Here, Kitty Kitty
Ang at Dorothea's Closet Vintage has this adorable kitten-print dress up for sale ...
It's got a little hurt going on -- it was part of a theater group's costume collection, so there are some repairs that wouldn't be visible from the opera circle but that would be if you wore it in "real life."
I used to have a problem with buying "hurt" dresses, especially at thrift stores. I would fall in love with them and want to fix them and make them all better, but what generally happened is that they fell into a laundry basket and gradually turned into vintage compost, because I hate mending.
So I will buy hurts now only on a few conditions -- if I want to use the buttons for something else, for example, or if the fabric is so fantastic that I have grand plans of scanning it and reproducing it (perhaps with the help of our friends at Spoonflower). This dress doesn't have any buttons, but I do think someone might want to buy it just for the fabric. So cute!
While I'm thinking big, I wish we had some kind of international print registry, where manufacturers would list their designs with various licenses. I know (or think I know) that there are big trade shows where you can see prints, and that some prints are licensed exclusively to one designer, or to one designer who does childrenswear and another who does swimwear, or whatever, but wouldn't it be fantastic if you could get, online, a listing of all giant artichoke prints (for example), available to download and have printed yourself for a small fee? I would gladly pay $10 (on top of whatever it cost me to print the fabric) for the right to print some yardage of some prints from years ago, and it's not like the manufacturers are making any $$ off those prints now!
Maybe I should go talk to Kathleen about this idea. :-)
Anyway, if you love cats, dresses, and don't mind a few small mends here and there, this is the dress for you. (Click on the image above to visit bigger pictures on Ang's site, then hit the "back" button on that page to get the listing information.)
It's got a little hurt going on -- it was part of a theater group's costume collection, so there are some repairs that wouldn't be visible from the opera circle but that would be if you wore it in "real life."
I used to have a problem with buying "hurt" dresses, especially at thrift stores. I would fall in love with them and want to fix them and make them all better, but what generally happened is that they fell into a laundry basket and gradually turned into vintage compost, because I hate mending.
So I will buy hurts now only on a few conditions -- if I want to use the buttons for something else, for example, or if the fabric is so fantastic that I have grand plans of scanning it and reproducing it (perhaps with the help of our friends at Spoonflower). This dress doesn't have any buttons, but I do think someone might want to buy it just for the fabric. So cute!
While I'm thinking big, I wish we had some kind of international print registry, where manufacturers would list their designs with various licenses. I know (or think I know) that there are big trade shows where you can see prints, and that some prints are licensed exclusively to one designer, or to one designer who does childrenswear and another who does swimwear, or whatever, but wouldn't it be fantastic if you could get, online, a listing of all giant artichoke prints (for example), available to download and have printed yourself for a small fee? I would gladly pay $10 (on top of whatever it cost me to print the fabric) for the right to print some yardage of some prints from years ago, and it's not like the manufacturers are making any $$ off those prints now!
Maybe I should go talk to Kathleen about this idea. :-)
Anyway, if you love cats, dresses, and don't mind a few small mends here and there, this is the dress for you. (Click on the image above to visit bigger pictures on Ang's site, then hit the "back" button on that page to get the listing information.)
posted by Erin @ 2:00 PM
35 Comments:
At Mar 3, 2009 3:05:00 PM,
eword10 said…
What a fantastic idea!!!
At Mar 3, 2009 3:30:00 PM,
real-vintage.com said…
:) ! Thanks for the mention, I love this dress and the unusual colorway!
Ang
At Mar 3, 2009 3:42:00 PM,
Theresa said…
Erin once you posted a Ruttabaga dress...or did I dream that...
if you did can you provide the date?
At Mar 3, 2009 4:54:00 PM,
Erin said…
Theresa, I think I just mentioned it in this post:
http://www.dressaday.com/labels/onions.html
At Mar 3, 2009 5:15:00 PM,
Ann said…
I used to work in a costume shop, so I made my living making hurt dresses whole again (at least long enough to last the run). I'm afraid it's made me very tolerant of hems that are taped up and holes in the armpit. But, it's also made me refuse to touch pants that aren't new.
