Anyone have a pocket collection?

They show up on the Antique's Roadshow every now and then. I seem to remember a very simple early example on there once. I can't recall how long ago it was, but it has been a few years.
 
They are worn UNDER the skirt. Not too practical for yard sales unless you have a voluminous skirt with a slit to reach the pocket.
 
Fascinating! Thanks for posting this Amanda.

I met Barbara Burman, who conducted the research for this project at a conference a few years ago. She was lovely, and very encouraging to a nervous student presenting her first ever conference paper!

I'm sure I remember reading that women's clothing didn't have integral pockets until around the First World War. They were associated with men's clothing, and created a bit of controversy when they were introduced. People were worried that it was too masculine, and women would start picking up men's bad habits - like standing around with their hands shoved in their pockets! Terribly bad form!

Sarah
 
I've seen many dresses from the 1860s that have had true pockets, usually sewn into one of the seams of the skirt. They're not as large as the tie-on ones, but sufficient to hold a hankie or gloves, I suppose. I'm trying to think if I have one right now...

Of course, there are the tiny little watch pockets at the waistline, too. I just love finding a dress with a watch pocket! (I'm weird, I know.)

Diana
 
Thanks Diana - I must have misremembered that article! Perhaps it was external patch pockets that were new to women's clothing in the 1910s?

I'm going to have to track down that reference now and check it properly!

Sarah
 
I've found the reference, but not my original notes I'm afraid!

The book was "Fashion in Photographs 1900-1920, by Katrina Rolley and Caroline Aish (B.T. Batsford, 1992), page 110.

What I wrote, relying on that reference, was: 'Pockets were reintroduced into women’s clothing in 1913 after more than a century’s absence and they altered posture accordingly. Katrina Rolley and Caroline Aish observe that this reintroduction “caused some comment and the casual stance they encouraged was clearly seen as a masculine prerogative.”'

Hmm, not so sure about this now, especially given your experience with 19th century dresses. These writers can't always be relied upon!

Sarah
 
No, they can't -- but then, if that is what they found according to their own research then, what can you say?

It's sort of intimidating to publish a book or article, at least for me. I always worry about having misinterpreted something I've read or seen and should I pass along misinformation, I'd feel terrible.

From the sound of the statement about encouraging a casual stance, it does sound like they are referring to pockets sewn internally rather than patch pockets. In my mind, a patch pocket is more decorative and maybe meant to hold something small, such as a hankie, a pen, a pocket protector ;) ... It seems like having one's hand in a pocket to the extent that it appear so casual would put stress on the pocket and it would eventually begin to stretch and hang improperly.

This is interesting. :) I'm going to have to try to remember to do some looking in my references when I get home.

Thanks for bringing up this subject!

Diana :USETHUMBUP:
 
Hmm. I have also found pockets in 1860s skirts - sewn inseam and not the easiest to find. I don't see many in the 1870s - 1880s as bustle drapes really make inseam pockets hopelessly difficult to access. And I don't think I have seen many inseam pockets on 1890s skirts, but there have been a few perhaps. Nothing you could put your hands in and walk around, all very hidden.

Patch pockets on skirts - no, not much till the Teens. The one exception I can think of offhand are those descorative and usually frilly 'parasol' pockets in the 1870s.

On jackets or bodices, except for some very small watch or coin pockets, I don't think functional pockets were a general feature till the teens.

Not that is all from memory, so be kind.

If I remember right the progression is tie-on pockets under the skirts in the 18th C. and early 19th C., then purses come into vogue in the 1820s and replace the pockets.

The opening slots in side skirts seams to allow access to a pocket underneath would be a very good indicator of age in a skirt or dress.

Hollis

Hollis
 
This is indeed very interesting, Janine!

Diana - I totally know what you mean about passing on possibly unreliable information, especially with your name on the piece! I always make sure its clear where the information came from and try to use reputable authors.

I should give the context for that quote - I was researching the costumes of female impersonators in military concert parties during the First World War, and one picture I found had a female impersonator wearing a very practical women's suit or dress with big pockets (with his hands in them!)

Here are the comparisons I found that were similar to it, from Vogue:

1916-17_pockets.jpg


The top three suits all date from March 1917, the dress dates from September 1916.

I guess when I said 'patch pockets' I meant BIG ones!

Hollis - your observations are so fascinating, and worth noting for future reference! The trouble with many self-proclaimed fashion historians is that they often have little or no experience of examining the actual clothes themselves, but rely entirely on written or pictorial sources. Most of the pockets that you mention would not be visible in fashion plates!

With your wealth of experience (and Diana's) in handling these garments, you have challenged what is probably an incorrect claim - or at least a claim that should be qualified to be more accurate. Maybe it should 'visible external pockets'?

I love stuff like this! :bouncy:

Good job no-one's going to read my dissertation anyway! :lol:

Sarah
 
Back
Top