart, experiment until the frock hangs straight.” — Sarah Churchill

Churchill goes on to explain that, if the back of the dress were not one, simple piece — [if, perhaps, it had a hip girdle or a separate, pleated skirt piece] — then the whole back would need to be recut, eliminating the extra inch by placing the pattern on top of the fabric and recutting the neck, shoulder, and armholes to raise the back by an inch (or whatever length the extra dart had removed in front.)

Voila!

Before and after the dress alteration which added a second dart. Delineator, July 1927, p. 26.

For anyone who has ever struggled to recreate 1920’s styles — under the assumption that bust darts were never used — this advice from 1927 should make you feel better. Here’s a 1925 illustration of a suit from Chanel — with a bust dart.

https://witness2fashion.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1925-jan-designers-chanel.jpg?w=500

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under 1920s, Resources for Costumers, Tricks of the Costumer's Trade

Sized to Height Patterns from Butterick, 1948

The July 1948, cover of Butterick Fashion News was still introducing a new product: "Special" patterns for shorter women.

The July 1948, cover of Butterick Fashion News was still introducing a new product: “Special” patterns for shorter women.

I happen to have a group of Butterick Fashion News Flyers from 1948. For several months, “Sized to Height” patterns, or “Special Patterns,” were featured as an innovation which still needed some explanation. The February issue explained the concept several times.

Front cover of Butterick Fashion News, Feb. 1948. The suit on the left, No. 4422, was available in short and average patterns.

Front cover of Butterick Fashion News, Feb. 1948. The suit on the left, No. 4422, was available in both short and standard pattern sizes.

I don’t have a complete, consecutive run — just February, March, July and August of 1948 — but this “Special Patterns” or “Sized to Height” box appears on all four covers. (What I Found has a copy from 1947; that cover also mentions “shorter length” patterns.)

Special patterns for shorter women information box. Cover of Butterick Fashion News, February 1948.

Special patterns for shorter women, information box. Cover of Butterick Fashion News, February 1948.

Further explanation and examples appeared on facing pages 2 and 3.

Pages 2 & 3 featured patterns which could be ordered in sizes for women under 5' 5". BFN, Feb. 1948.

Pages 2 & 3 featured patterns which could be ordered in sizes for women under 5′ 5″. BFN, Feb. 1948.

If the pattern was available in both standard and shorter sizes, customers could order the shorter one by putting an “S” after the pattern number.

Page 3, BFN, Feb. 1948. These patterns for shorter women were described on page 2.

Page 3, BFN, Feb. 1948. These patterns for shorter women were described on (facing) page 2.

Here is the explanatory text from the top of page 2:

Text from top of page 2, BFN Feb. 1948.

Text from top of page 2, BFN Feb. 1948. “Special length … patterns are one inch shorter from neckline to waistline.”

Short pattern purchasing information, bottom of page 2, BFN, Feb. 1948.

Short pattern purchasing information, bottom of page 2, BFN, Feb. 1948.

Special Length patterns were shortened from the waist up, and were not aimed at stout or older women. (If the skirts were also proportionally shortened, Butterick didn’t mention it here.) Some of these patterns were illustrated twice in the same issue, once with the number followed by “S” and once as standard sized patterns. Starred numbers were available in both versions.

Butterick 4424 pattern for a suit with fitted jacket, available in average or short versions. Feb. 1948.

Butterick 4424 pattern for a suit with fitted jacket, available in standard  or short versions. Feb. 1948.

Butterick 4422; its hip-widening peplum shows "New Look" influence.

Butterick 4422; its hip-widening peplum shows “New Look” influence. Feb. 1948.

Both pink dresses are pattern 4419, in Average and shorter sizes.

More “New Look” influence. Both pink dresses are pattern 4419, in standard and shorter sizes. (The model looks long-waisted in both illustrations.) Center, Butterick 4431; perhaps its complex bodice design made it unsuitable for a shorter version.

I don’t know why dresses for larger women, like those on page six, below, were only aimed at women over 5′ 5″ in 1948.

