Lillie Rubin dress - 80s or earlier?

Hello all!
I went shopping yesterday and picked up this pretty dress from Lillie Rubin:


(please excuse my lame attempt at modeling - I was crammed in that thing so tight I could barely breathe!)

It has one of the older style tags that just reads "Lillie Rubin" (the same style as the first listed in the label resource, which is attributed to the 70s), with no other tags at all - no fiber content, no union label, nothin'.

I'm really uncertain about the dating! I think I'm getting thrown off because when I see something done in cocktail length with a drop waist, it makes me think 80s. But the construction and label give off the vibe of being earlier. It does have a non-metal zipper, though, which confounds me further.



Anyone care to take a guess on when this one was made? I've looked at other listings for Lillie Rubin dresses to try to get an idea of other styles done with the old label, and to try to figure out when exactly the label changed - but I haven't gotten any clarity.

Here's a close up shot. It shows the over and under layers better, as well as the shape of the bodice/skirt:

(click for bigger)

Any help is appreciated!

 

I THINK it might be a bit earlier. In the 70s sleeves tended to be a tad short like your dress plus the little puff to the sleeve cap.... I know that dropped waists were popular 80s but I had a dropped waist party dress in the early 70s similar in cut to yours. They were also done in the 60s and 50s too.

I could be wrong but I'm going to say 70s but lets wait and see what the others say.

Melody

 

Well... I probably don't know as much as Melody, I'm fairly new here, but I was thinking 80s as well. The lace, the sequins, and (to me) the sleeves all say early 80s. However, that length looks either late 80s or much earlier to me. The early 80s dresses I have all have a mid-calf tea length. Hmmm. This is a puzzler, can't wait to see what everyone else thinks.

 

Wow! It sure is pretty! Can you post a picture of the label please.

 

Thanks for the responses! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one uncertain about this dress. I have a few more pictures to post; maybe they'll help!

First, the label:


I realized I didn't post a pic of the back of the dress, so here it is:


The zip goes up about halfway up the back, and then it closes with black satin covered buttons and thread loops.

Here's a close up of the skirt, so you can see the layers. There's nude matte acetate/taffeta/synthetic something (no content label), then sheer organza, and then lace.


The bodice lining, with nude organza on the caps of the sleeves: (click for bigger)


Finally, the front and back, flipped inside out: (click for bigger)



I hope these help! You can see on the picture of the lining on the back of the dress that the center back seam is pinked, not overlocked. The dress has some overlocked areas, too, but I always tend to think of pinking as being either an older vintage thing or a home dressmaking technique. I could be completely wrong, though!

If anyone needs to see more pics, let me know. It's so nice to have other vintage lovers to puzzle these things over with! :sunshine:

 

You are right, pinked seams are an older technique for manufactured dresses By the 80s exposed seams were almost always overlocked. Seams that were hidden under a lining were either left raw or overlocked as well.

Pinked seams are even unusual for 70s manufacture. So...I wonder if your dress is early 70s maybe even late 60s? This is a fun mystery.

....sequins and lace are classic materials, popular during the 80s but not exclusive.

Melody

 

I am fairly certain this is 60s, or very early 70s at the latest. That neckline was popular then and the construction looks older than 70s or 80s. My mother and SIL had similar cocktail dresses and I have one in my inventory with a bodice very similar, although the waistline & skirt are different. I think I have a photo of it... will post if I can find.

 

Ok, here's a shot of the dress I have (pls excuse the bit-mapped image; I don't have the original on my computer and had to copy this from a document and enlarge it...). The bodice and sleeves are almost identical to yours. It is a pretty classic style, but the other clues leave me still thinking 60s (I would say if 70s, not later than '70 or '71). I have the provenance on this dress, and though not at hand, I'm certain the list of items I bought from this estate had this in the 60's grouping.

 

I'm so glad to get everyone's opinions on this dress! It's very pretty, and I'm pleased to have found it, no matter what age it is.

vintagebaubles, thank you for posting the pic! You're right, the bodice style is really similar. It's nice to get a confirmation that the sleeves/lace along the neckline was a 60s (or early 70s) style.

My new theory is that the zipper has been replaced. All the seams are finished nicely (even the pinked center back lining seam) - but - the selvage below the zipper is unfinished, and fraying slightly in places. I don't think the sizing has been altered, but maybe the older (possibly metal) zipper broke, or got jammed, or something.

If the zipper had been replaced, that would also explain the lack of any labels except the designer's. I can see where someone would not want to lose the name of the dressmaker, but would be less concerned with preserving the other peripheral things (size, retailer, etc.) that may have been sewn in originally.

What do you guys think? Is that a plausible theory?

...I guess the downside to the zipper/tag having been resewn in is that it opens the possibility that someone sewed in a Lillie Rubin tag for a dress that wasn't an actual Lillie Rubin. But I don't think it was that big of a label to where people would be trying to circulate fakes!

 

Is that seam tape along the waist seam, or has there been some alteration at the seam? I can't tell from the photo. If taped, I think that adds credence to the earlier dating rather than 80s. I never wore much designer clothing before I started collecting vintage, but I don't remember waist seam tapes being used in the 80s. And last thing, the little puffs of tulle at the shoulders are an earlier feature, too, I think. I just sold an early 70's dress with those same puffs at the hips for fullness. I would have thought 80s would have more of a pad rather than tulle puff. JMHO, of course!