At Mar 3, 2009 5:31:00 PM,
annie lou said…
Pending orphan works copyright legislation includes incentives for visual works artists to create such databases of their materials (to help them from becoming "orphans"). However, much of the visual arts community is strongly opposed to the idea, believing that it would be too time intensive for individual designers and might make it easy for "pirates" to locate ideas. Personally, I'd think making it easier for legitimate users to find you and request licensing would be worthwhile instead of the current no use and therefore no extra money to the designer--but I guess that's just me.
At Mar 3, 2009 8:50:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Isn't this the dress from McCalls 9758 posted on 2/20 with a Peter Pan colar instead of the chokey one?
At Mar 3, 2009 10:30:00 PM,
indigotangerine said…
the chartreuse with the little collar, sighhhh.
-indigo
At Mar 4, 2009 9:56:00 AM,
Jen said…
Actually, when I went to the textile show in LA last, vendors were selling vintage clothing, fabric, and needlework as 'textile design samples' to designers.
If your fabric is old enough, I don't believe it is copyright protected (if it ever was), and can be duplicated.
At Mar 4, 2009 10:29:00 AM,
barbie2be said…
i love that fabric!!! so, so cute! i want it, but not for $115. :(
At Mar 4, 2009 10:37:00 AM,
Michelle said…
I signed up with Spoonflower and uploaded some calvin and hobbes prints! (I grew up reading and loving all their comics) can't wait to come up with the dough to have it printed and make some shirts for my boys out of it : )
I don't know if this'll work, but here are some links to see the ones I uploaded.
http://www.spoonflower.com/fabric_items/new?design_id=28580
http://www.spoonflower.com/fabric_items/new?design_id=28579
http://www.spoonflower.com/fabric_items/new?design_id=28578
At Mar 4, 2009 10:53:00 AM,
Erin said…
Hey Michelle,
I know everyone loves Calvin and Hobbes, but I would hesitate to print up C&H fabric, even for my personal use. The creator of C&H is notoriously opposed to licensed or derivative works, and has repeatedly sued people who have made C&H t-shirts, etc.
At Mar 4, 2009 11:19:00 AM,
wundermary said…
This post has been removed by the author.
At Mar 4, 2009 11:23:00 AM,
wundermary said…
This dress has a great cut. I've been known to pick up damaged clothes for the fabric, the buttons and to cut a pattern from.
Bill Watterson is the creator of Calvin and Hobbes and has been steadfast in his determination to not license his work. He believes that it cheapens the medium. The man could have made a killing with stuffed Hobbes' *, but it is not in his nature to do so. I too, would be reluctant to print fabric with his images, for just this reason.
*Is this the correct application for the apostrophe? This one always gets me...
At Mar 4, 2009 12:00:00 PM,
Michelle said…
hmm - thanks for the tipoff...
bummer : (
At Mar 4, 2009 1:13:00 PM,
Cookie said…
<< Is this the correct application for the apostrophe? This one always gets me...>>
Yes. One could also correctly spell it Hobbes's, but that's so cumbersome, and somehow unsightly, that it's long been acceptable to use the variant.
I just recently finally nailed down how to spell separate. No matter how many times I corrected it over 3 decades time, I would still spell it seperate. I finally drilled into my head that there are 2 'a's in the middle, bookended by 'e's (That's most probably incorrect apostrophe application of my own, there!)
At Mar 4, 2009 1:17:00 PM,
Cookie said…
OH GOD! I missguided you, wundermary! I thought we were talking about possessive apostrophes. I think in your case, it would be Hobbess. Oh dear, that looks awful. WHERE'S ERIN AND HER DICTIONARY, G-DAMN IT???
At Mar 4, 2009 1:39:00 PM,
Erin said…
No apostrophe is necessary, but it's a weird construction (Hobbeses) so I would write "stuffed Hobbes toys". Problem solved!
At Mar 4, 2009 2:49:00 PM,
Jen ~ MOMSPatterns said…
Cookie, I always remember separate from something some 2nd grade teacher told me years ago; I feel sure there was more to it, but..
