help me differentiate between 40s and 50s shorts

Better Dresses Vintage

Better Dresses Vintage

Alumni
Hi - Any obvious clues to look for when determining if shorts are from the 40s or 50s? They seem so similar to me in all the images I've searched -- high waisted, although the 40s versions may be a bit more "skirt-like" in the leg openings. More flared. Am I right?

These cuties are quite high waisted and curvy cut -- > 24.5" waist, 36" hips, 16" rise (wow!), 2" inseam.

White Stag brand (have read up on the history, and label could go 40s or 50s, per our Resource.

They are bright white canvas with navy topstitching (I like the "tushie diamond" at back). They have no belt loops or pockets.

Not ready for real photos yet, but here are some "desk shots" for a general idea...

Thanks!

DSCN0015.JPG DSCN0016.JPG
 
Any label pics Liza? They remind me of the vintage-influenced styles of the '70s, but that might be because the leg is cut high. Out of '40s and '50s (you've seen the label, you know you're in the ballpark) I'll go with '50s. These would be quite sexy on, I think.
 
They are really cute. I think they may be later. Does the label match the '40's or '50's label exactly? As you noted the rise is really long but the 2' inseam is really short!

I don't think there were many if any fly-front shorts for women in the '40's or '50's except for Bermuda's in the 1950's. We discussed zipper placement awhile back - and found that most pants, shorts, Capris, etc. had side or back zippers or closures (except for coveralls, and jeans - and even some demin jeans had side closures ) until the the early'60's, when we found stirrup pants with a fly-front. There are lots of fly-front pants from the mid-60's on. I'm not "sure" there were "none" but I have not been able to find an example of fly-front shorts or trousers except for Bermuda's; before the mid-'50's and no pants with zip or button fly-fronts until 1961. (Except coveralls or one-piece play suits.)

Linn
 
Cute shorts, Liza! Without seeing the label, my first impression is that these are ca. late 60s (maybe even early 70s), even with the high waist. I've had several pairs of 50s' shorts, and as Linn notes, they've all had back or side zippers.

If they are older, then I'd go with 50s. Since you can hold them in your hands and feel the fabric, it's probably easier for you to guesstimate the approximate dating
 
The label matches the 50s one in our Resource, but that's not definitive.

Close-up, you can see and feel that they are not recent, although 70s makes sense. I forget that the 70s isn't all that recent. Still, I strongly suspect 50s/early 60s. The cut is different from anything in my personal experience, and I have plenty of personal experience with the 70s. Like it or not.

There is some topstitching missing at the front of the fly. Do you think I should do a little hand running stitch with navy thread to "clean it up" a bit? I suppose I could give it a try.

They are cute on, but the rise is crazy high in front (though not high enough to hide Frankenbelly, which I've cropped to protect your eyes). I think they are meant for a fuller figure. You'd need a small waist, but curvier, more womanly hips, a la Dita Von Teese. I have no hips to speak of, all fullness is in the posterior. Baby Got Back ; ).

00467-002bk.JPG00467-002BkAngleDelphine.jpg00467-002Front.JPG00467-002missingStitches.JPG00467-02OnMeBkAngle.JPG00467-002OnMeFront.jpg00467-002OnMeSidefuzzy.JPG00467-002tag.JPG
 
Oh, Linn. The LR item with the matching label says it's from '59. That would work with your zipper-in-front rule of early 60s on these shorts. Unless you think these could be 70s, which I really don't think they are. They feel older than me. If that's possible these days.
 
I think they are early '70's also. I agree that the label does look exactly like the late '50's label in our LR, but I think the shorts are early '70's which is still a long time ago - LOL! They look great on you - and I would try to repair the top stitching on the fly-front by the zipper - if you can.

Linn
 
Google Jodie Foster Taxi driver for examples of her wearing a red, and a white pair in several different scenes. 1976

Liza for comparison I will photograph a pair of 50's/60's shorts I have tomorrow in daylight, that I was given by my dear friend Pat, who purchased them when she lived in the US for a short while (I will also be able to give you the dates, and store name when I ask her!) They are also small waisted, and high cut but I think side opening with an invisible zip and fushia pink denim! I do have square/wide sticky-outy hips and they suit me well! :USING: She also gave me a pair of turquoise denim capris in exactly the same cut that I think are from the same store.
 
Well, then 70s it is. Although honestly, I'm not 100% convinced. Still, I'd rather err on the side of newer than older. The stitching came out pretty good. Not perfect, but an improvement? Why do my stitches look wiggly? Ugh. And I had to do it twice.

And Melanie, sticky-out hips are better than no hips, which require a teeny-tiny, never had any babies waist to prevent you looking like a brick with boobs. I now that Jodie Foster taxi driver image, even without Googling it! I know exactly what you mean.

00467-002stitchfix.JPG

You know... these shorts, now that they're 70s, would pair up nicely with this top, which is definitely 70s and you're not convincing me otherwise, LOL...

00215-001.jpg
 
Liza, I hope you don't me saying this but you have great thighs!

Funnily enough, now that you've posted pics of them being worn, I'm wavering back to the earlier date. The contrast stitching does make them look '70s but the big difference between waist and hips, and the way the leg is longer than I originally visualised them - I think they could be earlier.

What sort of zipper does it have? I've actually had some late '50s shorts in a thick cotton canvas with contrast top stitching, I was confident they were '50s so I wouldn't rule it out completely.
 
I also lean towards a later date. Late 60's early 70's. Front zippers for women's clothing are (almost) unseen before that.

These are probably silly questions... could they be men's shorts? Have you tried them on with the zipper in the back?

Funny coincidence: I have a pair of ladies shorts in my prep pile that have an almost similar design. 1960's metal side zip 14 1/2" rise, 2 1/2" inseam, 25 1/2" waist and 40" hips. The stitching is on the front of the shorts.

Right now I'm working through a pile of NOS vintage ladies shorts that span 20 + years of styles. Looking at hip measurements I find that the hips tend to be more generous than 36". That is very small even for 24 1/2" waist.
Joanne
Sacony_VFG.JPG
 
Just by the shortness and look with that contrast stitching my gut feeling said 70s... I've worn late 60s and early 70s jeans with crazy high rises, and was reminded of those when reading the measurments. Not a look I personally want to go for anymore though :hysterical:!

Karin
 
For what's it's worth, I think these are from the 1950s. I've never seen that blue label later than 1960 or so, but that by itself really wouldn't mean a lot. It's just that the nature of the White Stag product changed tremendously during the 1960s, pretty much dropping their 100% cotton canvas for a cotton/poly blend that was thinner and cheaper. But I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

White Stag advertised a lot. Maybe you can find an ad for these on ebay or etsy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top