Okay, so the backstory on this fabric is fairly complicated. First, I noticed in checking the referrals that A Dress A Day was found by someone searching on "I love turnips". Which I thought was hysterically funny (A Dress A Day: Your Home for Turnip-Loving), and which motivated me to try to find some turnip fabric. Which I did not, in fact, find. (Anyone have some? With just big turnips? I don't want to clutter up the turnip dress with other vegetables, root or no.)
But I did find the fabric above, at Harts Fabrics, which I've never (afaik) browsed before. Cute, isn't it? I love those gray/slate/yellow combinations.
I also found this — I'm a sucker for bias patterns. All the glory of the diagonal, with none of the heartache and stretchiness!
As Lydia remarked in the comments a couple of days ago (I hope you all read the comments, they're usually better than the content, frankly) I am also so over winter fabrics already. I made one crepe dress, and I have some luscious turquoise wool flannel that will become a circle skirt (and I think I will do some crewel on it, nothing too fancy as I cannot actually embroider; a pickstitch of some kind) and that's it. Then I start thinking of lightweight cottons for endless summer dresses … like this one:
A Dress A Day 
Oh, and you went straight to the 50% off sale page. A woman after my own heart.
LikeLike
Aah…something lovely and full to camouflage the nice Guinness Extra Stout belly I’m developing.
LikeLike
I want that dress, its gorgeous.
LikeLike
Friday already! I want fabric month with dresses. Mayhaps I should do that on my own blog as dressaday has myriad responsibiliities on keeping up with dresses as well as their secret lives and possibliities.
LikeLike
I am officially *ded* from the pattern: notched neckline, inverted V midriff, and gored skirt. My god, Erin, that one has everything! Well, almost everything. I would prefer some sort of sleeve for my upper arm flab. Bleh. But that is my own fault, not that of the pattern.–Lydia
LikeLike
This post reminds me of two DaD-related things:1. The bias-print fabric is almost identical to a twill fabric my grandmother left me (only swap out the black for gray). It’s not printed on the bias, however, and I’ve been meaning to make a bias-cut skirt out of it for ages. Thanks for reminding me that plaid always looks great on a bias.2. While at the Dread Mall yesterday to get shoes, I wandered past some teeny-bopperish store and saw a modified Duro in the shop window. It reminded me that you are in the vanguard of hipness. As if we had any doubt.
LikeLike
Here is something that could pass for turnip fabric. Alas, there is only half a yard.http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290046315202&category=71205
LikeLike
And, a looser interpretation of the turnip…http://cgi.ebay.com/Asian-Oriental-Japanese-Hanamomen-Mauve-Turnip-Fabric_W0QQitemZ130030254523QQihZ003QQcategoryZ71205QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
LikeLike
I really like the bias print. It always uses up so much fabric to cut bias, that I avoid it. But, a print does make it so much more reasonable for say a top or no so full cut dress. I did go look at the fabric robinson found, to bad there is only a 1/2 yard, it is pretty cute.
LikeLike
Wasn’t there a fantasy in here some time ago about a turnip shaped dress? Green top with bell skirt made in purple fading into white at the bottom….It’s entirely possible it was all a weird fabric dream. I have those sometimes – like the one I had last night about pinwale cord, and the one a whiloe ago about finding the perfect striped knit.
LikeLike
OOH! I almost bid on that pattern the other day, and resisted; now that you’ve reminded me I might have to. The little buttons…of course, I’d have to scale it up a couple of sizes!And I love plaid in any direction, but I especially love those bias prints; MOST especially when they have flowers scattered on top of the plaid.Hart’s is in my little town!! Which is lucky, or not, depending upon how the checkbook looks. I’m very excited because lately they’ve gotten more and more dressmaking-type fabrics in (as opposed to their specialties of quilters’ cottons and upholstery stuff): pretty lawns, a lovely lightweight jersey in interesting colors, baby corduroy, fun Chanel-like tweeds…and in the quilters’ cottons they carry lots of cute repro prints and quite a selection of Japanese prints. It’s not Britex, but it’s pretty great. (Thank God I don’t live in the same town as Britex any more – I wouldn’t be able to afford to eat! Of course then I might be able to fit into all those B32 patterns….)
LikeLike
There is some fabric with Turnip here, but it does share the cloth with other vegetables.From the same place, a gorgeous fabric of vegetable leaves.More turnips in a vegetable medley
LikeLike
Aw, you are over winter fabrics already? I’m just getting started with making a lightweight wool dress..sort of what June Cleaver would have worn if she’d lived in Upstate New York in the winter time. No, no..winter fabrics are right in there.
