Help dating unlabeled dress

SweetGinger

SweetGinger

Registered Guest
Came across this dress at the thrift store the other day. There are no tags on it anywhere. I guess it could be handmade but it seems to be of a professional quality. I am thinking this might be 1920s? I am also curious as to how a dress like this would have been worn. Obviously it would have required some type of slip due to the sheerness of the fabric. I am not quite sure what the fabric is, I will have to spend a little more time examining it, but it is not chiffon. It feels like a natural fiber. The velvet ribbon is satin backed.

Photo Dec 21, 3 43 25 PM.jpg Photo Dec 21, 3 44 14 PM.jpg Photo Dec 21, 3 44 43 PM.jpg Photo Dec 21, 3 44 31 PM.jpg
 
I believe the tucks do continue under the lace and that the lace was added (by hand) after the tucks were made, I will have to double check though. I wouldn't have thought of this as an underwear garment because of the color and the heavy velvet ribbon but then I have never come across any extant 20s undergarments either. My only experience is with making them from old patterns and I just default to the stereotypical white or cream. How exciting that they would have used such an interesting color! I did have one more picture of the interior, maybe this would help.
Photo Dec 21, 3 45 19 PM.jpg
 
Sorry I wasn't intimating that your dress was underwear, I was asnswering your question how it would have been worn - over the top of the garments shown in that advert. Despite most people's impressions that 20's ladies wore very little, they in fact wore more than we today today under a day garment.

My first impression was that the white lace might have been added much later, in say the 1960's when this style of dress came back into fashion but I am not sure. The lastest photo appears to show an alteration in length, can you confirm where the white thread is, is that a deep fold?
 
Sorry, I totally missed your link. The lace seems pretty aged. I will have to look at it closer. I thought the length had been altered at first too but after a second look I wasn't so sure. But maybe the addition of the lace at a later date and hemming would explain the way the interior is finished off. And yes, there is white thread used through out for attaching the lace, all of which was done by hand.
 
Just a thought - there's no chance this is a child's dress is there? (only I just saw a very long child's garment that fastened the same way, with buttons at the shoulder and ties at the waist) Can you give the shoulder, chest, waist, and length measurements please?
 
I suspect the velvet ribbon and channel are an update - the dress makes a lot more sense without them. A real '20s dress would not have a waistline and a heavy velvet ribbon would not be attached to a light fabric like this. It's possible of course that the waistline was added in the '30s or sometime afterwards (I suspect it's a modern addition) and the ribbon could be a replacment for a lighter one.

The hip ornamentation suggests that there wasn't a waist originally too.
 
Very possibly a child's or pre-teen's garment, that was actually my first thought too. The dress is at my shop and I won't get back there to get measurements until tomorrow. I will look closer at the ribbon and casing as well and see if it looks like an addition. I didn't think of that possibility so I didn't examine that very closely. I am 99.9% sure that the casing is made with the same fabric as the dress but I suppose if it was shortened they would have had fabric from the hem.
So how do alterations like this effect value and saleability of a garment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top