Modern Ballroom Dancing and Fashion, 1930

One of the biggest delights of my local Goodwill Outlet Center is the book bin.  Or rather, bins, as there are usually three or more, all full of books and magazines of every sort for book lovers like myself to dig through.  I never fail to find something of interest, and my latest trip produced a 1974 copy of The Great Gatsby, complete with photos of Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, Roy Rogers and the Outlaws of Sundown Valley, a 1950 Whitman book, and the nondescript looking book pictured above, Modern Ballroom Dancing by Lillian Ray.

Published in 1930, the illustrations show that transitional period of clothing between what people think of the Roaring Twenties and the Depression Thirties.   Some skirts are still short, but others have moved downward to the calf, and still others are a combination of the two lengths.

People who study fashion history know that styles don’t abruptly end at the ending of a decade.  For matters of simplicity, it is often convenient to call a dress “1920s style” or “1930s style”  but in the real world of clothes it is not always that easy.  I’ve seen a lot of confusing clothes from the late 1920s and early 1930s.  It’s not always a cut and dried science.

I was intrigued to read the words of Catherine Martin (in interview with Fashionista), the costume designer of the soon to be released  The Great Gatsby film from her husband Baz Luhrmann:

One of the other rules Baz made at the very beginning of the project was that, because the book is set in the summer of ’22, published in ’25, and foreshadows the crash of ’29, we were actually allowed to use the whole decade as a reference base.

People are already talking about how the clothes in the film sure don’t look like the 1920s, and it occurred to me several weeks ago that it looked more like 1929 or 1930.  It’s interesting to note that was, in part, intentional.  Martin took the range of ten years and pulled what fit into what she wanted the character to portray.

I’ve already said this here, but I’m not in any way going to go to The Great Gatsby thinking it is an historical depiction of 1925.  It would drive me crazy.  Instead, like the life with Daisy that Gatsby has formed in his mind, this is a fantasy.

Looks easy, no?

All illustrations from Modern Ballroom Dancing by Lillian Ray, Franklin Publishing Company, 1930, illustrator not credited.

Thoughts on Downton

FAIR WARNING!  This post contains spoilers about Downton Abbey, season 3, so read no further if you are not wanting to know how the season ended.  And if you are not a Downton fan, I think you’ll want to sit this one out.

It’s the show we all either love, or love to hate.   For the most part, I enjoy watching the show, but I’ve become increasingly irritated by all the bad history.  I guess you can take the teacher out of the classroom, but you can’t take the classroom out of the teacher.

There has been so much discussion about clothing along the lines of are they or are they not properly attired.  As in most costume dramas, there is a combination of the good, the bad, and the downright silly.   For the most part I think that costumers today are much more aware of the need to be historically accurate than they were in the past.  All you have to do is watch a few episodes of M*A*S*H* or Happy Days to see how bad TV costuming was in the 1970s.

Generally speaking, the clothing in Downton Abbey has been pretty much correct to the era, but it is in the details that it goes awry.  After the sinking of the Titanic, Lady Mary complained about being forced to go into mourning and wear black.  But then, even when released from it, she continued to wear black on many occasions.  Of course, black began its move toward chicness during the war, but it is unlikely that she, a young woman who was not in mourning, would have worn it out of choice.

Then there is the problem of the same clothes being seen over and over and over.  A family as rich as the Crawleys would never have been caught dead in last year’s clothing.

But I think that the worst case was this season when Cousin Rose sneaked away to meet her married boyfriend in a “jazz club”.  This was 1921, I believe, and all the pretty young things in the club were dressed like a bad version of 1926 flappers.  Dresses were to the knee and much too tight.  Yes, I know that people automatically associate the 1920s with a wild, frenzied party of flappers, but this is just bad history.

There are also problems with the characters exhibiting modern sensibilities.  Would Lord Crawley have discouraged a suitor for his 26-year-old daughter merely because he was a little old?  Would an older man actually have defended a homosexual saying it was not his fault as he was born that way?  It seems unlikely.

I’ll only touch on the speech anachronisms because there are entire websites and blogs devoted entirely to exposing the dozens of them found in each episode.  Some are pretty obvious, but in order to find them all, some people are using a function of google that isolates English expressions by date of usage.  We all can isolate phrases and expressions that have come into the language during our own lifetimes, but the ones that predate us are just a natural part of our language.  So I didn’t realize that the word “rematch” was not used until 1941, but the usage of “I’m just sayin’” and “steep learning curve” and “a lot on my plate” were more obvious, and frankly, distracting.

Which is the problem of bad history.  It irritates the people who know better and ill-informs those that do not.

But if it is so bad, then why do we keep watching.  My guess is because it is so pretty.  My favorite scenes continue to be the ones that really don’t have a lot to do with the overall story line, but that show the Crawleys engaged in the leisure pursuits of a wealthy family of the time.  They are at their best when shooting or playing cricket or just rambling about.  It helps that they pick spectacular backgrounds.  Anyone care to join me in a trip to the Scottish highlands?

There were rumors that the show would have only three seasons, but the overwhelming and unexpected popularity of the program shelved that idea.  I’m thinking that it just cannot go past four or five, as there is just not going to be anyone left to inhabit Downton Abbey.  I suppose they could move the venue to Heaven, where so many of the characters now reside.

Why is there so much death on this show?  I guess we should not be surprised considering that it was the deaths of the heir and his son that form the basis of the series.  There have been 24 episodes and at least 12 deaths, for an average of a death every other week.

Poor Matthew.  The moment I heard that Dan Stevens was leaving the show I knew that Mary was destined to be a widow, so I watched the entire finale peeking out from under a blanket that I used to shield my eyes from the impending doom!  I feel bad for the little heir, as he sure looks expendable to me.  With the succession secure, who cares about who Mary marries or how she and Edith spar?  Yep, that baby is toast.

All photos copyright Carnival Films for ITV

Ad Campaign – Riegel Fabric, 1949

Riegel’s Fine-carded Gabardine is a ’round the year fabric for smartly styled garments that must look well, wear well… and cost less!  It has the rich “feel” that identifies quality everywhere… in a range of colors and weights for heavy outerwear or summer playclothes.

Whatever is wrong with actually dressing to fit the weather?  Can you imagine the young woman above in stiletto booties with no socks or tights, and a shaggy white fur jacket?  Or how about white wide legged pants that drag the ground, gathering snow and getting soaked through?  And my personal favorite, white print skinny jeans with four inches of bare leg between them and  white wedge shoes.  Yet in the aftermath of a snowstorm in New York City, these outfits were a common sight.

I know that there are people who spend weeks planning their ensembles for NY Fashion Week, and far be it from me to say they don’t have the right to look as foolish as they wish.  But there is a lot to be said for being a bit flexible when it comes to dressing for the weather.  Is it not possible for one to be both comfortable and fashionable?

I know that I’m missing the point here.  The purpose of dressing up for Fashion Week is so that one will be photographed.  Suzy Menkes calls it the Circus of Fashion.  The saddest part is that she is right:

Having lived through the era of punk and those underground clubs in London’s East End, where the individuality and imagination of the outfits were fascinating, I can’t help feeling how different things were when cool kids loved to dress up for one another — or maybe just for themselves.

 

Are You Too Old for Vintage?

I actually wrote this post for another blog almost a year ago.  For some reason that blogger never published it on her site, so I’m going to put it here.  It’s very different from my usual posts, so I hope you enjoy it.  I was reminded of this after reading Michelle’s post on striking a balance between dressing too young and too old.  And my apologies to the blogger for whom this was intended.  If you ever decide to publish this on your site I’ll be happy to remove it from mine.

I’ve been into vintage clothing for a very long time, and at 57 I got to wear a lot of the styles that are vintage favorites today back when they were the height of fashion. When I discovered vintage clothing in the late 1970s, the vintage “industry” was quite new.  Wearing vintage was not the popular clothing option it is today.  I was discovering lovely pieces of old clothing but I didn’t want to look like it was Halloween.  So instead of wearing a complete vintage outfit, I began incorporating vintage pieces into my modern wardrobe.  This is a system that I’ve continued to use throughout the years.

For young women today, wearing vintage clothing is a fun alternative to modern clothing.  But we older women sometimes are hesitant to go all out in a vintage ensemble.  Often fit is an issue with a middle-aged figure, and many times the best vintage styles are simply too young looking.

There’s an old adage that says if you wore a fashion the first time it was popular, then your time is over.  When it comes to vintage the “rule” might be that it is really hard to pull off a look that you remember wearing in years past.  I’m not so sure one has to always adhere to such a rule, especially when it comes to classic pieces, but the truth is that an older person who wears something that dates to her adult lifetime runs the risk of looking like she raided the back of her own closet.  This is not the image most of us want to put out there.  Vintage is fun, but looking like you have not been shopping in 30 years is anything but.

So instead of revisiting the 1980s, go back further in time, to the early 1960s perhaps.  I remember these clothes on the women in my childhood, but I was too young for the Jackie Kennedy look.  Maybe that is why I find the clothing from the early 60s to be especially appealing.

That’s me in the photo, circa 1985.  Clearly, my time for puffed sleeved sweaters has come and gone.

Forget looking for vintage that would be “age appropriate.” By that I mean don’t try to wear things a 55-year-old woman would have worn in 1965.  Do you remember Aunt Bee from the Andy Griffith Show? That’s how middle-aged women were expected to look, but you should be going for pretty or sophisticated – anything but dowdy.  A 25-year-old woman might be able to pull off your grandmother’s 1970 poly dress with the elastic waist, but you will just look like your grandmother.

Photo copyright CBS Paramount Television

Look for things that fit in with your sense of style. If you love plaids or stripes or blue or floral prints, use that love as a starting point in looking at vintage clothing. Buy things you would be comfortable wearing if they were new. One of the advantages of being older is that we generally know what we like and what suits us. I’m not saying to not be adventurous; I’m saying if it feels like someone else’s clothes you are not as likely to wear it.

