When Patterns Lie: McCall’s M6097

We interrupt your regularly scheduled entries for a quick feature: When Patterns Lie. I was browsing through the McCall’s Catalog in anticipation of a $1.99/pattern sale at JoAnn’s next weekend and came across a recent addition that I hadn’t seen: pattern M6097, billed as a “Misses’ Victorian Costume.” Misses? Sure. Costume? Definitely. Victorian? Only to whoever named the pattern.

McCall’s M6097 In the Wild at JoAnn fabric

Update: I ran by the fabric store tonight (I needed some bobbins desperately), and found it in the wild!. It’s even worse—they call it “Victorian Splendor” in the printed catalog.

Now, I’ll admit, most of my recent and most in-depth research has focused on Elizabethan clothing, but I also read up on later periods, including Victorian. I really love some Victorian fashions—most even—except for ridiculous gigot sleeves. McCall’s M6097 is not even close to Victorian. It’s like the bastard child of gowns from the mid-1500s and mid-1800s, with some late 1900s/2000s Faire gown and Wedding dress design genes thrown in for good measure. There might even be some 1600s and 1700s aspects.

McCall’s M6097 Front view — I’m really at a loss for anything on this pattern that can be described as “Victorian.” The back psuedo-bustling is Victorian-inspired, I suppose, however it looks more like a modern wedding dress style than anything Victorian that I’ve seen. The torso silhouette is vaguely correct for the mid-1800s, but the skirt screams petticoats and farthingales, not crinolines—and certainly not the quintessential bustle of the later Victorian period. Images from mcallpattern.mcall.com.

McCall’s M6097 Back view — I’m really at a loss for anything on this pattern that can be described as “Victorian.” The back psuedo-bustling is Victorian-inspired, I suppose, however it looks more like a modern wedding dress style than anything Victorian that I’ve seen. The torso silhouette is vaguely correct for the mid-1800s, but the skirt screams petticoats and farthingales, not crinolines—and certainly not the quintessential bustle of the later Victorian period. Images from mcallpattern.mcall.com.

What were they thinking, labeling this “Victorian?” Once again, I’d love to see research done by the big-name pattern companies for these types of costumes. Luckily, they didn’t sink so low as to put this in their “Historical” lineup, just the run-of-the-mill Halloween costumes, so I suppose you can’t expect too much.

1888 Gowns — These are Victorian. In order: 1888, 1874, 1850/60?, 1845. Notice that while some themes are seen on the McCall’s pattern, those themes come from a wide variety of styles and years. Images from various sources. Click on an image to go to source page.

1874 Bustled Train — These are Victorian. In order: 1888, 1874, 1850/60?, 1845. Notice that while some themes are seen on the McCall’s pattern, those themes come from a wide variety of styles and years. Images from various sources. Click on an image to go to source page.

If you’re looking for a Victorian pattern—even for Halloween—this is not the one to choose. Both McCall’s and their subsidiary Butterick have retired all patterns that are even remotely Victorian. Regardless, if you’re serious about making a Victorian costume or reproduction, you’ll get much higher-quality patterns and results from a reputable small company that focuses on historical patterning. Search engines and historical costuming blogs are your friends in finding those. Reconstructing History is one company I’ve heard good things about, and they recently started stocking Victorian patterns, although I’ve never used one of their patterns personally.

Have you come across any patterns that lie?

10 Responses to “When Patterns Lie: McCall’s M6097”

Lisa

10:58 am | 09/09/11

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, but I have to make a Victorian costume for my daughter’s school event. I got this pattern because it was so cheap (I am on a tight budget). I intend to change the sleeve, and eliminate the trailing portion of the bustle so that the dress looks more authentic. What else can I do to make this dress look more period?
- Rachael Arnold
  
  12:18 pm | 09/09/11
  
  Hi Lisa,
  
  It would help to know what exact period your daughter’s event is targeting. For instance, Civil War-era is going to need different adjustments than 1880s.
  
  Here’s another post on how those decades differ, which also has a link to a museum Web exhibit that shows different gowns. Maybe those can help inspire you.
  
  Also, I’m familiar with tight budgets, but depending on the decade of Victorian era and your timeframe to make it, you might want to check JoAnns or somewhere similar for a $0.99/1.99 sale on Simplicity or Butterick in the coming weeks. Simplicity has three reasonable Civil War-era gowns and Butterick also has one, as well as a new pattern for an approximate 1875 style. All five of those are drastically better than this McCall’s one. The Butterick 1870s one may also take a bit less fabric.
  
  Also, look online for collections of Victorian fashion to get an idea of the look. A place to start is the Ye Olde Fashion tubmblr.
Neko_chan

5:47 pm | 12/09/11

That would be why it is in the “costume” section and not the “historical” section of their own website.
It’s a costume.
Labeling it “big gothic dress” would put a lot of people off buying it, and those who are going to want to make an authentic Victorian dress, or a Victorian dress from a particular era will know about companies such as Truly Victorian.
- Rachael Arnold
  
  9:01 am | 12/11/11
  
  Yes, McCall’s did place it in the costume section rather than the historical, but even for someone looking for just a costume that looks Victorian, such as the woman who commented before you, it is lacking any cohesiveness for any Victorian decade.
  
  McCall’s can have their “big gothic dress” or a psuedo-Victorian dress or anything they want in their costume section, but they should bill things as such, and this is not “Victorian Splendor”.
loette

7:27 pm | 05/21/12

it dos’nt look like its from the 1900s and 2000s … people don’t wear stuff like that anymore. (in relation to the article)
Pattie Lincoln

11:27 am | 06/29/12

I bought this pattern and will be making as my daughter’s wedding dress.
Wrenn

2:28 pm | 06/21/13

I agree that it isn’t victorian.

However, I ended up buying the pattern for $1 at Joanne’s.

I am basing a Lady Sybil (Discworld) gown on it. It will work for a bit of fantasy.
- Rachael Arnold
  
  3:41 pm | 06/21/13
  
  I would LOVE to see that when you finish it!
  
  I really have nothing against the pattern or gown, it’s just not Victorian!
Robyn

4:26 pm | 09/30/13

I think this pattern fits more in the Baroque period (minus the bustle thingy)
I am going to use it for Venetian carnival dress