Shirtwaist Photos 1904, 1907 & 1910

Photographs of waists and shirtwaists illustrate a 1907 article in Delineator.

Two views of Butterick shirtwaist pattern 3595 from Delineator, February 1910.

Feminine versions of the man’s basic business shirt could include a separate stiff collar or a softer attached collar. Sometimes the lacy collar was made separately and basted into place, so it could be laundered, starched, and ironed differently than the shirt.

I always love to find actual period fashion photos, since they avoid the exaggeratedly tiny waists of period fashion illustrations. All of the photographed blouses below were shown in “The Summer Shirt-Waist” article featured at the top of this post:

A ruffled “Marie Antoinette waist” from July, 1907.

A Butterick “Negligee waist” from July 1907, Delineator.

“Negligee” meant “casual” and was also used to describe men’s shirts for sports. The model above seems to be holding a golf club.

The stiff collar and tie worn with this shirt-waist mimic men’s business shirt styles of 1907.

Many of these styles from 1907-1910 show a three-quarter sleeve length.

A closer view of the yoke:

The soutache-trimmed yoke is elegant. Delineator, July 1907.

Now, for a real, moving picture view of literally dozens of shirtwaist-wearing women reporting for work in 1904, the Glamourdaze website shared a two minute film (computer enhanced and colorized) which is well worth watching for the shirtwaists, the skirts, the hair styles and other proof that women really did get up and go to work wearing these wonderfully varied “basics.” It’s a long parade of working women punching in at the time clock. (I wish it wasn’t colorized, but that’s a small quibble.) Click here to watch it. (You can skip the ad.)

Watch it again to notice all the handbag variations, many of them suspended from the women’s waistbands or belts.

“Chatelaine” handbags from Sears, Robuck, 1903. These bags are designed to hang from a belt or waistband.

Top, a “Wrist Bag;” bottom, a “Netsuke” bag. A Japanese idea, you pull the chain under your belt or sash, and the ornamental ball (netsuke) dangles over the belt and secures the bag.

For more about this film, visit Glamourdaze.  Glamourdaze is a commercial site, but it has excellent research, and I have never received an unsolicited ad or email from them, although I subscribed years ago.

College Wardrobe for Women, 1929

Essentials of a perfect College Wardrobe; Delineator, September 1929.

It’s a bit late in the year to be planning an “off to college” wardrobe, but Delineator devoted several pages to this question in September, 1929.

Administrators at Vassar, Wellesley, and Smith colleges shared their observations on what college girls were wearing in 1929. Delineator, Sept 1929, pp. 29 & 104.

Administrators at three prestigious East Coast women’s colleges contributed their observations in an accompanying article, which was later quoted in the Butterick pattern descriptions.

In addition to Butterick patterns, several “college clothing” illustrations were sketched from clothes being sold at Lord & Taylor.

These “College Requirements” could be purchased at Lord & Taylor. Delineator, Sept. 1929, page 28.

At all three colleges, sportswear — rather than “city” clothing — was said to dominate.  (Vassar was literally “in the country.” In the case of Wellesley, Freshmen lived in the nearby town, so clothes suitable for walking and bicycling to campus were necessary.) Dressing for dinner usually required a change, but not into evening dress.  However, dances and Proms called for at least one formal evening gown.  [I attended a women’s college in California in the 1960s, and we often loaned or borrowed evening gowns for off campus dances, so having only one wasn’t a real problem. Our dates saw us in a different dress each time.] I also appreciated reading about a dorm at Smith where the girls grouped together to rent a sewing machine! All three writers agreed that sporty, casual clothing — home made or purchased — dominated the college wardrobe and to some extent erased class distinctions. (In the late Twenties, Vassar had 1150 undergraduate students, Wellesley 1500, and Smith 2000.)

Laura W. L. Scales, Smith College. Delineator,  Sept. 1929, page 29.

I’ll start with college clothes available from Lord & Taylor in 1929:

(A) A fur coat was practical on campus in snowy winters, but wool coats were equally acceptable.

(B) is an afternoon dress, suitable for formal daytime events (teas, concerts) or as a dinner dress at college.

Wool knits, jersey, and tweeds were practical and traditional “country” looks; most of these colleges were then in the country a few miles from big cities, although urban sprawl has changed that.

“Simulated suede raincoat”? Interesting.  Augusta “Bernard” and “Louiseboulanger” were top Paris designers,

A warm robe, pajamas for sleep and dorm lounging, plus “sports” underwear (J): the top and bottom are buttoned together. 1929.

Formal evening wrap and dress from Lord & Taylor. September 1929. The coat is short; the gown has a long dipping hem.

Note those stretchy bias diamond pieces at the hip of the gown. Pearl-covered handbag.

Butterick patterns for the young college woman, September 1929:

Butterick patterns for college women, Sept. 1929, p. 30.

This dress really is easier to make than it looks. The full, scalloped skirt is cut on the straight grain, lined with “skin” colored taffeta, and has a dipping hem because it is attached to a dipping bodice.

Intimate apparel for college girls:

The slip at right has built in panties, to save time while dressing ….

“No brassiere is necessary,” but some girls do “make this set with a bandeau brassiere instead of a vest.”

Fall and winter weather was another good reason for wearing sporty wool clothing with low heeled shoes and wool, instead of silk, stockings on campus.

Wool fabrics were suitable for campus or weekends in town:

More sporty patterns for college women, 1929. Butterick patterns, Delineator, page 31.

A tweed suit suitable for city or country, a chic two-toned jersey dress, and a princess line wool or jersey dress with flared panels. Butterick patterns from Delineator, September 1929, p. 31

A sporty tweed dress with laced trim (very popular in the 30s), a pleated wool dress with Deco lines (“staircase pleats,”) and a fur-trimmed tweed coat. Butterick patterns for college women, Delineator, Sept. 1929, p. 31.

It’s sad to realize that these attractive 1929 styles would be out of fashion just a year later — although many women would have no choice but to continue wearing them as the economy crumbled in the early nineteen thirties.

 

 

Teen Dresses from November 1925 in Color

Butterick dresses for teens and small women; Delineator, November 1925.

It’s easy to generalize about the Twenties, but every once in a while I encounter a dress that is undeniably “Twenties” but also defies the clichés.

I like all three of these dresses (and, if you dread wearing those 1920’s hip bands, these are for you!) But the one in the center, with its piped and slashed tunic, has really charmed me.

Black tunic dress 6381 has a muted pink collar, white piping, and an unexpected side slit.

The tunic is very long, revealing just a couple of inches of skirt — which has white trim to continue the lines of trim on the tunic.

The brown velvet dress at right is also unbroken by any belt, and its lean lines are accentuated by a long, soft drape. The sleeves have openings bound with what appears to be lighter brown satin. Perhaps the neckline has openings, too. The sleeves continue to the neckline in a sort of yoke effect.

The green dress is also unusual:

Butterick 6385 suggests a coat over a lighter-colored under dress, but judging from the hem, it’s probably one piece.

I doubt that it would fall so perfectly straight on a normal female body. My guess is that the CF opening is bound with self-fabric, but it could be two lines of stitching instead.

Detail of center front, Butterick 6385, Nov. 1925.

On the same page of Delineator were these evening dresses for young women:

Three evening dresses for young women and teens, Delineator, November 1925.

The yellow dress, Butterick 6330, also avoids having a hip-band or sash. It is not a princess-seamed dress; it has a small bust dart or easing in the side seam. (It’s essentially a tube with a circular flounce added, but getting the flounce to fall as illustrated would take some patterning skill.)

A closer look at Butterick 6330, 6328, and 6383, dresses from the winter of 1925.

The center dress may be a two-piece (I think I see a camisole top with narrow straps showing through the tomato-red georgette bodice.) This would be a great dress for dancing the Charleston –imagine all those skirt panels flying! The light triangles give a touch of Art Deco and a sporty quality.

Detail of skirts; Butterick 6328, left, and 6383, right.  Delineator, November 1925. Notice the picot edges on the green panels.

It’s possible that the green panels are matching-colored chiffon on top of a narrow skirt, rather than inserted into it.

In January 1926, Delineator suggested that last year’s straight skirts could be made to appear more stylishly flared by adding “godets, circular flounces, inserted [pleats,] flying panels, etc.”The vogue of two materials, two colors or two shades of the same color makes reconstruction possible and practical.”

This rosy-red dress has gathered flying panels of a different material in a slightly different shade:

Butterick dress with flying panels, Delineator, January 1926.

Fashion Advice for Summer, 1933 (Part 1)

Five tips for summer fashions from June 1933. Left is Butterick 5149. Delineator, page 61.

I seem to be spending a lot of time in 1933 lately. Marian Corey, writing in Delineator, June 1933, offered a full page of advice about summer fashions:  Five ideas starting with “Yes” and five with “No.”

As the really hot weather approaches, here’s one topic Corey thought we all have on our minds: Gloves!

Glove advice from Delineator, June 1933.

“… Gloves of all sorts of queer fabrics. Printed silk gloves to match your frock and sometimes sold with the dress! White organdy gloves to wear with your dark dress that has white organdy touches on it. White piqué gloves to wear with your tailored suit. Lastex gloves. Fit? They don’t have to . It’s smart to wear them big.” (Lastex stretch fabrics were introduced in the early 1930s — which is different from Latex, which was sometimes used for rubber bathing suits!)

Matching print fabric gloves, hat and bag — all made from Butterick patterns. Delineator, August 1933, p. 52.

Organdy gloves and handbag, “to wear with your dark dress that has organdy touches on it.” August 1933, Delineator, p. 52.

Three Butterick dresses with organdy accents, Delineator, June 1933, p. 64. Notice the sheer areas in the sleeves. 5186 used a heavier, stiffer organdy.

It should be noted that fashion advice from Delineator magazine — not coincidentally –often mentioned Butterick patterns. Delineator was part of the Butterick Publishing Co. empire.

White piqué hat (Butterick 5256,) gloves (Butterick 5225,) and bag (Butterick 5274.) Delineator, August 1933.

Maybe Ms. Corey mentioned that gloves no longer needed to fit [“like a glove?”] because making gloves is difficult. Store-bought gloves used to come in a wide range of sizes, not just S, M, and L. Here’s what she said in a longer article:  “…Don’t worry if your gloves do not fit closely. They are not supposed to.”

Glove advice from Marian Corey, Delineator, August 1933.

Butterick glove pattern 5225 from July 1933, Delineator. This pattern was featured in both July and August.

“At first the loosely fitting glove seems clumsy…. All are worn big.” The gloves worn with these summer dresses are more like gauntlets:

Dresses worn with gloves made from Butterick 5225, July 1933. Delineator.

Gloves and a bag made from taffeta; Butterick patterns, August 1933.

More accessories made of piqué ; Butterick patterns from Delineator, August, 1933, p. 52. The illustrator is Myrtle Lages.

OK, I confess, the “No” paragraph about gloves was not really the first paragraph of the article about Summer fashions. The first paragraph was a “Yes” — about fur!

“Silver fox and blue fox are the furs” for trimming summer dresses,” or rabbit if your budget is more modest. Delineator, June 1933.

Butterick summer outfits trimmed with fur: From left, patterns 5176, 5178, and 5168. Delineator, June 1933, page 62.

Another “Yes” for summer was the white piqué swagger coat:

Butterick coat pattern 5164 from June 1933.

Everyone who owns a dark printed silk dress… should have a white piqué swagger coat to wear with it.” Butterick 5164; Delineator, June 1933, p. 62.

This style was only available in smaller sizes — an early use of “Junior Miss” patterns.

So, fur and gloves aside, what more practical fashions for summer were recommended in 1933?

Bicycle clothes, tennis dresses, beach pajamas, slacks and shorts — all coming up in Part 2.

 

 

 

 

High Hats, 1937

A high beret by Agnes was featured in this illustration for Woman’s Home Companion, October 1937. Illustration by Dynevor Rhys. [That’s a lot of eye makeup!]

The next month, Woman’s Home Companion offered this hat pattern, No. 7361:

Detail, “Height in Your Hat,” Butterick-Companion [?] pattern 7631, November 1937. WHC. Three hat styles in one pattern for 25 cents.

A style that combines height with a beret front and a driving cap back, pattern 7631, WHC, Nov. 1937.  This one is closest in spirit to the more extreme couture hat designed by Agnes.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Paris Fashion Shoes, 1936

“Exquisite — Flattering” Paris Fashion Shoes. Ad from Ladies’ Home Journal, November 1936. Black suede side tie shoe, with a very high heel.

I hadn’t encountered any other ads for Paris Fashion Shoes, and the very high heels and relatively low prices in the ad intrigued me.

Paris Fashion Shoes, center of ad, Ladies’ Home Journal, November 1936. Top, a brown or black square-toe sandal.

Paris Fashion Shoes cost just $3 to $4 in 1936. Bottom of ad from Ladies’ Home Journal, November 1936, p. 111. This high heeled “butterfly” tongue step-in was available in “black, wine, or green suede” or in “black or blue kid” — quite a range of choices and sizes.

(Oh, for the days when shoes were available in a such a variety of widths. I still miss AA heels on B width shoes.)

A high-heeled “Foot Rest” shoe from Krippendorf promised comfort, for “$6.95 to $7.95” or more. Ad from WHC, October 1936.

