Category Archives: Hosiery & Stockings

Some Maternity Clothes of the 1920’s and 1930’s

Ad for Lane Bryant maternity apparel, Vogue, 1920, Feb. 1, pg. 141

Ad for Lane Bryant maternity apparel, Vogue, 1920, Feb. 1, pg. 141

I’ve never been pregnant, so I have no experience with wearing maternity clothes. However, a few weeks ago I was trying to learn to use the ProQuest search engine (courtesy of my public library.) Under “Fashion,” I typed in “maternity.”  I now have quite a collection of articles giving maternity fashion advice from the 1920’s and 1930’s — and haven’t even begun to explore the decades before and after. The emphasis on “concealment” is striking.

Ad for Lane Bryant Maternity catalog, May, 1931.

“Designed to conceal condition and to provide for expansion. “Ad for Lane Bryant Maternity catalog, Good Housekeeping, May, 1931.

“Clothes that are designed solely for maternity wear are apt to look the part, and call attention to a woman’s condition. At this time you do not want to be conspicuous in any way. You want to look as much like other women as possible so there will be nothing to draw notice to you. It is much better to choose current styles that can be adapted to maternity wear and use them in preference to special maternity clothes.” — The New Dressmaker, circa 1921, from Butterick Publishing Company via Hearth.

(Nevertheless, Lane Bryant had been selling maternity clothes since the early 1900s. See the company history at Funding Universe. (Caution from McAfee security about some ads on that site.)

AD for Lane Bryant Maternity catalog, Good Housekeeping, May 1930.

“Dresses and Corsets in latest modes, designed to conceal condition.” Ad for Lane Bryant Maternity catalog, Good Housekeeping, May 1930.

Ad for Lane Bryant maternity catalog, Good Housekeeping, January 1932.

“Maternity apparel with no maternity look… conceals condition.” Ad for Lane Bryant maternity catalog, Good Housekeeping, January 1932.

Of course, clothes that could also be worn after the baby was born were a good thing for the budget.

Confinement: Confined to Home

I’ve read enough Victorian novels to realize that women in the upper levels of society were expected to stop appearing in public once their condition became obvious — perhaps because contemporary fashion simply couldn’t accommodate an eight or nine-month baby bump, but also because this evidence of sexual activity was considered distasteful. (Playwright Louise Lewis discusses the old ceremony of “Churching” women to purify them after childbirth here;  however, the ceremony was not exclusive to  Catholics. A much more detailed examination of the practice can be found here.)

Modern mothers who are expected to leave the hospital the day after birth and resume their normal work routine may feel envious of women who once were expected to rest for a few days — or weeks. Depending on the era and region, a woman might be “confined” to her home for several weeks either before or after giving birth. (A brief article summarizing Victorian pregnancy practices for the upper classes can be found here. Queen Victoria herself gave birth nine times.)

In an era when paying and receiving “calls” occupied a good portion of a lady’s week, receiving callers — in a tasteful tea-gown — meant that the mother-to-be was not completely cut off from social activity; friends came to her. Elegant tea-gowns or dinner-gowns were still prescribed in the 1920’s and 1930s.

Store-bought Dinner-gowns suggested for maternity wear; Vogue magazine, 1924 and 1928

Store-bought dinner-gowns or tea-gowns suggested for maternity wear; Vogue magazine, 1924 and 1928. The surplice line, right, (a diagonal front opening closed at the side) was often recommended for maternity wear. (I can just imagine those sleeves trailing through the soup….)

By sheer serendipity, you can read about tea-gowns from 1915 at American Age Fashion.

But what about daytime maternity dresses in the nineteen twenties? That tubular style, the distinctive low waist-line — often accented by a snug horizontal belt or band — how did that work with a baby aboard?

Three semi-made dresses, Good Housekeeping, March 1927, p. 64. The one on the right is a maternity dress.

Three semi-made dresses, Good Housekeeping, March 1927, p. 64. The one on the right is a maternity dress. Sizes 14 to 44, $12.50. [This is a good example of why I hate microfilmed magazines! They do not digitize well….]

Here are three Vogue patterns from 1927. Find the maternity dress:

Vogue patterns 9462, 9457, and 9463. July, 1928. One is a maternity dress pattern.

Vogue patterns 9462, 9457, and 9463. July, 1928. One is a maternity dress pattern.

Vogue, July 1928, page 75.

Vogue, July 1928, page 75. Frock 9463, on the right, is a maternity pattern for sizes 14 to 46. [Sizes 14, 16, 18 and 20 were for teens and small women. Average sizes were sold by bust measure, e.g., 46 inches.] The dress in the middle is for teens to age/size 17.

At least No. 9463 has a hem that dips in front — which would become level as the abdomen grew. It does not appear to have a pleat or seam in back which could be let out for increasing girth. Perhaps the entire bulge was supposed to go above the low belt. No. 9463 was also recommended for “the large woman,” as if a pregnant woman’s weight gain was distributed equally all over her body.

Earlier in the 1920s, Good Housekeeping offered a pattern for this maternity dress in an article about its construction. Oddly, the pleated panels seem to be decorative, rather than a means of expansion.

A maternity pattern from Good Housekeeping, August 1923.

A maternity pattern from Good Housekeeping, August 1923.

“The pattern for this dress is cut in twelve pieces, as follows: two waist [bodice] sections; two sleeves; two skirt sections; a vest; a girdle [sash]; two strips for plaited panels for waist and skirt (front and back); a plaited [pleated] collar; and band for elastic. The front waist [bodice] section has a dart which takes care of some of the extra fullness thrown in to allow for the development of the figure. The front skirt section is wider than the waist [bodice] section after the dart is taken up, but this extra fullness may be adjusted at the hip and under the pleated panels, to be let out when it becomes necessary to open the dart in the waist. The front skirt section also has an extension at the top, which can be let down as necessary to adjust to the figure.”

Adding about three inches to the top of the center front of the skirt in a curve which tapers to nothing at the sides  is actually a clever idea (if you don’t mind taking the dress apart at the waist seam every few weeks) since it adds length at the waist in front, keeping the hem even and untouched.

The girdle [sash] “should fold over at the hips, not tie. The ends should come well down the length of the skirt.” “Have strips for panels hemstitched and then plaited — fine knife plaiting which can be done by any of the small shops or by a department store. Be sure to caution the worker” that the pleats in the two panels should not all run in the same direction, but folding toward or away from each other. — Laura I. Baldt, “How to Make a Smart Maternity Frock” in Good Housekeeping, August 1923.