 

I thought that dress looked familiar so I looked in my stash and found mine ... a miracle in itself. Identical. I assumed mine was 70s. Mine has a jet black (hard to read) YKK zipper. On the back of the zipper it repeats YKK and has a number but I can't make out what it is. I've looked at the label stitching but mine has the zipper firmly over the top of the label and in order to see any stitching, you have to raise the label up and look underneath. One line of black thread with what looks like a second two or three inch line of holes(?). The label placement in the dress is the same. It could just be different sewing methods by different employees?

Mine has what's left of a lot # card and a fabric id tag (hence my assumption it was after 71). Sequins, 100% acetate, Lace% 80% acetate, 40% nylon, Linings 100% acetate, Professional Dry Clean Only, No steam or Heat on Sequins, RN 31865. The Rn no. puts it between 65 and 66 but that's just the oldest it could be. The card and fabric tag were sewn in touching the Rubin label on the side.

Personally, I also think it's a pretty glittery feminine dress ... if I must say so myself. :sunshine:

 

P.S.: I never thought it was 1980s. I just don't see 80s there at all.

 

I checked RN 31865 and it's for After Five Inc.

I checked the trademark site and found several assignments but not to After Five Inc. Maybe they acted as importers? Cache, Inc. is the owner as of 98.

Not that it matters but I did expect to see Lillie Rubin with the RN No. There is an RN No. for Lillie Rubin Affiliates - 74115 - which was one of the later assignments, I believe after a bank intervened.

You can tell I have extra time on my hands tonight ....

 

Midge - No double vision for you; you are seeing two lines of stitching on the tag. I had to really use my Superwoman x-ray specs to tell, but it looks like the first row of stitching is the one is securing the zipper. Those stitches barely miss the upper corner of the label, so the second row of stitching is there (I believe) to secure it more fully. Of course, in light of eye*candy's posts (I'll get there in a minute!), it may be the original zipper after all!

(As a side note - maybe only interesting to me - in examining the zipper, I thought it was interesting to see that in order to keep the lace layer of the skirt free floating, and not secured down on top of the zipper, the stitching goes down to the waist seam and then literally just jumps the top skirt layer and continues the last few inches on the organza & lining layers. You can see the slightly larger stitch where the seamstress probably just pulled the lace overskirt out of the way.)

vintagebaubles - I can see how the pictures make it look like seam tape at the waist, but it's just two separate rows of stitching. I've gone all kinds of CSI on this dress and figured out that the bodice has four separate layers - the black lace, then black organza with flat-lined nude taffeta, then an additional nude taffeta lining layer. So, the skirt is attached to the bodice along the lace, organza, and flat-lined layers. The lining has been turned under and stitched to finish it, and then stitched down using the stitch-in-the-ditch method. (I pulled that term from the recesses of my amateur sewing mind; I hope it's the right one). This row of stitches is a bit wonky from the lining side; I assume that's because the seamstress would have worked it from the right side in order to make sure the stitches were sitting right next to the waist seam.
Sorry for the crazy long answer for the simple question! I tend to get a little excited picking apart the construction techniques on garments.

 

Wow, so much info and still a mystery. Eye Candy, does your dress have a union label?

 

I figured I'd go with two slightly less large posts, here, rather than overwhelming with one!

eye*candy - That is awesome that you have the same dress! It's a small vintage world. If you get a wild hair, post pics and let's compare! My zipper is also a black YKK, so maybe it's original to the dress. Who knows where in the 40-something years of my dress's life it lost its other labels, but I think it's great to know that it did have the content label originally - helpful for dating, definitely.

That's also really interesting about the RN number. I know how to look up RNs online, but I didn't realize you could approximate the date based on the number. Very cool. I wonder why it wouldn't be registered for Lillie Rubin, though? I am really uneducated in the big world of licenses, importers, trademarks, etc.

Regardless, I definitely agree that's it's a very pretty, glittery dress! I'm so tempted to keep it - if I lost about 10 lbs. (which I need to do anyway!) I think it it would fit me like a glove, instead of like a sausage casing.

Thank you for taking the time to look up all that stuff about the RN, eye*candy, and for sharing the info on your dress's labels! I really appreciate it, and everyone else's input.

 

I'm SUPPOSED to be cleaning the floors and picking up (and removing) things that don't belong out ... but I'm taking a break and glad of it.

The RN no. can change as ownership changes and that affects the "beginning" date. It's just a helpful tool at times.

The dress has no union labels. Actually, that would make sense if it were imported (After Five was shown as an importer.) Since it wasn't made in the US, there would be no ILGWU label.

I haven't posted pictures here in a long time so hope this works. I've lightened the pictures a great deal, although I keep my monitor dark so we'll see .... No time to put it on the mannie or dress form. On the floor on a sheet!

I'm posting a closeup of the fabric because it shows the flowers that are not easily visible. That's something I like about this dress - the sequins, the cross-wise visible stitching and the flowers. Rather unique in my view.


http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/2/6/2/8/4/webimg/331978217_o.jpg

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/2/6/2/8/4/webimg/331978214_o.jpg

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/2/6/2/8/4/webimg/331978206_o.jpg

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/2/6/2/8/4/webimg/331978198_o.jpg