McCall 2523 - Ladies' One-Piece Slip-On House Dress

First half of the 1920s.

Made up in a cotton shirting that was on sale for a few dollars a yard, with white pique trimming.

Finished measurements:

Center back length: 51 1/2"

Actual bust measurement: 53"

Actual hip measurement: 55"

Belt finished measurement: 40"

House dresses don't get much simpler than this. You really don't need to spend 30 cents for a pattern. The Lesson II book of Isabel Conover DeNyse's A Complete Course in Dressmaking, Aprons and House Dresses, shows a very similar dress on its cover, and then guides you through making a simple house dress pattern from a blouse pattern.

The only construction instructions on this McCall pattern are on the back of the envelope.

As usual with garments that don't have shoulder seams, a directional print will be upside down on the back unless you add a shoulder seam. You're assumed to know how to make a slashed opening (either bound or faced) and how to attach a collar with a bias facing.

The sides are finished with french seams and the 3" hem is sewn by hand. After I'd finished buttonhole stitching the loop for the button I remembered reading somewhere the tip to make tatted rings to whip on in place; as far as I know this is the only really practical use for tatting.

McCall 4531 - Ladies' and Misses' Smock

About 1927-1928.  I bought this one because of the beautiful illustration.  I made this up recently in a print fabric, so I didn't use the transfer for the embroidery on the collar and pocket bands.  If I'd been thinking about it, I might have done the collar, cuffs, and pocket bands in a solid color.  Well, perhaps next time.

I can't speak highly enough of the drafting of McCall patterns of this period.  The smock practically put itself together.  The biggest puzzle was the button placement.  The pattern piece didn't indicate where buttons or button holes should be placed.  I looked at a somewhat later smock pattern and from that one discovered that only the buttons closer to the edge are functional; the others are decorative.  I used the illustration as a guide for the buttons.

The sharp eyed among you will notice that the pockets aren't level with one another.  This is why it's probably best for me not to sew too late into the night.  I had cut the pockets without regard for pattern matching and then discovered (after I'd sewn on the bands) that I had a little problem.  I have no idea why I didn't just cut another pocket.  Instead, I matched the pattern for each pocket and let symmetry fly out the window.  It is, after all, a gardening smock and in a year or so should be grubby enough that nobody will notice.

The one thing that struck me as strange was that after the sleeve was pleated, it was then gathered into the cuff.  I don't think I've ever had to do this before:

The fabric is by Windham Fabrics, from their Vintage Euro Garden line.

Simplicity 7001 - Women's Housedress

Early 1930's.   By this time Simplicity has adjusted their marketing approach slightly.  While still implying economy (3 patterns for the price of 1) they seem to be focusing on ease of use by adding an instruction sheet called the Simplicity Primer.  Note also that they emphasize that the pattern is Hand-Cut; the practice of producing pattern sheets as laid out on the fabric (see Smock pattern 160) has been abandoned.

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

Every woman needs a frock such as this -

while she is doing house-hold tasks, for it --

is practical enough and smart-enough looking for a --

dash to the grocery.

If you must leave the house while wearing your house dress, you won't feel ashamed of doing so, knowing you're nicely dressed in your smart Simplicity frock.  The sleeveless version would be appreciated by women living in warm climates in this era before air conditioning.

The Primer provides both the layout and detailed instructions (albeit, a little on the small side.)

I made up version 2 in a 1930's reproduction cotton I'd gotten on sale.  I left off the sleeve cuffs and I've no idea where the tie belt is. I wear this dress a lot, even though I find the v-neck a tad low. The neckline on view 3 would probably suit me better. The actual bust measurement is 46".  (Note that the pattern was offered in sizes up to a 50" bust.  Utilitarian patterns like house dresses were more likely to be offered in larger sizes.)   This dress is very easy to iron.

McCall 3347 - Ladies' House Dress

1923.  The 1921 patent date may be for the layout or the instructions. This is a nice house dress pattern. The waist line has dropped but the lines aren't as severe as they'll become in another year or so.

The artist seems to be a bit vague on how to draw a chicken - at least, I think that's what is supposed to be on the platter.  If so, that invests the illustration with some additional meaning.  "A chicken in every pot" would become part of a campaign slogan for Herbert Hoover in 1928.  So in this case we can read the chicken as a mark of prosperity.  A prosperous housewife dresses nicely in a housedress she's made from a McCall pattern, and she is able to serve her family a chicken.

McCall patterns at this period offer wonderful details. This is before separate instruction sheets, so they take advantage of the pattern pieces themselves.

McCall 2550 - Ladies One-Piece Work Apron

1909. This pattern was shown in the Spring-Summer 1909 Ready Reference Catalog of McCall Patterns.

I bought this entirely because I thought the frou-frou fashion illustration was so wonderful - a Gibson Girl artist, palette in hand, a perky bow in her hair.

The joke was on me. Of all the apron patterns I've bought this is the one that shows the hardest use. There are many small tears in the neckline and lots of pin holes in all the expected places. I can imagine a woman making this up repeatedly not only for herself but perhaps for her sisters or daughters.

Made up, this reminds me of a surgical gown. It's very comfortable. The weird little cap sleeves wrap around the arm comfortably and don't look at all strange. This apron has no shoulder seam; it's cut in one piece and was designed for 36" wide fabric, very common for aprons of this period. This raises an interesting point. If this apron is made up in a print showing a decided direction, the print will appear upside-down on the back. You and I might think twice about this, but its possible this wasn't such a big deal to the original makers/wearers. Anybody who has studied originals, please feel free to pipe up here.

I took the easy way out and made this up in a cotton stripe.  As usual, there were no instructions for finishing the neck or side openings.  I cut a shaped facing for the neck but just turned under the edges of the sleeve/side openings. This was a huge mistake.  There is a lot of strain at the bottom of the sleeves, and if you blow up the photo, you can see where I'm beginning to rip out the bottoms of the sleeves.  The next time I make this up I'll either cut shaped facings or I'll bias bind these edges.  I'll also drop the pockets down a couple of inches.  The original pattern doesn't include pockets, but I can't be bothered with an apron that doesn't have them, so I put them on.

There was no indication on the pattern as to how the apron closed.  I used a skirt hook at the neck edge and am careful to wrap one back side over the other when I tie the apron.  Note that no pattern piece was provided for the strings; the instructions state "If desired, cut tie strings," and the pattern indicates where these are to be sewn to the apron.

The designation as a work apron is important; this distinguishes it from tea or sewing aprons.