I, uh, what? Butterick 4237 baffles me:
The shape of the "doll" is odd enough, but after some consideration I can get behind round pillows with yarn fringe and eyes. But what's with the group of characters? I can find no rhyme nor reason to "Lovey Lion," "The Mess," (who seems a little angry, don't you think?) "Bunny Hug," "Moody," "Worry Wart," and, strangest of all, "C. Urchin." That's not "View C, Urchin" but "C. Urchin" (view E).
What, oh what, am I missing here?
There are a few baffling and downright disturbing things on the pattern envelope for Kwik Sew 1179:
Remember McCall's 3435 and The Dreaded One-Note Bird?
Well, it now has a rival in the "Inexplicable Illustration Detail I Just Can't Get Past" Department. Behold Butterick 5246:
Is that a light switch on the wall? If so, what made the illustrator go "I know just what this drawing needs to sell this dress -- a light switch!" Yes, because I always plan my outfits around the momentous occasion of turning on the lights.
But...is the switch in the shape of of a triangle?! Why? Is Green in her smock dress actually flipping The Switch That Will Destroy The World? Is Stripes hiding the key to unlock the missile codes in her little red purselet? If so, they seem pretty casual about the whole thing. They're not super-villains or heroines -- just two laidback gals in smock dresses who stumbled into the war room one afternoon.
I have to say, if this is the depiction of The End of The World, I could use a bit more drama.
Tweet. Tweet.
How nice that Butterick 5266 includes relationship advice on the pattern envelope:
Hmm. It seems Togetherness is Also...
...His and Hers Pants in Identical Fabrics and Styles
...His and Hers Striped Belts
...His and Hers Tan Kerchiefs Knotted in the Jaunty Style
I never thought about how challenging it would be to illustrate a dolman sleeve until I ran into Simplicity 5286. The artist knocked it out of the park, don't you think?
The poses, from front to back:
I am one of those people who looks horrible in most photos. I mean it. Nine times out of ten, the camera will catch my eyes somewhere between half mast and closed and my smile crookedly sliding off my face. Recently I found a baby photo where I sported that expression. It actually was a tremendous relief: I realized that my horrid photos could be blamed on genetics.
If you think I'm going to post examples here, well, you're sadly mistaken. But if you want an example of how my eyes tend to droop like saggy curtains, making me seem drunk? Check out Advance 9926:
And Advance 2831 really knocks it home. It's the whole package: insipid smile, closed eyes, dork dork DORK! Really, I swear this could be me:
These illustrations are almost as confusing as the one with the mysterious chair I posted about last week. The whole advantage of illustrations over photos is that you don't have to deal with awkward moments like these. What made the illustrator decide to go this route? Why capture your model at the worst possible moment?!
Maybe...maybe some models curse illustrators the same way I curse cameras. It's the only explanation I can think of!
I'm planning on doing a post on 1950s maternity patterns soon, and recently stumbled upon McCall's 3516. Take a look at what Blue is holding:
It took me a minute to figure out what that red scrawl was: "McCall"! She's holding a McCall's pattern book or magazine -- because, of course, she sews with McCall's patterns.
I realized I hadn't seen this before -- a pattern illustration that actually suggests that a woman sews. Isn't that interesting? You'd think that since the intended audience for patterns are sewers that you'd see more representations of, well, people sewing. Instead the illustrations show people at parties, at barbecues, at the beach...enjoying the garments they've sewn. I suppose that's why they work so well -- I for one look at the picture and imagine myself in the completed garment, completely forgetting that it will take time and work to get there!
What do you think? Would seeing a pattern illustration of someone in a fabulous dress picking out fabric or draping a mannequin make you excited to sew? Or would it remind you of the work involved and make you less likely to buy the pattern? Have you seen other pattern illustrations that show women sewing? If so, please send them my way!
Who knew that Good Housekeeping could be, well, so downright groovy? Good Housekeeping 768, 1967, is classified as a pattern for "Just-For-Fun-Clothes" -- but the fun covers a much larger range than I'd expect.
Let's start with the Shoulder Strap Shift. This image is EXACTLY what I'd imagine Good Housekeeping to consider "fun":
A demure shift. Cute. A sweet pose. And I bet her shoes match her earrings. Very GH -- I just wish the photo were in color!
But then...things get a little interesting. Check out the quasi-Amazon women modeling the Striped and Batwing Ponchos:
I suppose gladiator sandals demand a gladiator pose? This promises a different variety of fun -- namely, the "Honey, if you burn that steak, you're going to be punished" variety. Really, these two look like they stepped out of a Roger Corman biker movie to model for this pattern.
But the best picture is this one -- and boy, do I wish it was in color!
This is straight up late 60s groovy psychedelia! Those paisley swirls and multi-colored stripes (not to mention those sultry looks) are just an invitation to a little chemical induced vacation, don't you think? The women modeling the Beach Burnoose, Caftan and Toga are having fun in the Haight, not at the neighborhood BBQ.
Wow. I'm starting to think that my mother's Good Housekeeping would be much more entertaining than the one available today!
Remember Simplicity 3528, the invisible dress?
Reader Judith is looking for it in a size 6. If you have it, drop her a line via her etsy profile, will ya? I think she has a little girl she wants to make disappear a charming vintage dress for.
Meanwhile, reader Judi has presented a mystery. What are the "Maren Dress" patterns Simplicity put out in the 1990s? Judi contacted Simplicity and -- ahem -- THEY had no clue. Any insight, dear readers? Of particular interest is the fact that "Maren Dress" patterns aren't necessarily dresses -- here are a few examples. (Click on the picture to go the the seller.)
Curiouser and curiouser, as they say in Wonderland...
While browsing the vintage pattern wiki recently, I stumbled upon Simplicity 2907 and nearly fell over laughing:
Look at Stripes back there! Holding a glass of water and...is that a pill case?! Is she about to pop a mother's little helper? (I'm talking a real one, as opposed to a floating mini-helper.) It's hard to tell in the scan -- here's a closer look:
Ack! Still impossible to be sure! At this point I was squinting at the screen (and becoming strangely fascinated with her scorpion-style bangs), so I fired off an email to Sandra at Selvedge Shop, who has the pattern in stock. Sadly, she informed me that Stripes is holding a DISH.
Sigh. Still, as Sandra suggested, that dish could have a pill on it. Stripes could be bringing an aspirin to hubby. Or this whole scene could be a coffee klatch with a kick. Look at it. Dots there certainly isn't cleaning. Eyes closed, arms outstretched -- she's either singing or having a transcendental experience. Flowers in the background is hiding something in her pockets. No, housework is not on the agenda in this scene.
Even though Simplicity slapped a "housedress or duster" label on this pattern, I wonder if it was really meant to be that. Look at that design -- how cute is that? Not that there aren't cute housedresses, but this looks a tad like party wear with its big structured skirt. Now check out the suggested fabrics:
Silks? TAFFETA?!
Doesn't sound like a housedress to me! Flowers, Stripes and Dots, they agree. Drop on by if you're in the neighborhood -- there's a party going on.
