Soup & Old Clothes

December 28, 2004 6:52 AM

Photos of some seriously vintage clothing from 1830 up to 1910. Some fashions seemed ahead of their time while others were just plain strange. Care for some shoes my pretty?
posted by KevinSkomsvold (21 comments total)

Can you imagine what would happen if someone dressed a little boy in this outfit today?
posted by SisterHavana at 7:16 AM on December 28, 2004

And I could do without the ribbons, but otherwise these shoes are seriously cute.

(Great link!)
posted by SisterHavana at 7:22 AM on December 28, 2004

I'm going to vomit on the next person I see walking around Manhattan in a pair of moon boots.
posted by orange clock at 7:37 AM on December 28, 2004

I'm going to vomit on the next person I see walking around Manhattan in a pair of moon boots.

Heheh. Are those back? From the 70's? Oh man, those should have been buried with painters pants.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:40 AM on December 28, 2004

GEt yr vomit OFF MY FEET! Moon boots RAWK, you dorks!
Hey KevSkomsvold, excellent links! Oh, wouldn't it be great if people still had such beautifully crafted clothes?
posted by DenOfSizer at 7:56 AM on December 28, 2004

All is Vanity.
posted by jonmc at 7:57 AM on December 28, 2004

I've already seen a moon boot resurgence, and it's not pretty. In Vancouver, where it snows once a year if that, we got a huge dump of snow in the mid-eighties. A lot of people had moved here from Eastern Canada or the Prairies in the 70's and, not needing their winter clothes, stuffed everything in the closet or storage locker. When we suddenly got a huge snowfall everyone frantically searched for whatever cold weather clothes they could find. Which were these 70s remnants which had been preserved in suspended animation all this time. It was hilarious! Moon boots--definitely. Real sealskin boots also, which were popular in Canada at the time but definitely non-PC in the eighties. Big puffy metallic Michelin man parkas. Actually the puffy parkas seem to have come back in style--have to check my closet.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:12 AM on December 28, 2004

What are moon boots? Thanks, though, for this excellent link, KevinSkomsvold. An fine resource for the historical novelist -- especially the ladies' undergarmets. I mean, we all know what a bodice-ripper is, but what is a bodice?
posted by Faze at 8:40 AM on December 28, 2004

Faze: moon boots feature prominently in the movie Napoleon Dynamite. According to the movie they've never gone out of fashion in Utah and are worn all year, at least by dorks. They're kind of the footwear equivalent of the puffy parka, rising to mid-calf.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:02 AM on December 28, 2004

Moon Boots are slightly ridiculous.
posted by mosch at 9:13 AM on December 28, 2004

Nice pictures, mosch, but I contend that the true moon boot is metallic silver.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:18 AM on December 28, 2004

Thanks for letting me know what a moon boot is. I agree with odinsdream -- they look great -- both cool and warm at thhe same time.
posted by Faze at 9:27 AM on December 28, 2004

Son (daughter?), if you got caught in my town wearin' moon boots... let's say it wouldn't be pretty.
posted by Keyser Soze at 11:46 AM on December 28, 2004

Can you imagine wearing something like this after childbirth? Twenty inch waist indeed.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:51 AM on December 28, 2004

Hey, if you'd been wearing a corset since you put your hair up and your skirts down (10-12 or so), and had a 20" corseted waist before pregnancy....

(Of course, if you'd been wearing a corset for that long, you needed it, because you had no abdominal or back strength, especially after childbirth.)

I've never quite believed the measurements given on those old corsets anyway, because the fabric and the lacing stretches, and (afaict) most women didn't lace them until the edges met in the back.
posted by jlkr at 12:41 PM on December 28, 2004

The only reason I'm here is to find out what "seriously vintage" means. The links don't explain this. Is it an alternative to a trend toward frivolous vintageness?

Then, a couple of comments down, I am confronted with "seriously cute." This, at least conjures up some kind of image, but it may not be the one you're reaching for.

Can we retire "seriously," at least outside the emotional arena? You know, send it packing after "attitude" and "extreme."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:49 PM on December 28, 2004

That's seriously languagehat. Seriously.
posted by loquacious at 2:00 PM on December 28, 2004

Kirth. I meant "seriously vintage" in the sense that some of those clothes are very old and not your garden variety 50s, 60s and 70s vintage thats so popular with the youngins' these days. Hopefully this will clear up your quest to find the truth behind this statement.

And to answer your question, no.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:51 PM on December 28, 2004

So, "seriously vintage" means "very old." Thanks for clearing that up. I sort of got the very old part out of "clothing from 1830 up to 1910." But I suppose that's not stylish or obscure enough by itself.

And to answer your question, no.
Which question? No to frivolous vintageness, or no, we can't retire "seriously"? If it's the latter, you're going to sound very silly in 15 years when everyone else has stopped saying "seriously." I guess you'd say you'll sound seriously silly.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:18 PM on December 28, 2004

Christ, now I'm worried about sounding silly in 15 years.
posted by fleacircus at 7:43 PM on December 30, 2004

This reminds me of a book i have (somewhere), of a woman who had herself photographed in front of a period building here in the city in that decade's clothes that were of the same time--shot throughout the 70s. I'm a fan of the 1880's stuff.
posted by amberglow at 7:52 PM on December 30, 2004