Women’s and girls’ wear: outerwear, nightwear, underwear and corsetry
Women’s and Maids’ [US: misses', not servants'] Civilian Clothing and Girls’ Civilian Clothing (in respect of which Purchase Tax is Chargeable) of the following Descriptions:
Overcoat.
Not to have:
- more than 2 pockets.
- more than 5 buttons and buttonholes.
- more than 1 inverted or box pleat, or 2 knife pleats, pressed or unpressed (underlap of each side of any pleat not to exceed 7″ when fully extended)
- more than 1 vent.
- more than 2 rows of additional stitching to reinforce seams.
- ornamental stitching except on collar, revers, front edges, pockets or belt (such ornamental stitching in each case not to exceed 4 rows).
- braid, embroidery, applique or ornamental quilting.
- pin or other ornamental tucking.
- pleats or bellows on pockets.
- imitation pockets.
- imitation buttonholes.
- external epaulettes.
- turnback cuffs, tabs, buttons or buttonholes on the sleeves.
- belts, other than of self cloth.
- fur, fur-fabric, velvet, velveteen, silk, rayon or leather trimmings.
- flares.
- capes, fixed or detachable.
- slide fasteners [zippers].
Sleeves not to measure more than 14″ at the wrist. Width of collar not to measure more than 6″. Hem not to be more than 2″ deep.
Jackets (including blazer unlined or saddle lined).
Not to exceed 28″ in length. Not to be double breasted. Not to have:
- more than 2 pockets.
- more than 4 buttons and 4 buttonholes.
- more than 2 rows of additional stitching to reinforce seams.
- ornamental stitching except on collar, revers, front edges and pickets (such ornamental stitching in each case not to exceed 4 rows).
- vents or slits.
- pleats of any description.
- pleats or bellows on pockets.
- imitation pockets.
- imitation buttonholes.
- braid, embroidery, applique or ornamental quilting.
- pin or other ornamental tucking.
- fur, fur-fabric, velvet, velveteen, silk, rayon or leather trimmings.
- buttons or buttonholes on sleeves.
- open cuffs or imitation open cuffs.
- belt of any description.
- slide fasteners [zippers].
Hem not to be more than 2″ deep.
Waistcoats.
No cloth or fabric waistcoats to be made [sorry, ladies!].
All Women’s and Maids’ Civilian Clothing being articles of nightwear and underwear, other than corsets and brassieres, in respect of which Purchase Tax is chargeable:
Not to have any:
- insertion of fabric for effect only.
- applique work.
- cornelly work.
- embroidery (except where used as overstitching on an overlocked edge).
- feather-stitching.
- frilling.
- gauging.
- ruching.
- lace or lace-net, including lace, lace-net or embroidered tops or motifs.
- hem stitching or faggot stitching, except where used (a) for the purpose of attaching a hem to a garment, or (b) as picot edging to form the edge of a garment.
Not to have:
- more than 60 inches total length of tucking or pin tucking.
- more than one name tab or drop ticket in addition to the size tab and utility label.
Women’s and maids’ civilian clothing (in respect of which Purchase Tax is chargeable) made from woven rayon cloth or warp knitted rayon locknit or circular knitted 100 per cent rayon fabric (other than ribbed or interlock fabric), being articles of nightwear and underwear of the following description:
Nightdresses, pyjamas, slips (petticoats), camiknickers, vests.
Not to have any hems of a finished width exceeding 1 inch.
Men’s, Women’s and Girls’ Civilian Clothing of the following Descriptions:
Corset and corset belt [except with a doctor's prescription].
Not to have:
- trimmings, fancy stitching, lace or lace net.
- more than 2 pairs of suspenders.
- suspender buckles or [illegible], except where used to join elastic to rigid suspender web.
- wedge busks.
- more than four studs on each busk.
- more than two hooks below busk.
- separate or reinforced lining.
- laces exceeding 4.5 yards in length.
No double body cloth to be used except to reinforce bottom of busk. No double interlining to be used for strapping. No plush or velvet to be used. The spacing of hook and eye type not to be less than 1.25″.
No corset or corset belt having a waist measurement not exceeding 32 inches shall contain more than 4 ounces of metal; so, however, that in the case of such corset or corset belt in the making of which no flat steel boning is used (except at either side of the lacing in the case of a back or front laced corset) such corset or corset belt may contain not more than 6.5 ounces of metal other than in the suspenders (if any).
No corset or corset belt having a waist measurement exceeding 32 inches shall contain more than 5 ounces of metal; so, however, that in the case of such corset or corset belt in the making of which no flat steel boning is used (except at either side of the lacing in the case of a back or front laced corset) such corset or corset belt may contain not more than 7.5 ounces of metal other than in the suspenders (if any).
No corset or corset belt shall contain more than .25 of an ounce of rubber, other than in the suspenders (if any) except in the case of a corset or corset belt in the making of which any of the following materials are used:
- Elastic net.
- 2-way stretch elastic fabric.
- woven elastic batiste, satin or brocade.
