pattern junkie

Monday Morning Eye Candy: New Vogues Edition

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?

Monday Morning Eye Candy: Elegant Lounging

Sip your latte and take a gander at Vogue 6153:

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?

Mini-Me

Peruse vintage patterns for a while, and you'll quickly notice an oft-used convention in the illustrations: two "normal sized" models and one "mini," squeezed in to show the back view or a third option.  Usually, it works just fine and dandy, like in Simplicity 2402:

There, the poor mini doesn't even get the benefit of a full body!  Here's another example -- Simplicity 8535:

Sure, Magenta looks like the kind of bad girl who would beat up someone two thirds her size, but we just accept that Black is in her own separate reality and move on.

Sometimes, however, the Two Big/One Little goes horribly, horribly wrong.  Take Vogue 1059:

Yikes!  I don't know whether Black is petting Little Print with her absurdly large gloved hand or if she's just conjured her out of thin air, but I guarantee you she's up to no good.  I predict she has a whole host of nefarious plans that she'll be sending Little Print out to enact.  Is Red in on the plot?  From the look on her face, I have to assume so. 

This I do know: if I wake up in the middle of the night with Little Print standing next to my bed staring at me, I'm toast. 

Tots in Trouble

Sharp-eyed reader Laura sent in a photo of this great pattern, Simplicity 2558, which she has aptly captioned "See, isn't my underwear pretty?"

Laura notes that #2 is a toddler who wants out of her clothes, and I couldn't agree more.  At first I worried that she was stripping down down because her prancing sisters had persuaded her to sit down on an anthill (as my mother and uncle convinced my aunt to do when they were young hellions), but she doesn't have the necessary look of panic.  No, I think they're all stripping -- check out the red shoe in #1's hand.  "Simplicity 2558 -- underthings so pretty your child can't wait to take them off."

Then there's Vogue 2588.  Check out the poor toddler in the middle of this scenario:

The girls on either side of her may be wearing sweet dresses, but there's some cruelty going on here.  "Bathroom?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Barbara, do you know what 'pee=pee' means?"

Burlesque Pointers, Part One

 

Really?  The jacket comes off before the gloves?

Pleat Madness

Take a peek at the note written on the pattern envelope for Vogue 7069 (one darn pretty dress!):

Ten yards of 45 inch fabric?  Could that really be the required yardage?!

I found a listing for it over at Lanetz Living (it's sold out) that shows the back view -- yup, depending on the size, fabric width and view, it calls for anywhere from 6 to 12 yards of fabric.  Can you imagine how long it would take to do all of those pleats?!

I bet the resulting dress would be a blast to wear, though -- so fun and twirly!  Alas, it would also be fraught with danger -- the slightest breeze or smallest subway grate would send it flying over your head, don't you think?  Your underwear would really have to be as spectacular as the dress itself.

Evening Swingers

I really have nothing to add.

I'll See Your Victory Rolls and Raise You Three Circle Braids

Wow.  Vogue 7227 is a great dress pattern, but really -- who cares what you're wearing with these fantastic hairstyles? 

Each is more magnificent than the last!  Curls and twirls and sleek straightaways -- a veritable thrill ride on your scalp.  How would you accomplish the one on the far right?  Super-strong hairspray?  Prayers?  Wire?

Oh, and if the hairstyles aren't mesmerizing enough...take a close look at the dress on the right.  It's not just an abstract black and white pattern.  There are ZEBRAS in there, people.  Lots of them!

Does the Yardage Chart Convert That to Bedsheets?

The new Vogues are out.  Here's an offering from Chado Ralph Rucci, Vogue 1181:

And here's one from Koos Van Den Akker, Vogue 1187:

Me?  I just think if you're going to go caftan, GO CAFTAN!  Tell us what size bedsheet to use to make either of these baggy beauties and we'll be good to go!

Project Runaways

Hello, and sorry for my hiatus!  I need to go take notes over at the wonderful discussion re: balancing work at life happening at Gertie's blog -- a work deadline meant that blog posts were only happening in my head, which unfortunately meant that they weren't showing up here.  Anyway, now I'm trying to get back on track and balance work, life, blogging and (gasp!) even actual sewing!

On to today's post.  Mr. Pattern Junkie and I ventured out Friday to catch THE RUNAWAYS and enjoyed it quite a bit.  Mr. PJ, having spent the mid to late 80s playing in punk bands, came out spouting questions about the movie's veracity -- I came out oohing about the fashion.  ("Huh.  I didn't notice that," was his reply.) 

As I've mentioned before, I have a soft spot for the seventies, and the THE RUNAWAYS hits the decade's teen/rocker look right.  Casual scrappy bell bottoms, tight T-shirts, wedge sandals and of course my fave, BIG COLLARS!  Oh, just look at the outfits they wear to sign their record deal!

Here, for comparison, is a photo of the actual Runaways:

Can we just stop and worship Joan Jett's boots for a minute or two?  Cherie Currie's silver ones are pretty impressive, but those white ones...wow!  Paired with track suits?!  Proof that when you're 16 and have a badass rocker chick attitude, you can get away with anything.  Even JUMPSUITS:

One of the posts rattling around in my brain had been about the horrific jumpsuits in the McCall's and Simplicity spring collections -- and while the jumpsuit will still not be right for me (I'm no rocker chick -- Mr. PJ classifies what style I have as "demented librarian"), there are those out there who can rock it.  Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart sure do in the movie.  What I loved best about the costumes in THE RUNAWAYS was that -- even when they were garish sequined ensembles -- they never upstaged the characters and the story.  They never screamed "Hey, look over here and laugh at the silly 70s fashion!" 

Of course, this wouldn't be Pattern Junkie if we didn't make fun of something silly, so here's Vogue 7882 -- a jumpsuit pattern that may well have been rock-worthy, even if the pattern illustration failed miserably.  The Runaways would NEVER rock pink and brown stripes and alien-bun hair:

Coming soon: updates on actual 70s sewing projects and recent eBay finds!