LikeLike
I really like your blog, but none of the vintage patterns you love would work for me. See, I’m broad-shouldered, very broad-chested (I recently found out I have 120 percent normal lung capacity! We’re talking a BIG ribcage!). I’m also very thickwaisted, and relatively hipless, with very long, skinny legs. I’m a woman, but I’m sort of built like a man. (Well, I do have breasts etc., but I really do have pretty unfeminine proportions — even my head & hands are very large.) All these 1950s-style dresses cinch at the waist and flare below. I once tried making a dress like that for myself and it was a disaster — it emphasized my thick waist and ADDED volume (in the lower half) where I can otherwise count on looking long & elegant. The boxy, short shift-type dress works much, much better fro me.Which makes me suspect that you like these dresses because you have a classic hourglass figure & get to show off your little waist. I guess it’s not a question (I am not entitled to know anything about your figure), just an observation. I guess I would wonder whether you think these vintage patterns can ever work for those of us who are shaped like me.
LikeLike
anonymous – I don’t have a little tiny waist either and am still working out what shapes I “look great in,” but I think that this dress is really nice. It has enough shape to suggest a waist without being bulky around the bottom half of your body. I also think it would be quite chic in that bias printed plaid.http://www.thesewingplace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2403
LikeLike
In my medievalist days over only because of lack of opportunity a roommate and I noticed that everyone has a time period in which they look good. Maybe more than one, but everyone’s figure has been in fashion at least once. (Everyone. Remember the Venus of Willendorf? (sp?)) And the costumes of an era flatter the in-fashion figure. That said, it’s usually possible to tweak the cut a little to improve the possibilities. For instance, it wasn’t particularly fashionable in the Regency era in England to be really slender, although one would think, looking at those Empire waists and straight-cut or even bubble-shaped skirts, that nothing could be less flattering.When granny dresses came in, in the late ’60s, they were cut like that. Practically a hobble skirt. I wanted to like them for being the first ankle-length skirts since 1915 or so, but they were dreadful.But if you look at French pictures of Empire gowns, the same period, the skirts are cut flared. The ladies are not skinny, and they look gorgeous. An Empire waist with long flared skirts is very flattering on those of ample proportions.So, choose your era. And, Anonymous 1:07, many of us can’t wear those shifts at all. Or those Jackie Kennedy suits with the straight skirts.MinaOf course, those of us whose figures have changed might have a hard time letting go of our previously flattering shapes…
LikeLike
Can’t wait to get back to our regularly scheduled program…the dresses.
LikeLike
Anonymous 1:07, of COURSE you can wear vintage patterns! No, the hourglass fit n’ flare isn’t the best shape for you (despite the “experts” who would tell you to wear a skirt that kicked out at the hem to balance your top portion, and something seamed to give the illusion of a small waist). Mina is absolutely correct; every body shape has had its period of being fashionable and longed-for! In fact, the 1950s spans the entire shift through the female spectrum: it starts with the hourglass, goes on to Dior’s “Tulip” line (broad-shouldered, narrow-hipped!), introduces the A-line, which is totally a pear shape, even produces a bubble silhouette, and finishes with an up-and-down chemise shape! You can wear that chemise shape, you can certainly wear the clothes from the “Tulip” line, and you can even wear the straight shift, which I, as an hourglass, look vile in (vile, yet somehow … lumpy). However, there are other period shapes that will flatter your wonderful ATHLETIC figure. (Yes, you’re what they mean in those old books by an “athletic figure,” especially if your broad shoulders are square. My broad shoulders used to slope downward; a lot of lifting later, and they peak like the YSL Asian peaked-shoulder jackets!) The time periods that work best for your “Upside-Down Triangle” shape are: 1910-1914 – the earlier full skirts are reduced in volume and shape and are now clinging around the ankles, the waist has risen in a Neoclassical Revival right under the bust; the bust is still large, but the hips aren’t supposed to be much larger than the waist, and the skirt goes straight down. It’s finished off with a nice wide hat to complete the silhouette of broad at top, narrow at bottom. Also, 1930s patterns are fantabulous on your figure! It really really helps to have snakelike hips in those wonderful bias patterns. I love this period, but have to fudge a lot to wear it. The only consolation for my waist thickening (you are so right, Mina!) due to weight gain, injury, and spinal compression, is that since my hourglass isn’t as exaggerated as it was years ago, I don’t look completely dorky in 1930s patterns. You can also very successfully wear patterns from the first half of the 1940s – think of Rosie the Riveter, and all the other warrior women in their wonderfully tailored broad-shouldered suits and their narrow, short skirts! You can also wear a cheongsam very successfully; it was, after all, a pattern developed in the 1930s. Now, if you’re judicious, you can even pick and choose amongst the dresses from the 1920s – your broad shoulders are a real advantage, and so is your big ribcage. If you’re not too bosomy, it could actually be a killer fabulous period for you, complete with lounging pyjamas and fabulous kimonos worn over them! You can even, if you’re careful, wear the boxy end-of-1950s-early-1960s straight-cut clothes and look fine.What you cannot wear (well, of course you can, but it won’t flatter) is, as you noted: the classic 1947-through-1955-or-so New Look in its hourglass glory; it hides your slim hips, and will throttle your waist. If you’re ribcagey but NOT bosomy, it will REALLY look awful. Circle skirts, alas, may not be your bestest choice either. Possibly even worse for you is anything which is A-Line, like many, but not all, 1960s minidresses. It’s a shape (the pear) which totally inverts your natural build. Mina is right, the late Federalist/Regency dresses would look well on you – and since your lower half is narrow, you can even wear the straight-cut Regency dresses, and not just the gored/flared ones. Are you a D-Cup or over? That would put you in the “bosomy” corner. That is, it probably would – if you’re 5’10” with a really really big ribcage, you might have to be a DD to really register as “bosomy” in comparison. On some wome, a C-Cup puts them in the “bosomy” corner; regardless of how tall you are, with your extra-wide shoulders and extra ribcage space, a C-Cup may not, in comparison, look as generous as it would on someone else your height. And if you’re under a C-cup, it definitely moves your body shape into a “swimmer” type of build.You can even wear certain dresses from the 1980s and look very chic – you can wear those wide-shouldered dolman-sleeved dresses which taper mercilessly downwards. They’re meant to be wide-shouldered, and they’re roomy through the upper half, but they narrow with a vengeance through the hip and leg. You are one of the few who can wear those.Something else you CAN wear, and look super in, are those fabulous long (tailored! not baggy!) tunics with big belts over skinny jeans and boots – a look I love and cannot, cannot wear.So you see, Anonymous 1:07, there really are a lot of choices for you in terms of vintage patterns and different eras.
LikeLike
Hi! I’m Anonymous 1:07 and you commenters are great! Thank you, La Belladonna, and Mina, for your thoughtful and generous responses! -Victoria
LikeLike
I love, love, love this site, and have been reading it non-stop since I discovered it two weeks ago! It has totally inspired me to try my hand at sewing some dresses for myself. My sewing machine had been broken (and previously only used to make some simple diapers for my son, who uses cloth) but is now in the shop being repaired, just waiting for me to really use it. I just got home from picking up the Simplicity Duro pattern, and the Butterick Retro Wrap pattern. Both have been discussed on the site, and seemed like they could be a jumping off point for me. I can’t wait to get my sewing machine back, get my hands on some fabric, and see how things go. Thanks to Erin, and all of you who regularly comment, for inspiring me!-Claire
LikeLike
These responses helped me also – I have a lot of the same issues plus I am short, so practically nothing looks good on me. I’m remembering a great dress from the mid-80s that had that dolman sleeve, narrow bottom thing going on. It was very fitted though and I am too big for anything very fitted. BUT thank you for reminding me of that design!
LikeLike
First off, I love that plaid. Thing of beauty. Wish I had the attention span to put it to use.Secondly, from reading comments, I’m reminded that I wish there were a web page or something where you could put in your measurements and it would spit out China, 1245AD is where and when your body type was in vogue. Failing that, try west Africa, 1875 and Germany 1950. And then you’d be totally hooked up.
LikeLike
Well, Ita, until the day when somebody clever (maybe you?) sets up that website, which sounds like a supremely wonderful and useful idea, you can always take a stab at it here with us – some of the folks here are pan-historic clothing junkies (Mina and I, for two), and we’re certainly willing to take a shot at making suggestions – some pretty detailed ones, at that. It sounds like a site that ought to be handled by the Costumers’ Ring.
LikeLike
I wish there was a webpage too, to put in your measurments!!! Im dying to know what I would be:+)
LikeLike
turnips, no; radishes yes! I made an apron out of fabric that had radishes on a sky background (with clouds.) It looks like flying radishes.
LikeLike