Bewitched, Bepocketed, Bewildered

by Erin on November 19, 2008


Advance 5247

Julie (of So-Retro Vintage Patterns) sent me this link to one of her babies. (Click on the image to visit the listing). Back me up on this, folks — the woman on the right could fit HER OWN HEAD into her pockets, right? I'm not hallucinating?

Actually, even if I AM hallucinating, I'm not sure I care. Really, if you compare these pockets to all the enormous, obscenely expensive handbags that seem to be causing every celebrity ever snapped by a tabloid to list slightly to the right, they seem restrained — sane, even.

(The dress on the right is actually very close to one of my favorite patterns, Butterick 7130, only with bonus giant buckled pockets.)

I do like how the woman in red has turned her face away from the spectacle, but is casting her eyes back … Can't look, can't look away!

I was going to put a poll in this post but it would involve a lot of messy upgrading of my template, so I'll just ask you to leave a comment instead with your answer. Are these pockets:
A) ludicrous
B) practical
C) ludicrous, but less ludicrous than those ridiculous handbags (and certainly less ludicrous than legwarmers, which I thought had died in the 1980s and I'm disappointed in ALL OF YOU responsible for bringing them back, actual ballerina/os excepted)
D) "I'm wearing them right now, AIFG!"
E) Other (please specify).

(I promise I'll do a proper poll someday …)

{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }

Nicole November 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Definitely c. They’re whimsical, but no more so than a lot of other fashion trends today. I’d much rather see ginormous pockets than American Apparel-style leggings.

Reply

the_lazymilliner November 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm

The pockets are practical for, um, I’m not sure what. The dropping Dow Jones industrial average?

Reply

Whitney November 19, 2008 at 3:03 pm

A. They look like balloons, or fairy-tale bags of gold without the gold.Also, I like legwarmers. They keep my legs warm. =) I do wear them as an undergarment though, which I daresay you can grudgingly approve. Nobody sees them. In fact, they’re rainbow colored and gloriously tacky.

Reply

Stephanie November 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I’m going to go with E. Ludicrous at first glance, but increasingly enchanting the longer one looks at them.

Reply

j.thrift November 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm

the pockets are practical (B), just as legwarmers are practical! If you wear skirts and dresses every day, as many of us do, and you live in a cold climate, and you walk everywhere in an effort to reduce your carbon emissions save money, leg warmers are crucial. Thick knitted stockings (which I wear) will cut the wind, but I need something to compensate for the lower half of my legs unprotected by a heavy skirt. And that something is legwarmers.

Reply

Nadine November 19, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I think D. Just not sure what AIFG stands for . . .Or if you like, E for AWESOME!

Reply

lianaleslie November 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

It looks to me like something a classy, well-prepared bank robber would wear. Guns in one pocket, loot sticking out of the other like one of Scrooge McDuck’s moneybags.

Reply

Nadine November 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Forgot to add – no hating on the legwarmers, now! Gotta wear something below the skirt. (Plus I’m a ballerina.)

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 3:14 pm

My vote is practical but only until they are stuffed with grapefruit as shown by Lady View 1. Then they become ludicrous. I’m going to believe they are grapefruit and not something more Sweeny Todd-ish. -KG

Reply

Susan W. November 19, 2008 at 3:17 pm

C’mon, Erin, that’s too much pocket, even for you. That dress is all pocket. The wearer fades into the background behind her outlandish pockets. POCKETS ARE A SIDE DISH, NOT THE MAIN MEAL!

Reply

becky f. November 19, 2008 at 3:46 pm

My vote would be a combination of C and E — the pockets *are* less ludicrous than those handbags, until I imagine someone stuffing those pockets full of everything she’d carry in that handbag. I can only imagine how ludicrous that would look.