In July of 1926 Professor Baldt recommended this maternity pattern, also available from Good Housekeeping.

A Good Housekeeping maternity pattern, July 1926, p. 79.

A Good Housekeeping maternity pattern, July 1926, p. 79. (Sorry for the photo quality.)

“It is a loose-fitting model, easy to put on and take off, and, with a few alterations from time to time, it may be adjusted to the figure quite easily.” “When it is necessary, the darts in the waist [bodice] lining may be let out; the plaits in the vest may be let out and also in the skirt, the last one being laid much deeper than the others for this purpose.The hem on the front of the tunic may be let out also, as it has a generous hem allowance to provide for this.”– p. 164

These made-to-order “Practical maternity clothes” could be ordered from Good Housekeeping Shopping Service in 1925.

Practical maternity dresses from Good Housekeeping, February 1925, p. 62.

Practical maternity dresses from Good Housekeeping, February 1925, p. 62.

“The dress above is a dark blue (also comes in black or brown) crepe de Chine coat effect over a beige under-dress, 36 to 46, $20.50. Gown at right is also of crepe de Chine, all colors, 32 to 42, $49.50. Both models are excellent in line for maternity purposes.”

They would have been worn over a maternity corset — thought necessary for healthy support — like these:

"Maternity girdle with front and back lacings is of pink satin, $10. Back-lace maternity corset of brocade damask, $10. Brassiere $3.50. Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1925, p. 62.

“Maternity girdle with front and back lacings is of pink satin, $10. Back-lace maternity corset of brocade damask, $10. Brassiere $3.50. Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1925, p. 62.

Side views of maternity corset,girdle, an brassiere, Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1925.

Side views of maternity brassiere, girdle, and corset. Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1925.

Lane Bryant maternity corset ad, Vogue, Nov. 15, 1925, p. 159.

Lane Bryant maternity corset ad, Vogue, Nov. 15, 1925, p. 159.

Some fun, huh?

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under 1920s, 1920s-1930s, 1930s, Bras, Corsets, Corsets, Foundation Garments, Girdles, Hosiery & Stockings, Maternity clothes, Nightclothes and Robes, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Underthings, Vintage patterns, Vintage Styles in Larger Sizes

Dressed for the Snow, circa 1930

Ollie in the snow, February, 1931. Notice her mannish tie and jodhpurs, and that great knit scarf.

Ollie in the snow, February, 1931. Notice her mannish tie and jodhpurs, and that great knit scarf and patterned socks.

I’m combining these nineteen thirties’ vintage photos of friends enjoying the snow with my annual reminder that the holiday season, with gatherings of far-flung friends and relations, is the perfect time to spend an hour going through old photos with your oldest (and young) friends and relatives. It’s a time to remember those who are gone, celebrate their good times, laugh over the fashions we wore, and — while you’re at it — to put dates and names and comments on the backs of the photos with a pencil or acid-free pen!

My mother in Yosemite, 1930. "Finally enticed the big fellow with sugar lump -- got my fingers nipped."

My mother in Yosemite, 1930. “Finally enticed the big fellow with sugar lump — got my fingers nipped.”

This picture was taken before my parents were married, and long before I was born. My mother died when I was eight, but I get to know her a little better when she ‘speaks’ through old photographs.

And, of course, I love looking at the clothes!

Sisters, about 1930. Both have dressed for the snow in wool jodhpurs, boots, shirts, neckties, wool caps, and matching, brushed wool sweaters in different colors.

Sisters, about 1930. Both have dressed for the snow in wool jodhpurs, wool socks, boots, shirts, neckties, knit wool caps, and matching, brushed wool sweaters in different colors.

I know that those jodhpurs were made of heavy, tightly woven wool twill, with many hard-to-fasten buttons down the leg, because my mother still had hers in the 1950s, and I wore them. The twill was so tight that they were almost waterproof.

Weekends in the Snow

In the nineteen twenties and thirties, the automobile — and the train — made it possible for office workers like my aunt and my mother to take weekend trips to “the snow.” Snow almost never falls near San Francisco [just three times in the last century,] but the Sierra mountains were only a few hours away. These photos show groups of friends and co-workers, on trips to Truckee, Tahoe and Yosemite between 1929 and 1931. (If the picture had a processing date on the back, that is the date given, although photos were not always developed the month they were taken! You waited until the whole roll of film was used, which could be weeks later.)

"This sled meets train and takes you to [Tahoe] Tavern. Horses have bells on them, and everybody sings Jingle Bells." 1930.

“This sled meets train and takes you to [Tahoe] Tavern. Horses have bells on them, and everybody sings Jingle Bells.” Written on back of photo. 1930.

[You can still take Amtrak from the San Francisco Bay Area through Truckee and the Lake Tahoe Area, to Reno and points East. It’s a great alternative to driving in the snow, and you can fully enjoy the scenery — and spare a thought for the thousands of Chinese immigrants who built that awe-inspiring railroad through the Sierra Mountains.]

This postcard shows the Tahoe Tavern in 1930; my mother wrote “our room” pointing to a window fringed with icicles at lower right.

Postcard of Tahoe Tavern mailed in 1930.

Postcard of Tahoe Tavern mailed in 1930.

Tourists watching a dogsled race in Tahoe, dated February 1931.

Tourists watching a dogsled race in Tahoe, dated February 1931.

Most of the spectators are dressed for the city, not for skiing.  Tahoe was an easy weekend getaway by train in the nineteen twenties and thirties. You could make a few snowballs, have dinner and drinks with friends, and be home the next day.

These photos of my family and their friends show that some people “went to the snow” often enough to justify buying an appropriate outfit, but others just wore what they already had, like “Dip,” in his office slacks and hat (and round tortoise shell frames, like Harold Lloyd.)

"Dip" and Ollie, Feb. 1931.

“Dip” and Ollie, Feb. 1931.

In this photo. . .

Jonnie and Ollie, February 1931. Ollie looks warm. Jonnie looks cold.

Jonnie and Ollie, February 1931. Ollie looks warm. Jonnie looks cold.

. . .we can see that Ollie is wearing a late 1920’s suit jacket — with nifty double patch pockets — over a sweater and shirt, with tweedy golf knickers, and a different wool scarf. It’s possible that the knickers and jacket were a set; you could buy three matching pieces — jacket, skirt, and knickers — in the 1920’s. Jonnie, on the other hand, looks like he’s wearing his normal, mild-climate work clothes. Brrrr.

My Uncle Holt sometimes dressed for a weekend in the snow as if he were heading for the the golf course:

Is he dressed for snow or golf? 1929 to 1931.

Is he dressed for snow or golf? 1929 to 1931.

He was a bit of a dandy — a soldier who had his uniforms tailored for him — and here he looks like a silent-film movie director:

Holt in a suede jacket, March 1931.

Holt in a suede jacket, March 1931.

Here, Holt is sandwiched between his wife and sister-in-law; you can see that the two women have matching striped sweaters. My aunt had several 1930’s pieces in her cedar chest — including wool socks –with a color scheme of cream, burnt orange, and dark olive green; I wouldn’t be surprised if those were the colors on her sweater.

Dot, Holt, and Toots. Circa 1930.

Dot, Holt, and Toots. Circa 1930.

I love Dot’s three-color checkerboard socks. In this photo, we can really see how shaggy those brushed wool sweaters were:

A shaggy brushed wool knit sweater; photo from 1929 to 1931.

A shaggy brushed wool knit sweater; photo from 1929 to 1931.

Notice that ties were de rigueur.

Jonnie and Ollie, Feb. 1931. Neckties required.

Jonnie and Ollie, Feb. 1931. Neckties required.

Len, Ollie, Holt, Toots, Charles, and Jonnie. March 1931.

Len, Ollie, Holt, Toots, Charles, and Jonnie. March 1931.

In our T-shirt world, the idea of skiing or sledding in a necktie is bizarre. But it wasn’t always so.

"Dot" at Tahoe, around 1930. Starting in the early 20th century, American women wore jodhpurs and neckties to celebrate freedom that was previously only for males.

“Dot” at Tahoe, around 1930. Starting in the early 20th century, American women wore jodhpurs and neckties to celebrate freedom of movement that was previously only for males.

Charles, Dot, Toots, Ollie, and Holt. Circa 1930.

Charles, Dot, Toots, Ollie, and Holt. Circa 1930 – 1931.

Now, dig out some of your “Mystery photos” to share with your family and friends before the new year gets busy.

(P.S. That tiny “Oliver Hardy” moustache was always ill-advised on my tall, thin father (at left); he told me he shaved it off in a hurry once he saw “that Hitler fellow” wearing one. Whew.)

 

 

 

 

 

9 Comments

Filed under 1920s, 1920s-1930s, 1930s, Hosiery & Stockings, Menswear, Shoes, Sportswear, Vintage Accessories, vintage photographs, Women in Trousers

Girls as Little Women (1950’s) and Women as Little Girls (1960’s)

I swore off buying vintage patterns, but a trip to the recycling center — which has drawers full — proved too tempting. I bought four. There were two McCall’s patterns for girls from the early 1960’s which caught my eye because of the charming illustration style. . .

McCall's patterns 5365 (1960) and 6384 (1962). Dresses for girls.

Early sixties’ dresses for girls. McCall’s patterns #5365 (1960) and #6384 (1962) These are dress-up dresses, perhaps for Easter or a wedding.

. . . and the way these girls’ dresses echoed the adult fashions of the late fifties and early sixties.

Cover, Butterick Fashion News, June 1956. Pattern #7745.

Cover, Butterick Fashion News, June 1956. Pattern #7745.

Buittreick Fashion News June 1956. Dress #7786.

Butterick Fashion News June 1956. Dress #7786. The cummerbund waist was very popular into the early 1960s.

Butterick Misses pattern #9260, McCall's girls' pattern 5365. Both from 1960.

Butterick Misses pattern #9260, McCall’s girls’ pattern 5365. Both from 1960.

They all have tightly fitted bodices, and the sash on the girl’s polka-dotted dress mimics the high, fitted waist on the women’s styles above and at far left.

Butterick Dress pattern 9366 (1960) and McCall's girls' pattern 6384 (1962)

Butterick Dress pattern 9366 (1960) and McCall’s girls’ pattern 6384 (1962)

Like many store-bought adult dresses with full skirts,  the girls’ dresses had stiff, built-in petticoats attached at the waist.

When I was a little girl in the 1950’s,  I wanted to be a grown-up. I didn’t enjoy being a child in a world of adults; like Lewis Carroll’s Alice, I was “too big” for some things and “too little” for others.

alice too big in hall107I was “too big” to cry, but “too little” to stay up when my parents had a party. I could hear the grown-ups laughing and talking in the next room, and, since I hardly knew any other children, those adults were my friends. I wanted to be with them. Being told to go to sleep while it was still light out seemed especially unfair. In the 1970s, I was shocked when one of my students — a boy of 14 — said he didn’t want to be an adult. He wanted the irresponsibility of childhood to last forever, like Peter Pan.
Different generations! (Or, perhaps, different childhoods….)

I bought four vintage patterns for girls, because the change in attitude between the early sixties  and the late sixties was striking to me.

Early sixties' dresses for girls. McCall's patterns 5365 (1960) and 6384 (1962).

Early sixties’ dresses for girls. McCall’s patterns 5365 (1960) and 6384 (1962).

Late sixties patterns for girls: Butterick 3908 (1966) and Simplicity 7616 (1968)

Late sixties dresses for girls sizes 7 to 14: Butterick 3908 (1966) and Simplicity 7616 (1968)

In the fifties and early sixties, it was assumed that teenaged girls aspired to become sophisticated women.

Teen dresses, Butterick Fashion News, Oct. 1954.

Teen dresses, Butterick Fashion News, Oct. 1954.

But, in the mid to late sixties, women in their twenties dressed like little girls.

Butterick 4873 and Simplicity girls' pattern 7616. Both are from 1968.

Butterick 4873 and Simplicity girls’ pattern 7616. Both are from 1968.

Simplicity for girls, pattern 7616 (1968.) Butterick women's pattern 4520 (1967.)

Simplicity for girls, pattern 7616 (1968.) Butterick women’s pattern 4520 (1967.)

Short, body-skimming dresses, exposed legs (often covered in white tights), and low-heeled shoes were all traditionally associated with childhood. So were big eyes, so we wore tons of eye makeup, false eyelashes, and very pale lipstick “to make our eyes look bigger,” moving focus away from the red lips of the fifties sophisticates. [The models in those photos are Jean Shrimpton (an iconic mid-to-late 1960’s model) and Suzy Parker (an iconic 1950’s – early 60’s model.)]

