I love this cover from March, 1946, though I’ll admit it does confuse me a bit. By March most people are tired of brown, even if it is this pretty soft dark taupe. Where are the pastels, the pink? Why such dark gloves (even though they do match her eyes) and hat?
No matter, I love the strong makeup, the gold earrings and the up-swept hair. I’m not too crazy about the shoes, and I’m sure that by 1946 most women had had it with such sensible shoes. And those are shoulders that simply cannot be ignored.
So, should they have saved this one for September?
Photographer: Constantin Joffé
Model: Not credited
Copyright: Condé Nast
The Vintage Traveler 
I’m from Wisconsin…and up there it is still winter in March….regardless what Mr Calendar says.
P.S. I don’t think there is a spell check on your comments, Liz…so excuse any of my misspelled words along the way. I can make great mannequin heads…but can’t spell.
LikeLike
Should I bring my red marking pencil out of retirement?!
LikeLike
That definitely looks too somber for me. And that inset photo looks like she’s trying to scurry away from a masher!
I say – bring on SPRING!
LikeLike
She can use that umbrella in a defensive move!
It was 70* here last week, and now we are under a winter storm watch through Tuesday.
LikeLike
I agree with you on the brown in March. It is time for Spring, even if the weather in MN doesn’t cooperate. I like that outfit. Those are my kind of shoes.
LikeLike
I like the shoes as well, but I do think she needs a bit more heel. Not that I’d wear a heel over 1 1/2 inches!
LikeLike
Perhaps brown was the correct color for working ladies — as per subtitles.
LikeLike
Yes, this does have a career woman look to it.
LikeLike
Beautiful cover and you’re right Lizzie. Not very spring-like but very appropriately autumn for us down here in the Southern Hemisphere. 🙂
LikeLike
This look would be spot on for March in Boston. Although she’d probably still need to be wearing boots. This dark taupe would be considered a ‘spring’ color here (I’m not kidding).
LikeLike
So interesting! Here in the South it might be a fall color for about a week and a half in the middle of November.
LikeLike
The subdued colour of this suit may reflect the Post-War period. There were still government limitation orders on manufacturing and shortages of wool and other materials for clothing. The CPA (Civilian Production Agency) enforced unpopular laws to introduce some kind of conformity. These laws particularly when applied to women’s clothing didn’t last long and they were frequently broken. By 1947 these restrictions bowed to the influence of Paris. Interestingly, US production of men’s suiting in 1946 appeared to be a government directive and manufacturers had to “boost” production. This was to get men back into the workforce and to build the economy.
LikeLike
You could be right about the color of the suit and of the shoes as well.
LikeLike
Yes, too somber…and I also think the model in the background shot looks frightened–like someone is sneaking up on her! But I do love the green gloves with the brown of the suit. I want green gloves!
LikeLike
Interesting – almost a transition between boxy 40’s fashion and the feminity of the New Look.
LikeLike
It is exactly that – a transition. Socially a very interesting period. Until Pre-War production levels returned there was still a sense of conservative austerity in clothing for women would soon give way to the New Look and a softer silhouette.
LikeLike
When I looked at this cover I saw the red cross with “Give” and thought of the war effort, and just assumed that was the reason for the dress. A bit military, inline with laws and before Dior turned the work upside down.
LikeLike
Yes, so mid-1940s with that short hemline. That was soon to change!
LikeLike