So I was thinking about not doing Linktastic Friday today, and posting the dress I made for last weekend's American Crossword Puzzle Tournament instead, but I'd have to IRON that dress and that seems just too overwhelming this morning. So maybe Monday you'll get to see that dress.

I am disappointed, though, that by NOT putting off Linktastic Friday I don't get to say "Linktastic Friday falls on a Monday this week" because that pokes my funnybone. (Don't worry, I'm sure I'll re-use that joke at a later date.)

But, without further ado: on to the links!

The image above is a really nice shirtdress in a larger size from Born Too Late Vintage … thanks to Marge for the link!

I don't remember where I found this link to Uniform Studio, so if it came from you, please take credit in the comments. I really like this aesthetic (which may surprise some of you — although who doesn't want to dress as if they're sweetly androgynous operatives from the future?). Check out, especially, the "gathered line dress". Wonderful.

Robin sent me the link to this beautiful and very, very, very expensive architecturally-themed fabric collection from Finland. (42 euros! = oh noes!)

And while we're drooling over expensive fabric, Kristin sent me a link to Waechter's Silk Shop, which is based in the US and has Liberty at $36/yd. (Mostly the florals, though.) Jane Ellen sent a link to Peggy Anne's which is selling some of the more classic florals at $29-something a yard.

Also, Heather found this yellow-and-gray newspaper-printed stretch knit at Fashion Fabrics Club. Or maybe you want a dress-form print silk hankie in the same colors? (Sent by brokentemple — but snap that one up quick if you want it, it's a Buy-It-Now).

Have you all seen this shoe-storage wheel? Sent in my sister, who knows me too well … and speaking of shoes, last week's tape-measure lamp reminded Kate-in-England of these shoes. Pinstripes and tape-measure cockades, oh my!

Gretchen sent this link to a dress made from 41 pairs of recycled Levi's 501s. It's *amazing*, and exactly what I would wear to a Costume Institute Ball honoring Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein. (Scroll down past the scary baseball-jacket Pierrot costume to get to the jeans dress.)

Liana draws a paper doll every day. Some of them are dresses. Works for me!

Cranky Librarian T-Shirts (and other stuff). Makes me want to be a librarian even more, so I can have a license-plate cover that says "I am a librarian … and I WILL shush your ass." Sent by Paula, who has a blog about those loop-loom potholders. Awesome.

Some company called Mippin (it's official: the internet has now completely run out of domain names) has done some fancy scraping to make this blog work on your mobile phone. I think. I haven't tested it, but the mobile url is supposedly http://mippin.com/dressaday. Feel free to try it out, it doesn't cost me anything (it may cost you, depending on your mobile web-access plan). Blogread responsibly!

Janet at Lanetz Living is off skiing in Colorado, but she's having a sale at her site while she's gone: 20% off, just use the coupon code "ski20" when you check out. (That's why the internet is the best; how could you have a sale at your brick-and-mortar store and be off skiing at the same time?)

And I *thought* I'd posted about this before, but I can't find it, so here it is again:

Thanks to Eirlys (who does not even live in the US) for finding this at Antique Dress. Too bad it costs … wait for it … $ 1,485.

That's it for this Linktastic Friday! More links next week …

Lesley sent me the link to this dress, on Ebay Australia. I love Ebay Australia; even though the shipping can get ridiculous. I think I just like answering the question "Where did you get THAT?" by saying "Australia!"

(My favorite geek t-shirt comes from Australia, now that I think about it …)

This dress is up to about AU$27, and is about B33/W30. And here's what it looks like full view:

This is such a perfect spring-y Easter-y dress. And I really want some spring-y, Easter-y weather so I can wear something like this … the weather was warm (50 degrees!) where I was the past few days so now I am all about the shirtdresses (even though I'm back in Chicago where it's freezing again). Expect numbers 4 and 5 in the series shortly.

Of course if I DID move to Australia, I'd be settling in for winter now. Hmmm. Maybe I'll stay in Chicago …

[pattern from Lanetz Living]

La BellaDonna left a really helpful comment about slips and crinolines and petticoats on the Shirtwaist #2 post the other day, and on the off-chance some of you missed it, I thought I should elevate it to Full Post Status. (You should really read the comments if you can, they're always awesome, because you all rock!)

