October Brides, 1925

Patterns for October Brides. Delineator, October 1925.

The classic 1920’s roses embroidered on this simple beaded dress show both luxury in ornamentation and simplicity in style. It is just one of seven October wedding dresses from Butterick, including one recommended for very young brides, and one that was available up to size 48 bust.

Butterick patterns 6362 and 6360, Delineator, October 1925, pg. 32.

Butterick 6362, October 1925. Made in colored fabric, this pattern would serve as an afternoon or evening dress.

In illustrations, it’s not always easy to distinguish between a line of beads or a line of topstitching. The zigzag edges of No. 6362 are probably an indication of picot edging, a typical 1920’s hem for chiffon. Spaced beads were sometimes used, but their weight would affect the hang of the draped panels.

You can see a picot edge on the collar, and spaced beading on the edge of a side panel on the blouse of this suit, circa 1917. Thanks to B. Murray for permission to photograph.

 

Butterick wedding dress No. 6360, October 1925. The sheer sleeves may be removed and the armhole cut down to make an evening dress after the wedding. This pattern was available up to size 48 inches bust measurement.

Wedding gowns from Butterick patterns 6224, 6175, and 6146. October 1925, Delineator. They are as short as ordinary day dresses.

Butterick 6224, with embroidery transfer 10285 for the rose worked in pearls on a satin or silk crepe dress.  Delineator, Oct. 1925.

Wedding dress No. 6175, Butterick, Oct. 1925, Delineator pg. 34. Her bouquet looks like a dead fox, but I like the subtle beading (?) around the top and seams of the lace flounce.

Wedding dress No. 6146, Butterick pattern; Delineator, October 1925.

Butterick 6349 was for a “very young bride” (or a small woman), and only available in sizes 15 to 20 years. Even in satin, it looks rather sporty! Click to see the pattern envelope illustrations– which do not suggest that it is a wedding dress.

It’s noteworthy that all seven of these 1925 wedding dresses are just below knee-length — shorter than most day dresses earlier in 1925. Not one is a full length gown. Some have short sleeves — not suitable for a church wedding, but popular for informal weddings at a private home. Some can be used as ordinary evening dresses, and all but one are available in sizes up to a 44″ bust measurement (and one is bigger.)

The veils range from clouds of tulle to a lace mantilla, from a headband to a tiara.

Bridal veils and wedding headdresses, Delineator, October 1925.

This dress, which began the post, was the featured illustration:

Wedding pattern 6227, Butterick, October 1925.

Butterick 6227, October 1925.

Butterick Bridal Gown 6227, Delineator, Oct. 1925, pg. 34. An all-over pattern of stylized roses — “work in beads” — might be a mother’s labor of love….

In an alternate view, No. 6227 has long, sheer sleeves, tied at the wrist, and a wider hip sash.

Here are the back and alternate views:

Back and alternate views, Butterick 6360, 6175, 6227, 6145, from 1925.

Back and alternate views, Butterick 6349, 6224, 6362, from 1925.

6362 has quite a pretty back, while most of the other wedding dresses depend on their veils for back interest.

[More tags added 10/16/16.]

Redingotes in the 20th Century

Women’s Redingotes, circa 1805, 1931 and 1926.

A Very Generalized Brief History of the Redingote
The redingote, as the French called this fashion based on heavy overcoats worn by men for riding and coaching, appeared in the early 1700’s as a man’s coat, often split in back from waist to hem in order to fit easily over the back of a horse. By the late 1700’s there were both male and female garments called “redingotes.” [see Boucher, esp. p. 429] The woman’s redingote could open all the way down the front, but some variations were cut away in front at the waist, either partly or almost to the side seam.

Redingote circa 1776, and a half redingote circa 1786, from Francois Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion, p. 302.

Woman’s Redingote, circa 1790. Collection of LACMA. Click here  for more information about it.

A good source of information about both men’s and women’s redingotes is Francois Boucher’s 20,000 Years of Fashion. Via the frock coat, the redingote was an ancestor of both the man’s cutaway (or “morning coat”) and the tailcoat — both still worn by men today for very formal occasions.

By the 1800’s, “redingote” usually referred to any lady’s over-garment that could be opened from neck to hem, exposing the dress beneath.

A woman’s redingote circa 1800-1805, courtesy of the Victoria and Albert museum collection. Like the male redingote, this one has several cape-like collars.

No longer made chiefly for warmth and weather protection, the woman’s redingote was a popular Regency style.