There's A RAT in separate. There, now you'll REALLY never forget it!
If anyone else used this tool and knows the whole story to help it make more sense (or if you are my 2nd grade teacher, still alive and reading this blog..) PLEASE tell me! :D
LOVE that dress, Ang! You've really got some beautiful things on your site!!
At Mar 4, 2009 3:13:00 PM,
La BellaDonna said…
I'd love to find a print directory! Right now I'm looking for a replacement for a fabric I once had, and cannot now find: a green shamrock print on white (no, really!). The piece I had was a simple batiste, and the print was charming: it was a scrolling vine, with shamrocks rather than flowers. Dainty and very pretty, and I'm really annoyed that I can't find it. I'd LOVE to find it again.
I LOVE this dress. If I didn't have about six inches too much bust (and too much waist), it would be mine, mine, mine. I have about a gazillion buttons, so I could replace them easily. It was easier to find vintage that fit when I was much tinier than I currently am ... and likely to remain. Phooey.
I can just about guarantee that the Calvin and Hobbes prints are pirated. Bill Watterson has gotten no money for them, and they were done not only without his permission, but despite his very strongly expressed opposition. So if you really are a fan, I'd be inclined to show my respect by not using them. Which is kind of sucky, because - Calvin! And Hobbes! I miss them. *sigh*
For the possessive of a singular item ending in "S", it is "S" apostrophe "S": Hobbes's tuna sandwich. If it is singular and does not end in “S”, the singular possessive is apostrophe “S”: That is Bill Watterson’s comic. If it becomes plural by adding an “S”, then the plural possessive is “S” apostrophe: That is the Wattersons’ property. And although "Hobbes'" may be used, that doesn't make it correct, and if it comes up as a question on a test when you're applying for a job, it could certainly cost you the job - especially if someone else applies it correctly.
Keep this handy:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_do_you_use_an_apostrophe
At Mar 4, 2009 3:38:00 PM,
Ang. said…
Oh, temptation... Could this be a sign? I love kitties, this is my favorite shade of green (it matches my birthstone), and my name is even Ang. Ah... I have been saved by my tiny budget.
At Mar 5, 2009 1:14:00 AM,
wundermary said…
Maybe this thread needs to jump to Dictionary Evangelist! It's not possessive, just plural with that dang es that complicates everything. Hobbeses just looks wacko, I will avoid this in the future by being careful not to give names to any pets that end with es and rewording. Hopefully, I won't lose a job because of it! :P
At Mar 5, 2009 12:12:00 PM,
La BellaDonna said…
Wundermary, I don't blame you. But the shorter and simpler version of that is:
To construct a possessive noun:
If your noun is SINGULAR, add Apostrophe, "S":
The girl's sewing machine has been fixed.
If your noun is PLURAL and ENDS in "S" - just add Apostrophe.
All the girls' sewing machines have been fixed; the boys' sewing machines still need work.
--------------------------------
That should take care of the biggest "S"/ Apostrophe questions, because you know that plural nouns which end in anything BUT "S" DO get Apostrophe, "S" added:
The women's sewing machines are being replaced soon; so are the men's.
---------------------------------
I know you also know that you never ever add an apostrophe to a possessive pronoun:
His, Hers, Its
Never never never ever.
He left his house; she left her purse; the frog left its log.
---------------------------------
The only time "it" gets Apostrophe, "S" is when a letter has been left out:
I won't (will not*) come because it's (it is) too cold to set foot outside!
*originally, "woll not"
---------------------------------
By and large - i.e., often enough that you will seldom encounter this problem - an Apostrophe is NOT USED TO DENOTE PLURALS, and the users thereof should ... really stop (didn't want to get carried away and reveal my True Sentiments here), vis.:
The grocer's plural should just DIE: "apple's for sale", etc., are like nails on a blackboard. (This phenomenon is so widespread at grocery stores it has earned its own name.)
At Mar 5, 2009 2:00:00 PM,
Cookie said…
I will try to find the article...but unless it was a joke, the UK has done away with possessive S's in their street signs (!)
