pattern junkie

The Wienie Roast Murders

At first I thought the woman in McCall 7804 here was holding a golf club, and thought it was unfortunate that sexism had landed these golfing ladies in the weeds.  But take a closer look -- that's no golf club.  It's a roasting fork with a wienie speared on the end!

But where's the evidence of the wienie roast itself?  Where are the picnic baskets, the laughing kiddies, the ants, the pickle relish?  Why is Yellow Sweater holding the wienie so close to the ground?  That's very unhygienic!

The wienie, I'm quite convinced, is evidence of a heinous crime.  Look at the suspicious poses of all three women.  As Yellow Sweater disposes of the offending wienie, Green Slacks and Red Sweater serve as lookouts.  As soon as it's buried, they're all jumping in a car and driving off to Mexico.  Really, this illustration could double as a Dashiell Hammett novel cover or a film noir poster.

The real question is: what's the crime?  What's the motive?  I'm wondering if these three found their husbands engaged in a late night memo meeting...

We Have A Winner!

Congratulations to Bratling, who provided a great alternative story to Simplicity 1617 and thus wins the first Pattern Junkie contest:

"...I think that stripes has the golf club as protection from squinty eyed white pajama man. There is obviously something sinister about white pajama man's book. Perhaps it is a manual on how to take over the world, and Stripes' golf club is the only thing that can stop it! Perhaps the golf club is a Bond-esque weapon that will stop White Pajama man from enacting his nefarious plan!... The golf club blends in for camouflage! So when Stripes attacks to stop Squinty-eyed White Pajama Man, he won't know where it's coming from!"

 

Bratling, the pattern is yours!  Just email me your address (my email is at the upper left) and Stripes and Squinty will come home to you. 

Someday I Shall Be Queen

 

I think Vogue 1897 should have come with strict instructions: only people with a title such as "Queen," "Baroness," or "Countess" could make the example on the left.  And that title had to be recognized by the U.N., not just by your giddy reflection in the cracked bathroom mirror.

Although...how wonderful is it to imagine two women showing up in this dress at the same dinner party?

P.S.  For an interesting look at the couture details included with the instructions, check out this post at Pins and Needles!

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar and Two Men in PJs are Just...

Remember just last week when I suggested that Simplicity 1617 here was a prime example of The Pajama Problem?  That the poor illustrator, perplexed at having to visually explain why two men were in PJs together, made it into a virtual horror movie -- what with Stripes and his missing eye and different colored hands?

Lo and behold, a few days ago I was going through patterns to list in my etsy shop and I found this very same pattern!  It was then that I discovered that some of my conclusions were quite wrong -- the mismatched hands and missing eye are the result of aged paper, not illustrator madness  See?  Here's my copy:

Stripes isn't missing an eye -- both of his eyes are closed.  And I can't believe that I missed the golf club in his right hand!  For some reason the stripes on his pajamas show through it -- is it clear?  Invisible?

So, dear readers, I must revise my earlier interpretation.  White isn't in the middle of performing horrible medical experiments on Stripes.  And, of course, there's a perfectly logical reason why these men are in pajamas together.  Stripes is sleepwalking (hence the closed eyes) and has wandered into White's house, disturbing him as he's reading.  Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Stripes is dreaming about golf -- that's why the club blends so perfectly with his pajamas.

This mixup of mine calls for a mea culpa in the form of a PATTERN GIVEAWAY, so let me know what you think!  Is there another explanation for what's going on here?  Leave your answer in the comments -- you have until Sunday night, 2/21/10, midnight PST, and the pajama pattern is yours!

Every Time You Make A Wiggle Dress, An Angel Gets Her Wings

McCall's 5103, 1959:

Let us not forget that every fashion era, no matter how great, had its missteps.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Round Two

Alas, it's time to wrap up men's week and bid a fond adieu to the men of patternland -- at least for now -- with a look at some of the "bads" and "uglys" I've found of late.  Enjoy -- and who knows?  You may find your own swan among these geese!

Let's start with Simplicity 8207.  I get the drawstring bell bottoms.  I get the color-blocked shorts.  I get the motorcycle jacket.  What I DON"T get is combining them all together:

Speaking of strange combos, how 'bout these fabric choices for Simplicity 9400?  Wowza!!

