Originally posted by Patentleathershoes
but i was very interested to read that printed patterns were around since the 1860s.
A terminology clarification to prevent confusion...
When collectors talk about "printed patterns," they generally mean the later, 20th century patterns that are/were printed on tissue. "Unprinted patterns" refers to the early sized patterns that were pre-cut with holes and notches instead of printed marks. The patterns that were available in the 1860s fell into one of three categories-
1) Diagrams like the 1876 curiass bodice pattern I showed. Diagrams were printed very small, and the seamstress had to trace the pieces, then enlarge them to a useable size.
2) "Pattern sheets" or "pattern supplements" (since they were usually a supplemental feature of a book or magazine) like the 1930s German pattern sheet shown. Pattern sheets are a bunch of different full-size pattern pieces overlapping on one sheet of paper. The seamstress must trace the pieces she needs, then adjust them to the particular size she needs.
3) "Unprinted patterns" like those pioneered by Butterick. These are full-size pieces of tissue paper cut to shape at the factory with notches and holes to help guide the seamstress. This type of pattern was available in multiple sizes.
What collectors call "printed patterns" were introduced by McCall in 1919.
Reason being is i have seen many "older" (ok, not "older" in the grand scheme of things!) that were unprinted. I have often hesitated when purchasing these for collecting, using, or any other purpose because they somehow boggle my mind. It is so much more difficult to tell if it is 'all there". Especially if the instructions are not clear or present. I find myself passing them by unless they have really stunning cover art that i might be able to use as an example later when documenting a style of dress, etc.
I guess my question is...should i have such cold feet about them or do you have any practical advice not so much for "value" but basically ..i guess wrapping one's brain around them.
Let me see if I can answer without getting too wordy!!
It depends on how much trouble you want to go to. Collectors and many vintage-style seamstresses don't mind unprinted patterns. You get used to them after a while. And you could be passing up a very good opportunity if you pass them by completely. A good pre-1915 "fancy dress" pattern can go for $100-$200 if complete.
Unprinted patterns aren't so hard to check for completeness as long as the pattern envelope or instructions include a diagram of the pieces. Most unprinted pattern pieces are marked with either numbers or letters to help identify them - for example, the envelope says piece A is "Skirt Front", so you find piece A, and sure enough, it looks like the "Skirt Front" shown on the envelope.
It is a little more difficult if it is a Victorian or early 20th century pattern and it DOESN'T have letters or numbers printed on the pieces. Occasionally you will come across a pattern that has nothing but holes and notches on the pieces - nothing to identify that "skirt front" as a skirt front and that "front facing" as the front facing. Such patterns are usually pre-1915, and they're relatively uncommon.
In those cases, you have a couple of choices.
1) You can sell the pattern "as-is." I personally don't spend more than a few dollars on such patterns, but I've seen people go anywhere from $15-$50 for them.
2) You can count the number of pieces in the envelope and see if it matches the number of pieces the envelope says should be in there. If so, it's *probably* complete, though you can't guarantee it.
3) If the envelope has a diagram of the pieces on the envelope or on the instructions, you can unfold all the pieces and compare them to the diagram. It takes some time to do, but in my opinion it's worth it with the old patterns.
Does that help or does it raise more questions?
One other thing I thought to mention (regarding value) is that vintage patterns are a lot like vintage clothing. Excellent examples of high-fashion or trendy styles are more desirable and valuable than everyday wear. (Someone said that recently on VFG, and I can't remember who it was. Maybe Hollis or Jonathan?) That is why Modes Royal and Vogue Couturiers and the McCall couturier patterns are usually more valuable than the Simplicity or Butterick patterns, and why evening patterns are more valuable than daywear patterns. People are looking for the styles that scream their era instead of the mundane, everyday stuff.
Laura
