Wholesale Couture: London and Beyond, 1930–70 9781350245860, 9781350245891, 9781350245877

Citation preview

Wholesale Couture

ii

Wholesale Couture London and Beyond, 1930–70 Liz Tregenza

BLOOMSBURY VISUAL ARTS Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY VISUAL ARTS and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © Liz Tregenza, 2023 Liz Tregenza has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on pp. x–xi constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design by Adriana Brioso Cover image: A woman modelling a tailored Simon Massey suit with a feathered hat, 1947. (© Chaloner Woods/Getty Images) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3502-4586-0 ePDF: 978-1-3502-4587-7 eBook: 978-1-3502-4588-4 Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of illustrations Acknowledgements

vi x

Introduction1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

From Bond Street to the golf club: The early history of wholesale couture Seventh Avenue in miniature: Manufacturing wholesale couture Can London become a world fashion centre? Reimagining wholesale couture in 1946 Avenue Montaigne in Market Street: Designing wholesale couture These labels stand for quality: Promoting wholesale couture London prepares an invasion: Exporting wholesale couture Switched on clothes for swinging girls? Youth fashion and wholesale couture

13 45 63 93 115 143 163

Conclusion185 Notes Bibliography Index

191 218 233

Illustrations Plates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Purple wool coat by Koupy and red wool coat by Simon Massey, late 1940s/early 1950s Dress of printed crepe by Rima. Fabric designed by Feliks Topolski for Ascher Ltd, c.1947 Koupy cherry red Utility coat, c.1942–5 Gobert jacket in blue paisley brocade, 1949 Frederick Starke green wool suit, late 1950s and gold and silver brocade evening dress, late 1950s Silk dress by Koupy with ‘double elevens’ label, c.1948 Advertising image featuring a Matita tennis outfit, Drapers’ Organiser, For May 1930 Brenner advertisement, Vogue, 19 February 1936 Frederick Starke advertisement featuring dresses made from Ascher silk scarves, May 1948 Frederick Starke dress in Seker’s ‘crease and crush resistant’ nylon, 1949 Frederick Starke garments sketched by Rene Dalgleish, The Australian Women’s Weekly, 5 September 1951 Frank Usher cotton evening dress with hooped skirt, c.1959 Tatler Front Cover, 9 May 1962, photographed by Barry Warner Three Frederick Starke ‘Fredrica’ cotton dresses, Spring/Summer 1954 ‘Simon Massey, Designed by Janice Wainwright’ tricel jersey garments, 1970 ‘Simon Massey, Designed by Janice Wainwright’ jersey outfits, photographed by Jim Lee, 1970

Illustrations

vii

Figures 1.1 Rose and Blairman advertisement featuring Dorville ‘Sports’ Clothes, Drapers’ Organiser, May 1932 1.2 Matita advertisement, Drapers’ Organiser, For November 1928 1.3 Mary Black advertisement featuring an illustration by Audrey Wynne Hatfield, Vogue, 22 April 1934 1.4 A&N Brenner advertisement featuring a rose georgette evening gown and black satin evening gown, Drapers’ Organiser, September 1925 1.5 Frederick Starke in his Bruton Street showroom, photographed by Terry Disney, 1966 1.6 Brenner Sports cutting room and machine room inside their premises at Carnaby House, Beak Street, c.1945 1.7 Model Heather Jeffery wearing a flame geranium coloured angora wool sweater suit, posed outside Starke’s Bruton Street Showroom, 1955 1.8 Exterior of Frederick Starke’s showroom at 31 Bruton Street, 1957 1.9 Frederick Starke’s models dressing room, photographed by Elsbeth Juda, Ambassador, November 1959 1.10 Frederick Starke advertisement shot in his showroom, Sketch, 8 November 1950 1.11 Brenner Sports showroom, 65 Grosvenor Street, photographed by Elsbeth Juda, Ambassador, No. 7 1947 1.12 Exterior of Rose and Blairman’s headquarters, Dorville House, 1959 1.13 Interior of Dorville House painted with ‘modernist’ patterns, Drapers’ Organiser, For March 1928 2.1 W&O Marcus fawn coloured coat, c.1942–45 2.2 Simon Massey suit jacket in black wool with black velvet and satin trims, c.1952 2.3 Frederick Starke dress in black taffeta, with peplum bustle and zip front detailing, originally retailed by Harrods, 1948 3.1 Green watermark taffeta dress by Mercia, late 1940s 3.2 Advertisement announcing the Model House Group’s inaugural combined show, Ambassador, No. 8 1946 3.3 Silhouette de Luxe ice blue dinner dress, September 1946 3.4 Frederick Starke black taffeta dress, September 1946 3.5 Rima four-piece wine coloured birds-eye tweed outfit, Ambassador, No. 9 1946

15 16 19 20 29 32 36 36 38 39 40 41 42 54 55 56 67 71 72 72 73

viii

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Illustrations

Wholesale couture ‘daywear’ at Britain Can Make It, 1946 Wholesale couture ‘eveningwear’ at Britain Can Make It, 1946 Two garments displayed at Britain Can Make It, 1946 Britain Can Make It editorial feature, Harper’s Bazaar, October 1946 3.10 Britain Can Make It editorial feature, Fashion and Fabrics, October 1946 3.11 Brenner advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, October 1946 3.12 Brenner advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, December 1946 3.13 Rehearsal for the Midnight Parade of Fashion, 2 October 1946 3.14 Two models pose at the preview for the Midnight Parade of Fashion, 2 October 1946 3.15 Garments featured in the Midnight Parade of Fashion, Fashion Forecast, October 1946 4.1 Sybil Zelker and her fitter working on the adaptation of a Paris couture model by Givenchy, photographed by Maurice Ambler, Picture Post, April 1955 4.2 Frederick Starke pigeon grey wool suit with vibrant crimson cummerbund sash, 1952 4.3 Frederick Starke suit, photographed by Norman Parkinson, Vogue, May 1952 4.4 Jacques Fath suit, photographed by Karen Radkai, Harper’s Bazaar, April 1952 4.5 W&O Marcus advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, May 1952 4.6 Olive O’Neill at work in her office, Tatler, 6 December 1961 4.7 Spectator Sports advertisement for a two-piece effect evening dress consisting of black crepe skirt and red and gold lame blouse, Drapers’ Organiser, December 1933 5.1 Various wholesale couture labels, 1940s and 1950s 5.2 Frederick Starke light brown check wool jacket with velvet accents, early 1950s 5.3 W&O Marcus advertisement, Tatler, 29 November 1944 5.4 Spectator advertisement featuring Seignon Nystrom, Tatler, 4 July 1945 5.5 Frederick Starke dress in Ascher printed rayon. Print designed by Christian Berard, Film Fashion Review, 1948 5.6 Dorville dress in Orlon, photographed by David Olins, Tatler, 30 December 1959

77 78 78 83 84 85 85 87 88 88

98 102 103 104 105 112

113 116 119 126 128 131 133

Illustrations

5.7 Dorville casuals jumpsuit in Helanca, photographed by David Olins, Tatler, 30 December 1959 5.8 Frederick Starke dress made from black pure silk and rayon Nottingham lace from the range of Harry Johnson Ltd, 1951 5.9 Editorial spread featuring garments by members of the MHG, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, February 1951 5.10 Behind the scenes of a special televised broadcast from Fashion Fortnight, photographed by Norman Parkinson, British Vogue Export Book, No. 4 1953 6.1 Matita advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, February 1938 6.2 Conker colour wool suit jacket by Rima with caramel wool accents around the buttonholes, 1941 6.3 Editorial feature including the Rima suit jacket seen in Figure 6.2, Harper’s Bazaar, June 1941 6.4 T Eaton advertisement for ‘English Models’ including Matita and Rima, 4 March 1948 7.1 The first advertisement for Fredrica dresses in ‘Wemco’ cotton, Harper’s Bazaar, March 1954 7.2 Frederick Starke cotton boufe playsuit and matching skirt, Britannia and Eve, June 1953 7.3 Fredrica cotton playsuit and matching skirt, 1958 7.4 Marla Scarafia in a Fredrica print cotton playsuit, photographed by John French 7.5 Three models dressed in Frederick Starke’s ‘tights’ and corduroy jackets on Bruton Street, 1959 7.6 St Martin’s School of Art students attending a Rose and Blairman fashion show at Dorville House, 31 March 1948 7.7 Angela Cash with two models in her creations, 20 October 1964 7.8 John Bates of Jean Varon with two models wearing his designs, 19 May 1965 C.1 Frederick Starke at Reldan brocade tunic suit, c.1969 C.2 Black Matita jacket with rouleau fastening, 1940s and Brenner green and black check double breasted jacket, 1950s

ix

133 135 135

141 143 147 148 152 164 166 166 167 169 172 176 179 186 187

A ­ cknowledgements This book has been a labour of love over the course of nearly a decade. It is the product of both amazing primary material and various people’s belief in my research. I cannot thank everyone who has helped me get this book over the finish line, but there have been some who have been particularly important. Ultimately, I am not sure if this book would have happened without Alison Carter, who I have been lucky to know since 2010. In early 2020 at a Southern Counties Costume Society study day, she gave me the final push I needed to submit my book proposal, which I had dithered over for six months. I am also extremely grateful to Lesley Miller, who read the draft of my proposal and gave me extremely helpful and constructive feedback. There have been many amazing friends who have provided support whilst I have been writing this book. Two of the most significant have been Bethan Bide and Lucie Whitmore. I’ve been lucky to know Bethan for seven years, our research continually complementing each other’s. I am so grateful for the many in-depth chats we have had about London ready-to-wear, revelling in our WhatsApp gossip about fashion empresarios of the 1940s and 1950s. It is also largely thanks to Bethan that I’ve got to know Lucie so well too. I’ve valued all of our conversations about London’s Jewish fashion makers so much! I noted when completing my bibliography that I do not cite Lou Taylor here; however, Lou has had a huge impact on my research and my continued scholarship. Lou believed in my research right from the first paper I presented on wholesale couture and it was because of her encouragement that I decided to pursue a PhD and kept working on the subject. My thanks also go out to the many people I met whilst completing my PhD at University of Brighton, but particularly to Cheryl Buckley who supervised my PhD through to completion. I must also thank a number of people who helped me to secure the images that appear in this book. Particularly Tom Gillmor at Mary Evans, for dealing with my continual requests for ‘just one more image’ and Ellie at Iconic images, who helped me track down an essential Norman Parkinson photograph I had given up all hope of being able to include. I am also extremely grateful to Kym Kent who let me use some images of her father, Nathan Brenner’s company and

­Acknowledgement

xi

for giving me a little background information on him. Equally, I must thank Matthew Sanders for talking in-depth with me about the Brenner family. Writing a book can be a painful process and unfortunately, I decided to take this statement literally. Whilst taking the photographs that pepper this book, I had a freak accident and ended up with a 1940s dressmaking pin embedded in my knee. It lodged itself so deeply I had to have emergency surgery to remove it. Thanks to Alice Thompson and Jamie at Sunset Studios for looking after me in the aftermath, and of course the NHS staff for extracting the pin! My final thanks must go to John Gilchrist (and Penny, of course). I love you and I promise I might do some of the housework now.

xii

­Introduction

In June 1946 an article in the trade journal Fashion and Fabrics suggested that wholesale couture garments were ‘replacing the demand once exclusively supplied by private retail workrooms’ and that [wholesale couture applies] ‘the principles of couture to trade requirements. It is, if anything, a more difficult and important function to be a couturier to the trade than to dress individuals in society, since it means combining production with ideas.’1 The term ‘wholesale couture’ has long since fallen out of general usage. However, between the 1930s and 1960s it was used to describe the pinnacle of the London ready-to-wear industry. Companies within this sector were generally recognized as creating garments that were heavily influenced by Parisian designs, yet adapted to meet ready-to-wear manufacturing techniques in Britain. This book traces the cycle of wholesale couture garments from concept to usage. It considers the design, manufacture, branding, promotion, retail and export of wholesale couturiers’ products alongside object-based analysis of surviving garments. The stories of those who designed, made, promoted and retailed the clothes have been uncovered in archives, magazines, trade journals, newspapers and even television reports. This study is an international one and investigates the transmission of London wholesale couture across a number of significant markets, particularly North America. Wholesale couturiers, as this book will demonstrate, were vital in securing London’s position as a twentiethcentury centre of ready-to-wear fashion. Wholesale couturiers traded on an oxymoronic exclusivity. Very rarely was a wholesale couture piece a one off, and the number of each model made was governed by the amount of cloth available. However, to increase the sense of exclusivity many wholesale couturiers had textiles manufactured exclusively for them. The cost of labour was high in this sector as workroom operatives needed to be highly skilled and specifically trained for work within wholesale couture companies. Certainly in the 1930s and 1940s there was considerable

2

Wholesale Couture

overlap between the skills of workroom operatives in both the wholesale couture and haute couture sectors in London. This method of trading was also costly because general overheads, such as lavish premises and press shows, were high and consequently most firms within the sector had relatively small net profits.2 In order to understand wholesale couture, it is necessary to consider the class of consumer who purchased such garments. Whilst wholesale couture presented an image of luxury and refinement, garments were primarily destined for the middle classes, a growing sector of society from the 1930s onwards. As Harry Hopkins suggested, ‘the middle bands of the social spectrum continued to broaden […] the edges of the lower bands continued to blur […] there began to emerge that theme, the theme of the endless Middle, which at so many points and so many levels was to be the theme of mid-century England.’3 Hopkins was not alone in this assessment, Elizabeth Ewing agreed, and suggested that ‘class distinctions were becoming blurred in dress just as they were in the world at large.’4 Wholesale couture was largely viewed as an affordable luxury and garments regularly appeared in Vogue’s Bargain of the Fortnight feature, and Harper’s Bazaar’s The Well-Spent Pound. One such feature, including garments by wholesale couture brands Dorville (Rose and Blairman), Brenner Sports and Spectator Sports, stated: ‘the subject of this feature is planned investment in good line and forward-looking fashion points, in the form of clothes which are not necessarily the cheapest, but are not high in price either […] All were picked for design and for quality of fabric […] Look every time for long-term value in fashion and in money.’5 Wider societal conditions broadly affected the fashion industry. The development of wholesale couture happened at a precise moment in the 1930s when there was an increasing shift from bespoke, made-to-measure clothes. There were multiple factors at play, both from a manufacturing and consumer perspective. Manufacturers themselves were turning away from bespoke production as it was, for many, not cost-effective. For consumers this was often both a financial choice and one based on time too. Many wealthier women could no longer afford and no longer had the time for the extensive fittings required for bespoke clothing, instead choosing to purchase wholesale couture. Wholesale couturiers were particularly badly affected by the tough economic conditions of the Second World War and immediate post-war years, as were the consumers who purchased their products. However, by 1951, when clothes rationing ended, the situation was brighter for both manufacturers and consumers alike. This period, post 1951, can be seen not only as one of affluence but optimism towards the

­Introductio

3

future which promoted consumer spending. There were various contributing factors which meant that people had considerably more disposable income to spend on clothes and an age of fast-paced consumption began to emerge. The foundation of the National Health Service, increasing take up of higher education, wage growth and higher levels of employment, saw people achieve a better standard of living, meaning they were able to enjoy more popular entertainment, socializing and importantly fashion. Indeed, the 1950s are often regarded as a decade of relative affluence in Britain – which was largely beneficial to middle-class consumers who purchased wholesale couture. This was not only seen in Britain but more widely in both Europe and America, which created a buoyant market for ready-to-wear fashion. In Producing Fashion: Commerce, Culture and Consumers Regina Lee Blaszyck argues that ‘if we are to understand how the fashion system works, scholars need to […] examine fashions relationship to commercial enterprise, looking more closely at connections among firms, individuals, ethnic groups, trade associations and industries.’6 Christopher Breward has suggested that this has particularly been a problem in studies of the London fashion industry, and that too often the various sectors of London’s clothing trade have been treated as ‘separate self-enclosed identities’, but ‘seeing each level of production running in parallel will lead to a more usefully heterogeneous, interconnected understanding of fashion culture.’7 Responding to this call to action, this book considers the complex identity of the London fashion industry between the 1930s and the 1960s, revealing the interconnected networks of individuals and companies which collaborated through official groups, bodies and organizations, looking particularly at the activities of the Model House Group (1946–58) and Fashion House Group (1958–66). Although competition was evident between the various factions of the industry, co-operation was apparent too. It is impossible to consider the activities of wholesale couturiers without recognizing the significance of either the London haute couturiers or mass production firms, particularly as some firms who produced wholesale couture had, at times, produced both couture and popular price fashion. Unquestionably one of the most important networks for the wholesale couture industry was an immigrant one and almost all of the figures discussed in this book were first and second generation Jewish immigrants. Scholars including Anna Nyburg, Anne Kershen and Andrew Godley have acknowledged the contribution Jewish immigrants made to the London fashion industry, and here I argue that the wholesale couture sector would not have been as successful

4

Wholesale Couture

as it was without such immigration.8 This network of Jewish immigrant entrepreneurs went beyond fashion manufacturers and it is striking that many of the fabric and accessory manufacturers that wholesale couturiers worked closely with were also of Jewish heritage. In contemporary British society, where the role of immigration is often questioned, demonstrating the necessity of immigration for creating a thriving British economy is particularly pertinent. These figures faced extreme challenges from poverty on arrival in London to language barriers and rampant anti-Semitism. Despite these difficulties many thrived and ultimately the London fashion industry needed these pioneers from a business and design perspective. Whilst the wholesale couture sector was successful by the mid-1930s, it was really the design skills of a large number of immigrants from Austria and Germany, who escaped Hitler’s regime, which helped to cement London’s position as a mid-century centre of high-fashion ready-to-wear. This study, looking into the wholesale couture industry, is the first of its kind. The sector has largely been overlooked by fashion historians for a multiplicity of reasons; not least because of the perception that the sector solely existed to copy French and Italian couture. In her 2015 PhD thesis, Michelle Jones suggested that one of the reasons why London couturiers have received limited study is because of their ‘mimetic’ relationship with Parisian couture which consequently ‘undermined the worthiness and relevance of the British couture industry to both fashion and design history’.9 The same, I argue, is true of wholesale couture. This has led to the significance of the sector being dismissed. Writing in 1975 Jane Dorner suggested that wholesale couture garments were ‘practical, if unadventurous. Their design was almost always modelled on Paris, but any idiosyncratic features would be removed so that a dress could run for up to five years without looking dated.’10 This book seeks to question and reassess this view. Copying was a key part of wholesale couturiers’ business, yet they should be considered beyond their design skills – recognized for their visionary promotion of the industry. Whilst Dorner was inherently dismissive of wholesale couture her analysis does point to a number of questions at the centre of this book. How were wholesale couturiers able to turn an outré Paris fashion into something suitable for the middle classes in Britain to wear? How precise were their copies and adaptations? And were they well received by the public and press? Writing in 2017 Maria Mackinney-Valentin stated that ‘copying is socially, creatively, and commercially ingrained into the very nature of fashion.’11 Furthermore, as Breward suggests, ‘since the time of Charles Worth modern

­Introductio

5

fashion has always been about the creation of brand identities and the complex relationship between haute couture and the industrial production of copies.’12 Recognizing that the mimetic nature of the fashion industry is a key part of how it functions, this book argues that the study of copies is vital to understanding the industry as a whole. The study of the copying and reproduction process helps to explain the couture industry; not least because as Hopkins argued in 1963, haute couture garments usage as models to be copied was vitally important to couture’s survival in the period under investigation: ‘haute couture was henceforth to find its most important function as a high powered publicity mechanism, a generator actuating a mass-sale ladies’ garment industry.’13 It should be noted that the copies wholesale couturiers created were not counterfeits and there was no attempt to deceive customers into believe they had acquired a couture piece. Rather, it was made clear that these pieces were adaptations by London brands, which carried a level of prestige in their own right. These were garments, which whilst still perfumed with the scent of Parisian couture, had been altered to suit the lives of middle-class women. As advertisements and editorials make clear, wholesale couturiers were not creating cheap imitations of haute couture pieces, rather investment garments, executed to an extremely high standard which could be worn season after season. The wholesale couture industry has been considered in a number of publications, although generally as an adjunct to another sector of the fashion industry.14 For example, Edwina Ehrman highlights the importance of wholesale couture as a supplement to London couture in London Couture 1923–75: British Luxury suggesting that ‘London’s identity as a fashion centre, and her international profile, was of a city that encompassed both couture and first class wholesale clothes.’15 The majority of texts that have discussed the wholesale couture industry in depth are over forty years old. It is perhaps because this sector no longer exists in a named sense that it is so rarely studied in more contemporary publications.16 Unfortunately, most contemporary publications which discuss wholesale couture cite erroneous information about the sector and the two key collaborative groups at the heart of the trade; the MHG and FHG. The majority of these texts cite fashion journalist Roma Fairley’s 1969 publication A Bomb in the Collection: Fashion with the Lid Off. Despite the fact that Fairley interviewed key fashion industry figures, the publication is littered with inaccuracies and often cites the incorrect dates for events that occurred less than ten years before. This speaks of the challenges associated with much primary material from the 1950s and 1960s and that, as Sonia Ashmore has suggested, in the 1960s ‘even the contemporary evidence was hazy.’17 Whilst

6

Wholesale Couture

fashion publications of the 1950s and 1960s have been key to this book it is because of these issues around contemporary evidence, that dates, figures and names have been cross-referenced between a number of publications to try and ensure they are accurate. Whilst there has been little prior scholarship on wholesale couture, this book sits amongst a now buoyant wider research field that considers early-tomid twentieth-century ready-to-wear fashion. Recent works by Nancy Deihl, Veronique Pouillard, Alexis Romano, Uwe Westphal and Johanna Zanon have considered various facets of international ready-to-wear industries.18 Over the past twenty years there has also been increasing research into British ready-to-wear of the 1930s–50s, notable works include those by Geraldine Biddle-Perry, Bethan Bide, Christine Boydell, Catherine Horwood, Geraldine Howell, Cheryl Roberts and Rachel Worth.19 Of particular note is Bide’s detailed scholarly yet deeply personal research which has widely investigated cultures of London making and has inspired multiple facets of the research in this book. The British ready-to-wear industry of the 1960s still receives considerably more attention from both an academic and popular perspective and multiple publications in the last twenty years have celebrating the work of individual designers who came to prominence in the 1960s, including John Bates, Barbara Hulanicki, Ossie Clark, Mary Quant, Foale and Tuffin and Jean Muir. This is understandable and symptomatic of the elevated position of the 1960s young ready-to-wear designer but paints an incomplete picture of the fashion industry. Whilst London ready-to-wear fashion was increasingly driven by brands that utilized their own names for their firms, these names did not, alone, set the tone for British ready-to-wear. As Cheryl Buckley and Hazel Clark suggest, ‘the [1960s] is presented in terms of boutique items that ignores the plethora of ready-to-wear companies that manufactured fashionable clothes for all aspects of the sector and for a range of markets and ages.’20 This book seeks to re-address this balance and both recognizes the importance of these young designers whilst questioning how they were connected to the rest of the ready-to-wear sector. Certainly, wholesale couturiers supported young London designers, Quant stated that Harold Rose of Rose and Blairman was ‘willing to make things specially’ for her: ‘He could not have been more understanding and helpful. He really backed us like mad.’21 Furthermore, the foundations were laid for this new era of young British designers in the 1930s and 1940s and the 1960s youth fashion boom cannot be read alone. A new system of government grants for students and the restructuring of fashion courses, with their increasing emphasis placed on design rather than making skills in the 1940s and 1950s, helped the industry to change.

