Meeting the In-Laws

My parents stopped off in Santa Cruz yesterday to meet David's mother. They were to each other a social success.

Mama M. regaled my folks with the family history, which was right up my mother's ally. Back in the 70's while working on her Ph.D., the latter had collected oral histories of people in South Texas who had come to El Norte fleeing the Mexican Revolution and its consequences. Mama M. had pretty much the same story to tell. She was only two at the time her parents left, but she knew the family tale. Papa was away selling horses when some soldiers came into town. Mama M.'s mama fixed them a meal, and was consequently spared having the house searched for guns, which could have been big trouble, considering that she had told them there were none when, of course, there were. El Capitan told his men, "No, you leave that house alone. She was good to us." But when Papa came back home, Mama announced that she had had enough of that kind of thing and said she was ready to book it for El Norte. And so they did, eventually making their way to Idaho as farm laborers.

To top things off, one of David's sisters had gone on pilgrimage to San Juan de los Lagos, asking to survive her cancer long enough to see her children to adulthood. The milagro was granted. Mexican Revolution and pilgrimage... my parents, and especially my mother, were as happy as little clams. Mama M. served pound cake and coffee.

In other news, I believe I have found the perfect dress. Whether or not a pattern approximating this could be fashioned and executed without too much trouble remains to be seen, but by golly, this is what I'm talking about -- for the party, at least.

More on the date

It's looking as if June will be the time. The major consideration pointing to that over December is the groom's mama, who at 92, is not so keen on travel as she once was. The thought at this point is to have a small, quiet 'ceremony' in Santa Cruz on, say, the 16th or 17th so that she can be a part of it, and have the 'reception' in Corvallis a few days later on the 20th.

As my friend Ms. K points out, this way I can have two dresses... .

Really Over-the-Top Gurly Post Involving Dress Patterns that is Only Suitable for the Hardcore Historical Fashion Minded

I've been combing through some patterns that are readily available from the Big Three: Butterick, McCall's and Vogue. I haven't even started to comb through my collection of old patterns from the 50's that I have stashed away in the garage. The advantage of finding and altering a suitable pattern from the contemporarily made, is that I won't have to do much in the way of pattern re-drafting, which is not something I had a whole lot of experience with even when I sewed on a daily basis, oh those many, many years ago.

Yes, so, here are some thoughts:
Butterick 4918, reissued pattern from 1952. I would add 1.5 - 2 inch wide halter straps and might box pleat the skirt (shortened to tea length) to make it somewhat more structured.

Butterick 4919, reissued from 1952. This would be done in the tea length version. There might be a bit too much fabric in the halter bodice. I might make the V a bit wider and deeper. One of the things Ms K and I discovered when checking out dresses is that too much solid coverage up top is not particularly flattering; it makes me look like I'm wearing a 'big girl's' dress.


McCall's 5319. I could have some fun with this one: make the skirt a little longer, maybe fuller, with pleats instead of gathers; embroider embellishments on the central waist piece; pair it with an organza or chiffon (for a more flowy effect) over skirt.... hmmmm


McCall's 5580. I could see the halter version of this one paired with the sash effect shown on the strapless version.


Vogue 8150. This would be pretty flattering for a more contemporary design. I would shorten it to tea length (the pattern's shorter version has one of those awful asymmetrical hems.. I would just make it a straight hem), and I could see embroidering the straps. The skirt might even work with a chiffon over skirt.

Vogue 8470 (apologies for the especially tiny picture). Simple, to the point, made in a charmeuse, possibly add a chiffon overlay, maybe embroider the waist piece. Can be done in a halter version as well.

Vogue 8020. What I like about this is the box-pleated skirt. I would make it with a fairly substantially deep, broad V or scoop neck. An embroidered self-fabric belt would be cool.


Vogue 9668. I like the top half of all of these (the first version I could see doing with three-quarter length sleeves), paired with the third version's fuller tea-length skirt. It would be fun to embroider the waist piece, and version two's pencil skirt would look interesting with a full over skirt of sheer organza with the pencil skirt showing through.


Vogue 2960 reissue from 1954. This on would work pretty much as is. I might add a little subtle embroidery at the bust and maybe alter the sleeves so they are more shoulder straps than cap sleeves.

Vogue 2961 reissued from 1953. This stands as is. I could get some really nice decorative buttons and make a self-fabric belt.

Vogue 2962, reissued from 1957. Ms. K and I had talked about the potential silliness of me carrying a bouquet, and had discussed the option of a wrist corsage or one worn at the waist, a la this little number. I might need to reduce the amount of fabric at the bust, but maybe not. It might work better with more structured pleats at the skirt's waist, rather than the gathers.

Vogue 2902 reissued from 1952. Having the bust and waist be separate pieces tends to work best for me, I think, but this would be fine with some careful fitting. The waist corsage would be nice with this one, too.

