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?

Maker of various fabric things

Posts tagged: Bad pattern

When Patterns Lie: McCall’s M6097