Reply

La BellaDonna November 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I LOVE the cut of View 1 – but I have to admit that if the pockets are filled with anything of substance, they are likely to pull the dress out of shape, and clonk annoyingly against the legs as the wearer walks. But if the pockets are reinforced, and the contents aren’t too huge, the effect could be fun.And Erin, I’m inclined to vote with the I’ll-wear-legwarmers-with-skirts-in-the-winter faction, especially if they don’t show. It’s only practical! How I love that dress … maybe the money for that pattern will turn up in next month’s budget; it’s a little outside my Pattern Zone at the moment – especially for a pattern that isn’t quite my size – I might weaken and fall if it were utterly right As Is ….

Reply

La BellaDonna November 19, 2008 at 3:51 pm

OMG, Erin, your linked pattern is exactly what I want. If you don’t want to experiment with it any more – or if you want to make a copy and recoup your buying price – I’m your girl! Just send me an email if you’re inclined.

Reply

Little Hunting Creek November 19, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Those are SOME pockets. I have never seen anything like them. I’m not sure most women want giant balloons on their hips, but if YOU do, this is your pattern

Reply

Kristen November 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm

I’m going to go with A on this one. Those things are ridiculous.

Reply

Myra November 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Erin, C – you have got to make this, for fun at least. I think on the right person, they could be so cool, I mean, look at the current styles. This has personality.

Reply

Angela November 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

C ludicrous, just like leg warmers. I prefer knee highs or wool tights to keep my legs warm in the winter.

Reply

Gidget Bananas November 19, 2008 at 4:24 pm

A:ludicrous. Like the average woman needs saddlebags on her saddlebags. Yeesh!

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 4:33 pm

C, definitely C. Although, in my part of the world, the ludicrously big handbags are being replaced with ludicrously small fist-sized handbags, despite the fact that enormous sunglasses are still in fashion. What would you have me do, enormous sunglasses manufacturers? Walk around with my enormous sunglasses in my hand, getting scratched and battered? And of course, don’t think for a moment that a fist-sized handbag costs any less than a ludicrously enormous one. Grr, sometimes I hate fashion, which of course is why I sew and why I love this blog!

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 4:53 pm

A. Ludicrous. At least the ginormous handbag is not physically part of your clothing and can be put down for a while. And yes, her head would fit in there. Wonder if anyone ever really wore this. Money bags on your thighs – what a concept! I’m with Belladonna, the cut of the rest of the dress is very nice, so maybe people made it and left off the bags. I mean pockets. Dawn

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm

My first thought was “how handy to take the kids trick or treating…when their bags get too heavy, just dump them in the pockets and keep on going!” They would be too practical-you would fill them up. Handy to carry your lunch (or groceries in places that have outlawed plastic bags.)

Reply

Ang November 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Money bags stapled to her hips!!! Genius. ~Ang

Reply

Jen November 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm

i’m ok with it: -red/black dan river cotton plaid, bias cut-pockets: black leather straps with gold buckles or dog lease hooks.(my apologies to claire mc cardell and bonnie cashin for even pretending to combine cotton plaid and dog leash hooks together)

Reply

beth November 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm

A) ludicrous. Pockets should not be so large that their bottom is lower than knuckle level; otherwise you can’t comfortably grab things that are at the bottom of them. (Also, when I put my hands into my pockets, the pockets need to SUPPORT my hands, not leave them dangling. My husband says I am unique in this preference. Is it true??)Pockets should also not be so large that they invite you to carry heavy objects in them – otherwise the heavy side will pull your dress/jacket/etc into lopsided uncomfortableness. (The kangaroo pocket on sweatshirts solves the problem neatly by being on the centerline). I say, if you have that much stuff to carry, might as well get a rolling suitcase. (PS. Instead of leg warmers, how about tall boots?)

Reply

frog November 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Definitely (A). I was going to go for (c) but then I decided they were even more ludicrous than legwarmers.

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said she could put her head in a pocket. This may be one of those convertible travel dresses that can be worn different ways: as shown on the envelope, or as a raincoat, with one of the pockets a hood. Or maybe not.