Redingote, French, 1817 to 1820, collection of the Metropolitan Museum.

Obviously, this was no longer a riding outfit. One enduring (and slenderizing) feature of the woman’s redingote was that it could be worn partially unfastened, revealing a long sliver of the garment underneath. Patterns of History has a good set of early images in its history of the redingote. Click here. The “redingote” persisted into the 1830‘s, and resurfaces periodically as a description of any overdress that can be worn open from neck to hem in front to reveal another garment which is intended to be seen.

Redingotes in the 1920’s

“Redingote Effects,” nineteen twenties. The open dress in the middle, sandwiched between other 1924 fashions, is not a true redingote, but has an attached pseudo-underdress. Butterick pattern 5632 in Delineator, Nov. 1924. It was available in large sizes, too.

Couturiers had continued to use the open coat or overdress occasionally, but in the 1920’s, the redingote officially reappeared, worn open over an underdress or costume slip.

Butterick pattern 5626 for a redingote, Nov. 1924. Delineator, p. 21.

Butterick pattern 5626 description, Nov. 1924.

The open redingote created a long vertical line from top to bottom; it should have been very appealing to women who were not flattered by the low, horizontal belt of the 1920’s.

Butterick pattern 1958, from April of 1928, was recommended for the larger woman.

Pattern no. 1958 came in a very wide range of sizes, from age 15 years to bust measure 52 inches.

This redingote style was also available for larger women up to size 52:

Butterick pattern 2048, from May 1928. Delineator magazine. “A separate one-piece slip is worn under the dress.”

The next two nineteen twenties’ redingotes, both Butterick patterns, were made of sheer fabrics and worn over an opaque undergarment. They were not described as redingotes, but as coat-dresses. However, the dress and coat are separate garments.

On the left, a coat-dress in redingote style, for young women, from September 1926. Butterick pattern #7024.

[“Bois de rose” — rosewood — was a chic 1920’s brownish-pink color. The matching satin slip of a coat-dress would never have been worn by itself.]

A sheer coat-dress for young women, Butterick 6904. July, 1926, Delineator.

An “ensemble costume” with a sheer coat open down the front to reveal a polka-dotted dress. Butterick 6952, Delineator, July 1926. This under dress (“slip-over frock”) could be worn separately.

Back view and description of Butterick ensemble 6952, from 1926.

If you’re afraid that you’d look like a sack of potatoes in a 1920’s dress, consider a twenties’ ensemble like this one — perfectly authentic. The print collar draws our eyes up toward the face; the belt is not tight enough to cause a blouson effect.

Redingotes in the 1930’s
The redingote continued into the 1930s, and was made in see-through materials later in the decade.

Delineator, April 1931: “The Redingote … comes up every few years and each time is is an immediate success.” The redingote on the left “has its bolero only in front — the back is made in one piece — bloused at the waistline.” The coats of these redingotes fasten only at the waist.

Redingote fashion described in Delineator, April 1931.

“It looks so different from anything we have seen for a long time.” In Delineator magazine, “a long time” was apparently about three years, but the 1930’s fitted waist and long hem are quite different from 1928’s redingotes. Here are Butterick redingotes 3837 and 3850 without their coats:

The dresses worn under Butterick redingotes Nos. 3837 and 3850 from April 1931. Back views of the coats are at left.

Butterick redingotes 3897 and 3850, April 1931. The largest size available for No. 3837 was 40″, but No. 3850 was available up to bust measure 44 inches.

A redingote was again recommended for its slenderizing properties in 1938:

Butterick redingote pattern 7853 from August, 1938 Butterick Fashion News. This pattern was “for shorter, heavier figures” up to bust measurement 52 inches.

But the redingote below, from the same issue, was part of a fashion for sheer summer clothing:

A sheer redingote: Butterick 7991, from Butterick Fashion News flyer for August 1938. Available in bust measurements from 30 to 40 inches.

And now it’s time to thank Lynn at American Age Fashion for showing us this photo by Ben Shahn from the Library of Congress archives:

Two ladies celebrating the Fourth of July, 1938, in Ashville, Ohio. From the Library of Congress. Detail of a photo by Ben Shahn.

It was Lynn’s post about these older women wearing sheer dresses that made me wonder, “Is that a redingote on the left?” (I’m still not sure, since it doesn’t fall open below the waist.)

And, now that I’ve lightened the image, I see that the dress on the right is only closed at the midriff, exposing the under slip. Could it be called a redingote, too? If it opens down her back, or at the side, no. But if those buttons are not purely decorative, and it opens down the front, yes.