Vogue 2903, reissued from 1957. Princess seaming takes more careful fitting/tailoring than some other patterns, but I love the inverted box pleats and the neckline. I could see doing this with three-quarter length sleeves.

Butterick 5209, reissued from 1947. I might consider pleating the skirt, rather than gathering it at the waist as shown, but the waist and bust gathers on the halter balance each other out so nicely.

Butterick 5032, reissued from 1952. Columnar doesn't work so well for me, but the organza over skirt would take care of that problem. I would lower the neckline.


Simplicity 3878. This frothy tulle-covered number from Jessica McClintock, even though it's 'contemporary' and not a vintage reissue, is so exactly like my mother's and Aunt Suzanne's old high school and college dance dresses from the 1950's that I wore to rags while playing dress up as a little girl (sorry, Cousin M... I think I had pretty much had my way with those dresses by the time you were ready to have your turn with them). This one is almost irresistible for that reason. I would go with the shorter tea length version, of course, and could add satin halter straps similar to those seen on McCall 5580 or Vogue 2961 above.

Vogue 8393. Another alternative would be to make a separate top and skirt. The first of these (shown in white on the left) would be improved with added halter straps a la McCall 5580 or Vogue 2961 above. I would pair the top with a full circle skirt. The two pieces could be made of the same fabric, or coordinating/contrasting fabrics.

Cursed Bust

Ms K and I did a preliminary foray into the bridal party dress exploration world, and it was helpful. I haven't yet been to one of those classic 'bridal shops' yet, which should really be a curious adventure -- curiouser and curiouser, said Alice -- but I do have a clearer idea of some of the things that would work. Something along the lines of what worked for the bustier 50's sirens would do the trick (I need to get cracking if I'm going to achieve quite that Sophia Elizabeth waistline...). I am not a columnar gal. I have never been a columnar gal. The 1930's, willowy, bias cut, Nora Charles (a.k.a. Myrna Loy) look, no matter how much I might love it, no matter how much it fits with my ring, just won't do.

Let's just remind you all that this is a dress I'm going to be making myself (with Ms. K's more expert muslin-making and fitting assistance). No, I am not off to drop $10,000 on a Vera Wang.

It's not just the money... it's the fuss and bother

The Cousin M. sent me this link to a Washington Post piece on the "anti-wedding," a wedding planned by two correspondents for a carefully vetted couple who wanted to buck the Wedding Industrial Complex (ah... so... I'm not the only one to have made that connection, yet another extension of Eisenhower's ____ - Industrial Complex legacy. Actually, what I noted was the Guurlfriend Industrial Complex, which I have yet to see mentioned by anyone else).

The "planners" and their vetted couple, I have to note, went through contortions to come up with a wedding that would be sufficiently disestablishmentarian. They saved money on a princess gown and flowers, but the bride experienced almost as much trauma and drama as any Bridezilla specimen. Let's face it; organizing a protest on Lafayette Square across from the White House takes planning, too. And a community organizer is still someone who can rally a bunch of people together to pull off some major feat. Let's not pretend that either don't take remarkable amounts of work to pull off with any amount of success.

It's the organizing that looms as my biggest potential downfall. If anyone asks me to become their Veep running mate, remind me of myself, will you? Money? Money is no object, because we have none. Well, not "none," but sufficiently little to be able to throw at the problem so that organizing becomes less of an issue for yours truly. All that said, even if I had endless amounts of money, I wouldn't want the standard "dream wedding" that the mags pitch as the must-have of all must-haves. I just want a great party and a fabulous dress to wear to it. And I don't even care if I never wear that dress again. Will Cindy McCain ever again wear the $360,000 ensemble she donned for the first night of the Republican Convention? Doubtful. Maybe the shoes, the watch and the jewelry she'll re-run, but I'll make book on her never more sporting that cloth-of-gold dress.

I can get some great silk fabric for no more than $14-$23 a yard, and suss out a pattern calling for no more than seven yards (and that's one heck of a poofy skirt, my friends). That's $160 of fabulousness there, tops. And if I never wear it again? As long as I have photo documentation of me in my fabulousness, I really don't care.

But back to the issue at hand. Organization, not money, is my big stumbling block. When I pitched the idea of the homemade cupcakes and cupcake decorating "bachelorette" party to Ms. K, who probably knows me and my organizing skills as well as anyone (I got her bare-minimum edited wedding video footage to her in time for a big celebration of her seven year itch), she laughed and laughed...... and predicted with some degree of prophetic accuracy that I would still be working on my dress the night before the event. I can pull together a class syllabus on some random subject thrown my way in no time. Business anthropology? Okay. Web cultures? Sure. Immigration in the new Europe? Bring it on, baby. A groovy party that happens to have me marrying the man I love inserted into it? Well, that's a completely different set of thought processes.

