The enigmatic Posh Utility Label surfaces...in Texas!

I just noticed this 2 pc set I picked up today has the Posh Utility label so I took some really quick pictures to post a real live example in the USA. Of course I have no idea how and when it got here. Anyway it is a satin backed crepe fabric, pleated skirt and the top has that sequined faux pocket flap. The label is in the top and is folded over and stitched, so you can only see half of in the photo. There was also a gauzy tag in the skirt that has no writing left on it at all. Sigh :(

Skirt has a lightning zipper and the top buttons up back under a hidden placket. No shoulder pads at all. So what do you think for date? Early 40s or later?

Oh for those new to the forum there has been much discussion about this label.

Here

Here

And Here







Mesh netting under sequin flap

 

Great dress! Funny thing is, if it has a lightning zipper, its Canadian not American! Its definately postwar, it looks 1948/49 to me. The CC41 utility label appeared in clothes from 1942 to 1952 and as far as I can tell, that dinner plate CC41 label didn't show up until postwar. I haven't found a wartime example yet. However, here is the first example of that British label which appears to be related to the austerity/utility rules in the UK this side of the Atlantic.

 

Thats what I thought, about the zipper. So I guess it migrated down from Canada. I am thinking I might keep it if it fits. It s in excellent condition too!

 

Fabulous dress!!! - I can see why you'd want to keep it.

 

Great dress!

What is a lightning zipper?

Lynne

 

It's the name of the zipper manufacturer.

 

LIghtning was the biggest zipper company in Canada, like Talon in the US. It was owned by the British parent company British Petroleum but the zippers were manufactured in Canada in St. Catharines, which is the town nearest to me. They produced the first celluloid zippers that both Schiaparelli and Charles James used in their clothing in 1936 (or was it 35?...) THe company went out of business in the early 90s I think.

However, just because it has a Canadian zipper doesn't mean the dress was made in Canada. It was probably imported from ENgland without any findings, like zippers, and those were added here.

 

speaking to my pals in the museum, there seems to be two trains of thought... it seems that this label without the cc1941 was
1. imported clothing post war
or
2. items created after the end of the war and the dateless label signifyies this.


hope to get this pinned down for sure soon, some irons in the fire here..

 

The two problems with both these theories is that 1) items with this label also often have an English maker's label as well. If made of wool they are usually made with typical tweedy English woollens that is usually exported, not imported. They also all seem to be made in England, as far as I can tell from all evidence. This dress is the first I have seen with a Canadian zipper.
2) They do seem to be postwar, however, I have CC41 labelled postwar clothing as well, so the two of them appear to be used at the same time. Also, many of the items with this 'posh' label appear on clothes that are likely 1946ish, so immeadiately after the war, while I have dresses that could be as late as 1950 that still have the CC41 label. SO the cross over is a number of years.

I am suspecting that it has something to do with the items being of a higher quality, as CC41 clothes are almost nationalized garments, without manufacturer's tags (for the most part) because they are produced to standards delineated by the government for quality, as well as adhere to austerity restrictions, plus their profit margin is defined by the government, as well as their distribution and taxation. Manufacturers of CC41 clothing have almost no say in any aspect of its design, creation, distribution or sale. I think the posh utility label must define some kind of semi-adherence as they often have manufacturer's labels and are better designs. They may be taxed unlike CC41 clothes, or do not follow all the rules for profit margin -- something like that, where it defined they weren't meeting the same criteria as CC41 labelled garments.

It has to be written down somewhere what it means! Lurking in some archives somewhere there will be some memo from Hugh Dalton (head of civilian clothing production) that delineates what that label means.

 

By coincidence there is another post that shows a suit with this label HERE.

This is more in line with what you describe Jonathan, as typically English in the wool tweed.

 

just a thought......but could the 'posh' label been added to clothes that were allready made, but not yet left the manufacturer... warehouse....to exempt them from the restrictions of the cc41.....?

 

I would say the labels would have been added by the manufacturer, definately. But the question is why. CC41 labels guaranteed a certain level of quality for purchasers and also exempted the clothing from sales tax. About 80% of all clothing produced in the UK between 1942 and the end of the war were CC41 designated. CC41 clothing was made until 1952 but more items were made off the CC41 regulations with each passing year. Essentially CC41 was not austerity, but rather a guarantee of a higher quality so that poorer people could buy CC41 clothes and the clothes would not fall apart after a few wearings. It regulated the quality of cloth for example, so cheap clothes weren't crap. Other than clothes made for export and certain items not affected by CC41 regulations, like hats and fur coats, you could still buy clothing that did not meet CC41 regulations, but you had to pay tax on them and they were usually for luxury items and made to order clothes. Austerity measures applied to all clothing regardless of whether it was CC41 or not, so there was little advantage to buying non CC41 clothing for anyone but very wealthy patrons.

This dinner plate label denoted something relevant to the CC41 regulations but what is the question.

 

i really wish that someone could find that little bit of paper that would solve this 'posh' utility mark dilema...lol...

could it be something to do with the tax on clothes made pre-war / during the war which were not cc41 regualted ? but still being sold at the same time as the cc41 ?

this thread.... and having recently sold a suit ( and thank you to the people that bidded on it )with this 'posh label' as really got my mind boggling over this....

 

I am just wonder if we are looking too deep into this and expecting to find one piece of paper with every thing written down and that never existed.
The regulations on clothing looks like there were changes many time in the war " BT 64/925 Civilian Clothing. Amendments to Making of Civilian Clothing (Restrictions) " is just one example of possibly many

So could some one in a Whitehall room issue another amendment, that resulted in a different standard and label.

Another question would be did the general population at that time see both label at once and know the difference between them.
or did only the people who made and packed up the cloths see them until unpacked somewhere else.
Also if you made something in a factory did you know where it was going to. Careless talk cost lives was a very powerful thing in those days.

I just think that as no one got a definitive answer then it might have been one big fudge up in a dark room somewhere and that what we are trying to untangle and not getting so far.

 

l need to show 'the posh' label, does anyone have it anywhree., t isnt on our resource..? thanks

also the resource says rationing ended in 1952, in fact clothing rationing ended 15 march 1949, but rationing completely ended in 1954 not 1952.

hth

 

I wish the Carlton books people had gotten back to me, but I've pretty much given up hope...either they know they have gotten it wrong, or they just don’t have the time to answer a random e-mail on a label.

 

Sara, there is a good photo contributed by Deborah (chezmov) here at the end of the thread.

 

Sara - clothes rationing ended in 1949 but CC41 continued beyond rationing until 1952 even though the last food items under rationing did not end until 1954. Rationing, utility and austerity are interconnected but unrelated to each other. Rationing just limited the number of garments you could buy, utility regulated the manufacture of the garments, and austerity regulated the details and fabric usage in garment. So CC41 clothes were made for the English market only, not for export, they adhered to austerity regulations and were available to English citizens beginning in March 1942, a year after clothing rationing was introduced. AUsterity affected ALL clothing produced, regardless of whether it was CC41 or not, manufactured or made to order. Rationing didn't care diddly squat about either utility or austerity, only that you used the correct number of points to acquire new clothes. So that is where a lot of people are confused because they think CC41 meant clothes made for rationing, when they did not. It was the result of rationing because a poor person had to use 7 coupons yo buy a crap dress, the same number of coupons a wealthy person had to use for a couture dress. The crap rayon dress fell apart after 3 washings, while the couture wool dress could be worn for 3 years after many cleanings. Utility was intended to even this inequity out, so that cheap clothes were made to a good standard, and made to order clothes required a tax for purchase, however, both garments would have to adhere to austerity regulations -- no cuffs, 4 buttons, 1/4 inch seam allowances etc.

Paul -- the CC41 label is like a quality guarantee, the equivalent of an American union made garment label. It assures the garment is made of good material, sewn well, and tax-free for purchase. It was intended for both the retailer and client to see because the retailer would have to submit the tax on the sale if the tag was not in the garment. SO it was to everyone's advantage that that tag remained. Eventually, CC41 clothes became associated with dull, detailess, wartime restricted fashions. After the New Look was introduced British manufacturers weren't using the same fabric allowances due to austerity measures, and CC41 became a victim of quality control the same way council housing in England is sneered at as poor quality, when in fact council housing was government regulated to ensure quality standards of contruction -- but it was eventually seen as dull and ugly, like CC41 clothes.

That's why I think this dinner plate 'posh' label is some variation of CC41 clothing because it appears in better quality garments with better designs and details. It might have been made for export but the vast majority of items with this label are found in England and the few that do show up over here could well have come with a warbride's trousseau. There isn't enough over here to suggest it was exported and as it's meaning wouldn't relate to any anything regarding our taxation or regulations (North American clothing regulation ends in the U.S. in November 46 and in Canada in May 1947) the label must be for English use.

 

hello all, i was thinking- factories had to make 85% of their output utility, maybe this label is the one that denotes it is from the less restiricted designs, and this would explain why the clothes are fancier. just thought i'd chuck that idea in...

 

I posted my posh utility dinner label to the label resource thread..