I may not want to wear a 1980s puffed sleeve sweater, but this one from the 1940s fits my sense of style and love of the color blue.

Vintage dresses can be hard for the older woman to wear. Combine the fact that your waistline is likely a few inches larger than it was when you were 22 with the fact that until the late 1960s (and sometimes beyond) most women wore firm body shapers. You will probably find that most vintage dress shapes between 1930 and the mid 1960s are just too small in the waist.

If this is your concern, you might try these two dresses from the mid 1960s, the shirtdress and the shift. Contrary to common belief, not everyone in 1966 was running around in super-short minis. That was a few years later.

Look for clothing that was meant to have an easier fit like coats, jackets and sweaters.  Because they were designed to wear over other garments, the fit is not as precise as a dress or a slim skirt.  Most of the vintage I own that I actually wear is outerwear purely because it is easy to find things that fit.

Again, be careful regarding style.  You want to find the right balance between too young and too dowdy.  Many vintage coats were cut to fit over the big skirts of the 1950s and early 1960s, and these tend to look shapeless without something beneath to fill them out.  An a-line coat like my Pendleton above is flattering for many body shapes.

If you are not sure about vintage clothing, start out with an accessory.  The selection of vintage handbags is simply staggering, and the quality is often much better than in handbags available today.  Evening bags are an exceptionally good buy, along with vintage bags in shapes that designers still turn to today.

If you love scarves, they are another great vintage value, not only silk ones but also cashmere and fine wool.  Other accessories to consider are jewelry, belts, hats and even shoes.

I’d love to hear your tips for wearing vintage, regardless of your age.

Made in the USA – The Cat’s Pajamas

I really am thankful for pajamas, because pretty much the only time a woman of 57 can get away with wearing a pink and black Scottie dog print is when she is at home and visitors are not expected.  The same can be said, I suppose, for prints with puppies and cupcakes, cats in trees and miscellaneous cocktails.  These are the sorts of prints for sale at my latest made in the USA find, The Cat’s Pajamas.

When it comes to pajamas, I’ve been a Bedhead devotee for the past ten years or so.  That’s when I bought my first pair – a pair I’m still wearing, by the way.  But I came across a recommendation for Cat’s Pajamas and decided to give them a try.

First, the fabric prints at Cat’s Pajamas are very whimsical and brightly colored.  I like that in a pj.  You can let your inner kid come out when dressing strictly for your home.  On the negative side, though the pajamas are sewn in the USA, the fabric is imported (from who knows where) and to be honest, it is not quite as soft as I’d like.  Still, after four washings, it has softened up without any color loss to the print.

Another plus is that they offer a variety of styles in most prints.  I’m short, so I ordered the capri length which was just right for me.  Some of the prints are available in both flannel and poplin.  And they have plus sizes.

Time will tell whether they hold up as well as Bedhead does, but for now, I’m very satisfied.  This pair was on sale, and the shipping is a reasonable flat rate of $5.

And if they would find a US supplier for the fabric, I’d really love them.

Nice packaging that includes a cute eye shade.

Ad Campaign – White Stag Gloves, 1940s and 1950s

I’m pretty sure I’ve already posted all of these great White Stag ads, but I’m re-posting them just to take a close look at the gloves.  In the above add from 1946, the shape and the color are pretty much the same as my pair.

And the same is true of these gloves in a 1945 ad.

This ad from 1944 shows two-tone gloves, but the contrast is much greater, and the palm area, larger.

This ad from 1952 shows two pairs of two-tone gloves.  Unfortunately, the gloves are not mentioned in the ad, and there is no sight of the zippers.

This is a page from a White Stag catalog, not dated, but World War II era.  There are no zippers mentioned, but that is to be expected during a time when metal was going toward the war effort.  My gloves are very similar to the description of No, 80.  My guess is that mine are “natural” or “sand” with aspen blue” or “glacier blue” leather.  I have more pages from the catalog here.

Vintage White Stag Ski Gloves

The USA is in the grip of an arctic air mass, so I thought some nice, warm vintage ski gloves would be in order.  These gloves (or are they mittens?)  from White Stag feature a zipper on the back of the hand, and probably date from the 1940s or early 50s.

White Stag was originally a tent manufacturer, and through the 1960s canvas continued to be a favored material.  The outside of these gloves are a fine gauge canvas, and they are lined with cotton flannel.  The palms are a light blue leather.  There is elastic at the wrist and again at the end of the glove.

You might think that the metal zipper would be cold against the back of the hand, but these are crafted so that the flannel overlaps the zipper completely, and so it does not come in contact with the skin.

It’s an interesting design, similar in concept to hunter’s gloves, except that on them the opening is on the palm side and is across the bottom of the fingers.

After I bought these last summer I started looking at White Stag ads from the 1940s, hoping to get a glimpse of gloves with a zipper.  I found plenty of their gloves that have a similar shape, and several with what appear to be a leather palm, but none had the zipper.  I’ll continue looking, and would appreciate any of you skiers and sportswear collectors out there providing me with any information you might have about this type of glove.

This label is very similar to the one from the 1940s and early 50s.