While we're on the subject of ties, McCall's 3434, the "reversible tie and ascot pattern" raises my suspicions right away.  The pattern envelope is trying WAY TOO HARD to convince me that this is a great idea:

Sure, there's only one guy the envelope for McCall's 2455 -- but his mustache and ALL THAT FRINGE demand inclusion, don't you think?  You can't stop the fringe!

Simplicity 9087 -- which I first spied over at Male Pattern Boldness (thanks, Peter!) -- is a stunner, if only for the fact that the man in the ponyskin vest stands out the least.  Really, how is THAT possible?!  We've got a couple of early Beatles wannabes, a Great White Hunter, Mr. Blue Two-Way Polyester and...

...???  WHAT IS THAT?  The man in front.  The one wearing striped pants, a matching striped vest and NO SHIRT?  

Striped Vest confuses me greatly.  Since I spent the early 70s learning how to walk and tie my shoes, I sent the picture to Ma & Pa Pattern Junkie with the question: what on earth could this man be doing?  What activity is he dressed for?  My father's answer was "disco" while my mom was confused by the whole pattern, which she termed a "mod-safari-cowboy-circus fusion."  So Striped Vest is a mod circus cowboy.  On a safari.  Good enough for me.

Last but not least, Simplicity 6440, which is the hands-down winner in the "so bad it's good" category.  Any pattern that lists an actual bottle opener in its notions list and uses the phrase "rick rack steam" in its description is a winner in my book:

Yes.  The bottle opener actually hangs off the vested apron.  Genius!

Have any "good, bad and uglys" of your own?  Send 'em my way and I'll post them!

Locked Inside Your Heart-Shaped Pockets

A little Valentine's Day sweetness offered straight up, no chaser.  I've stumbled across a few vintage dress patterns with heart-shaped pockets before, but had no idea there were so many.  Enjoy this little collection!  (Click the pattern picture to be taken to the listing in the Vintage Pattern Wiki.)

Here's a charming one, Hollywood 1144, circa 1940s.  I especially like the striped/solid number on the left:

 

Here's another beauty from Hollywood Patterns, 1390, also circa 1940s.  I love the beret and flowers in their hair, too!

Here are heart pockets on a bolero -- though I have to admit, I'd go with the bows instead:

And another approach.  Mail order pattern 4777 has one simple heart pocket for one sweetheart, I suppose:

Jumping forward to 1971, here's Simplicity 9520, which decided that hearts belonged on the butt.  Extra points for the fab shoes, fringed shorts and awe inspiring Heidi-hair:

For a dose of heart pockets in total 70s Technicolor, check out Simplicity 5423.  Double gingham overload!

My favorite is this mail order pattern from the 1940s.  I think the Rosie Riveter style jumpsuit with the heart pockets and sweet blouse is what really makes it work for me.

Happy Valentine's Day!  May your pockets -- whatever their shape -- be stuffed with chocolate!

 

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Round One

Welcome to THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.  These are a few of the men's vintage patterns I've found that count as my "goods."  If Mr. Pattern Junkie, the rebellious ex-early 80s punk rocker, did not strictly adhere to his own unique dress code (black, black, black; Vans shoes with skulls; shirts never smaller than way too big and shorts never shorter than 5 inches below the knee), these are patterns I'd make for him.  Of course, tastes vary -- you might call these your "bads" or "uglys"!  Enjoy.

First: I've got to tip my hat to Butterick 3960 for making plain shorts more interesting with the stripes variation on view B.  Both Mr. View As seems quite jealous, don't you think?

 

I really love this mod shirt and pant combo from McCall's 8475, not to mention the pattern illustration itself.  Yeah, baby!

Butterick 5738 has a deep V-neck vest with a low-slung belt.  Everything about it screams bad polyester and hideous 70s fashion.  So why do I like it so?

McCall's 5628 is easy to love: it's a classic car coat.  Even Mr. Pattern Junkie might go for this one:

 

Here's a car coat updated for the 1970s, McCall's 2981.  I thrifted a coat much like View B in college and wore it to death until my mother "accidentally" donated it to Goodwill.  She's still in trouble for that one.