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 6:46 pm

GREAT dress for manning a garage sale or the like! You could keep your change fund – and your receipts – in those pockets for hands-free maneuvering, and not be tied down to your cash box! The dress as a whole is so pretty, though. Just picture it (sorry, Erin!) without any pockets.

Reply

Anan November 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm

C. Also, I’m not surprised that it’s an Advance pattern, they’re always so cool!

Reply

Mary November 19, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Please, tell us what AIFG means – thanks!

Reply

vakessen November 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I’m not sure where I’d vote but I gotta say, I’m really tempted to search for it in my size!Virginia

Reply

Janet Reid November 19, 2008 at 7:43 pm

AIFG=and it feels good (right?)I think the pockets look like something you’d find cuddling a scotch bottle…particularly if it was purple velvet.And I’m a ballerina like those hippos in Fantasia but I still like legwarmers for those cold subway platforms!

Reply

What-I-Found November 19, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Love those pockets…but I have short little arms and I was trying to picture the stance I’d have to take to reach the bottom of these. Sort of a sideways dip…with a twist…and some ungraceful scrabbling around hand motions…all to get out a quarter. So, I have to say no. ;-)

Reply

WhiteStone November 19, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Definitely ludicrous. On the other hand, think of how many hankies one could stash while recovering from a head cold. In regard to the purse conscious socialite, see my post at http://revel217.blogspot.com/2008/02/from-famine-to-feast.html

Reply

Barbara November 19, 2008 at 8:11 pm

E – They would be perfect for carrying that newborn set of twins.

Reply

Anonymous November 19, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I’m just imagining how attractive those would look on an actual person–do most of us need our thighs accented with extra interest? And imagine walking around with them going swing-bang-flap-swing-bang-flap if they actually contained anything besides kleenex!

Reply

Nancy November 19, 2008 at 10:05 pm

I’m going with practical. Especially now that I have a baby, it would be awesome to have the contents of a whole diaper bag IN MY GINORMOUS POCKETS! so much better for my back, and so much less to forget when rushing out of the house.

Reply

Maranda November 19, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Im gonna say that I agree with Beth that if it goes past nuckle length then its too deep. I hate having to pull up the piece of clothing to reach the bottom of the pocket. Its undignified. I wouldnt mind it if the pockets were just a tad smaller (like the red dress) but with the same design. I like the bag’o'gold look! I had a coat once that I could fit my school breakfast in one pocket .. milk included .. and you would never have known it!

Reply

Renee November 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm

E – this dress is gorgeous! And the pockets are nothing less than perfect. lets not encourage legwarmers. I would rather see pockets larger than one’s head as opposed to certain body parts that were never intended to be that way. Those pockets are way prettier than too many handbags out there. This would be my holiday dress – black taffeta, some sort of sparkly stuff for the pocket trim, and rhinestone buttons. The pockets would hold only a lipstick, and a hankie. No twins in there ( but that was a good idea )But I was too late, it’s gone. Boo.

Reply

hailey oh November 19, 2008 at 11:04 pm

C! and i love dress 2 far more just because of the arm wings :)

Reply

hailey oh November 19, 2008 at 11:04 pm

C! and i love dress 2 far more just because of the arm wings :)

Reply

Erin November 19, 2008 at 11:08 pm

AIFG = “and it’s frakkin’ great!” Your f-word may vary. :-)I hereby give blanket permission for discreet leg warmers worn for ACTUAL WARMTH. Although, really, I wish more people would consider puttees. They’re so Kipling!