Both ladies have secured the collars of their dresses, one with a bar pin and the other with a flower pinned in place.

Thanks, Lynn, for inspiring my 20th century redingote quest!

 

 

 

 

Autumn Wedding, 1927

Planning an Autumn Wedding? Here are some fashions suggested in Butterick’s Delineator magazine, September, 1927.

Autumn Wedding Fashions, Butterick 1593, 1638, and 1650, Delineator, September, 1927, p. 31.

What to wear to a wedding, Sept. 1927. Butterick patterns 1593 and 1638..

Butterick 1593 was suggested for the Mother of the Bride. 1927.

A wedding guest might wear Butterick 1638, an afternoon dress. 1927.

The same pattern, No. 1650, could be used for “a very young bride” and her bridesmaids:

Butterick 1650 for bride and bridesmaids. 1927.

The bride’s close-fitting basque (bodice) had a side seam closing. The bridesmaid’s dress has three decorative bands, one at the natural waist.

For a more sophisticated bride, a street length wedding gown. Butterick 1624. The other items are for her wedding guests.  Butterick pattern from Delineator, Sept. 1927, p. 30.

Butterick coat pattern 1584 and dress pattern 1640. From 1927.

Butterick bridal gown 1624, and dress 1618 for a guest. From 1927. Although short, the wedding dress has a long train.

Click here for a closer view of that necklace.

Weddings and dancing go together, so here are three evening frocks from the same issue:

Evening dresses, Butterick patterns 1620, 1646, and 1648. Delineator, September 1927, page 34.

Back and alternate views of Butterick evening dress patterns 1620, 1646, and 1648. From 1927.

1646 could have beaded straps (a rather new idea) or the more usual round or V shaped neckline. 1620 has a “tasseled necklace trimming.” Patou introduced evening dresses with trompe l’oeil necklace trimming as part of the dress in 1927. If made as an afternoon dress, No. 1646 would have sleeves, probably to the wrist.

All illustrations by L. Frerrier.

Personally, I’d go for No. 1638 or 1640, which use two textures in the same color for a subtle contrast and Art Deco chic.

Art Deco geometry and subtle contrasts of texture in these dresses from 1927. Double-sided crepe, with one side matte and one side shiny, was a popular fabric for styles like these. Or you could use velvet and satin….

Dress #1640 (which was available in patterns up to a 44″ bust with 47.5″ hips) would be a great choice for women who are uncomfortable with the  typical 1920’s dropped waist — it has no waist at all! I wish I’d seen this research years ago.

 

 

Caught in the Twenties

Cover of Delineator magazine, September 1928. Illustration by Helen Dryden.

Caught isn’t the right word; “enraptured” might be more accurate. I finally have a chance to visit bound volumes from the mid-nineteen twenties and photograph them, and I wish I could post everything I find. By 1928, Delineator magazine is filled with the styles we think of as “the twenties.”

Butterick patterns for January 1928. Delineator, p. 33. Composite from original illustration. I’ll return to these patterns in a later post. Love that coat!

There’s a strong Art Deco influence in the geometry of day dresses, and there’s drama, beading, and a flutter of chiffon in the evening.

A gown from Paquin, February 1928, and a jewel-studded evening gown from Lanvin, March 1928. Delineator magazine.

For a knock-out evening coat by Lanvin, circa 1927, click here.

Perhaps it’s because I’m a sixties’ girl that the proportions of 1928 look “right” to me.  Not that I would ever want to wear a straight-torso-with-hip-belt dress, but the knee-length skirt balances them better than the skirt lengths of 1925 or 1926.

Print fabrics, Butterick patterns; Delineator, August 1928.

With my library time machine, I’m currently “visiting” 1926, 1927 and 1928.  I try to bounce around from decade to decade in this blog, but getting out of the late Twenties is going to be hard.

Joyful geometry: Butterick patterns in Delineator, February 1928. I love the way the angle of the trim on the bodice is echoed by the angle of the pleated skirt panel. Interesting that the button is located at the natural waist….

I’ve already written about the fashion shift of the mid-twenties (click here.) Just to review, fashions for young women (15 to 20) were slightly shorter than those for mature women in 1925 and 1926.

Patterns for adult women, Delineator, December 1925.

Patterns for girls 15 to 20, and small women. Delineator, December 1925.

Left, teens 15 to 20; right, adult women. Composite based on Delineator ilustrations, December 1925.

