Next Up: The Bolero!

Now that my friend's wedding is behind us, it's time to get back to Vogue's New Book for Better Sewing. I'm quite looking forward to the next project, which is "the cropped, cutaway bolero."


I was lucky enough to find this pattern in my size, so I just plan on doing a simple tissue-fitting before going whack-whack into my fabric.

And oh! the fabric. I'm following VoNBBS's directives to the letter. Here's what they say: "we suggest a black velveteen, lined with black crepe, because it lends texture interest to any skirt you may combine it with." Seems like a good idea to me. I saw this black cotton velveteen on Gorgeous Fabrics, and was amazed by the low price. When I received it, I wasn't disappointed in the least. For $10 a yard, this compares to some $40 per yard velveteen I've seen in the Garment District. I have some black silk crepe on hand, so I'll be using that for the lining. See how good I am at following your instructions, VoNBBS?

This pattern has several fantastic variations, and VoNBBS offers instruction for a short-sleeved one as a bonus project. (It's the blue one above, but Doris drew in long sleeves. She wanted a long-sleeved version, dammit. To each her own!)

I think this variation is adorable, so I'll definitely be making it next. VoNBBS suggests sewing it in white pique, but I'm thinking a nice plum-colored wool boucle will be just the thing for fall.

I discovered a delightful little surprise in the pattern envelope: a flyer from Vogue Patters, singing the praises of separates. They've gone out of their way to suggest several skirt and blouse options to go with your new jacket. Isn't that kind of them?

So, "why separates," indeed? Well, according to Vogue, the reason is thus: "for a lot of variety at little cost to you." Okay, I'm with you there. But now check out this totally unintelligible sentence that follows:

"That's why to sew separates, designed by Vogue for now, is to be smart in fashion."

Uh, pardon? That has got to be the most awkwardly constructed sentence I've read in a long time. Perhaps it made more sense in 1952?