Date narrowing on this pegnoir set, please!

P

Patentleathershoes

VFG Veteran
VFG Past President
Finally! It has stopped raining for a second so I can post something.

I need a little bit of opinion on dating this pegnoir set. Lingerie is NOT my usually forte.

It's Anne Fogarty for Gracette. Gracette changed its name in 1957 according to the lingerie resource so it has to be prior to that. However the size "9" throws me off because for some reason i just thought a size 9 item would have been a lot smaller in the 50s. I believe the bust on this is 34" but as always, that will be double checked. (so if anyone can estimate what part of what decade I would be happy for the confirmation(

annefogartymontage.jpg


Chris
 
Wow, Chris, that is just beautiful! I think I would say it is 60s.
 
I would have guessed later, too. It seems short to me for '50s or earlier, and as you said, size 9 would have been smaller - probably around a 28" bust.

Laura
 
That is the puzzlement.

The fact that Gracette didn't exist after 1957...

Of course my manni is 5' 9" but she has her head tilted, so she would be a almost a 6' tall woman or just shy of it, so its going to hit her a lot higher than the average woman. It would hit me slightly lower than mid calf.

Unless somehow the company name was revived later.

The "font" follows the font of the earlier Anne Fogarty labels and Gracette from the 40s but there is so much unexplained.

I am going to remeasure the bodice part too, but my gal has a 31" or almost 32" bust so...it was made roomy or this all just doesn't makes sense!
 
Your Amazon-woman manni might account for the apparent length problem, but the size is still a puzzle??

Laura
 
Chris, if the label ends in 1957, then I think this must be one of their last offerings. I think you are right in that the proportions are thrown off by the height of your manni. Do you have a form that is shorter? It might help to see it on an average height gal.

Hollis
 
Perhaps they found a stash of older labels and decided to use them on their products in the late 50's/early 60's to save some cash?

Just my silly little opinion....

Patti
 
Patti...that isn't silly. A lot of times you will see a maker's label that is say one style not have a hard and fast date it "ended" before a newer looking label was slapped on because a particular seamstress might have had a roll left over at their work station, etc. I would think that you were probably right, however the fact that the company name changed one would think that would be a defining event that they would stop using it. Any company i have ever worked out that merged throw any signage, clothing, magnets, whatever that has the old name on it right away, but since they were more frugal minded times perhaps you never know!

Hollis, I have a hanging half form that i might be able to use..or just edit the picture with my gals legs cut off in the picture. It is interesting that you can't really tell when its on her, but the skirt part poufs out slightly at the top. besides a half girl which won't work because it has no legs, the only other alternative is to live model it showing it from the back only because i am more of the height for it, but I am not that adventurous. A dress i might do it, but probably not this!

Maybe just show it as is and then "explain" the amazon woman situation. At least her hips are a more realistic size at 35" versus the gal i almost got that was 32".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top