I was curious about the Paris Fashion brand, and found that it was only one of many lines made by the Wohl Shoe Company. Wohl owned forty-six trademarks. A 1941 booklet celebrating the history of the Wohl Shoe Company was recently offered on eBay. In 1941, Wohl produced lines called Jacqueline, Natural Poise Arch Shoes, Connie, and Paris Fashion Fifth Avenue Shoes. Click here.  

A selection of shoe ads from Woman’s Home Companion, also from 1936, shows that Paris Fashion Shoes were relatively low-priced, compared to other brands. You can tell from the names of the companies, however, that these ads were aimed at women who wanted shoe comfort as well as style.

“According to the Table of Shoe Hotness, any brand that promises comfort will add 10 years to one’s WEA (Wearer’s Estimated Age.)” – Columnist Leah Garchik, writing in the Style section of the San Francisco Chronicle.)

Enna Jettick shoes cost $5 to $6 in 1936. Ad from WHC, April 1936.

This Enna Jettick shoe ad from April 1936 featured 27 year old Hollywood star Helen Twelvetrees wearing Enna Jettick shoes. (Ener-Getic! Get it?) Enna Jetticks were aimed at older women. Many other brands promised both comfort and style.

Red Cross shoe ad, WHC, April 1936. (Great swing coat! You could have worn that suit in the 1950’s.)

These Red Cross shoes cost about $6.50 a pair. Ad from WHC, October 1936. Red Cross shoes were supposed to “exercise your feet and legs back to shapeliness with every step you take.”

I remember similar claims for shoes in the 1970’s.

However much they promised comfort, these 1936 shoes are not necessarily “old lady” shoe styles.

This Butterick-Companion holiday frock pattern (7155) was drawn on a youthful model and illustrated with fashion accessories: shoes, bags, and gloves. WHC, December 1936.

Fashionable shoes and purses  for December 1936. Gray or Claret were suggested. WHC, p. 69. These shoes also appeared in WHC ads.

Apparently advertisers supplied shoes to the magazine for use in fashion layouts. Nothing new about that!

This Walk-Over “Cabana” model, from a October 1936 ad [inset], was available in gray suede and a range of other colors: black, green, brown, and blue.

December fashion illustration and [inset] October ad for Red Cross Shoes. WHC.

Other seasonal colors were advertised :

There is no price range on this ad for high-heeled Queen Quality shoes. WHC, March 1936. This ad is aimed at brides and “every other girl with a flair for fashion.” These styles were available in blue, and probably in a range of other color

Ads for Selby Arch Preserver shoes are interesting because they always show three women of different ages striding along in chic outfits. Ad from WHC, November 1936.

Queen Quality shoe ad, WHC, November 1936. The Bengal, right, looks rather middle-aged to me, but the Lanett pump, top left, has a very high heel.

These Walk-Over shoes from October 1936 range from casual and sporty (top left) to citified. Top left has a stacked leather heel. Prices $7.50 to $8.50, in a wide range of colors, including “Araby green.”

The top-stitched Walk-Over shoe at top right looks a lot like the gray shoe featured in that December fashion illustration.

Back to those $3 to $4 Paris Fashion Shoes: They were really inexpensive compared to shoes advertised in Woman’s Home Companion at the same time.

Red Cross Shoes cost $6.50 to $6.85 in November 1936.  That’s more than 50% to 100% higher than Paris Fashion Shoes. (A couple of these styles look rather graceful compared to others from 1936.)

These Foot Saver shoes cost as much as $12.75 in October, 1936. WHC. [Are those sequins?]

According to Woman’s Home Companion, October 1936, a working woman with a college education could expect to earn $18 per week. She was expected to need four pairs of shoes per year, at $3 a pair. Maybe she bought Paris Fashion Shoes!

 

 

 

 

Fashions for Women, October 1927

These line drawings in black and a rusty shade of red showcased Butterick patterns for October 1927. As usual, I’ll show closer views, back views, and pattern descriptions later in this post; first, here is an overview of twenty-one styles from 1927. Most of these are clothes for adult women; some are for either teens or adults. The illustrations are by L. Ferrier.

Butterick dress pattern 1657, coat pattern 1699, and dress 1705. Delineator magazine, October 1927, page 27.

Butterick patterns 1684, 1649, ad 1690, from Delineator, October 1927, page 28.

Butterick patterns for evening: dress 1713, coat 1693, and dress 1679. Delineator, October 1927, page 28.

Ensembles:  Butterick patterns 1711, 1653, and 1672. Delineator, October 1927, page 29. If you planned your wardrobe colors, either dress could be worn under that coat.