Because teens and adults were drawn differently, it’s hard to get an exact comparison, but the hems on the adult women seem to be a couple of inches farther below the knee. When I compare the two dresses in the center, the orange one on the right looks dowdy to my modern eyes. All four figures are drawn with impossibly long torsos.

Here are some Butterick fashions from 1926:

Pictured are two little girls, and four girls aged “8 to 15 years.” Their dresses are quite short, but look like young adult fashions of a year later. Delineator, February 1926.

The proportions on these knee length skirts look “right” to me, but they are not dresses for young women; they are for girls under 15. I especially like that plum colored outfit on the far left.

Two adult women flanked by two girls aged 8 to 16 years. Delineator, February 1926.

These are Butterick patterns from 1927:

Women’s fashions with straight silhouettes. Butterick Nos. 1329 and 1317, Delineator, March 1927. I love the use of graded values of the same color, and those repeated geometric, Art Deco jogs on the dress at left — with matching cuffs. Skirts end just below the kneecap.

These couture designs for evening, 1927, use metallic fabrics and beading, and look quintessentially “Twenties.” It would be hard to mistake the dress on the left for any other era.

Left, a salmon pink-and-silver fringed and beaded evening gown by Paquin; right, a straight gold metallic cloth dress with finely pleated ruffles, by Yvonne Carette. Delineator, January 1927, p. 16.

Two evening dresses by Chanel. Left, “deep orange” lace; right, a dress completely covered with black beads. Delineator, January 1927.

Detail of paillette beading on black Chanel dress; Delineator, January 1927.  Apparently the beads change direction, giving a checkerboard effect.

If you love the Twenties, it’s hard not to think, “Now, we’re getting somewhere!”

The Metropolitan Museum has a beaded dress from 1926 attributed to Chanel; click here — and don’t forget to click on “Additional Images” for a a close-up of the beading and spangles.

A few images from 1928:

Two women’s dresses from October 1928. Butterick patterns 2243 and 2267. Note the zigzag formed by the skirt panels at right. It’s hard to see, but the band on the left dress is two colors, or two shades of the same color.

This young lady appeared in an ad for Fleischmann’s yeast, which, she said, restored her health. The fabric of her glittering dress is quite striking:

Fleischmann’s Yeast ad, Delineator, May 1928.

Butterick patterns for misses and women (from teens to bust 44″.) The coat came in sizes 46 and 48, too. Delineator, November 1928. Hems are already on their way down.

For more about 1928 “Hems Going Down,” click here. This cartoon dates from 1929.

 

 

 

 

Hems Going Down Part 2: July 1928

Afternoon and daytime fashions for July 1928. Butterick patterns featured in Delineator magazine.

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this “Hems Going Up/ Hems Going Down” series, even in the years when 1920’s hems were at their shortest, there were options for longer variations, especially in more formal afternoon and evening dresses.

Sleeve length was another indicator of formality:

Day dresses, July 1928. Butterick patterns 2129, 2066, and 1961. Delineator.

The dress on the right, #1961, is shown sleeveless, but:  “The sleeveless printed frock may be worn for afternoon out of town; … for town add long sleeves.” It was suggested that the center dress, # 2066, be made in red, white, and blue.

These three dresses have hems that are simultaneously long and short:

Afternoon dresses for July 1928. Butterick patterns 2086, 2133, and 2038. Delineator.

The tiered dress on the left, #2086, “slips on over the head.” It is shorter in front than in back — a style favored by Misses aged 15 to 20 in 1926. (click here.) or (here) In 1928, pattern #2086 was available in sizes 15 to 18 years and ladies’ bust sizes 36 to 42 inches.  The dress in the middle (# 2133) with its “smooth hipline, circular flare, uneven hem, and fagotting, is smart beyond measure.” The dress on the right (#2038) was versatile:  with its long-sleeved bridge coat [i.e., jacket] it was “suitable for formal afternoon. Without the coat it is a chic [sleeveless] evening frock, with an uneven hem, long at the sides. . . . Designed for sizes 32 to 40.”

Six hems, July 1928. Delineator.

It’s interesting that the dresses with uneven hems (on the left) are shorter at their shortest point than the dresses with straight hems — as if the high and low hems average out to the “standard” length.

Three dresses from Frances Clyne, illustrated in Delineator, July 1928.