I’m especially struck by how similar these styles, for girls’ sizes 7 to 14, are to the dresses my teenaged friends and I were wearing in the mid sixties.

BUtterick patterns Quant 3288 1964 and girls 3908 1966

Butterick patterns: Mary Quant #3288 (1964) for Misses and Juniors,  and girls’ #3908 (1966)

Although illustrated here on pre-teens, Butterick #3908 was made in girls’ sizes 7 to 14.

Butterick patterns: #3908 (1966) for girls; #3526 for teens (1965.)

Butterick patterns: #3908 (1966) for girls; #3526 for teens (1965.) The caption applies to #3526.

Mixing dots and stripes, solids and patterns, and even large and small-scale plaids on clothing was inspired by the Op Art movement.

This Butterick dress (No. 3398) (click to see it) from 1965 has the high waist and color blocking of the yellow and white girl’s dress above.

This dress for teens (Butterick 3695 from 1965) shows a high waist and the playful combination of solids and stripes associated with the “Mod look” of the dress on the right, above. Click here for a Mary Quant example from www.n2journal.com. (Read more about Mary Quant by clicking here.)

I wore dresses like these to work as a teacher and in a bank in the late sixties — sometimes with opaque tights — and I was a very conservative dresser in my early twenties.

Butterick 4519, Vogue 7095 (both 1967)and Simplicity 8365, 1969.

Butterick 4519, Vogue 7095 (both 1967) and Simplicity 8365, 1969. Note the Mary Jane shoes and low heels.

The shoes that went with these sixties dresses and mini-skirts were low heeled. The “spike” heeled “stiletto shoes” of the late fifties and early sixties went with longer skirts, and were still worn by older women. I wore a pair of 3 inch spike heels heels to a dance in 1962, but not later in the decade. As I remember the late sixties,  very high heels were never worn with a very short skirt by “respectable” young women. (As if their lives were not already painful enough, the women who stood on street corners for a living usually did it in miniskirts and excruciatingly uncomfortable shoes.)

 

10 Comments

Filed under 1950s-1960s, Children's Vintage styles, Cosmetics, Beauty Products, Hosiery, Hosiery & Stockings, Shoes, Vintage patterns

Shoes and Stockings, 1936

"Stockings and Shoes Have New Color Hramony," Ladies' Home Journal, October 1936.

“Stockings and Shoes Have New Color Harmony,” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1936.

In the 1930s, as less of the leg became visible, sheer stockings were the dominant fashion. This issue of Ladies’ Home Journal from October, 1936, contained much fashion advice about wardrobe planning. Women were advised to select their winter coat first, and then to think about shoes.

“This year, . . . instead of just being a good supporting cast, they are stepping right out to the front of the stage and becoming principals. It happens this year, because shoes are usually made of contrasting colors, or at least contrasting leathers that take different lights. One of the colors in your shoes may match your coat.  The other may set the color scheme for your dress — your other accessories — your hat. The only exception is all black suede . . . .

“Shoes mostly creep higher and higher up in the instep.  If there are straps, there may be several quite close together, or one placed quite low over the arch — you find few wide-open spaces.

“After your shoe selection should come your dresses.” — “Now It’s Time to Get Your Wardrobe Together,” by Julia Coburn, Ladies’ Home Journal, p. 29, Oct. 1936.

The article “Stockings and Shoes Have New Color Harmony” appeared in the same issue. These shoe and stocking combinations appeared at the top of the page . . .

Shoes and stocking vombinations, LHJ, Oct. 1936.

Shoes and stocking combinations, LHJ, p. 33, Oct. 1936.

. . . and these appeared at the bottom, with descriptive text in the middle.

Shoe and stocking combinations, LHJ, p. 33, Oct. 1936.

Shoe and stocking combinations, LHJ, p. 33, Oct. 1936.

Starting from top left:

From left, a Monk Type Shoe, a Brown Oxford, a Green Service Shoe. Oct. 1936.

A black and brown Monk-type Shoe, and a Brown Oxford; LHJ, Oct. 1936.

“On the left above, worn with a coat of black rough wool, is a monk type shoe of black and cinnamon brown reverse calf, the stocking matching the brown and completing the contrast.  Just behind is a splendid simple oxford of brown suede, trimmed with reddish brown calf, the exact color of the hairy tweed of the suit. The same color is chosen for the stockings.”

Green and brown service shoe, Gray Monk Shoe  , Brown Three Strap Oxford. LHJ, Oct. 1936.

Green and brown high-in-front shoe, Gray Monk Shoe , Brown Three Strap Oxford. LHJ, Oct. 1936.

“The grand dark blue-green that is so smart this fall somehow suggests combination with brown. So, for a brown wool suit, we selected the green service calf high-in-front shoe,  with buttons and trimming of alligator calf. The stockings are a deep reddish brown, just a shade lighter. With the wine-colored skirt we show a monk shoe with a slightly higher heel, in a fairly dark gray reverse calf, with gun-metal calf. The stocking is a pinkish gray which takes on an even warmer tone over the skin.  The three-strap oxford in tan calf, [far right] with stockings in a lighter tan shade, is suggested for a coat of green curly-surfaced wool. Can you see what a difference the right shades of shoes and stockings make?” [I’m having a hard time figuring out why the three-strap shoe is called an “oxford.”]

“Attending a tea party below are some shoes for afternoon silks and dressier suits.” Starting from the left:

Wine Gabardine Pump, Black High-in-front black eyelet tie shoe, Black Suede and Patent Two-Strap. Afternoon shoes, LHJ, Oct. 1936.

Wine Gabardine Pump, Black High-in-front Eyelet tie shoe, Black Suede and Patent Two-Strap. Afternoon shoes, LHJ, Oct. 1936.

[Left:] “A wine gabardine pump, trimmed with kid, is worn with a matching crepe dress. The little whirligig ornament can be turned to tighten or loosen the instep. The gray stockings have enough pink to harmonize with the shoes. [Center:] With a black rough crepe dress, next, we suggest a high-in-front one eyelet tie, piped in silver. A warm, bright, tan stocking for contrast. [Right:] The black-suede-and-patent two-strap might go with a fuschia-red crepe dress, in which case it might have gun-metal gray stockings, very sheer.” [This is the darkest stocking mentioned in this 1936 article. Women with thick ankles and calves generally look best in stockings matched to their shoes, but the strong matches of the 1920’s seem to be a thing of the past.]