So, LBD writes:

For the ladies who are dubious about wearing a complete crinoline under their full skirts, I would point out there is an Easy Cheat™:

Use the skirt part of the pattern you're making up to draft a petticoat. It's not as scary as "draft" makes it sound: just make sure the finished "petticoat" is a couple of inches shorter than the finished dress will be, and experiment with putting ruffles on the "petticoat" until you reach your desired degree of "pouf." You don't even have to make yourself crazy with shortening the petticoat and then sewing the ruffle onto the hem; just topstitch the ruffle onto the finished "petticoat" so that the bottom of the ruffle is even with the "petticoat" hem. If you want more fullness higher up, put another ruffle higher up on the "petticoat;" it should overlap the lower ruffle, but not cover it completely. For a gathered skirt pattern being made into a petticoat, you can make a casing and run the elastic through at the waist; for a gored skirt, or something fitted, you can put in a placket and a hook and eye (or just overlap it a bit and put on the hook and eye!). Let the petticoat sit a little BELOW the waist of your skirt, to cut down on bulk at your waistline (this means the petticoat skirt waist will actually be BIGGER than the waist of the dress, so that the petticoat sits lower down on your torso than the dress waist does.) You can experiment with making ruffles out of the "petticoat" fabric; you can try ruffling up some good stiff nylon net (about 7-9" wide for a good finished ruffle), in which case you WILL want that petticoat fabric between you and the nylon of the ruffle; maybe another layer of fabric over that, to protect the skirt from the nylon. Dubious about nylon? Stitch a band of horsehair (woven nylon strip, made from nylon horses, designed to Stiffen Stuff) behind the hem of the ruffle. Horsehair is washable and is easy to work with; just top stitch it on the underside of the ruffle. If the dress fabric is lightweight, and you have enough, you could even make one ruffle out of the dress fabric! For instance, a yellow print dress might have a plain yellow "petticoat," with: a plain yellow ruffle; or a nylon net ruffle; or a white eyelet ruffle; or a lace ruffle; or a yellow print ruffle. Or all of them, if you want a Really Full Petticoat (with a Really Mixed Look). A print corduroy dress might have the petticoat in one color of the print, and the edge of the ruffle could be bound in the corduroy. (You might want to bind it using corduroy cut on the weft, since corduroy cut on the bias can get weird.) (N.B.: A Really Full Ruffle is generally considered to be the finished width times 3; if your skirt hem is 100 inches, that means a 300-inch strip of fabric gathered back down to 100 inches. A ruffle two and a half times the finished width, or 250 inches, is OK for a not-too-full ruffle that's been backed with horsehair. But I'd recommend the Three Times suggestion. My own preference for a finished ruffle length is 7-9"; your mileage, and your height, may vary. But it's a size to start with. And I completely agree with the zigzag-over-dental floss-or-buttonhole thread-method of gathering chunks of fabric. Mark your ruffle in quarters (that is, half-way, and half-way again) BEFORE gathering; mark your "petticoat" in quarters; match up the quarters to make sure you haven't gathered too much petticoat ruffle in one spot and not another. Don't take out the gathering thread! Leave it in! Topstitch the ruffle on a couple of times so it's nice and secure. DO remember to preshrink your petticoat fabric!!

Remember: YOU'RE IN CHARGE. You can do it ANY WAY YOU WANT. Red silk taffeta petticoat with black lace ruffles? Check. Plaid flannel petticoat with eyelet ruffles? Check. Pink gingham petticoat with dotted swiss ruffles? Check. It is a GREAT way to use up some of those weird chunks of fabric that find their way into every stash. Nobody needs to know that you have a gold damask petticoat under that grey wool shirtdress. On the other hand, how cool if you do?

Cherie at Shrimpton Couture sent me a link this weekend to a different dress (a wonderful red and white seersucker with some great piecing … but which is already on layaway, and I figured, hey, who needs to be taunted more on a Monday than Monday already taunts people), but, in checking out THAT dress, this one caught my eye.

I love abstract plaids for so many reasons. First of all, plaid is cheerful. I think "cheerfulness" should be a strongly motivating force behind all clothing decisions. Also, abstract, free-form plaids don't need to be matched as carefully as "real" plaids. And the last, and probably most important reason, is that if I were to spill something (preferably something in the red-orange family of foods and/or beverages) plaids like the one on this dress wouldn't show it! That's a big plus for plaid, I think.

This dress is a nice coated cotton, with ORIGINAL BELT, lined (!) and it's $125 at Shrimpton Couture. (measurements 36-28-38)

Carmen sent a link to the lamp above — made of measuring tapes! So cool.

Cel sent this link to "Make It Yourself": Home Sewing, Gender, and Culture, 1890–1930 by Sarah A. Gordon — really worth looking at.

Jay at CLMP let me know about Sonya Naumann's great art project: Thousand Dollar Dress. Sonya is taking pictures of a thousand different people wearing her thousand-dollar wedding dress! Genius.

If you want to make the world a better place for women, I can't imagine a more satisfying place to put your money: Goods4Girls gives reusable "sanitary supplies" (that is, menstrual pads) to girls in Africa, because if they don't have them, they can't go to school. (And regular paper products, when they can get them, can't be disposed of safely.) I suggest donating a week's worth of pads, if you can; they don't take direct cash donations but offer a list of suppliers who will make them and send them to Goods4Girls for you (they also offer instructions to make your own).

"The untidiness men find repugnant … the carelessness men can't stand …". Thanks to Deborah for the link (and check out her magnificent coat on the cover of Vogue Knitting)!

Nikkie, the curator the Fort Morgan Museum in Fort Morgan, Colorado, is looking for help; they are having an exhibit this fall on the WPA (Works Progress Administration, later the Works Projects Administration) and its impact on Morgan County. One of the local WPA works in Morgan County was a Sewing Project, where simple, serviceable apparel was made and then distributed as part of the relief efforts. If you have any of the standard patterns used for the WPA program, or any finished clothing items, and would be willing to lend them to the museum, would you contact her through the link above?

Jezebella sent in this skirt. Please click that link to see the best and most hilarious pocket ever.

Julie sends in these very nice paper dolls …

Rita made a vintage-patterns video!

Hilarious 1950s Atlantic piece on the sameness of women's magazines … [via Faking Good Breeding]

Elisa (aka The Mad Fashionista) was in the NYT! Congratulations!

Nora sends a link to Etsy seller Jane Bon Bon who makes GORGEOUS skirts and dresses, including plus-size. Marvelous appliqué. She makes stuff to order, with no extra charge for plus-size and her prices are very reasonable for custom work!

Remember, if you want to send me a link for Linktastic Fridays (no promises!): 1) email me links to pictures, not the pictures themselves, if at all possible; 2) if it's your auction/site/whatever, please disclose; 3) tell me if you want your name (and how much of it) attached to the link and linked to your site, if applicable. Thank you!

I get a LOT of press releases, all clamoring for me to push something on this blog. Somehow last year I made it to some list of the Top Fifty Fashion Blogs (number 37! represent!) and now everyone and her intern has my email address.

Now, I don't mind a GOOD pitch, but I don't get very many of those. (Most of the good pitches are for books, which is probably because book publicists actually READ.)

I do mind a BAD pitch. What makes a pitch bad? Lots of things. The worst are pitches that make it embarrassingly apparent that the pitch-er has never read my blog before. Do I feature jewelry consistently? No. What makes you think I will start doing so for your product? Do I breathlessly report the doings and wearings of starlets? No again. So why would I be interested in your report of a C-list personage involved with your product in some way? And, more importantly, why would the people who read this blog be interested?

Sending out hundreds of badly-worded, badly-targeted pitches is spamming, no more, no less. What really gets me is that these poor designers are brainwashed into thinking they need to PAY these clueless "PR reps" to piss off bloggers and editors for them. It's shameful. (If the goal was to piss off editors and bloggers it'd be cheaper and more fun for the designer to just go around and egg everyone's houses.)

A little while back I got this pitch. (Client name blocked out to avoid giving them any publicity, even the bad kind.)

Check out our exclusive photo of Rumor Willis wearing a $32,000 ring, designed by —— —–, the hottest jewelry designer out there.

[note: I have never heard of this designer.]

The ring is almost 4CT in diamonds! Rumor drooled over the ring when she recently stopped by —– show room.

We would love to see this photo on your awesome blog! You guys do a great job!
Call/email me with any questions..

Kate Long
PeakPR Group

Yep, that was the whole release, word-for-word, and exactly as sent to me (minus client name and rep's contact info). First of all, there was no link to the photo to "check out." If I WERE interested, I'd have to write back for it. Dumb. (Of course, that's much better than the PR reps who insist on cluttering my inbox with eight .jpgs all named things like JPG001.jpg!)

My blog is called A DRESS A DAY. I write about sewing and vintage: not exactly an upscale lifestyle. Why are you sending me press releases for hugely expensive diamond rings? My last CAR didn't cost $32K.

Also — "Rumor" Willis? If even I, disassociated as I am from tabloid culture, know that her name is spelled "Rumer," how dumb do YOU look?

And Rumer is famous solely because Ashton Kutcher is her step-dad. This does not mean she is a style arbiter. Again: why should I (or anyone) care?

One more thing: It's pretty apparent that I write this whole blog all by my lonesome. Why use "you guys"?

For some dumb reason (I blame low blood sugar) I replied to this PR missive, pointing out the above errors, explaining that their releases did not inspire confidence in their services or their clients' products, and asking to be taken off their list.

Then, I got this gem back:

My intern sent that, thanks for pointing it out.

[Worst. Excuse. Ever. So you're charging your clients … for work done by interns? That you evidently didn't check? And you're advertising this fact? It's not the intern's fault, if she is an intern. It's yours.]

By the way your English have been "are not applicable."

[I wrote "I'm the only person writing [my blog], so "you guys" is not applicable." Which is less correct than the sentence above, apparently.]

Also, we rep 160 retail stores, so we are very inspired..

[Quantity equals quality! We all know that.]

They happen include major leading fashion designers.

[That sentence no verb.]

Clearly you should be more polite regarding a simple spell check, it is clear your blog is amateur,

[Which is why … you wanted me to feature your client on my amateur blog?]

you never know the help one needs on the way up. Politeness is the door to success.

Sincerely,
Christine Peake,
CEO, PEAKPR GROUP.

That last bit just kills me. I always assumed KNOWING HOW TO DO YOUR JOB was the door to success; politeness just oils the hinges of that door. I think Ms. Peake and her PEAKPR group are pushing (hard) on a door marked PULL.

This (replying to stupid pitches pointing out their stupidity and asking to not be sent any more stupid pitches) probably falls under the heading of not teaching pigs to sing (it wastes your time and annoys the pig). But, damn, rank incompetence annoys me! How hard is it to do a little RESEARCH? Spend a little time reading?

For a much better rant on this subject, check out Chris Anderson's. Be sure to read all the comments for your RDA of other-people's-cluelessness.

When you make the same pattern multiple times you really begin to understand how a few small changes will change the look completely, to wit:

This is Liberty babycord (sometimes called Kingly cord; I'm not sure if that means they think kings are big babies, or what); as usual, I forget the style name. I went to eBay to see if I could find any and ended up buying four more meters of a *different* print, so I think I'll leave it as unknown for now, thank you!

The buttons are olive plastic (all the buttons on these three dresses have been just standard off-the-revolving-rack ones from Hancock's Fabrics; I have tons of vintage buttons, of course, but not TEN of any one kind, which makes it a bit difficult to use them up with shirtdresses). I also had a set of bright teal ones under consideration for this dress, but they were a little headlighty against the swirly print.

The cuffs were actually not as much of a PITA as I thought they would be; there's a slight bobble on one of them where the brown ribbon that edges the placket meets the cuff proper (which of course I didn't think to take picture of). But considering I move my hands so much when I talk, no one will ever notice.

Here's a slightly better look at the fabric:

I also have a midriff-y dress made in this same colorway, only in lawn. I can't remember if I've ever posted it, though. Right now it's waiting for a button fix, sadly.

Sewing with Liberty cord isn't hard; it's very fine and lightweight, not bulky at all. The print obscures any nap problems and the wales are so fine that you don't get that weird separation you sometimes have at the seams with wider-wale corduroy. Also, it is sooooo soft, like very thin velvet. If you wear Liberty corduroy, people WILL pet you. Be prepared.

I used sewn-in organza again for the interfacing; worked fine. It helps the collar keep a soft shape without me having to mash it with the iron (not good for corduroy). And this one, unlike yesterday's version, is VERY warm and looks good with a (cream-colored) t-shirt under it, too.

To answer one of the questions that came up yesterday; these are all throw-in-the-washing-machine dresses. If I get to the washing machine before Mr. Dress-A-Day does, I hang them up when they're damp; otherwise they go in the dryer, too. (Since we both work from home, we tussle a bit over who gets to procrastinate by doing the laundry. My office is closer to the machines, but he can actually remember when the cycle is up, so he usually wins.)

More shirtdresses/shirtwaists are in the works … watch this space for further installments!

So, after I finished yesterday's shirtdress (that is, the shirtdress I posted yesterday; I didn't make a damn thing yesterday except trouble) I was pleased enough by the results to jump in with another, this time in Liberty lawn. (I did wear the first dress once before making a second — you never really know how a dress has turned out until you wear it for a whole day.)

This one is a very lightweight Tana lawn, which is killing me … because I made it back in January to wear on a quick trip to sunny California, and since then it's been too friggin' cold in Chicago to wear it here! I take comfort in the fact that the Trib's weatherguy has pointed out that March usually sees at least ONE 70-degree day each year. I'll take mine March 1, please.

Again, I shortened the sleeves and added pockets. Also, I forgot to mention that the gray dress was about 5/8ths of an inch too short in the bodice (I overestimated my short-waistedness, for once) so for this dress I let it back out again. This dress, too, has a button at the waist!

Instead of using the Pellon Shirtailor interfacing on the collar and button/buttonhole facings, I used silk organza, which turned out to be the right idea. It's not too stiff but it does reinforce the fabric just enough. I can't remember where I purchased the organza I used for this dress (I have a suspicion it was left over from a fancy dress I made in 1995), but I just bought some more from Dharma Trading, which seems fine. Since I sew with a lot of light colors I mostly just buy off-white organza and use it for everything. If I did more dark sewing I'd probably buy a couple yards of black silk organza to have around.

Because the lawn and the organza are both so light, I just basted the organza to the facing (just inside the fold) with a long running machine stitch, and then finished the edges by zig-zagging all around them. It sounds more complicated than it is, believe me.

I forget the actual name of this Liberty print — in my head I call it "martini olive." I bought it on the first trip to Shaukat, I think.

Tomorrow: a long-sleeved corduroy version.

So far, in my new obsession with shirtdresses, I've made the pattern above three times.

Here's the first version I made ("the beta"), in the gray polka-dot cotton I bought in Japan:

I was pretty ambitious for a beta version; check out the rickrack on the collar and the inserted cording along the front dress edge:

I did make some alterations to the pattern: I added pockets (they're hidden in the front skirt seam, under those pleats); I shortened the sleeves (a LOT), and I gave myself more room in the waist.

Of course, it being the first go-round, I did screw up a couple things. First of all, Pellon Shirtailor interfacing could probably compete in an Ironman. (Heck, it's probably used in IRONMAN's suit!) That stuff is STIFF. I didn't really want the dress to stand up by itself …

Also, I messed up the placement of the buttons. The pattern suggested the spacing I used, with no button at the waist, since it will get caught up on your belt. But I forgot that I don't plan to wear a belt with this. This means I don't have a button at the waist to hold it together, and have a hook-and-bar-tack closure instead. I *hate* hook-and-bar-tack closures. (I suppose I *could* break down and wear a belt, but I have a huge ranty post coming up about the current belt insanity, and I'm afraid wearing a belt now will hurt my credibility later.)

Of course, looking at the picture, it looks like I could sneak in one more button just a teeeeeny bit under the waistline, and have the buttons still look more-or-less spaced. Hmm. Must consider.

Despite these gross errors, the dress is still wearable — I've worn it two or three times. I like to wear it with bright tights and a matching cardigan (that is, a cardigan that matches the tights — especially a yellow tights/yellow cardigan combo).

Tomorrow: version #2, in which I make significant improvements.

I have to admit: I watched not one minute of the Oscars yesterday. I don't see the point, really, now that we have the Internet. I could spend six hours watching it all unfold in real time, or I could spend twenty minutes the next morning on the highlight reel. I like to maximize my entertainmental efficiency. (So I watched THE WIRE instead. Oh, McNulty, you are so damaged and yet so compelling! Lester, are you deluded, or a genius, or both?)

Anyway, the whole point of the Oscars is, of course, the dresses, so here is the Dress A Day Completely Random Commentary on Oscar Fashion of 2008.

First off, above: Keri Russell. I don't really like this color, but Keri Russell is so gobsmackingly beautiful that it doesn't matter. Which is pretty much the way I feel about all of the actor/dress combos: to get to Oscar level, you pretty much have to be either gobsmackingly beautiful, or have great talent and personal charisma. And if you are pretty, talented, and charismatic, what you wear is a mere DETAIL.

That said:

How much do I love Julie Christie for designing her own dress? I love her with ALL MY LOVE:

Do I wish it were full-length and do I not comprehend the gloves one bit? Yes. But still: it's the thought that counts. Take that, Fashion Hegemony!

And Miley Cyrus:

You look charming, adorable, and AGE-APPROPRIATE. Congratulations! Your parents must be so proud of you.

Also, Miley, while you're up, could you tell Anne Hathaway that she's about twenty years away from playing grande dame parts, no matter how much she'd like to, as evidenced by this dress?

Helen Mirren, you continue to dress perfectly. I love the color and the sleeves and YOU. I would say "don't ever change," but your realization that people Actually Age (unheard of in Hollywood) means that you will continue to change WELL.

Jennifer Garner: I love you. I watched all of Alias TWICE. That Catch and Release movie you did was pure genius. But please, Get Away from Rachel Zoe! Only an evil schemer would put all that hair over your charming and expressive face. The dress is fine, though, but I liked that pink thing you wore a while back much better.

And Callista Flockhart:

This dress really works for you! You look elegant and like yourself. Great job!

Thus concludes our Oscar coverage. Same time next year?

[All pictures Reuters.]