Help with dating this black silk dress, please.

Better Dresses Vintage

Better Dresses Vintage

Alumni
Hello,

I got this dress (and 37 more) from a local theater. It is silk (I'm sure). It closes with an incredibly complex array of hooks&eyes and snaps (only). Covered buttons on sleeves are decorative. In pretty good shape, overall. No noticeable flaws unless you look closely (tear at shoulder seam, a few repairs, nothing major). And oh my goodness, it is unbelievably soft and silky.

Please note that I've taken photos with the semi-attached sash unsnapped, with it snapped where it naturally closes (far too big for the dress, so I'm wondering if perhaps it's supposed to do something other than simply go around the waist), and with it tucked in at the back to fit the waist (NOT how it should be worn, I'm sure).

Keep in mind that Lola is over 6'2" tall and a size 2, so it would be much longer, and the waistline a bit lower, on a smaller
sashoffSMALL.jpg
frontSMALL.jpg
sashSMALL.jpg
intbodSMALL.jpg
bkwithtearSMALL.jpg
FrankSimTagSMALL.jpg
woman.

So when is it from? Again, I have my suspicions, but would like your expert opinions.

Thanks!

Liza
 
Hi,

I would date it it circa 1916 to 1918. The waist would not be worn cinched in. The popular style of waistline was set higher than the natural waist on dresses during this time period, which may explain the extra length in the sash. It is very pretty.
 
Wow. I'm sort of afraid to touch it. Definitely am NOT cleaning it, as it's perfectly clean already and smells nice. I let it air out on the line for a day. Good enough.

How would the sash work? See how much bigger it is in circumference than the waist itself? Not sure how to show it for a listing.
 
Hi,

I cannot tell exactly how the sash works, because I do not have it here to examine it. How much longer is the sash than the waist seam circumference on the dress? Where are the snaps or hooks on the sash placed? Is it long enough so that the sash could wrap around twice before you secured it with the snaps/hooks? If it is only a matter of a few inches difference and the sash just looks a bit too loose when placing it on the mannequin, try showing it with the sash placed a bit higher than the waist seam, as a woman's measurements several inches above her natural waistline would be broader. I hope this makes sense the way I am explaining it.

For photo taking, you could simply secure it in back with a clip to take up the extra length, and explain that the sash sat a bit higher than the natural waist. Do not cinch in the waistline, however, as that was not the style. Collectors are aware of this, and a lady who would want to wear this for a historical event would probably know also.
 
Hi Barbara,

The sash cannot be moved up or down from where you see it in the photos, as it is attached (stitched) on one point of one end (it's a gathered rectangle) to the dress at the side waist. The way the sash is constructed (it's got seams on what is clearly the interior side) indicates there's only one way to wrap it (if you went the other way, the outside would show, and you could snap it closed). One snap is at the top point where the sash is attached to the dress. The other two are offset toward the bottom (that is, they are not evenly spaced -- which I think was a helpful hint about how to fasten it). I've stretched the waist gently to it's widest width, and the sash is about 3.5" wider. It is made in such a way that the end of the sash forms a subtle ruffle.

I am so in love with this dress. It's like a magical thing from another time (but the place is my hometown!), when my grandmothers were young women...
 
Hi,

There is quite a bit of extra in that sash, as you say. I am not sure why that is, but perhaps the sash (which was actually referred to as a girdle, not a sash, as it has no trailers), originally had a buckle or was gathered or shirred on the sides or front? Center buckles were not the rage then, but perhaps if a self covered buckle was used, the extra could be gathered or taken up in the buckle's center for a gentle pouf effect.

I am also going to go out on a limb here, and propose that something is missing from the dress. Perhaps it originally had an over skirt of beaded silk chiffon. I just think it looks like the bottom is too plain compared to the top, and the sheer hem is also odd.

That may also explain why the sash was a bit longer as it went over more fabric.

B
 
Look for thread marks where the sash could have been attached to the bodice at the front or sides. You may see these on both the sash and the bodice itself. My guess is that the sash was tacked to the bodice to be quite wide - that was a poular look then, and the top edge would have rested just below the beading at the front. So it needed to be the size of the underbust, not the waist.