Brown Step-in Pump, Darkish Gray Dress Shoes, Brown Suede One-eyelet Tongued Shoes. LHJ, Oct. 1936.

Brown Step-in Pump, Darkish Gray Dress Shoes, Brown Suede One-eyelet Tongued Shoes. LHJ, Oct. 1936.

[Far Left:] “The brown step-in pump, worn with a soft green dress . . . is calf combined with suede, gored to fit high over the arch. The stocking is a lighter brown, still on the reddish cast. [Center:] Dress shoes in darkest gray are very nice. We show them with a royal-blue dress, and gray stockings a little lighter and a little pinker. [Right:] The one-eyelet tongue ties at the right hand corner, worn with a red-brown dress, show the combination of red-brown suede with brown kid.”

“From hemline to heels, you have a chance to show the utmost discrimination in your use of color harmonies and color contrasts.”

Stockings came with either pointed or rectangular heels, as in the nineteen twenties.

Enna Jettticks Ad, October 1936

This full color advertisement for Enna Jetticks (not a real person’s name, but “energetic” — a little branding joke) shows some shoes in gorgeous colors. It’s from the same copy of the Ladies’ Home Journal. The image of a chic young woman is a way of persuading women that Enna Jetticks are not “old lady shoes.

Enna Jetticks Shoe ad, Ladies' Home Journal, Oc.t 1936.

Enna Jetticks Shoe ad, Ladies’ Home Journal, Oct. 1936.

Enna Jetticks ad, top right, Oct. 1936.

Enna Jetticks shoe ad, top right, Oct. 1936. The shoe on the top harks back to 1920’s styles.

Enna Jetticks shoe ad, Oct. 1936. Bottom right.

Enna Jetticks shoe ad, Oct. 1936. Bottom right.

Enna Jetticks shoe ad, bottom left. Oct. 1936.

Enna Jetticks shoe ad, bottom left. Oct. 1936.

“. . . Shoes so comfortable that they require no difficult breaking in. For Enna Jetticks, you know, are designed for ease in the first place, and then they are thoroughly-hand flexed by master craftsmen before you ever try them on.”

“Sizes 1 to 12 and widths AAAAA to EEE. $5 and $6. Slightly higher in Canada.”

One Dress, Three Shoe Options

In December, the Woman’s Home Companion showed three different accessory choices for one claret colored dress, made from Companion-Butterick pattern 7115.

Companion-Butterick pattern 7115, December 1936. In claret colored silk, perfect for "holiday festivities."

Companion-Butterick pattern 7115, December 1936. In claret colored silk, perfect for “holiday festivities.”

Suggested accessories to wear with a claret colored silk dress. Dec. 1936.

Suggested accessories to wear with a claret colored silk dress. Woman’s Home Companion, Dec. 1936.

Black suede is shown on the model, but gray or dark brown shoes, bags, and gloves will provide “variety.”

Accessory description, Woman's Home Companion, December 1936.

Accessory description, Woman’s Home Companion, December 1936.

Both the Ladies’ Home Journal and the Woman’s Home Companion agreed that, with a wine-colored dress, black suede or dark gray shoes were appropriate.

For examples and illustrations of shoe styles such as “monk,” “sandal,” and “oxford” in the 1930’s, click here. Then scroll down for a vintage article defining styles.

6 Comments

Filed under 1930s, bags, Companion-Butterick Patterns, Gloves, handbags, Hosiery, Hosiery & Stockings, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Purses, Shoes, Vintage Accessories

Some Stockings from the Twenties

Stockings from Sears, Spring 1925 catalog.

Silk Stockings from Sears, Spring 1925 catalog. “Medium gray, Blush, French tan, Airedale, Black, Champagne, Dark brown, and White.” [Airedale?]

I had been thinking about stocking styles and stocking colors when I found this photo in an antique store:

Three women, dated January 3, 1928. Vintage photo.

Three women, dated January 3, 1928. Vintage photo.

The writing on the back of the photo is European, but I can't tell if it says 3 Janvier 1928 (French) or Januar 1928 (German.)

The writing on the back of the photo is European; I think it says 3 Janvier 1928. [Lynn suggests it says “Januar” in German. Thanks! Ed. 6/7/15.]

The two girls in matching sweaters have elegant legs, but the one on the left is wearing matte finish stockings with rather shiny (metallic?) shoes, while the stockings of the girl on the right have the sheen of silk — but not sheer silk.

Silk stockings were sold in sheer (“Chiffon weight,”) “service weight,” “Mid-weight,” and in many blends of silk, rayon, cotton,  and wool. Often the part of the stocking hidden by shoes was a sturdier material, like cotton, which could be mended.

Silk and rayon stockings with cotton garter tops, heels, and toes. Sears catalog, Spring 1927.

Silk and rayon stockings (“Practical for hard wear”) with cotton garter tops, heels, and toes. Sears catalog, Spring 1927.

Sometimes the top of the stocking would be a different (or cheaper) fabric, since runs caused by the pull of suspenders (clasp garters) on the stocking top were common.

I was happy to be a young woman in the 1960s, because I loved the body-skimming dress styles. But I was never happy about having to expose my far-from-Twiggy-like legs. Opaque tights in many colors were a boon to women like me.

Photo by Pat Faure from Elegance, fall/winter 1965 -66.

Photo by Pat Faure from Elegance, fall/winter 1965 -66.

Textured hose were also popular in the sixties, and reappeared in the 1980s. But vividly colored hosiery — and textured hose — were also worn in the 1920’s.

Colored Stockings, 1920’s

I’ve written about nineteen twenties’ stocking colors before, (click here) but here are a few of the more vivid examples from advertisements:

Arch Preserver Shoe ad. Delineator, June 1929.

Arch Preserver Shoe ad. Delineator, June 1929.

Holeproof silk stocking ad illustrated by J. Clelland Barclay, October, 1925. Delineator.

Holeproof silk stocking ad illustrated by J. Clelland Barclay, October, 1925. Delineator.

Realsilk Hosiery ad, Delineator, October, 1929.

Realsilk Hosiery ad, Delineator, October, 1929.

The opacity of some real silk stockings is shown in this ad for Holeproof Hosiery:

Holeproof hosiery ad illustrated by J. Clelland Barclay, May, 1925. Delineator.