­Introductio

7

Rather than offering a chronology, this book traces the development of wholesale couture over a forty-year period considering various key moments for the trade thematically. Adding complexity to an understanding of historical boundaries, it takes care to sidestep certain stories of fashion under predefined recognized periods, i.e. the 1950s versus the 1960s. It is essential in the instance of wholesale couture to break down the typical decade-based barriers applied to the fashion industry as firms were successful over a long period and the various waves their companies went through do not fit neatly within specific decades. This idea of continuity has wider cultural repercussions between the Second World War and the 1960s as Elizabeth Wilson proposed: It is customary to contrast the 1950s with the 1960s, the former as a period of right-wing traditionalism and cultural stagnation, the later as a period of ‘permissiveness’ and innovation. Such stereotypes contain some truth, but the contrast is also misleading. […] There was in any case considerable continuity between the 1950s and 1960s. The further penetration of capital into areas such as clothing, pop music and leisure and entertainment generally was an extension of what was happening in the 1950s.22

As this book will illustrate London was central to wholesale couturiers’ brand identities, the symbolic power of the city harnessed on labels and in advertising. However, the ‘London’ identity of such brands was sometimes a manufactured one; garment labels stated ‘Mayfair’ or ‘W1’, despite the fact these pieces were made in North or East London, or sometimes even further afield. The symbolic power of Mayfair was significant not just in Britain, but internationally, building on the traditions of London couture and bespoke artisanal craftsmanship which had historically been based in this area. David Gilbert has suggested that work into fashion cities has ‘tended to concentrate on individual cities and on certain defining historical periods. Sometimes this has made for rather inward looking studies of the fashion city’.23 He goes on to indicate that ‘our understanding of major fashion cities also needs to think of them as constituted through hybrid relationships and connections with other places.’24 Certainly London wholesale couture must be considered as constituted through a hybrid relationship, particularly with Paris and New York. I argue that American manufacturing methods were just as important to London wholesale couture as Parisian designs. These facets, combined with British fabrics and finishing, created the unique cocktail of wholesale couture. Wholesale couture, whilst imbued with the character of the capital was something so much more complex, this could hypothetically mean a suit initially designed

8

Wholesale Couture

in Paris, adapted in London by a German Jewish émigré, manufactured from fabric woven in Scotland, using machines imported from New York in an East End workroom by an by a Austrian Jewish émigré, promoted in a Mayfair salon to an audience of press and buyers from around the world, before being shipped off and sold in a department store in Toronto. This book utilizes a material culture approach, as proposed by Alexandra Kim and Ingrid Mida in The Dress Detective, to interrogate surviving examples of wholesale couture.25 The vast majority of garments studied here come from my personal collection. This has allowed me to form a particularly intimate connection with these garments, wearing some of the pieces myself and able to return to them time and again and reconsider them. The garments included here are a tiny fraction of the 200+ pieces of wholesale couture I have collected over the last fifteen years, some of which form part of everyday wardrobe (Plate 1). This research developed in part from my interest as a wearer, collector and seller of vintage clothing. It was through my business as a vintage dealer that I recognized that more in-depth information on wholesale couture brands was desired, with vintage consumers wanting more historical information about the garments they buy. Museum objects have been viewed in the process of this research; however, relatively few wholesale couture garments have been accessioned into British museum collections. Objects of note include a mid-1930s Dorville wool jersey jumpsuit and matching top in the collection of the National Museums Scotland (A.1986.37 and A.1986.49), two mid-1940s Brenner Sports suits in the Manchester Art Gallery collection (1954.801 and 1951.219) and a vibrant red mid-1940s Koupy coat in the Museum of London’s collection (45.3/2A). The Victoria and Albert Museum holds a small number of objects and documents associated with the wholesale couture trade. These include designs by Harold Felber, who worked for Brenner Sports (AAD/1991/13 and AAD/1994/3), Four ¼ scale couture models likely used by Rose and Blairman (T.17-2007, T.18-2007, T.19-2007 and T.20-2007) and two designs by Jane Elizabeth Green for Frederick Starke (E.414-2015 and E.415-2015). The V&A also holds a number of garments which can be defined as wholesale couture. One exemplary piece was produced by Rima, c.1947 (T.505–1985). The most striking element of the dress is its bold printed fabric, designed by Feliks Topolski for Ascher (Plate 2). The 1997 exhibition, The Cutting Edge: 50 Years of British Fashion 1947 to 1997, marked a significant moment in recognizing the value of British ready-to-wear, and most wholesale couture garments in the V&A’s collection were accessioned for or after this exhibition. One particular ensemble, a grey

­Introductio

9

wool suit with striking crimson cummerbund by Frederick Starke (discussed in chapter four) was accessioned for display in this exhibition (T.643:1 to 5-1996). The display of this suit in The Cutting Edge prompted Starke’s third wife, Pamela, to donate the Starke archive to the V&A. She wrote to curator Amy De La Haye after seeing the exhibition and stated, ‘I was very sad to realise that I had nothing, but photographs and press cuttings left of his beautiful clothes – one literally wore them to death.’ A handwritten note on the letter states, ‘spoke to her on the phone – she has press books. Not ready to part with them yet but would like to one day.’26 Wholesale couture garments are, however, rarely displayed in exhibitions. The reasons for which can be multifaceted, but typically because they do not fit into the key stories or the dominant narratives through which twentieth-century fashion history is typically explored. These garments exist in a liminal position; neither couture nor mass-produced. However, wholesale couture garments offer the chance to tell diverse stories; about British design and manufacture, the importance of immigration for the British fashion industry, the hegemony of Paris in the 1940s and 1950s, the reinvigoration of the British industry after the Second World War and the significance of export, particularly to the United States. The Starke archive is central to the research presented in this book (AAD/2000/10). The archive contains press cuttings and photographs relating to Starke’s business between 1949 and 1969. The material that survives is seemingly fairly random and covers only parts of this period. Despite its fragmented status, the archive demonstrates the variety of publications that Starke’s garments appeared in and the international reach of his brand. Starke’s archive is one of three wholesale couture archives known to survive.27 In his essay ‘The Ordinariness of the Archive’ Thomas Osborne suggests that the archive can be viewed as a ‘principle of credibility’ and that ‘one can write about the past in many ways’ but without archival credibility ‘one is not really doing history.’28 In essence, Osborne suggests that the existence of an archive helps to validate research. It can be argued therefore that the existence of Starke’s archive (as opposed to that of another wholesale couturier) provides the figure of Starke with ‘credibility’. It is because of the survival of Starke’s archive that many of the case studies within the book centre on him and his firm. Starke was a pioneering promoter and manufacturer but many of the narratives discussed in this book could have been framed around other key figures. Evidence suggests that the Brenner family and Charles Kuperstein were equally important in the early years of the wholesale couture trade, they certainly both played a role in the foundation of the MHG, but without a surviving archive they proved more challenging to research.

10

Wholesale Couture

This is not to discredit Starke’s position, as sources makes clear he was a vitally important figure in the London ready-to-wear trade. Starke was an excellent self-publicist, carefully cultivated his own image and was interviewed far more often than other wholesale couturiers. In 1960 British fashion journalist Anne Scott James described Starke as the ‘outstanding leader of the British fashion trade’.29 In 1965 she went on to suggest that he deserved a knighthood for his services to fashion.30 Importantly, he was not just a successful designer, rather his significance for the trade stemmed from his organizational skills, with Ewing stating that ‘fashion in our time owes much to Frederick Starke, not only as a manufacturer but also as a leader in creating a structure that would make the fashion industry effective at home and overseas.’31 This book is divided into seven chapters which consider wholesale couture from the 1930s to the 1960s. Chapter one explores the early history of the wholesale couture industry. It introduces some of the key figures behind wholesale couture firms, looking into their Jewish émigré heritage. In particular, it identifies the importance of Starke, discussing his background and family history and considering how and why he crafted a new identity for himself. This chapter also begins to unpack the geographical positioning of wholesale couture and the symbolic value attached to firms’ London premises. Chapter two turns to consider the manufacturing of wholesale couture in the 1930s and 1940s. It explores the importance of American manufacturing methods and how these helped improve efficiency in the industry. It also questions how the Second World War impacted wholesale couture manufacturing and why many wholesale couturiers found themselves in an even more difficult position in the post-war period. 1946 is a year that has generally been overlooked in traditional fashion histories. However, chapter three demonstrates the thriving, diverse and recovering fashion industry present in Britain immediately post-war. Concentrating on one year allows for a focused study of the layered connections between individuals, companies and groups, and demonstrates the complexity of the London ready-to-wear industry in the immediate post-war period. To this end, it focuses upon three events occurring in the Autumn of 1946, all of which were representative of a desire for change: the first MHG show, the Council of Industrial Design organized exhibition Britain Can Make It at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and finally the Guild of British Creative Designers inaugural Midnight Parade of Fashion at the Royal Albert Hall. These three events aimed to

­Introductio

11

demonstrate that British firms had survived the war and were again able to trade internationally. Whilst wholesale couturiers recognized that Paris would return as a key source of design inspiration, they saw this as an opportunity to cement their role as style leaders for fashionable women who could not afford or did not wish to wear bespoke haute couture. Chapter four explores how wholesale couturiers went about designing their garments. It considers in depth the process of turning a Paris haute couture design into a London ready-to-wear one with a case study of a couture copy by Starke in the V&A’s collection. This chapter also introduces some of the designers who worked for London wholesale couture firms and explores why their role was often overlooked. During the 1930s the notion of branded ready-to-wear developed considerably and chapter five considers how wholesale couturiers branded and labelled their products. It questions why physical labels within garments became increasingly important to consumers and explores the symbolic value of wholesale couture labels. It also explores the multifaceted avenues through which wholesale couturiers promoted their designs: from magazines and newspapers to television. Chapter six locates wholesale couture within the wider international context, focusing primarily on the post 1946 activities of the industry. It unpicks how wholesale couturiers exported British fashion, with a focus on two markets: North America and Australia. It investigates what supposedly British/English features appealed to international buyers and the symbolic value of the London label, largely built on mythical visions of the city’s past. In 1958 the FHG was established, with an inaugural ‘London Fashion Week’ in May 1959. Here, the innovative nature of the FHG’s fashion shows and the direction of the London fashion industry in the late 1950s is considered. In the 1950s wholesale couturiers increasingly had to diversify their output, and many launched youth or lower price ranges which were heavily promoted in the fashion press. Chapter seven broadly considers these diffusion lines. Here, the changing training of fashion designers between the 1930s and 1960s is questioned and I consider the role wholesale couturiers played in young fashion designers’ training and employment. Finally, this chapter turns to consider the 1965 FHG export drive, British Fashion ’66 (BF66), led by Starke and how this tapped into youth markets. Whilst BF66 was an incredibly successful venture, it signalled the beginning of the end for wholesale couture. Weaving the various threads of these chapters together this book will demonstrate that wholesale couturiers were not just copying and that they

12

Wholesale Couture

created their own unique designs alongside skilful adaptations. As I argue, their reconfiguring of haute couture styles for diverse markets internationally was an essential part of the fashion industry. Ultimately, wholesale couturiers must be recognized as pioneering promoters too who helped secure London’s status as an international centre of ready-to-wear fashion.

­1

From Bond Street to the golf club: The early history of wholesale couture

A 1932 Rose and Blairman advertisement suggested that their garments could be ‘worn with equal effect in Bond Street, at the golf club, or at a country race meeting. It is this inevitable correctness of Dorville Models for such diverse occasions that renders them so true an economy.’1 Whilst this advertisement predated the founding of the wholesale couture trade, it nevertheless establishes some of the principles that were important to wholesale couture firms. The idea that their garments should be versatile, high-quality, high-fashion pieces for women who lived active lives and that, whilst these garments were investment pieces, they were ultimately good value for money. This chapter explores the early history of the wholesale couture trade, focusing primarily on the period between 1920 and 1946. It introduces some of the firms that operated as wholesale couturiers and discusses some of their directors and designers, identifying the dominance of Jewish proprietors. It is impossible to cover every single wholesale couture firm here; however, the focus is upon those which later became part of the Model House Group and Fashion House Group. The geographical positioning of wholesale couturiers’ showrooms and the importance of their London identity is also considered in order to establish how such firms operated within the wider London fashion industry.

‘Sportswear’ and the foundation of London Wholesale Couture To understand the wholesale couture trade, a sector of the industry at its peak between the mid-1930s and mid-1960s, it is first necessary to consider the London ready-to-wear industry of the 1920s, as some of the firms which would later go on to lead the wholesale couture trade were established in that

14

Wholesale Couture

decade. One of the earliest was Rose and Blairman Ltd, founded by Harold Rose (born Harold Woodman Rosenberg in 1896 in Birmingham) and David Blairman (born David Blairmann in 1893 in Liverpool). Both men were of Jewish heritage; Rose’s grandparents had emigrated to England around the 1860s, and his father was a wholesale manufacturing clothier. Blairman’s parents were Polish immigrants, and his father (Jacob) Harris Blairman was a leading antiques dealer. Rose and Blairman was established c.1921 and produced most of its garments under the brand name Dorville. That year, the company first appeared in Kelly’s Post Office London Commercial and Trades Directory (Kelly’s Directory) described as ‘manufacturer’s agents’ operating from 2 Harewood Place, London.2 As early advertising points to, the company initially began selling imported French goods, before also manufacturing their own, primarily knitted, garments. Matita were also amongst the earliest established firms which later went on to create wholesale couture. The company was founded in Paris, c.1923 with a line of simple jersey separates. The London branch was established by Max Alfred Adler in 1924 with showrooms at 124 Great Portland Street, London. Adler, the son of wine merchants who had emigrated to London from Germany in the 1880s, was born in Paddington in 1894. He was a prolific advertiser from the establishment of the London branch and his advertisements provide rich information about the design, manufacture and customer base of his garments. In the 1920s and early 1930s Matita and Rose and Blairman primarily focused their production on what was described as ‘sportswear’ or ‘sportskits’. Whilst quite different to contemporary sportswear, these garments were designed for women who lived active lives and played sports such as golf and tennis. For middle-class women, the 1920s were a boom period for the popularity of various physical activities and unquestionably it was these consumers that wholesale couturiers were largely targeting. As Catherine Horwood suggests, it is ‘no coincidence’ that many golf clubs were established within or close to the new middle-class suburbs of the 1930s.3 Similarly, she writes that tennis was ‘central to the middle-class social scene, not only as a spectator sport but also as an activity that underpinned acceptance in local society and acted as a catalyst for social interplay’.4 Whilst British firms had a long history of making garments suited for sporting activities, in the 1920s, firms like Rose and Blairman and Matita increased the fashion content of such pieces, ensuring that they were stylish as well as practical. These versatile garments, mostly made from knitted fabrics, were designed to ensure freedom of movement for those that wore them (Figure 1.1).

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

15

Figure 1.1  Rose and Blairman advertisement featuring Dorville ‘Sports’ Clothes, Drapers’ Organiser, May 1932.

One lengthy 1928 Matita advertisement makes clear the company’s focus on sportswear. It stated: S­portswear for women was not a new idea, but the conception of making sportswear general fashion was original and like all ultimately practicable ideas, inevitable. It has the further advantage of being thoroughly British. The fashion of Sportswear is Britain’s contribution to the world of well-dressed women, and the unanimous acceptance of Matita sportswear by women of taste is a triumph for British fashion design. The idea that Paris styles are always accepted by English women is a mistake. English women demand models which combine charm and utility. […] The models are designed in the Matita studios in Paris and London, so they combine the advantages of the world’s two great fashion centres. The taste and daring of the Paris House, linked with the common sense and utility of the London House, is probably the secret why Matita spells leadership in Sportswear creation.5

16

Wholesale Couture

One example of Matita’s design aesthetic, which clearly borrowed from Paris, is a jumper that appeared in the November 1928 issue of Drapers’ Organiser. This long-line jumper was made from pale-coloured wool with a contrast trompe l’oeil bow pattern knitted around the neckline. This garment is very clearly a copy of Elsa Schiaparelli’s 1927 ‘cravat’ jumper – although the colours have been inverted. The advertisement in which it appeared does not, however, concentrate on the jumper, rather the attached ‘tee belt’ slung low at the waistline and clearly designed for women who played golf. This shows that whilst taking inspiration from a high-fashion garment, Matita’s version was designed to be worn for physical activities (Figure 1.2). By the early 1930s Matita advertisements placed emphasis on their ‘British designed’ garments, made in their own ‘model workrooms in the West End of London by skilled craftsmen’.6 Such advertisements, through carefully chosen

Figure 1.2  Matita advertisement for their ‘tee belt’. The jumper in the right-hand corner is an adaptation of an Elsa Schiaparelli design, Drapers’ Organiser, For November 1928.

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

17

language, helped to increase the symbolic value of the garments within them. As Agnès Rocamora has suggested, ‘words that are used in fashion writing do not simply describe the value of objects they are related to, they make it.’7 These advertisements pointed to the exclusivity and fine workmanship of the garments. It is significant that this Matita advertisement mentions craftsmen, rather than the seamstresses who were more than likely responsible for much of their garment production. This alludes to artisanal, bespoke production, even though Matita garments were produced in relatively large numbers. Furthermore, knowledgeable consumers would have recognized that exclusive couture garments were also made in the West End, and this was a way for firms like Matita to align themselves alongside couture production. Geraldine Howell has suggested that ‘during the 1930s the desire to possess beautiful clothes, had, arguably, never been stronger for two reasons. The first was the expanding variety of retail outlets […] providing greater choice in fashionable clothing and the second the arrival on the high street of cheaper clothing ranges catering for more modest incomes.’8 Wholesale couture, whilst part of wider narratives of the increasing availability of fashionable dress, was firmly targeted at middle-class women. The kind of women who, as Ewing suggested, ‘did not want time wasting fittings but had enough money to follow fashion’.9 Rose and Blairman and Matita advertisements regularly described the garments within them as ‘correct’ or ‘right’, pointing to the importance of being dressed appropriately for occasions and being aware of, yet not victim to, fashion. In their language, these advertisements tapped into middle-class fears around respectability and dress codes.10 By the 1930s well-made, mass-produced clothes were readily available, and as Horwood suggests, ‘as the mythical mill girl gained access to better quality clothing, so the middle-class shopper had to find other ways to distinguish him or herself visually.’11 Wholesale couture, with its relatively high price tag, offered this distinction. The language of much early wholesale couture advertising, using words such as ‘right’ and correct’ ultimately acted as a signal for the middle classes, that these were clothes suited to their lifestyles. Some wholesale couturiers posited this as insider knowledge. One Matita advertisement for example suggesting that ‘though English has no word for chic, smart women know that this indefinable quality is perfectly translated in Matita exclusive sportswear.’12 Ultimately much of this interwar coding of clothes was closely related to notions of what was, or was not, good taste. As Luca Vercelloni has suggested: The figurative use of the term ‘taste’ to refer to the human faculty for discerning between what is beautiful and what is ugly is a relatively recent cultural

18

Wholesale Couture acquisition  […] It implies being in possession of measure, refinement and skill  […] but also the enjoyment of products intended for contemplation, and indeed the ability to describe a cultural context and the stylistic features characteristic of a given period, nation or artistic circle.13

In the context of wholesale couture the implied ‘good taste’ seen in many advertisements related to a variety of factors; design borrowed from Parisian couture, excellent quality fabrics, manufacture which meant garments were designed to last and exclusivity – with garments sold only through a selection of high-end retail establishments, typically only accessible to middle and upperclass consumers. Not all early established wholesale couture firms produced sportswear, for some the initial focus was eveningwear. Mary Black for example was founded c.1925 at 78A Margaret Street, London, moving to a number of other addresses on the same street over the following years. Mary Black was a real person; however, owing to her common name (one that was likely not her birth name), she has been challenging to trace. Passenger manifests recording her travel to and from the United States do however indicate that she was born c.1900 in Odessa.14 Black’s business from the outset was based on ‘exclusive but inexpensive’ dresses, particularly eveningwear. Throughout the 1930s the message of ‘exclusivity’ continued to predominate her advertising, under the tagline ‘gowns of distinction’. However, whilst Black initially focused on the low cost of her garments, as the 1930s progressed her pieces were increasingly retailed at higher prices and she turned towards a luxury ready-to-wear production, as is exemplified by the illustrated colour advertisements she placed in fashion and trade magazines (Figure 1.3). A&N Brenner, established by Aron (who generally went by the name Harry) and Nathan Brenner (born 1893 and 1899, respectively, in Lviv, now Ukraine), went through various production focuses.15 The company was run briefly from 46B and 47 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, London where the brothers also lived. Data collected from Kelly’s Directory and the 1921 census indicates that the firm was likely established in 1921 and these sources help to build a picture of the early history of the company as a number of their employees can be found.16 These include Sarah Atlas born in Wilno, Poland, a ladies tailoress. Philip Goldstein, born in Lomza, Poland, a tailoring machiner and Samuel Herman, an apprentice cutter born in London to Polish parents from Yaroslav and Cracow. These examples clearly indicate the propensity for Jewish immigrant entrepreneurs to employ fellow immigrants and their children in their business.

