In THEIR closets...

[VintageJess]

It seems that we often joke about our vintage shopping addictions and ever-growing collections, which led me wonder about the ladies of the actual Golden Era. What would be the size of a *typical* lady's wardrobe?

I know that whenever I have been in a home of the era, the closets are much smaller (no walk-ins!) than modern times. Also, I would think that the financial hardships of the Great Depression and rationing of World War 2 might have had major impacts on how much was purchased or made.

Would ladies have a special dress that they might wear frequently--for instance, one fancy dress for formal occasions? Was it more acceptable at that time for outfits to be worn frequently as opposed to "never see me in it twice" philosophy of many modern ladies?

Were new pieces made or purchased annually or seasonally? (For instance, a new dress for the summer, or coat for the winter.) How often were garments recycled? (I know my husband's grandmother converted her WAVE uniform into a civilian suit after the war--was that something that was fairly common?)

Jessica

 

[LizzieMaine]

Interesting question!

My grandmother was pretty typical of the working-class woman of the Era, and she was pretty consistent in her habits for most all her life -- so her closet when I knew her was probably not too different from her closet in 1940, allowing for wear and tear, of course.

Most of her wardrobe was housedresses, which is understandable since she spent most of her time in the house. She maybe had seven or eight of these at any given time, most of them home made, and when one wore out she'd make another one to replace it (and more often or not the old one would be cut down to make something else -- an apron, or playclothes for one of the kids/grandkids, etc.).

She also had a couple of wool skirts -- a solid blue one and a plaid one -- and an assortment of blouses and cardigan sweaters for mixing and matching. These would be worn for shopping or errands in town.

And for dressier occasions, she had one Pendleton wool suit -- she'd wear this, along with gloves and a hat, whenever she served as a Democratic Party poll warden, or on other distinguished occasions, like accompanying my grandfather to one of his lodge banquets or to a school graduation. That was the extent of her social life by the time I knew her, so she didn't need a very expansive wardrobe.

She was very fond of shoes, and considered herself quite extravagant in that regard -- I remember her having five or six pairs, mostly 50s-era pumps of one sort or another, in her closet when I was young (my cousin and I used to sneak in and try them on!). Most of the time around the house, though, she wore the same old pair of lumpy brown oxfords, with the good shoes saved for Occasions. And when a pair wore out, she'd take them into town and get them re-heeled and half-soled, so once she had a pair she'd make them last.

Her secret luxury was something I never saw her wear -- a twenties-era black seal coat that was buried in a dry-cleaning bag in the black of her closet. My grandfather always said she was "quite a tomato" in her youth, and this was her last remaining relic of those carefree flapper days. When she passed away, it went to her sister, and was never seen again...

 

[Paul]

Clothes in the past pre 50's were more greatly valued than today money was so much tighter ,and I would say that clothing was mainly bought when something had worn out and had to be replaced, fashions did not change as fast either, as they do today. that's partly down to the media, TV and magazines, been able to see what society is wearing almost before they have changed out of it.
Men had there " Sunday Best" and working cloths, also it depended on your wealth the old class system. Ladies I think would be the same not many cloths compared today.
One think that I would find interesting would be to be able to compare the price of cloths with the cost of living and a persons wage say how much a 30's dress cost and how much that lady eared in a week
You can see from old adverts the cost of a item of clothing but how much the lady eared at that particular time is more difficult to find. I think that would put it all into perspective.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

The average person would have a more carefully planned wardrobe, but the wealthy would still buy as they chose. A few years ago, an eBay seller was listing a 1940s socialite's entire wardrobe--she had high end dresses, suits, shoes--you name it, she had it. She had duplicates of some things, and many items of clothing were brand new with tags--she never wore them!

In the Depression, you average person would have had a limited selection of clothing. But again, wealthy women who could afford to buy lush, beaded evening gowns and the like most certainly did.

During WWII, the general motto was "Make Do and Mend." Women would remake clothing from prior seasons (I have a late 30s summer suit that was hemmed to make it fit the WWII hemlines) and even remake men's clothing. They also made clothing out of non-traditional fabrics, including tablecloths and fabric scraps. They would mend clothing as much as they possibly could--it was wasteful to throw things out if they didn't need to be, as doing so was viewed as hurting the war effort.

I read a short story published in 1939, and the main character was a young woman who worked for a living at a department store. She worked in the 'seconds' department (the area where returns and clothing with flaws were sold) and wanted to save up to buy a party frock there. The gown was flawed, but still cost $20 (a fair amount of money for a single dress.) She decided that if she didn't eat lunch for a week, she could afford it. Her saving philosophy was a common one for the average woman.

