But, upon review we still feel it is the best method to help ensure accurate, high quality listings if we continue to require illustration of original maker's labels for post-1945 vintage clothing that was originally sold labeled.
Carol, this goes to the gist of what many of us have said, and why I, for one, am having such a difficult time with the interpretation Ruby Lane is apparently giving their own wording. Their own wording does
not support their own interpretation. The phrase: ".... if we continue to require illustration of original maker's labels for post-1945 vintage clothing
that was originally sold labeled" does
not say that post-1945 clothing
that was originally sold UNlabeled cannot be listed! They are not equivalent statements. In fact, Ruby Lane's own wording supports what all of
us have been saying--that is, not all commercially made post-1945 clothing was originally sold with a label.
The wording they are using is either not saying what they mean it to say; therefore, it needs to be re-worded, or they themselves at Ruby Lane are interpreting that wording incorrectly. I am speaking here strictly from an English-language standpoint, not from a vintage-clothing standpoint.
It seems that what Ruby Lane
wants to say, or thinks they
are saying, is this:
"....if we continue to require illustration of original maker's labels for post-1945 vintage clothing, WHICH was originally sold labeled." That wording and the addition of the comma make this statement a blanket one indicating that
ALL post-1945 commercially made clothing was sold labeled; therefore, if it has no label then the label must have been removed, therefore it cannot be listed. But, that statement is not true, either, even if that's what Ruby Lane means to say.
So, we are again/still left with the question--which Ruby Lane's own wording
does not address: If a post-1945 garment
never had a label,
was made without a label, never carried a label--can it be listed? If not, why not? The statements they have made in this regard are not accurate.
What about depression glass? If repros and revivalist styles are a concern with vintage clothing, then why not with depression glass? There was a huge market in depression-ware reproductions, and a casual collector or buyer might not know the difference. But, the experienced dealer would. So, following the logic RL has on vintage clothing, depression glass should not be listed unless it has original hangtags/stickers or carries a maker's mark. Now that is an apples-to-apples comparison.