Cover from the painting of Gertrude Des Clayes (1879-1949)

Here’s an amusing article from Woman’s Pictorial that I wanted to share with you. Dated February 2nd, 1929, it provides a lighthearted ‘peek’ into the changing attitudes of the time. Remember that women of the 1920s were just starting to experience the freedom to express themselves and become more independent. Interestingly, this article was written just prior to the Great Depression and the subsequent slump in the world’s economy.

And just to add that Woman’s Pictorial was of course a woman’s magazine, so it’s foresightful of the writer, Norman Venner, to start his piece by mentioning just a few foibles attributed to men. I can think of many more, but all I can say is “vive la différence!”

“An amusing and manlike treatise on the worldly weaknesses of women of to-day, by a well-known and very entertaining writer – Norman Venner”

Before I go any further, I had better throw up both hands, and admit that men are a pretty poor job of work, anyhow; that we, as a sex, don’t know how to dress ourselves, find our own clean underclothes, save money, keep our tempers, and so on.  I admit all that. I start with what every woman knows – that men are hopeless. And in the fond hope that he who is down, need fear no fall, I go on to wish that women wouldn’t -

So many things, too. Many of them could be put right with such ease that it is strange that the sex which has put so many things right, hasn’t gone just the little step farther.

I wish, first of all, that women wouldn’t forget that the moment the bedroom door has closed behind them, they are on parade. It is generally admitted, nowadays, that the Victorians were wrong about nearly everything which it is possible for a human being to be wrong about and still live.

There is one point on which the Victorians were dead right. Once out of the seclusion of bedroom or boudoir, the Victorian woman was on parade. She did not comb her hair in the cafe, restaurant or theatre. She did not expose the cosmetic secrets of her toilet to the gaze of her fellow travellers in bus or train or tram.

Her fingers were manicured in secret, her lips brightened, if at all, behind closed doors. I don’t say that all the Neo-Georgian women do these things, but so many do. And I wish they wouldn’t.

Not Too Short!

One of the greatest advances in the history of women has been the introduction of the short skirt. Short skirts, in these days of swift and ever-swifter traffic are inevitable. Skirts will never be permanently longer. The short skirt has come to stay. The female knee has been admitted once and for all as part of the background of modern life. This is all to the good, though a lot of nonsense has been talked about it. But I wish women wouldn’t forget to draw the line at the knee.

Even in a very short skirt, it is possible to sit at ease in the tube or bus without embarrassing the timid, the self-conscious and the aged. Underwear, it should be remembered, is not interesting, is rarely beautiful, and is not intended to be displayed. I have no complex about this. If women feel that it doesn’t matter, well, they’ll just go on, I suppose. But I wish they wouldn’t.

The other big revolution of our time has been the opening of the world of work to women. This is an excellent development which has only just begun to bear fruit. But very few women have the right idea about it. Too many women want to prove that they can do a man’s job in a man’s way. “Here is a man’s job,” they say. “We’re going to show that a woman can do it just as well. Please forget that we’re women. As long as we do the work our sex has nothing to do with anybody.”

I think that is pathetically stupid. If a woman comes to a man’s job, whether it be as a Member of Parliament, journalist or barrister, what the world wants is not a man’s job performed by a woman, just as a man would do it, but a job usually performed by a man, and now raised to an entirely different level, because it is being performed by a woman.

When a woman merely takes a man’s job, it means there’s one job less for a man to do. When she takes a job, and because she is a woman, adds some new quality to the performance of it, she is really creating a new job. Women in business should never forget they are women. Men can’t forget it, and I wish women wouldn’t try.

No Pet Names

A woman I overheard in a shop the other day will illustrate my next point. “Dodo darling, have you got the pattern I gave you?” she said. “Dodo, darling,” was a large, massive husband in a bowler hat, and he had probably suffered so long from his wife’s habit of using pet names in public that he no longer winced outwardly. But all the men in hearing winced for him. Men loathe pet names.

Years ago, de Maupassant wrote: ” And when your mouth smiles, with its two round lips, showing your shining teeth, one might think there would come from that ravishing mouth a music that is beyond words, something unbelievably soothing. Then you call me, tranquilly, ‘My adorable fat rabbit.’” He knew all about it. The woman to whose address his protest was directed called him “My big darling chicken” and “My fat doggie.” In a little masterpiece of prose he pinned the failing to a card for all the world to see, but his protest has made very little difference. Women still continue, and I wish they wouldn’t.

