Comparing 20 years of _Underwear and Lingerie_

It doesn't take much to get me interested enough in a book to buy it, and this goes doubly so for books that are both in my realm of interest, and that change over time. Triply, I guess I should say.

Years ago, I bought a pair of slim paper-covered pamphlets from a friend; they are two parts of a series of correspondence courses in sewing, dressmaking, millinery, and fashion design, by Mary Brooks Picken of the Woman's Institute of Domestic Arts and Sciences, dated 1916/1921. (Interestingly, I have a string-bound downmarket version of this sort of thing from the early 50's that was my maternal grandmother's. It's much the same, but about twenty years later.)

A few weeks ago, I saw an intriguing picture on the internet from something that appeared to be a much later version of this work; so I went to Bookfinder and got a copy. Turns out I hadn't paid enough attention to that original picture though, and so the edition I initially got was different enough from the picture that it was unrecognizable. The version I got was from 1926/1930, where the one I wanted was dated 1935. I guess they republished them every 5 years or so? So back to Bookfinder I went.

Did I realize that I already had the first version of this? Heck no. Not until I went to put them away!

So for your delectation, a bit of a comparison for anyone wanting to do some shopping.

The book-format publications are a bound copy version of the correspondence pamphlets intended for more institutional use (or possibly for more well-heeled buyers). So the pamphlets I have are parts one, and two, and the two books combine the two with a break in between for exam questions.

The pamphlets, never being intended for long use, lack a table of contents, which makes them harder to compare. (They've got an outline-level TOC in the back, but not as thorough or useful as the TOCs in the bound versions.)

All formats open with remarks on why it's a good idea to make your own underwear, what makes good underwear, economy, thrift, and style, and the importance of cleanliness and "daintiness" (which is a weird period conglomeration of both "tastefully dull" and "doesn't smell or exhibit signs of having any bodily functions except maybe respiration" - really what an euphemism!) By 1935, that term "daintiness" has disappeared.

In 1916/1920 volume one is all brassieres, corset covers, and camisoles, then a short section on petticoats. In 1925/1930 it's chemises, combinations, drawers, and brassieres. presumably because by 1930 we'd tried real hard to do away with corsets and needed more bifurcated garments. The 1935 volume one is considerably more streamlined: chemises, brassieres, and a section on panties, bloomers and shorts.

Volume two covers slips, sleepwear, and robes/negligees, though the terminology and emphasis varies.

1916/1920 calls them "foundation slips", then covers nightgowns, pajamas, and finally *gasp*, drawers ad combinations. 1926/1930 covers "costume slips", then petticoats, sleeping garments, "kimonos, bathrobes and negligees", then short negligees. 1935 is costume slips, petticoats, nightgowns, pajamas, negligees and bathrobes, bed jackets (which are the short negligees), and a new separate section on handwork.

Okay, so that's a dry collation. What's *interesting* to me here is that the changing contents here illustrates the changes in fashion and the need for the book to continually reinvent itself to cover what women were actually wearing. The introductory sections for each are *really interesting* because they give Mary's views on underwear and how it's to be worn - she makes remarks about knitted undergarments being worn next to the skin, how to choose tasteful and appropriate undergarments for wearing under sheer dresses, how to wear or not wear different styles.

In all of the books, the focus is on turning the reader into a self-supporting seamstress, and the instructions talk through how to make the garment from layout to fancy finishes as sort of step-by-step tutorial of instructions for a single garment. Other garments that use the same technique will say things like "refer to instructions in Fig. 14." This makes it really hard to get a coherent syllabus from the book, which is presumably why there was a separate book produced later specifically for the people grading the correspondent's sent-in work. To find instructions for a specific technique, you have to first locate a garment that uses it, then find out of the instructions are in that tutorial, or only referenced from a previous one.

One of the other things that I found interesting was how dated and piecemeal some of the illustrations were. The 1916/1921 version had a mix illustrations where the ladies had WW1 hairstyles and "empire" waistlines, and others where the women had rolled or bobbed hair and were already quite angular. The 1926/1930s one was solidly in the 1920s, without a single bias-cut garment. The 1935 one, perhaps because it's the only one that was a brand new edition rather than a re-issue, is the only one that has illustrations that all look exactly like 1935 - but even then it talks about styles of garments clearly intended for women of the previous decade. This isn't supposed to get you to open a high-end youth-focused lingerie shop, it seems. It's to make your money making bloomers for the ageing flappers.

Great war hairstyles anyone?

And now on to the flappers...

The last thing that I found remarkable was that due to the vertical cut of the 1920s styles, the 1926/1930 book actually contains a lot of pattern drafts for garments, where both the earlier and later ones instruct you to buy and fit a commercial pattern. 

Is this post-Crash thrift? Or did Mary realize how exhausting it was to provide drafting instructions and give them the axe? In the 1935 book, it looks like she may have gotten some financial kickback from the pattern companies as well.