undergarments?

[kamikat]

Does anyone know what a 40's bra looks like? I have some repro 50's bullet bras for my 50's clothes, but they don't work under 40's clothes. Were they generally a more natural shape? I normally just wear any modern bra at hand, but now that I've invested in a good girdle, I'd like to have an authentic-looking bra as well.
kamikat

[MK]

I hope this helps:

http://www.vintagevixen.com/itemDisplay.asp?itemID=20993

[Kentucky Blues]

MK....?

[STHill]

Kentucky, M.K. is a renaissance man, comfortable and knowledgeable in a wide variety of situations. Meanwhile, we better get out of here before the girls call the authorities. Wait, M.K. is the "authorities"!

[Bobbi B.]

Kamikat, MK's example seems a bit fancy but it is similar to items I've seen in Sears & Roebuck catalogs (a great source, when you can find them) of the time. Someone has probably assembled a stylebook from them in the manner of similar offerings for the 30s and 20s.

There are a jillion '40s clothing and style links at Costumer's Manifesto (http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/1940links.htm), including one to "Everyday Styles of the Forties as Pictured in Sears Catalogs," a handy reference not outlandishly priced at Amazon.

Materials shortages would've affected WWII bras (etc.) -- a lot more than Technicolor Red went to war!* So more cotton than silk and synthetics (of which there were only two or three and those not very satisfactory) and none of the spandex we're familiar with. (Much-washed old elastic has distinctive scent that always takes me back to being quite young and playing dress-up!) "Recycled" satin was used, too, sometimes from (oh, the little-known costs of war) old wedding dresses.

Many of the more-constructed (not the shapeless short-spandex-tank ones) modern "sports bras" are close to 1940s types: wider band, support and a little but not excessive shaping. I don't know if my bete noir, the underwire, had yet gouged its way into wardrobes by the end of the decade; if so, I suspect it might've been popular with the "fast" set and not the mainstream. (I am being sniffy. Dear!) There's a 40s-styles paper doll book at Amazon that bears this out.

(I was taken aback to find on the CM page a link to a War Production Board guideline sheet for styles: no wide, full or long sleeves, no full-pleated skirts or dresses, and, other than formal wear, no skirts longer than 28" - 30"! Hemlines had been creeping up as the decade opened, reached the knee by the end, then went crashing back down to mid-calf -- and with pleats! -- in reaction to the lifting of controls after the war. Tsk, dear old Uncle Sam mandating short skirts, and he looks so nice, too). ;)

BB
_________________________
* That line -- "Technicolor Red has gone to war!" shows up in a lot of Warner films. It must have used a scarce chemical, probably in the final printing as few such films look especially off in terms of color. Wonder if any of the Fedora Lounge's resident cinema gals (or fellows) would know?

[Lauren]

hello!

It seems that early 40's were more like the bras of the 30's and 20's, with little in the way of support and no "enhansments" in general, though there probably were exceptions to this. Check Ebay for undergarment patterns, if you like. I have a cute little bra/tap pants pattern from the early-mid 40's that was purchased on there. Bras of the 40's got into the circular stitching or "cone" shape similar to the bullet bra, but with not quite so much emphasis. I am attaching an image of a undergarment timeline from a book I have that my help you out. Happy searching!

Lauren

[Lauren]

There's a couple from the 40's on this one as well...

[ITG]

Originally posted by Bobbi B.
[B]Kamikat, MK's example seems a bit fancy but it is similar to items I've seen in Sears & Roebuck catalogs (a great source, when you can find them) of the time. Someone has probably assembled a stylebook from them in the manner of similar offerings for the 30s and 20s.
Like this?
Everyday Fashions of the Forties (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486269183/ref=ase_thecostumersmani/102-9599031-5973724?v=glance&s=books)

"What American men, women and children wore in the 1940s, shown in 122 fully illustrated and captioned pages selected from rare copies of Sears catalogs, reproduced in large format on high-quality glossy stock. Hundreds of detailed drawings depict hats, overcoats and shoes, suits and dresses, sportswear, undergarments, corsetry, neckties, rainwear and personal accessories. JoAnne Olian is a curator of the costume collection at the Museum of the City of New York."