Unless you see theads or fraying fabric sticking out of the waist seam on the right side, I doubt is had an overskirt as the piping there looks undisturbed from what I can see.
The Franklin Simon label is neat to see.

Hollis
 
Hi all --

I will take photos of the areas you describe, to allow you to better judge whether something is missing (I suspect not), and see just how way the "girdle" is constructed and attached to the dress.

I will also take a proper shot of the label (the one above I took in a rush at the theater, before I knew I'd even be able to purchase the dress -- and I was literally shaking when I saw it!) and am happy to offer it (and every other label shot I've got -- upward of 400 now) to the label directory. Please tell me where to send these photos. I would REALLY prefer emailing them to an administrator to use/do with as you see fit, rather than uploading them directly to this site, if possible. I don't have one of those "Photobucket" setups (don't need it for my sites), and the thought of uploading them there just to upload them here, or shrinking each one to under 200KB one by one is a bit daunting.
 
Hi,

I am still pondering this dress. Of course I could be wrong, but I really do think it may have had something else to it. The fact that the waist seam does not show ripped threads or evidence of something being removed, does not always mean that something is not missing from the dress. The reason I say this is that some dresses from this time period (1916-1917) had over skirts or panels that were attached to the girdle (sash), not attached to the dress, so check the inside of the sash for evidence of that. Or, dresses could have an entire tunic (often without sides, just a front and back), in one separate piece that slipped over the dress, usually made of lace or beaded chiffon, etc., then the sash would go around that. I have also found the panels and tunics without their under dresses. It was not uncommon for that type of dress to have (as yours does) a wide, plain sheer hem, plain sheer sleeves, and plain sheer sections on the bodice, with larger areas of another very plain fabric (as yours does). The fact that yours has a beaded area on the bodice and none on the skirt is another clue.

When I said I thought something was missing, I did not mean that someone had ripped something off of the skirt.

Of course, I am only speculating, but I have handled many Teens garments over the years, and I just think there is something missing.

Either way, it is lovely as it stands.
 
I'm not an expert with this era, but if these items came from a theatre, there very well could have been alterations made. Theatre items are usually worn many times by different actors and for different plays over the years. The possibility of something missing or something not quite right is very possible.
 
Barbara,

Yes, I agree. I understood what you meant, and of course it's a distinct possibility that there was an overdress/skirt/etc. that was not attached, but simply "went with." Like I said, as soon as possible I'm going to give it a much closer inspection and send you additional photos. Just have to get my act together. Real life has been intervening ; )...
 
Here are the promised photos. There is no indication that the sash was attached at a higher point.

I've included shots of the sash exterior, interior, "ruffly end bit," stretched gently to show how much "excess" there is, a view of where it attaches to both the outer and inner bodice (and has torn the inner bodice over time at the point of attachment, which is at the uppermost snap).

I've included a clear label photo (for an administrator) to use as you see fit. I have additional shots (farther away).
00329-004closureDetailSMALL.JPG
00329-004sashAttachHoleSMALL.jpg
00329-004extraSash SMALL.JPG
00329-004sashInteriorSMALL.jpg
00329-004sashruffleSMALL.jpg
00329-004sashSnapsSMALL.jpg
00329-004SashUnfoldSMALL.jpg
00329-004tagcloseSMALL.jpg

I don't know if non-members are credited for labels, but if so, please just say "Liza at Better Dresses Vintage."

One more comment -- the lower edge of the sash is the fabric selvage. The upper edge is hemmed on the interior (the snap side).
 
Also -- how do I label this era effectively in my title? WWI? Teens? 1910s? Does it have a proper, widely recognized name I'm not familiar with? Too late for Edwardian, of course. Advice appreciated.
 
Hi,

For the title, any of those are fine, except 1910's is a bit vague. If you want to narrow it down to attract collectors, wardrobe people, and dealers, WWI is 100% accurate, and as the dress definitely does date from 1916 - 1917, if you wanted to put that date also in you would be correct. I am leaning much more to 1916 than 1917 if you wanted to get really exact. There really is no exact name for the style, in 1916 it would have been called simply a "dress" or sometimes "gown" if worn for semi formal or dressy evening attire. Practically every dress made in 1916 had that same waist treatment (a girdle, or wide high sash), with various styles and fabrics and trims, but all the same silhouette.

B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top