Maybe because it just seems too preppy. I have never considered myself preppy. Or perhaps it is that I haven't had the best fitting results with Simplicity patterns and I'm getting cold feet about the muslin.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3610/d361068763dafa5b7a7ba36b42b88cba663a6a51" alt=""
I have a few patterns that could easily fall into the shirtdress category. Actually all of these patterns have button fronts.
And some of the patterns in my collection ummm, have that preppy vibe I didn't see myself as have going-on. How did these make it into my pattern stash?
Butterick 4892, circa 1997, has a short and long version of the shirtdress. Shirt like qualities include a button front and shirt collar.
It is still too preppy for my taste. Sew, next!
Another Butterick pattern from the same time. Were shirt dresses all the rage back in 1997? I can't remember. Perhaps it is just that shirt dresses are that classic piece that make into many wardrobes.
Okay, maybe these dresses haven't borrowed from the classic men's shirt to qualify as a shirt dress. They do, however, have button fronts.
These dresses could qualify as a shirt dress. The Vogue dress has a shirt collar and button front. And the Lisette Simplicity pattern has all the classic dress shirt features.
Am I stretching it here with these patterns? They both have button fronts.
Hmmm, I'm still thinking...
Good morning Graca,
ReplyDeleteI love that Pamella Roland pattern, very mad men-ish looks like something Trudy would wear.
Njeri
cutekipepeo@gmail.com
I'm loving the pamela Roland too- besides, don't we sew to have something different than everyone else? it won't be fun or wearable if you make something you aren't into.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments, I do love the Pamela Roland design too. I'm cutting out the pattern now. Thanks for the push it was just what I needed.
ReplyDelete