Reply

wundermary November 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Oh, those bags are ludicrous, but the pockets are even more so. At least you could leave the bag in the car. The pockets would be amplifying your hips every moment.I am imagining the horror story in which this woman would be carrying her own head about in a pocket, though…

Reply

Arion November 19, 2008 at 11:51 pm

I would go with A. They are quite ridiculously ludicrous and would be impractical if you put anything in them. I must confess, though, to being both a legging-wearer and a legwarmer fan. Then again, I suppose us crazy teenagers are allowed to have a sense of humour about our clothes. :)

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 12:24 am

At least they didn’t decide to put those pockets on the back of the skirt…Naomi

Reply

xstpenguin November 20, 2008 at 1:46 am

E – I like a bit of whimsy in clothing, doesn’t do to take life too seriously all the time. And what says whimsy more than ‘guess what I have in my humongous pockets?’ I do think there might be an unfortunate tendency for celebrities to carry their dogs in them though.Legwarmers, lived through the 80s cannot understand why today’s teenagers think that stuff is cool! However, comfort comes first and while long boots are a great option if you are wearing your skirt/dress outdoors and then spending the day in a heated building your legs will be too warm all day in boots, so legwarmers plus shoes and remove them once arrived would be my option.

Reply

Terri November 20, 2008 at 2:16 am

Those pockets would give you somewhere to stash your legwarmers once you get to your destination.

Reply

Linda November 20, 2008 at 4:43 am

Definitely C:

Reply

Eirlys November 20, 2008 at 5:26 am

C, definitely.Agree with all who’ve commented about the possibly annoying swish-bang consequences of carrying heavy ojects while walking in this number. But I can well imagine my friend (training as a female undertaker/funeral director) in Fabric Girl’s black taffeta number (minus bling details), doling out the hankies and deepest sympathy. Perfect.

Reply

La BellaDonna November 20, 2008 at 5:42 am

But Erin – many people have never Kipled.(Besides, you just want a chance to wear them in orange – you know, sort of Silly Puttees.)

Reply

Lisette November 20, 2008 at 6:03 am

Reminds me of this outfit from American Ingenuity: Sportswear 1930′s-1070′s.http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/amsp/ho_1982.40.3_CI51.14.3a.htm#I mean, really, it is a purse on her hip!I think they are fantastic. I hate carrying purses and this would solve the problem of things falling out so much.

Reply

Elle November 20, 2008 at 6:07 am

E.Well, I’m not a fan of pockets on skirts in general. I know I am in the minority here, but I carry a small purse (partly due to disliking hankies, I carry tissues instead), so I don’t need pockets, and if I do, it’s what I have a jacket for, ymmv of course. I lived through the 80′s as a young girl in which my mother made me 50′s party frocks because I hated the clothes the first time around…leg warmers never have been on my body…but..those pockets would be awesome in an apron where you CAN be as insane and ridiculous as you please.

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 7:06 am

Actually, I can see that whole balloon-pocketed dress made up in organza (pockets and all) to wear over a dark catsuit. Now THAT’S impractical. And yet, I am drawn to it.So, in comparison to that, I think the pattern illustration is about a C.Amy

Reply

Gigi November 20, 2008 at 7:08 am

Practical, if you need to carry around a couple of small monkeys or dogs. Can’t you just see Paris Hilton wearing this dress!

Reply

Zoltar Panaflex November 20, 2008 at 7:22 am

Ludicrous but admirably so.For years I’ve resisted the concept of ‘that’s a month’s rent’ handbags because they’re just seriously stupid. And I love handbags!I can see those pockets as being show-stoppers – head-turners – and why not? The big thing last season was supposed to be ‘sleeves’ which I won’t touch – the last thing I need to do is bulk up my silhouette with massive sleeves.Pockets are the best of everything – practical, whimsical, useful, creative.Heavy bags are downright BAD for your shoulders and arms. How can a pocket possibly hurt you? All Hail The Pocket!

Reply

Latter-Day Flapper November 20, 2008 at 7:29 am

Dude, lay off the legwarmers. My office is 65 degrees and I’m seriously considering legwarmers just to make life bearable.I like the pockets on the left. The pockets on the right could not possibly have been flattering on anyone but the tallest and thinnest women. It’s like you’re wearing a huge skirt and your saddlebags (of the thigh variety) are STILL showing. Aargh.