Ensembles:  Butterick 1675 and coordinating coat 1686; the coat is illustrated over dress 1689. Delineator, October 1927, page 29.

Three 1927 dress patterns from Butterick: Patterns 1661, 1691, 1nd 1709. Delineator, October 1927, page 30.

Butterick 1683, a princess line dress; 1703, a bolero dress, and 1693, an afternoon or dinner dress which could be made sleeveless for evening. Delineator, October 1927, page 31.

Closer Views and Details:

Ensembles: both Butterick day dress 1657 (L) and more formal dress 1705 (R) could be coordinated with coat 1699 (C). Often the coat lining matched the dress. In sizes from 32″ bust to 44″ bust. 1927. I’m sorry not to have a back view of these dresses, but the description says the diagonal lines of number 1657 are not repeated on its back.

No. 1705 shows a popular twenties’ use of double-sided crepe satin, using the shiny side used on the bottom of the dress and the matte side used for the top. Velvet and satin in the same shade could also be combined; using the light-absorbing velvet on the bottom and the shiny satin on the top is very flattering to women who want to minimize their hips. Or two values of the same color could be used, such as dark and medium rosewood [a brownish deep pink,] or deep brown with a cafe au lait top.

The same hat is illustrated tree times; it is very close-fitting and appears to be covered with shiny feathers.

A very tight-fitting cloche hat. 1927.

A hat like that would fit nicely over these sleek hair styles:

Cropped hair, worn very close to the head. 1927. Very long, swaying earrings add a feminine touch.

Butterick evening gowns 1713 (L) and 1679 (R) with a velvet or metallic evening wrap coat. No. 1693. Notice the very low-cut “evening” armhole at left; at right, the low armholes show the under-slip of metallic cloth. 1927.

Back views.

Ensembles: Left, Butterick two-piece dress 1684 made in velvet; center, coat pattern 1649; right, dress 1690. October 1927. For women and young girls (15 to 18 years.) Velvet bands on dress 1690 match the velvet of the coat, making a coordinated ensemble.

Alternate views include short sleeves on the dresses. “The gusset under the arm introduced by Paris gives a semi-kimona [sic] sleeve the fit of a set-in sleeve.” You could make these from wool or other daytime fabrics; velvet was just a suggestion.

Two dresses to wear with one coat: Left, Butterick dress 1711; center, Butterick coat 1653; right, dress 1672. Delineator, October 1927, page 29. Sized for teens and adults to bust size 44″. The belt on No. 1672 appears to pass under the pointed skirt panels and buckle in the center. Note the bust dart in its side seam; boyish figures were on their way out.

“Sunray” tucks and applied trims appear on several Butterick styles from this period. The shoulders of the coat extend into a raglan sleeve whose fit is improved by an underarm gusset. The higher neckline of dress 1672 looks good under the coat’s opening.

Back views show the coat’s shoulder clearly. To modern eyes it’s surprising that the pleated or circular fronts of these dresses have very plain, straight backs.

A sporty plaid coat (Butterick 1686) could form an ensemble with dress 1675 or with a dressier day look, Butterick 1689. Delineator, Oct 1927, p. 29. [I can’t imagine that the sunrays on No. 1689 were flattering to many figures…. “The bands can be omitted if one likes.”]

Although the coat pattern is available up to bust size 44″, the dresses are for teens or small women only (“15 to 20 years.” I like the way the belt on No. 1675 passes under the pockets.

Alternate and back views show that coat 1686 also has raglan sleeves. Again, the pleated skirts are only pleated in front.

The use of matte and shiny sides of crepe satin on the same dress — sometimes in contrasting colors — gives an Art Deco chic to these dresses:

“The Flare for Satin:” Butterick dress patterns 1661, 1691, and 1709. October 1927. Delineator, page 30. No. 1709, on the right, could be made sleeveless for evening wear.

Back views of Butterick 1661, 1691, and 1709.

Three different dresses, three different hats. Oct. 1927, Delineator.

Not all 1920’s dresses had a strong horizontal line across the hip. Princess line dress patterns were available for several years and didn’t change much — except for their length. The “bolero” of the 1920’s could be separate (as here) or part of the dress, and 1920’s boleros often reached the high hip, unlike the cropped, above-the-waist “bolero” seen later in the 20th century.

Butterick patterns 1683, a princess line dress; 1703, a dress with separate bolero jacket, and 1693, which could also be made sleeveless for evening wear. Delineator, October 1927, page 31.

