Can you please assist me in dating this dress?

vgirl, hate to be contradictory but I'm going back to Victorian costume again - I can't get past that construction and deep V waistband, which I haven't seen in any 20th century styles. Unless there is evidence of the hook and eye tape being added in, my vote is with costume.

Of course, you're most welcome to ignore my opinion, it is after all, only the opinion of one who can not see the dress as I think it's meant to be presented (full crinoline skirt, shoulder sashes sitting higher up) and can not inspect the construction.

Nicole

 

on the hook and eye tape:

See that machine stitching line along the edge? That's part of the tape construction. It's just like the tape we used at the costume shops from the 70s to now. It's still made and has indeed been around forever. So that is tape, not individual hooks set on and then covered with a piece of fabric with hand stitches in the Victorian manner.

The construction is confusing. The wide petersham interior band is very old style, as is the interior seam allowance finish, and the hooks closure. But the horizontal bust dart placement is 40s/50s and the boning going all the way up the princess seams to the neckline is 40s/50s as well. As is the bias tape finish along the neckline and armholes.

It occurs to me that it is a 40s dress, not necessarily a costume, but a dress made by someone who was used to working in a 'period costume' type of construction. In other words, an evening gown made by a costumer for a friend.

Just a thought.

Hollis

 

vgirl, where are you finding these lovelies? Fun finds and I may just have to stalk you. Gosh, we'd be the thelma 'n louise of vinty shopping. LOL

 

Hollis, the construction is consistent with costuming techniques. I myself have made many Victorian (and other era) costumes using the same techniques. Yes, they do look '50s but they're designed to be strong and easy for quick changes.

Vgirl, thank you for the illustration but it is not a deep V, more a curve. It's a very distinctive design feature of the Victorian era.

Nicole

 

vgirl, good for you - but I remain convinced this is a costume.

The size is irrelevant - it was made to fit someone and it will be her size. Hooks and eyes are quick to put on when you are skilled in their use - and they won't get jammed or broken like a zipper can. A deep curve is not "similar" to a deep V (actually called a pointed bodice).

I've seen thousands of costumes for sale online and in retail shops being sold as vintage - it's a credit to the costumer's art that they can convince so many vintage traders and buyers. Style is only one part of dating an item - the other parts are fabric and construction, neither of which are easy to tell from a few photos and style can be mislead if the garment is not displayed as it should be, as I maintain this one is.

I even had a costume in my vintage fashion parade on the weekend - it's made of vintage fabric, and it's only slight differences in construction that reveal it to be a costume. It even has a fake '70s label in it. I know it's a costume because I bought it from the designer who had it made for a film.

Nicole

 

That's a beautiful gown Linn - I saw it on display at the exhibition when it was in Australia. You can see the heavy influence of the 1870s.

V waistlines were a common design feature of the late '40s and '50s - I don't deny that - they were inspired by the 19th century styles but the original Victorian designs were much deeper. The deep V/pointed bodice of the 19th century was emphasised by a corset or boning underneath and that's why they could be so long - the 20th century versions are not boned in the same way. You can see from the interior of vgirl's dress that it has a short bone down the centre front waist to reinforce that deep V. More recent couture do not have it, and so the V sometimes gets a little line it in from the wearer sitting down.

To compare the two examples, Linn, the beautiful Jean Desses has a pointed bodice that comes down about 3 inches. The pointed bodice in vgirl's dress looks much longer, maybe 5-6 inches.

The reason that the skirt in vgirl's dress is sewn separately onto the petersham waistband is to take the weight of it and so the bodice sits above it. It's a costume technique. Silk taffeta in quantity ( a mid Victorian dress or costume might have 6-8 metres of fabric in the skirt) is heavy and would pull the bodice down.

So vgirl you have two more ways to check if this is a 19th century style costume or 1940s ballgown - by measuring the pointed bodice (the depth the v dips below the waistline) and the amount of fabric in the skirt. I would expect a '40s dress to have 3-4 metres in the skirt.

Nicole

 

I know this is probably obvious but that bustle back was very very popular late 40's to early 50's.

 

Shopping partner? You got it! Looks like fun!

 

Ok once again I am WAY late. and I am the least of the experts here, dare I even call myself such but before I even read the discussions those darn shoulder straps aggrivated the life out of me.

Something about the placement and the bust does not look right. Does anyone notice that they are a little off?

As far as that tape... I have a dress that is obvious 60s fabric and construction, but floor length as this that has the same tape. It is home made and a seamstress has old knowledge and fabrics to recycle, but I have no qualms listing it as 60s.

It looks 40s construction and is most likely in material. It makes it authentic, but perhaps the curiousity of its origins will make it more desirable. I think it is beautiful... but the bust treatment is uneven to me and the straps are off,, almost like 80s modification.... in my mind.. hmmm 40s ball gown modified to fit a period piece for costume?

Just a thought

Sorry to hash up old topics.... Ive been busy! friends wife died and ive been watching kids, had the fashion show (YAY) and am still plugging away at college classes! woohoo..

 

vgirl,very beautifull vintage gown:o:X:X
i'd love to wear such a beauty:D:D