Update!
Advance 2302 (1939): $6 because it's tattered and missing the pointed collar. I can fix up a pointed collar, though, right? Totally worth it for that dress on the right, especially.
I have this weird idea that, instead of the ties, I'll either leave off the belt entirely, or I'll do a floating waistband. That is, a shaped waistband based on the tie pattern, in the length that would normally go with this size dress, but attached only at the placket seams (as shown in the picture). So, the waistband would hold the dress in but would leave the sides and back free to move around underneath it.
I'm not even sure that explanation makes sense. I'll just have to try it. The worst that happens is that I end up with a weird dress, right?
Advance 2302 (1939): $6 because it's tattered and missing the pointed collar. I can fix up a pointed collar, though, right? Totally worth it for that dress on the right, especially.
Two solid basics.
Butterick 4297 (1976-1977?): Awesome princess shirtdress. That's an attached tie belt. I'm not big on attached belts for two reasons: One is that they make it impossible to wear the dress with any other belts, and the other is that they increase the risk of the dress getting torn by the washing machine. Oh, and tie belts are a pain to iron, if I'm honest. So, three reasons. Plenty of reasons, at any rate.
Butterick 4297 (1976-1977?): Awesome princess shirtdress. That's an attached tie belt. I'm not big on attached belts for two reasons: One is that they make it impossible to wear the dress with any other belts, and the other is that they increase the risk of the dress getting torn by the washing machine. Oh, and tie belts are a pain to iron, if I'm honest. So, three reasons. Plenty of reasons, at any rate.
I have this weird idea that, instead of the ties, I'll either leave off the belt entirely, or I'll do a floating waistband. That is, a shaped waistband based on the tie pattern, in the length that would normally go with this size dress, but attached only at the placket seams (as shown in the picture). So, the waistband would hold the dress in but would leave the sides and back free to move around underneath it.I'm not even sure that explanation makes sense. I'll just have to try it. The worst that happens is that I end up with a weird dress, right?
Comments