Women have a fatal “penchant” for exaggeration. They shriek down the telephone, the smoke scented cigarettes, they have hysterics if they cannot win an argument.

Don’t

I wish women wouldn’t keep futile little dogs as pets, and carry them about in their arms.

I wish they wouldn’t wear light-coloured silk stockings when walking about the streets on a muddy day.

I wish women with fat feet would not wear shoes that are too tight for them, so that their feet bulge over in unsightly rolls of fat.  I wish women wouldn’t utterly disorganise a newspaper every time they try to read it.

I wish they wouldn’t leave pins and needles in chairs and in carpets.

I wish they wouldn’t take afternoon tea at theatre matinée, and rustle the paper in their chocolate boxes, and drop their programmes and pass remarks in a giggling undertone.

I wish they wouldn’t drink cocktails.

I wish women wouldn’t continuously practice the Charleston steps while standing in the streets.

I wish they wouldn’t drive a car as though they owned the road.

Last of all, I wish that I could believe that when they’ve read through this indictment, they wouldn’t start finding fault with me.

But I’m afraid they will.

Written by Norman Venner for Woman’s Pictorial, 2nd February 1929.

I can’t decipher the signature of the illustrator used in this editorial, but here it is. If you recognise it, please drop me a line. C D Ferris, C D Berris???

]]> http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/i-wish-women-wouldnt/feed/ 2 Louise Woman's Pictorial, February 1929 Exposing the cosmetic secrets of their toilet. forget that they are women. keep feeble little dogs as pets. utterly disorganise a newspaper. wear light coloured stockings on a muddy day. practice the Charleston in the streets. Illustrator's signature. http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/mystery-jewellery-designers-of-1968/ http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/mystery-jewellery-designers-of-1968/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:14:50 +0000 catwalkcreative http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/?p=5900 ]]> This glorious image was captured by David Stanford for FASHION magazine, August 1968. The editorial features three young designers, all students of the Jewellery School of the Royal College of Art. As you will read below, David Stanford was also a student of said college, so perhaps these ‘bright young things’ were already acquainted  before this article was published? Thus far, I’ve been unable to find any information on the young designers, Guy Watson, Sue Fry and Jackie Binns. If you know anything about them, or perhaps have a piece of jewellery they designed, please get in touch via my contact page. I’d love to know what happened. Thank you!

Photograph by David Stanford for 'Fashion', August 1968

David Stanford studied Painting and History of Art at Walthamstow School of Art in the 1960s, alongside such names as Ian Dury, Peter Greenaway and Vivian Stanshall. After graduating from the Royal College of Art, he began his own photographic studio. For the next 25 years he photographed a wide range of high-profile advertising campaigns and fashion spreads for magazines in London and Paris. He specialised in fashion and beauty but also photographed a number of famous bands for album sleeves and went on to direct TV commercials and film documentaries. Visit his website and take a look at his broad range of work.

Photograph by David Stanford for 'Fashion' magazine, August 1968

“This display of flash and filigree was never meant to lie in a bank vault solemnly embedded in black velvet. Designed by Guy Watson, Sue Fry and Jackie Binns, these jewels catch fire, flicker and blaze with light as their wearer moves. The infinite precision of their assembly makes them more than mere baubles. Thousands of tiny silver wires are soldered on to silver mesh to make a necklace that tosses its delicate fronds like some make-believe species of sea-plant. Invisible batteries are somehow contrived to fit inside shiny Perspex earrings and rings to make them toss about like jack o’lanterns. They light up in motion, switch off when you take them off. The young designers have used silver-gilt tubes studded with beads, square Perspex discs and flame-shaped globules of silver and glass to make jewellery that excites the senses and stimulates the imagination. Since few of us will have the patience to take pot-luck with heirlooms, it’s good to know that most of the jewellery shown her will shortly be going into production.”

Jewellery designs of 1968.

This issue of ‘FASHION’ was edited by Alisa Garland. Published by Fleetway, August 1968.

Visit my website today!

Photographed exclusively for FASHION by John Kelly, issued August 1968.

Julie Christie, darling of the trendy sixties.

In the meantime, here they are wearing smart Edwardian attire dating c.1905. It was customary then to wear your ‘Sunday best’ rather than a white wedding gown. Although white had gained popularity since Victorian times, some brides wore dresses that were more practical and could be worn again after the wedding. Notice my great grandmother’s extraordinary hat. It looks like it’s balancing on her head like a large, fluffy marshmallow! It’s quite wonderful!