[MK]

Those are interesting drawings. They show panties worn under the garter belt. Ever photo I have ever seen from back in the day, panties were worn over the garter belt. I would assume to make trips to the toilet less of a hassle. I would think it would minimize the straps and hooks showing too.

Perhaps the drawings were done this way to show the garter with modesty. These days women wear panties under the garter belt because the gater belts today are made for the bedroom. They are just for show. They are on only long enough for the man to take them off. Also today's panties are cut so funky they would look wrong. You need the panty to come up to the waist and cover the butt to work....or those beautiful tap pants. I don't know why women gave up on those.

[Lauren]

or those beautiful tap pants. I don't know why women gave up on those.

Agreed. I think the lingerie was much sexier back then. It wasn't as scandelous and it looked so classy.

[kamikat]

Thanks for all the info. I think I have a pattern that will work perfectly. When I was first learning to sew bras, I thought it was a little too pointy, now I think it will do perfectly. For anyone interested in tap pants, the link below is my favorite pattern for them. Very comfy to sleep in, but I haven't tried them as day wear.
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi-bin/butterick/shop.cgi?s.item.B3264=x&TI=10009&pageNum=4
kamikat

[Bobbi B.]

Originally posted by Lauren Henline
Agreed. I think the lingerie was much sexier back then. It wasn't as scandelous and it looked so classy.
So true! I think two things started the trend: minis and jeans; once pantyhose (ugh!) were established as the norm, everything else followed, and we ended up with generally plainer, more form-fitting styles, the wilder of which are only suitable for very young physical-culture enthusiasts or Brazilian suntanners. (<--So speaks the woman who this very morning found her favorite wool skirt much too snug in the waist to wear. I am joining a gym, that's all there is to it).

While some new intimates imitate the older styles, a lot of it is as MK suggests, intended only for boudoir wear. (MK, some of us are beginning to suspect you of owning a collection of French postcards. You wolf!)

ITG: that's it! The titles of that series (she's done several, covering various decades) take me by surprise, whatever have they done with Mr. Roebuck?

BB

[MK]

Originally posted by Bobbi B.
While some new intimates imitate the older styles, a lot of it is as MK suggests, intended only for boudoir wear. (MK, some of us are beginning to suspect you of owning a collection of French postcards. You wolf!)

LOL!!

Being happily married for the past 16 years, there isn't much of the modern varity of ladies undergarments that I have not seen. Even the kind my wife doesn't wear, I see it all when shopping for lingerie with her.

As for the vintage variety...I have a decent library of books of the golden era, some of which discuss lingerie....some even have photographs.:D


BTW: I have that book ITG. It is worth getting.

[up196]

Originally posted by Bobbi B.
some of us are beginning to suspect you of owning a collection of French postcards. You wolf!) You know, all this talk reminds me of a guy I know who wears a woman's bra on a regular basis. I asked him once when he started doing that, and he replied "When my wife found it in our car." (rim shot)

[MK]

Don't get the wrong idea. Ladies lingerie belongs on ladies...and I feel sorry for those that are confused about that.

I just know what I like MY lady to wear.:cool:

[Matt Deckard]

http://www.dandelion-vintage.com/16.html

[Bobbi B.]

Pish and tosh, UP196. If I did not work outside the home and around men, I would be shocked. Shocked!

MK, I would certainly not accuse you of, er, unusual hobbies. No, I was merely implying that, as is generally typical of the male of the species, you might have just the slightest tendency to leer at photographs of glamorous women, all the more so if they are scantily clad. One expects this, even of married men. I am not alarmed to find my own dear hubby looking at pin-up pictures or even lingerie catalogs. --Some of the newer ones seem to be little more than pin-up magazines anyway, page after page that could easily have been covers of the Police Gazette!

...And now is a very good time for me to look up in alarm, blurt, "Oh, my heavens, the roast!" and dash into the kitchen.

BB

[Bobbi B.]

PS to Lauren Henline, thinking of -- more chaste but no less fetching! -- glamorous photographs: A gentleman giving his name as "Mr. DeMille" telephoned and left a message for you, something about your new avatar photo and then he said the oddest thing, "She really is ready for her close-up."

I'm not at all sure what he meant but he seemed very nice.

:)
BB


(That snapshot's grand!)

[Lauren]

Ha ha! I can't wait to see him in his riding breeches! Thanks very much :)

Lauren