Lilli Ann coat length

[Joji Furukawa]

This may seem like an odd question but here goes. I just purchased this Lilli Ann coat in the rare purple colour. I haven't received the coat yet (image is from the listing) however in the description, the length is listed at 42". Other examples of this coat are listed at 45" and some up to 50" however I have seen a few listed at 42" also. I am wondering if 42" is short? I imagine some of you have this coat in your collections. Was it offered in different lengths? Would Lilli Ann have shortened them when purchased or would they have been done at home? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[furwise]

My last Lilli Ann was 43" and it was not shortened. It was a fit and flare coat though. From the photo there yours does look shortened but it also looks positioned on the dress form improperly. Wait until you get it and check the hem. If you're still unsure pop it on your dress form or mannequin properly and show it to us.

 

[Joji Furukawa]

Thank you for the reply Furwise! It does look rather boxy, like you said they probably have it on the mannequin wrong. Also, the angle looks like it might be off too. I just found another image of the purple coat, the only other purple example I could find and the length looks around the same.

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

42 inches is short for the coat in the illustration, but I'm not convinced that it's the same coat. There are some similarities in style, but as you say, it's quite boxy, the hem is not wide enough to give you the swing in the illustration. The second photo looks like it's for a coat that's a cross between the two, so hopefully yours is badly photographed.

My recommendation is to inspect the coat when you receive it and determine the age, to see if it's the same one.

The hem length can give an indication as to the originating date, or reveal alterations. If you'd like help determining this, just post close up photos here and we can help.

 

[furwise]

Here is my Lilli Ann coat that was 43" long and it definitely looks more than an inch longer than both of those however the mannequin in the second photo looks tall and my 43" was probably down to the top of my calf. I am 5'7" for reference and my dress form was probably lower to the ground. The shape of mine was as I said very different.

You'll see when you get yours though. Hopefully it's the angle of the camera, the way it's on the dress form. You can see one sleeve looks longer than the other. The difference in length between yours and mine from the photos does look pretty drastic.

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

Gorgeous coat, Caryn. Lucky you!

 

[Joji Furukawa]

So I did a little investigating and the reason the coat looks so boxy is because the seller has put it on a male mannequin! You can see in this picture of the back how broad the shoulders are and I also have a picture from one of their other listings and you can see it's the same mannequin. I'm not sure whether photographing on a female mannequin would make a difference but I imagine it would. Nicole, I will definitely get some upclose pictures when I receive it.

 

[Jen S]

Wow, that broad-shoulder MAN-equin really does not flatter the coat! I'm eager to see how it looks when you get it. I have seen a number of things like this where the seller did not know how the garment was supposed to look, and good for you for recognizing it anyway. Please post pics when you receive it.

 

[Joji Furukawa]

Haha Jen S, will do! I imagine that there will be quite a bit more swing with less broad shoulders. I am convinced it's the same coat as the ad, the style is the same and also in the fine print it says that it was offered in purple and red also!

 

[Joji Furukawa]

Also did even more investigating and found two more examples of this coat, one measured at 41" and the other at 43".

 

[poppysvintageclothing]

Looking forward to seeing the coat when you get it and photograph it properly.

Caryn, that coat you had has me