 |
| Butterick 6108 |
While I was in the midst of preparing to travel to New York , Butterick released their new catalog. Included were two Retro designs which I had some strong feelings about, but no time to put them into words.
 |
| Butterick 6093 |
The turn of the century fashions are probably more than
100 years old, by the look of them. I
believe the proper term to use would be “antique.” I don’t think they even fall into the vintage
category, let alone retro.
 |
| Butterick 6093 |
I cannot get past the fact that they look like costumes to me . . . and that is saying a lot!
Most of my daily wardrobe looks like a costume to the general public. But even without the lace, I am not sure I would wear either of these unless I was on stage or dressing up for Halloween. Maybe the skirt portion. I would, however, like to add those lace-up heels to my shoe collection!
 |
| Butterick 6108 |
These look like they belong in the Making History category
with the hoop skirts and bustles and corsets. And I
love those . . . as is clear from my pattern collection. But I never end up making them. I would be very interested to hear what historical costumers
think of these designs, or any of the Making History patterns. I imagine the
construction techniques are modernized as are the 40s, 50s, and 60s designs we
have previously seen, which does not thrill me.
 |
| Butterick 6105 |
Gertie’s new offerings are more my style. But jackets that have a separate
belt are not my favorite. What do you do
with the belt when you remove the jacket once you get where you are going? And the dress is cute, but not awe inspiring.
 |
| Butterick 6094 |
The only other pattern that I find tempting is Butterick 6090. Cute, but I probably do not need it in my collection. Between Simplicity 1587 and a basic button-front dress, I am confident I could make my own version. And it really is time to get picky about my pattern purchases, or there will be no room left in my sewing room . . . oh, who am I kidding? They have definitely spilled over into the living room!
 |
| Butterick 6090 |
So, while I am not overly enthused with any of these, there
are a few that I will probably pick up during the next sale. Here is hoping that the Making History and Retro
collections go back to being two separate entities, and that Patterns by Gertie is not the only vintage-inspired line produced by Butterick. When they said they were expanding their date range, I was hoping for something 20s or 30s, not from the teens!
 |
| Butterick 6108 |
What do you think of the new "Retro" patterns? Or any of the new offerings, for that matter!
I bought 6108 because I want the jacket, but I was surprised not to find it in the costume section of the catalog! I don't think that dickey is very accurate.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they look costume. However they haven't styled them to make you see them any other way. Without the horrible (imho) lace dickey, 6108 could be a nice jacket worn with slim trousers and the maxi skirt with a top or a different jacket. 6093 shortened to knee length (again without the crazy lace) could be quite wearable. I agree these should be in the costume section rather than vintage or retro.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Gertie put up a tutorial on her blog of how to hack a pattern to get the back of that dress. Would be easy to hack it from another full skirted dress pattern (sure you have one or 2 of those around!)
I think the older patterns could look really nice if made to be worn with something really modern. I love the jacket Butterick 6108 - but assymetrical cuts suit my straight frame, and with a bit of playing around, this jacket could look really fantastic. I like the empire dress as well - shortened and without the lace collar it would work. But then, that style suits my shape, the 50's dresses unfortunately do not.
ReplyDeleteI would modernize them. First, drop the lace. Too much frill.
ReplyDeleteFor 6093, knee length would make a lovely wrap dress, with added interest from what I guess is an underskirt. Actually looking at the lines for view A I think I'm right.
For 6108, the skirt has pencil skirt potential (again, cut somewhere around knee-length). I quite like the jacket and figure it would make an interesting coat for late autumn. I'd keep the length, and wouldn't go for the contrast collar - too big for contrast.
I wonder if these are aimed at the Japanese Cos play market. They would make great dress up items for that. However it is a pity they didn't include a cut down modernised version with yardages as well.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that those patterns are for the Downton Abbey/Steampunk people, and Cosplay, too. They take their sewing very seriously, as I learned when I made some flip comments about Steampunk on my blog.
ReplyDeleteThey pay me bills, lassie! Love them, each and every Amazon employee'd one of them!
DeleteYes, they definitely look like costumes. I'm not sure what the market is for them. With 30s and later styles, a seamstress can make them today and modernize them if that suits her taste, but these are total costumes. I'm sure you could shorten the dress and make it a stylish wrap dress, but that's certainly not what they did with the model here. The Downton Abbey thoughts make sense, though.
ReplyDeleteThey might be intended to commemorate the centenary of WWI? That was my assumption, at least.
ReplyDeleteThere's been a lot of fuss over the 19-teens as the hundred year anniversaries pop up (And with the ever popular Downton Abbey). So I'm sure they are trying to get into the costume market there. Perhaps they chose to put them in the retro collection because they were based off of old Butterick Patterns like the rest of the retro line and not made from scratch like their other historical options.
ReplyDeleteI do costuming in the 19-teens and they'd be a good starting point for 1912-1914 looks.
My hunch is that Gertie's jacket is more like a top and not meant to be removed. But the belt could also be attached in back and loose only from the side seams forward.
ReplyDeleteI think the jacket in Butterick 6108 would look very cute with a pair of skinny jeans and ballet flat at the weekend.
ReplyDeleteWow, the lace on the red dress is atrociously strange, and I agree, these aren't really for every day looks, but more for costumes. They went a little too far back in time for normal, everyday clothes, and these should be in the historical section, definitely.
ReplyDeleteI agree they look like period costumes. I too like Butterick 6094, particularly the back neckline details.
ReplyDeleteI agree they are very costumey, but worth franken-patterning. I would use the asymmetrical skirt pattern, saves drafting my own.The choice of lace on the collar is horrible and cheap, the whole thing looks like a provincial revival of "The Music Man". It would probbaly look great from the cheap seats.
ReplyDeleteThey're decent approximations of 19-teens styles and could be good jumping off points for the average costumer not overly concerned with accuracy. I was confused too that Butterick put them in the vintage/retro section of their newest catalog. They don't belong there. It is indeed because they made these patterns based on Butterick originals from the period, but that doesn't make them non-costumes at this point. I agree with some of the other commenters that elements of the 'teens outfits could be adapted to modern wear, but you can say that about historical ensemble.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that the sewing public is clamoring for those patterns. Some one is out of touch. Maybe why there is such a growth in the indie pattern market - they listen.
ReplyDeleteI can see 6108 as a dress as part of my recent lifechange into Margaret Dumont (her costumes from the Marx Brothers movies), but I agree that it's costume, not day wear. There are so many more detailed versions of these out there, courtesy of the Titanic anniversary and the VPLL project.
ReplyDeleteI already have 6090 in many vintage variations and in my closet, and one on the table for a friend.
I could see picking them all up for the larger end of the sizing scale, for the tissue work only, when the biiiiiiig sales roll through. I will buy virtually anything for a dollar, just for the paper.
I actually like them - though my "day wear" gets pretty out there. I've actually been trying to draft a jacket awful similar to B6108 recently so I may just wait for a pattern sale and save myself the trouble. B6093 looks awful as styled there, but I think the asymmetrical collar and cute wrap front have a lot of potential if you lose the awful lace and fabric choices (it feels like whoever did the art/samples missed the idea of beautiful floaty titanic-era designs and set their gaze right towards cheap lace). But then, I have other cute wrap front dresses from the 40's and modern that would be very easy to modify if I wanted to do that. I do agree on the disappointment in not seeing other decades there as well. Or even just more spectacular teens era designs. Maybe next time?
ReplyDeleteI totally love the B6090! It doesn't look particularly "vintage-y" to me, but fabric choice would be the determining factor, I suppose. Excellent work wear!
ReplyDeleteI agree that those first patterns have the look of something antique, not retro.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, they may be very welcome to all those people wanting to sew Downton Abbey dresses (inspired by the first seasons, that is). And to a lot of people, 1940's and 50's styles look like costumes too.
Maybe the editor (or whatever you call the job) of the retro pattern range just doesn't understand the target customer?
I've bought both of the teens patterns with the intention of making them. I'm pretty sure that they've been modernised; if they hadn't then they would have also done a pattern for a teens corset so they'd fit correctly. I'm planning on making both, with some adjustments (don't want the lace all over the show) and I will be making the undergarments too; just not quite yet as I'm still working on an eighteenth century dress.
ReplyDeleteThey definitely look like costumes -- I think it would have been much better if they had styled the garments differently to help people visualize how they can be worn today. I think it would be fun to take some of the details as inspiration and design something new!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 6093 photo looks awful, but the illustration looks wearable. If there is a version that is like that first illustration, I think it would be very wearable. 6108 with a few changes would also be pretty wearable imo. I would definitely shorten the skirt and either shorten or flare the bottom of the jacket, but the bones don't look too bad. That jacket screams (faux) fur lining to me. These are the same styling issues that plague most patterns, and I do think that the people at Butterick don't know when to make changes to make patterns wearable and when to leave well enough alone. 4790 is a prime example of the exact opposite. They made changes to make it suit modern bodies and tastes, but they shouldn't have. Also, whoever chose that lace should be fired. It's also good to keep in mind that just because we don't like a certain era as much doesn't mean that other people feel the same. I'm actually getting a bit fed up with the 50s and 60s patterns. Lately they all seem to be the same basic dress underneath all of the styling. I keep hoping they'll release some more patterns from the era that are a bit different.
ReplyDeleteI actually really like both of those patterns, but maybe without the flouncy lace. They are too old for retro, I would say the are on the edge of vintage/antique. They could be modernised with the right fabric but the big feather hat and cane look is definitely costume. I'd like to see them styled for a modern women, they'd probably have more custom then.
ReplyDeleteI thought "retro" meant a style recent enough for a living person to have worn it when it originally came out. If all those people have passed away, then it has become historical costume I believe. Besides, I personally have never cared for the shapeless "Titanic era" fashions. Or droopy "flapper" clothes. Boardwalk Empire ain't that good. ( My fair lady, I am not.) Unless I traipsed the boards, where would I ever wear those fashions?
ReplyDelete