May Manton 6599 - Boy's Base Ball Suit

1910. This patterns seems to have been advertised in the newspapers only in 1910, but appeared in newspapers across the country, from St. Albans, Vermont to Butte, Montana.

The ad from Butte provides some nice details in the ad copy.

Note the padded pants, a feature that seems to have originated in the 1880s and disappeared around the first World War, as far as I can tell from looking at high school team photos of the period. (1)  The advertisement notes that "padded trousers mean smartness and correct costume quite as well as protection, and they are sure to be in demand."

The pull-over shirt is a pretty standard outing shirt design, with three sleeve options: long, short, and convertible. (We've seen these convertible sleeves before, with Pictorial Review 5969) According to the advertisement, the lower sleeves are removed when the game is in progress. 

The advertisement recommends serge, flannel, and khaki as appropriate materials.

Although the uniform could be made for team play, a baseball suit could simply be made for a baseball-mad boy, in his favorite team's colors.

Despite the ad copy's assertion that "There is really very little labor involved in the making of such a costume..." consider the amount of work involved in making this uniform: colored facings are sewn to the shirt; button holes must be worked (by hand) for the convertible sleeves, the shirt, and the fly front of the pants; the pants must have padding sewn into them; the cap is lined, and team insignia patches or appliques would be sewn on.

Could you buy boys' baseball uniforms? Indeed you could. In Wichita Kansas, F. G. Orr Book and Stationery Co. could set you up for as little as 98 cents.

The D. B. Loveman Company in Chattanooga, Tennessee put their boys' baseball suits on sale in August, with both the $1.00 and $1.25 suits going for only 69¢

Chattanooga (Tennessee) Daily Times, Friday, August 5, 1910, p. 10.

A few years later in 1912, Sears Roebuck offered stock uniforms for boys for $1.50 on p. 923 of their catalog.

Using the same 1912 catalog, the cost of the materials for making a uniform looks like this:

Item                                        Cost

May Manton Pattern 6599                     10¢

White wool flannel 27" wide @ 18¢/yd        95¢

Buttons from the 2¢ sale page                2¢

Spool of Clark's sewing thread*              4¢

TOTAL                                    $1.11  

* Sears sold thread by boxes of a dozen spools. Assume a single spool could be bought locally for about 4¢.

This excludes the padding for the pants, which could probably be made from odds and ends of quilt batting, and of course, the value of the time to sew the uniform.

And because I know you'll ask, here is what the cap pieces look like.

 

The three perforated crosses in the brim indicate where it's placed on the fold of the material.  It's interesting to see that the cap sections are shorter toward the fronts, which will give the cap a jaunty set. I've been told this is a "Boston" style cap, but it looks like it could also be a "New York" style. May Manton were based in New York City.

This pattern was available in sizes for 8 to 14 years. I wonder if an adult pattern was available that would fit older boys in high school as well as men playing in their local leagues.

"B C", I assume, very cleverly stands for "Ball Club,"  but wouldn't it have been fun if the illustrator had had the imagination to use "M M?"

(1) See the history of baseball uniform pants on the web site for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Originally posted on May 5, 2012. Updated on March 16, 2025.

4577 "Santa Claus" Suit

The earliest date I've found for this pattern is 1923 and 1925 seems to be the last year this pattern was advertised in the newspapers.

This nice newspaper advertisement illustration is all about Christmas, and shows an elder sibling of our Rabbit pattern, here in his fetching new rompers.

Omaha (Nebraska) Daily News, Saturday December 1, 1923, page 5

The envelope and typeface lead me to believe that this pattern might have been manufactured by the Beauty Pattern Company (1188-90 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New York.) 

The double-breasted coat gives Santa a rather official air; imagine two rows of shiny brass buttons!

Leggings rather than trousers would be quicker, less expensive, and probably fit a wider variety of Santas.

This unprinted pattern does not appear to have been used.

Merry Christmas, everybody!

Updated on December 24, 2024 with new information on the date of the pattern.

Universal Fashion Company 800 - Working Blouse

Universal Fashion Company

I've found several different founding dates for Universal Fashion Company, with the earliest date being 1881, though I've been unable to find newspaper advertisements for them before 1884.

Hartford (USA) Courant, p.1

Monday, January 7, 1884

Camden (New Jersey) Courier-Post,

Friday, March 7, 1884 p.4

Advertisements showing garments are very rare for Universal

The New York Times

Monday, May 4, 1885, p. 15 (in their Suplemento Hispano-Americano)

In the early years of the paper pattern industry there were many companies that flourished for a few years before going out of business or being absorbed by another company, but Universal was still in business in 1894. This advertisement provides a nice list of selling points.

Owensboro (Kentucky, US) Messenger

Saturday, January 6, 1894, p. 8

1894 would prove to be the last year that Universal patterns were advertised in newspapers.  By 1895 Universal was being sued by some of their agents who had been falsely promised exclusive territories, and by 1896 Universal was in turn suing to recover monies owed them by their agents. Universal's legal troubles persisted until about 1899 when they seem to disappear from the scene.

The Working Blouse

The term "blouse" when applied to men's garments confuses people today. When this pattern was made, the term was used for a men's outer garment. In English, the term survives today (just barely) in the term "middy blouse." 

The working blouse is a practical garment. It typically functioned as an over shirt, protecting the shirt underneath. The banded waist makes it safe to wear around machinery and keeps out dust or chaff. (1) 

Universal wasn't the only pattern company offering a working blouse pattern. In 1894, Butterick offered several working blouse patterns in its Delineator magazine.

The Delineator, April 1894, p. x

Note how Butterick uses the term  "jumper" interchangeably with "working blouse." Clothing terminology is always fluid.

The Merchant Tailor Museum has a very similar working blouse in their collection. The extensive piecing probably indicates a home-made garment.

Utilitarian garments such as the working blouse were good candidates for the early mens' ready-to-wear industry, which was boosted by the development of the sewing machine. (2) Levi Strauss offered a working blouse in its catalog as early as the 1870s, and this garment is thought to be an ancestor of their iconic denim jacket.

Several years ago JoAnn Peterson at Laughing Moon brought to my attention an eBay auction for a 19th century fireman's shirt that could have been made from this pattern, the cut was so similar.

Making the Working Blouse

Stay tuned!

Trade Card for Universal Fashion Company

(1) Eventually the working blouse and waist overalls would be combined into a single garment called a "working suit" or "union overalls."

(2) The men's ready-to-wear industry may have been given a boost by the American Civil War (1861-1865.) Once the demand for soldiers' clothes dried up, there would have been both capacity and skills in sizing and construction. Prior to what we understand today as ready-to-wear, garments like the working blouse were probably produced by the slops trade.

Originally posted July 27, 2008, updated September 30, 2024.

Home Pattern Company 157 - Ladies' Matinee or Morning Blouse

Authorized by the American Red Cross, this pattern was produced during World War I (1914-1918.)

The pattern is referenced in Junior Red Cross Activities Teachers Manual, American Red Cross publication #606, published on October 15, 1918. The Manual is a terrific resource for understanding how war work could be integrated into school work, starting even in the primary grades. Before getting into the specifics of the articles to be produced, the manual discusses how the schools' war work can be used to teach social responsibility and contribute to community service. (See Chapter V)

Thus, while sewing clothes for refugees was incorporated into home economics instruction, it could also be used to teach geography about France and Belgium, and current events about the war. In addition to sewing skills, other aspects household economy to be taught included clothing care and repair, and clothing the baby. (See Chapter VIII)

The manual states that "The garments to be made may seem somewhat unattractive in color and design and materials used. Remember that we cannot expect the French and Belgian people to change their habits and customs and if we wish to be truly helpful we must not try to force our opinions and practices upon them when they have definite ideas as to what they wish."  (p. 301) In particular, the Belgians were thought to have a preference for dark colors, though part of this may have been due to limited resources for laundering.

