What should I call this?

[zannew]

This dress has a split up the front - all the way to the waist. It's lined and hemmed and I know it was meant to be that way. Is there is name for this kind of dress? What would one wear underneath? I wondered about tights, as shown, or skinny pants? I also wondered if you could give me you opinion on date?

Thanks so much!

 

[EndlessAlley]

Reminds me of a "skort dress", but usually the panel of fabric is in the front.

 

[zannew]

There are no shorts attached to this underneath.

 

[Pinkcoke]

I have seen indian & 70's garments like this with matching trousers to go underneath. The tops are often split quite high.

 

[poppysvintageclothing]

I am actually wondering if this wasn't the overdress for "hot pants", these were popular in the early 70s.
Some were short and some were long overdresses that were generally like a coat dress and had a pair of matching shorts underneath.

 

[Sky Ranch Vintage]

I'm thinking like Mary Jane and wondering if you're hasn't been shortened a bit at sometime.

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

I agree with Mary Jane - early '70s and made to go over matching shorts.

Unless it used to be a longer dress without the split and has been altered - but you'd be able to see from the stitching if that was the case, so I think the first idea is probably right. The early '70s were the Golden Age of Hotpants.

 

[Linn]

I think if it is from "the golden days of hotpants" that the over-dress would have been a maxi - not that length. Is there any indication it's been shortened?

 

[MyVintageCocktail]

I agree that it could have been an overdress for hot pants, or a tunic for long dressy, flowy "hostess" pants. I had both types of outfits in the 70s, but I suspect that hot pants would be what this was made to go with, especially with the split in the front.

 

[Midge]

Late to the party (been on holiday ) but my first reaction too was "has it been shortened?". I would imagine this kind of thing to be maxi-length too...

Karin

 

[BijouVintage]

It could have been a over dress for a shift dress with a very plain almost slip like top and patterned skirt.. does that make sense, I can see it in my head but not explain it very well.

It just reminds me of this set I have:

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

Thanks for the bump Bijou, it's given me another chance to look at this and I'd like to change my mind.

Linn and Karin are right - the skirt should be much longer if was from an early '70s hot pant ensemble. Have you looked at the hem to see if it's been shortened? This style with the undershorts came back briefly around 1990, so if it's the original length, I think it could be more modern. A friend of mine had one she wore to play cello in her band (it's a great style for things like that). The black colour is also a lot more modern as it wasn't a popular choice in the early '70s.

Do you have any information or photos about how it's made? Pics of the hem and seams might help.

 

[Vintage_Visage]

lol im glad you said something Nicole. My immediate reaction was early 90s and got depressed when everyone said 70s hehe... glad I'm not too crazy

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

Jennifer, you're not crazy - dating garments from a limited number of photos and information is inherently flawed. We can only do our best. Many times I've seen things in images and thought one thing and then, when holding it in my hand had a different idea. Photos mislead in many ways but so much information is there in person. You can "feel" how old it is.