The Queen's Road will now be The Queens Road, etc. (Not that that's actually a street name, to my knowledge...but you get the picture.)
That article could have been from The Onion or something, though. I might be instigating an unnecessary scare...
At Mar 5, 2009 3:18:00 PM,
Frannie said…
I love this blog! It started out on vintage kitty dresses and morphed into Eats Shoots & Leaves.
At Mar 5, 2009 3:59:00 PM,
Lavon said…
I love the ideas!
I have purchased hurt dresses and I always mend them but in time the mend gets hurt again and the dress becomes lining for a purse because I loved the print so much.
At Mar 6, 2009 3:24:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Have you seen this fauxlero: http://www.tudorlinks.com/treasury/wedding/bride1896.html
?
At Mar 6, 2009 3:31:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
The thing about leaving possesive apostrophe out of road signs is true. The thinking is that it saves confusion,the difference between Queens Road or Queen's Road isn't obvious in speech and causes trouble for map readers and GPS systems.
Besides it should mean if you see an apostrophe on a road sign then they've shortened something.
Su
At Mar 6, 2009 3:37:00 AM,
wundermary said…
"The grocer's plural should just DIE: "apple's for sale", etc., are like nails on a blackboard. (This phenomenon is so widespread at grocery stores it has earned its own name.)"
I didn't know it had a special name! I work with people who do this often and I don't work in a grocery store. I work in a hospital! I see memos from the department head with glaring mistakes such as that and it irks me.
Hehe, the Onion...causing problems!
So, does anyone have an answer for this? I grew up in southern Wisconsin and I clearly remember being taught A E I O U and sometimes Y and W. Okay, the Y comes across from Scandinavian languages which were prevalent here. But, what's up with the W? I even checked with an old friend from 1st grade and she remembers it, too.
Just so I don't get too off-topic here: I like the purse lining idea.
At Mar 6, 2009 10:10:00 AM,
tami sunderson said…
great idea. i´m coveted:)
cheers,
tami
we are hiring fashion bloggers. apply now at www.stylishkidsinrot.com
At Mar 6, 2009 1:00:00 PM,
La BellaDonna said…
Wundermary, as a New Jersey native and a long-time transplant to Philadelphia, I have to say ... I'm thinking that "W" as a vowel is some kind of weird Wisconsin vowel envy. My Mom was a fanatical grammarian, and so were the nuns (trust me!), and although I remember A E I O U and sometimes Y, I do NOT remember W. EVER.
Oooh! Wikipedia says "W" - in MODERN WELSH. Are there lots of Welshmen and Welshwomen in Wisconsin? Do you say "cwm" a lot?
Most of the internet search is holding out for A E I O U and sometimes Y, in English. And American. "W" gets to be a vocoid.
Maybe it's a vowel only in Wisconsin?
At Mar 7, 2009 7:07:00 PM,
goldilocks said…
Vintage compost!!
A couple years ago, I decided never to let a garment hang around the mending/alterations pile longer than a month.
Even if it was expensive or sentimental or made of nice material.
Even if it's a child's item that COULD be handed down to a younger sibling, (if only Mama would fix that torn pocket!)
Even if it's my favorite maternity dress and I might get pregnant again and want it then.
You can see my will has been tested on this rule. lol.
If the damaged garment gets to the end of the month and hasn't either been reworn in spite of the damage, (coats with a ripped lining, etc) or actually FIXED, it's just not going to happen.
This rule worked wonders in my closet and laundry room. LOL.
At Mar 9, 2009 10:02:00 PM,
Julie said…
Fantastic idea!!!
At Mar 14, 2009 2:17:00 PM,
wundermary said…
Welsh! I looked this up and found that there were large Welsh farming populations in south eastern Wisconsin in the mid-1800s. Being from south eastern Wisconsin myself, this explains so much! Thanks!
At Mar 15, 2009 12:02:00 AM,
brista said…
Bill Watterson is the creator of Calvin and Hobbes and has been steadfast in his determination to not license his work. He believes that it cheapens the medium.
Well, Bill Watterson must be crazy pissed about Calvin peeing on various car logos, then!
Post a Comment
<< Home