Dating a curious dress with fur sleeve trim

Vmode

Vmode

Registered Guest
I bought this dress listed as '50s but it has an earlier feel to me.. no labels aside from a little cotton sizer, and 30s-40s looking metal zippers- at the side and a shorter one to the back neck.
The fabric is a kind of faille, with tiered skirt (is that the right term- I'm unsure whether 'tiered' just applies to layers) and slight drop waist.
Two diagonal pleats from the neck, and sleeves trimmed in real fur.. the original sleeves have been cut off, turned in and then had the fur added. I wonder what the sleeves would likely have been? .. and why on earth anyone thought to replace them in this way!
The fur itself has a fairly long pile, it looks like mink until you see the skin backing which is quite tough- I don't know whether that's just with age.

019-6.jpg


020-6.jpg


024-9.jpg


026-4.jpg


If anyone can advise that would be great, it's such an odd little thing!

Ava
 
I was thinking late '40s but I think the diamond inserts under the arm push it into the early '50s. Perhaps the sleeves were removed because the underarms were damaged from perspiration? That's the usual reason.
 
I don't know, there's no evidence of discolouration or powdery residue on the underarms, or anywhere on the remaining fabric at the turned-in edge seam.. it was the first thing I looked for! I was wondering if maybe it was fashionable to have fur trimmings used in this way in any particular era, that would have inspired the owner to customize..
 
Powdery residue is a modern affect from chemical deodorants - the underarms on '40s and '50s rayon dresses are weakened by perspiration and become fragile, hence more prone to ripping. You find holes, rips, wearing of the fabric: that sort of thing. As you've mentioned, your underarms seem intact so it was more likely to be a fashion choice.
 
I know talc was used under the arms to reduce perspiration, certainly by both my parents' families back then, I was assuming that was responsible for the residue I've seen on some 40s pieces.
I've got a lovely 50s dress with sheer overlay that I'm having to remove the sleeves from, as the outer fabric is totally shredded under the arms! I'm always very thankful for sweat pads, as icky as they are, when I find them in garments.

Are the diamond inserts always an indication of '50s? My Mum, who's a seamstress, has some '30s dressmaking books in which they're shown on garments, as gussets for ease of arm raising.
Also out of interest, I'm sure this has probably been covered before, when did overlockers start being used in construction?

So I guess the dress had a 'make do' design amendment to spruce it up a little! I'm going to see if I can find when fur trims were popular..
 
I agree with Amber. The slightly dropped waist and full tiered skirt (that's the term I use too) put it into the 50s for me. The double zipper is typical for early to mid 50s too, although by no means universal. And I too have had fur trimmed dresses that were late 50s to early 60s, although none where the fur edged the armhole. Wouldn't it be itchy to wear?
 
Diamond inserts are a very '50s construction feature but you're right - they were used in the '30s too, just not very often. I've only seen two or three '30s dresses with inserts and the first one really confused me as I hadn't realised they used that technique so early.

Overlocking/serging has been around for a long time but you don't see it in ladies wear until the '30s (or at least I haven't) when you can find it sometimes in lingerie and housecoats. Menswear used it earlier: I think it was seen as a "workman-like" finish. You start to see it in mass produced ladies fashions post WW2 but the non-professional (home) dressmaker didn't have it until the '70s or '80s. That's a very rough guide, as there's a lot more to know. There's a lot of misunderstanding about overlocking and many see it as a modern thing but it's not.

I agree that fur trims were popular in the late '50s to early '60s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top