The alternate view of 1703 without its bolero jacket shows a very attractive evening dress with metallic top and velvet skirt:

I realize this post is longer than is usually recommended, but, when I was drafting costume patterns, I would have really appreciated more back views in my research! I have learned a lot (too late) from these old pattern descriptions.

Animal Prints and Sheer Yokes, 1927

This classic twenties’ cardigan outfit caught my eye because of its animal print (or fur) accessories. Butterick pattern 1345, from March 1927.

To the author of the AllWays in Fashion blog, who just wrote “it’s clear many of our old friends are returning for another stylish go-round:” this one’s for you! Synchronicity at work.

I’m not in favor of wearing real fur, but I have to admit that the belt and matching clutch purse really jazz up this basic cardigan and pleated skirt costume. I don’t know if the matching shoes came from the illustrator’s imagination or were really in the stock at Butterick’s art department. (I sometimes see the same hat illustrated with several dresses in an issue of Delineator.)

I found the other outfits illustrated with Butterick 1345 less iconic, although 1349 is also classic. Both have skirts with pleats only on the front.

Alternate view and description of Butterick 1349, from 1927.  Surprisingly, it’s described as a “jumper frock,” not a suit or ensemble, although the pattern in the Commercial Pattern Archive says it is a “two-piece frock.”

No. 1349 is third from left below.

Four Butterick patterns from Delineator, March 1927, page 23. From left, 1345, 1297, “jumper frock” 1349, and 1347, called a “bosom front” dress.

In the same issue I found two dresses with an unusual yoke; sheer fabrics were suggested for daytime, which probably means they were afternoon dresses.

Butterick patterns for a box coat (No. 1304), worn over a dress with sheer yoke and box pleated skirt (1337;) third is dress pattern 1335, followed by another sheer-yoked dress, Butterick 1331. Delineator, March 1927, page 22.

Box jacket 1304 over dress 1337. The very simple jacket is accented with dark applied trim. At right, the dress (1337) is illustrated in crepe silk, with a yoke of sheer Georgette, a crepe-like sheer fabric.

Alternate views and text describing Butterick 1304 and 1337. To create a suit-like ensemble,  dress 1337 is made using matching fabrics for jacket and dress. From 1927. It was common for 1920’s dresses to have all the fullness in front, with a straight back.

Butterick 1337, bolero dress 1335, and 1331. Delineator, March 1927, p. 22. The dresses right and left are formal day dresses, and the one at right could be made in a sleeveless evening version.

Alternate views and descriptions of Butterick 1335 with “simulated bolero” (in the center)  and yoked dress 1331. (For a “bolero” topped evening gown by Chanel, click here.)

Butterick 1337 and 1331, from 1927. The treatment of the armholes is different, but the yokes are otherwise similar: curved, and low on the sides. They would have been worn over a slip or teddy/combination, so the sheer bodice would have something opaque covering the sides of the breasts.

All the models in these 1927 illustrations have severely shingled hair. Here’s some shingle haircut advice from 1925.

 

“Zip” — Slide Fasteners from Sears, 1930s (Part 1)

Thanks to reader kellycb for wondering about the brands of zippers sold through the Sears, Roebuck catalog. I thought I could do a quick search through the 1930’s Sears catalogs available through Ancestry.com. [All images in this post which are labeled “Sears” are copyrighted by Sears Brands LLC. Please do not copy.]

Zipper brands available from Sears in 1939 included Talon, “Standard”, and Crown. Earlier catalogs also sold Koh-i-noor slide fasteners, snaps, and  hook and eye tape.

I was quickly able to find that Sears sold Talon Hookless Slide Fasteners, and “Crown” fasteners — possibly a house brand, since Sears also sold Crown fabrics. But that’s not what soaked up two days of my browsing time. It was the constant use of the word “Zip” to indicate a slide fastener.

Zip: Slide fasteners sold through the Sears catalog, Spring 1935. Sears image via Ancestry.com

Technically, advertisers could not call a slide fastener for a garment a “zipper.” But the American public apparently did refer to them as zippers, so the word “zip” — not copyrighted — appears quite often.

The word “zipper” was owned by the B.F. Goodrich company.

B.F. Goodrich Zipper Ad, December 1928, Delineator magazine

Originally the “Zipper” was a winter overshoe (rain boot) that closed with a slide fastener, made by the B.F. Goodrich rubber company. As I wrote is a previous post, “by 1922 Goodrich had launched their “Mystik Boots,” which closed with Hookless [brand] slide fasteners instead of snaps or buckles. They were such an immediate success that B.F. Goodrich Company asked Hookless for exclusive rights to use their fasteners. In 1923, the Mystik Boot was renamed, to draw attention to the ease with which they were put on and taken off.

