"Not Used Except For Pocket" — that may, in fact, be my epitaph. (Wouldn't that look good on a gravestone? It's surprising how much time I spend thinking about my grave marker considering that I intend to be cremated, isn't it?)

Anyway, memento mori schemento mori, look at this pattern! It's lovely (even if the pic is a bit fuzzy). I likes it. And I want to know why someone opened it up and only used the pocket. Imagine how good the other, pocketless dress had to be to be more worth sewing than this one!

This one is on sale from Penny at Antique Dollhouse of Patterns — she's offering 35% of through Sunday (Paypal orders only, though). So you can browse through her site until you find the pattern that's annotated with "Used — No Pocket Piece", right?

Oh, and here's an idea: who wants to start assembling a "found poetry" page on the Vintage Patterns Wiki based on things written on pattern envelopes? With almost 28,000 (!) patterns, there must be a number of interesting notes to choose from!

Labels: pockets, sales, Vogue_8122

Am I excited about the Liberty for Target line? Insert all questions you've ever heard about Popes and bears here. Yes, I am excited.

I'm a bit more excited about the accessories and some of the housewares than I am about the clothes, because many years of trial and error have shown me that stuff from Target simply Does Not Fit Me, but I have purchased several little things (e.g., the girls' dresses, in size XL, have a surprising amount of fabric) with big plans for remaking them into something else.

I'm a little disappointed that most of the prints are florals, even though I know that's what people associate with Liberty. I was hoping for more of my favorite abstracts (although there are some things in the Cars and the Mark prints, both of which I love).

The women's clothing was the most disappointing — not the best prints, and almost all made in that scruffy poly-chiffon. Good thing the accessories are all so cute (and cotton).

(Speaking of Liberty, I also bought the bright bright bright pink "Petals and Peacocks" lipstick from the MAC Liberty collaboration, and I think I will actually wear it. It's really fun, and the packaging is spectacular, natch.)

Did you rush your local Target last Sunday? What did you buy, if anything?

Labels: Liberty, Target

Seen last week on the Collette Patterns blog:

The tone-on-tone of this is really gorgeous. (Click on the image to go to the blog and see a full-length view.) I would love to see something like this on a non-princessy wedding dress, say a simple silk sheath in cream with cream roses along the waist and hem in taffeta or even organza.

While I'm at Colette's blog, I would like to point out how cute these little bias-tape bows are. Adorable!

And speaking of embellishments, I *think* I saw recently a dress with a heart on it, where the heart was made of random sizes of heart-shaped buttons. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Or did I just make it up?

(The dress itself is available here, and it's a larger size, too!)

Thanks to Kathleen for the link!

Labels: embellishment, vintage

Yes, I am still obsessed with penny loafers, so it's time for me to share another roundup of them with you.

In some very exciting loafer news, Bass has finally come out with a low-vamp penny loafer (the Brookfield). I wish they were an update (but not this one) on the classic cordovan Weejuns, a shoe I wore constantly from elementary school through high school, but you can't have everything. (The menfolks can have updated Weejuns this spring, though.)

What you can have is them in white, which I think is really cute for summer:

And being Bass, they come in wide widths, which I appreciate, and they have more padding than most of the other loafers I've seen. (You may have to search a bit for the white ones — I see them intermittently on eBay.)

I like these Franco Sarto Ivy loafers too, but I'm not sold on the suede, and all the non-suede options are fake croc. I really, really hate fake croc (and real croc, for that matter).

I haven't had a chance to try these on (unlike the Brookfields) so I think the vamp may be too high.

These Via Spigas Olsins are super-cute:

They're on the expensive side (~$100) but are on sale everywhere right now in random colors (including the dreaded croc) and a bright shiny orange.

(The Via Spigas, with that wonderful snipped-off 1960s toe, don't look so good on a wider foot, I'm sorry to say. If you have narrow feet, they will probably look fabulous.)

This KORS MICHAEL KORS Harper loafer is cute, except for the lug sole. (Why, Michael? Why?) And they're very expensive, at almost $200:

Aldo has a loafer, too, in black, brown, and red (red's on sale!) but I don't like the trompe l'oeil nature of the penny slot (you see how picky I am?):

These Aldo loafers are a little too 1990s for my taste, but maybe the 90s are coming back, now that we've nearly exhausted the 1980s revival?

If you're out and about and see any other penny loafers, please drop me a link!

Labels: penny_loafers, shoes

This is a new Vogue reproduction pattern (Vogue 1172), and I know, absolutely and without doubt, that I once blogged about the original of this pattern. Can I remember it now? Can I find it now? Is it labeled with any of the hundreds of facetious tags I have used since starting to blog five years ago? No, no, and double no, with a garnish of freshly-ground imported nope.

I vaguely remember that someone else was looking for this pattern, and maybe I was putting out an APB? Possibly? Or maybe it was just me wishing I had an excuse to make a dress that can require up to SEVEN YARDS of fabric to make? No? Doesn't ring a bell?

I do love this pattern, though, so I'm very happy to see it back in production. I just wish I could remember the original number, although I suppose it doesn't make much difference. But wouldn't it be cool if someone (NOT ME) blogged about making two versions, one from the vintage pattern and one from the reproduction? It would be awesome if someone (NOT ME) wanted to take on the challenge … (did I say NOT ME loud enough? I hope so.)

If you remember the original number, oh please have mercy and leave a comment letting me know!

Labels: memory_loss, reproductions, Vogue_1172

Isn't this dress magnificent? It's from Lanetz Living.

I desperately want to make this up in a heavy black silk/cotton. You could wear it to ANYTHING. I'd wear the collar open, probably, with a scarf (if I were feeling dashing) or colored beads … I wouldn't wear a brooch or pin for fear of getting it caught on something and ripping the dress.

If I had just one spare day's worth of time in the next two months I would buy this pattern outright. (I, um, already ordered that fabric. Black silk/cotton for $6.99/yard? Please.) But lately I've been trying not to hoard patterns that I know I won't sew right away; it doesn't seem quite fair. I just trust that when I have the time, the universe will make the pattern available to me. (I wish I could feel that way about fabrics, but they are SO much harder to search for …)

This one deserves a good home. That skirt! Those pockets! I like the short-sleeved version best (although I probably would leave off the cuffs — they're so lumpy under a cardigan).

This dress doesn't have to be dressy — it would be marvelous in a red-and-white embroidered cotton, too. So sporty! You could wear it with red Keds and it would be adorable.

Labels: pockets, utility_infielders, Vogue_7597

Seriously, folks. Do you think I have a problem? I can't stop with the Heidi dresses.

Here's the most recent one:

Fabric is from FabricMart.com again. I don't know who they know but they are getting some excellent fabric lately.

Here's the bodice:

And the back:

I lined the bodice and pockets in pale gray Kona cotton — not sure why I had it hanging around, but I did.

I have a whole pile of fabric that I still want to make this dress in: TWO (two!) colorways of camouflage, black denim, a Liberty twill, a rayon plaid, possibly a rose.jpgnk corduroy, and on and on … Good thing it's so fast to sew!

Labels: black_and_white, Heidi

Somehow I managed to get on the Talbot's catalog mailing list and this shirtdress caught my eye. LOVE this color green:

I can't tell if it has pockets or not, but it really does look nice. The whole catalog seems full of surprises, including some great cardigans in one kajillion colors and some very very cute shoes.

I haven't shopped at Talbot's in ages — it was always a bit off in a way I think our friends in the UK would call "mumsy." So either they have gotten better, or I have now aged into their target demo. Or both. Both is always possible.

Labels: green, shirtdress, Talbots

From an odd story about cheating at cards in the presence of a Duchess, in an issue of Good Housekeeping of 1911.

Her gown was rather less imposing than anyone else's. I don't mean that it wasn't a credit to her hostess, but it seemed to do less striving for effect than our own. It was of a soft, clinging satin, in tones of palest gray. Except that the top was creamy with lace, it seemed not to have been "composed" at all. But for a dog collar of magnificent yellow topazes set in silver, she wore no gems. It was whispered about that the Duchess was patriotic in her wardrobe, and that this gown came from Liberty's in London; whereupon my smart neighbor concluded, "Well, if that is Liberty, give me Death." But I liked it— the gown, I mean. It was willing to be forgotten. It was perhaps the strongest impression that she made upon me, that one forgot her gown and her title in the charm of the lady herself.

The same issue has this illustration in it, which I find very, very humorous:

Labels: google_book_search, Liberty, magazines

This dress (from, full-disclosure-mode, new advertiser Marian's Vintage Vanities) is really tweaking my "MUST BUY NOW" knob, but it is just too large for me, and everyone knows Tyrannical Empresses of Space Operas wear their dresses a bit on the tight side, if anything.

But if YOU will be leading the armies of the Zorg (and wear in the neighborhood of a modern size 18) this is the dress for you! It's Lurex! Fabric of the Future (and some of the more entertaining parts of the past)! And it is only TWENTY-FIVE OF OUR AMERICAN DOLLARS. No joke.

This, some Bowie-style face paint & false eyelashes, and a blinking tiara from the dollar store and you would be good to go for dozens of Halloweens, and you wouldn't freeze your ass off, because you could totally wear long underwear under this. And if anyone asked what you were supposed to be, you would just fix the questioner with a piercing stare, snap your fingers, and say "Minion! Kill this insolent creature!" and then turn and walk away.

The beauty of the walking away part is that it means you don't even *need* minions, but if you do have minions — well, what are you waiting for?

Labels: lurex, space_opera