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

19

Figure 1.3  Mary Black advertisement featuring an illustration by Audrey Wynne Hatfield, Vogue, 22 April 1934. © Mary Evans Picture Library.

By 1922 the firm had moved across London, with new premises at 40 Shaftesbury Avenue. The 1922 Kelly’s Directory suggests they were then operating as ‘coat manufacturers’. During the 1920s it can clearly be seen, through the advertisements they placed in trade journals, that their production output shifted towards eveningwear.17 For example, advertisements placed in Drapers’ Organiser show their tubular evening gowns embroidered with intricate beaded designs (Figure 1.4). From the mid-1930s their focus changed again and returned to tailored garments. Indeed, by the mid-1930s all of the firms discussed thus

20

Wholesale Couture

Figure 1.4  A&N Brenner advertisement featuring a rose georgette evening gown and black satin evening gown, Drapers’ Organiser, September 1925.

far produced a range of garments; from sportswear, to tailored suits, to evening wear. As the wholesale couture sector became properly established in the mid1930s, most manufacturers were producing diverse ranges of garments.

Immigrant entrepreneurs Almost all of the figures discussed in this book were first and second generation immigrants of Jewish heritage. Their families had largely escaped persecution as Jews during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, or from the Nazis in the 1930s. These men and women could trace their heritage back to various parts of Europe. Those who came post 1933 were largely from Germany or Austria.

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

21

However, most of those who had come in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century hailed from the Western edge of what was then the Russian Empire and the Eastern Edge of the Austro-Hungarian empire.18 Most of the figures discussed here had travelled themselves, or their parents had travelled, post 1880, to set up new lives in London. It is important to note that the early-twentieth-century ready-to-wear trade, primarily based in the East End of London, was distinctly Jewish and this was the trade most Jewish immigrants were engaged in too. The 1901 census for England and Wales showed that 60 per cent of men born in Eastern Europe who were living in London were occupied in the dress trade and that if ancillary trades such as sewing machine agents were included, the share of the Eastern European immigrant workforce involved in the East End clothing industry rose to around 70 per cent.19 It is therefore not surprising that wholesale couture was dominated by Jewish men and women, many having developed an understanding of the dress trade through their parents and grandparents work. A number of wholesale couturiers had established businesses in Europe, particularly Vienna and Berlin, prior to the 1930s. In the late-nineteenth-century Berlin had one of the most advanced ready-to-wear industries, largely run by Jews. Roberta Kremer suggests that although Berlin was not a renowned centre of high fashion, it was a key ready-to-wear centre and became an important model for the clothing industries of Paris, Vienna, New York and London.20 Owing to Adolf Hitler’s regime many of the key figures of the Berlin fashion trade had to leave in the mid-1930s. As Uwe Westphal states in Fashion Metropolis Berlin an ‘exodus’ of clothing companies from Berlin to England was officially initiated in 1933/4 by the Verband der Damenmantelkonfektion (Association of Women’s Coat Manufacturers) and its chair Dr Louis Kouppel.21 A 1934 article in the Palestine Post suggested that eighteen German firms, engaged in the makingup of women’s gowns and coats, were to establish branch factories in England. Initially the British Ministry for Economic Affairs only permitted production sites to be created in Manchester and Liverpool, however, already in 1934, of the firms transferring to England nine factories were to be based in London and nine in Manchester. Each of these firms received permission from the German government to send over goods to the value of 20,000 marks. These firms were all operating at a medium to wholesale couture level.22 Other refugees soon followed, and many went on to establish firms or work for companies in the London wholesale couture trade. Silhouette de Luxe was established in London c.1936, by two refugees from Germany: Walter Loewinberg (born in Berlin in 1879) and Fritz Dannenbaum (born in Cologne

22

Wholesale Couture

in 1895; Dannenbaum adopted the name Fred Dannen in London). According to Westphal, the pair had run a highly successful ready-to-wear business in Berlin on Schutzenstrasse and Lindenstrasse. However, as both were Jewish, they had to give up their business in the mid-1930s and emigrate to London.23 There is very little surviving information regarding Silhouette de Luxe. They were, however, a founder member of the MHG and the firm successfully exported garments to Canada, with Dannen making multiple trips there in the 1940s. Rima was established by two Viennese immigrants Leo (Leopold) (born 1910) and Greta (Margaretha) Neumann (born 1909) in 1939. The couple had arrived in London in 1938 alongside Leo’s parents Theresa (Theresia) (born 1882, Vienna) and Henry (Heinrich) (born 1874, Budapest). The whole family adopted the anglicized version of their Surname ‘Newman’ in 1946. The 1939 register indicates that Leo’s parents were, by then, retired; however, they had run a successful fashion business in Vienna.24 This business, located on Vienna’s Kartnerstrasse, had been called ‘Old Bond Street’. This store catered to Vienna’s elite and according to Women’s Wear Daily (WWD) created ‘tailored clothes in English fabrics for Smart Austrians’.25 The choice of an English name for this business was striking, as Jonathan C. Kaplan has argued English language names in Vienna stood as an ‘expression of quality’. As he goes on to state, ‘sartorially France and England had a great impact on both female and male fashions in Vienna.’26 Indeed, the Newman’s Viennese heritage would, by the late 1940s, offer a level of prestige for their business in London. The couple’s Viennese design experience combined with the high-quality British fabrics they used, singled them out for fashion buyers in Britain and further afield. Much information regarding the refugees who arrived in Britain during the 1930s comes from the Aliens Department Internees Index. The index provides detailed information about the men and women, primarily German, Austrian and Italian, who were considered for internment in Britain during the war. The majority of index cards were originally issued in September 1939. These were reused for later tribunals, in the early 1940s, when ‘large numbers of resident aliens were interred following panic in Britain about the course the war was taking.’27 Many of those who were interned in early 1940 were Jewish refugees who had escaped the Nazis. Dannen and Loewinberg were both exempted for example, but, Henry and Leo Newman were briefly interned in 1940, despite their refugee status.28 Henry was released owing to his age and Leo’s release was through ‘category 14’ as an employer of twelve of more British employees ‘engaged in work certified by a Government Department to be of a value to the community’.29 These records highlight the difficulties many refugees in Britain

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

23

experienced, and that for many, maintaining businesses during the war in London was not straightforward as they were singled out for their alien status. The Newman family, as can be seen here, were amongst those to change their surname, despite the prestige that had been associated with their business in Vienna. The reasons behind such name changing were complex, and as Kirsten Fermaglich makes clear in A Rosenberg by any Other Name, Jews could change their names in order to assimilate into life in their new country, ‘in order to combat antisemitism, find jobs [or] receive an education’.30 Reasons for Jews changing their names were often individual despite the practice being fairly widespread. In her book Fermaglich concentrates on Jewish name changing in New York, suggesting that ‘name changing was an important and widely practiced phenomenon among New York Jews in the 20th century’.31 However, I  argue that the same was true in London, and many wholesale couturiers chose to change their names. However, name changing did not (typically) mean converting away from Judaism, nor loosing important cultural and religious ties. Whilst in some ways aiding assimilation into British society, it is equally true in London as in New York that ‘rather than a step on the way to forgetting the past, name changing was a part of Jews ethnic networks, strategies and values’,32 ‘a part of their ethnic identity and community, not an escape from it’.33 By the time many figures in this book changed their names, they were already running well established businesses. Some, like Harry Massey, the director of wholesale couture firm Simon Massey Ltd, changed their names in the middle of highly successful careers. Massey was born Harry Masoff in Odessa in 1901. His family moved to London in the early 1900s, settling in Whitechapel and his father was a presser in the ladies tailoring trade.34 As articles in the trade press attest to Massey used the surname Masoff until 1939. He legally changed it to Massey (along with his brothers, who also worked in the dress trade) in December 1939. Massey’s family have indicated that he changed his name owing to Anti-Russian feeling at the time, however most of the other figures who changed their names did so because of a combination of fears related to the war around anti-Semitism and the persecution of Jews in Europe.35 The year 1939 was a pertinent time for name changing in Britain as just days after Massey changed his name wholesale couturier Chaskel Kuperstein (born in Warsaw in 1891) also changed his. Kuperstein used various names throughout his life, referred to as ‘Chaskel Charles’, ‘Chaskiel Charles’, ‘Chaskel Charles Kuperstein’ and ‘Charles Kuperstein’. Indeed, even after legally changing his name to ‘Chaskiel Charles’ the press typically referred to him as Charles Kuperstein.36

24

Wholesale Couture

Jewish immigration was essential to the development of the wholesale couture trade and, without it, the sector simply would not have existed in the same way. Prior to the 1930s Berlin and Vienna were both recognized for their high-end ready-to-wear trade. Without Hitler’s regime it is likely that these two fashion centres would have continued to flourish, and the high-end ready-to-wear trade in London would have been less vibrant and internationally successful than it became. A number of articles in the 1940s and 1950s recognized how important immigrants were for the sector.37 In 1951 The Economist suggested that the growth of wholesale couture since the prewar years was ‘remarkable’ and its success was largely thanks to immigrants.38 Many who arrived in London between the 1880s and 1930s did so under extremely challenging circumstances. Some, having to flee their homes for fear of persecution, others came to Britain seeking a better quality of life. Life was not necessarily easy for many in London, as anti-Semitism was still rife in Britain during this period. The outsider status of many wholesale couturiers who settled in London did, however, help their businesses to flourish – able to recognize what stood as desirably ‘British’ from their own perspective. It is arguably why many of these companies were able to export typically ‘British’ designs with added flair so successfully in the immediate post-war period. These men and women created businesses in Britain which provided thousands of men and women with employment and ultimately helped to transform the London fashion industry. Whilst Britain had long since been a centre for tailoring, wholesale couture helped to change the perception of British fashion in international markets, by the late 1940s recognized as a centre for high-end ready-to-wear fashion alongside bespoke tailored garments thanks largely to Jewish immigrants.

Starke: Ready-to-wear pioneer? The Newman’s success in London mentioned previously was unquestionably partially thanks to their family’s history in the trade. Other figures had similarly grown up in the trade, perhaps most notably Frederick Starke. Whilst in modern parlance Starke was not a ‘celebrity’ designer, as a 1959 WWD article suggested he was one of the ‘personalities’ to emerge from ‘London’s hitherto rather anonymous ready-to-wear industry’.39 Starke (born in Dalston, East London in 1904) was regularly interviewed and profiled by the press, utilizing his hobbies, clothing, home and personal history to cement his position as one of the key

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

25

London wholesale couturiers, a seeming pioneer of the trade. However, Starke crafted and produced a new identity for himself, one which was retrofitted to the needs of the present. Stuart Hall wrote that identity is not ‘grounded in the archaeology, but in the re-telling of the past’.40 This suggests that a present identity might be constructed, not through an exact past, but rather, how a person may choose to remember it. Certainly, in interviews Starke was one to stretch the truth: his age, his background and his family’s history, all seemingly to create a more homogenous tale. Starke, it should be noted, repeated the same stretched truths across a number of interviews, asserting for example, that his grandfather founded ‘the first’ women’s ready-to-wear company. In effect by stressing his family’s importance in the development of the ready-to-wear trade he cultivated a heritage for his brand. According to interviews Starke was born in the West End of London and his grandfather ran one of the ‘first’ ready-to-wear firms, A. Starke & Co, established in Great Portland Street c.1900. His mother took over the company in the early 1900s and Frederick began working for her firm in the late 1920s, ‘three years after he left University College, where he read commerce and modern languages.’41 Starke suggested that owing to his family history he ‘really had no choice’ but to work in the ready-to-wear industry, starting as a packer and delivery boy, before turning to design. After his mother’s retirement he established his own business, purportedly ‘the first’ wholesale couturier to name his business after himself.42 During the Second World War Starke served as part of the Royal Air Force in a mobile ground/air control interception unit, ‘Freddie the Flogger’ as he was known, was responsible for all the unit’s equipment, clothing and food and ‘won fame by acquiring a washing line for the men’s laundry that accompanied the outfit’.43 Whilst in the RAF, Starke filled his free time sketching designs that he posted back to his pattern cutter. In 1945 he returned from war service to find an enemy bomb had shattered his Little Portland Street premises and the firm had moved to Bruton Street. According to Anne Barrie, ‘while Britain writhed in post-war austerity Starke threw a sumptuous, fan faring press party to launch his new collection. It was the first of its type. Every other fashion wholesaler hastily followed suit.’44 The reality behind Starke’s early background was, however, somewhat different. Starke’s father, Samuel Weinbaum was originally from Plotzk, Poland and had emigrated to London with his family in the 1880s, becoming a naturalized British citizen in 1891. Starke’s mother, Annie Starke, and maternal grandparents emigrated to London from what was variously described as, either Russia or Poland, in the 1880s. The 1891 census suggests the family were from ‘Forbz’; however, this is likely either a transcription error, or a deliberate

26

Wholesale Couture

hiding of where they were from, as no such place exists.45 Starke’s maternal grandfather, Benjamin Starke, established himself as a mantle maker ‘Benjamin Starke’ at 27 Leman Street, Whitechapel c.1888.46 According to Kelly’s Directory, the business was then located at 46 Leman Street between 1892 and 1906.47 It is plausible that Starke’s maternal grandmother was in charge of the business despite it being run under Benjamin’s name. Frederick’s parents took part in court proceedings in 1896 and Annie suggested that the Leman Street shop belonged to her mother, not her father.48 Annie took over Benjamin’s business in the early 1900s, moving both her family and the business from the East End to the West End. The position of Starke’s mother and maternal grandmother is perhaps more striking when, as Godley suggests, the ‘near-universal’ practice was for Jewish women to stop working after marriage. He goes on to state that ‘perhaps in consequence, female Jewish occupations were largely left unrecorded by census enumerators and synagogue secretaries alike.’49 Annie operated businesses under various names across the West End between 1907 and 1928, first at 73 Great Portland Street, then at 57 Margaret Street, followed by 83 New Oxford Street, before finally moving to 308 Regent Street. 50 Between 1916 and 1933 the business was called ‘Annie Starke’ or ‘A Starke and Co.’ Frederick along with his younger brother Benjamin and another partner, Phelip Niskin, took control of the business in 1928, when Annie retired.51 Frederick continued to run the business as ‘A Starke and Co’ until 1933 when he established Frederick Starke Ltd. The Starke family are an excellent example of the upward mobility of many entrepreneurial Jewish families in the early twentieth century. In Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship Godley suggests that ‘Jewish immigrants’ propensity to pursue entrepreneurial occupations enable[ed] them to climb into middle-class status very quickly’ and, typically, this was via self-employment. Furthermore, as Godley makes clear this was made more remarkable as ‘there was very little upward mobility from working to middle, or from blue-to-whitecollar classes during this period’, yet many Jewish entrepreneurs rose from ‘the direst poverty to positions of economic security and social respectability within fifty years’.52 This upward social mobility was also closely related to the relocation of Jewish families. On arrival in London most had settled in the East End, typically around Whitechapel. However, as Godley states by 1914 over a quarter of ‘London’s East European Jews were living in areas of secondary settlement’ often in significantly larger properties than they had occupied in the East End. This can be seen with the Starke family who, by 1911, were living in a seven-room property with a servant at 7 King Edward’s Mansions, Shaftesbury Avenue.53

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

27

Starke’s birth name was Frederick Henry Weinbaum. He legally changed his surname to Starke in 1945; however, from the 1910s onwards the entire family generally used the name Starke rather than Weinbaum.54 It is likely that the family initially adopted the name for business reasons; however, it is plausible that Frederick’s decision to legally change his name to Starke in 1945, renouncing the name Weinbaum altogether, was due to fears around anti-Semitism.55 Whilst Starke was still an identifiably Jewish name, it was not so obvious as the name Weinbaum. The adoption of a matrilineal name in this period was certainly unusual; however, it was a more common practice in Jewish families. Typically, as Judith Butler suggests, it is patronymic names that are adopted, ‘enduring and viable identity is thus purchased through subjection to and subjectivation by the patronym’.56 The patronymic name acting ‘as an abbreviation for a social pact or symbolic order that structures the subjects named through their position in a patrilineal social structure’.57 The patronymic name must therefore be recognized as one that is bestowed with power, and also conforms to societal norms. Whilst Starke’s chosen name was likely a business choice, it also bestowed power on his mother. Starke’s identity must also be considered in the context of his family’s religion and background. There is a noticeable change in the way in which his parents publicly interacted with Jewish culture and in which he chose not to. His parents regularly placed announcements within the Jewish Chronicle. For example; wishing friends a Happy New Year and announcing their children’s marriages. This is a practice that Starke did not follow. His only public interaction with Jewish culture seems to have been a purely business-based decision as he placed staff advertisements in the Jewish Chronicle. It is plausible he chose to do this because he regarded the Jewish Chronicle to be amongst the best places to recruit competent staff.58 In interviews Starke focused on his proud heritage as a Londoner, purportedly born in the West End, and it can be argued that his personal strong London identity helped to build a similarly strong identity for his brand too. Hall suggested that: Cultural identity […] is a matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’. It belongs to the future as much as to the past. It is not something which already exists, transcending place, time, history and culture. Cultural identities come from somewhere, have histories. But, like everything which is historical, they undergo constant transformation. Far from being eternally fixed in some essentialised past, they are subject to the continuous ‘play’ of history, culture and power.59

Starke became the figure he portrayed in interviews, adjusting his own cultural identity to fit the needs of his business and build an appropriate ‘heritage’ for his

28

Wholesale Couture

brand. There are numerous possible reasons why he chose to edit his past. It seems unlikely that the removal of his family’s East End background represented a desire to dis-associate from his European Jewish heritage. Conceivably Starke chose to edit his past in order to simplify it, the business name and location changes were confusing and perhaps it was easier to alter his background for interviews. Pamela Church Gibson has suggested that designers ‘can ensure maximum publicity for their business through the careful cultivation of their own personal image as a trademark mode of self-presentation’.60 This process can be seen with some London couturiers, a tactic Michelle Jones has referred to as ‘personality advertising’, whereby couturiers used their own fashion sense, personality, hobbies and home to promote their brands. She suggested that Victor Stiebel ‘mediated his own personality’, that of a ‘charming and sociable man, to encourage positive press coverage’.61 Similarly, Edwina Ehrman has suggested that Hardy Amies was ‘debonair and immaculately dressed’ and that he ‘personified the English style his business promoted’. For Amies, Englishness was used to ‘strengthen the house’s reputation for classic understated English tailoring’.62 The same can be seen with Starke whose appearance, possessions, hobbies and home were discussed widely in interviews and were vital to his brand building. Articles discussing Starke’s appearance highlighted his slight build, tasteful dress and his ‘dark [and] rather exotic’ looks, although never hint towards his Jewish heritage (Figure 1.5).63 A 1959 Sunday Times article suggested: Starke’s deliberately subdued, disciplined taste is apparent not only in the clothes he designs but the ones he wears. His suits are invariably dark; his shirts white. And he wears the handsomest ties I have ever seen, hard to describe, they are quiet to the point of hush but divine. His shoes too, are typical; suave, black, elastic sided, made to his own design by Tuczek.64

The Tuczek shoes noted here were a particularly important part of Starke’s image. These were expensive bespoke shoes, and the elastic side gusset was one of the company’s signature designs.65 Sevan Minasian, a collector of vintage men’s shoes, suggests that ‘there is little to compare with the dramatic lasting, the intricate detailing, and the painstaking construction of the Tuczek shoe.’66 In such selection, Starke’s fashion choices can be seen as vital to establishing his position within the industry. As Joanne Entwistle and Rocamora argue, within the field of fashion ‘one’s appearance does not simply mediate one’s individual position but institutional position as well.’67 Seemingly the clothes Starke designed neatly reflected those he wore. His fashionable, tasteful and minimalist aesthetic provided cachet for his brand too.

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

29

­ igure 1.5  Frederick Starke in his Bruton Street showroom, photographed by Terry F Disney, 1966. © Hulton Archive/Getty images.

In a number of interviews Starke’s interests were also discussed. Starke was one of the original backers of the New Lindsey Theatre Club, one of the most successful small theatres in London, owning a half share of the venue.68 According to Barrie, Starke developed a close relationship with the theatre and read and chose plays for production.69 Starke’s other interests included golf, salmon fishing and, until an accident which made it into a number of national newspapers, skiing.70 Starke was also noted for his ‘intimate supper buffet parties in his Kensington flat, where fashion visitors from abroad [could] meet their British counterparts for the exchange of views and news’.71 One of his many guests was Lawrence Freiman, owner of the Canadian department store Freiman’s. In his autobiography he wrote that ‘[Starke was] always most kind and generous. He was attractive [and] interested in the arts.’72 Indeed, Starke was a connoisseur of modern art and fine antiques. His art collection included works

30

Wholesale Couture

by Eduardo Paolozzi, L.S. Lowry, Carlotta Edwards and Andre Jouault.73 Angela McRobbie has suggested that fashion designers ‘distinctive characteristics and biographical snippets so frequently repeated in journalism impinge upon and influence how we make sense of [their] work.’74 Starke carefully cultivated his personal cultural capital, engaging with many middle- and upper-class pursuits which cemented his own social position. Thanks in part to the interviews that Starke regularly engaged with, this created a reputation and perceived value for the garments his company manufactured. In terms of brand names Frederick Starke Ltd stood out from its wholesale couture contemporaries. Writing in 1974 Elizabeth Ewing suggested that Starke was ‘the first’ wholesale couturier to name his business after himself.75 Whilst this is not strictly true (Mary Black established her eponymous company c.1925), Starke was one of the earlier adopters of this practice. When Starke established his business in 1933 the self-naming of a fashion business was habitually the practice of couturiers and court dressmakers, rather than wholesale couturiers. Mary Lynn Stewart has suggested the practice of selfnaming was used by couturiers to ‘entice customers’, a ‘kind of branding based on name recognition and personality’.76 There was from the 1930s onwards a consumer desire to purchase clearly branded products with a recognizable name behind them and as Jones has argued ‘this was […] part of a public relations shift seen in New York and Paris to brand fashion products with a clearly identified designer.’77 Starke established his firm at around the same time as a number of other highly successful ready-to-wear companies, many of whom chose not to name their businesses after themselves. As Ernestine Carter put it ‘Susan Small cloaks the Carr-Joneses, Rima hides the Newmans.’78 Carter’s use of language to describe these firms is interesting. The terms ‘cloak’ and ‘hide’ suggest a deliberate covering up of those behind the brand, with the brand itself becoming detached from those who ran it. As Nancy Troy suggests of the eponymous couture label, but equally true of Starke’s label, ‘[it] signified a creative individual as well as a corporate entity, the identity of the former being inextricably linked to the latter, since the name of the person and that of the brand were one and the same.’79 In Starke’s case this meant he stood as a lone figurehead for his brand and was solely accountable for it in the public’s eyes, even though others were involved in the company. Indeed, by naming the business after himself, arguably Starke was trying to connect himself with the London couturiers and allude to the exclusivity of his garments.

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

31

­Locating wholesale couture By the 1940s all of the wholesale couturiers discussed in this book were based in London’s West End. The area was central to their branding and marketing, adding a layer of value to the garments they produced. Gilbert has written that the value of London lies in its history as a fashionable city, recognized for its ‘innovation and fashion authority’, with the West End a ‘site for the purchase and performance of elite fashion’.80 Until the mid-1940s wholesale couture firms were based across the West End, although many of the earliest established firms were based initially (certainly in the 1920s) in Soho. A&N Brenner’s first West End address was 40 Shaftesbury Avenue.81 The company moving there from Spitalfields c.1922. They then moved on to Gerrard Street c.1925. By 1936 the company had made their move to Mayfair, located on Hannover Square. In 1941 they moved showrooms again, to 65 Grosvenor Street in the heart of Mayfair, where they would remain until the 1960s.82 Most wholesale couturiers completed some of their manufacturing onsite at their West End premises or in factories close by, but on less desirable streets. For example, between at least 1932 and 1946 Brenner Sports had factory space in Carnaby House, 27 Beak Street, Soho (Figure 1.6).83 Similarly, advertisements for staff from 1945 indicate that Simon Massey garments were manufactured in premises tucked away on White Lion Yard, behind 37A Brook Street in Mayfair.84 Manufacturing space in the West End was expensive and most wholesale couturiers manufactured the majority of their garments in other parts of London, in diverse areas including Willesden, Tottenham and Whitechapel. Wholesale couturiers also relied on outworkers for some of their production. A 1943 Elizabeth Henry advertisement requested ‘home workers for good class gowns, NOT Utility- good prices paid’.85 This practice was still common well into the 1950s with a 1956 W&O Marcus advertisement stating: ‘are you a fully experienced Machinist? Good class dresses, fully marked for easy machining AT HOME, are available for experienced machinists at very good rates.’86 Whilst labels stitched in garments and advertisements placed in fashion publications indicated that garments were made in Mayfair, or in ‘our own workrooms’ this was often not true, wholesale couture was manufactured across London, and especially during the 1940s, even further afield. In 1940 owing to the onset of the Second World War many chose to, or were forced to, move their operations out of the capital city.

32

Wholesale Couture

Figure 1.6  Brenner Sports cutting room and machine room inside their premises at Carnaby House, Beak Street c.1945. With thanks to Kym Kent.

W&O Marcus was established by brothers Walter (born 1895) and Otto (born 1899) Marcus in 1939. The Jewish brothers were originally from Osnabruck, Germany and had to leave owing to Nazi persecution. They initially opened premises at 37/41 Mortimer Street, London. However, in 1940 owing to wartime bombing they moved most of their manufacturing to Hawick, Scotland. The brothers already knew of Hawick, and its reputation for producing high quality knitwear through their friend Otto Weisz, head designer at Pringle. Some of their London workforce relocated to Hawick; however, they also employed local men and women. One local employee was Isabella Melchert, who began her career with Marcus in 1942 aged 14 as an apprentice dressmaker, before working her way up to assistant manageress. Melchert, in her reminiscences of W&O Marcus, suggested that there were a number of refugees amongst the staff, the manageress

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

33

Frederica Rosenberger was from Budapest, Hungary, ‘a brilliant dressmaker and needlewoman’ whilst the designer Ditta Kerpin was from Czechoslovakia.87 There is little surviving evidence of the men and women who made wholesale couture garments, but as these examples suggest, wholesale couturiers were certainly employing other refugees in their businesses. Manufacture of Marcus garments continued in Hawick until 1964, when it became uneconomical to manufacture in Scotland and send garments by train to London.88 Marcus can be seen as an anomaly as by 1945 the majority of other firms who moved production out of London for the war had returned to the capital. Aside from Marcus, most wholesale couture firms who chose to relocate during the Second World War went to Nottingham. Firms including Matita, Rose and Blairman, Charles Kuperstein and Frederick Starke relocated to Nottingham in 1940. An article in Drapers’ Organiser suggested that despite these moves these were ‘very much’ still London firms.89 For most this meant opening additional showrooms and workrooms in the Greater Nottingham area. No firms offered a definitive reason as to why Nottingham was chosen over other British cities. However, Nottingham was an ideal choice – the city already had an established textile trade, and a skilled local workforce was already in place in the area. Furthermore, the city was well connected to other parts of the country, beyond London. Rose and Blairman suggested that they had opened showrooms there ‘for the convenience of their provincial clients’. Here, the full collection, as available in London, could be seen.90 These companies Nottingham sojourns have largely been traced through job advertisements placed in the Nottingham Evening Post. Matita advertised jobs in Nottingham between November 1940 and July 1943. They recruited typists, cleaners, stockroom assistants, showroom assistants, mannequins, machinists and pressers, suggesting that they moved the majority of their operation to Nottingham for the war. They were located first a 3 Park Row, before relocating to 30 Stoney Street.91 Similarly, Starke relocated some of his production to Nottingham and had a showroom on Park Row between 1940 and 1943.92 For a short while in 1940 Kuperstein had showrooms, similar to his in London, at 9A Market Street. However, it appears the firm quickly decided against a showroom in the city centre, with a July 1941 Nottingham Evening Post advertisement suggesting that this premises was available for sublet, described as a ‘beautifully fitted showroom (with or without furniture) suitable for gown, coat and suit trade, wholesale or retail’.93 The firm, from December 1940 until at least March 1942, were also manufacturing at Harrington Mills in Long Eaton, seven miles south west of Nottingham.94

34

Wholesale Couture

Rose and Blairman had a more complicated time during the war, initially in 1939 moving production to Llandudno (where Blairman’s family ran an antiques business) before moving again in October 1940 to Nottingham, where they continued to manufacture until at least 1944. An early advertisement for their initial premises at 1st floor, room 9, Gordon House, Carrington Street requested ‘experienced cutters and machinists for good class gowns, London wages and permanent situations for the right workers’.95 However, the company soon moved production to King Edward Street, Hucknall, a town seven miles north of Nottingham, likely owing to bombing in 1941.96 Rose and Blairman even advertised in London newspapers to try and secure the right staff, requesting ‘expert dressmakers, machinists and tailoresses […] for high grade sports work factory in Nottingham; safe area; good pay and allowances […] Applicants interviewed and engaged in London’.97 Indeed, emphasis was placed in these ‘Situations Vacant’ advertisements on ‘London wages’ and the persistent London-ness of these businesses. This certainly indicates that wages were higher in London for those working in the dress and textile trade, but also that jobs connected to London firms were deemed more attractive. By 1945 all of these firms had left Nottingham, manufacturing again in London with showrooms in the West End. Some firms chose to retain their prewar showrooms and factories. Dorville for example retained their large attractive premises on the corner of Margaret Street and Prince’s Street. Many other wholesale couturiers, however, recognized that this was the perfect moment to relocate. A number were left with no choice, as wartime bombing had destroyed their premises. However, for others their moves to new premises were about cementing a revamped post-war identity as many had significantly expanded their businesses.98 In ‘Fashion’s Front and Back: “Rag Trade” Cultures and Cultures of Consumption in Post-War London’ Breward suggested that ‘elite provision’ was ‘concentrated in the aristocratic Mayfair streets between Piccadilly and South Audley Street, focusing around Bruton and Conduit Streets’. Whilst the ‘extensive and highly demarcated wholesaling and ready-to-wear sector clustered in the newly respectable red-brick streets north of Oxford Street between Upper Regent Street and Newman Street.’99 By 1946 the boundary lines of London fashion were more blurred than Breward indicates. The majority of wholesale couture firms were, by then, based within the same ‘aristocratic Mayfair streets’ as London couturiers. As a 1944 Drapers’ Organiser article put it: An interesting wartime development of the British Fashion trade has been the steady trek of wholesale houses from their older home on the north side of Oxford Street to new establishments in the fashionable heart of Mayfair,

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

35

where couture houses once reigned supreme, maintaining the haute monde atmosphere of their distinguished neighbours and clients. Apart from an actual shortage of showroom accommodation in their traditional centre, these firms producing the better class merchandise feel that as the present creators of fashion, a prestige setting is more befitting to them in their new role of wholesale couture.100

This relocation of wholesale couture firms helped to establish the sector’s post-war identity. The majority of firms clustered on the roads surrounding Berkley Square; Bruton Street, Grosvenor Street and Grafton Street. These were also the roads on which many London couturiers were based, helping wholesale couturiers to cement how they wished to be viewed, as producers of high-end British fashion. There were some exceptions, a smaller number stayed in the traditional ready-to-wear area north of Oxford Street, with a selection of wholesale couturiers based on Margaret Street and Wells Street, alongside cheaper ready-to-wear manufacturers. Writing in 1952, Barbara Worsley-Gough painted a vivid yet unsettling picture of Mayfair. Whilst she suggested that it was the ‘heart of fashionable London’, she also highlighted how commerce had by 1952 overtaken the elegance of the area: Mayfair is a name to evoke visions of exclusiveness, of luxury, of formal pleasures, of elaborate entertainment, of diamonds and ermine and hot-house flowers, of red carpets and white satin and white shoulders, of beauty and elegance and distinction. It is a vision of the past […] The ‘exclusiveness’ of the hotels and restaurants and shops has disappeared, since the only passport to their standardised pleasure is a capacity to pay ‘Mayfair prices.’ What is left is luxury without elegance, elaboration without formality, extravagance without distinction. Mayfair has become the class-conscious tourists’ quarter. But it is full of ghosts.101

Perhaps Worsley-Gough’s most important observation was that Mayfair was full of ‘ghosts.’ For many of the fashion businesses in Mayfair, these ghosts, the tradition of Mayfair as a hotbed of luxury and elegance, lay central to its appeal. Ensconced within former private residences couturiers and wholesale couturiers alike used these ‘traditions’ to help market their clothes, their showrooms often featuring as a backdrop in advertisements and editorials (Figure 1.7). Frederick Starke Ltd. was based in Mayfair for most of the company’s existence, located at 31 Bruton Street between 1944 and c.1966 (Figure  1.8). Starke’s decision to relocate to Bruton Street in 1944 was particularly significant. Couturier Norman Hartnell referred to it as the ‘perfect location’ the ‘only way

36

Wholesale Couture

Figure 1.7  Model Heather Jeffery wearing a flame geranium coloured angora wool sweater suit, posed outside Starke’s Bruton Street showroom, 1955. Author’s Collection.

Figure 1.8  Exterior of Frederick Starke’s headquarters at 31 Bruton Street, 1957. © London Metropolitan Archives (City of London).

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

37

through from bustling Bond Street to sedate and wealth Berkley square’ whilst Breward has suggested that it was a ‘microcosm of the fashionable consumers bijoux world’.102 Until the 1920s Bruton Street had been largely residential; however, in 1928 the ground landlords, Samuel Estates, granted permission for houses to be adapted to business premises as these large houses were increasingly difficult and costly to run as private residences. Both the Evening News and the Times reacted positively towards the incoming changes, highlighting that ‘high class’ business would be suited to Bruton Street. The Evening News article ended with an accurate prediction for Bruton Street’s future, ‘there can be little doubt that it will develop in time into one of London’s smartest and most important business and shopping thoroughfares.’103 In the 1920s and 1930s, a number of London couturiers were located on Bruton Street including Stiebel, Charles James, Peter Russell and Hartnell. By 1944, when Starke moved there, some of these couturiers had left; however, the 1946 Kelly’s Directory still indicates the fashionability of Bruton Street and Starke’s neighbours included wholesale couturiers Rima at 25 and Ian Meredith at 29 and Hartnell at 26. In 1946 over half of the businesses on Bruton Street were in some way concerned with the dress and textiles trade and the majority of others represented high class business: art dealers, cabinetmakers and furniture dealers.104 Until 1934, 31 Bruton Street had been a private residence; its last occupant was Lord Wharton. After his death the building was remodelled and became a business premises. 31 Bruton Street was a narrow fronted, yet deep building and connected with 19 Bruton Place at the rear. Starke shared the building with art dealer Arthur Tooth. Starke’s personal office and the office of his secretarial staff were located on the first floor of the building. Drainage plans indicate that there was workroom space on the third floor, and it seems that some of Starke’s garments were designed, fitted and made on site, particularly his expensive eveningwear.105 The ground floor of 31 Bruton Street was largely customer facing. Here, was Starke’s ‘glitteringly spacious’ salon where mannequins paraded for press and buyers and his model’s changing room (Figure 1.9).106 Barrie provided an enlightening description of this space: His models’ changing room has all the hallmarks of a backstage dressing room: wall mirrors and make-up benches flanked by naked electric bulbs; racks of tinted satin shoes and silk scarves at shoulder level; a tray of glittering, jumbled

38

Wholesale Couture

Figure 1.9  Frederick Starke’s models dressing room, photographed by Elsbeth Juda, Ambassador, November 1959. © Elsbeth Juda/Victoria and Albert Museum, London. jewellery by the door, and middle-aged dressers waiting to help the models into their clothes and fasten zips, buttons and belts.107

Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s most of Starke’s advertising images were shot in his showroom. These images reveal it was an elegant, luxurious space and indicate his connoisseurship of antiques (Figure  1.10). Commonalities can be drawn between Starke’s showroom and the salons of haute couturiers. In Dressing Modern Frenchwomen Mary Lynn Stewart portrays how Parisian couturiers decorated their showrooms. She states that ‘couturiers […] understood that an ambience of good taste and luxury mattered to their clientele and considered décor an indirect kind of publicity […] that operate[d] by the association of ideas.’ They, Stewart states, drew on ‘nineteenth century notions of bourgeois taste’, arguing that ‘bourgeois women responded best to older buildings and antiques’.108 Whilst Starke was not trying to necessarily attract ‘bourgeois’ women to his showroom, those frequenting it would mostly have been fashion press and buyers for whom

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

39

Figure 1.10  Frederick Starke advertisement shot in his showroom, Sketch, 8 November 1950. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

the image of luxury was important and could in turn ensure Starke received further publicity. His showroom followed what Penny Sparke has termed the ‘well-appointed’ drawing room model.109 The drawing room setting helped to create a fictional interior and suggested the settings within which couturiers expected their creations to be worn. By the 1940s most wholesale couture showrooms were decorated in a ‘Vogue Regency’ style.110 Emily Eerdmans suggests that ‘Vogue Regency’ was a ‘contemporary idiom built on the traditions of the Regency instead of merely replicating them’ and was a popular interior decoration style characterized by twinkling chandeliers, sophisticated velvet chaise longues and statement gilt mirrors (Figure  1.11).111 Walls were typically painted in muted colours, these acting as a subdued background for the clothes, ensuring customers and buyers were not distracted when viewing garments.112 Grey walls were particularly popular for fashion showrooms. For example, in 1950 Fashion Trade Weekly reported that the newly opened ‘French room’ at Harrods had a ‘luxury atmosphere’ with ‘walls in tones of grey, silver painted woodwork.’113 Furthermore Rose and Blairman’s showroom was redecorated in 1949 in ‘delicate tones of grey’.114 This had not always been the case for Rose and Blairman’s showroom. Whilst in 1949 their showroom was described as an ‘elegant’ space with a delicate, soft,

40

Wholesale Couture

Figure 1.11  Brenner Sports showroom, 65 Grosvenor Street photographed by Elsbeth Juda, Ambassador, No. 7 1947. © Elsbeth Juda/Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

colour scheme, the Margaret Street showroom had gone through a number of different iterations (Figure 1.12). In February 1928 the company moved into this imposing premises and the large corner plot was redecorated inside and out by the company. Their decoration caused controversy, as a 1928 Drapers’ Organiser article suggested: The exterior of the premises has been decorated with a series of broad transverse diagonal stripes in the most vivid shades of red, green, blue and yellow, cutting across the entire frontage. Many of the residents […] recently signed a petition to the ground landlord, the Howard de Walden Estate, asking that steps should be taken to compel the removal of the offending colouring, and as a result legal proceedings are threatened to establish the legality or otherwise of painting a London building in modernist patterns.115

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

41

Figure 1.12  Exterior of Rose and Blairman’s headquarters, Dorville House, corner of Margaret Street and John Prince’s Street, 1959. © London Metropolitan Archives (City of London).

Whilst no follow-up articles were published it seems likely that these bold patterns were removed shortly after this article was written. However, the striking modernist interior of the showrooms remained. No colour images exist; however, surviving photographs illustrate the boldness of these patterns which included a large mural of the Rose and Blairman logo (Figure 1.13). These abstract patterns were relatively short lived, perhaps thanks to the distracting nature of the designs against their equally bold garments. By 1934 the showrooms were decorated with ‘plain white walls and diffused lighting’, as Drapers’ Organiser suggested, ‘a most appropriate background’.116 By the 1940s firms in both the medium and wholesale couture sector opted for lavish, opulent headquarters. Horrockses for example, based at 15 St George Street, had ‘stylish interiors with an […] atmosphere of grandeur and opulence’, their premises ‘provided the kind of couture house connotations of elegance that the firm wanted to emphasise’.117 It can be argued that whatever the level of the market, most of the fashion businesses within the West End had a similar agenda for the overall look of the customer facing aspect of their premises. Largely positioned within Mayfair’s former grand private houses, these firms

42

Wholesale Couture

­ igure 1.13  Interior of Dorville House painted with ‘modernist’ patterns, Drapers’ F Organiser, For March 1928.

chose historic buildings to signify tradition and longevity, additionally using interior design to great effect. The elegant and luxurious milieu fitted with the nature of business the firms hoped to create. By locating their headquarters in grand former private residences, wholesale couturiers increased the transient value of the garments they produced. This in turn created an added layer of value for consumers who purchased their garments and store buyers and press who visited their showrooms. The transient or symbolic value created through such premises is demonstrated by the fact that many used them as a backdrop for their advertising material. Starke took this one step further, used his Bruton Street address for all communication materials, and to host all Fredrica shows, even though this arm of his company was based in Osnaburgh Street, NW1. This is a very clear example of Ashmore’s view that ‘the very quality of garments and fabrics has been perceived as varying between different streets.’118

From Bond Street to the Golf Club

43

Retailing wholesale couture Wholesale couturiers did not operate their own stores. Through their showrooms they sold to the retail trade only, not to individual customers. Garments by wholesale couturiers could primarily be found in the ‘model’ rooms of department stores, or specialist ‘shops within shops’ which were devoted solely to the products of one manufacturer. Aside from department stores, garments by wholesale couturiers were stocked in smaller independent stores often referred to as ‘Madam’ shops. Scott James suggested that Madam shops were run with ‘considerable taste and skill’, stocking wholesale couture garments alongside some from Paris. The clientele of such stores was largely ‘well-to-do local women’ and the success of these stores lay in the owner’s close contact with their customers.119 In the 1930s wholesale couture advertisements typically suggested that their garments were available from ‘the best’ shops, as one Rose and Blairman advertisement put it, ‘in every town there is a store of dignified tradition, where the better class of trade is done … Old established generally, but with a flair for novelty and a sound reputation for fine merchandise’ it was there that wholesale couture garments were to be found.120 The stores alluded to here were largely department stores. As Rachel Worth suggests, the 1920s and 1930s were the heyday of department stores, in terms of both their physical and corporate expansion.121 Wholesale couture advertisements from the 1940s onwards illustrate the range of shops that stocked their products. A February 1951 advertisement for a Dorville check dress for example offered an exhaustive list of seventy-nine stockists for this specific garment, largely a mixture of department stores and madam shops. This and other advertisements illustrate that outside of London most wholesale couturiers gave one specific store per town exclusive rights to retail their garments. For both the shops and customers this created a sense of exclusivity. An advertisement for Spectator Sports from July 1949 provides an even larger list of stockists, with 160 listed across the UK. This was a list of general stockists for the brand, rather than for a specific garment, but regardless suggests the breadth of wholesale couture stockists. Most towns had just one stockist, with seventeen having two. Edinburgh, Harrogate, Oxford and Swansea all had three stockists and there were nineteen London stockists. It is striking that the majority of stockists were located in affluent areas, indicating the class of wholesale couture consumer. Overall, however, these lists suggest that the market for wholesale couture was very London centric, with most London stockists based in the West End, close to wholesale couturiers’ showrooms.

44

Wholesale Couture

This chapter has considered the early history of the wholesale couture trade and demonstrated the importance of London to wholesale couturiers’ identities. It has explored why wholesale couturiers were based in London’s West End and established that this was also where their garments were typically retailed. Furthermore, it has considered the market for wholesale couture, showing that these garments were primarily purchased by middle-class consumers. This chapter has also sought to introduce some of the key figures behind wholesale couture firms, considering the role of Starke in particular detail alongside the significance of other Jewish proprietors. Chapter two turns to consider the manufacture of wholesale couture in more depth establishing the importance of American techniques for the development of the wholesale couture industry.

­2

Seventh Avenue in miniature: Manufacturing wholesale couture

In 1943 fashion journalist Elizabeth Wray was invited to lecture students at Leicester College of Art on fashion careers. The published version of this lecture provides Wray’s views on the state of British fashion manufacturing. The 1930s were a boom period for London ready-to-wear and saw the emergence of wholesale couture as a sector of the market; however, as Wray indicates, British firms were still trying to perfect large-scale ready-to-wear manufacture, in order to catch up with their American counterparts. She stated: Possibly, you still don’t realise how new this all is. That only six years ago the American methods of engineering precision in cutting, sizing and making up were first brought into our modern factories. Five years ago, one workroom girl would produce one dress of her own, as for its precision of sizing – why such a thing was unknown.1

Whilst London wholesale couturiers predominantly took their design inspiration from Paris, methods of manufacture were largely inspired by the American industry. Wray’s statement can be seen as a slight exaggeration; however, it did take many British manufacturers until the 1930s to recognize that American techniques and machinery could make their business operations more efficient and ultimately could increase their profits. This saw London designers and managing directors regularly travelling to America (particularly New York) to learn about manufacturing methods, machinery and innovations in standardized sizing. This chapter broadly considers the manufacture of wholesale couture garments. It firstly questions how the New York ready-to-wear industry influenced wholesale couture and introduces some of the key figures who were involved in the transformation of ready-to-wear manufacture in London. It then goes on to consider the effects the Second World War had on manufacturing

46

Wholesale Couture

and why most wholesale couturiers diversified their production during the war. Finally, it turns to consider the impact of ceiling prices on wholesale couture manufacture. Companies in the American ready-to-wear sector also copied and adapted Parisian designs; however, their production methods were more innovative and technologically advanced than in Britain. For example, American manufacturers were using equipment such as powered cutting machines, ten years before their British counterparts recognized their potential, considerably speeding up the production process.2 Fay Carr-Jones highlighted how her company, Susan Small, adopted American methods: We spent some time there and evolved our own comprehensive sizing, precision pattern making, precision cutting in bulk with an electric knife, and our own ideas of side and seam turnings. The dressmaker machinists became mechanics […]. In the old days it was so hit and miss. Every garment was cut by a single cutter, and a girl fitted it up on a stand. If the girl was careful the dress fitted. If she was careless it didn’t […] With our new methods we were in big business and we made clothes to last.3

In the 1930s and 1940s many progressive wholesale couturiers, recognizing the advancements of American manufacture, appointed American trained designers and managers. For example, Rose and Blairman employed an American production manager, pattern maker and two machinists who taught their British factory workers ‘how to use a considerable number of American gadgets’.4 Their production manager, Amerigo Vasso, was particularly important to the business. Vasso was born in Corigliano Calabro, Italy, in 1894 and emigrated to the United States in 1912. He began his career as a tailor, before becoming a designer and later a production manager.5 Vasso began working for Rose and Blairman in the mid-1930s and ran a major part of their operations in Nottingham during the war. Vasso was highly skilled, and his various career trajectories point to the fact that in the 1930s many senior figures in London fashion businesses were adept multiskilled professionals, combining the skills typically expected of a designer, pattern cutter and manager. Mary Black of Mary Black Ltd. regularly travelled to America in the 1930s for design and manufacture inspiration. Interviewed in 1941 she suggested that one of the key features of her business in London was her adoption of American ideas which she interpreted from models bought in the United States.6 Black changed her business model in the 1930s, thanks to her findings from these American trips. Initially a manufacturer of fairly inexpensive party frocks

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

47

she increasingly turned in the 1930s to a high-end ready-to-wear production. Black also recognized the potential of American staff, hiring William Brambir as her production manager. Brambir was born Wilhelm Brambir in 1888 in Czernowitz (now in Ukraine) and had emigrated to New York as a child. Prior to joining Mary Black, Brambir had worked for two leading American high-end manufacturers, first at Rentner and then with Adele Simpson between 1934 and 1935.7 Brambir worked for Black in London from c.1936 until he died at sea en route to New York in 1940. He was unquestionably an important figure for her business, and it seems his trip in 1940 was part of a scoping mission for Black to establish a New York arm of her business (which she successfully did in 1941). Brambir’s role, as an advertisement for his replacement shortly after his untimely death indicates, involved manufacturing high-class day and dinner gowns, with pattern making and cutting skills required. Much like Vasso’s role for Rose and Blairman, this was a multifaceted job that needed considerable creativity. Job advertisements such as this indicate the importance of American production methods for London wholesale couturiers in the early 1940s. Black for example suggested that her garments were produced on the ‘American system’ meaning that they were made to American production standards and importantly in American sizes.8

Sizing In order to ensure customer satisfaction standardized sizing was vital to the ready-to-wear industry. As Godley has suggested [it] ‘allowed garments to be pre-cut and pre-assembled before consumer inspection, allowing firms to specialize and exploit economies of scale’.9 For ready-to-wear clothing to be seen as a truly viable alternative to couture, it was essential that sizing was carefully planned, and that garments truly fitted women’s bodies. However, in Britain sizing was problematic. Until the 1930s American standardized sizing was a more precise and detailed art than it was in Britain. American manufacturers typically used a numerical system starting at a size 10 whereas British manufacturers used a letter-based system. It was only when, as Ewing suggested, in the early 1930s that ‘certain enlightened British men […] brought over a little band of American experts’ that this began to change. These men ‘introduced systematic and detailed sizing on the lines that ha[d] given America its lead in fashion manufacture.’10 Ewing did not state who these ‘enlightened’ men were, but this certainly included Rose and Blairman, who had looked to the

Wholesale Couture

48

American industry for inspiration from the 1920s onwards. Rose and Blairman were pioneers in the adoption of American sizing, and as early as 1937 they had already shunned the letter system, replacing it with the American numerical system. They introduced paper labels for their garments which provided the graded American size alongside measurements for bust, waist, hips and back.11 Rose and Blairman felt that the old British letter system meant that garments only ‘fitted where they touched’, and did not truly follow the contours of women’s bodies. On the other hand, the American system took every measurement of the body into consideration. The sizing system was not simply a case of grading everything up, through bust, hip and waist, but thinking more carefully about changing proportions as sizes increased. As can be seen in the charts, the British sizing system relied on fairly in-precise measurements. It is interesting that Rose and Blairman were pioneers of improved sizing when one considers that much of their production at this time was still knitwear, where more flexibility in terms of sizing was possible.

British sizes mid-1940s S.W (small W (average W.X. (Larger O.S. (Outsize X.O.S. (Extra women’s) women’s) Women’s) women’s) Outsize women’s) Bust Hips

up to 34 in 36 in

34–38 in 36–40 in

38–42 in 40–44 in

42–26 in 46–48 in

Over 46 in Over 48 in

American sizes mid-1940s Bust Waist Hips at 9"

10

12

14

16

18

20

34 24 34.5

35.5 25.5 36

37 27 37.5

38.5 28.5 39

40 30 40.5

41.5 31.5 42

During the 1940s numerous British articles considered the problems of standardized sizing. In 1945 the British standards institution had devised a new letter system of twelve standardized sizes, with two inches between each size. However, this was not popular with British manufacturers and not widely adopted. Blairman suggested that 94.7 per cent of British retail shops whom his company had surveyed favoured general adoption of American standard dress sizes, rather than British.12 Another article appearing in The Ambassador in 1948, in which Blairman was interviewed alongside Frederick Starke and

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

49

Max Adler, indicated that they all preferred the American system.13 Indeed, as garment labels are testament to, almost all wholesale couturiers had adopted the American numerical system by the late 1940s. The system was not perfect, however, and a 1948 Sunday Times article lamented that ‘very few English women are able to get ready-made clothes that do not need any alterations. Yet numbers of one’s friends and colleagues who visit the United States and Canada are able to get beautifully fitted clothes off-the-peg without the slightest difficulty.’14 Whilst British manufacturers willingly adopted American sizing, they tended to manufacture with two inches between sizes, and on the whole did not produce such a range of sizes (including tall and petite for example).15 Particularly during the late 1940s and 1950s, in an era of clothes that were meant to fit closely to the body, sizing had to be carefully considered in order to secure business at home and overseas.

Americanized manufacture Rather than simply use American methods, some London firms sought to make entirely American styled garments. In the late 1920s the Americanization of London’s fashion industry really began, with a number of successful New York manufacturers travelling to London to establish new businesses. The earliest manufacturers to arrive were Samuel and Louis Krohnberg. Other American  manufacturers who arrived in the early 1930s included Jack Liss, Joe Luchs and Irving Portenoy. These men, at various points during the 1930s, worked collaboratively with each other and additionally with established figures in the London fashion industry. They largely produced ‘popular’ price ready-to-wear garments; however, their methods eventually transformed the whole of the London ready-to-wear industry. Harry Massey was one of the pioneers of American style manufacture in London, someone who, through various companies, oversaw manufacture at all levels of the ready-to-wear trade from mass produced through to wholesale couture. Profiled by Women’s Wear Daily in 1936, Massey was described as fitting ‘an American description of a high-powered go getter, […] a sort of financial trust for numerous British dress manufacturing businesses, an organiser of companies and a dynamic salesman.’16 Massey began his career as a dress salesman/shop assistant and by 1926 had opened a small shop ‘and an even smaller workroom’ on his own account. This shop, ‘Harry Masoff, Ladies outfitters’, was located at 63 Grand Parade, Harringey.17 By 1928 Massey had gone into business with

50

Wholesale Couture

another dress manufacturer, Morris Ornstein.18 Together they launched several companies producing garments at varying price points. They resigned this joint venture in the early 1930s and the partnership was dissolved, going their own separate ways, because ‘[Massey’s] idea of standardising prices and methods instead of style failed to harmonise with Ornstein’s theory of higher priced, quality garments.’19 It is notable that Massey relinquished control of his higher priced line, Ornstein and Masoff to Ornstein, only to establish another higher priced business in his own name a few years later. Massey was closely involved with American manufacturers in London. In 1933 he went into business with Samuel Krohnberg, forming Peggy Page Ltd, a business operating on American manufacturing principles. Garments were designed on American lines, in American sizes and manufactured from a mix of American and British fabrics. Initially the company manufactured garments at 3 Little Portland Street, London with 100 employees. Later in 1933 they also opened a factory in Edmonton, North London which manufactured around 5000 garments a week.20 This was an extremely high number of garments. Almost thirty years later in 1961 medium range firm Polly Peck, were producing roughly the same number of garments, despite the advances that had occurred in the industry in the intervening period. This illustrates the sheer scale of manufacture some popular price firms were already engaged with in the 1930s.21 In 1935 Massey further added to his portfolio of companies becoming a director of Paramount Dress (Importers) Ltd., a company initially owned by Portenoy. Paramount imported original Parisian couture models to copy from Manhattan cutters-up after they had served their reproduction purposes in New York. They also manufactured garments in London on American methods.22 Shortly after, the pair combined the showrooms of Peggy Page and Paramount in extended headquarters at 19 Margaret Street, London.23 By 1936 Massey was involved with a dizzying number of companies, as a WWD article suggested, he controlled Waingartens Ltd and Women’s Wear Ltd, was interested in the coat house, Edward Freeman Ltd, and, ‘if he has not sold it at profit, has an infants’ wear business in Ireland.’24 By 1936, partially thanks to the companies run by Massey, it was starting to become challenging for American importers to compete with garments made in Britain. Massey’s companies were matching American popular price ready-to-wear on quality, price and design and there were also no tariffs to pay. As a 1936 WMD article suggested Massey’s firms produced ‘dresses made by British labor, trained to American systems, at prices to which Britain was unaccustomed for garments of their style and character.’25 Straight American ready-to-wear

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

51

imports were, unless priced very cheaply, becoming less of an easy-sell in Britain. Charles Kuperstein for example launched a new arm of his business in 1937, Koupy (American dresses) Ltd. to import and distribute American made garments (primarily silk and rayon dresses and two-piece suits) in Britain. These garments were not sold on as they were to the British market; rather they were reconditioned at Kuperstein’s Poland Street premises. Kuperstein declared that ‘practically no’ American made dresses imported to London could be dispatched immediately to British retailers. Seams had to be sewn over and workmanship generally ‘reconditioned’ to suit British women’s requirements. Whilst garment silhouettes, fabrics and sizes were all highly satisfactory for the British market the finishing of these garments was not considered up to the standard British women expected. Whilst these garments were largely targeted at a medium range market, it is clear that British consumers still expected a high standard of finish.26 The arrival of American manufacturers unquestionably helped to improve the making-up of popular priced ready-to-wear garments in London, but the transformation of the industry was not only about the clothes themselves. There was a new mind-set in place, inspired by the American industry that also involved more aggressive branding and promotion. The physical locations too of the popular price industry had altered considerably. As a 1937 WWD article put it: ‘In the once comparatively placid backwater of Margaret, Wells and Eastcastle Streets and their environs, tucked away [near] Oxford Circus, London’s womenswear manufacturing centre now has, in miniature, something of the feverish atmosphere of Seventh Avenue’s garment-town about it.’27 Massey, with his wide-reaching Margaret Street empire, can be seen at the epicentre of this trade. Manufacturers based in the area increasingly produced higher volumes of garments at faster speeds. However, at the same time, the top end of the ready-to-wear trade, particularly wholesale couture, was increasingly looking to distinguish itself, pushing even more towards higherpriced ready-to-wear which could satisfy the luxury once only found in couture clothes. Some manufacturers, particularly Massey, looked again to upscale their businesses. During the Second World War, despite the difficulties many were facing, he saw the opportunity to move into wholesale couture, launching his brand Simon Massey c.1943. The Second World War greatly affected the popular price ready-to-wear industry. With imports from America increasingly challenging, manufacturers who had imported American goods (to sell or for inspiration) pivoted their businesses. By November 1939, Percy Trilnick one of the ‘oldest established and

52

Wholesale Couture

biggest of the London import houses specialising in American merchandise’ were manufacturing all of their garments in British factories, featuring largely domestic woollens, but still ‘styled’ on American lines.28 Indeed, by 1943 many of the American manufacturers who had travelled to London in the 1930s, including Luchs, Liss and Portenoy, had all returned to the United States and only the Krohnberg brothers remained.29 However, this was not a failure on the part of these manufacturers, rather the war made it too challenging for them to retain their business models. Indeed, the methods of manufacture these men brought to Britain would continue to be important throughout the war and beyond.

Manufacturing in the Second World War During the Second World War wholesale couturiers had to diversify their production. Some, like Brenner Sports, took on government contract work, producing WAAF uniforms, khaki drill jackets, shorts and trousers alongside their standard production.30 Others began producing lower price Utility lines, marked with the ubiquitous CC41 label (Plate 3). Rima for example introduced Atrima in 1941 in order to solely handle Utility production. W.H. Wallace of Spectator Sports also manufactured Utility garments and suggested in 1945 that doing so had been ‘a big adventure’. He stated that before the war he had ‘never made any cheap clothes’ but [he] was ‘certainly not going to stop making them when the official scheme end[ed]’. He felt that in some ways the scheme had benefited his designs, stating ‘I don’t think Utility has been an impediment to design. Design comes from inside one’s head and is nothing to do with added ornament. On the contrary, Utility has put designers on their mettle and those with real talent have found in it a scope they certainly won’t want to lose.’31 In the same article Wallace went on to illustrate that there was an export market for these Utility products, suggesting that a Canadian buyer wanted to buy Spectator Sports ‘entire’ Utility collection. At this point Utility clothes could not be exported; however, Wallace felt that the experience of producing Utility clothing had demonstrated the international desire for ‘medium-priced’ clothes bearing some of the hallmarks of wholesale couture.32 In the post-war period there was certainly an international desire for British Utility garments, despite the fact they were not supposed to be exported as numerous WWD articles between 1945 and 1948 point to.33 Most wholesale couturiers did, in the postwar period, successfully export medium range garments.

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

53

During and immediately after the Second World War, there was an extreme shortage of operatives in the ready-to-wear trade. The wholesale couture staff shortage is illustrated by the sheer volume of job vacancies advertised between 1943 and 1946 across London newspapers including the Fulham Chronicle, West London Observer and Marylebone Mercury. These advertisements sought a wide-reaching range of employees from tailors to pressers and seamstresses and, perhaps surprisingly, even tambour beaders. In this period there was an exceptionally large number of advertisements placed by wholesale couture firms seeking young school leavers. One such advertisement for Silhouette de Luxe stated: ‘Young girls between the ages of 14–18 have good opportunity to be trained as HIGH-CLASS DRESSMAKERS in our well-known West End Silhouette workrooms.’34 The desire for school leavers related to a two-fold problem in the trade. Many workers had been lost to the war effort and, the few that remained were consequently able to demand higher wages. In 1945 for example, whilst the ‘recognised pay’ was £7 a week for a machinist and £9 10s for a cutter, Black Marketeers were paying £5 a day to such operatives, free of income tax.35 Young school leavers helped to circumvent this problem, offering the opportunity to pay lower wages to these employees but also offering manufacturers the potential to be able to afford to pay out the higher wages for some of the skilled workers they still needed. Wholesale couture situations vacant advertisements continually iterate the high standard of workmanship necessary for this sector of the trade. However, sometimes the language is deceptive. One such 1944 Simon Massey advertisement stated: ‘Excellent opportunity for permanent well-paid posts. Fully experienced dressmakers require for highest class Mayfair haut [sic] couture house. Able to make throughout. 5-day week.’36 Massey’s business was not haute couture, but this advertisement was likely placed owing to a desire to attract workers able to produce clothes to a very high standard. Certainly, towards the end of the war wholesale couturiers were seeking to differentiate themselves from the rest of the ready-to-wear trade, through interesting designs and fine workmanship. In part the British fashion industry was helped by the Second World War as wartime rationing, the loss of labour within the clothing industry and the styles of clothing made fashionable by restrictions helped to make the industry more efficient than it had been previously (Figure 2.1).37 Quality was, however, still key to wholesale couturiers production, and despite the increasing efficiency that American production methods allowed for, most wholesale couturiers built on the tenets of quality, luxury and craftsmanship that had long been associated with the British bespoke tailoring industry. This meant superior materials and

54

Wholesale Couture

Figure 2.1  W&O Marcus fawn coloured coat, c.1942–5. The manufacture of this coat, with its lack of fastenings (closure at the neckline with a loop and button only) and omission of eyelets from the belt, suggests it was manufactured under austerity restrictions, prior to 1946. Whilst under making of Civilian Clothing (Restrictions) (No. 4) Order (S.R. & O 1942) an overcoat should not have had buttons nor buttonholes on the sleeves, as this is a separate feature it seems to have circumvented this regulation, not least because the coat had less than the regulation maximum of five buttons and four buttonholes. Coat lent by Virginia Ewart, photographed by Liz Tregenza.

garments that were made to last.38 For many this quality combined with longevity equated to wholesale couture being viewed as good value for money.39 Surviving examples from the late 1940s and early 1950s illustrate the construction techniques employed by wholesale couturiers. Dresses were largely machine stitched. However, coats and suits were still finished by hand. The finishing of garments carrying the Simon Massey label is particularly exemplary. The jacket seen in Figure 2.2 was manufactured in c.1952 and made from black wool with velvet and satin trims; its design is likely loosely based on the work of Cristóbal Balenciaga. The standard of construction and the finesse of materials used are notable. With its original skirt it would have cost in the region of £25.

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

55

Figure 2.2  Simon Massey suit jacket in black wool with black velvet and satin trims, c.1952. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Owing to a split seam in the lining it has been possible to study the interior construction of the jacket. All seams in the jacket have been machine stitched, but the finishing has been done by hand. Seams are hand felled, buttonholes are hand stitched and the jacket also has hand finished padding around the hips and shoulder line to create the exaggerated hourglass silhouette popular in the early 1950s. However, it is notable that some wholesale couture garments produced immediately after the war, particularly in the period 1946–8, are not so well finished as their slightly later counterparts. Many (although not all) garments lack linings and some of the finishing is not overly neat with seams left unfinished, now considerably frayed and poor pattern matching evident (Figure 2.3). This is because in the immediate post-war period the situation became even harder than it had been during the war for many manufacturers, thanks, in part, to the introduction of ceiling prices in 1946.

56

Wholesale Couture

Figure 2.3  Frederick Starke dress in black taffeta, with peplum bustle and zip front detailing, originally retailed by Harrods, 1948. A seemingly identical dress in black wool was owned by Mary Annette Hay, the New Zealand Wool Board’s Promotions Officer. A photograph of Hay wearing this dress is held by The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Defining wholesale couture Wholesale couture, as a sector of the market, really came into its own in the 1930s. Whilst firms had created high fashion ready-to-wear prior to this date, the term wholesale couture was rarely used before the mid-1930s and did not become common parlance until the 1940s. Firms until the 1940s were therefore described in various ways – sometimes referred to as ‘model houses’ or more simply ‘top-grade’ or ‘high-grade’ manufacturers. However, in the immediate post-war period, the wholesale couture sector struggled to define itself with both the trade press and companies from other sectors feeling that it needed to effectively rebrand. The word ‘wholesale’ had more than one meaning and as Harry Yoxall made clear, ‘A true wholesaler is a middleman who stocks manufacturers’ products for the convenience of retailers. But dress “wholesalers” are really manufacturers.’40 Whilst wholesale couture was the preferred term of manufacturers, trade journals suggested that the term was inappropriate, a

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

57

misnomer and ought to be replaced. Various other suggestions were put forward. Fashion Trade Weekly proposed in June 1946 that ‘manufacturing couture’ would be a better description of such firms activities, as this would be the nearest translation of the French term ‘Couture en Gros’ which represented roughly the equivalent function.41 The other term used by such firms – model house – was also problematic. Before the Second World War many London bespoke designers had referred to their businesses as ‘model houses’. Post war, whilst these businesses were typically categorized as couture, they still felt the term ‘model house’ was theirs. It was thought that if the wholesale couture/model house sector renamed itself, it would help delineate different sectors, therefore ensuring less confusion for the general public. Board of Trade (BoT) records also illustrate the difficulty in defining the wholesale couture sector and on a number of occasions it was suggested that it was ‘impossible to define the class of firms involved.’42 A 1946 document showed the breadth of firms that could be defined as such, ‘trade estimates of their number vary very widely, […] from half a dozen to upwards of 50 […] They are generally of moderate size, with a pre-war annual turnover ranging from £30,000 to £150,000.’43 Whilst the majority of wholesale couturiers’ output was ready-made garments, firms would sometimes produce made-to-measure pieces. Henry Scott of Mercia suggested that before the Second World War around 10–15 per cent of wholesale couturiers output was made-to-measure.44 For example, in 1948 a Harper’s Bazaar editorial featured a black chiffon Starke dress that could be made-to-order at Peggy Carter, Berkley Street for about £38.45 To have a wholesale couture piece made up in this way was considerably more expensive than buying off-the-peg, similar Starke dresses retailed at around £18. These services were offered for two reasons. Firstly, in order to appeal to a wider customer base as such services would have been desirable to consumers who were more used to purchasing couture and secondly, between 1946 and 1949 these services were offered in order to circumvent ceiling prices applied by the BoT.46 In 1945 the BoT announced that ceiling prices were to be introduced, limiting the maximum price to consumers of all non-Utility ready-to-wear garments. Prior to this, whilst manufacturers were supposed to offer garments at ‘standstill’ prices (prices roughly representative of those charged in June 1942) many were charging more. To give an example, ceiling prices restricted retail prices for nonwoollen dresses to fifteen guineas in 1946.47 Whilst the BoT considered ceiling prices to be generous, before the war around half of department store chain Debenham and Freebody’s wholesale couture trade, to give just one example,

58

Wholesale Couture

had been above the 1946 ceiling prices.48 Ceiling prices were deemed necessary in order to control the rising prices of non-Utility outerwear, which was the majority of wholesale couturiers output. The central price regulation committee were also concerned about the widening gap between non-Utility and Utility. They were of the opinion that, owing to the overall shortage of clothing, nonUtility alongside Utility had to be regarded as a public necessity and therefore the price of it had to be controlled.49 Ceiling prices were immediately unpopular with wholesale couturiers, and from 1945 until 1948 there were repeated requests to remove them for their sector. However, without a transparent definition of wholesale couture, it proved difficult to pass such an exemption.50 The London couturiers on the other hand were not restricted by ceiling prices and these firms could charge whatever they wished for garments. They were not restricted because the BoT felt it would be too challenging to properly assess the prices that they could not sell above as they created made-to-measure garments. Understandably this was irksome for wholesale couturiers and gave them more reason to try and contest the rulings.51 Ceiling prices affected wholesale couturiers in a number of ways. In order to conform to restrictions, they either had to present one smaller, less creative collection, using less yardage and fewer man-hours for each garment. Or alternatively present two collections, one for the home market, which conformed to ceiling prices and one for export (where they did not have to adhere to ceiling prices) which featured the exacting workmanship and amount of material that overseas customers expected. Both options were problematic. Export customers wanted to buy ‘what well-dressed Englishwomen’ were wearing but they could not be offered this if wholesale couturiers were also to turn a profit.52 Furthermore, the majority of wholesale couturiers were, at this time, small companies and therefore presenting two ‘model’ standard collections was not possible. As Starke suggested, ceiling prices favoured the mediumclass producer who could ‘comfortably sell within ceiling price, and with less exacting workmanship and styling be in a position to pay workroom wages as high or above those prevailing before the advent of the order.’53 Trade journals reported on the potential negative effect of ceiling prices and in January 1946 Fashion and Fabrics reported that ‘it is a pity that such deadening control should be imposed on the industry.’54 Starke warned that if something was not done to help then the entire wholesale couture sector faced extinction. Whilst extinction was perhaps an exaggeration the restrictions certainly caused a level of hardship. Starke’s comments relating to the restrictions help to uncover how

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

59

wholesale couturiers viewed their businesses – first and foremost as creative enterprises: The imposition of more and more restrictions can only serve to lower standards and kill the creative element, which is the lifeblood of fashion, and unless we can get our voices heard in yet another trade, craftsmanship will have disappeared. Let us hope that the arms of the octopus will not stretch out and grab the painter artist so that he be restricted to four colours, no half tones and primal objects, and the musician pianist to the two central octaves of the keyboard!55

Starke’s article, appearing in trade journal Fashion Forecast, acted as a plea for help. BoT documents from around the same date suggest this plea was successful as Mr Lee of the United Committee of Light Clothing Associations stated that the lower end of the trade were supporting the claim for the removal of ceiling prices for wholesale couturiers.56 Starke’s comments highlight how profoundly wholesale couturiers felt ceiling prices restricted them and also suggest how they wanted to depict themselves to the rest of the trade. The assertion of wholesale couturiers as ‘creative’ was one that was repeated in order to try and lift ceiling prices on their sector. For example, a BoT document from 1945 stated, ‘the wholesale model houses claim that they are the creative influence and inspire all sections of the industry.’57 How far wholesale couturiers can be seen as the ‘creative influence’ is open to debate. Certainly, firms further down the trade copied their garments, but their businesses were based largely around copying and adapting international couture. The BoT recognized this and in 1946 suggested that because their output was based upon foreign models, they could not accept the ‘value’ of wholesale couture as a reason to remove ceiling prices. The BoT viewed creativity and originality as highly desirable to overseas markets, and this is why they supported London couturiers who arguably fulfilled this need. However, they were willing to reassess the situation again at a later date.58 These ideas of creativity as a marker of difference and henceforth value connect closely with the French industry, where too there were continuous debates as to whether ready-to-wear could truly be considered ‘creative’. As Alexis Romano states, ‘industry insiders propagated the long-held and widespread belief that true creation was only possible at the haute couture level’ and that they ‘deemed creativity incompatible with industrial production’.59 The opinion of the BoT was, however, in opposition with much of the trade press. Many journals, particularly Fashion and Fabrics, repeatedly argued for the significance of wholesale couture. In June 1946 it asserted that wholesale couture garments were ‘replacing the demand once exclusively supplied by

60

Wholesale Couture

private retail workrooms’ and that wholesale couture applied ‘the principles of couture to trade requirements. It is, if anything, a more difficult and important function to be a couturier to the trade than to dress individuals in society, since it means combining production with ideas.’60 In November 1946 the journal again highlighted this stating that consumers and journalists alike were ‘hagridden’ ‘with officials who know the ceiling price of everything and the value of nothing’.61 Wholesale couturiers were offering desirable garments in superior quality fabrics with carefully executed workmanship and their pieces had an increasing appeal both to home and overseas markets, that by the late 1940s the BoT could no longer ignore. Despite repeated requests between 1945 and 1948 it took until March 1949 for wholesale couturiers to receive exemption from ceiling prices. In March it was announced that twenty-five firms had been placed on a special register (Register of Manufacturers of women’s and maid’s High-grade Outerwear), which exempted them from ceiling prices. There were two conditions that firms had to satisfy in order to be added to the register: firstly, they had to sell at home at or near the ceiling price. Secondly, exports had to amount to at least 15 per cent of their total non-Utility production. It appears that the BoT eventually conceded to wholesale couturiers’ pleas because of their increasing export success. In 1946 the BoT had suggested that their exports had been ‘negligible’ yet, by 1948 it stated that ‘on the export side these houses have appeared as almost the only section of the fashion industry to expand its exports.’ Whilst the general proportion of export to total production in the clothing industry was 5–8 per cent, wholesale couturiers were exporting up to 25 per cent of total production. As the BoT was actively encouraging export it was felt to be ‘undesirable’ to ‘fail to remove an obstacle to it.’62 It seems that the BoT agreed with Louis Stanley who in a 1946 Vogue article suggested that that the key to exportation of British clothes was quality over quantity and a removal of austerity measures so that there was full scope for a ‘far-sighted expansion of the industry’.63 The Register, and its associated R.M.H.O. label, would however prove to be short-lived, with ceiling prices for all non-Utility clothing removed in September 1949. As a collector I have only ever found one piece bearing the label – a bold blue brocade jacket manufactured by Gobert seen in Plate 4. The interior seams demonstrate the careful pattern cutting of the garment, the selvedge of the fabric apparent in the key vertical seams, with waste fabric kept to a minimum. The jacket is also unlined, suggesting the shortages manufacturers were still experiencing in 1949. The R.M.H.O label is loosely tacked in place, half concealed in a side seam. It seems, like other labels manufacturers had to put within their garments during

Seventh Avenue in Miniature

61

and after the war, the label was still resented as a ‘government’ issue label, despite the fact it offered benefits for manufacturers. Writing in 1957 Margaret Wray reflected that ‘women’s outerwear manufacturers generally enjoyed considerable prosperity in the 1946–50 period.’64 The gains made by wholesale couturiers specifically in the immediate post-war period should, however, be recognized as occurring in the face of adversity, owing to the challenges created by ceiling prices and the economic situation as Britain had come out of the war as a debtor nation. The tough economic situation was made worse due to ‘President Truman’s decision in 1945 to end the Lendlease system that had enabled Britain to pay for the war effort without having to produce exports to balance the cost of importing food and raw materials from America.’65 This coupled with severe labour shortage and high costs for raw materials hampered many fashion companies’ attempts to recover; yet, many of these firms did succeed. The rise in exports must also be considered within the framework of full convertibility between sterling and the dollar in 1947, and the 1949 devaluation of sterling by 30.8 per cent. This pushed the exchange rate down from $4.03 to the pound to $2.80.66 This occurred at the very end of a highly successful period of recovery and reorganization for wholesale couturiers, and although such a drop made British products a more attractive prospect, the retail price in America was still significantly higher than the price in Britain despite the devaluation of sterling. For example, a 1948 BoT report suggested that garments with a home ceiling price of £12 0s 9d were retailing in the United States for in excess of £40.67 Whilst this enhanced their export potential, it should not be considered as the sole reason why their exports improved so dramatically – this was a matter of design, manufacture and more aggressive promotion. In 1946 the BoT struggled to see the significance of wholesale couturiers; however, by late 1948 their standing, particularly with regard to export, had improved dramatically. By then the BoT reported that wholesale couturiers exports ‘are extremely valuable in that they represent a very high conversion value (i.e. consisting largely of skill) and a high prestige value.’68 Furthermore, the increasing visibility of wholesale couture firms through advertising and branding meant it was important that the BoT appeased them. The BoT suggested that lifting the restrictions would allow wholesale couturiers a ‘greater freedom of design’ and perhaps the BoT hoped that by removing ceiling prices this sector would become less reliant on copying foreign models.69 Copying was, however, important to their businesses and arguably in the 1950s, thanks to the removal of restrictions, the copies produced by wholesale couturiers were more exact and more desirable than they had been before the war, as chapter four will demonstrate.

62

Wholesale Couture

As this chapter has illustrated, in the 1930s American manufacturing techniques helped to transform the wholesale couture industry. Whilst many American manufacturers who travelled to Britain themselves were producing popular priced clothing, their influence was felt widely through the industry – thanks to collaboration with figures who became important in the wholesale couture trade, like Massey. Indeed, London ready-to-wear must be seen as deeply American influenced in this period, not only in terms of manufacture but also design. Efficient American manufacturing methods ensured success for those wholesale couturiers who introduced Utility lines in the 1940s and later youth lines in the 1950s, as will be discussed in chapter seven. Ceiling prices severely hampered the manufacture of wholesale couture, but some of the key figures realized they needed to organize together to fight against them, as chapter three will illustrate ceiling prices, in many ways, led to the founding of the Model House Group.

­3

Can London become a world fashion centre? Reimagining wholesale couture in 1946

Reflecting on the year 1946 fashion journalist Alison Settle suggested, ‘accurately, this was not a war year, but it behaved as one. Where fashion was concerned, in Britain it remained non-existent.’1 1946 was certainly a challenging year for fashion manufacturers. The basic ration for not only clothing but food too was smaller than it had been during the war and extreme shortages had led to price rises for many basic commodities. This had a direct impact on fashion firms; it was challenging to secure the superior-quality fabric they needed, fuel shortages made transport difficult and workers’ wages had increased dramatically owing to demand. Wholesale couturiers found themselves in a particularly tough situation. These firms were disproportionately affected by suddenly imposed ceiling prices and many in early 1946 had to alter collections at the last minute, largely leading to a simplification of designs. It is understandable therefore that the trade journal Fashion and Fabrics suggested: ‘1946 opens with the fashion world in a state of confusion and indecision bordering on chaos.’2 Later in 1946 Fashion and Fabrics illustrated just how challenging circumstances still were: Manufacturers […] state that the present situation regarding deliveries of cloth (which is worse than it ever has been) precludes any new cut which might take an extra inch of fabric. That they are allowed to use trimmings again – velvet, braid, beading etc. is offset by the fact that the trimming manufacturers have not yet got back into production […]. The lucky garment houses are those whose pre-war stocks have survived in good condition.3

Despite the difficulties faced by manufacturers it is wrong to simply dismiss fashion in 1946. Unquestionably there was a desire both for change and for something new. Historian James Laver was particularly aware of this and stated in 1946 that: ‘fashion has reached one of those turning points in history when

64

Wholesale Couture

everything may happen, just because anything may happen in the world. Neither in politics, nor in social life, nor in dress, nor in millinery are the lines yet laid down. We do not yet know what will get itself established.’4 Michael Sissons and Phillip French reflecting back on 1946 almost twenty years later reiterated Laver’s thoughts: ‘[it was] a vintage year for the word “new” […] Anything which pointed to the fact that a great new world had arrived was pleasurably received.’5 This chapter focuses upon three key events occurring in the Autumn of 1946, all of which were representative of a desire for something ‘new’: the first show of the Model House Group (MHG) in September 1946, the Council of Industrial Design (COID) organized exhibition Britain Can Make It (BCMI) at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) opening in September 1946, and finally the Guild of British Creative Designers inaugural Midnight Parade of Fashion at the Royal Albert Hall in October 1946.6 These events and the collective reporting on them demonstrate the status of the London wholesale couture trade immediately post-war and illustrate the methods used to bring British ready-to-wear to international consciousness. These three events aimed to demonstrate that British firms were open for business and able to trade internationally. Many wholesale couturiers recognized that 1946 was the perfect moment to launch an international attack and secure London’s status as a ready-to-wear fashion centre.7 Whilst such firms recognized that Paris would return as a key source of design inspiration they saw this as an opportunity to cement their position as style leaders for fashionable women who could not afford or did not wish to wear bespoke haute couture. Henry Scott, chairman of the Guild, elaborated on this. He believed that whilst the influence of Paris on fashion design was as strong as pre-war, ‘the influence of London as the international centre of creative design on the wholesale couture trade is undoubtedly more significant.’8 Scott’s statement reflects that wholesale couture garments were produced in reasonably large numbers and sold internationally. Haute couture on the other was produced bespoke and the originals were only available to a very small number of women. Many women who consumed haute couture would have done so through copies and adaptations, like those produced in London by members of the Guild. In 1946 wholesale couturiers were producing a broad range of clothing – from leisurewear to summer dresses, tailored suits to ball gowns. The fashion press, however, considered that there was only a limited area in which British fashion producers could compete and excel, namely finely crafted tailored clothes, produced in natural fibres. Tailoring was one of wholesale couturiers’ key outputs; however, it must be recognized that it was by no means all they

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

65

produced. Overall, it is clear in 1946 that the fashion press believe that Britain was not yet a centre of ‘creative’ fashion. This was put succinctly by Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘In the eyes of the world, and indeed in the eyes of any balanced English woman, we cannot even pretend to rival Paris as a creative centre for Fashion ideas. [England] should count herself lucky to have such an inspiring neighbour with such a treasure chest of ideas.’9 Despite these assertions, fashion events organized in 1946 aimed to prove otherwise and demonstrate the creativity of British and more particularly London fashion. Britain in the immediate post-war period was in acute financial difficulty and needed to generate enough income to pay for imports which were essential for post-war recovery. This required a two-fold agenda from the government; for one they had to reduce imports where possible and secondly, they had to encourage an export drive – specifically a dollar-based export drive – as Britain needed to make its loan payments back to the United States. Increasing exports to the United States was, however, a considerable challenge, owing to the advanced American ready-to-wear industry and also because American buyers wanted high quality garments produced quickly. Whilst many wholesale couturiers had adopted American manufacturing techniques and machinery by 1946, they were still not producing at the speed desired by American buyers and were also typically still producing in fairly small runs. It was vital in 1946 for wholesale couturiers to concentrate on producing garments that American buyers wanted. Stanley Marcus, President of the Texan luxury retailer Neiman Marcus, suggested that British goods needed something unique about them in order to appeal to the American market. Marcus believed that the American demand was almost exclusively for high-end ready-to-wear at that time. He stated that this ‘twenty percent market’ in America was willing to ‘pay a price for something that is newer, finer and more useful (e.g. dresses at $100 to $200)’.10 Certainly this was the price bracket that wholesale couture largely fell within in America, but how could wholesale couturiers encourage American buyers to select their products? Clever promotion – whether this was through fashion shows in Britain, international export drives or print promotion – was key. The establishment of London as a post-war centre of ready-to-wear and the overarching need to increase exports were closely linked. International buyers were again visiting Britain in early 1946 and new strategies were launched to encourage these buyers to come, and more importantly to buy. The year 1946 saw a change in the way that British fashion was presented to international markets with a new stance adopted in print promotion. In 1946 International Textiles rebranded itself

66

Wholesale Couture

as The Ambassador with a new tagline: ‘export or die’. Furthermore, in June 1946 British trade journal Fashion and Fabrics launched a bi-monthly overseas edition. This journal, unlike many of its competitors, was presented largely in colour. The British edition reported that ‘this magazine, the largest, most imposing and expensively illustrated trade magazine in the kingdom, has been acclaimed as setting an entirely new standard in fashion journalism.’11 The use of colour was particularly important for the American market as their native magazines included more colour spreads than was typically seen in Britain at the time.12 The stance of both The Ambassador and Fashion and Fabrics Overseas was beneficial to wholesale couturiers, as their garments featured extensively in both titles. The British fashion press believed that a flourishing home market would also lead to an increase in exports, and consequently a propagandist stance was adopted in the British fashion press in 1945 and 1946. British consumers were encouraged to ‘buy British’ and buy the best-designed articles they could, in order to encourage British export business: Every time you choose something well designed – whether a length of tweed, a sweater or a piece of china – you are strengthening the hand of a firm with fashion sense, which therefore has a good chance in world markets. Every time you turn down the dowdy, the commonplace and the vulgar, you are hastening the day when light will break upon yet another firm – that good design pays.13

In 1946 it was clear that three things would ensure British goods stood out in international markets: quality fabrics and fine workmanship, good design and innovative promotion. The two groups of wholesale couturiers, the Guild and the MHG, were keenly aware of this and their shows in 1945 and 1946 helped to demonstrate the competence of London wholesale couture.

The Guild of British Creative Designers The Guild of British Creative Designers formed in 1944 and represented the top end of the ready-to-wear trade in Britain. As Women’s Wear Daily suggested the group was formed to ‘strengthen postwar Britain as a center of international importance’ and to synchronize their shows around the timings of Parisian couture shows after the war.14 The Guild had twelve founder members: Acquer, Baroque, Mary Black, John Burnett, Harvey & Clark, Matita, Mercia (Figure 3.1), Vivian Porter, J.S. Sharpe, Selincourt and Sons, Seton Cotterill and C.R. Welford. Henry Scott, the managing director of Mercia, was their chairman. A report in

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

67

­ igure 3.1  Green watermark taffeta dress by Mercia, late 1940s. Photograph by Liz F Tregenza.

