Today the new McCall patterns were released, along with their
new Archive Collection. The first two patterns are from 1933 and look to be very Chanel inspired.
I am a little confused as to why the jacket
is a separate pattern number from the skirt, when they are clearly being treated as a matched set.
I have never come across a suit pattern sold in separate pieces, vintage
or contemporary, so that is a little confusing. But I am excited to see more vintage reproductions being produced!
The obvious missing part of this new collection is the original vintage illustrations. I am
thinking that this was unintentional and they are included on the pattern envelopes. Because let's be honest - the vintage illustrations are what sells these designs. The McCall Company must know this, right?!
I am still waiting for the incredibly intricate and challenging vintage patterns to reappear as vintage reissues . . . perhaps someday soon one of those amazing gowns from the 1930s will show up in the catalog, I hope, I hope, I hope!
And I promise to have pictures of my polka dot dress up soon
– I just have to go through and delete all of the disturbing ones. My goodness, I pull strange faces when a
camera is around - between that and all the squinting from the glare of the sun there are some real doozies (maybe the scary faces happen all the time, but I can pretend otherwise because there is no photographic evidence)!
I love that they are reissuing designs from the thirties, but like you said would much rather see some of the amazing evening wear and Art Deco designs. Do they think no one or very few would be interested or that no home seamstress is capable of making them now? Who knows, but perhaps they'll get the message one day.
ReplyDeleteSarah
I keep hearing the same thing from people - we want more challenging patterns, please!!
DeleteThere has been rumors that McCall is listening, but so far there have not been many changes for the better . . . I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt thinking that procedure and such can take some time to implement, but I am starting to lose my patience!
Very exciting, I love the skirt very much and the cap sleeves on the jacket but not sure I dig the lapel line so much. Still worth it to buy just for that awesome skirt.
ReplyDeleteOne wants to be excited, and yet... This is very bland.
ReplyDeleteAnd nothing on the McCall's page about the Archive line, no build-up, no communication with sewing bloggers, nothing.
DeleteI agree...these pieces may not have been the best way to get their target market excited about vintage reissues.
DeleteI might be able to get a bit more excited if I saw the original illustrations . . . the lapped yoke pieces on the skirt look somewhat interesting, but the jacket lines are not my favorite.
DeleteThere was mention of the collection on We Sew Retro I believe, although the release of the patterns was less than spectacular.
What really bothers me is that the patterns are separate, if they were really interesting designs with lots of variations for each, I could understand why they're not sold together. Maybe. As it is, I may pick up the skirt at a dollar sale, but I can find a more interesting suit pattern easily. Plus if they're separate would we even get the original pattern art? since it'd be one pattern spilt into two modern ones
ReplyDeleteOh no . . . you might be onto something . . . if they are separate patterns, they would not want the same illustration on both . . . I think I am going to have to plan a trip to JoAnns (although my local store has a tendency to be slow about stocking new patterns).
DeleteI can't bring myself to feeling excited about this. Nope. Can't do it:/
ReplyDeleteI actually like both of these, but I tend to favor simple clothes... I really do wish one of these companies would reissue some of the thirties gowns, why not??
ReplyDeleteOooo, a 1930s repro pattern! Yay!
ReplyDeleteI think I will get the skirt, but the jacket is booooring. I want to support the Big 4 when they release vintage patterns, but it's hard when they pick the most boring ones from their archive :(
ReplyDelete