“What we need is an action word,” said company president Bertram G. Work, “something that will dramatize the way the thing zips.” He quickly added, “Why not call it the zipper?” – from The Evolution of Useful Things, by Henry Petroski, p. 111.

The word “zip,” indicating speed or energy, was already popular slang.

These 1930 trousers for young men and boys had “zip and dash,” but they did not have what is now called a zipper. The fly closed with buttons. Sears image via Ancestry.com.

You could zip around town in your car or on a bike. “Zip” was also the name of a hair remover that had been in use since the twenties.

Zip hair remover ad from Delineator, November 1924. “Zip — It’s off because it’s out.” “You actually destroy the growth by gently lifting out the roots — painlessly and harmlessly.” [That’s what it says….]

In Akron, Ohio, where Goodrich “Zippers” were manufactured, a college football team is still called the Zips.

The speed with which the name of a trademarked product — the Zipper boot — became the standard American noun meaning “slide fastener” amazed me.

Anyone who is seriously interested in the history of the slide fastener, now usually called a zipper, should know about Robert Friedel’s book, Zipper: An Exploration in Novelty, which has been described brilliantly by The Vintage Traveler. (Click here for her “Currently Reading: Zipper: An Exploration in Novelty“. The Vintage Traveler also showed many ads for  zippers in her “Zippers, Part II.”

As Friedel explains, early slide fasteners were put into production and sold before they were perfected [rather like some software today.]  One problem with the early slide fasteners was that they worked as long as they remained perfectly straight — but sitting usually causes the fabric in a skirt placket or trouser fly to bend. Twenty years later, people who had been publicly embarrassed by a broken slide fastener were not eager to try the improved versions in their clothes.

A Hookless Fastener is featured on this man’s suede jacket (called a blouse) in the Sears catalog for Fall, 1930. “Zip it’s on — Zip it’s off! — that’s the quick modern way to dress….”

Menswear quickly adopted slide fasteners in sports jackets and work shirts, but resistance to replacing button-fly trousers with zipped flies continued till the late 1930’s.

Sears offered many clutch bag models with zippered compartments, and handbags with concealed zip interior pockets. Fall, 1930. The Hookless Fastener Company was now better known as Talon.

Slide fasteners worked well on straight openings: clutch handbags, mail bags, boots and leggings, even sleeping bags.

A boy’s jacket from Sears, Fall, 1927, closes with a Hookless slide fastener. “Zip! — just a simple jerk on the patent hooker and it’s snug around your neck. No buttons to bother with and we guarantee it to work every time.” Judging from the need to explain, this really was “Something New” in 1927.

One brilliant approach to selling slide fasteners urged their use in children’s clothing to make children more self-reliant. (See “Zippers Are Good for Your Children.” A bonus: children didn’t remember those embarrassing old zippers!)

“Put in Zips so she can dress herself — Even tiniest tots manage them.” Sears catalog, Spring, 1939.

Regardless of B.F. Goodrich, the word zipper did get used by other sources:

Here, the Sears catalog for Fall, 1929, suggests making children’s winter leggings with a “zipper  side fastener.” (Leggings with dozens of buttons must have been a nightmare for Kindergarten teachers.)

These trousers — which did have a zipper fly — were aimed at young men with waists 26 to 32 inches:  “College Styles” “for youths.”

Sears offered these trousers “featuring the FLASH Slide Fastener” in Spring of 1935. The extremely wide legs — sometimes called “Oxford bags” — were a young man’s fashion.

Slide fasteners also made an early appearance in girdles and corsets.

“Zip! It’s Open!” The woman on the right is enjoying the ease of a zippered girdle; the woman on the left wears a corselet closed with hook and eye tape. Sears catalog, Spring 1932.

Slide fasteners were used in sports clothing and work clothing before 1936, but they seem to be most often used on relatively heavy fabrics, like leather, wool, corset coutil, and sturdy cottons.

This “Pic-Pon Cord” cotton dress from Sears has a “zip closing;” Sears catalog for Spring, 1935.

Also made from corduroy is this woman’s jacket from 1933.

Zipper neckline closing on a “Sporting Life” jacket for women from Sears, Spring 1933. Its “popular, practical zipper closing” uses a “Jiffy” Fastener.

According to the catalogs, this was Sears’ most popular work dress for women, and in 1935 it was offered in the traditional button front or (“More Style! More Comfort!”) with a zip- closed front.

From the Fall, 1935 Sears catalog: a sturdy work dress. The “new, improved” version with the zipper (right) cost more; zippers were relatively expensive.

The 1935 “Zip-Closed Front” work dress cost twenty cents (20%) more — a zipper cost about 20 cents.

By 1937, the “zip close” version was featured more prominently than the buttoned one.

In Sears’ Spring catalog for 1937, the work dress with a zipper was more prominent.

The zipper made a transition from sports and house dresses to dressier women’s clothing by 1937. Several Paris designers began showing dresses with visible zippers in 1935-36; Schiaparelli put visible plastic zippers right on the front of her dresses.  However,  I found a Vionnet design from 1929 that had a prominent zipper front closing. It was copied by Butterick as pattern 2526.

A Vionnet ensemble sketched for Delineator magazine in 1929 has a prominent zipper on its front.

Butterick also offered a different dress pattern that was featured in advertisements for the Talon Hookless Fastener in 1928-29.

Here’s a closer look at Sears’ [rather limited] Slide Fastener selection from 1935:

“Zip;” slide fasteners available from the Sears catalog, Spring 1935. Customers were assured that these stayed shut (“locks in any position.”) They were also washable and rustroof — unlike early hookless fasteners which had to be removed before washing your garment.

The concealed “Kover-Zip” slide fastener from Koh-i-noor was available in separating or non-separating versions. Its zipper teeth were completely concealed by a color-fast grosgrain cover. It was a luxury item, more than twice the price of a “Standard slide fastener.” Sears’ Zipper colors were limited to black, brown, tan or white.

In 1935, the zippers were recommended for “finishing sport-wear, blouses [like the man’s suede “blouse” shown above], children’s garments” (the Kover-Zip) or in “sturdy quality for sport coats, sweaters, children’s suits, dresses.” In other words, they were for casual and practical garments, usually made of heavy fabrics.

Men’s shirts with zip fronts; Sears catalog, Fall, 1937.

After the Paris collections of 1935-36, zippers were about to undergo a rapid change for the better. (See “Zip” Part 2, coming soon.)

Butterick Vacation Wardrobe for $25, 1933

You could make a complete summer vacation wardrobe — six outfits — for just $25 from a set of Butterick patterns. Delineator magazine, May 1933, p. 69.

The Butterick company’s target market in the 1920’s was upscale; there were regular reports on French fashions, and even a new column giving women financial advice during the stock market boom of the late twenties. But in this Depression Era article from May, 1933, the emphasis is on economy.

The accessories suggested include some rather elegant shoes, a sweater, and, as explained in the text, only one hat that you couldn’t make for yourself.

I’m not surprised that those shoes were expensive.

A Store-bought black straw hat for summer, 1933. Delineator, May 1933, p 69.

A store-bought sweater and a home-made hat, May 1933; Delineator.

Other gloves and hats could be made from Butterick patterns:

Butterick glove pattern 5135, hat pattern 5126, and clutch purse No. 3131. Delineator, May 1933.

Notice the extended shoulders on most of these clothes.

Butterick Skirt 4908, worn with a sweater and coat 5043; next, dress 5019  in a fine print; “tennis dress” 5104 made in white; and afternoon dress 5095 in a floral print voile fabric. May, 1933. Delineator magazine.

In addition, a print suit (a dress plus jacket) and a “Letty Lynton” – influenced evening gown were part of the twenty-five dollar wardrobe.

Butterick evening gown pattern 5069 from May, 1933.

The stiff, sheer layered sleeves show the influence of Adrian’s design for Joan Crawford in the film Letty Lynton.

Butterick jacket dress 5107, 1933.

The $25 budget didn’t include accessories, not even the ones made from Butterick patterns.  However, there is an emphasis on the need for wardrobe planning:  coordinating your pieces so that they can all be worn with either black or white accessories. (And, if you could afford a vacation in 1933, setting some limits would definitely make packing easier.)

The cost per outfit of making the $25 wardrobe. Delineator, May 1933. Page 69.

The cost of the Butterick patterns themselves ranged from fifty cents (the jacket dress or the evening gown) to thirty-five or forty-five cents for the other dresses, and twenty-five cents for the hat pattern, which included three styles. I wonder if the big, stylish buttons were included in the price estimates.

In 1936, a woman fresh out of college could expect to earn about $80 per month. According to one article, on this salary, she could even afford to take a vacation….

She can “join a savings club and see the world. Happy landing, we say.” — Woman’s Home Companion, October 1936.