Your average woman would have had, as Lizzie noted, a number of mix-n-match pieces that she would use to extend her wardrobe. She could also change the look of these dresses with accessories--jewelry, hats, shoes, purses. There were even basic dresses sold that could be purchased with different accessory sets--a bolero jacket and sash, a necklace and earrings, a 'topper' (essentially a wrap halter top worn over your dress) and brooch, etc.

Also, it was cheaper to make your own clothes then it was to buy “ready-made” items. Singer ran ads that showed how easy it was to stretch your fashion dollar—you could be in vogue and have a larger wardrobe if you sewed your own clothing.

Some interesting links related to WWII clothing~

Make Do and Mend
http://www.livingarchive.org.uk/nvq03/jill/mend.html

Playsuits made from tablecloths:
http://www.costumes.org/history/20thcent/1940s/sews4victory/gaybras.jpg

Clothing made from scraps:
http://www.costumes.org/history/20thcent/1940s/sews4victory/rescuedrems.JPG

Felt accessories:
http://www.costumes.org/history/20thcent/1940s/sews4victory/bitsoffelt.JPG

Cotton stockings turned into accessories:
http://www.costumes.org/history/20thcent/1940s/sews4victory/cottonstockings.JPG

A woman's suit made from a man's suit:
http://www.costumes.org/history/20thcent/1940s/sews4victory/suitthatboughtbond.jpg

 

[maisie]

The average person would have a more carefully planned wardrobe, but the wealthy would still buy as they chose. A few years ago, an eBay seller was listing a 1940s socialite's entire wardrobe--she had high end dresses, suits, shoes--you name it, she had it. She had duplicates of some things, and many items of clothing were brand new with tags--she never wore them!

I think i saw those auctions as well, there was a seller selling a load of the most gorgeous 40's shoes ever! The lady had bought the same style shoes in various colours, platforms, wedges in loads of colours and half of them had never even been worn! They were high quality pieece and i think they fetched a few hundred dollars a pair!!! And the best (or worst part:rage: ) was they were all size 9's!!

 

[maisie]

I think the amount, or type, of clothes that each person had also depended what country they lived in. In the UK rationing started in 1941 (CC41) up until the early 50's. And with restriction getting tighter as the years went on and the amount of coupons allocated to each person going down it limited what new items a person could buy.
Each lady probably would of only had one suit a couple of dresses and shoes and a few jumpers, skirts, ect. Also there was voluntary services which also had uniforms, like the WVS ( which volunteers had to buy the uniform), ARP, AFS/NFS, etc. There was also the Womens Land Army, the uniform for this service was supplied but each memeber had to give some of there clothing rations towards it. And if you were the right ages many women would have joined the services WAAF, ATS or WRNS in which civvy clothing wouldn't have been needed.
However richer people probably would have found ways around this (black market!! ) or just re-styling their extensive wardrobes from the 20's and 30's.

 

[BettyValentine]

My father's mother had apparently a very limited wardrobe. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of her in a dress. Her sister had *fabulous* style. She's the one who gave me my first vintage dresses. I believe she had quite a few, though she didn't keep them all very long. She stayed up-to-date through the 70s, so she got rid of a lot of older things to make room for her cutting-edge fashion.

My mother's mother was reasonably well-off, and she had a lot of really beautiful suits and dresses. Her closet is *huge* and there is lots of storage under the beds and such things in her house. She had one couture sailor-collar dress that was made for her at Saks. They gave my grandpa champagne and cigars and there is a little hand-embroidered label in it that said "custom tailored for Mrs. Miriam Hartman at Saks 5th Avenue." My cousin asked for it. The cousins got most of her dresses because I didn't know that she would part with them if asked. Sadly it was all my size and my cousins cut them up and altered them because the dresses were too small for them. Le sigh!

BV

 

[jitterbugdoll]

There have been a few seller's auctioning off estates--when you see the number of items that hung, new with tags, in someone's closet for 60+ years it sure is surprising!

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

This is a great thread! I remember seeing pictures of my moms side of the family, and they were always decked out, but I just figured they got dressed up for pictures. This gave me an excuse to give her a call, and ask her some questions, which she loved. Here's what I found out.
Before WWII, both my mom's parents lived in Europe. My mom says that they had what she called "European Standards" . My great grandfather never took off his bow tie, even while he was at home relaxing. When they came to America in the fourties, my great grandfather had to go back to school, for he was a dentist in Austira, but his liscence wasn't valid here in the USA. Times were hard, they lived at the Y for a few years, but he always wore a tie..
This tradition was carried on by her mother. She was always dressed beautifully. Dresses, hats, gloves. Her husband, my grandpa Marty, was the same, well except for the dresses! Always wore a tie and fedora. My mom remembers, that no matter how hard times got, my great grandfater Moxie, insisted that they all dress properly. Lucky for them, my grandpa Marty's family owned a dress factory. He's the one who taught my mom how to cut a pattern and sew. Oh, how I wish I could get my hands on one of those dresses.
As for closet space. They lived in a small Manhattan apartment, and my mom says she remembers clothing wardrobes in the living room!
I remember when I was growing up, my mom always dressed up, even for a trip to the market. She still never goes anywhere without face make-up and a fresh coat of lipstick.

 

[Shimmy Sally]

They gave my grandpa champagne and cigars and there is a little hand-embroidered label in it that said "custom tailored for Mrs. Miriam Hartman at Saks 5th Avenue." My cousin asked for it. The cousins got most of her dresses because I didn't know that she would part with them if asked. Sadly it was all my size and my cousins cut them up and altered them because the dresses were too small for them.

How sad, that's a heartbreaker.
I had a vintage emerald green and royal blue flowered silk dress that belonged to my grandmother. It fit me so perfectly. It's one of many items that was pawned/sold out from under me in Tucson though. It's a long story

 

[fortworthgal]

A few years ago, an eBay seller was listing a 1940s socialite's entire wardrobe--she had high end dresses, suits, shoes--you name it, she had it. She had duplicates of some things, and many items of clothing were brand new with tags--she never wore them!

I remember those auctions. I think I watched every one of them! lol I wonder how much the seller paid for the items from the estate.

How often were garments recycled? (I know my husband's grandmother converted her WAVE uniform into a civilian suit after the war--was that something that was fairly common?)

I have read many accounts of WAVES uniforms being converted. In fact, somewhere I even read a magazine article with directions for converting the uniform! I believe it was probably a selling point that the stylish uniform designed by Mainbocher could be converted into a stylish suit after the woman's service had ended.

 

[maisie]

These are the amount of coupons for each item of clothing for women and girls, bearing in mind that in the begining each person was given 66 coupons for clothing but by mid war they fell to 48 a year and by 1945 each person only had 36 a year!!

Item Of Clothing Women Girls
Lined mackintosh or coat over 28" 14 11
Under 28" short coat or jacket 11 8
Frock, gown or dress of wool 11 8
Frock, gown or dress of other fabric 7 5
Bodice with girls skirt or gym tunic 8 6
Pyjamas 8 6
Divided skirt or skirt 7 5
Nightdress 6 5
Dungarees or overalls 6 4
Blouse, shirt, sports top, cardigan or jumper 5 3
Pair of slippers, boots or shoes 5 3
Other garments including corsets 5 2
Petticoat or slip, cami knickers or combinations 4 3
Apron or pinafore 3 2
Scarf, gloves, mittens or muff 2 2
Stockings per pair 2 1
Ankle socks per pair 1 1
1 yard wool cloth 36"wide 3 3
2 ounces of wool knitting yarn 1 1

This is also a good picture of utility fashions, and this website is a great place to find out more!!

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/1914-1950/utilmarb435x30b.jpg

 

[maisie]

I remember those auctions. I think I watched every one of them! lol I wonder how much the seller paid for the items from the estate.

Probably not as much as profit they made on them!!

I have read many accounts of WAVES uniforms being converted. In fact, somewhere I even read a magazine article with directions for converting the uniform! I believe it was probably a selling point that the stylish uniform designed by Mainbocher could be converted into a stylish suit after the woman's service had ended.

I saw a converted WAVES jacket on ebay, they had changed the buttons and stiched around the collar in a contrasting colour, it looked very good!!

 

[jitterbugdoll]

Some interesting excerpts regarding rationing, taken from an Australian site:

"House Clothes. ... A great many women nowadays find two or three sets of slacks ideal for summer house wear. They are handy and great savers of stockings as they permit of stockings being discarded altogether, and you know what a price stockings are to-day!

Knitted Footies or Sockettes. These are a most necessary article of wear in these days of painted legs. No one likes bare feet in shoes, so make a pair of them."

Australian Home Journal, March 1942.)

"Those Useful Slacks. ... Now that the coupon rationing has come to pass, slacks for all kind of uses are more necessary than ever.
Of course, for the air raid shelter, and any sudden emergency or alarm, there is nothing more suitable than slacks. You are covered up straight away and you feel clothed in them. Also the wear you get is unusually good. Slacks can either be dry-cleaned or wet-cleaned (wet-cleaned for preference), and they are quite easily ironed.

Coupon Using. Now that coupons are in evidence, mothers must use their heads in the purchasing of right materials, as coupons cramp one's style very much.

Don't buy a too noticeable material, and avoid large pattern designs. In other words, conspicuous cloths are uneconomic."

Australian Home Journal, September 1942)


"Renovating Prudes. Some womenfolk frown on the idea of renovating. "It sounds like a secondhand shop," said a social climber in a patronising way. There is nothing to be ashamed of in renovation to-day, thank goodness. The most extravagant of women are compelled to curb their spending, and fastidious though they be, rejuvenation must come into their scheming. Clothes rationing is making us all very ingenious and a great deal cleverer than we ever suspected.

Short Skirts. The recent announcement in the daily papers that skirts are to be shorter to conserve material, makes me think of a definite danger point in dress - too short skirts.

Short skirts are charming on young people, and they're quite good on even the elderly woman so long as she has slender legs. But they are positively horrible on the thick-legged woman, whatever be her age. So though you desire to follow all government suggestions, if your legs are stubby, don't have your skirts too short... "

Australian Home Journal, September 1942.)


"No Elastic. Make your own underwear and don't use elastic! It is important to note this as coupons have to be expended in the purchase of elastic so we are helping the war effort in the saving of rubber.

Save Coupons. Now that evening frocks are practically taboo, and you haven't any use for the ones you have - don't put them aside with a "After the War I'll wear them again." After the war there will be new fashions and ten chances to one they will not be worn again. Make hay while the sun shines and save the coupons you would have otherwise spent on new materials."

Australian Home Journal, October 1942.)

"Dearer Clothes. Every woman knows that clothes to-day are much dearer than before the war. An early summer work-a-day skirt and blouse now costs from £3/15/- upwards; pre-war the price was £2/6/-. The material is not up to the earlier standard. And there is no immediate likelihood of prices lowering or material improving.

So hold on to what you have, and don't hesitate to alter and make-do rather than buy something new."

Australian Home Journal, December 1943.)

 

[Tourbillion]

My dad's mom had a dressmaker for a mother and a good job (airplane and helicopter test pilot coordinator) all through the depression and WWII. I am sure that the war limited her purchases, but I recall that she had a bunch of old ladies suits(very conservative--I was shocked as a kid by them they were so severe) in her basement wardrobe, and a closet stuffed full of clothes upstairs when I was a kid.

She had a ton of very pretty frocks too, especially in the 1920's when her mom was making her clothes.

She was likely not typical.

My other grandmother was more normal, I don't recall her wardrobe size, but I am sure she never had as many clothes as my dad's mom.

 

[Paisley]

Short Skirts. The recent announcement in the daily papers that skirts are to be shorter to conserve material, makes me think of a definite danger point in dress - too short skirts.

Short skirts are charming on young people, and they're quite good on even the elderly woman so long as she has slender legs. But they are positively horrible on the thick-legged woman, whatever be her age. So though you desire to follow all government suggestions, if your legs are stubby, don't have your skirts too short... "

:eusa_clap

"No Elastic. Make your own underwear and don't use elastic! It is important to note this as coupons have to be expended in the purchase of elastic so we are helping the war effort in the saving of rubber.

A friend's mother, during WWII, was wearing a girdle with no elastic, it just laced up. It fell off of her while she was walking down State Street in Chicago. All she could do was step out of it, pick it up, and keep going.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

A friend's mother, during WWII, was wearing a girdle with no elastic, it just laced up. It fell off of her while she was walking down State Street in Chicago. All she could do was step out of it, pick it up, and keep going.

There may have been some truth to the otherwise silly theme behind a great deal of Art Frahm's pinups (the ones featuring ladies whose undies have fallen down)lol

 

[Foofoogal]

That is hilarious about the girdle.
My grandmother sewed until her 90's. During the depression era and WW11 she sewed for people. She was known for her skills and could look in a storefront window at an item and go home and make a pattern out of newspaper to make it.
I only wish.
How spoiled we all are. Can you imagine having to use ration coupons.
http://www.sandysfancypants.blogspot.com

Anyone seen the new Main Street Mall online with vintage shops? I am not there but it looks neat.

 

[Tourbillion]

How does one have a girdle that is so loose that it can fall off? I wouldn't bother if it wasn't a little bit tight.

However, my mother did lose her panties on Third Street in Santa Monica, CA during WWII. She was walking with my grandfather, and they were both so embarrassed that they didn't stop and pick them up.

They were in trouble with my grandmother since panties were so hard to come by during the war.

This brings to mind, was it common for people to skip on panties (and slips) during the war to save on material? I know ladies went without stockings, but no underwear? It doesn't seem proper.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I think because she wore a lace-up girdle, and it came untied.

No, I don't think they would have skipped on slips or panties (unless wearing a panty girdle.) There are plenty of ads for slips, bras, and panties in WWII magazines, with nary a mention of rationing or "waiting 'til the war is over to buy this product again." Plus, these items could be made with materials other than the rationed nylon or silk.