I can't remember if I have or not, although I probably should have if I haven't. I mean, look at this thing.
My favorite part is the collar, and the gathering under the bust. I'd shorten the skirt and make the short-sleeve version, but I am very much in favor of the brown and cream polka dots, yes, I am. I'd also like it in a tiny feathery bandanna-print silk (if such a thing existed outside my fevered imagination) or a 1950s silk with a pattern of little squares.
I once had some gorgeous celery-green/pink/lavender dot print silk with a dupioni slub that I made a wonderful dress in. A wonderful dress (complete with belt with a mother-of-pearl buckle) that made me look horrible. Like Alice on the Brady Bunch horrible, like a sack with a string around the middle horrible. Matron with a capital M. It was truly distressing. And of course the fabric was gone when I went back for more. It's still a great dress, it just needs someone other than me to be inside of it. Someone taller and bustier, who would make it look statuesque instead of matronly. That debacle confirmed my theory that the prettier the fabric (and I loved the dress pattern, too) the more conscientious I should be about making it in some fabric I don't care about, first. (But, of course, I was rushing. Haste, waste: have you met? Here, let me introduce you.) I can't remember what I did with that dress. I thought I put it up on eBay but perhaps not. If I find it, I'll post it here.
And speaking of eBay, I am planning on selling a bunch of vintage over the next couple months … my closets are getting to that state of density where I'm worried about generating spontaneous black holes. Do people want me to link to my auctions here, or should I not sully A Dress A Day with filthy commerce?
A Dress A Day 
About the dress-that-didn’t-work-on-you, I wonder if Undergarments Of Yore made that kind of thing look better on more people (girdles and bullet bras and whatnot), or if women were more willing to look matronly. Because I know they weren’t taller, and doesn’t bustier often mean dumpier? Just thinking…
LikeLike
I agree with the above. Before you toss it out, try a minimizer. Or just send it to me…I say link to your auctions, by all means! Personally, I can’t wait!
LikeLike
I’d love to see a link to your auctions!
LikeLike
Please link it.
LikeLike
Please link the auctions!Madelene
LikeLike
Good point, Jesse. I think that along with girdles, there had to have been an attitude like, “Yeah, I’m a breeder! Wassup?” Matronliness was cool in the 50’s.When is the bus back?(Yes auction links please.)Kelly
LikeLike
I’m v. pro auction links! But only if any of it is in my size. 🙂
LikeLike
Aaaaaiiii! Busty does not mean dumpy! *Whimper* *sniffle* so mean … *sob*Actually, a minimizer is often a vile way to try to get a dress to fit properly – it mushes the bust flat, and wodges the tissue under the arms. Much better to get a push-up bra to hoik them up where they belong (it doesn’t need to be a padded push-up bra). I bought a La Mystere bra (Francesca model, I think), and it propelled my bust up to a level normally achieved only with a corset. It gives a nice long line to the midriff, which can be obscured by a sizable bosom. Or even a bosom that’s just wandered a bit. A minimizer won’t do that.Nota Bene: Erin, I know you like to chop a few inches off the hems of some of the vintage dresses. This can throw the proportions out of whack, so that instead of a curvy silhouette, you’ve created a box. This may contribute significantly to the dumpy effect you despise. You might want to take some of your less-beloved fabric to test this theory: make the pattern again, in the length it was designed to be worn, and see if you like the effect better – even without a pushup bra (and I’m really recommending one anyway for vintage dresses).
LikeLike
LaBella, you might have a point there … I have shortened things as I feel I’m fairly short, although at 5’5″ I’m not short for the era most of the patterns I make are from … I’ll give it a shot. And try a push-up bra. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, my! Erin, at 5’5″, you are so not short for the vintage-era patterns, considering that, even in this, the new millenium, the average height for women is 5’4″. You’ve been doing yourself a disservice by shortening your dresses, if you’ve been doing it on an I’m-too-short-for-this-length basis, rather than this-is-my-best-skirt-length basis. In terms of the eras you favour, you would be considered a “tall, elegant girl/woman.” I’m only an inch taller than you, and my skirts flutter between mid-calf and ankle. Give the original proportions for the dresses a shot; get a couple of Polaroids (or whatever they use now) of yourself in them, and see what you think. *And yay on the push-up bra! It makes a real difference between having a ‘proud bosom’ and something extra to tuck into one’s belt. 😉
LikeLike