Holeproof hosiery ad illustrated by J. Clelland Barclay, May, 1925. Delineator.

These don’t look very different from the pale stockings in my 1928 found photo . . .

3 women stockings jan 3 1928 photo

. . . or in this stocking ad from 1928.

Movie actress Claire Windsor appeared in this ad for Allen A Hosiery, Delineator, Dec. 1928.

Movie actress Claire Windsor appeared in this ad for Allen-A Hosiery; Delineator, Dec. 1928. Hosiery the same color as your shoes makes your legs look longer — but the ad does not explain why Allen-A hose are superior to other brands.

Butterick pattern illustrations also show women wearing colored stockings.

Butterick pattern illustrations, Delineator, Sept. 1926. The young woman in the blue dress wears stockings to match the lining of her party dress.

Butterick pattern illustrations, Delineator, Sept. 1926. The young woman in the blue dress wears stockings to match the lining of her party dress.

Illustrator Marie L. Britton showed these day dresses worn with stockings toned to match. Delineator, 1926.

Illustrator Marie L. Britton showed these day dresses worn with stockings toned to match. Delineator, 1926.

Textured Stockings, 1920’s

Textured hose were worn with sportier outfits, and textured wool blend stockings were good for winter.

Textured hose from an article about rainwear; Delineator, April, 1929.

Textured hose from an article about rainwear; Delineator, April, 1929.

Ribbed half-wool stockings, Sears catalog for Fall 1928.

Ribbed half-wool stockings; Sears catalog for Fall 1928.

Embroidered stockings had been around for centuries, but the look of embroidery — actually, a pattern woven into the stocking —  was also available in the 1920’s. This advertisement shows a stocking with a “clock” and suggests it, in white, for a wedding:

Kayser Hosiery ad, top. Delineator, Nov. 1924.

Kayser Hosiery ad, top. Delineator, Nov. 1924.

Kayser hosiery ad, bottom. Clocked stockings for the bride; Delineator, Nov. 1924.stod

Kayser hosiery ad, bottom. Clocked stockings for the bride; Delineator, Nov. 1924.

Sears called them “lace effect” stockings.

Clocked stockings, right, from Sears catalog Spring, 1925.

Clocked stockings, right, from Sears catalog Spring, 1925.

“Slenderizing” Heels on Stockings, 1920’s

The Kayser ad said its “Slipper heel — slenderizes ankles.” With rising hemlines,  legs and ankles became more exposed.

Ankle Reducer Ad, Delineator, November, 1924.

Lenor Ankle Reducer Ad, Delineator, November, 1924.

“Slip on when you go to bed and note amazing results next morning. Reduces and shapes ankle and lower calf. Slips on like a glove. . . . Enables you to wear low shoes becomingly. Worn under stockings without detection. Used by prominent actresses.”

Other manufacturers stressed that the shape of the heel — at least, the part that was visible above the shoe — could draw attention to your shapely ankles and/or create the illusion of a “dainty ankle.”

The Gordon Hosiery Company offered two heel styles in a series of ads:

Gordon's hosiery ads from Delineator, Nov. 1928 through May 1929.

Gordon Hosiery ads from Delineator, Nov. 1928 through May 1929.

These are all the same two styles, which came in a wide range of colors intended to match the wearer’s skin tones — a more natural look, in sheerer stockings, than were worn in the early 1920’s.

Text from Gordon's hosiery ad, May 1929.

Text from Gordon Hosiery ad, May 1929.

“. . . The modern Gordon color series is based on a new theory . . . that every woman must match her hosiery to her individual skin tones — considering always, of course, her ensemble.”

Gordon Narrow heel stocking (right) and Gordon V- line heel (left.) Nov. 1928.

Gordon Narrow heel stocking (right) and Gordon V- line heel (left.) Nov. 1928.

The “Gordon narrow heel” — a tall rectangle — really was more flattering than the shorter, wider heels usually available from Sears:

Stockings from Sears catalog, Spring 1928.

Stockings from Sears catalog, Spring 1928.

The Onyx Hosiery company had its own, different heel design, a single triangle called the “Pointex.”

Onyx brand's

Onyx brand’s “Pointex” heel, “which makes trim ankles look their best.” April 1924 ad, bottom. Delineator.

Onyx hosiery ad, top, April 1924.

Onyx Hosiery ad, top, April 1924.

This pointed heel design was also available from Sears, Roebuck by 1928:

Stockings

Stockings “with the new pointed heel” from Sears catalog, Spring 1928.

As women began to associate suntans with wealth, wildly colored stockings began to give way to more natural shades, as described in the Gordon Hosiery ad above. In May of 1929, the Gordon Hosiery ad read:

“There is . . . in this fashion of complementing one’s complexion with one’s stocking . . . a subtle artistry . . . a complete harmony . . . that we have never consistently achieved before. For, as legs take on the same tone as face, arms, and neck (which is the object of the skin-tone stockings) . . . our frocks become dramatized. And the line, silhouette, and every charming detail are accented. The Gordon Skin-Tones are designed for every woman under the sun . . . and also for the ones who avoid the sun.”

Realsilk hosiery colors for April, 1929. Color is not precise.

Realsilk hosiery colors for April, 1929. [Color is not precise.]

The sheer stockings, in natural skin tones, which were popular later in the 1920’s were also available from Sears, although working women probably saved these fragile stockings — almost impossible to mend — for evening wear.

Stocking colors from Sears catalog, Fall 1928.

Stocking colors from Sears catalog, Fall 1928.

NOTE: “Full-fashioned” stockings were shaped in the knitting process; other stockings were shaped by cutting and seaming. Some 1920’s stockings had seamless feet, but the seam up the back was considered “slenderizing” and flattering to most women.

To read previous posts about stockings, garters, girdles, corsets and the 1920’s, browse through the “Hosiery & Stockings” category, or the “Underthings” category.

8 Comments

Filed under 1920s, 1960s-1970s, Corsets, Hosiery, Hosiery & Stockings, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Underthings, vintage photographs

Up Like Little Soldiers: Wilson Garter for Children, 1917

Ad for Wilson Garter, Ladies' Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

Ad for Wilson Garter, Ladies’ Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

I want to share this advertisement for a couple of reasons. First, there may be a collector of vintage underthings who has one of these contraptions and will appreciate the identification.

The Wilson Garter for children and pregnant women. It supports the stockings from the shoulders instead of from the waist. LHJ ad, Sept. 1917.

