Hmm.

I spent this morning and early afternoon putting together the 1930s dress.  I was prepared for it to be pretty unattractive, rather in the "shapeless" effect that so many 1930s dresses do without hair and accessories (and for me, shapewear), but boy, it doesn't look so hot right now!

Part of the problem is that my pretty feedsack print, while pretty, is unfortunately on a pretty heavyweight quilting cotton. To be fair, not much unlike a real feedsack. But nothing like the near-lawn effect of the ditsy print.  So the bodice poofs, and I need to adjust the back skirt darts.  Plus the white raglan sleeves, adorable in concept, seem to only make me look even more like a triangle. Totally not the effect I need.

So. It's hanging up, sans side closure and hem, while I ponder.  While I have a lot of vintage, most of it is actually vintage, not me-made. That limits the choices a bit.

While I'm not doing pre-Raphaelite, jenthompson very kindly said she liked the green dress anyway as an ordinary dress. So I guess I'll wear that. Honestly, I want something pretty for that evening, but not enough to relegate the 18th century or Regency to that time. I want to wear those as long as I can, during the day.

What I'm thinking now:

Thursday day: ??? Whatever fancyfrocks and I drive up in

Thursday night (blogger meet-up): c. 1952 blue dupioni cocktail dress

Friday day:  1770s indienne print

Friday night (ice cream social):  c. 1863 green wool

Saturday day:  white Regency

Saturday night (gala): Star dress

Sunday day (Jampagne-ish):  c. 1939 blue/black/white floral print dress (costumers' guild ice cream social)

Sunday afternoon (pool party): 1940s playsuit


The 1939 dress is too late to even pretend to be Prohibition era, but I LIKE it a lot, and I think it's more flattering that the feedsack print dress. I may bring that one with me, though, and see if fancyfrocks has any ideas for rescuing it.

Hmm.

I spent this morning and early afternoon putting together the 1930s dress.  I was prepared for it to be pretty unattractive, rather in the "shapeless" effect that so many 1930s dresses do without hair and accessories (and for me, shapewear), but boy, it doesn't look so hot right now!

Part of the problem is that my pretty feedsack print, while pretty, is unfortunately on a pretty heavyweight quilting cotton. To be fair, not much unlike a real feedsack. But nothing like the near-lawn effect of the ditsy print.  So the bodice poofs, and I need to adjust the back skirt darts.  Plus the white raglan sleeves, adorable in concept, seem to only make me look even more like a triangle. Totally not the effect I need.

So. It's hanging up, sans side closure and hem, while I ponder.  While I have a lot of vintage, most of it is actually vintage, not me-made. That limits the choices a bit.

While I'm not doing pre-Raphaelite, jenthompson very kindly said she liked the green dress anyway as an ordinary dress. So I guess I'll wear that. Honestly, I want something pretty for that evening, but not enough to relegate the 18th century or Regency to that time. I want to wear those as long as I can, during the day.

What I'm thinking now:

Thursday day: ??? Whatever fancyfrocks and I drive up in

Thursday night (blogger meet-up): c. 1952 blue dupioni cocktail dress

Friday day:  1770s indienne print

Friday night (ice cream social):  c. 1863 green wool

Saturday day:  white Regency

Saturday night (gala): Star dress

Sunday day (Jampagne-ish):  c. 1939 blue/black/white floral print dress (costumers' guild ice cream social)

Sunday afternoon (pool party): 1940s playsuit


The 1939 dress is too late to even pretend to be Prohibition era, but I LIKE it a lot, and I think it's more flattering that the feedsack print dress. I may bring that one with me, though, and see if fancyfrocks has any ideas for rescuing it.