So, the point is, just because one is eschewing the standard "dream wedding," minimizing the costs and the froo-froo and the matching maids all in a row and the various bits and pieces of kitsch and pseudo royal trappings the wedding industry says one simply must have, doesn't mean one eliminates the potential for pipe dreams and imagined "perfect" scenarios and subsequent theatrics when the dancing fairy plums in the head turn out to be ill-tempered trolls with bad breath when seen in the light of day (i.e. reality).

Speaking of dancing fairy plums, I poked around in the Mill End fabric store a bit yesterday, and got some samples of potentially promising fabrics for that fabulous dress thing I was talking about. David likes teals and purples. I dig reds and gunmetal blue. I forced myself away from those mossy greens I inevitable stumble toward, and here's what I came up with, with my apologies to those of you who just aren't that into sewing and fabrics and fashion and all that sort of rot:

Various shades of tomato with blues and purples in silks (dupioni, taffeta, charmeuse and chiffon)

Silk dupioni in eggplant

Silk taffeta in a brownish eggplant

Silk charmeuse in gunmetal blue

Silk dupioni in a teal-tinged gunmetal blue

Silk chiffon in gunmetal-y teal

Iridescent silk taffeta in eggplant with greenish-copper tones

Silk charmeuse in tomato with overlay of two-tone peach chiffon

Silk dupioni in rusty tomato red

Silk jacquard in slightly iridescent tomato red

The Industry

For the past several days, I've been scouring the Internets for wedding related stuff. It seems appropriate enough that I do so, given that I scoured the Internets for the groom. I found the groom, miracle of miracles, but good ideas for a second wedding in my middle years seem somewhat less likely to pop up via online mediated methods for coming up with ideas.

The wedding industry these days is huge. Enormous. Obscene. I haven't fact-checked these stats, so until I do, take them with a certain amount of healthy skepticism, but one source I've found claims that the average price of a wedding these days is $20,000. One of my students last term did her paper on weddings and the processes people go through to decide what they are going to do. One couple she interviewed was given $12,000 by the bride's parents, then took out a loan themselves for another $15,000. The most elaborate wedding I've ever attended cost about $12,000. I cannot imagine what $27,000 might bring to the whole affair to make it worth going into the same amount of debt as a Honda Fit. The whole package would buy a Mini Cooper S convertible. Can I have the really cute car, please? I mean, if I'm going to be all materialistic and all that....

But this is what I find the really big, confusing mystery; the average honeymoon only costs $3,800. What's wrong with these people? I could put on a really rockin' party for $3,800, and use that $27,000 for one heck of a great trip. I mean one HECK of a great trip, lasting several months and covering several countries. Who on earth in their right minds would do it the other way around?

In an unthinking, impetuous moment, I subscribed to a site called "WeddingChannel.com" and am now inundated with daily emails about reception sites in my area, great deals on wedding favors and the latest news on the latest bridal trends. Short veils and bird's nests are apparently all the rage.

Bird's nests?

In an effort to get outside the proverbial bridal box, I googled "alternative wedding gowns." No. No goths, no saucy wench dresses, thank you. How about "nontraditional weddings?" No. Washing of feet will not be done. "Offbeat weddings?" No. No clown themes, pirate themes, circus themes, biker themes, marriage ceremonies performed in hot air balloons or vows recited while bungee jumping off bridges in New Zealand. No, no, no, no, no and no. No.

This afternoon I went up to Portland to tell one of my bestest friends the news. After the requisite gasps and hugs, she took me by the shoulders and said, "You HAVE to go dress shopping, and I HAVE to go with you." Ms K and I go back a ways with the whole fascination over clothing thing, so it's not as funny as some of you might think. Besides, that was the advice that one of her friends gave to her upon the announcement of her engagement, and she acknowledged that it was a remarkable experience. I am not going to buy the traditional wedding dress, and certainly won't be spending $10,000 on a Vera Wang, but at what other point in my life will I ever have a legitimate excuse to go into high end bridal shops and be waited on hand and foot as I try on clothes priced in the multi-thousands of dollars? I don't have a daughter, and never will, so I can't hope to one day live vicariously through her while she fantasy shops for a wedding dress she would never in a million years buy, so why the heck not do it myself when I have the opportunity to walk into those shops and say with a straight face that I'm getting married and need to see about a dress?

I told David about this Grand Idea this evening. He sounded slightly anxious, like perhaps I might actually decide to plunk down that $10,000, or worse, that I might want him to tag along on my shopping trips. No, darling... it was kind and sweet of you to offer to go see the 'Sex and the City' movie with me, but that's as far as I would ever expect you to go to indulge whatever gurlie tendencies I might have, and even that was above and beyond the call of duty. (He did not actually go to see 'Sex and the City' with me; I went with Ms K and her mom, and he went to 'Hellboy2' with my son and nephew.)

Bird's nests?