“At teatime in town the woman at left is serenely cool in her diaphanous black chiffon frock and shadowy hat. The frock has a tiered skirt that trails to the ankles in back and a long, vague scarf.” [It’s a hem born to be stepped on, I’m afraid.] “The definite contrast of surface and color is used with skill in [the middle] frock. The blouse is lustrous white satin, the skirt, dull back crepe. . . . Arrows are traced on the blouse with fine lines of cording.” Far right:  “The smooth, cool surface of black foulard is printed with small white figures, widely spaced, for this town dress of great chic. The bordered hemline is full and very long at the left side — a new note, for it is only this season that the uneven hem has been seen in the afternoon.” Frances Clyne operated an exclusive New York dress shop; in the 1930s, it was on Fifth Avenue.

More Summer Frocks from Butterick, July 1928

The Delineator illustrated many day and evening frocks in this issue — so many to each page that I have broken the diamond-shaped illustrations into manageable groups.

A short, straight hem (No. 2137) and a high-in-front, long-in-back hem (actually, a flounce) [ed. 7/5/15](No. 2121) from Butterick, July 1928.

Summer frocks:  No. 2137 (left) was for Misses 15 to 18 years (32 to 35 bust) and for ladies’ bust sizes 36 to 44. The high/low hemmed dress on the right (No. 2121) was designed for sizes 32 to 48 — the style is no longer reserved for younger women.

These dresses have long side drapes — much longer than their knee-length hems.

Butterick patterns 2117, 2127, and 2131; July 1928.

No. 2117 (left):  “The ripple of the jabot across the front and down the left side gives this simple frock the formality required of afternoon clothes. . . . This one-piece long-sleeved frock is designed for sizes 32 to 44.” No. 2131 (right) has a detachable vestee filling in the front and was sized for busts 32 to 52 inches. (Surplice-closing dresses were often recommended for large women in the 1920’s.) (Click here.)

Dancing Frocks, July 1928

Butterick patterns for evening frocks, # 2135 and 2125. July 1928.

No. 2135 is made of moire fabric, but is “also chic in Georgette or lace.” Designed for Misses 15 to 18 years and ladies with busts 36 to 44″.  No. 2125 (right): “This type of evening frock is smartest in satin crepe or lace.” Also for Misses 15 to 18 years and ladies with busts 36 to 44″.

Butterick evening dress patterns for July 1928. Left, No. 1962; right, No. 2109.

No. 1962, above left, shows that the handkerchief hem is still chic, but shorter and more fluttery than it was a few years earlier; No. 2109, above right,  has a long hem on its right side and a trailing drapery on the left. Notice the large scale print on this sheer fabric.

Butterick patterns for evening dresses, July 1928. No. 2112 and No. 2123.

Here, (No. 2112, on the left)  the scalloped, high-in front hem of 1926 seems to have shifted to the side of the body. It is balanced by a long sash on the opposite side.  No. 2112 also has “the shoe-string strap . . . featured by one of the most important French houses.” Above right,  “The classic evening gown of lace is included in every complete wardrobe — it is so chic and so practical.”  No. 2112 was for younger women — 15 to 20 years plus ladies’ sizes 38 and 40 —  but No. 2123, on the right, was available in pattern sizes up to 44 inches.

Evening gowns with short-in-front-long-in back hems. Butterick patterns 2087 and 2108, July 1928.

The dress on the left, No. 2087, is a grown-up version of the high/low scalloped frock worn by young women in 1926.

[EDIT ADDED 7/5/15:  I can’t resist linking to this dress featured in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Style section today:  Harputs Own black Pamper dress, which appears to be long in back, shorter in front. Click here.]

No. 2108 (above right): “the most successful evening frock of midsummer is the printed chiffon with the uneven hemline. . . . With long sleeves, it is chic for afternoon. . . . Designed for sizes 32 to 35 (ages 15 to 18 years) and sizes 32 to 42.” At the sides, the top layer is very short.

By March, 1929, apparently running out of new uneven hemline variations to describe, The Delineator proclaimed, “Among Uneven Hemlines the short position at the sides is new.”

“Among uneven hemlines the short position at the sides is new.” Delineator magazine, March 1929.

Evening Coats

The 3/4 length coat, like the one above, or  a knee-length coat worn over long gowns  is typical. Since dresses’ hemlines were so varied, apparently fashion decreed that an evening hem draggling out below your coat was perfectly acceptable.

Evening coats and dresses, The Delineator, 1929.

Blogger Brooke (of Custom Style) commented that these short-in-front, long-in-back dresses remind her of mullet haircuts. More 1920’s mullets ahead . . . .