“partially in response to a question way back in the beginning of the year where you wondered why we lost our respect for well made clothing and began to accept junk as a good way to spend out money. ”
I think the junk attitude is a very American one and was adopted by the British, somewhat, much more recently. After WWII in the US, a boom happened VERY quickly because things were needed ASAP and everyone wanted all of this new stuff. The UK, and Europe in general was much slower to recover and people did without for years after the war. My parents were in the UK in the 60s, and my Mom still compares the quality found there with what they found here in 1970. Everyone here had so much “stuff” and while my Dad was alive anyway, things were fully used up before being replaced. Now she’s relaxed on that a LITTLE bit.
She is a seamstress by trade though and always had an eye out for the better made clothes out there, even when bought off the rack. From Junior High onward whenever shopping with friends, I’m the one making them check tags and see if it will shrink before they pick a size and telling them how to wash it.
I still find the “accepting junk” attitude to be very, very North American. I find craftsmanship is still valued more in Europe as well as New Zealand than it is here or in Australia, though Aus is still a step above. I think we’re slowly getting back to the quality over quantity or price attitude, but its VERY slow in coming.
Oh, Rueby, the Brits accept a fair old load of junk themselves! Nasty cheap wool coats, fake fur, fake leather everything… but that’s a whole ‘nother post. I think it’s a bizarre hangover from the relentlessly frugal postwar years — modern Brits are slaves to false economy, just as Americans are slaves to their compulsive love of quantity. My boyfriend makes twice what I make and still has to be lectured out of bringing home garbage bags so flimsy they need triple-bagging.
NOW, I would agree with you. For sure I would agree. But while that stuff was becoming prominent in America as early as the 50s (here I suppose I’m thinking of sheer mass of STUFF), I think it came later to the UK…more like late 60s. I know when wandering antique shops in Brighton, I was amazed at the lack of earlier than 60s stuff.
Same does go for Australia (but how I love Supra and Cotton On!!) but I observed a HUGE DIY culture in Australia and especially in New Zealand that I don’t find we have here. Maybe centralized in LA, NY and Toronto….yes; but I found a ton of independent designers all over the place in Australia and NZ and they are visible without seeking them out, cus lord knows a backpackers budget is not conducive to clothes shopping.
These are just my observations obviously…garnered from about a month in the UK and 6 months between Aus and NZ.
No, Australia is full of junk clothing, and more and more Aussies realize it. Really. Absolute rubbish. I can’t begin to tell you the horror stories from when I first moved here and tried to go clothes shopping. I couldn’t find anything. I spent entire days out shopping and came back with NOTHING. The things I did buy were excessively expensive and tended to pill and fall apart after 2 or 3 washes. The fabric is generally a lower grade than what you’d find in the U.S., and the workmanship is awful. The price astounding. I could go and spend $35 on a top which is made from a cut that was fashionable when I was in college a few years ago and get three or four wears out of it. Meanwhile I still have american apparel t-shirts that are actually from my college years that look decent as ever. No wonder I went back to sewing for myself. A fair portion of my students cite junk fashion as a reason to learn to sew. Good for them.
I’m astonished that rationing covered how much stitching you could use on a garment… I mean… Would the police follow you down the street and fine you for *gasp* triple lines of top stitching on your shoulder seams??
Thanks for posting this, Susannah, I’m keeping them to help guide me when I’m making 40′s clothes.
all these stories make a good case for saving sales slips and tags and returning the trash.
Unfortunately, here in the UK, “It’s crap” is not usually considered a valid reason for returning clothing.
I guess, but here in the USA “it fell apart before I could wear it out the door even once”, IS a good reason to return it. LOL
I was just thinking that these restrictions, even though the net effect was to remove ornamentation for the period of about ten years, might well have had the long term effect of lessening the emotional “need” for ornamentation, particularly since the war would have increased everyone’s sense that ornamentation was Excess and only to be indulged in when you had time or enjoyment, etc.
in addition after the war everyone was busier trying to make up lost time in having or providing for family, etc.
in effect it may have had something or a lot to do with the turn toward basic off the rack clothing as the norm, as well as basic hair styles and less Effort in grooming, neatness and etc. Remember also that in the sixties the idea of ” wash and wear” was new and exciting, and no one knew that this fabric would be less comfortable or desirable in the long run.
Anyway, that’s my brain dump for the day, partially in response to a question way back in the beginning of the year where you wondered why we lost our respect for well made clothing and began to accept junk as a good way to spend out money.
FWIW, and please, I’d like to hear other peoples ideas, Kitty
Well, the postwar experiences in the US and UK were VERY different. A British friend of mine was surprised to learn that those years are often referred to in the States as a kind of golden age when the country basked in a new confidence, optimism and prosperity. Over here it was a totally different story. The country was literally and economically devastated by WW2, privation and rationing continued without the motivating force of war and massive class frictions were rising to the boil. Probably the best single book to read on the topic is Austerity Britain. I know I’m always plugging this book, but it is essential reading. When I count my blessings I now number among them the fact that I am not living in London in 1948.
Anyway, the point is that after the war people in the UK, far from losing their taste for ornamentation, were frantic to escape from wartime austerity back into color, abundance, ornamentation and prosperity, but due to prevailing conditions, this was not widely possible. Women craved the New Look, but even after rationing ended (in 1948) it was beyond the means of all but the rich. I read an anecdote in which Alexander McQueen recalled going into a shop with his mother as a young child and watching her trying on a New Look outfit she couldn’t possibly afford, just to see and feel herself in it. As soon as women could bling up after the war, they went for it. (Have you seen mid-60s hairstyles?)