I found Simplicity 2733 at an op-shop a few days ago, and it has turned out to be quite a fascinating piece.
On the surface, it looks simple: a basic late ’50s blouse pattern:
Simplicity 2733 late 1950s blouse
The pattern wasn’t a lot, and I was in a hurry, so I didn’t inspect it at the op shop. When I came home and opened it up, I was surprised for two reasons.
First, I got a bonus! It also included most of the pieces (all but the longer sleeve view) and the instructions for Simplicity 1735. Sweet!
Simplicity 1735 via Ebay
The second surprise? Simplicity 2733 is late 1950s, but the pattern is a non-printed, pre-cut perforated pattern, of the type that you rarely see in post mid-1940s patterns. I have never before seen a 1950s pattern of this type.
What a conundrum. Why is this particular pattern so old-fashioned? Are all copies of 2733 like this? Or was this pattern produced in NZ, using older technology, meaning that the NZ version of the pattern is different than the usual international version?
Any thoughts? If you own Simplicity 2733, what is your version like?
I can remember being in Ballantynes with my mother when she pointed out firmly but clearly to the salesperson that the new, exciting, un-cut patterns were not a great leap forward for the dressmaker, but were a cost-cutting move for the seller. I can’t remember which pattern maker this was, but it was the first time we had met un-cut patterns. I was probably in my early teens, so this would have been in the early sixties.
Hope that helps. I do wish my dear mother hadn’t been one of those people who threw everything out! For the record, I have all my patterns from the mid-sixties onwards. 🙂
The shop had a special stand for the seller of these new ‘improved’ un-cut patterns to make their pitch. Much fuss and excitement.
I have a 1948 Simplicity pattern which is not printed. However it may have been produced in Britain, where the effects of WWII were still being felt.
All of my 40’s pattern are not printed, but I’ve never seen another late 50s pattern that wasn’t printed.
This has prompted me to have a look at the rest of my old patterns, which has been great fun. The big surprise was Vogue 5949, which appears to be 1963, but is unprinted.