me-made: the name on everybody’s lips

How better to celebrate paschal rebirth than by honoring the 20th century’s first fashion revolution? I’ve been meaning to make a ’20s dress for approximately ever. With Easter Sunday’s forecast in the 80s and humid, I definitely needed something breezier than last year. I started this dress on Holy Saturday (…I know) and finished it at the eleventh hour. I’m not ashamed to admit I attended church with an unfaced neckline.

Which seems totally counterintuitive – you’d think a shift-style dress would take all of, like, forty-five minutes, right? Well, I thought so too. I used one of the “one-hour patterns” popular in the ’20s and repopularized by historical bloggers. Six hours later, I was…almost done. Granted, a lot of that was pinning and laying out the sash edging, which was my own choice. But it turns out that a cut like this, on my particular figure, is actually much harder to perfect than a slimmer ‘40s or ’50s style. To properly skim the hips and thighs, the fabric ends up way too boxy on top. ’20s patterns do not respect the booty.

Part of it, I think, is that the ’40s and ’50s are so unabashed about being heavily stylized. It’s okay to look “too done”, because meticulous attention to detail was in vogue at the time. But the ’20s were largely about countersignaling that kind of effort. Your ideal flapper looks tousled and flowing, like she just threw on any old thing and somehow made it magical. So my ’20s dresses aren’t allowed to show the work I put into them. I have to make the pleats look like they just happened to fall that way, which is a much bigger pain in the ass than just calling a pleat a pleat.

I haven’t found a great solution yet, but – frump and all – I actually really like this dress. It doesn’t match what I’ve been taught to consider flattering, but that’s beside the point: it’s period, and looking period is a much bigger ego boost than looking proportional. A big part of historical costume is learning to be comfortable with weird standards of beauty. You can’t embody, say, an ancient Roman courtesan if you’re hyperfocused on how silly a painted unibrow feels. You can’t pull off Elizabethan if you’re embarrassed to show off your forehead.

My coat and shoes were both delightful thrifted finds. The shoes ($6!) aren’t T-straps, but they matched the dress too perfectly to resist. The coat is actually ’60s, which has never been my favorite era, but the silhouettes have quite a bit in common with the ’20s. At this point, with 1920 almost 100 years ago, it’s easier to style ’60s pieces in a ’20s way than to find authentic antique clothing.

Dress: made by me, inspired by Festive Attyre’s version

Coat: ’60s, thrifted

Hat: ’30s, Barge Canal Market

Everything else: gifted or thrifted

Author: skye

I aspire to be a bright-eyed girl in a big city, even though I wear glasses and live in what amounts to a hole in the ground.

4 thoughts on “me-made: the name on everybody’s lips”

  1. Your posts always give me so much joy. I think it’s because your happiness comes through in the photos, but I also appreciate that I get to see someone NOT wearing the same Trashy Diva dresses as everyone else (nothing against TD, as I love that brand, but honestly…there are only so many times I want to see the exact same dress on multiple blogs just because it came out recently). Thank you for your blog!

    1. I sincerely appreciate that! I too have grown bored with the lack of originality in the vintage scene. Maybe TD is true to the letter, but I think dresses made of curtains are true as hell to the spirit. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: