Why I love, and wear, 1980s does 40s and 50s fashions

Last July, in celebration of the fact that I was born in the 1980s and that my birthday was the very next day, we took a look at 29 Things I Love About The 1980s. Today we're going to spend a few minutes focusing on another.

Generally speaking, vintage clothing is classified into three main camps: authentic vintage (that is to say, pieces that were produced during several decades ago), vintage reproduction (modern pieces which have been modeled in the style of, or created using original patterns for, vintage garments), and vintage appropriate clothes (modern pieces that, though not intentionally designed to be repro garments, are so classic or in keeping with the styles of a certain era, that they can be effectively incorporated into one's vintage wardrobe).

There is another category however, and it's one that a fair number of us vintage loving lasses avail of: 1980s does 1940s or 50s clothes.

This is a bit of a simplification of this category, as one can sometimes, for example, find 1970s does 1940s dresses, 1990s does 1930s dresses, and so on, but generally speaking, it was the 1980s - with its passion for some of the iconic styles and ageless tailoring of the mid-twentieth century that means you're most likely to unearth 1980s garments that very much look as though they could have been from the 1940s and 50s.

In a way, these pieces can be viewed as a type of vintage repro clothing, though few were actually made using yesteryear patterns or with that goal in mind. No, the wave of nostalgia that washed across the world (especially North America) for the forties and fifties during the exciting eighties is at the heart of these pieces, which though not always dead ringers for the clothes they were made to resemble, can be woven with great success into many a modern woman's vintage wardrobe.

Up until very recently, with notable exceptions made for certain famous designer brands (such as Laura Ashley), most 1980s does vintage garments could be had for a song (or nearly so), because they were seen more as being 80s styles than they were forties or fifties one. Over the past couple of years, online in particular, however I've noticed a sharp increase in the price of such garments, as their popularity has spread amongst the vintage fashion world.

That said, it's still often easier to find a great deal on mid-century inspired piece from the 1980s than it is on a similar garment from the 40s or 50s, and as a long time shopper (and wearer) of this category of clothing I cannot begin to encourage you enough to give it a spin yourself, too.

While there's nothing like the real deal when it comes to vintage. 1980s garments have a lot of advantages to them which one should not be too quick to dismiss out of hand. For starters, they're often sturdier (having existed for far fewer years) then some mid-century vintage pieces, frequently cost less, and are commonly made of materials that are a snap to launder.

Another point in their favour, as LandGirl 1980 discussed in her excellent post on this subject last year, is that they can often work splendidly if you don't have the kind of measurements that tend to jive well with pieces from your favourite mid-century decade(s).

Those who are new to world of vintage fashion and/or haven't had a lot of experience with 1980s garments, may wonder how to tell pieces from the eighties apart from those of earlier decades. Some very good signs that you're dealing with a later piece (by which I mean, not a garment from the 30s, 40s, 50s, or early 60s, but instead one from the 80s) are as follows:


-The fabric is polyester (which was invented in 1941), a poly blend, or another synthetic material that was not yet invented or in wide spread use during the mid-century.

-The fabric feels (and/or looks newer). Many vintage fabrics has a distinct quality, weight, texture and/or sheen to them which diminished or was seen less commonly amongst mass produced items of clothing as the decades wore on. If you have experience with handling and/or wearing 1940s or 50s garments, you'll likely be able to tell a 1950s cotton or a 1940s rayon, for example, apart from its 1980s counterpart simply based on how it feels in your hands (often the newer material will be thinner, for starters).

-The seams aren't finished or they're finished with a simple zigzag or similar stitch. While many earlier garments had finished seams, not all (including some handmade pieces) did, unlike those of the 1980s which almost always had finished seams (unless leaving them unfinished was part of the garment's design). By the same token, does the fabric on the seams have serging (which, though around in the 50s, wasn't nearly as common as it's become in more recent decades), or was the material pinked? If it was cut with pinking sheers, instead of being serged, you may have an older garment on your hands.

-The logo on the tag is more modern looking and/or there's a garment tag with washing. For more on dating vintage labels, I'm a big fan of this post from Sammy Davis Vintage on the topic.

-Garment size: As discussed here in a post here about vintage clothing sizes back in January, the numbers one finds on vintage clothes sizes have generally gotten smaller over the years. If a garment has a tag that says size 16, but it looks (and fits) more like a modern day size six, it's most likely from the 1930-50s. However, if it says size 10 or 12 but looks/fits more like a six, you're very likely dealing with a piece from the 1970s through the start of the 90s. There are no hard and fast rules about how much sizing has changed over the decades, but if you start (or already own) clothing from the 80s, you'll likely soon be able to determine which size, or sizes, from that decade fit you best and can then keep an eye out for such while on the prowl for your vintage inspired 80s pieces.

-The brand name stated on the tag is one that had yet to be formed during the 40s or 50s (for example, Ralph Lauren, was founded in 1967, so if you were holding, for example, a sweater from that brand, you could safely say at the very least that it’s impossible for it to be from the 1950s). The Vintage Fashion Guild has a stellar directory of vintage fashion labels which can be extremely helpful in dating a garment, so long as you have a label in place still.

-The zipper is plastic, not metal (this however, is not always a telltale sign because it's always possible to have a vintage garment whose original zipper was replaced with a more modern one at a later date). As well, zippers in garments from the earlier decades often tended to be sturdier, heavier and have larger “teeth” than those of more recent years.

-What shape and size are the pockets? As well, whereabouts on the garment are they placed? Pockets on the 1940s and 50s skirts and dresses were often generously sized and sometimes slanted; as well, it's not uncommon on such pieces to only have one pocket (frequently on the hip or front of the thigh), whereas 1980s styles commonly had smaller (slash or hidden) pockets on skirts and dresses, and larger pockets on one or both of the chest.

-How vivid are the colours? While it's certainly possible to find vintage pieces that are just about as vibrant today as the day they were first made, and conversely, 1980s pieces that have faded a great deal over the years (especially if they've been washed many times), how bright, crisp and fresh the colours do, or do not look, can sometimes help indicate if a garment is more recent or not.

-A dress (or skirt, or other type of garment) has an elastic waist. Though one does occasionally find elastic waistbands in mid-century clothes, they are much, much more common of those from the 1970s onward (especially those which allow for several inches of expansion).

-The over all look of the piece. Though this is something that will come with experience more than anything, if you've been wearing and/or studying vintage fashions for some time, you'll likely have developed an eye and ingrained sense of what era a piece is from. A huge part of the appeal of 1980s does 40s and 50s pieces is the striking resemblance they bear to their earlier counterpoints, however upon closer scrutiny, one can often tell - through the detailing, cut of the garment, hem length, and all the other points previous stated here - if a piece is in fact newer or older.

♥ ♥ ♥

I cannot stress highly enough that, generally speaking, all of these points are merely possible indicators, and that the dating of each specific garment will likely depend on a number of factors. Just about anyone could be duped, no matter their degree of expertise with vintage clothing, but if you have a keen sense of how the genuine articles of clothing from a certain era looked (and felt), it's often relatively easy to tell older pieces apart from newer ones which were designed to channel the spirit of the past.

Case in point, let's take a peak at the following two similar red shirtwaist dresses (both from etsy listings), the first of which is from the 1950s, the second from the 1980s.

{Image source}

This dress is as classic in cut as the day is long. It's buttons are hidden by a band of fabric (a fairly common sight on this style of dress from the 50s and early 60s, though you'll certainly find scads of shirtwaist dresses from that era with exposed buttons as well), the collar is simple and in keeping within the common range of the 50s (were it more elongated and/or pointed, or conversely, rounded, it might indicate that that this dress was from the 60s or 70s), the label (shown in a different photo in the listing) is aged looking and lists the size as 13/14 (the listing tells us that the actual measurements are a 33/34 bust and a 27 waist, which is in keeping with this size range for the 50s/early 60s), and the skirt is gently pleated (interestingly, which an unfinished hem).

The dress doesn't have too much in the way of structured lines to it, but the overall cut is relatively figure hugging (especially the top half), and the sleeves hit (depending on one's arm length) right above/at elbow length. Both of these elements are common of shirtwaist dresses of the era.

{Image source}

This dress shares much in common with the general style of the one above, however they're not dead ringers. This cheerful lipstick red frock features two large pockets over the breasts, both complete with metal snaps on them. Though you do occasionally see two pockets on the chest area of 1950s dresses, it was not an overly common style for the era at all, nor was the use of exposed metal snaps (which on this dress, also appear instead of buttons for the closures down the front).

The material is 100% wool, which certainly many vintage dresses were made of too, however label reveals that it's from Liz Clairborne (a popular ladies wear brand that was founded in 1976) and that's a size 6 petite (while petite garments existed in the 40s and 50s, a size 6 for an adult would have been nearly unheard, as most brands - and do keep in mind that the size of the garments were smaller than what we associate with these numbers today - started their lines at a size 9, 10, 10 or 12).

As these two dresses illustrate, it's possible to find 1980s pieces that share much in common with similar garments from 30 to 50 years earlier (note, for example, the slanted front hip pockets on the eighties dress, a style that was certainly common in the 1950s, too), but it's also good to be able to spot the differences between the two so that you aren't likely to unintentionally overpay for an eighties piece or be fooled by an unscrupulous - or innocently mistaken - seller who is listing an eighties item as one from an earlier decade.

♥ ♥ ♥

Terms like "1980s does 1950s" or "80s does 40s" have become well known amongst vintage sellers in recent years, so be sure to use them yourself if you're searching for such pieces online.

Though some are quick to turn up their noses at 1980s throwback pieces, there's zero reason for this kind of snobbery, or to view them as being any less worthy of a place in your vintage wardrobe as a genuine vintage garment, well made repro piece, or vintage appropriate item of clothing, the later of which "1980s does" items can certainly be viewed as in a roundabout way.

I have numerous 1980s (and a couple 70s) does 1940s and 50s dresses (and other garments) in my closet, spanning from classic shirtwaists (which were wildly popular during the eighties and can often be found still at local thrift and secondhand shop - not to mention potentially in the closest of some of your female relatives, if they held onto their eighties garb) to a slinky purple jersey number (seen here) that is just about the most comfortable garment I've ever owned.

Below are four photos from past outfit posts, all of which feature a great 1980s does 40s or 50s dress at their heart (note: while dresses are certainly one of the most common 1980s throwback pieces, virtually any type of garment, from swimsuits to blue jeans, can be found in this vast category).




On top of the points already discussed above, some of the other reasons why I really like many mid-century inspired fashions from the decade of my birth include the cute patterns (from charming novelty prints to tropical florals), fact that they're still relatively easy to find both online and off, and that I don't generally worry as much when I'm wearing them that I might accidentally rip, soil or stain my clothes as I go about my day.

In fact, if I know that I'm going to be someplace, say, where little kids, pets, lots of dirt, or the potential for grease are present, I'll very often opt for an 1980s garment over a genuine vintage (or pricey repro) piece, because - even if I love it dearly - I won't be quite as heartbroken if, goodness forbid, something unpleasant does befall it (especially because I’ll likely be able to launder it heavily without having to worry about accidentally doing further damage to the piece in the cleaning process).

As the years roll onward and prices continue to skyrocket across the vintage spectrum (not to mention the number of genuine vintage pieces on the market dwindles), I suspect that the popularity of 1980s does 40s and 50s pieces will only continue to grow, as more and more yesteryear fashion loving lasses develop a fondness for this category of clothing and the many benefits it can offer anyone's vintage wardrobe.

If you've not already done so, I urge you to consider picking up a great "80s does" piece or two for yourself. Style them with genuine mid-century accessories (and/or other articles of clothing), your usual old school inspired hair and make-up, and see for yourself just how lovely and vintage appropriate many of these pieces can truly be.

Vintage clothing sizing 101

Over the years one of the most frequently asked questions that I've received from those who are just starting to get into vintage fashion, or who have begun buying vintage clothing but don't have a lot of experience with it is, how come vintage sizes are a lot bigger than those today? Often followed quickly by, why am I such a larger size in vintage clothing then I am when I buy modern clothes?

These are excellent questions and today this post is going to answer both, as well as to explain a bit of the history behind ladies clothing sizing.

One of the most common misconceptions about vintage sizing - which, for the sake of this post, is going to focus primarily on the sizing applied to garments between the the years of approximately 1930 and 1960 - is that women in the past must have been a lot larger than your average woman today. This simply was not the case at all, and in fact, the average lady today is both taller and wider than than her mid-century counterpoint.

Then, as now, however, women come in all kinds of wonderful shapes and sizes, and there has been clothing designed to (ideally) fit them right off the rack. Ready made, as known as ready-to-wear, clothing, complete with sizes tags, emerged from the industrial revolution as factory began to churn out millions of mass market garments, thus freeing many people from having to choice between either making their own clothing at home or turning to a tailor or seamstress for their garments.

Whereas today's ladies clothing size scale starts as zero or two, depending on the brand, in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, most clothes intended for adult women started their sizing off at eight, ten or twelve, not zero (or, as has even emerged in recent years, “subzero” or “00” sizing).

There was no size zero for adults during this time period, and it is only as the decades have progressed and clothing manufactured gradually lowered the size number applied their garments (wherein keeping the actual measurements of the garments themselves about the same as they'd always been) that single digit clothing sizes became the norm for adult many women.

While there are no hard and fast rules (especially as clothing size numbers continue to drop as measurements remain the same - a practise which is known in the fashion industry as vanity sizing), generally speaking, garments from the 1930s-1950s are sized double plus or minus one or two sizes than what the same garment, manufactured and labelled by a company today, would be. For example, a dress from the 1950s with a size 18 tag would likely fit a woman today who wears a modern size eight or ten.

Case in point, when it comes to modern garments (produced in the last decade), I wear anything from a size a North American 3/4 to a size 8/9, with sizes four on top and six on the bottom being the most common (or, if working off of a small, medium, large, etc scale, an extra small to a large, with small and medium occurring most often in my closet).

With vintage garments from the 1940s and 50s, I typically wear a size 14, 16, or occasionally an 18 (with size 16 being the one which graces the most tags in my vintage wardrobe). Then, as now, even sized garments (12, 14, 16, etc) were more common, but some brands used uneven sizes (9, 11, 13, 15, and so on), especially those targeted towards, petite women, women who wore "half sizes", and plus sized ladies.

As there is almost no consistency between brands when it comes to sizing today (there was some variance in past, too, but not as much as nowadays), your best bet, without a doubt, is to disregard the size number on a vintage tag and instead work off of measurements (this particularly true if you're buying clothing online and thus can't try it on in person first before purchasing).

Believe me when I say that, regardless of if you wear vintage or modern clothing (or a mix of both), one of the best things you can ever do for yourself is to pay little to no attention to tag sizes when it comes to quickly judging if a garment will fit you or not. Such numbers are incredibly arbitrary and should never influence how a person feels about themselves either.

Instead of striving to be a certain size, channel your efforts in to finding garments that truly fit you properly. The best and most important way to do this is to know your measurements. I highly recommend that you periodically measure yourself at various key points on your body and keep a list of those measurements with you when shopping (back in December 2011 I detailed how to do just that in a post called The list of clothing measurements I never leave home without).




{Measurements are your best bet when it comes to ensuring that you find the best fitting vintage garment. Do not rely merely on size numbers listed on clothing tags. Image source.}


Any online vintage clothing seller worth their salt should always include key measurements in their listings. Generally, depending on the garment, these will include bust, waist, and hips. Other measurements may include overall length, shoulder to waist length, waist to hemline length, sleeve length, neck circumference, back width, and inseam. If you come across a garment online that doesn't include these measurements, but instead just a size number, be sure to ask the seller to provide details on the actual sizing.

Just as I might wear a vintage size 16 and a modern size six, so too am I different size in the 70s, 80s and sometimes even the 90s, as clothing sizes continued to change throughout those decades (for example, I have 1980s dresses that range in size from 4 to 12, with size ten being the most common for me).

Measurements are always what matter most. A label could say size 739, if it wanted to, and if it fit me comfortably and was flattering, I'd happily buy that garment. I do not put any stock into tag sizes and never let a bigger tag size determine how I feel about myself, so long as I'm presently happy with my weight (and even if, for whatever reason, I'm not, I still try not to let sizing bring me down at all).

Once you know your measurements, you'll likely figure out that there's a small range of one to three vintage sizes that work well for you (for example, if you're very svelte, you may wear a vintage size 8, 10 or 12, whereas most ladies will likely wear larger sizes, ranging from 12 to 22 or higher) and that you'll naturally gravitate towards these sizes (just as you would with modern sizes) when shopping for vintage clothes, whether online or in person.

Another point to keep in mind about vintage clothing sizes is that some companies produced different size ranges that were based off of different measurements. For example, throughout the mid-twentieth century, Sears often released the same garment in one or more of its most common size ranges: Juniors (designed for the slender teenage figure), Misses (average adult sizes), Half sizes (designed for women who were 5'3" and under and/or were of average height but fell between two even numbered clothing sizes), and Women's sizes (designed for plus sized gals).

For the most part, you really don't need to pay much attention to such terms, as they usually accompanied a size number as well. The one notable exception to this would be Women's sizes, which didn't progressively continue on from Misses sizes, as plus sizes do from smaller/average sizes today. Instead they often started at 38 and went up indefinitely from there (with 38 or 40 to 50 or 52 being a somewhat common size range). Again though, please don't worry about these numbers! You'll be using your own measurements when you shop for vintage garments and will simply be trying to find clothes that are as close as possible to those.

For those who may be curious, the following is a list - copied directly from the pages of a 1955 Sears catalog - that details the measurements, in inches, for the brand's Misses size range:


Size 10: 32.5 bust, 24.5 waist, 34 hips

Size 12: 34 bust, 25.5 waist, 36 hips

Size 14: 35.5 bust, 27 waist, 38 hips

Size 16: 37 bust, 28.5 waist, 40 hips

Size 18: 39 bust, 30.5 waist, 42 hips

Size 20: 41 bust, 32.5 waist, 44 hips


There is such an incredible variation in sizing between modern clothing manufacturers, that there's little use in showing you a similar size chart from one of today's brands. That isn't to say that each brand doesn't (in theory) stick to set of measurements across all of the garments they produce, many do, I just mean that this set of measurements is not shared universally between all clothing manufacturers. I suspect that just about everyone reading this post is familiar with how, when shopping for modern clothes, you can be one size in certain brand and a very different size in another (this is true almost no matter where in the world you buy your modern clothing from these days).

Vintage clothing sizes do not have to be a mystery at all, nor should someone ever feel deterred from wearing a vintage garment because the label says a size that it much bigger than the modern size they wear. One only has to hold up a size 16 dress from the 1950s to know that it's not a big garment in the slightest. In all likelihood, it will best fit a modern women who wears anything from a (North American) size four to a size eight or ten, depending on her personal measurements. But truly, there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to converting vintage sizes to modern ones or vice versa, and so once more, I must stress the importance of working off of your measurements.

These can certainly change over time to due to fluctuations in weight, but if you have a 38" bust today, you're likely going to fit into a garment with a 38" or 40" bust (assuming the seller measured the garment accurately), it's as simple, easy, and even fun as that. Once you know your measurements and have a decent idea of which vintage sizes fit you best, you can set about shopping for yesteryear clothing with much, much more easy and enjoyment.

Instead of flipping through a rack of garments that all have sizes such as 14, 16, 18, and 20 and thinking (erroneously) that they're all too big for you, you can instead (assuming one of those corresponds to your measurements) reach for your size and try it on in person, or buy it online (so long as the measurements stated in the listing will work for your body).

I may have touched on this point before in a past post, but it warrants bringing up again and is a very topical example to cap this post off with. It's often said that Marilyn Monroe, who was indeed famous for her va-va-voom curves, wore anything from a size 12 to 16. People often then rush to hold her up as a shinning beckon of plus sized beauty and body type because of this.

However, such folks are misguided because while Marilyn did in fact wear such sizes, they were vintage size 12s, 14s and 16s, not modern ones. If they were modern ones, she would fall into the lower end of the plus size scale, but again, they’re vintage sizes, which are equivalent to much smaller numbers today. As many of our own do, over the years Miss Monroe's weight fluctuated, but generally speaking, if she was alive (and the same size as she was back then) today, Marilyn would wear anything from a modern size 2 to a size 8 or even a 10, just depending on where she was buying her clothes.

By the same token, so too will your vintage size(s) differ from your modern ones. It would be virtually impossible for anyone who wears a size 16 in modern clothing to comfortably fit into a vintage size 16 and vice versa. You're not looking to match like to like, you're trying to find garments that fit you properly, and a list of your measurements is the key to making that happen.

So go out there, measurements in hand, and have a blast knowing that your vintage size is not the same as your modern one, and that such is exactly the same for everyone else on the planet! Fit, not size, is what truly counts, no matter if you're shopping for modern clothing or filling your wardrobe with nothing but vintage garments.