Butterick 2209 - The American Red Cross Volunteer Special Service Outdoor Uniform

"1/14/43" is written on the flap of the envelope of this one.

Women's Red Cross uniforms had been re-designed around 1941 by Elizabeth Hawes to be more contemporary looking.  "Red Cross Lassies Get Snappy New Uniforms,"  burbled the St. Petersburg Times on May 4, 1941.  Indeed, without the epaulettes (and the cap) this is a pretty standard women's suit of the time.

Wool gabardine in blue-gray would have been used for View A, the winter uniform.  View B, the summer uniform, would have been made up in a rayon-mohair mix for summer weight or seersucker for tropical weight.

By April 1942, about 20,000 women wore some type of Red Cross uniform.  The Red Cross had to walk a fine line between complying with the overall need to economize in every possible way and to assure that its workers were properly recognized.  The New York Times reported on April 3, 1942 that the bellows pocket with flap that had previously been used on jackets was being dropped in favor of pockets using less material.  In the same article, Mrs. Dwight Davis, the Red Cross's national director of  volunteer special services stated that uniforms should be reserved for women who spent the bulk of their time performing Red Cross-related activities - particularly if this work took them out in public:  women working in chapter work rooms were not to wear uniforms.

Even though uniforms could be purchased at department stores, making or having a uniform made might have been a good option for a woman who required special care in fitting.  This uniform pattern was available in bust sizes from 30" to 46" - a much wider range than that of patterns for civilian clothes.

While the envelope for this pattern is rough around the edges, this unprinted pattern does not appear to have been used, possibly because there was less demand for the generous size 46.

The American Red Cross was founded on May 21st, 1881.

Butterick 1847 - Women's and Misses' Coverall, and Leggings

Mid 1940s (World War II.)

Here's the description from the back of the envelope:

A Jumper Style Coverall, designed to give the full skirt protection that much farm work and gardening requires.  Roomy pockets are conveniently placed.  The front opening makes it easy to put on and take off. Knee-length leggings are included.

One of the problems that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had to contend with during both world wars was a shortage of agricultural labor.  Men who didn't enlist were recruited to work in industries supporting the war effort, making them unavailable to work their own farms or to work as hired hands.  Women stepped up to fill the short fall, sometimes by enlisting in the Women's Land Army, often by taking on more responsibilities on their family's or local farms.

Overalls for women started to be marketed during World War I,  and women had started wearing trousers in public in the 1930s, generally as sporty wear, so by the start of WWII the idea of women in trousers wasn't entirely new. Yet the USDA seems to have felt there was a need to offer some support for women who needed to do dirty agricultural work but weren't ready to wear trousers or overalls.  A sturdy apron and leggings were apparently seen to be a workable solution.  Here's a terrific image of women at the USDA designing work clothes for women at this period.

Many thanks to Jim Christensen for pointing out that this very ensemble was described and illustrated in Clarice Louisba Scott's book Work Clothes for Women, issued by the USDA in June, 1942.

By WWII "coverall" is a fairly common term for this type of apron.  ("Overall" seems to have been used in Great Britain.) Patterns for leggings for girls show up throughout the '30s and '40s, usually as part of a winter ensemble including a coat and hat.  This is the first time I've seen a leggings pattern for women.  The option to use 1/2" studs (snap fasteners) is uncommon.

This is an unprinted pattern and does not appear to have been used.

Originally published on 21 January 2011, updated with additional documentary evidence on 23 January, 2011.

Butterick 7031 - Boys' Windbreaker

After 1923.

I bought this pattern because I was interested in the use of the term"windbreaker" at this early date.  The earliest use of the term found on Google Books is a February 1919 review in the wonderful Outing magazine, while Boy's Life magazine for May 1928 recommends a windbreaker as part of a bicyclist's kit of gear.

The Youngstown Vindicator for November 10, 1925 contains an advertisement for "the new wind-breaker  The newest thing for boys and girls." The Montreal Gazette for September 30, 1926, shows an advertisement for suede windbreakers designed to appeal to young women.  Some more sleuthing might find a parent of the windbreaker in the leather jackets worn by aviators, who probably knew more about wind than anybody.

We've seen the banded bottom used a little earlier on Excella 1111, Men's Jumper, as well as the much earlier Working Blouse pattern put out by the Universal Fashion Company.

Recommended fabrics for the Butterick windbreaker include:

Plain or Plaid Flannel, Camel Hair, Fleece Coatings, Corduroy, Duvetyn, and Suede Coatings

Fleece in this sense means a heavily fulled wool fabric with a somewhat soft, fleecy finish (as opposed to a smooth, sheared finish.)   Duvetyn is a "soft, filling-faced fabric made in a satin or twill weave with a fine downy nap...Its appearance is similar to velvet.  Originally made of soft wool in France." (1)  The soft quality of the fabrics accords with the view expressed by the reviewer in Outing that this firm, fleecy quality is what cuts the wind.

But possibly the most intriguing aspect of this pattern is the "instructions for knitting collar, cuffs, and band for View D."

Commercially knit banding was certainly available for the 1930's, when it's called for in the DuBarry Children's Snow Suit, but a substantial wool banding may have been harder to find, so Butterick enhanced the value of their pattern by providing instructions for knitting the straight bands for the collar and cuffs as well as a slightly shaped collar.  I must admit that I find knitting 1x1 ribbing just about the most boring knitting task possible.  However, a thrifty, thoughtful maker might buy extra yarn so that frayed or badly stained ribbing could be replaced to extend the life of the windbreaker.  My recollection is that Shetland Floss is about like our fingering weight yarn.

This unprinted pattern appears to have been used and is in reasonably good condition.

(1) See Sources Consulted

Butterick 2000 - Intern Shirt

Early 1970s.

This one is not what it seems to be.  Yes, it's occupational clothing, but it's not inspired by Butterick's marketing research that indicated that women interns of the 1970s (still a fairly small cohort at this time) wanted or needed to sew their own shirts - either strictly professional or in the weird ruffly version.

Although this isn't stated anywhere on the pattern, I believe that this is a tie-in to a medical drama television series called The Interns, which ran in 1970 and 1971.  The series itself was a spin-off of an apparently mediocre movie of 1962, also called The Interns.

Dr. A. would appear to be modeled on Sandra Smith, who played Dr. Lydia Thorpe.  Here's the only (regrettably muddy) image I was able to find of Smith in this role.

I assume that the program attracted a fairly young audience, so this pattern would probably have been targeted toward young women (notice the fairly limited range of sizes.) This gives the whole enterprise an odd cultural tension, as it seems to play to both home sewing, a very traditional female activity, and the career of physician that was beginning to become more widely available to women.  Perhaps dressing up like a doctor was the first step toward thinking that one could actually be a doctor.

Butterick 3120 - Women's and Misses' Hospital Gown

1940s.

Patterns for hospital wear still up now and again in the backs of the big pattern catalogs, but they don't stay in print very long and can be hard to find.  Really, this is just a nightgown pattern cut off short and modified to tie in the back, but wouldn't it be comforting to go into the hospital supplied with gowns that somebody who cared about you had made?  And wouldn't it also provide some measure of comfort and purpose to the maker to have done something so useful?

Butterick 6458 - Ladies' Dressing-Sack

This one can be definitely dated to 1902, when it appeared in Butterick's Delineator magazine.

We've seen the term "sack" used before for Banner Sack Apron 131 to describe a relatively unstructured garment that hangs from the shoulders.  (The French spelling of "sacque" tends to remind one less of a sack of potatoes.)

Here's a very funny discussion of the uses and abuses of dressing sacks, published in 1913 by Myrtle Reed in her book Threads of Grey and Gold:

The dressing sack is (supposed to be) a garment you wear while you dress you hair; it keeps hair off your clothing but more importantly, it's loose enough so that you can raise your arms up high enough to reach behind your head, which is not possible in most ladies' garments until the 1920's, when women's clothing lost much of its confining structure, and when, incidentally, women started bobbing their hair.

Dressing sacques don't seem to show up much past World War I.

However, notice that Reed recognized that dressing sacks are sometimes worn as bed jackets, which will start to show up in great variety in the 1930's, and are still offered now and again as an option in robe patterns, pointing right back to Reed's idea that a dressing sack is nothing more than a Mother Hubbard cut off at the hips.  Both are suitable for maternity wear.

This also strikes me as a supremely practical garment to wear when reading in bed when one has a drafty bedroom and a limited heating oil budget.

Butterick 4202 - One Piece Dress...Suitable for Nurses or for a House Dress

Mid 1930s.

The design of this uniform is very similar to Simplicity 7006.  While some nurses probably made their own uniforms, I suspect that others may have bought the pattern, material, and findings they preferred and had their uniforms made up by a local seamstress.

Advertising this pattern as also suitable for a house dress seems to me wishful thinking on Butterick's part, as there were much more attractive house dress patterns available.  Patterns for maids' uniforms were generally advertised as such.

These detachable uniform buttons date to about this period or a little later.

Butterick 1629 - Ladies' One-Piece House Dress

About 1920.

The design of the crossed collar which buttons into the waist belt is odd, particularly in a hue darker than the dress itself, but the sailor's collar is very common at this period, and is a first cousin to the collars found on middy blouses, commonly worn at this period for casual, sporting, or athletic use.

Outside of the peculiar collar, this is a nice design. The button front means that the dress can be opened out for ironing.  The tucks on either side of the front and on the back add some practical fulness as well as provide an attractive vertical line.

At this time, Butterick's instruction sheet, hasn't yet been titled "The Deltor," though Butterick has applied for a patent for it.

By 1921, Butterick was advertising the advantages of The Deltor with a full page advertisement in the February 1921 issue of Everybody's Magazine:

Butterick 2266 - Men's Robe

Late 1920's.

If you're going to provide the gentleman with a new robe for Christmas, this is a good time to settle on a pattern and fabric.

This elegant double-breasted model features two piece coat-style sleeves; both shawl and notched collars; and both welt and patch pockets.  View D shows contrasting fabric used for the collar, sleeve cuffs, pocket bands, and tie.  The robe can be lined; very brief instructions are given on the layout chart on how to use the pattern pieces to cut the lining.

Yardage is given for 72" wide cloth, with View C of the size 38 robe requiring 2 3/8th yards.  This layout means that if the blanket has a wide border, it will appear as a band around the bottom of the robe.    Notice from the layout that the front facings will need to be pieced (Personally, I'd probably cut them from a different fabric.)

In 1928 you could purchase a blanket from Montgomery Ward that measured 72" by 84", which would be just enough, though you might have to shorten the robe by an inch or two.

Instructions are given for lining and interlining the robe, making this a fairly substantial garment.

Made up in wool or satin, and lined with satin, I think this garment needs to be taken more seriously than today's casual terry bath robes, and it is certainly a far cry from today's usual "at-home" wear of sweats and a t-shirt.

Or, if this all seems like too much work, Montgomery Ward also sold Beacon blanket robes, sparing you the work. These still show up on ebay now and again.

Butterick 1057 - Women's and Young Girl's Smock

Late 1920's. Compare this to McCall 4531 and Simplicity 160 of roughly the same period, and Ladies Home Journal 1719, which is about ten years earlier.

There is a fair amount of interest in vintage workwear just now, with almost all of the discussion focussed on wonderful old jeans, overalls, jackets, and shirts -- most of which were originally made for and worn by men.

As I was working on making up this pattern, I came to realize that I was re-creating what is probably prototypical women's workwear from a time when women who had jobs outside the home would have worked primarily in retail, secretarial, or service occupations. This smock (here comes a very bad pun) has you covered.

If you're old enough to have ever re-inked a stamp pad or changed a typewriter ribbon, you'll immediately understand the practicality of this smock in the workplace.

The instructions very carefully instruct you to make felled seams, which are rarely specified in more fashionable women's clothing patterns of the period.


As an aside, making felled seams with 3/8" inch seam allowances isn't easy. I didn't even attempt to fell the gathered fronts and back into the yoke - I just bound these with lovely bright purple bias binding, which I also used to bind the collar, because it amused me.

Another interesting feature is the pocket slits in the sides - just like a man's shop or lab coat.

Even though women's styles in the late 20's called for a slender look, the amount of ease in the smock is enormous. For a stated bust measurement of 44 inches, the actual measurement under the arms is just over 64 inches. This means that you'd be able to wear this smock over a suit jacket. Skirts were very short at this time, and with a length of just 42" from the center back, the smock reflects that. The circumference of the sleeve around the bicep is about 20". The length of the sleeve from armscye to edge of cuff is 25"

In a section on house dresses and aprons, the Fall/Winter 1928/1929 Montgomery Ward catalog carried several different models of smock. This cheerful model on page 68 has hand-embroidered pockets and collar.

The catalog copy states that smocks are now becoming widely known as house coats, which gives us an interesting insight into how clothing terminology changes over time.

Another smock on page 71 of the same catalog was offered in black sateen. (1) I'd seen other smocks and house dresses offered in black sateen so I thought that's what I'd use for mine. Unfortunately, at the moment I was ready to start work, the only sateen I could find was stretchy, so instead I pulled this cotton print out of my stash.

My job requires me to roam around with my laptop, mouse, whiteboard markers, and pens. Depending on the time of year I'm also carrying tissues and cough drops, so it's not possible for me to have too many pockets. I wear this smock over jeans and a knit shirt or turtleneck and find it very successful (if it bit voluminous - it's really several sizes too big for me.)

(1) A generation earlier, the Sears catalog listed bicycling shirts in black sateen, so this seems to have been considered a utilitarian fabric.

Butterick 1074 - Men's or Boys' Negligee Shirt

Late 19-teens to mid 1920's.

The Women's Institute book Miscellaneous Garments (1917) helpfully explains the different types of mens' shirts.

The instructions for a detachable collar are interesting. The double-pointed back yoke adds a stylish note. Note also that there is an alternate cutting line for the front to minimize bulk somewhat.

Notice that the "regulation" closing at this time is still a placket for a pull-over style shirt; the coat closing option still seems to be new.

To shorten the sleeve, the maker took up a two inch tuck in the sleeve piece and basted it with black thread. I know from experience that getting your sleeves the right length is a big motivation for having your shirts made (or making them yourself.) It must have been a great relief for the wearer to have cuffs that didn't drag down over his knuckles, as ready-made shirt cuffs surely must have.

This pattern includes a fairly early version of the Deltor, the instruction sheet.

The maker folded up the small pattern pieces and tied them with a scrap of shirting cotton.

Butterick 1697 - Costume for Uncle Sam, George Washington, Ring Master, Full Dress

Mid 1940s.

This war-time pattern, with its austere black and white illustration, gave good value for the money, with four different options. Uncle Sam is something of a sharp dresser, with his restrained white tie, and the intriguing striped collar and lapels. The starry vest returns, and the tail coat seems to have become white. The stripes on the coat and trousers are made by tacking down about 25 yards of inch wide ribbon. The earlier broadfall on the trousers has been replaced by a button fly front. The only hat pattern included is for George Washington's tricorn.

Many patterns published during WWII now have brittle, crumbling envelopes and instructions, although the pattern tissue remained of high quality.

Butterick 4147 - Knickers for Ladies, Misses, and Girls

Probably the first half of the 1920s.

There is an enormous amount of information embedded in this pattern.  Let's start with terminology.  I wouldn't call these knickers, I'd call them breeches.

By way of contrast, here is a nice pair of ladies' knickers illustrated on page 61 of the Charles Williams Stores catalog for Spring/Summer, 1926.  This illustration appears in the ladies clothing section of the catalog dedicated to rugged, unfussy skirts and suits classified as "sport apparel."  It's one of two models of knickers offered.

Charles Williams Stores also carried ladies breeches, but you need to turn to page 284, in the men's section of the catalog, to find them:

This is the only model offered for ladies' breeches in this particular catalog.  By contrast, there were four different models offered for men.  Historically in the world of bespoke clothing, ladies' riding apparel was generally made by tailors (who were men) rather than dressmakers (who were women.)  It may still be for all I know; that's not a world to which I have much visibility.

In 1926 Charles Williams didn't seem to offer any other trouser-type garments for ladies.  Knickers and gym bloomers were offered for girls.

The most obvious difference between the two garments is the enormous amount of ease through the seat of the breeches, necessary if one intends to wear them for riding, but really very practical as well for skating, strenuous hiking, etc.  Taking a rough measurement of the pattern pieces, I estimate that this pattern with a stated hip measure of 38 inches will be about 54 inches through the hips.  Note that modern riding breeches aren't anywhere near as full-seated, so even in utilitarian garments, styles change.

Returning to the Butterick pattern, the description states that these "knickers" were

Suitable for General Sports Wear, Riding, Motoring, Hiking, etc.

This is not a trivial garment to make at home.  Here are the instruction sheets.

On top of the fairly complicated construction, the idea of making these in a napped fabric makes me a little light-headed.  Also, by my count, at least 22 (hand-worked) button holes are required.  It could be more. The illustration seems to show that in view B, the breeches legs are laced up the back; the instructions are entirely silent on the details of this view.

Further research will be required to determine if Butterick offered patterns for both breeches and knickers, or if this was their only offering of trousers for women.  Fashionable slacks for women won't show up until the 1930's.  It would be fascinating to know how many women simply opted for wearing men's trousers for sport or work wear.

Butterick 4924 - Morning Frock or Hoover Coverall

Mid 1930's.

Like the matinee blouse of the previous generation, the designation of "morning frock" tells us that this garment was intended to be worn during the morning; the time of day when housework was typically done. This type of dress was also called a Hooverall or a Hoover apron.

A frequent assumption is that the term Hooverall, if not the garment itself, came into being during the Great Depression, when Herbert Hoover was president.  One man remembers that during the Depression, Hoover aprons were handed out by relief agencies.

But the term Hoover apron, or Hooverall, for a garment that is seen to be the female equivalent of the men's overall or coverall, was known during the First World War.  According to the Business Digest for July-December 1918, in a discussion about applications for trademarks:

The invasion by women of various fields of commerce and industry has brought in its wake a crop of appropriate trademarks.  Conspicuous in the latter class are marks for the working attire for women, recent entries in this class embracing such trade names as "Womanall," "Hooverall," "Farmerette," etc.

But the story may go back a little further.  Starting in 1917 and continuing to about 1920, Herbert Hoover held various U.S. Government positions related to food.  Perhaps a publication from his organization recommended aprons with cross-over fronts.  It's now a very short step to Hoover apron.

The June 21st, 1923 Bridgeport (Connecticut) Telegram ran an ad for Meig's Inc showing a full range of  aprons and apron dresses that were available.  At least from an advertising perspective, these aprons were presented as distinct types with different price points.

(Indian Head, by the way, was a Spring Mills fabric brand name.)

Here's a lovely advertisement for Hoover aprons from the July 21st, 1925 Oakland (California) Tribune.  Notice that one of the selling points is economy - saving on laundering and laundry bills.

For an idea of the $2.50 apron cost compared to other clothing, in the same advertisement, Taft's offered dresses at sale prices of $8.45 to $24.95 and oxford or strap effect Truwalk brand shoes for $11.50.

The price is a little better in Naugatuck, Connecticut, where on August 15, 1925, the Daily News ran an ad for Howland-Hughes, who were offering "genuine" Hoover apron dresses for $1.79.  This ad is instructive for telling us what colors were available and the variety of occupations for which the Hoover apron dress was suitable.

A May 13th, 1929 article in Time magazine credits Hoover's wife, Lou Henry Hoover, with "inventing" the Hoover Apron at the start of WWI. But having seen May Manton Pattern 8904, which I think dates to 1915, the Time magazine story may be good public relations but not very good history.

Here's a wonderful humor piece from the May 26th, 1931 Danville (Virginia) Bee. Given our current economic woes I thought it was worth showing the whole item.  Scoop is referring to the 1928 presidential campaign.  Bearing in mind that Scoop is writing with tongue firmly in cheek, the Hoover apron as presidential campaign tool is pretty funny.  (Also remember that women had only gotten the vote in 1920, so there was still a fair amount of humor to be had from the idea of the ladies voting.)

At the same time, leave it to the French to make a housedress trendy, as reported in the Jun 18th, 1931 Newcastle (Pennsylvania) News.

Interestingly, the last reference I've found to a Hoover dress thus far is in 1950, oddly, also in the context of French fashions, when one could (supposedly) drop $325 at Mainbocher for a Hoover apron (Lowell Massachusetts Sun, December 12, 1950)