At this time, the term "morning blouse" appears to be used for a garment worn at home while attending to the morning's household chores.  In the February 15 issue of Vogue magazine for 1917, patterns for morning clothes and sports clothes are shown on page 82. (A little confusingly, the model wearing Vogue's stylish version of a morning blouse is shown holding a tennis racquet.) The construction and materials used would allow the morning blouse to be laundered at home.

By the third year of high-school, students could make the morning blouse in "flannel, outing flannel, or very heavy galatea, dark colors only." (p. 362) At this time, flannel would have been understood to be wool flannel, while outing flannel was made of cotton. Galatea was a firmly woven cotton fabric, typically twill or sateen weave, usually used for nurses' uniforms and children's clothes. 

Note that the instructions on the back of the envelope explain how to make a flat felled seam, advising the maker to observe how the sleeves of a man's shirt are sewed into the armhole.  This tells us that such seams were common in men's shirts but probably not in ladies' clothing. The strengthening provided by a flat-felled seam justifies the additional time it would have taken to make the seam.

Here is a front view of the blouse made up in a dark cotton remnant, both without and with the belt:

This is an unprinted pattern.

Originally posted on 4 July 2008, substantially rewritten with new information on 5 January 2024.

Vogue 590 - Misses' Dress and Top

Early 1980s. This pattern was also issued by Vogue as number 8826 with the same cover artwork. Today it shows up frequently on eBay and Etsy.

Born in England on October 8, 1928, Erica Wilson graduated from the Royal School of Needlework in 1948 before moving to the United States in 1954. She became well-known for her newspaper column, books, needlepoint kits (some in association with the Metropolitan Museum of Art) and her television show on PBS.  At that time there were few other books available on traditional smocks and smocking, particularly in the United States.

A similar smock was featured in Wilson's 1981 book Erica Wilson's Needlework to Wear, on pages 50 and 78.

This pattern would have appealed to Wilson's fans during a period of nostalgia for "traditional" crafts. Folkwear published their English smock pattern at about the same time as the Vogue pattern.

While the pattern is for a women's garment which Vogue refers to a dress or top, originally this garment was called a "smock frock." Smock frocks, some of them beautifully embroidered as well as smocked, were worn by agricultural laborers in parts of England during the nineteenth century. As farming became increasingly mechanized throughout the century, smock frocks would have been unsafe to wear around agricultural equipment and eventually became obsolete. (1)

A surprising number of the nicest smock frocks eventually ended up in museums. Subsequently, smocking itself has had periods of popularity over the years, often for children's clothes. I recall having a smocked dress when I was a small child.

The Vogue pattern hews pretty closely to traditional smocks' construction composed of rectangles of fabric. The shaped yoke and sleeve are seen in some later traditional smocks and for a modern wearer provide a slightly better fit through the upper body.

In addition to the construction instructions, extensive instructions are provided for the smocking and the embroidery.

This printed pattern is unused.

(1) The best recent work on the history of the smock is Alison Toplis's The Hidden History of the Smock Frock. 

Patt-o-Rama 8500 - Apron and Bonnet

 

1961, based on this advertisement in the Benton Harbor Michigan News-Palladium on May 11, 1961. 

The original mailing envelope has a return address for GRIT, a periodical for rural folks. The recipient's address includes a ZIP code, putting the mailing date some time after 1963, when ZIP codes were introduced.

Patt-o-Rama is another one of those syndicated house name patterns that are so hard to research. 

Despite the "quaint old-fashioned charm," the writer still points out the functional reason for the bonnet - it shades your face. 1963 puts this bonnet pattern on the cusp of a transition from primarily functional to nostalgic or costume use. This pattern could well have served both uses. It's easy to imagine the bonnet and apron made up in red and white gingham and worn by all the ladies running booths at a church social or bazaar. Then again, this may have simply been the preferred headgear for an older woman who was accustomed to the style.

The Patt-o-rama brand is also at an interesting point in the history of unprinted patterns. By 1961 all of the big pattern companies were offering printed patterns. Patt-o-rama gamely reminds the maker that with their pattern, there are "no margins to trim," "no tracing wheels," and "no fabric waste." But again, an older woman would have grown up with unprinted patterns.

The apron pattern is entirely unremarkable (and about 10 years later, I'd make an almost identical apron in my first Home Ec class, in avocado green cotton-poly, if memory serves.)

But the bonnet was interesting. 

Did sunbonnet styles change over time? How different was this bonnet from say, Butterick 5340, from the early part of the century? Superficially, not very different, as it turns out. The overall dimensions of the crowns are almost identical.  The brim of the Patt-o-rama bonnet is shallower by about 1 1/2" (but still quite deep enough to completely shade the face - the illustration doesn't do justice to the depths of the brim.)

Interestingly, the Butterick bonnet confines the curtain to the back of the bonnet, while the Patt-o-rama bonnet brings the curtain across the bottom of the brim, to shade the sides of the neck.

The construction of the bonnets is a little different. The Butterick bonnet combines the crown and the curtain into a single piece, using a simple fold at neck level to create a casing for the back drawstring. 

The Patt-o-rama bonnet has a separate piece for the curtain (piece J, which they call a ruffle) as well as for the drawstring casing (piece I.)  Butterick assumes you'll have some narrow tape on hand to use as drawstrings. The Patto-o-rama pattern instructs you to cut and sew drawstring ties from narrow rectangles.

Patt-o-rama 8500 is a good quality pattern. The pieces are accurately cut and the notches and circles matched well. The written instructions contained a couple of slightly confusing typographical errors, and were a bit jumbled - probably from lack of space - but the construction illustrations were clear.

I made the bonnet up from some pink calico I had on hand.  Chambray would provide a slightly sturdier bonnet.

I followed the instructions almost exactly with only one exception - I bound the seam that joins the brim to the crown, both for tidiness and strength.

Weldons 120313 - Betsy Trotwood

Late 1930s or early 1940s.

David Copperfield is the first of Dickens's books that I listened to rather than read, and I found that 33 hours of the audiobook was a great distraction from the endless dark days of winter.

Betsy Trotwood is one of my favorite of all of Dickens' characters, so I was intrigued to find this pattern for Betsy Trotwood (but Dickens spells it Betsey.)

My provisional date of late 1930s is based in part on the design of the envelope and the illustration,  but I also wonder if the 1935 film adaptation by George Cukor (starring Freddy Bartholomew as David and W.C. Fields as Mr. Micawber) spawned an interest in David Copperfield-themed fancy dress in the years following the release.  I haven't been able to find evidence of a stage adaptation that might also have triggered Copperfield-mania.

Serial publication of David Copperfield started in 1849, but when does take place?  If you assume that it's partially auto-biographical, that sets the novel in the 1820s through the 1830s.  I think that this is an awkward period for women's clothing, with the long sloping shoulder line leading to enormous sleeves - a difficult look for even a very well-proportioned woman to wear successfully.

Edna May Oliver played Aunt Betsey in the 1935 film, and Dolly Tree, the costume designer, seems to borrow from the 1830s for the exuberant cap.

Image from oldhollywoodfilms.com

The Weldons designer provides a basic gray or brown front buttoning, long-sleeved dress of no particular period and uses the white collar and cuffs, and the black sateen apron to evoke the 1830s.    It's a little hard to tell from the illustration, but the pattern includes both a cap and a bonnet, although confusingly, the illustration seems to show the basic mob cap worn over the rather sketchy bonnet.

Weldon's Betsy Trotwood carries a garden hod and trowel, a visual cue that this vaguely 19th century lady is the Aunt Betsy that David Copperfield surprised as she was working in her garden.

This unprinted pattern does not appear to have been used, though it is water stained.