Reply

diopsideanddiamonds November 20, 2008 at 7:46 am

I pick C.Though it’s not the size of the pockets I object to, it’s the weird bunchy-ed up-ness of them that make them look vaguely like grocery shopping bags stuck on her dress. Because the pockets on the red dress don’t bother me at all.I like all the rest of the pattern on the right. If it weren’t for the pockets, it would be a slammin’ dress. (I like all of the red one, but the bodice on the grey would make it a good evening pattern… if it weren’t for the pockets…)

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 7:51 am

The pockets on the right are a bit much – you’d have to undo the buckles to get anything out, and then the rest of the contents would spill everywhere. The ones on the left, though, are perfect. Ideal for a backstage helper (fill them with hairpins and gel and a sewing kit), a park mom (a diaper, ID, small toys, and a hanky), a festival (small change purse, map, and your food tickets), etc.Legwarmers are wonderful things. I wear them in the winter under long skirts and over leggings. (Legwarmers *and* leggings! In the same outfit! But you can’t see them.) It is much warmer than a pair of jeans, and perfect for an urban day out – you can take off various layers as the weather changes or when you go indoors. High boots are uncomfortable and hard to fit my wide feet, so not a viable option for me. Oh – and I do take ballet classes, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a ballerina!

Reply

San Antonio Sue November 20, 2008 at 7:51 am

Can’t you see Reese Witherspoon with little Bruiser in the pocket?Definitely C.

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 7:52 am

E. Conspiracy by fabric manufacturers to sell more product?

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 7:56 am

No one seems to have noticed the oven-glove she’s wearing on her right hand (cooler than an oven mitt?). I think she’s hiding an EasyBake oven in her right pocket, and is just about to whip out some hot cookies. If that’s the case, I’m all for the pockets. Hot cookies all around!

Reply

Jennifer November 20, 2008 at 8:46 am

Have to go with C. But I actually *like* the pockets on the red dress!

Reply

Theresa November 20, 2008 at 9:00 am

C- I like dress veiw one because of the waist and the neckling – put i think the pockets distract from the beuatiful lines of the dress. i’d do side pockets or more restrained pockets.

Reply

Penny November 20, 2008 at 9:16 am

Great comments. At first glance these pockets are very similar in appearance to the gold rush bags of gold in the Klondike Days. Not very flattering pockets.

Reply

Sickofitcindy November 20, 2008 at 9:27 am

Perhaps she is a lady bankrobber? bankrobberess?

Reply

KC November 20, 2008 at 9:45 am

Hi Erin–I vote C. My husband calls the rent-worthy status bags “10-gallon” bags, like our Texas 10-gallon hats. The things people carry to simply look dainty. That, or it facilitates shoplifting. Sigh.

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 9:50 am

B. They are fun, and I disagree with the ‘makes your hips look big’ pov – in a wide skirt like that, it’s quite obvious that the bulk is not your hips. I would probably make it with the pockets from view 2 though – less work. Also, I rather like legwarmers. I see a lot of girls who make them look awesome, and the layering thing is v. practical./Monika

Reply

La BellaDonna November 20, 2008 at 9:52 am

Oh! It is a FABULOUS dress for a lady undertaker! (It is also a fabulous dress for a male undertaker, but much less likely.) The endless Tissues of Condolence in one pocket, Discreet Disposal in the other …It is, in fact, a Dressy Dress for a Working Woman – it holds all the backstage sewing kit fixits, it holds Mom Necessaries, it holds Tissues in one pocket and Cold Meds in the other. One could even keep Flats in one pocket, when the I’m A Wedding Guest shoes give out!I have rethought this dress. And although it is gone, gone, gone, I shall experiment with my own pockets. (Imagine black-and-white plaid pockets, with cherry velvet ribbon, on a grey silk dress.) I suspect for it to retain its charm, some Serious Reinforcement will be necessary- a few layers of stiff tulle, at the least. Unreinforced, they could appear … lank.Dawn, obviously, the ginormous sunglasses get put in … the pockets. Along with the pocketbook. For the petite ladies among us, there are several alternatives: you can move the pockets up on the skirt, unless it really throws the silhouette off; you can scale the pockets down a trifle, to suit your frame; or, instead of reaching down and scrabbling (reaching down, thereby LOWERING where the pockets sit), you gracefully lift the skirt up towards you with the other hand, and reach into your [raised] pocket. The pocket comes to you; you do not dig in the pocket. Failing that, you can be a Sneaky Stitching Cheat, and put a false bottom in the pocket, so it looks deeper on the outside, but you can still reach your stuff.And if I ever fulfill my true calling (Lady-in-Waiting), it would hold all the bits and bobs necessary to keep Her Majesty* together.*Pick a country, any country. I’d be excellent!

Reply

Vegan November 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

E. Whimsical!These are a cute design element! Even though they’re huge, I don’t think they’re supposed to hold more than a standard pocket. You’re not supposed to stuff them. Just put your keys in one and lipstick in the other.

Reply

*Sandra* November 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

I have to say (A)… hence, nae.Who remembers the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer fills his cargo pants’ pockets with pennies to go buy a calzone? This gal would give him a run for his money in the absurdity stakes.And I love leg warmers and purses. You can’t smack a mugger round the head with a pocket — not even obscene ones like these!

Reply

Miss Amelina November 20, 2008 at 10:40 am

I am still giggling from the “Silly Puttees” comment; someone needs to market those. I say “A” because the gray dress would be so loverly without them…or put the pockets from the red dress onto the gray dress. Also, I heart my rainbow legwarmers–they look just as rad now with my Chuck Taylor’s and a circle skirt as they did 23 years ago. :) What a Feelin!

Reply

Vegan November 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

I’ve been thinking about it, and even though the pockets are whimsical and a cute design element, they are on the wrong dress. From the waist up, the grey dress is very refined and polished. Those pockets look like they are just slapped on. But they would look cute on a dress with a less restrained style on top.

Reply

daisyfairbanks November 20, 2008 at 11:02 am

E.) AWESOME! Pockets so big they need their own belt!Right pocket: car keys, wallet, cell phone, gloves, whiskey flask. Left pocket: sunglasses, measuring tape, jeweler’s loupe, calculator, monogrammed hanky, altoids cinnamon gum. Ready, Set, Go!

Reply

Luck(x8) November 20, 2008 at 11:06 am

#1 has a little too much pocket for my taste, but I would love to see it made up in a black white stripe with solid pockets. The pockets, of course, would then have to have huge dollar signs appliqued onto them. Don a little mask and youre suddenly a super-stylish burglar!

Reply

Holly November 20, 2008 at 11:17 am

i think they’re a little big, but whatever : ) what i want to know is, is there a pattern with this same top but but a straighter skirt?

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 11:19 am

Those pockets make me think of fairy tale bags of gold–maybe I am just fantasizing about the trillions of dollars lost in the financial meltdown of paper wealth.Anna

Reply

Greta November 20, 2008 at 12:37 pm

C) I am with you on those handbags and legwarmers!

Reply

~Bon Vintage~ November 20, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Ok AIFG but I would modify the pocket so they are detachable and morph into an accessory or a self defense item like mace. Put a brick in one of those babies and get aggressive when someone tries to snatch your other pocket (purse)!