Dresses for mature or large women, available to size 46. (The gray one was available up to size 50.) Shorter versions of these patterns were not mentioned. Feb. 1948.

Dresses for mature or large women, available to size 46. (The gray one was available up to size 50.) Shorter versions of these patterns were apparently not available. Feb. 1948.

It’s a mystery to me why a pattern company like Butterick did not always capitalize on the fact that many women — especially mature women — are both short and “stout.” You would think that women who are not standard sizes would be a perfect niche market for specially sized sewing patterns, but that isn’t the case here.  (Lynn at American Age Fashion has written about the development of “half-size” dresses and patterns several times.)

Butterick did sell such patterns earlier.  In the nineteen thirties,  Butterick had issued some patterns for “shorter women with larger hips.” In her History of the Paper Pattern Industry, Joy Spanabel Emery shows Companion-Butterick pattern No. 7586, from 1937; it is a “Frock for Shorter Women of Larger Hip.” See it at the Commercial Pattern Archive by clicking here. Another from BFN in 1937 was Butterick 7647, the gray dress shown below: dec 1937 BFn numbered no faces 500

Another pattern for Shorter Women of Larger Hip (No. 8014) was shown in the BFN for August 1938. I don’t have a complete run of Butterick Fashion News, but the idea of patterns for shorter women with larger hips appeared at least as early as February, 1933 (Butterick 4883.) See “Clothes for Clubwomen.” 

https://witness2fashion.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/1933-feb-p-77-text-4883-shorter-figure-large.jpg?w=500

I find them as late as Feb. 1940 (Butterick 8790) in my very limited collection.

I haven’t found that phrase in my 1948 flyers, however.

Some of the 1948 dresses on page 7 came in either standard or “special” versions; the text at the bottom of the page taught  customers how to order:

Page 7, Butterick Fashion News, Feb. 1948.

Page 7, Butterick Fashion News, Feb. 1948. A Star next to the number meant that the pattern could be ordered in short or standard versions.

Text, bottom of page 7. BFN Feb. 1948.

Text, bottom of page 7. BFN Feb. 1948.

Perhaps the “S” stood for “Special,” but I suspect that customers thought it meant “Short.”

In July, 1948, Butterick used the word “Petite” to describe these patterns. The expression may well have appeared earlier, but it’s the first time I’ve noticed it applied to Butterick patterns — so far. It’s definitely an improvement over “Special.” Too bad they didn’t think of it in time to indicate these patterns with a “P” instead of an “S.”

Butte4rick Patterns for "Petite" women, Butterick News Flyer, July 1948.

Butterick Patterns for “Petite” women, Butterick News Flyer, July 1948.

Incidentally, it seems incredible to me that for decades Butterick assumed its average customer was 5′ 5″ or over, even in the nineteen twenties, when some of the most glamorous women in Hollywood were tiny:  Gloria Swanson was 5′ 1″. Clara Bow was 5′ 3 1/2″. “Little Mary” Pickford was just over five feet. Louise Brooks? 5′ 2″. Pola Negri? Five feet exactly. Greta Garbo was considered tall — and criticized for her wide hips and big feet — at five foot seven and a half. In the 1920’s Butterick patterns for “small women” were literally small — maximum bust about 37″ — when the normal pattern run fit sizes up to 44″ bust, with some patterns available up to size 52.

There is a great essay (with charts) about pattern sizing here; a chart from a very flawed government study shows that the average American woman was 5′ 3″ in 1937.

After World War II, more statistics were available and led to more specialized pattern sizing. The excellent Midvale Cottage blog (which I just discovered) says that Butterick introduced half sizes (for women under 5′ 5″ who were shorter-waisted and larger in the waist and hip) in 1949. Click here for her history of 1940’s pattern sizing.

I’ll share  more fashions from 1948 in later posts. [As often happens, when I started this post, I didn’t remember Butterick’s Shorter/Larger patterns from the 1930’s — even though I had mentioned them in other posts. As a result of proofreading and checking facts, this post kept getting longer…. Caution:  my sample of Butterick flyers is hardly conclusive for real scholarship — Just full of interesting things to share.]