Finally: Butterick 5898!  With my big collar obsession, how can I not love a robe with wide lapels?!  FUNKY!

Next up: my bad and uglys!  Got good, bad and uglys of your own?  Send 'em in and I'll post them!

Men's Week Day Four: All About the Subtext

Remember the old joke about the fortune cookie fortune that read, "Help!  I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory"?

Occasionally I run across patterns that remind me of that.  See, it's easy for me to forget the people behind the pattern illustrations: the trained artists who made a living by turning out drawing after drawing of wrap dresses, button down shirts and fly-front pants.  But sometimes an illustration comes along that -- whether through its composition, color or subtext -- is the equivalent of that fortune cookie message.  Pick up the envelope and listen.  You'll hear a soft whisper: "I studied at the Sorbonne.  I have more in me than another zip-front housedress.  I have things I want to say."

Here's one example: Butterick 2305, circa early 1960s.  I lack the artistic training to explain just why the composition is striking, but it really does jump out.  (Maybe it's the way the men face different ways, their arm gestures almost mirroring each other?)  Sure, it's an illustration for a shirt design -- and an interesting design for the view B hemline, at that. 

But look closer.  Can't you imagine it hung in a gallery as a 50s suburban update on the happy/sad drama faces?  It would be titled "You wouldn't believe what the little woman did this time!" -- the first instance having a wacky sitcom interpretation, the second a more sinister Belle de jour one:

Yeah.  That made me feel sort of icky, too.

Let's move on to Simplicity 4971, also from the early 1960s.  If Butterick 2305 is compelling, subtle and disturbing, this is...wow.  This is the kind of thing you get in freshman art class.  Look:

The sensitive young boy in capris and espadrilles touches the elbow of the jacket-wearing tough as the Pants of Oppression look on in disapproval!  This isn't a pattern illustration -- it's a coming out story.

Tomorrow: The Men's Week wrap-up begins with Day One of THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY!

When The Pajama Problem is Just Too Much

Welcome to Men's Week, Day 3!

Yesterday I presented the Pajama Problem faced by illustrators of the past: what to do when a men's nightwear pattern had two views?  How to explain two men in PJs together?  Usually an array of props -- golf clubs, memos, etc -- presented the event as an odd nighttime business meeting.

But sometimes, the Pajama Problem was just too much.  Here in Simplicity 2289 (circa 1930s), I can feel the illustrator's terror rising right off the page.  "No!  No!  Just because it's two men in pajamas doesn't mean they have to look (whispered voice) gay."  And yet in trying so hard NOT to do that, the artist came up with something that seemed to betray his or her worst fears.  Stripes has shoulders so wide he makes Tan look femme by comparison, and Tan clutches the clock as if he's washing dishes.  In fact, Tan's lips are almost red:

 

The illustrator for Simplicity 1617 (late 1930s), on the other hand, seems to have suffered a nervous breakdown at the prospect of showing (gasp!) two men in pajamas together.  Take a look:

 

It's as if his or her neurons just misfired all at once.  "Two men in pajamas -- does not compute!  Too bizarre to contemplate!"  Green Trim with his villainous mustache clutches a book (with that freakishly long finger!) in one hand, but what's he hiding behind his back?  And what's happened to poor Stripes?  Dear God, his hands are different colors and he's MISSING AN EYE!  But he's better off than Back View, who is not only missing a right forearm but his entire head.  This isn't a pattern illustration, nor is it simply two men in pajamas -- it's a scene from a horror movie!

You may think there's an obvious solution to the Pajama Problem: throw a woman or two into the mix.  Nope, that presents its own problems.  Two men, one woman?  Two men, two women?  Why are all of them in PJs together?  As far as I can tell, pattern illustrators didn't try this one out until the advent of the sexual revolution, with some particularly humorous results.

Here's McCall's 2218 from 1969.  Three Hefner-esque guys and one woman -- and they actually wrote "Quickie" on the pattern?

 

Even better: Butterick 4158 from the early 1970s.  Looks like Mustache lost out tonight -- and don't tell me the illustrator didn't know there was a suggestion of that!

Do you have any examples of The Pajama Problem?  Send 'em to me, I'd love to post them!