There’s a similar style hat shown in this editorial by Lizzie of The Vintage Traveler.

My paternal great grandmother, Elizabeth Ellen

Great grandfather, Richard. A handsome fellow . . . . with a quick temper, I believe!

Left: Coat in Bute Tweed checks £33.12.0, Straight skirt £8.18.6, Shetland Crew Neck sweater £3.15.0

Centre: Suit in flecked Tweed pure new wool £29.8.0. Co-relating lambswool turtle neck sweater 4 gns.

Right: Bute Tweed suit in various checks £30.19.6. Co-relating turtle neck lambswool sweater 4 gns.

My friend Lizzie, of The Vintage Traveler, posted an equally stylish advertisement today from John Meyer. It also demonstrates that good taste was ‘alive and kicking’ in the seventies too!  Take a look here. Great minds think alike!

Visit my website today!

]]> http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/the-scotch-house-1968/feed/ 3 Louise The Scotch House, 1968 Catwalk Creative Vintage http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/talking-fashion-with-doris-langley-moore-c-1968/ http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/talking-fashion-with-doris-langley-moore-c-1968/#comments Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:49:23 +0000 catwalkcreative http://catwalkthreads.wordpress.com/?p=5733 ]]> I’ve been meaning to share this editorial for some time. It’s quite in-depth so I hope you’ll stay and read it in full. The interview is with Doris Langley Moore, OBE (1902–1989), founder of the Museum of Costume at Bath, from September 1968. I’ve also included illustrations to demonstrate how hemlines have changed over the decades. Hope you enjoy the read!

“Class distinction has had more influence on fashion than anything else in history. Today, the social revolution has brought a kind of fashion anarchy and with it a new form of class distinction born of privilege rather than class”, says Mrs Doris Langley Moore. For the past forty years she has studied historic costume and is founder of, and honorary advisor to the Museum of Costume, Bath.

A dress given by her mother-in-law after a game of charades at a Christmas party started her ‘possession obsession’, as she calls it, and ultimately led to the largest and most detailed exhibition of fashionable costumes known. She is decidedly a specialist living in a specialist world, and elderly woman with a strong mind and positive views on fashion. When I met her she wore a buff dress trimmed with black velvet and a large Mexican straw hat tied on with black velvet ribbon. She wore her hat indoors and out because, as she explained, her hair was unmanageable. She lives in a Georgian house overlooking Regent’s Park. It is furnished in a way which invokes nostalgia for the days of leisure and a life that will never return. I asked her:

What effect has the social revolution had upon today’s fashion?
“The new heroes of today’s privileged class – pop singers and photographers, television celebrities, boutique owners and models have had an enormous effect on fashion and our attitude towards it,” she replied. “Revolutions of one kind or another in the past have always had an element of shock on fashion.

After the French Revolution, those whose parents had been guillotined attended balls wearing a scarlet ribbon around their necks. It was a macabre fancy but today’s fashion among young people of deliberately trying not to look respectable is really rather a sinister show of liberty.”

What effect have the upper classes had upon fashion in the past?
“It was sad and rather curious to hear of the attempts made by the poorer classes long ago to keep up appearances and to emulate the rich upper classes.

It was usual for them to wear secondhand clothes. Just as today, it has never been cheap to keep up with fashion, so the poorer classes had a constant battle to keep pace. Although men’s costumes have never been preserved like women’s, many luxurious waistcoats have survived because they were considered unsuitable to hand down to a servant or to give to the poor. Days when babies were dressed in expensive, unwashable clothes, purely to advertise that the parents could well afford to waste money make a typical example of how there can be an underlying motive in fashion.

So also the flowing trains in Edwardian days conveyed the suggestion of belonging to the ‘carriage class’ and never having to walk the muddy streets. It was fashionable too for expensive dresses to be lined with glacé silk which rustled. Some less fortunate women would try to produce this sound by pinning newspaper to their cotton underskirts! Dresses that laced up the back in previous centuries announced the fact that the wearer could count on the attention of a maid.

Stories of hairstyles which became infested with flour-mites in the eighteenth century are a sad reminder of how fashion could over-rule sense. The hair was pomaded with scented grease and then powdered with flour. Each day it required brushing out and powdering – but the poorer classes couldn’t afford to do this.”

