1960s or early 70s on this acrylic dress?
- Thread starter laurenm
- Start date
Very cute dress, I would date it to about 1967. Nehru collar.
The Vintage Vendeuse
VFG Member
That's really cute!
IMHO, it's not a scooter dress unless there is a division between the legs (like skorts). At least that was what my friends and I called scooters "back in the day". It seems to be a matter for some debate, however. Maybe there were regional differences in how the term was used. I do believe many others believe the scooter dress doesn't need to have the skort-like lower half, just a short, multi-pleated attached skirt.
Using either definition of scooter dress, I don't believe your dress falls in the category.
On a similar subject, "culottes" and "skorts" were terms strictly used by us for garments that didn't cover the top half of the body, too. Culottes were long shorts that greatly flared. Skorts were generally shorter than culottes and were shorts that were made to appear like a skirt.
IMHO, it's not a scooter dress unless there is a division between the legs (like skorts). At least that was what my friends and I called scooters "back in the day". It seems to be a matter for some debate, however. Maybe there were regional differences in how the term was used. I do believe many others believe the scooter dress doesn't need to have the skort-like lower half, just a short, multi-pleated attached skirt.
Using either definition of scooter dress, I don't believe your dress falls in the category.
On a similar subject, "culottes" and "skorts" were terms strictly used by us for garments that didn't cover the top half of the body, too. Culottes were long shorts that greatly flared. Skorts were generally shorter than culottes and were shorts that were made to appear like a skirt.
Last edited:
Circa Vintage Clothing
Alumni
Cute dress! I agree that scooter dresses have shorts built in.
The Vintage Vendeuse
VFG Member
With the multiple pleats, that one DOES fall into the scooter category, according to many opinions. For me, however, it must also have a division between the legs (which can't be seen in that photo).