The Wilson Garter for children and pregnant women. It supports the stockings from the shoulders instead of from the waist. LHJ ad, Sept. 1917.

Second, it is just one more example of the way America’s entrance into World War I, in April of 1917, permeated American popular culture.

Wilson Cord and Slide Garters

“Up Like Little Soldiers — That’s how the Cord & Slide Wilson Garter allows children to grow — trim, graceful — all ginger. No more little rounded, stooping shoulders, and no more torn hose tops.

“For Boys and Girls, 1 to 16 years. Shoulder style like picture, slips on over head, white or black, 25 cents. Give Age.

“For Women, same style. Fine for home, athletic or Maternity wear, 50 cents. Bust sizes.”

Digression:  I feel I should explain a bit;  we live in an era when many people have never worn stockings. (Pantyhose are more popular, if less erotic, than individual thigh-high stockings worn with garter belts.)

When I wore my first garter belt in eighth grade, I was puzzled by ads — like this page from a 1958 Sears catalog — that showed the garters [suspenders] being worn over full petticoats — which would have flattened the petticoat absurdly. I had no mother to ask about this; finally an older girl explained that you actually wore the petticoat on top of the garter belt, but advertisers couldn’t show a garter belt attached to stocking tops over a bare thigh in family magazines.

Garter belts from Sears catalog, Fall 1958.

Garter belts from Sears catalog, Fall 1958. My first garter belt looked like K (bottom center), not P (the black one.) Back then, normal 12 year old girls did not wear black lace undies. However, if you wore stockings when dressed up, you needed a garter belt.

“Pull Up Your Socks!”

It’s hard to conceive of a time when active little children wore stockings instead of socks.

Fashions for boys, Ladies' Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

Fashions for boys, Ladies’ Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

Nevertheless, these little boys are wearing boots with spat-like contrast uppers (or possibly spats! see far right), over stockings probably made of cotton lisle, although wool was a possibility.

Ad for Buster Brown Shoes for Boys or Girls, Delineator, October 1917.

Ad for Buster Brown Shoes “For Boys — for Girls,” Delineator, Oct. 1917.

A poor boy receives a basket of food from a boy who is better off. Both wear stockings. Robert A. Graef illustration, Delineator, Nov. 1924.

A poor boy receives a basket of food from a boy who is better off. Both wear long stockings. Robert A. Graef illustration, Delineator, Nov. 1924.

Because putting on his first pair of “long pants” was once a rite of passage for an adolescent boy, pre-adolescent boys wore knickers or short pants; these left their lower legs exposed all year round — so they sometimes wore long stockings.

Since neither little boys nor little girls have a waist significantly smaller than their hips, keeping trousers, shorts, and stockings from falling down was a problem.

Pictorial Review pattern 3386, for boys shorts that button on to the shirt.

Pictorial Review pattern 3386, for boys’ shorts that button on to the shirt. Note the sagging sock.

A solution popular in the 1920’s was to button the pants to the shirt, or to a sleeveless underbodice, in front and in back. This made it very difficult for small boys to go to the bathroom without help. (To read “Zippers Are Good for Your Children,” click here. )

Boys didn’t always wear stockings; some wore sensible socks, sometimes rolled over elastic garters, and little boys and girls kept warm by wearing stockings under leggings in the winter. [Like much fashion vocabulary which changes over time,  “leggings” now describes a completely different garment, i.e.,  women’s knit tights that stop at the ankle.]  Formerly, stiff (lined) wool or corduroy leggings were buttoned from below the anklebone to above the knee (you needed to use a buttonhook) and must have been a nightmare to put on squirming children.

Clothes for boys, Delineator, Nov. 1917. The smallest boys wear buttoned leggings.

Clothes for boys, Delineator, Nov. 1917. The smallest boys wear buttoned leggings. Butterick patterns.

Grown men wore long trousers which covered their garters:

Boston Garter ad for man's stocking garter; Delineator, Jan. 1917.

Boston Garter ad for man’s stocking suspender with “Velvet Grip;” Delineator, Jan. 1917.

Grown women suspended their stockings from their corsets:

La Camille Corset advertisement, April, 1917.

La Camille International Corset advertisement, Delineator, April, 1917. Look at those lovely clocked/embroidered stockings! For modesty’s sake, the model is drawn wearing frilly bloomers, which would have made it difficult to attach the suspender to the stocking! Here it is left dangling.

Corsets and stocking suspenders were also worn by some unlucky little girls:

Ad for girls' corsets; April 1917.

Ad for girls’ corsets; April 1917. Ferris Good Sense “Waist” for Girls and Misses.

The younger girl’s figure is still unformed, so her corset has shoulder straps to prevent the tension on her stockings from pulling it down. If it only attached to her stocking tops in front, this might produce the “stooped” look mentioned in the Wilson Garter ad.

Like Little Soldiers

Boy's patterns, Delineator, July 1917. Two of these children have sagging socks.

Children’s patterns, Butterick’s Delineator, July 1917. The long stockings of the boy on the left are falling down. Note the military insignias on their tunics.

There was a time when a parent, seeking to divert children from mischief, would simply yell, “Pull up your socks!”

However, the pugnacity of these two boys was part of a general trend to illustrate children as little warriors during World War  I.

Boy's pattern illustration, Delineator, Sept. 1917.

Boy’s Butterick pattern illustration, Delineator, Sept. 1917.  A few months earlier, boys were shown flying a kite, not leading a charge “over the top.”

Butterick pattern for a girl's military uniform, Sept. 1917. Delineator.

Butterick pattern for a girl’s military style “Service” uniform, Sept. 1917. Delineator.

Butterick pattern for boy's military uniform, Delineator, Sept. 1917.

Butterick pattern for boy’s military style outfit, complete with putteesDelineator, Sept. 1917.

Which brings us back to the Wilson Garter, which “allows children to grow . . . up like little soldiers.” By Jingo.

Ad for Wilson Garter, Ladies' Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

Ad for Wilson Garter  for children, Ladies’ Home Journal, Sept. 1917.

8 Comments

Filed under 1900s to 1920s, 1920s, Children's Vintage styles, Corsets, Hosiery, Hosiery & Stockings, Maternity clothes, Menswear, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Shoes, Underthings, Uniforms and Work Clothes, Vintage patterns, World War I, Zippers

Musings, Jan 2015: on Corsets, Mini Skirts, Bloomers, etc.