Do historical events play their part in moulding fashion?
“Fashion is international, not local,” she stressed. “Not only has it been influenced by class, but it is entwined and indivisible with social and political conditions throughout Europe. Mini-skirts, now as short as a jerkin and worn with little underwear, reflect a complete change of social values. The Industrial Revolution brought about a considerable change, particularly in men’s dress. They wore dark sober clothes and wealth was demonstrated in the way in which men dressed their wives, children and servants. Class was conveyed by fine workmanship, delicate embroidery on shirts, gold watches, pearl and diamond shirt studs and pale leather gloves. Attention to expensive detail is traced among the upper classes even in austere times. The discoveries made in excavating Herculaneum during the 1760′s had a remarkable effect, ultimately in encouraging a classical revival. Women wore clinging muslin dresses to look like goddesses and men wore clothes that were tight and contour-revealing in an attempt to look like Spartan athletes. Although the ancient Greeks loved colour, marble statues gave the impression that white was the classical colour. It was this revival and nothing to do with purity that brought us white weddings. Couples had previously only worn their ‘Sunday best’.

The mid-Victorian era brought a growing body of avante garde women interested in matters beyond the drawing room – particularly travel, education and women’s rights. This co-ordinated with the earliest tailor-made suit and, although worn with a crinoline skirt, it was regarded as challengingly masculine. After that the First World War imposed a rapid acceptance of shorter-skirted, more comfortable clothes. The freedom gained then, through being needed to do men’s jobs, produced aspirations towards a boyish style with fashion for flattening the bosom and bobbing the hair – which continued after the war. Genuinely functional clothing for sport has been undeniably the vital contribution of the 20th century.”

Have you found that fashions dictated morals or vice versa?
“It depends on how long the fashion has been in. Any part of the anatomy covered for a long while has automatically been considered improper when first revealed by a new fashion. Long dresses covered ankles for so long that on-one even dared to use the word ‘legs’ – they were ‘lower limbs’ and sometimes even the legs of furniture were hidden! Necks were hidden by high collars in my mother’s day, and I can remember her once saying, ‘I don’t care what the parsons preach in the pulpit. I’m going to wear a Peter Pan collar.’ Drawers were a daring innovation in 1815. Until then, they’d never been considered necessary and then they were introduced as two legs which were tied on separately. Before this tights were introduced made of flesh-coloured silk stockinette. No fashion is entirely new.”

Have there been any radical changes in fashion caused by inventions?
“Inventions give more scope to fashion and less work to the less fortunate. Just as today the invention of nylon and other man-made fibres has relieved our burden, so the stocking frame must have done in Elizabethan days. Until the invention of chemical dyes in the 1860′s, only the rich could afford to wear bright, expensive colours. Apart from cashmere, woollen textiles played little part in high fashion until the last century when Walter Scott influenced a Scottish cult and so encouraged the popularity of tartan. Buttons were worn almost exclusively by men to begin with, often to an elaborate degree. Women’s dresses were laced, and the zip, although patented in the 1890′s was only used by quick-change artists in the Music Hall and was not generally worn until the 1930′s.”

How do you see fashion progressing at the present time?
“I don’t think we’re quite ready for the pendulum to swing just yet. In my view skirts will stay short, perhaps disappearing in favour of a jerkin. Recently I was at a party where Dame Margot Fonteyn was wearing a short black velvet jerkin with tiny diamond buttons down the front, long black velvet thigh-boots with breeches and a big matching velvet hat, by Yves Saint Laurent. I told her I was booking it for my museum! I think that it illustrates the way I see fashion moving at present. The outfit would look marvellous with a maxi-coat – the first step towards long hemlines. This style may not be fashion for everyone, but speaking generally, fashion should have no age-tag.”

Reflecting on the past and its influence what do you most regret about its effect on fashion?
“I feel most strongly about the attitude taken by middle-aged and older women. The worst thing a woman can do is to go out of fashion because she is getting older. Before Queen Victoria started the melancholy fashion for perpetually wearing black (the only one she ever started) there was no difference whatever between older and younger women’s clothes. When Prince Albert died, however, she went into mourning for the rest of her life. Other women copied her and eventually created the illusion that it was indecent for an older woman to dress fashionably. It is a disastrous idea because dowdiness affects the mind.

It was common practice until the First World War to spend two years in mourning a husband, one year for a brother and three months for a cousin. After so many men were killed in the war, the English and French Governments appealed to women not to wear mourning because it lowered morale. Women no longer wear ‘widows’ weeds’, but Queen Victoria certainly lowered fashion morale and I attribute the tiresome attitude taken by the older woman and the currently apologetic way of dressing to this. I feel so strongly about it that I’d far rather be thought of as dressing too young than dressing old. This is the age of revolution amongst the young and as far as fashion is concerned, the old could follow with great advantage.”

It’s a worthy cause. Wouldn’t you support her revolution? – I would!

Written by Caroline Hanman for FASHION magazine, September 1968. Editor: Alisa Garland. Published by Fleetway Publications Ltd.

Final note: There’s some interesting BBC archive footage, ‘What We Wore, A history of fashion from 1720 to 1982′. Several of these short films are presented by the wonderful Doris Langley Moore. Click here to view.

Visit my website today!

Richard Shops were hugely popular on British high streets, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s. They produced high-quality fashion for young women but sadly went into decline during the 1980s. More information can be found below.

Skirt suit by Richards c.1970s

It's the attention to detail that I love. Contour darts, neatly finished pockets and a couple of textured buttons on each cuff. The suit is fully lined too.

Richards Shops was originally part of clothes-selling empire, United Drapery Stores, created in 1927 by Leeds-born buisinessman Jack Lyons. In 1958 Richard shops merged with Allders Department Store Group. This combined enterprise, renamed UDS, saw the beginning of rapid expansion and store promotion. During the 1960s and 1970s, Richards were selling fashions designed to appeal to young women. They were hugely popular with shops to be found on high streets and shopping centres all over Britain.

Financial troubles followed during the 1980s when the high street became much more competitive for fashion retailers. The UDS group was sold to Hanson plc in 1983. However, they split Richard Shops from UDS in an attempt to recover the cost of the purchase, and sold it on as a separate company. It was subsequently purchased by the retail group Habitat/Mothercare plc, and became part of Storehouse plc following the merger of Habitat/Mothercare with British Home Stores in 1986.

In 1992 Richard Shops sold to British retailing giant Sears plc (not to be confused with the American stores of the same name). Sears plc also owned Selfridges, Wallis, Miss Selfridge and Outfit. In 1999, Sir Philip Green, who had acquired Sears plc, transferred Richard Shops, along with Wallis, to the Arcadia Group and immediately announced the closure of all branches of Richard Shops, or their conversion to other Arcadia brands.

Today the company, Richard Shops Holdings, are still registered as a ‘dormant company’ with Companies House, their head office at Arcadia’s headquarters in London. However, no stores currently trade as Richard Shops (information c/o en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shops).

Visit my website today!

Casual, but ever so stylish plaid coat.

I picked up this rather spiffing coat the other day. I was instantly drawn to the colour and weave. It’s slightly A-line in shape with wide sleeves, and I love the colours – navy-blue mixed with soft beige and cream. It’s very easy on the eye.

Going by the texture and feel of the fabric, I thought it might be wool and I was right. The label reads: Fine Woollens Woven in Scotland, Pure New Wool. I recently sold a jacket with the exact same label as this although it dated c.1980s. My new coat dates a little earlier.

Fine Woollens Woven in Scotland

The famous woolmark symbol was designed in 1964 by Italian graphic artist, Francesco Saroglia. It’s used in garments made only from 100% wool. The other symbols shown below include the ‘Woolmark Blend’, used for products containing a minimum of 50% new wool, and the ‘Woolblend’, used for products with 30-49% new wool. More info from The Woolmark Company website.

The buttons were all wrong!

It was only when I got my coat home that I realised the buttons were all wrong. They had looked navy-blue, but when I checked them again in full daylight, the buttons were actually purple. Prior to buying the coat I had also spotted a small hole in the collar, but I knew I could fix that easily, providing I had the same colour thread in my sewing box.

I was hoping to find replacement buttons in my large stash of spares. I’ve collected so many over the years but alas, I didn’t have exactly what I was looking for. I needed eight buttons in total; six for the bodice and two smaller ones for each cuff. Undeterred, I went along to my local sewing and haberdashery shop in Didsbury. They didn’t have navy-blue buttons that were large enough so I found a nice alternative. I also found the exact colour of thread I was looking for and here are the finished results. What do you think?

Small hole repaired on the collar.

The finished result! I chose wood-effect buttons which match perfectly with the soft beige colour of the coat. They're plastic, but will stand up well to the rigours of dry-cleaning. Buttons made from real wood can often split during this harsh cleaning process.

Slightly smaller buttons required for the cuff.

Sadly, the coat is too big for me otherwise it would definitely be a keeper!  It’s currently available from the website, so please stop by and see if there’s anything else I can tempt you with.