4 Comments

Filed under 1920s-1930s, 1930s-1940s, 1940s-1950s, Companion-Butterick Patterns, Resources for Costumers, Vintage patterns, Vintage Styles in Larger Sizes

Fashion Plates (for Men and Women) from the Met Costume Institute

1921 fashion plate from the Metropolitan Museum collection. Click here to see it in larger versions.

1921 fashion plate from the Metropolitan Museum collection. Click here to see it in larger versions.

The Metropolitan Museum continues its generous policy of sharing images online; “Fashion plates from the collections of the Costume Institute and the Irene Lewisohn Costume Reference Library at The Metropolitan Museum of Art” are now available (and searchable) at http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p15324coll12

Click here, and scroll down for a lengthy list of sub-collections of fashion plates: menswear, children, wedding, women, headgear, etc., organized by date or range of dates.

What really excited me is the large number of men’s fashion plates, many dated very precisely, like these tennis outfits from 1905-06.

Men's tennis outfits, 1905 1906; Metropolitan Museum Fashion Plates collection. Plate 029.

Men’s tennis outfits, 1905-1906; Metropolitan Museum Fashion Plates Collection. Plate 029. For full image, click here.

If you need to skim through a year or a decade of men’s fashion, this is a great place! It’s also going to be very helpful to collectors who are trying to date specific items of men’s clothing. Sometimes the date range given is very narrow (e.g., 1905-06) and sometimes it’s rather broad (e.g., 1896 to 1913) but menswear is neglected by many costume collections, so this is a terrific resource.

Vintage vests for men. Undated. Details like the lapels, the shape of the waist, the depth of the opening, the buttons, etc., will help to date them from reference materials

Vintage evening vests for men. Undated. Details like the lapels, the shape of the waist, the depth of the opening, the buttons, etc., will help the collector to date them from reference materials.

In addition to full outfits, like these evening clothes …

Evening dress for men, 1909-1910. Met Museum Costume Plate.

Evening dress for men, 1909-1910. Met Museum Costume Plate.

… individual items like vests can also be found:

Men's vests; fashion plate from the Met Museum fashion plate collection category "1900-1919 men"

Men’s vests; fashion plate from the Met Museum fashion plate collection category “1900-1919 men.” The vests on the left have five buttons.

Undated vintage vests. Both have high necklines, but one has seven buttons instead of six.

Undated vintage vests. Both have high necklines, but one has seven buttons and one has six. You could probably date them from the Met’s Fashion Plate Collection.

Men's vests 1896 to 1899. The red one reminds us that vests (aka weskits) sometimes had sleeves.

From “Men 1896 to 1899.” The red one reminds us that vests (aka weskits) sometimes had sleeves. The red one with vertical stripes may be a footman’s or other servant’s vest. This plate is dated February 1898.

Of course, fashion plates that have been separated from their descriptions in text are less useful than a complete magazine or catalog. Nevertheless, I’m grateful for the chance to see these rare collections, especially because the men are not forgotten.

This delightful plate reminds me of an Edward Gorey vamp — like the ones dancing through the credits on Mystery on Public Television.

A long evening gown from the House of Worth, 1921. Met Museum Costume Collection Fashion Plate.

A long evening gown from the House of Worth, 1921. Met Museum Costume Institute Fashion Plate.

I’ll add a link to the collection to my “Sites with Great Information” sidebar. (There are other treasures to explore there….)

 

1 Comment

Filed under 1700s, 1800s-1830s, 1830s -1860s fashions, 1860s -1870s fashions, 1870s to 1900s fashions, 1900s to 1920s, 1920s, 1930s, Children's Vintage styles, Costumes for the 18th Century, Costumes for the 19th century, Early Victorian fashions, Exhibitions & Museums, Late Victorian fashions, Men's Formalwear & Evening, Men's Sportswear, Menswear, Mid-Victorian fashions, Resources for Costumers, Suits for Men, Vintage Couture Designs, Vintage Garments: The Real Thing, Wedding Clothes

Annie Jenness-Miller’s Editorial, Dress, March 1890

“It is not to be questioned that all women, without regard to social position, or lack of it, would rather be comfortable than uncomfortable, and the woman who does not wish to look well is sadly out of balance with the beautiful laws of God and Nature.” — Annie Jenness-Miller, in Dress, March 1890.

Annie Jenness-Miller explained her ideas about reforming women’s dress in lectures, in books, and, repeatedly, in her magazine, Dress. This three-page editorial appeared in March, 1890. I will type out some quotations, and add some illustrations from the same issue of Dress magazine. I will run the entire text of her “Editorial Comment” at the bottom of this post. If you would like to read the complete pages in full screen, I have posted them at witness2fashion.com. Just click on the image of the page and then select the full-screen view.

Editorial Comments by Annie Jenness-Miller in Dress, Volume IV, March, 1890. The comments ran from page 135 through 137.

Editorial Comments by Annie Jenness-Miller in Dress, Volume IV, March, 1890. The comments ran from page 135 [this page] through 137.

On page 135 she writes, “Dress reform is scarcely the work in which we are engaged, for the idea is less of reform than of physical evolution and development, and the consequent scientific clothing of the body.”

“For the most part, women wear too many garments…. With the Jenness-Miller system we endeavor to get the essential warmth with fewer garments, and the correct adaptation to the human shape and form….” To see and read about her Reform Underwear — click here.

On page 136, Jenness-Miller explains that Jenness-Miller Patterns, which could be ordered from the magazine, do not constrict the waist, because the garments are constructed upon the “gown-form, which gets rid of the band about the waist” instead of “the usual skirt lining ending at the waist on a belt.”

To show what she was criticizing, here are some typical late 1800’s outfits which have separate skirts and bodices. The weight of a fully lined bustle dress, like this one, which would usually be worn over drawers, a petticoat, a bustle cage, and another petticoat, all hanging from the wearer’s waist, could give you quite a backache. Jenness-Miller was an American; in England, rational dress advocate Lady Florence Harberton complained that no woman should have to wear undergarments that weighed more than seven pounds.

This "bustle dress," either 1870s or 1880s, is really a bodice and skirt -- a heavy skirt. Private collection.

This “bustle dress,” is really a bodice and skirt — a heavy skirt. Private collection. [Elaborate — and sun-faded — as it is, I’m not convinced that this is as old as it looks. See inside.]

Inside of the bodice, blue satin bustle dress. Private collection.

Inside of the bodice, blue satin bustle dress. This was in a private collection. [I’m a little dubious about the age of the boning…. Looks like a theatrical costume to me….]

In the two-piece outfit below, which is somewhat later than the Jenness-Miller magazine, the weight of the skirt — or raising your arms — could create a problem, since the bodice does not come down over the hips to cover the waistband at all times, causing “gaposis.”

When the bodice ends at the natural waist, as in this ToC outfit, hooks and eyes were needed to keep them together. Private collection.

When the bodice ended at the natural waist, as in this turn of the century outfit, hooks and eyes were needed to keep them together. Private collection.

The problem of “gaposis” [a 20th century advertising term] was solved by attaching hooks and loops:

Inside back of bodice, ToC garment.

Inside back of bodice, turn of the century garment — not dated precisely.

Detail. You can see the hooks, which are attached to the bodice facing in and hanging down, and the eyes, attached to the waistband of the skirt. This kept the two pieces aligned and gave some support to the skirt, which could be especially heavy in back from the 1860s through the 1890s. (Many devices for supporting the skirt have been invented.)

Detail. Back of bodice, front of skirt. You can see the hooks, which are attached to the bodice facing in and hanging down, and the eyes, attached to the waistband of the skirt, front and back. This kept the two pieces aligned and gave some support to the skirt, which could be especially heavy in back from the 1860s through the 1890s. (Many devices for supporting the skirt have been invented.)

 

“The gown form is the lining of the outside skirt, just as the usual skirt lining is the foundation upon which the outside material is made. In the ordinary fashionable gown the lining and material hang upon the hip, abdomen, and back, from a belt; in the Jenness-Miller system the lining extends upward into a low-necked, sleeveless waist [i.e., under-bodice], the dress material only ending at the waistline, sewed firmly to the foundation, and with a tape covering the raw edges. This arrangement does not suspend the weight from the shoulders, but instead, compels each member to carry its own weight.”

I interpret this to mean that “the dress material only” ends at the waistline, while the gown-form/lining continues down inside the skirt from shoulders to hem, spreading the weight of the fabrics. Some, but by no means all, of the Jenness-Miller patterns look like a “dress” rather than a skirt and bodice.

Following are some Jenness-Miller patterns from Dress, Vol IV, March 1890, the same issue which featured her three-page editorial.

Jenness-Miller pattern for "The Isonde." Dress, March 1890.

Jenness-Miller pattern for “The Isonde.” Dress, March 1890.

Two Easter Costumes, from Dress. Frontispiece, March 1890.

Two Easter Costumes, from Jenness-Miller’s Dress. Frontispiece, March 1890.

The fact that the skirt lining extended to the shoulders is not obvious from the outside of the dresses.

Alas, I have only a fragment about the Jenness-Miller gown-form from elsewhere in the magazine:

A fragment of text about the Jenness-Miller dress form (a lining method) from March 1890, page 128.

A fragment of text about the Jenness-Miller dress form (a lining method) from March 1890, page 128.

My guess at the missing parts is:

A possible reconstruction of missing text about the Jennes-Miller gown-form.

A possible reconstruction of missing text about the Jenness-Miller gown-form.

The Faustina, Dress, March 1890, p. 132.

The Faustina, Jenness-Miller’s Dress, March 1890, p. 132.

The Lilian dress was "designed for the benefit of those women whose constant plaint is that they have no hips." Dress, March 1890, p. 128.

The Lilian dress was “designed for the benefit of those women whose constant plaint is that they have no hips.” Jenness-Miller’s Dress, March 1890, p. 128.

The Cornelia, from Jenness-Miller's Dress. March 1890.

The Cornelia, from Jenness-Miller’s Dress. March 1890.

Calling a Leg a Leg

A woman paying a call, from Punch, July 1889. The hostess is sitting with her legs crossed, and slouching on her tailbone in a way Mrs. Jenness-MIller would not have approved. From The Way to Wear'em.

A woman paying a call, from Punch, July 1889. The hostess is sitting with her legs crossed, and slouching on her tailbone in a way that Mrs. Jenness-Miller would not have approved. From The Way to Wear’em.

“What these women really need to learn is not to sit on the end of the spine with the back curved outward….”

Casting light on the prudery of her era, on page 136 Annie Jenness-Miller’s editorial criticizes women “who would be shocked to use the strong, refined, and proper term, leg, in speaking of these useful and necessary members,” but who “will, in a thoughtless and unguarded moment, from habit, sit in a parlor with legs crossed in a manner to display the undergarments and attract unpleasant attention.”  (Those shockable women called their legs “members” or “nether limbs.”)

The Jenness-Miller School for Physical Culture

On page 137, the editor discusses her “Jenness-Miller School for Physical Culture.” She believed that women would be able to do without corsets if they strengthened the muscles of the abdomen through exercise, giving “nature’s own corsets, the floating ribs, room and freedom for proper play.” (Dress had pages of exercises for women illustrated in regular articles called “Physical Culture.”)

“The three-fold object of our system is the possession of grace, strength, and beauty…. No exercises will be allowed which sacrifice grace to strength…. Ease and freedom in motion will be taught by a variety of movements [including dance.] “Fencing, so admirably adapted to develop and fortify the chest, as well as to give agility and precision to movement, will be taught by Monsieur Senac, who has no rival in this art.”

“A form of Greek gown will be used in lieu of the suit ordinarily worn in athletic practice. This will fall loosely from the shoulder in graceful lines which will reveal the movements of the legs.”

Here is the full text, beginning with the left column on page 135:

art 1 135 maybe editoral underwear pg 1 March 1890

art 2 135 maybe editoral underwear pg 1 March 1890

art 3 135 maybe editoral underwear pg 1 March 1890

art 4 135 maybe editoral underwear pg 1 March 1890

art 6 135 maybe editoral underwear pg 1 March 1890

Page 136:

art 7 p 136 editorial undies p 2

art 8 136 editorial undies p 2

art 9 136 editorial undies p 2

art 10 136 editorial undies p 2

art 11 136 editorial undies p 2

art 15 136 editorial undies p 2

Page 137:

art 16 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 17 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 18 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 19 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 20 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 21 137 editorial undies fencing p3

art 22 137 editorial undies fencing p3

End of page 137. These three pages of Editorial Comment were not illustrated, since the garments referred to had been described in earlier issues of the magazine. Monsieur Regis Senac ran a fencing school in New York. Carl Marwig was a dance teacher and Broadway choreographer.

 

3 Comments

Filed under 1870s to 1900s fashions, A Costumers' Bookshelf, Costumes for the 19th century, Dresses, Late Victorian fashions, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Resources for Costumers, Underthings, Hosiery, Corsets, etc, Vintage Garments: The Real Thing, Vintage patterns

Chic Wigs for September, 1927

Transformations in the mode of the present day.... All the pictures are of the same charming woman. Top of page 37, Delineator, September, 1927.

Transformations in the mode of the present day…. All the pictures are of the same charming woman. Top of page 37, Delineator, September, 1927.

Yes, fashion wigs, or “transformations,” as they were called, allowed a woman to change her hair color and hairstyle to suit her mood in the 1920’s. This full page of transformations, from Delineator, September, 1927, shows five wigs, all on the same model.

"A deep wave accents the gold in blonde hair." Delineator, Sep.t 1927, p. 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

“A deep wave accents the gold in blonde hair.” Delineator, Sept. 1927, p. 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

She doesn’t seem blonde to me, but that is a lovely hairstyle, and no one would guess it wasn’t her own hair.

500 blond hair wig 1927 sept p 37 transformations one model many wigs white silver page

“At the top of the page is a blonde bob, the only bob in the group. The other transformations all have the small knot at the neck. This transformation is parted far on the left, drawn low on one side of the forehead and low over the ears.”

text of article delineator sept 1927 p 37

“In the center, dark brown hair, parted a little on the right is brought low on the forehead in the curled fringe one sees so often on the smart Parisienne. Faintly serious, a  little demure, there is yet a piquancy about this transformation.”

A dark brown wig with "curled fringe." Delineator, Sept 1927. Photo by Johnston.

A dark brown wig with “curled fringe.” Delineator, Sept 1927. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

“The silver head is so lovely that we couldn’t resist showing you two views of it.”

A silver wig for women sixteen or sixty, Delineator, Sept. 1927, p 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston

A silver wig for women of sixteen or sixty, Delineator, Sept. 1927, p 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston

“There is an enchantment and coquetry in silver locks. Whether one is sixteen or sixty, pure white hair deepens the color and adds brilliance to eyes, and the skin becomes more delicately pink and glowing. [18th century aristocrats wore white wigs, or powdered their hair, to get this look.] Here the wave is very wide so that the shadows will not lose their subtlety.”

A white wig worn by a young woman, Delineator, Sept. 1927. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

A white wig worn by a young woman, Delineator, Sept. 1927. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

A dark wig with a tiny bun low on the neck in back. September, 1917, Delineator, page 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

Formal elegance: A dark wig with a tiny bun low on the neck in back. September, 1917, Delineator, page 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

“…A transformation is arranged with simple elegance for a formal occasion. The contour of the head is closely followed and an air of extreme dignity is attained.”

A chestnut wig, Delineator, Sept. 1927. Page 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

A chestnut wig, Delineator, Sept. 1927. Page 37. Photo by Alfred Cheney Johnston.

“… A soft chestnut coiffure is very graceful. It has a flattering soft bang, covers the ears and has the small chignon, which is most attractive.”

Credits for the "transformations" photo shoot.

Credits for the “transformations” photo shoot in 1927.

Wig tips for costumers:  If you have ever worn a wig, you’ll know that it will look most realistic if the hair is not swept straight back from the hairline, but has at least a few hairs covering the forehead where the wig begins — something all these “transformations” have in common. They were intended to be worn in private life, and seen from inches away.  “Movie wigs” and good theatrical wigs have a delicate flesh-toned mesh at the front, with individual hairs “ventilated” into the mesh — The process is much like making a hooked rug (a very tiny one, with hairs instead of yarn.) This mesh can then be glued to the actor’s forehead, and looks very realistic — although I don’t know how HDTV is affecting that! Sean Connery’s crew-cut gray wig in the movie Red October was amazingly convincing — My husband and I came out of the movie talking about that wig!

If you can’t afford a high quality wig to wear with your off-the face-Gibson girl updo, try positioning a Gibson styled wig the same color as your hair slightly behind your hairline. Use a rat-tailed comb to pull about a quarter inch of your own hair out from under the wig cap, and carefully brush it into the hair of the wig before spraying it.

11 Comments

Filed under 1920s, 1920s-1930s, Cosmetics, Beauty Products, Hairstyles, Resources for Costumers, Tricks of the Costumer's Trade, Vintage Accessories, vintage photographs

Jenness-Miller Rational Dress Underwear for Women

The Jenness-Miller Magazine Dress, Vol II, Jan-Feb, Probably 1888. Page 181. "Rational Dress" Underwear for Women.

The Jenness-Miller Magazine Dress, Vol II, Jan-Feb, probably 1888. Page 181. “Rational Dress” Underwear for Women.

The Jenness-Miller Magazine Dress, Vol. II, Jan-Feb, probably 1888. "Rational Dress" Underwear for Women, p. 182.

The Jenness-Miller Magazine Dress, Vol. II, Jan-Feb, probably 1888. “Rational Dress” Underwear for Women, p. 182.

Annie Jenness-Miller was a strong advocate for “Rational Dress” for women, and, with her sister, Mabel Jenness, wrote and published her own magazine, called Dress, probably beginning in 1887. [The title and dating of early issues was erratic, but I am assuming that, since Volume 4 began with January of 1890, Volume 2, January-February dates to 1888. The masthead of Volume II offered “the entire first volume of Dress, thirteen numbers” for seventy-five cents plus postage. By January 0f 1890, the dating clearly was established, and most pages were numbered.]

Several years ago, I was selling a bound volume of Jenness-Miller’s Dress for a friend. It included January-February of “Volume II,” and January through June of of Volume IV. At the time I had no idea of blogging, so I did not label my photos with year, month and page number. I just tried to photograph “selling points.”

Recently a scholar tracked me down and asked for more specific information. When I checked my photo files, I realized that, because I had photographed all the Tables of Contents, I could reconstruct Volume numbers, pages and dates for many items.

As often happens with the internet — at least to me — I find something online, and then discover, months or years later, that I can’t get the same search results a second time. I thought that this underwear article by Annie Jenness-Miller had been posted online in its entirety — but now I can’t find it, so, for the benefit of scholars, I’m reprinting it. And, since WordPress seems to lose files bigger than 500 dpi on the longest side after I post them, I have reprinted the text and pictures from those two pages shown at the top of this post, but broken them up into legible segments.

Here is the article “Underwear for Women,” from The Jenness-Miller Magazine Dress, Vol. II, Jan-Feb, (probably 1888,) pp. 181-82. [Added 8/19/16: You can also find the article, in full page photos that can be enlarged to readable scale, at witness2fashion.com. ]

500 text first para and union suit 1988 Vol II p 181

Jenness-Miller Union Suit, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine.

Jenness-Miller Union Suit, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine,, p. 181.

500 test chemilette over union suit prob 1888 Vol II p 181 underwear Img_9588

Jenness-Miller Chemilette, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine.

Jenness-Miller Chemilette, from “Underwear for Women,” Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine, p.181.

500 text legelettes only prob 1888 Vol II p 181 underwear Img_9588

 

Jenness-Miller Turkish Leglettes, or Divided Petticoat, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine.

Jenness-Miller Turkish Leglettes, or Divided Petticoat, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine, p. 182.

500 text bodice only prob 1888 Vol II p 181 underwear Img_9588

Jenness-Miller Model Bodice, from Underwear for Women, Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine.

Jenness-Miller Model Bodice, from “Underwear for Women,” Jan-Feb 1888 Dress Magazine, p. 182. A slightly different model bodice appears here.

500 text from 181 bottom to 182 top 1888 Vol II

500 text chemilette prob 1888 Vol II p 182 underwear Img_9589

500 text turkish leglettes 1888 Vol II p 182

500 w model bodice text prob 1888 Vol II p 182 underwear Img_9589

500 text all garments togetherprob 1888 Vol II p 182 underwear Img_9589

Last paragraphs of Underwear for Women article, Dress. p 182.

Last paragraphs of “Underwear for Women” article, Dress, page 182.

[I don’t know how a woman wearing a “Union Suit,” under a “Chemilette,” under “Turkish Leglettes,” manages to go to the bathroom. Journalistic standards of the day may have prevented discussing this. In a different article [March 1890, page 136] Jenness-Miller felt the need to remind her readers that many women “would be shocked to use the strong, refined, and proper term, leg” so explaining the convenience of drop flaps and buttoned crotches may have been impossible. The Jenness-Miller garments do not appear to be crotchless, as many ladies’ bloomers were.]

Annie-Jenness Miller wrote frequent editorials in Dress, extolling her patterns and expounding her theories. She believed that women needed to exercise to develop graceful, healthy bodies that would not need the support of corsets, and her magazine published regular articles on “Physical Culture.”

A typical illustration from Jenness-Miller's articles on Physical Culture for women. Circa 1888-1890

A typical illustration from Jenness-Miller’s articles on Physical Culture for women. Dress, circa 1888-1890.

“By freeing and bringing into action the muscles at the waist renewed life is given to all bodily functions.”

She also realized that most women would like to wear comfortable and practical clothing, but without looking noticeably out of fashion, so many of her patterns look very similar to chic clothing of the day.  This is “the Helene” (her dress patterns were often given names, rather than numbers, like couture.)

Although part of the Rational Dress movement, "The Helene" costume even had a vestigial bustle. From Jenness-Miller's Dress magazine, Jan. 1890, p. 41.

Although part of the Rational Dress movement, “The Helene” costume even had a vestigial bustle. From Jenness-Miller’s Dress magazine, Jan. 1890, p. 41.

Miller did not want her customers to be ridiculed, as women who wore 1850’s “Bloomer” clothing had been. Jenness-Miller’s followers wore her petticoat replacement, “Turkish leglettes,” under their dress — invisibly — rather than wearing a divided dress — except for really strenuous sports, like mountain climbing. Below, Jenness-Miller “Outing Costumes” from April 1890 are — from left to right — “For Geologists and Mountain Climbing,” “Riding Habit,” “Yachting,” and “Lawn Tennis.”

Jenness-Miller costumer for Mountain climbing, riding, yachting, and lawn tennis, from Dress, April 1890.

Jenness-Miller costumer for Mountain climbing, riding, yachting, and lawn tennis, from Dress, April 1890.

I’ll publish another of her complete articles later, but for now, if you want to know more about Annie Jenness-Miller and Dress, I recommend these sites:

Annie Jenness Miller: Dress Reform, from Dress, 1888

Dress Improvement, by Mrs. Jenness Miller, in A Celebration of Women Writers

Aesthetic Dress (for an overview of 19th century dress reform movements, with a useful bibliography)

and, of course, The Vintage Traveler’s post about Mrs. Jenness-Miller, where you will see bigger images and more quotations.

Incidentally, one reason it’s hard to find articles about Jenness-Miller online is that hyphen! Search both with and without it.

7 Comments

Filed under 1870s to 1900s fashions, Corselettes, Corsets, Corsets, Corsets & Corselettes, Costumes for the 19th century, Late Victorian fashions, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Resources for Costumers, Slips and Petticoats, Sportswear, Underthings, Underthings, Hosiery, Corsets, etc