I’ve been getting some wonderful comments on older posts, so I want to share some related pictures.

Twentieth Century Corsets for Girls:

Girl's corset, 1917. Perry, Dame & Co. Catalog, Dover Books.

Girl’s corset, 1917. Perry, Dame & Co. Catalog, Dover Books.

“10A19:  Girl’s flexible corset waist with light, flexible boning. Designed to hold the immature figure within trim lines without in any way binding it. . . . Sizes 18 to 30. [Misses’ corset waists should be ordered 2 inches less that your waist measurement over your dress — p.146.] A corset waist every girl should have. 79 cents.”

This girl’s corset was sold by Perry, Dame & Company, in their 1917 catalog.

Dinah found photos online of more corsets for girls — not from the turn of the century, but from a Sears catalog dated 1923! The image is in Google online, so the number of times it can be viewed is limited. Instead of using a link, I found it by doing a google search for the words “sears corset for girls 1923 Olian.” The image is from  JoAnne Olian’s Children’s Fashions 1900-1950.) [Caution: My McAfee Secure Search says do not click on the Sears Catalogs Online links — there may be security issues! ]

How to Sit in a Mini Skirt:

Nancy N remembered many of the disadvantages of wearing a miniskirt.

“I wore my hems somewhere between the mid knee and micro mini length — long enough so that when you sat down your underwear wasn’t sitting on the chair! Then I discovered how flattering the extra long midi was, so it DIDNT hit the fattest part of the calf. Short skirts were cute but such a challenge .. What to do climbing stairs in the mall? Sitting for long stretches with your knees together is tiring! And bending down to file papers all day is no fun. Thank god for the pantsuit!”

One discomfort was that you had to sit with your knees clamped firmly together. This photo of a group of Sea Scouts shows the [more modest end of ] the range of problems miniskirts caused:

Sea Scouts, post 601, 1968. Photo by Bill Owens, from Alison Lurie's book, The Language of Clothes.

Sea Scouts, California Post 601, 1968. Photo by Bill Owens, from Alison Lurie’s book, The Language of Clothes. Note that the girls are wearing an officially approved uniform — usually more conservative than teenagers’ ordinary dress.

In the 1960s, I thought of this as “the candidate’s wife” problem; when a woman in a short skirt sits on a raised platform, with her knees or ankles at the eye level of the audience, she has to sit very carefully. These young women seated at the far right are not yet ready for the campaign trail:

How not to sit in a miniskirt. Photo by Bill Owens, 1968.

How not to sit in a miniskirt. Photo by Bill Owens, 1968.

The girls in the center have crossed their legs at the knees, which is  also not wise if you’re sitting higher than the audience — unless you want them to see up your skirt to the hip:

Sitting like this hides your crotch but sometimes exposes your stocking tops.

Sitting like this would hide your crotch, but sometimes exposed your stocking tops, your garters, or worse, your thigh control panty girdle.

Sitting correctly: Knees together, ankles crosses.

Sitting correctly: Knees together, ankles crossed, skirt tucked under your thighs.

These girls have mastered the basics of sitting in public in a miniskirt. The more advanced miniskirt posture requires you to also sit at a slight angle, so your crossed ankles are not directly under your knees. Tucking your crossed feet under the chair tilts your knees and thighs downward, too.

Members of the Kennedy clan demonstrate graceful sitting here. Scroll down to the group pictures.

The Scandalous Can-Can

Dinah also made some interesting points in a different comment on Underpinning the Twenties — about how difficult it was for parents raised in the 1890s to accept the fashions of the 1920s, which were so radically different from their own corseted and restrictive youth. Also, she mentions that [like the young women above] Victorian women dancing the can-can had to cross their raised leg — because they were wearing crotchless bloomers. These are more formally called “open drawers;”

Open drawers, circa 1860, illustration from Ewing's Fashion in Underwear.

Open drawers, circa 1860, illustration from Ewing’s Fashion in Underwear.

A pair of open drawers that belonged to Queen Victoria were sold at auction for over 6,000 pounds in 2014 (read the article in Victoriana  here ); this article in the Telegraph shows some of her underwear, now given “national designated status.” These garments date from the 1890s, when the queen had a very large circumference.

Women in Gym Bloomers Allowed in Golden Gate Park: 1915

College girls doing farm work in their gym bloomers and middy blouses, Oct. 1918. Delineator.

College girls doing farm work in their gym bloomers and middy blouses, Oct. 1918. Delineator.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an article every Sunday called The Wayback Machine,  by Johnny Miller, who goes through “the archives of 25, 50, 75, and 100 years ago to bring us glimpses of the past.” On January 4, 2015, he found this article from January 8, 1915, heralding the end of the bloomer ban:

“As far as the Park Commissioner is concerned, ‘the bloomer girls’ will be allowed to play ball in Golden Gate Park, notwithstanding Mrs. Grundy to the contrary. For some time these young misses have been an attraction on the park diamonds where they could be depended upon to put on a stirring game. And then Mrs. Grundy appeared on the scene and the games ceased. But now they will resume for the park Commission sees no harm in young girls, attired in their gymnasium suits, disporting on the park greens.”

More college girls doing farm work in their gymnasium outfits, 1918.

More college girls doing farm work in their gymnasium outfits, 1918.

A less sexually provocative outfit would be hard to imagine. Perhaps the fact that the female baseball players’ stocking-clad legs were visible was the reason “Mrs. Grundy” objected to games in Golden Gate Park in 1915.

That brings us back to Dinah’s comments about the conflict between Victorian adults and their 20th century offspring:

“Another problem was that in the 1920s there was a break from the 19 century view that even adult children must do as their parents dictated. The fact that adult young girls were ignoring their mother’s advice about proper corsetry was in itself terrible. Do the sums – a 21 year old girl in 1925 would have been born in 1904, to say a mother aged 25; The mother would have been born in 1879. When the mother was a teenager in the 1890s the wasp waist was in full swing. She probably expected the same rigid and tight corset for her daughter?”

Thanks to all you wonderful readers who share your knowledge and keep these conversations going!

3 Comments

Filed under 1860s -1870s fashions, 1900s to 1920s, 1960s-1970s, Corsets, Corsets & Corselettes, Costumes for the 19th century, Girdles, Hosiery & Stockings, Musings, Old Advertisements & Popular Culture, Sportswear, Underthings, Hosiery, Corsets, etc, Uniforms and Work Clothes, vintage photographs, Women in Trousers