Some regard the 70s as the worst of times in fashion. I have to confess that I have a weakness for them. Not for the hippie-ish headbands and caftans, but for the capital F FUNKY that abounds, from bizarre polyester prints to flared pants and (of course!) big collars.
So this week the 70s get some eye candy commemoration thanks to McCall's 2594 here. That collar! Those clean princess lines! And oh, do those pockets make my heart go pitter pat. In a coat like this, how could you ever feel frumpy or lack confidence? That coat says "I KICK ASS -- even when wearing a crocheted beanie and granny glasses."
This week's UFF inspires terror in me for what it might do to my, er, assets...and I'm only a B cup. Who at Simplicity thought backwards suspenders (with their nice "cross my heart" look) and a tight empire silhouette was a good idea?
Wow. Even by the warped standards of fashion illustration, these are some LONG legs. Looking at White Shorts makes me shudder, and not in a good way:
Plaid and Red seem to be engaged in some kind of dance move, which makes me think they're all in that long-forgotten 1970s musical "A Culotte Line," which tells the uplifting story of a group of young designers determined to end the pants/skirts divide once and for all.
Oh, Vogue. You've come out with some scrumptious dresses for spring...and then there's your new pattern for men, 8720. This goes straight into the Department of WWTT (What Were They Thinking?):
Was it really necessary for the coat to be buttoned all the way to the neck? Did the model need to shove his hands forearm-deep into the pockets? And why, in the name of all that is holy, did someone decide to throw sunglasses into the mix?
I don't see this and think, "My goodness, there's a stylish man!" I think "That guy's getting ready to expose his junk. Remind me not to look his way."
As you probably know, Vogue released their new spring patterns a week ago. I don't know about you, but I found several drool-inspiring dresses. There are the two great Donna Karan offerings, 1219 and 1220, which both feature lovely details. I'm also lusting for 1233, but you all know what a sucker I am for big collars and 70s-inspired fashion.
Which to choose for eye candy status? In the end I decided upon 1232 by Pamella Roland. Check it out:
I love the curved seam along the front and the asymmetrical hem. The flower's cute, but I think the dress would be just fine without it. What I adore most of all is the ruffle at the bottom. It manages to be sophisticated rather than little girly, and it seems like it'd be an awful lot of fun to wear.
By the way, I found a photo of it in her spring collection -- quite pretty, don't you think?
Welcome to Unfortunate Fashion Friday, a new feature here at PJ where I share the odd, the horrifying, and the just plain wrong. (Let me state right at the outset that I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong about my UFF choices -- so when one of you makes an amazing version of something I've picked, send it my way!)
On to the mockery. The Big 4 are busy releasing their new spring lines. There's some great stuff out there, and then there's McCall's 6280:
Those of you who grew up in the 70s & 80s like I did probably remember the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups ads that purported to tell the creation myth of Reese's yummy wonders. A librarian might be standing on a ladder eating a chocolate bar, only to accidentally drop it into a patron's open peanut butter jar after he bumped into the shelves, or a quarterbacker running down the field might ram into a cheerleader and the same chocolate bar/peanut butter jar confluence would happen. (No, they never explained why people were walking around eating from open peanut butter jars.) The point is, the wacky collision would always result in one person exclaiming "You got your peanut butter on my chocolate!" to which the other would reply "You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" Then both would realize that the two flavors were fantastic together.
Here's an example:
Which brings us back to that dress.
It's never good when you look at a design and your first thought is "What the hell happened there?" Really, I look at this dress and all I can do is envision the wacky, Rube-Goldbergesque collision at McCall's HQ that caused two halves of cute dresses to get stitched together like Frankenstein. Maybe if it were done in all one fabric. Maybe if that lovely cape collar extended to the other side...maybe if the interesting hip detail extended to the other side...
You see where I'm going with this. Asymmetry can be cool, but these are two great tastes that do not taste great together!
The Vintage Wiki listing describes it as a housecoat, but I vote for wearing it out and about whenever possible. Look at that princess seaming! The extended shoulders with a double layer of ruffles! The ruffles manage to look elegant instead of girly-girly (not that there's anything wrong with girly ruffles, of course.) I love the long-sleeved view -- it manages to be sexy and elegant without showing skin.
Sadly, the Vintage Wiki doesn't have the back view or even a pattern description. Does anyone out there have this beauty? Have you made it? And will you send it to me?