Reply

Kelly November 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I would have to go with C. for the most part. I agree with the ridiculously huge handbags being insane but I am indifferent about the legwarmers. For the most part the pattern is wonderful. Very nice line but on my pear shape it would just accentuate that fact. Even if there was nothing in the pockets.:(k

Reply

Justine November 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I’m wearing this dress right now!I call it my “Robin Hood” dress. People never know if I’m hauling extra hips or a bottle of Rum! The trick is to share the “booty” with the Merry Men!Yo ho! Alan O’Dale, King Richard, and Sheriff of Nottingham!

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

C. Not the most bizzare fashion trend we have seen or will see. Just could not help notice: You would have to start setting each pocket a scant inch from the center front seam to make the pockets fit on the skirt! Heh. -Shaun

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm

C. Altho I don’t agree about leg warmers.Those pockets are indeed big enough for her to put her own head in, then cinch up the belt so it can’t get back out. -Evalyn

Reply

Cel Petro November 20, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Whoa, your readers like to be asked their opinions.I’m for C, they look like a giant-jumbo-collassus version of pinafore pockets. And I really like big pockets. Handbags–I like big handbags, but you nailed it–the gy-normous,causes listing to one side bags, not so much.

Reply

Anonymous November 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I choose “A”!

Reply

bellystitch November 20, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I think those pockets would be great for flying. They would be a pain to empty out at the security checkpoint but you wouldn’t have to pay extra for your second suitcase. They would also be great for community Easter egg hunts. No worries about dropping eggs out of your basket while you are racing to find the golden egg.

Reply

Chiara November 20, 2008 at 7:04 pm

C

Reply

Elissa November 21, 2008 at 6:42 am

i think i feel like the woman in red… “can’t look… can’t look away!” i don’t know whether to be fascinated or horrified :-)

Reply

Anonymous November 21, 2008 at 9:33 am

You gotta love bringing a little joy and silliness into the world–my first thought was: Halloween couples costume–Mr. Mrs. Moneybags (the guy from Monopoly and spouse). Cm on–you know its great!

Reply

AuntieShel November 21, 2008 at 9:41 am

Wow!! I was going to go with C, but after a few seconds thinking, changed my mind to A for the simple reason that at least you can put a handbag down when you get tired of carrying it. Hard to put your dress down or worse, unload the contents for all to see. Reminds me of pockets (bigger than these, if I recall) on a skirt on the cover of Threads magazine several years back.

Reply

jessica November 21, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Absolutely A. She could fit her head in there, but that’s not saying a lot, since her head seems way too small for her body anyway. I love the GFY-style multiple choice poll! I think you should definitely get that going!

Reply

Anonymous November 21, 2008 at 10:17 pm

A for sure

Reply

The Celebrated Author November 22, 2008 at 10:47 am

E: YESYESYES GIVE ME SOME FABRIC!!

Reply

Jean November 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm

O.K. I’m with you! The pockets are ginormus! If you cut them out and then sewed them together and put a belt on it for a strap… you would have a purse/bag! Big enough to put a puppy in! Isn’t that what stars/actors do???

Reply

Katherine November 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Those pocket are potentially harmless if the wearer doesn’t put anything in them. But what’s the point of pockets you can’t put anything in?As for legwarmers… if you’re built like the models on pattern envelopes, and you live in the frozen north, you *have* to wear legwarmers. Because even though you can add six or eight inches to the skirt of every dress you make, I don’t know anyone who makes their own boots, and very few who make their own socks. Which leaves an annoying six inches of skin exposed between the top of your (supposedly knee-high) socks/boots and your knees.

Reply

Anonymous November 23, 2008 at 7:10 am

Ha ha! Over sized handbags and pockets… makes the person look like they have shunk to Thumbalina size – children living in an adult world…

Reply

Anonymous November 23, 2008 at 10:53 am

A. Those things are aggressively ugly.I live in an area that is virtually devoid of extravagant designer handbags, though, so maybe my frame-of-reference is already very austere.

Reply

laurakitty November 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm

All I can say is that I really love the dress on the left!

Reply

M. Annie December 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm

E. Ludicrous AND practical. I can see both sides.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: