proving just cause it's old doesn't make it in good taste...

[robinsnest]

So Amy asked me to pick up some discontinued simplicity patterns for her (little known fact there was a period before the current management worked at my Joanns where discontinued patterns were not pulled, so if it's been discontinued more than 5 years you can often find it still in the pattern cabinet, just look up the number yourself as it won't be in the pattern books) Anyway she asked me to pick up 4244. I grabbed one for myself too thinking maybe someday I'd use it as a heavily modified base for a bodice or something. I mean for a dollar why not? Now I've always thought this was some weirdo's version of a bustle and they put weird side poofs on for no reason. But as I'm sitting here looking at it I realize it says "victorian bridal museum" on the cover, so I google. Lo and behold those weird side poofs are on this original!!! I'll be damned. But period or not how unflattering! of course the original isn't as bad...but still...go figure

Comments

[madamekat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I remember that when it came out and the ensuing arguments of whether or not it was period-correct with the panniers, and the original photos popped up proving it really did exist. I guess it's like today...you'll see something that appeared once as a fluke that is so ugly, and god forbid it's preserved as an example of today's fashions and people 150 years from now think it was commonplace!

But I like the hem treatment and the bodice on that pattern, so I have it, too :)

[curiouschilde.livejournal.com]

OOohhh yeaah!! which other one did you find me?