Can you help me date this item??

[KittyT]

Oki, that's a good rule of thumb. Thanks Kitty.

You're welcome, Laura. Keep in mind that I am certainly no expert. One of the more knowledgeable gals here (Lauren, for example) can probably give you some much more specific information.

 

[Lady Day]

It has a metal zipper, and there is no machine serging inside, it is done neatly by hand, as far as I can see.

Then Id say mid to late 40s. Serging was prevalent in the 50s, so if its all done by machine/hand, then you most likely have a garment from an earlier decade.



LD

 

[ShooShooBaby]

Then Id say mid to late 40s. Serging was prevalent in the 50s, so if its all done by machine/hand, then you most likely have a garment from an earlier decade.

LD

in my experience (including the stack of 50s items i have sitting right here!), that's not necessarily true. most of the 50s stuff i've had has not been serged, especially nicer dresses.

 

[ShortClara]

in my experience (including the stack of 50s items i have sitting right here!), that's not necessarily true. most of the 50s stuff i've had has not been serged, especially nicer dresses.

Ditto, and there are plenty of side zippers in the 50s, as KittyT said. I'm trying to think if I've ever had a serged 50s piece. It's interesting that you have Lady Day as I haven't seen it. I'm with ShooShooBaby on the 50s. It's the collar and the sleeves that speak to me.

 

[ShortClara]

Ildledame, those necklaces are gorgeous

Oh, my goodness yes! I have not had the good fortune to ever find any of those type of necklaces.

 

[ohairas]

Looks like late 40's early 50's to me Laura. Could you possibly add a peplum to the back? Or perhaps a swag of fabric starting at the pocket detail, and draping across the back? I've seen many fancy dresses with all different swagged detailing. Worth a try, and you could just pin it on to see.
Great dress, and fits you beautifully.
Nikki

 

[Snookie]

How come you can tell by the zipper, were back zippers very uncommon in the 40's? I would like to hear more about that if you can tell me.

As the other gals have said, back zippers were very uncommon until the 50's. They were still considered a novelty well into the 30's, by the 40's they were starting to become more commonplace, and in the 50's they took over. Schiaparelli used colored plastic zippers as a novelty in her evening gowns in the mid/late 30's, and she was really one of the first designers to utilize zippers at all(she was paid by the zipper companies to incorporate them!). During WWII, zippers were harder to come by, as metal was being diverted to the war effort, but they became very popular afterwards. I'm not really sure why zippers moved locations, though - I'd guess either because it's cheaper to put them in the back (because it's easier/faster) and/or somehow they complemented the New Look better?

I have seen short little zippers at the CB neck in 40's dresses, to open up those tiny neckholes (I swear, I'll never understand how women got their giant hair through those things...). A 50's dress would have a much longer zipper extending down the back.

 

[playbelle]

in my experience (including the stack of 50s items i have sitting right here!), that's not necessarily true. most of the 50s stuff i've had has not been serged, especially nicer dresses.

I know next to nothing about dating vintage clothes like this, but I'm just wondering if the country of origin of the garment might play into this as well? Because I notice Laura Chase is located in Denmark whereas most of the vintage knowledge here is imparted by Americans (and Brits also). Of course I don't know if the dress in question is American or Danish or somethingotherish, so the point may well be moot as far as this item goes anyway.

Not to question your expertise, ladies, just wondering, since I myself live in a small far-off land that is a follower when it comes to fashion, not a leader (and never has been), so it stands to reason that the rules and clues to dating local vintage would apply a bit differently than in the fashion mainstream countries.

 

[KittyT]

I have a couple of necklaces I need help dating!

This is a signed Coro piece, but no idea when it's from. Gold coloured but does not seem to be brass, as it has no patina or discoloration from age. Or maybe it could be, what do I know? This necklace is quite heavy.

Here is the signature, which also occurs on the clasp. I have found some information about Coro signatures at http://www.antiquingonline.com/jewelry-designers.htm, but all it tells me is that the Coro script signature started in 1919 and that other signatures came into use in 1937.

This one does appear to be brass, as it has some slight green discoloration in places. The white and yellow bits are enamel and I do not know if the stones are real. Could be cut glass or possibly topaz. I guess I'll have to take it to a jeweler to find out.

 

[ehappy]

On the Coro, I would say early 60's based upon the color/design. That design was popular - I have one in aqua blue, but missing a rhinestone have to get replaced.

I have a feeling the second one is older, and perhaps that's an amber stone? Are there any inclusions in the stone?

I have a couple of necklaces I need help dating!

This is a signed Coro piece, but no idea when it's from. Gold coloured but does not seem to be brass, as it has no patina or discoloration from age. Or maybe it could be, what do I know? This necklace is quite heavy.

Here is the signature, which also occurs on the clasp. I have found some information about Coro signatures at http://www.antiquingonline.com/jewelry-designers.htm, but all it tells me is that the Coro script signature started in 1919 and that other signatures came into use in 1937.

This one does appear to be brass, as it has some slight green discoloration in places. The white and yellow bits are enamel and I do not know if the stones are real. Could be cut glass or possibly topaz. I guess I'll have to take it to a jeweler to find out.

 

[KittyT]

I have a feeling the second one is older, and perhaps that's an amber stone? Are there any inclusions in the stone?

There are no inclusions at all (at least not visible to the eye), which leads me to believe it's not amber. The color also is definitely not as dark as most amber I've seen.

 

[ehappy]

Definitely if no inclusions then it's not amber, which can vary from dark to light in color. Darn! It's a beauty even if it's cut glass...the white stones with yellow dots..are the dots painted on? Any markings on the clasp?

 

[KittyT]

Definitely if no inclusions then it's not amber, which can vary from dark to light in color. Darn! It's a beauty even if it's cut glass...the white stones with yellow dots..are the dots painted on? Any markings on the clasp?

No, it looks like it's color in the enamel. There are no signatures anywhere. Mostly I'm going to rely on jewelry design expertise that I'm hoping someone here might have

 

[ehappy]

It has a definite deco-ish influence to it overall design...so I'd say 30's 40's. I've been collecting vintage jewelry for awhile now, but hardly ever find anything pre 50's. Great finds!

 

[KittyT]

It has a definite deco-ish influence to it overall design...so I'd say 30's 40's. I've been collecting vintage jewelry for awhile now, but hardly ever find anything pre 50's. Great finds!

I've had them for awhile and got them at a clothing swap. I've never worn either of them and want to date them because I wish to sell them.

 

[ehappy]

I'm sure you'll do well with that 2nd piece.

There's a forum on eBay dedicated solely to jewelry and gemstones...lots of friendly joolies with knowledge in all areas of jewelry including costume and fine.

I'm not sure if I can post the link here but if you'd like it let me know!

 

[KittyT]

I also need to date this earring and brooch set from Winard. I'm almost positive they are ivory. The reverse of the brooch is stamped "1/20 12K GF" and the earrings are stamped "4 WINARD 12K 1/20 GF".

The only thing I've been able to find online is this similar set, which has been dated 1900-1920 and is the same size, by the same maker with the same stamps on the back. The brooch petals are slightly different, and obviously mine has no ladybug (and no signs of ever having had one). I can't tell if mine was made during the same period, or maybe was a remake of an old design they had. I know nothing of jewelry and would really love any information on this.

 

[Lady Day]

in my experience (including the stack of 50s items i have sitting right here!), that's not necessarily true. most of the 50s stuff i've had has not been serged, especially nicer dresses.

I guess we have a lot of different 50s stuff

LD

 

[ShortClara]

I guess we have a lot of different 50s stuff

LD

That's cool to know, LD, because I would have looked at something that I thought was 50s and been confused by the serging.

 

[Lauren]

Kitty T, the second necklace is probably late 20's to early 30's. The Coro necklace looks late 50's to early 60's to me. Coro is pretty collectable!

Lara Chase, I'm going to say early 50's on the dress. It's still got a lot of detailing that was very desirable in the 40's but the cut is leaning towards the 50's styling. The thing which makes me think this dress may be early 50's and not late 40's is the length of the hem, which could very well have been shortened later on when hemlines went back up. The bodice style and pocket style look early 50's, but the sleeve length and detailing still look 40's. Probably just in that transitional phase. Very lovely dress!

As far as fastening placement goes, here's a good rule of thumb-

Side snaps and hooks and eyes= late 20's- 40's. Usually they stopped this by the late 30's, but some people simply did not know how to insert zippers and that's why you'll still see some later dresses without zippers.

Zippers as closures in women's clothing came into fashion in the mid 30's. In fact I was reading a Vogue this evening from 1935 and they were talking about how fashionable it was for a zipper. With trickle down fashion it is not unreasonable to assume that they made their way into mass retailing by the late 30's.

Zipper placement in the 30's, 40's, and early-mid 50's was mostly at the side. There are, however, a few exceptions.

Zippers became all the rage in clothing of the very late 30's to early 40's. You'll see a lot of dresses from this period which actually HIGHLIGHT the zipper- be it with it fully exposed, or of a different color and contrast to the garment. I love the early plastic ones which were decorative at the neckline in the front. They also were fully exposed at the back, but mostly you'll see them going partially down the front, be it 3-5 inches or all the way to the waist. They would then add another at the side for fit.

You'll see late 30's to 50's dresses with them partially down the back of a dress (say between 3-5 inches) to get a dress on over your head. They then also have one on the side to fit it in at the waist.

In loungewear of the 30's-50's you'll notice it going all the way down the front of a dress or one piece pajama set or hostess gown. That's the first giveaway to me that a dress is not just a dress, but meant for wearing around the house. You'll see a lot of dresses like this mislisted on ebay as evening gowns which actually are hostess gowns (kind of like a robe you entertain in). Remember... just because it's satin doesn't make it a dance dress.

And then in the late 50's you'll get the zipper going all the way down the back of a dress just to get in the thing. Could have something to do with the fact that the clothes started to fit so tightly