Drapers’ Record suggested that the Guild were formed with ‘the main object of developing Britain’s reputation for creative fashion and worldwide distribution of model garments made from exclusive British cloths’.15 In June 1945 the Guild held their first joint fashion parade at the Mayfair Hotel, London. Forty-eight ‘non-austerity’ ensembles (four from each firm) were shown. These garments were for export only and aimed to demonstrate the postwar direction of wholesale couture to international buyers. An article appearing in Drapers’ Record described members of the Guild as ‘stylists of model clothes.’16 This is indicative of the status of these firms’ designers, not recognized by the press of creating their own designs, as the term designer would suggest, rather that they were working with something pre-existing. This terminology indicates that the garments were likely copies and adaptations. The garments shown were glamorous and luxurious pieces, quite unlike much of the clothing that was available to the British general public at the time. One dress was commented on by a number of journalists, an evening dress made using thirty-three yards of chiffon, enough to clothe ‘eleven girls decently in austerity models.’17 A report in Drapers’ Record highlighted that this display focused on eveningwear: The models shown provide an entirely satisfactory answer to those who are asking ‘what is the British fashion industry doing to help this country compete

68

Wholesale Couture as a world-famous fashion centre after the war?’ Glamorous evening gowns with bustles and trains, romantic looking chiffon affairs with intricate bodice draping and voluminous skirts were highlights of the collection and received enthusiastic applause.18

This fashion show was a successful endeavour and subsequently the entire collection was bought by Myers department store, Melbourne in conjunction with David Jones department store, Sydney for display in the ‘capital cities’ of Australia.19 These Australian showings in 1946 were for entertainment only, showing the direction of London wholesale couture and the garments shown were not for sale. A letter from David Jones to Richard O. Porter (managing director of Vivian Porter) indicated the success of the tour to Australia: ‘you will be interested to know that it is the most successful exhibition ever held in the Gallery. The attendance was 17,000 people in one week.’ The letter went on to indicate that Fox Movietone had visited and took pictures that later appeared in a Fox Movietone Newsreel shown in Sydney.20 The London parade and subsequent Australian tour received extensive coverage in the British and Australian press. Journalists commented favourably on the exquisite detail and fine handwork, the quality of the material and the subtle use of colour; however, it is clear from editorial content that the Guild’s designs were not recognizably ‘British’.21

­The Model House Group The Model House Group formed in Spring 1946 with ten founder members – Brenner Sports, Koupy (Chas. Kuperstein), W&O Marcus, Simon Massey, Rima, Dorville (Rose and Blairman), Silhouette de Luxe, Spectator Sports, Frederick Starke and the Jersey Company.22 Three figures were instrumental in the establishment of the MHG: Alec Brenner (Brenner Sports) who was the first chairman of the Group, Charles Kuperstein (Koupy) who provided the initial idea for the group and Frederick Starke who was the longstanding secretary of the  MHG and wrote many articles as the ‘face’ of the group. Starke also acted as the main point of liaison between the MHG and other organizations including the  BBC, BoT and the Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (IncSoc). All firms produced wholesale couture, and alongside this most produced a lower price or Utility range. Profits for wholesale couturiers in the immediate post-war period were generally made on export business, special orders and for those that produced them, on Utility garments. Profit was rarely made on wholesale couture models to be sold in Britain.23

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

69

No documentation is known to survive that indicates how the ten members of the MHG were selected. Unquestionably there were far more firms who could be classified as ‘model houses’ or wholesale couturiers. Starke stated that the group was an ‘association of houses acknowledged as originators of fashions, whose models are sold throughout this country under their individual labels through Fashion Houses and Stores.’24 Furthermore, Brenner affirmed that the group included, ‘the leading creative spirits in the London Fashion World, it contains within its organization the forward elements of the designing and manufacturing fields actuated by a determination to return as quickly as possible to pre-war standards.’25 Both their choice of words here are interesting, with emphasis placed on originality, individuality and creativity. Overall these statements suggest that the MHG viewed itself as a design led group. Indeed, whilst it was well known that wholesale couturiers copied and adapted from Parisian haute couture no mention of this was made in articles written by either Brenner or Starke in the 1940s. The fashion press widely considered the formation of the MHG as important, and Women’s Wear News suggested that ‘[the MHG] will give strength and coherence to the whole conception of wholesale couture.’26 Fashion and Fabrics offered a similar perspective on the newly formed group, ‘A strong, well-led couture in the wholesale guarantees a high standard of inspiration, styling, finish etc. throughout the fashion industry. The wholesale couture of the future will be led by firms whose names are a guarantee that overseas markets will be served with ranges representing the very best in British craftsmanship and materials.’27 These articles indicate that from its foundation the MHG were seen as industry leaders, despite the fact that the Guild were already in existence. The MHG were perhaps more ambitious with their plans, and this indicates why the press viewed them so favourably as soon as they were founded. The MHG from the outset established the following aims, ‘to influence the style and to improve the general standard of wholesale models’28 and ‘to demonstrate the high standard of design and craftsmanship, and to impress buyers from overseas with the importance of London as a source of supply for fashion’.29 It must be seen that the MHG were an export focused group from the start. A number of issues had arisen within the wholesale couture sector prior to the foundation of the MHG and indicate why the group was needed. There had been problems with the timing of shows and confusion dealing with both suppliers and retailers. Starke highlighted that in early 1946 buyers had ‘found a wide and varied industry admittedly not a very tidily organized one, but one able to supply all grades of merchandise and catering for most climatic conditions’.30 The MHG

70

Wholesale Couture

aimed to synchronize wholesale couturiers’ shows for the convenience of buyers and improve the organization of the sector overall with individual seasonal shows spread over just one week and an opening joint show presenting a ‘united front’ to the rest of the industry. Another crucial element of the improved organization was increased publicity for MHG members. The MHG employed Messrs. Legget Nicholson and Partners Ltd. to handle all publicity for the group, including press shows, photography, press releases and advertising, and from the summer of 1946 onwards took out large segments of advertising space, generally in the expensive front pages of both trade journals and fashion magazines, for the individual firms. Each advert had ‘member of the Model House Group’ printed within it.31 The sheer prominence of the MHG’s advertising helps to demonstrate group members’ signature styles, and also the similarities between some members’ output. Indeed, it is thanks to their extensive advertising that it has been possible to identify many of the models that appeared at BCMI, as is discussed later in this chapter. It is highly likely that the MHG were also founded in reaction to the ‘strangling effect’ of ceiling prices as discussed in chapter two. Brenner stated: Full scope for natural expression is still being denied to the world of fashion by the completely artificial pegging of prices. Good work is being done but how often must the model be changed for the sake of petty economies before it goes into production? Any form of limitation is a bad thing for English Fashion. Anything which inhibits production of the finest possible styles is bought at the cost of an enviable reputation.32

In order to try and exclude themselves from these regulations, wholesale couturiers had to unite into a ‘body, which would be recognised by officialdom.’33 The MHG also hoped to be granted certain concessions by the BoT that retail couturiers had already received.34 Whilst it took nearly three years for ceiling prices to be lifted for wholesale couturiers, it is indicative of the MHG’s success that ten of the twelve 1949 members were put on the Register of Manufacturers of High-grade Outerwear. The MHG’s combined showings were also likely initiated in reaction to the simultaneous shows organized by IncSoc for export buyers in January 1946. Whilst the two groups catered to different levels of the market there were unquestionably similarities between them. IncSoc’s shows were co-ordinated individual ‘export only’ shows, timed not to clash, in members’ own showrooms that aimed to draw overseas buyers to London on their way to the Paris openings. Jones has suggested that such shows were probably instigated in order to give couturiers access to luxury foreign fabrics for their British clients (under

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

71

Figure 3.2  Advertisement announcing the Model House Group’s inaugural combined show, Ambassador, No. 8 1946. Courtesy of Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

special  import/export regulations).35 Perhaps by instigating similar combined shows the MHG hoped to receive comparable sanctions. The MHG held their first synchronized shows at the Dorchester Hotel, London on 11 September 1946 (Figure 3.2). Over 1,500 people attended and attendees included press, BoT representatives, foreign trade delegations and attaches and buyers. Starke suggested that the first show was ‘a tangible expression of the Group’s ideas and ideals, and the degree of success achieved in promoting them’.36 The first show was reported on in national and international newspapers, magazines and journals. Highlights from the collection were also broadcast on television the next day. Sources vary as to the percentage of models that were available to purchase at ceiling price in the domestic market. All evening dresses and coats were certainly (initially) for export only and just under half of the other models shown were ceiling price models, able to be sold in Britain. BoT consultations with the MHG demonstrate that many of the models destined to remain in Britain were produced either at a loss, or in some cases at only an insufficient profit.37 In total eighty ensembles (eight by each firm) were presented at this inaugural show. The majority of garments can be categorized as ‘daywear’ with just fifteen ‘eveningwear’ ensembles shown (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).38 Press reports highlight that the ‘main feature’ of the display was tailored tweeds

72

Wholesale Couture

­ igure 3.3  Ice blue dinner dress by Silhouette de Luxe featured at the MHG’s F inaugural Dorchester Hotel show, September 1946. Credit: TopFoto.

Figure 3.4  Black taffeta dress by Frederick Starke, featured at the MHG’s inaugural Dorchester Hotel show, September 1946. This dress also appeared at Britain Can Make It and is seen in figure 3.7. Credit: TopFoto.

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

73

Figure 3.5  Editorial photograph of a Rima four-piece wine coloured birds-eye tweed outfit featured at the MHG’s inaugural show, photographed by Elsbeth Juda, Ambassador, No. 9 1946. © Elsbeth Juda/Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

(Figure 3.5). It is clear from descriptions of the show that a new fashionable silhouette was beginning to develop. Many dresses and suits were tight-waisted with emphasis on the hipline created through padding. Whereas a squared shoulder had been popular throughout the war, garments in this collection featured an increasingly rounded silhouette. Jackets were predominantly long, creating a tunic line and were paired with slim skirts. Colours were described as ‘spiced and foretelling of autumn’. Brown was the most prominent colour but there was also much use of dark olive, copper-toned reds, acid yellow and stone shades. Shock accents of colours such as lime green were also seen. ‘Graciously draped’ dresses were a feature of both afternoon and eveningwear and there were many examples featuring ‘exquisite’ beading and embroidery, often with a Grecian influence.39 The press reaction towards the MHG’s first show was largely positive; however, there were some criticisms of the show, most notably from Settle. Her report in the Observer suggested that: The big export collection of the week showed the discreet yet superb tailoring, the coats and suits a triumph for British cut and fabrics. Yet this collection […] has been infiltrated by some French designed evening gowns. Surely this is unnecessary?

74

Wholesale Couture London is not making any untenable, extravagant claims to oust Paris, but stressed instead, in the export collections such as this, that she has something unique to offer in tailored clothes. What are visiting buyers to think when they see recognizable Paris models included in the British offering shown by London’s leading wholesale firms, even though they have been correctly (and expensively) bought from the French originating houses?40

Whilst other journalists did not accuse the MHG of copying, they did question whether wholesale couturiers should concentrate their activities solely on ‘traditional’ British styles, as this was what overseas buyers suggested they wanted.41 Overall, press reports demonstrated that the MHG’s main success was in their tailored garments rather than eveningwear. Despite claims of their ‘creativity’ MHG members were explicitly copying Parisian models in 1946. It is clear from Settle’s article that the system of buying models in Paris to copy worked; however, perhaps she felt that such models should not be shown to the export markets, if a claim of London as an international ‘fashion centre’ was to be made. The MHG had organized themselves, quickly, into a successful group with a homogeneous image created through press promotion. Yet, there was still a struggle regarding the identity of wholesale couture. Certainly, the group were successfully producing tailored garments from native design inspiration. However, they were also copying Parisian models. Could these firms accept that the press largely regarded them as copyists, or was it important for them to be recognized as designers in their own right?

Britain Can Make It BCMI opened to the public on 24 September 1946, organized by the Council of Industrial Design, on behalf of the BoT. The exhibition was held in the empty ground floor galleries of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Despite a relatively short run (closing in December 1946), BCMI was hugely popular and welcomed 1.4 million visitors. BCMI aimed to demonstrate the recovery and improvement of British design and that British firms were again open for business and able to trade internationally. The exhibition sought to educate the general public on industrial design and demonstrate that good design in the post-war period was something that was accessible to all. As the accompanying book Design ’46 suggested, ‘it is becoming recognised that low price goods need not be ugly, nor mass-produced articles ill designed.’42 BCMI was not only designed to educate

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

75

the general public but the trade too, demonstrating that good design equated to good business.43 The exhibition was not one of bestselling lines. Rather, the ‘underlying purpose’ was to ‘raise the standard of choice and judgement’ within the industries involved and the retail trade that sold their products. BCMI, alongside other COID exhibitions, encouraged long-term rather than shortterm sales promotion. The goods shown represented ‘the line of progress’ rather than those which already commanded a ‘ready market.’44 Finally, the desire to increase exports and persuade overseas buyers and tourists to visit must be seen as one of the main aims of BCMI. As Stafford Cripps, President of the BoT suggested, ‘the improvement of British design is an important factor […] in our attempt to re-establish and increase our export markets.’45 Dress and textiles were a significant feature of BCMI and accounted for a quarter of the floor space given over to the exhibition. According to visitors, women’s dress was the second most popular aspect of BCMI.46 In total 178 womenswear garments/ensembles were displayed across five sections: ‘couturiers’, ‘wholesale model houses’, ‘Utility and other clothes retailing up to £10’, ‘knitwear’ and ‘furs.’ In Exhibiting Fashion: Before and After 1971 Judith Clarke, Amy De La Haye and Jeffrey Horsley suggest that BCMI was ‘exceptional’ as the first instance that contemporary fashion had been exhibited at the V&A. It must also be recognized that it was, at the time, ‘unusual for fashion to be well represented within a mixed media exhibition’.47 Couture garments were given the prime spot within the fashion section, staged in the centre of the hall of fashion on a 25 ft revolving stage. Suspended over the stage was a softly lit canopy of white nylon creating a dream-like centrepiece. A clear physical delineation was created within the exhibition space and wholesale couture pieces were displayed in alcoves around the exterior of the hall representing familiar London locations. For the general public viewing the exhibition there would have been a clear demarcation – the wholesale garments were placed in what would have been familiar settings for many – Hyde Park and Covent Garden. By placing wholesale couturiers’ garments in ‘everyday’ settings it established that the clothes were in reach of those viewing the exhibition. On the other hand, the staging of the couture section was out of reach physically and financially. Documentation within the BCMI archive indicates that, after much discussion, the inclusion of fashionable dress within BCMI was almost unanimously agreed upon. However, fashion did not necessarily fit within the ‘ideals’ and aims of the exhibition.48 Jonathan Woodham has suggested that the COID was ‘ideologically opposed to ephemeral styling and notions of obsolescence […] Fashion in its very essence, was readily associated with a short lifespan and was an activity

76

Wholesale Couture

about which the male modernists of the COID felt distinctly uncomfortable.’49 The garments within the ‘wholesale’ and ‘Utility’ sections would have been executed to a relatively high standard, yet they were ephemeral, designed to be disposed of after a few seasons. In 1945 Stafford Cripps had stated that the exhibition should include ‘no “precious” stuff ’ all ‘manufactured goods – not handmade’.50 The couturiers’ garments in particular, most of which were eveningwear and would have been laboriously hand-made contravened this. Many of the evening garments produced by wholesale couturiers too were ‘precious’, the majority having evident beading and embroidery. Indeed, only the Utility section fitted within Cripps’ guidelines for acceptable entries to the exhibition. Despite the emphasis placed on mass manufacture, comments made by Robin Darwin within Design ’46 imply that small-scale manufacture, the kind most often seen within the top two tiers of the fashion industry, was favourable to ensure good designs were produced. He stated that ‘good design can only come about when there is the closest association and sympathy between the man who has the original idea and those who see it carried out.’51 It can clearly be seen that there was some disagreement between those involved as to what precisely should have been included at BCMI. Jones has suggested that the couture garments within the exhibition were seen as ‘above’ the fashion trade, included at BCMI for inspiration and entertainment purposes, viewed as ‘cultural rather than commercial.’52 Wholesale couture fashion sat within a more uneasy position; indeed, these garments were certainly commercial yet also produced in small runs. Overall it can be seen that wholesale couture oscillated between acceptable and not in the eyes of the COID. Fashion at BCMI has received little prior to discussion, arguably because of this difficult position that fashion sat in, but equally because no garments displayed at BCMI are known to survive. The V&A did not keep objects exhibited at BCMI as it was an externally organized exhibition, and furthermore, at the time of the exhibition contemporary fashion was not actively collected by the museum. Garments were returned to the firms who had lent them but there were reports that conditions within the exhibition were verminous and it is conceivable that exhibited garments were disposed of. IncSoc minutes suggest that their garments had ‘not cleaned up satisfactorily’ and it was agreed that ‘the models would have to be written off to advertising’.53 Within the exhibition sixty-four wholesale couture models were shown (Figures  3.6, 3.7 and 3.8). Whilst many surviving images of fashion at BCMI exist, it is challenging to identify all of the models included as only very brief

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

77

Figures 3.6  Wholesale couture ‘daywear’ at Britain Can Make It. The numbers below correspond to the garment numbers in the Britain Can Make It Catalogue. Left to right: M48 The Jaeger co (scarlet jacket and black skirt). M36 Gross & Fuss (black suit). M88 Matita (three-piece suit). M65 Arthur Banks (dressmaker suit). M82 Selincourt and Sons (mustard and olive striped wool suit). M49 The Jaeger co (camel coat with tartan dress). M74 Spectator Sports (cocoa coloured corduroy velvet coat). M77 Charles Kuperstein (yellow and black tweed suit). M81 Leathercraft (red suede suit box jacket). Credit: Design Council Archive, University of Brighton Design Archives.

descriptions of models were included in the catalogue. Models have therefore been identified via extensive research through archival sources, magazine editorials and advertisements. Twenty-two BCMI models were by 1946 MHG members, five were by Guild members, six by firms included in the Midnight Parade but not Guild members and thirty-one by other firms. A large number of garments by ‘other’ firms were separates such as blouses or skirts as opposed to dresses, suits or full ensembles. These figures clearly demonstrate that the MHG’s garments were more representative of the COID’s notions of good design than the Guild’s. In the early stages of exhibition planning Guild members certainly expected their pieces to feature. In March 1946 the Guild suggested that their members’ models should be selected by IncSoc, with an article in Fashion Trade Weekly describing IncSoc as the ‘Guild’s counterpart in the retail dressmaking

78

Wholesale Couture

Figure 3.7  Wholesale couture ‘eveningwear’ at BCMI. Left to right: M79a Charles Kuperstein (evening dress). Unknown. M42 Brenner Sports (black and white dinner dress). Probably M70 Rima (white evening dress). M 37/38 Frederick Starke (afternoon/dinner dress in black). M55 Rosalinde Gilbert (black and white sequinned evening dress). M 37/38 Frederick Starke (afternoon/dinner dress in black). Probably M79 Charles Kuperstein (afternoon dress). M76 Spectator Sports (evening coat red velour). Probably M62 Elizabeth Henry (pink moire evening dress). Credit: Design Council Archive, University of Brighton Design Archives.

Figure 3.8  Two garments displayed at BCMI. Left: M71 Rima (fine wool black dress), Right: M41 Brenner Sports (purple suit). Credit: Design Council Archive, University of Brighton Design Archives.

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

79

stage of the trade’.54 This demonstrates a level of importance that the Guild had within the fashion industry, which, when the MHG was formed a few months later, was arguably lost. The fashion display at BCMI was London-centric with only two firms based outside London included in the wholesale section: Dent, Allcroft and Co (Watford) and John Barran & Sons (Leeds). This indicates the prosperity in 1946 of London producers and can be attributed to three factors: firstly, the pre-war concentration of fashion production in London. Secondly, the small factories most of these firms had run during wartime, which meant many retained a higher proportion of their workforce than provincial producers. Thirdly, the fact that many of these factories had not turned over to government contract work as their factories were considered too small.55 Surviving documentation suggests that London couturiers and IncSoc members selected their own garments for inclusion within BCMI. However, it seems unlikely that this was the case for the wholesale couture section of the exhibition; rather the firms submitted products for approval. The final decisions for wholesale garments to be included was made at the fashion shows that were held just weeks before BCMI opened. All garments by MHG members that appeared at BCMI, and can be identified, were also shown at their inaugural show on the 11 September. Confirming this Fashion Trade Weekly suggested that the MHG should be ‘flattered by the number of styles included from their recent Dorchester show.’56 The individuals included on the fashion selection panel help to explain the choices made within the exhibition. The fashion selection panel (women’s fashion, accessories and dress cloths) was as follows: The Hon. Mrs Reginald Fellowes – President, IncSoc Miss Gardiner – Buyer, Bon Marche (Liverpool) Madge Garland – Fashion Manager, Bourne and Hollingsworth Anne Scott James – Editor, Harper’s Bazaar Hans Juda – Publisher and Editor, International Textiles P Pontin – Editor, Woman and Beauty Albert Stead – Drapery Manager and Buyer, Birmingham Co-operative Society Ltd. Audrey Withers – Editor, Vogue Elizabeth Wray – Fashion Editor, Fashion and Fabrics57

Other than ‘Designers Look Ahead’, fashion had the largest selection committee, necessary because of the large space given over to it within the exhibition. Garland, Scott James and Withers also selected the jewellery displayed.

80

Wholesale Couture

The feminine bias of the fashion selection panel was unusual. The majority of the other selection panels had one or two women included but other than for toilet requisites and fancy goods (which had a selection panel of just three – two women and one man) no other panel was so female dominated.58 This suggests that despite a display predominantly featuring, or credited to male designers, women were considered better judges of women’s garments. It is perhaps a little surprising that Settle was not included on the selection panel. Settle had been one of just two women to attend the inaugural conference in 1945 to discuss the possibility of the exhibition and owing to her varied fashion journalistic experience she would have been an ideal choice. However, it seems likely that Settle was not chosen as she has voiced concerns in 1945 that Britain was ‘far behind other countries in design’ and that the exhibition should concentrate on foreign design selected by the COID.59 The women’s fashion selection panel was made up of magazine editors and fashion buyers/retailers. The top end of the fashion press was represented by Scott James and Withers, the middle market fashion press by Pontin, the export trade press by Juda and the British trade press by Wray. It appears that Stead and Gardiner were included as representatives for the retail trade in order to present a national, rather than London centric, view. Garland, alongside her work as fashion manager for Bourne and Hollingsworth, had also previously been fashion editor at Vogue, so had an excellent and varied knowledge of fashion. In a later memo S.C. Leslie explained how the panels were chosen: The selection committees contained persons of standing who were expert judges and critics of design, persons representing the point of view of the instructed and well-informed consumer, and persons representing the best design knowledge in the retail trade. Manufacturers were not included because it would have been invidious and embarrassing to make them judges of their own and their competitors’ goods.60

Despite S.C. Leslie’s assertion that manufacturers were ‘not included’ on selection panels the menswear panel included them. The selection panel was as follows: C.F. Glenny of Thresher & Glenny Ltd (producer of bespoke tailoring), Ashley Havinden (designer of this section of the exhibition), W.A. Swift (a journalist) and Charles C. Whitelock (producer of bespoke tailoring). Other than Havinden, these men dealt exclusively with the top end of the trade; however, they had to largely assess ready-to-wear garments. Certainly, the scope offered by this selection panel was not as broad as the selection panel for womenswear.

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

81

However, there were unquestionably limitations with the womenswear selection panel, as these figures all represented a cultural elite. Prior to the exhibition opening James Cleveland Belle (organizer of the fashion section) suggested that there was to be ‘no undue accent on “typically British” style’, i.e. plain tailored garments. The committee was selecting garments that represented: ‘new design, new fashion, but above all good taste’.61 Almost two-thirds of the couture models on display could be categorized as evening or dinner dresses. Whereas discounting the individual blouses and skirts shown, almost 70 per cent of wholesale garments were day dresses, suits or coats. There were three times as many coats and suits on display by the wholesalers over the couturiers. Owing to the season in which BCMI occurred the bias towards tailoring and coats is understandable; however, the disproportionate number of evening and dinner dresses shown by the couturiers cannot be regarded as a seasonal decision – rather one relating to the class of the potential wearers of such garments, and because couture was included for entertainment purposes. Design ’46 included nine pages of garment previews for BCMI. These garments were not what were shown at BCMI; rather they were indicative of the ‘current trend in British fashion.’62 There are five pages of IncSoc creations (a mix of evening and daywear) and four pages of wholesale creations. Eight models are shown, six of which were by MHG members. All of the wholesale designs in Design ’46 were tailored garments. Whilst these garments represent what was shown at BCMI, it is to a limited extent. On the whole, these garments were more restrained than what appeared at BCMI and in fact, more restrained than wholesale couturiers’ output that season more widely. To draw one example, three garments by the wholesale couturier Frederick Starke appeared at BCMI: a black and red sequin day dress, a black afternoon dress and a black evening dress. His models shown did not conform to the tweedy look that was mostly seen at BCMI from other MHG members; however, when viewing other garments by Starke from 1946 it is clear that he focused more on eveningwear than other members did. The three garments by Starke featured at BCMI are relatively restrained in design when compared with other evening models he produced in 1946. They are perhaps not truly representative of his design aesthetic yet demonstrate the clean pared back aesthetic that was preferred by the BCMI selection committee. The role of the designer within BCMI was very important. The Ambassador stated, ‘the fact that the catalogue mentions the names of some 400 individual designers shows the increasing recognition now being given to those key

82

Wholesale Couture

technicians in industry.’63 Emphasis was placed on the significant role played by the designer alongside the manufacturer and Darwin hoped that the new attitude towards the designer within the exhibition would help to increase their recognition in the future.64 Within the fashion section of the catalogue the manufacturer’s name was given first with the designer’s name in italics next to the individual garment he or she designed. Within the couture section the designer is provided next to all garments, on the other hand, within the wholesale section just a quarter of the garments have the designer’s name next to them. This could indicate that they did not employ someone specifically as a designer, or simply that they had chosen to not provide this information. Starke is the only wholesale couturier named as both the manufacturer and designer, replicating the manner in which the couturiers’ garments were listed. This demonstrates Starke’s unusual position within the wholesale sector and suggests his desire to stress both a creative and managerial control over Frederick Starke Ltd. Journalists felt that whilst the general public would enjoy the chance to see fashion at BCMI, many of which would typically be out of their reach, overall the display was deficient. The problems were two-fold: the way in which models were displayed and also the garments themselves. In terms of the display a journalist from Women’s Wear News suggested that ‘the impression gained is of an Oxford-Street shop window and the display figures conceal rather than draw attention to the style features.’65 Drapers’ Record was similarly negative suggesting that ‘some of the garments and dress accessories seem hardly worth inclusion in the show.’66 Fashion Trade Weekly also found the fashions on display uninspiring, with particular criticism directed to the couture garments: Their average […] is no more exciting than one would encounter on a really intelligently planned round of Mayfair and Kensington dress shops. This is a step forward, but it is not the stirring lead in design which we might have expected. It is London with the brake off, but it is no challenge to the creative originality of the Haute Couture.67

The comparisons with shop window display can be understood. The specialist journal Display demonstrated that the styling of BCMI had commonalities with much modern window display. Whimsical or novel displays were popular throughout Britain, and even further afield in Europe.68 It is also understandable why some journalists were left uninspired by the garments on display. These pieces were largely from Autumn/Winter 1946 collections, contrasting with other sections of the exhibition where either prototypes or very new to the market pieces were shown. In some instances,

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

83

Figures 3.9  BCMI editorial feature, Harper’s Bazaar, October 1946. The Rima dress seen here appears in Figure 3.8. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines.

fashion journalists had seen these garments as early as May or June that year. The Ambassador, likely owing to Hans Juda’s involvement in the selection committee, was one of the few trade journals to present a wholly positive review. It suggested that BCMI ‘surpassed all expectations’ in terms of both the layout and the ‘inspiring’ goods on display.69 More recent commentary on BCMI has suggested that one of the exhibitions failings was ‘the lack of co-ordination between clothing manufacturers and their fabric suppliers.’ Mary Schoeser used the exhibition catalogue to highlight this. She suggested that the reason why only five couture firms and no wholesale firms chose to reveal their sources was either ‘a result of the desire for secrecy or the dislocation of labour and disruption of supply links caused by the war.’70 Arguably the lack of details was caused by issues surrounding the ‘intensely hurried manner’ with which the exhibition was staged and problems printing the catalogue, which was delayed owing to a dispute in the printing press.71 Just two weeks before the exhibition opened final garments were still to be chosen. An article in Fashion Trade Weekly (12  September 1946) stated, ‘styles to be included in the fashion hall […] are said to be “coming through well.” But, with the opening less than two weeks ahead, there is no definite information available

84

Wholesale Couture

Figure 3.10  BCMI editorial feature, Fashion and Fabrics, October 1946. The two Kuperstein suits and the Brenner suit were also featured in the Harper’s Bazaar BCMI preview (see figure 3.9). The Kuperstein suit seen on the right-hand page, top left was also featured in Vogue’s preview of the exhibition. It is likely these garments were heavily featured in fashion and trade magazine previews because, as the catalogue suggests, they were already available for purchase in the home market.

on the styles themselves.’72 There are also a number of articles which describe the fabrics used for BCMI garments. An article in the Yorkshire Post discussed the Rima models to be shown and informed readers that the fabric used was produced by W.E. Yates Ltd. and Mellish Richardson & Co Ltd.73 Earlier in 1946 articles has also appeared in the trade journals which discussed and celebrated the close co-operation between fabric designers, manufacturers, converters, merchants and finally fashion firms. One 1946 Ambassador article discussed how Rima worked closely with a number of different fabric companies.74 These examples illustrate that despite suggestions of lacking co-ordination between fabric suppliers and manufacturers this was not the case and close collaboration was evident within the industry in 1946. Journalists were highly critical of BCMI; however, it was a popular exhibition with the general public and unquestionably the display was innovative. The

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

Figure 3.11  Brenner advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, October 1946. This suit appeared at BCMI and was also included in the Harper’s Bazaar and Fashion and Fabrics preview of the exhibition. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines.

Figure 3.12  Brenner advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, December 1946. It seems likely this dress appeared at BCMI, garment number 43A- described as a ‘Dinner dress, black, white and gold’. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines.

85

86

Wholesale Couture

exhibition brought London wholesale couture to a wider international audience, not just for those who saw the exhibition, but also in the large number of magazine and newspaper articles which featured fashions from BCMI.

­The Midnight Parade of Fashion During the summer of 1946 the Guild of British Creative Designers announced that they would be holding a Midnight Parade of Fashion at the Royal Albert Hall in October that year. The parade was planned on a spectacular scale and designed to be a novel event. The Guild invited non-members to take part in the parade because the twelve houses of the Guild were considered too few for a show in the Albert Hall. Twenty-two firms took part in the parade each presenting at least six models.75 No MHG members participated in the parade, indicating the separation of the two groups within the fashion industry. Dancer and stage director Wendy Toye was placed in charge of staging with theatre director and producer Robert Nesbitt acting in an advisory capacity. The parade was compered by television broadcaster Leslie Mitchell and music was performed by British dance bands Ambrose’s and Geraldo’s.76 According to the Guild chairman, Scott, the parade aimed to demonstrate Britain’s ‘predominant position in the World as a centre of wholesale couture’ and that the Guild were the foremost creators of wholesale couture in Britain.77 National and international newspapers, trade journals and fashion magazines covered the parade and highlights were broadcast on both radio and television. Highlights also appeared in two British Pathè newsreels after the event. These newsreels were particularly important for the Guild and would have reached a wide crosssection of the general public as they were shown as accompaniments to main features at cinemas across the UK. The main aim of the parade was the promotion of British fashion; however, it also had charitable concerns. Those attending the parade had to purchase tickets (3 gns for basic tickets, 10 gns for second tier boxes, 30 gns for first tier boxes and 50 gns for logia boxes), and the profits were divided between the Purley Schools, the Linen and Woollen Drapers Institution and the General Porters.78 The parade itself was solely attended by members of the trade (and their invitees). However, in the months following the parade a number of British department stores put on special window displays and shows featuring garments from the parade.79 Jones has suggested that the parade was ‘prompted’ by Guild members’ omission from BCMI.80 However, this does not appear to be the case. A June

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

87

1946 Fashion Trade Weekly article reveals that the parade was not intended to compete with BCMI, rather act as a supplement to it: Scott, […] visualizes the ball as the most spectacular display of clothes ever put on and hopes it will become an annual event. It is timed to coincide with [BCMI], and is designed to attract overseas buyers who, for space reasons, will see only a small fashion section at the V&A […] Mr. Scott makes it clear that the event is in no way competitive with [BCMI]. On the contrary, the idea is said to have the enthusiastic support of official Departments.81

An article in Drapers’ Record further highlighted this, suggesting that the parade was to be held ‘in connection with’ BCMI.82 Whilst there was certainly some antagonism that so few models by Guild members appeared at BCMI, plans for the parade were set in motion long before the final selection for BCMI was made and Guild members certainly supported the exhibition. All models shown at the parade were non-Utility and a significant number were export only. Co-operation with British fabric organizations was strong, and models were backed by generous fabric allocations from textile firms. Technological improvements in fabric manufacture were proudly displayed. The parade included the first-ever dress made from nylon net; a ‘closely guarded secret’ incorporating thirty yards of fabric in a voluminous skirt, with life-size roses in shades of pink and red sprinkled across it.83

Figure 3.13  Rehearsal for the Midnight Parade of Fashion, showing the variety of garments that were included in the parade, 2 October 1946. Credit: TopFoto.

88

Wholesale Couture

Figure 3.14  Two models pose at the preview for the Midnight Parade of Fashion. Left: Black sequinned coatee with batwing sleeves and wired basque, worn over white crepe gown scattered with black sequin flowers. Model by Acquer. Right: Green mist mimosa dress, embroidered with gold beads and sequins. Model by C.R. Welford, 2 October 1946. Credit: TopFoto.

Figure 3.15  Garments featured in the Midnight Parade of Fashion. Fashion Forecast, October 1946.

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

89

The parade was extensively covered by the British trade press and the pageantry of the show was widely appreciated. Jean Guest of Drapers’ Record described the parade as ‘a spectacle of colour and beauty’, the setting of the Albert Hall creating a ‘scene of perhaps unequalled brilliance in the British world of fashion.’84 Fashion Trade Weekly suggested that it was an ‘exceptional occasion’ and that ‘nothing of this kind has been organised before.’85 Fashion and Fabrics stated that ‘there had not been such a fashion spectacle in the world since the war’86 and a journalist for Women’s Wear News reported that it was ‘undoubtedly the most spectacular and theatrical collection ever presented by any section of the fashion trade in this country.’87 The reception to the garments presented was however mixed. Journalists were concerned with the elaborate nature of the garments, often in fabrics and with trimmings that the British public had grown unaccustomed to during the war. One journalist described the garments (which they viewed at a preview)88 as follows: Feathers, sequins, frills, chiffon, pleats, net, lace – all the bits of fluff and stuff ruled out in the British woman’s wardrobe for six years – were here and some of the clothes appeared gaudy to eyes dimmed to austerity measures. The tweed suit, trademark of the British woman everywhere, was ignored and the show concentrated on décolletage, feathered evening caps, daring slit skirts and voluminous skirts. […] Severe black and white numbers, yellow trimming scarlet, scarlet trimming yellow, splashy printed ensembles, deep burgundy, purple were the colours and combinations.89

Women’s Wear News also noted the extravagance of the garments. It stated ‘designers had overstepped the limits of good taste in their efforts to create lavishly impressive gowns […] designers forego major essentials of line, cut and dressmaker detail in favour of exotic and seductive designs of unparalleled exuberance.’90 Fashion Trade Weekly offered perhaps the most open view on the garments displayed. It acknowledged criticisms from other sources but suggested that ‘trade opinion is always prepared to allow some license in this direction, for it is a characteristic of most displays having a general promotion – as distinct from an immediate selling-object. This criticism should not be taken too seriously.’91 The extreme frivolity of the show was, perhaps out of keeping with the times. Despite a desire for glamour, if fashion as an industry was to be taken seriously there needed to be a note of sobriety and seriousness, which the parade did not have. The criticisms quoted here were largely from British trade journals with a national rather than international readership. It is interesting that these same journals widely supported the efforts of the MHG. These were journals that whilst covering the fashion industry broadly had a strong focus upon the

90

Wholesale Couture

wholesale couture sector. In 1946 fashion trade journals had a relatively narrow idea of what London wholesale couturiers could produce well; tailored garments and anything outside this remit were criticized. Whilst the show was visually exciting it was such a striking contrast to what was at that point available to British women that it can be understood why there was so much denigration of it. The clothes shown as part of the parade were more than just elaborate gowns out of reach of many, they were pure fantasy. Such criticisms were widespread in the British fashion industry at the time. In July 1946 after wholesale couture firms had shown their Autumn collections, it was noted that buyers were concerned they were not concentrating their output on tailored garments. One buyer suggested that ‘elaborate decoration and asymmetrical effects may easily lose us that characteristic “English look” and destroy the new appreciation of style, line and quality acquired during six years of austerity and so welcome as an expression of higher standard of taste and of quality.’ The buyer went on to suggest that the lifting of austerity measures, which had prohibited most applied decoration on garments, meant some designers had ‘lost their head on the subject of decoration’. Many garments were covered with sumptuous embroidery and bead or sequin trims, as was seen at the parade.92 This was exasperating for both customers and buyers as such garments could not be produced under ceiling prices and therefore could not be offered to the general public in Britain unless they were significantly altered. It is clear from press reports that many garments shown at the parade were adaptations of Paris originals. When taken into consideration alongside Settle’s comments on the MHG show it demonstrates that in 1946 London wholesale couturiers had already eagerly returned to copying Parisian fashions. Jones has referred to the Guild’s parade as promoting ‘mass-market luxury’; however, this is not the case.93 The Guild should not be recognized as ‘mass-market’, these were high-end garments still out of the reach of many. The show was designed to be spectacular, novel and considering the point of the selling season when it was held, it was a promotional rather than selling exercise. The event was designed to try and fortify the Guild’s position as the tastemakers for the top end of the ready-to-wear trade. Their focus upon eveningwear suggests that Guild members were attempting to demonstrate the creativity of the sector, even though it was a less than successful endeavour. Despite the negative reception to the Guild’s designs it is still vital to consider them as the widespread negativity demonstrates what constituted ‘good design’ in 1946. The Guild’s designs, despite being a visual feast of glamour, were considered out of step with the desired aesthetic of British fashion. For most

Can London Become a World Fashion Centre?

91

the show was too close to Parisian design with its focus upon eveningwear and instead it should have concentrated more upon what it was already felt British designers did well: ‘letting our national characteristic of understatement manifest itself in natural line, good cut and tasteful innuendo.’94 The largely negative comments of the British fashion press towards the parade align closely with those made by Audrey Withers in Design ’46. Whilst this publication was written before the parade, models by Guild members showing similarities to those seen at the parade had been widely circulated in the summer of 1946, Withers stated; I­ t is the old trouble of confusing liberty with licence. One only hopes that one is seeing the first fling of reaction; for it would be a sad thing if, after four years of clothes that have at least been clean and uncluttered (enabling English women to live down their – deserved – pre-war reputation for being all bits and pieces) our manufacturers were unable to replace the discipline of official restrictions by the discipline of taste.95

Good taste for Withers equated to a simplicity in dress, as it did for most MHG members. In 1946 Brenner highlighted his own preferences and what he felt, were the preferences of British consumers. He suggested that demand in Britain for ‘frippery’ was limited and instead, ‘interest is in texture and tailoring. The natural English bent towards good, undecorated simplicity is asserting itself.’96 Arguably Withers’ and Brenner’s perception of ‘good taste’ fits with Victorian notions: ‘Well bred people do not often dress in what is called the “height of fashion” as that is generally left to dandies and pretenders[…] By dressing well we do not mean dressing extravagantly. You might have the most costly attire, you might appear in satin and lace, feathers and jewels, and yet be far from well dressed.’97 In 1946 high-quality tailored garments represented a form of knowledgeable consumption, only available to those with the cultural capital to understand the subtle distinctions between such garments. Whilst glittering evening gowns with fanciful trims in luxurious fabrics represented a very obvious form of expensive consumption, tailored garments did not. However, Withers’ comments immediately confer ‘good taste’ with ‘good design’. This is not strictly the case. Harper’s Bazaar perhaps put it most succinctly when it suggested that: Good design is a complex thing. It is not, for example, applied decoration, although decoration is in itself capable of being judged as good or bad design. But it is not safe, on the other hand, to assume that good design follows automatically the rejection of all ornament and is therefore to be found in

92

Wholesale Couture the stark basic form. Nor is it synonymous with ‘taste’. Taste is personal and evanescent. Your grandmother’s bad taste is your daughter’s chic.98

Taste was the post-war obsession of the fashionable elite, particularly in a time when, owing to rationing, consumers were limited as to what they could buy. Taste was a way in which to exert fashionable power and demonstrate not only one’s economic capital, but one’s cultural capital too. Elaborate decoration was not to Withers’ nor Brenner’s taste, and furthermore was not to the taste of many journalists who had grown unaccustomed to it; however, this does not necessarily mean it was bad design. The activities of both the MHG and the Guild, whether or not their garments represented ‘good design’, must be recognized as pioneering and indicative of a collaborative spirit that existed within the wholesale couture sector from 1946 until the mid-1960s. In 1946 wholesale couturiers were unquestionably trying to establish London’s position as a ready-to-wear fashion centre both through the clothes they produced and the shows they put on. Whilst the firms within these groups were competitors they were prepared to work together towards a main aim; export. The Guild’s Midnight Parade, something that they repeated again in 1947, must be recognized as their most successful endeavour. Whilst the Guild survived until the early 1950s, after 1947 it existed in a less prominent position within the fashion industry than the MHG. It is indicative of the Guild’s failings that by 1947 two of its members had jumped ship and become members of the MHG instead. Overall, this chapter has demonstrated the significance of the MHG as the leading group of wholesale couturiers from their inauguration and the importance fashion journalists placed upon a recognizably ‘British’ output in 1946.

­4

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street: Designing wholesale couture

Each season wholesale couturiers designed extensive ranges of garments for a discerning international female clientele. Garments ranged from beach wear to ball gowns with most firms offering collections that could clothe women in everything bar lingerie and nightwear. Wholesale couturiers created some extremely simple garments, bread and butter lines, like shift dresses and simple tailored suits that were recreated season after season. However, the garments that gained column inches were typically copies and adaptations of Parisian and Italian couture originals. As this chapter will illustrate, copying couture must be regarded a complex process and required both excellent design skills and ideally a photographic memory. Indeed, the designers of wholesale couture, whilst their names were often obscured, were vitally important in ensuring the success of these ready-to-wear firms. Surviving examples of wholesale couture Parisian copies can be challenging to identify, as the garments were rarely marketed at such.1 However, this chapter provides one example by Frederick Starke which illustrates the aptitude of wholesale couturiers in translating Parisian couture designs for ready-to-wear consumers.

Copying Paris The process of translating a Parisian couture original to a wholesale couture copy described here relates largely to the period between the late 1940s and early 1960s. Whilst wholesale couturiers had certainly travelled to Paris for inspiration prior to the 1940s, there is a wealth of primary information available relating to copying and adaptation methods from the later period, with articles regularly appearing in the trade and popular press detailing wholesale couturier’s processes.

94

Wholesale Couture

Between two and four times a year, representatives of wholesale couture firms (typically the company director/head designer accompanied by an assistant designer) would travel to Paris and, during the 1950s, Florence too, to view the haute couture collections.2 In Paris wholesale couturiers would be issued with a buyers’ ‘passport’ card by the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne; this bore a photograph of those employees attending, identified the haute couture collections they had applied to see and also noted who their Paris agent was.3 Firms had to pay an entrance fee to view each individual collection. Articles in the 1950s suggested that this fee was around £200 on average although the fee did vary, and some houses charged significantly more. Balenciaga for example, charged an entrance fee of £1000 by 1958.4 The high entrance fees prohibited wholesale couturiers from viewing any more than a small number of shows per season. Choosing who to view was difficult and for many this was based on artistry, adaptability of designs and potential financial gains. In the 1950s Christian Dior, Hubert Givenchy and Balenciaga were amongst the most popular designers with wholesale couturiers. Whilst Balenciaga’s shows were expensive to view, he was seen as ahead of the fashion silhouette, his designs adaptable and even repeatable for a number of seasons. Ann Gibbs of Jaeger suggested in 1958 that ‘personally I believe that the master in Paris is Balenciaga. Always has been. Buy a coat from him and you’ve got a fashionable line for years. I’m still running one that I bought from him five years ago. I can’t drop it – people keep asking for it.’5 The entrance fee wholesale couturiers paid to see the shows operated as a deposit (or ‘caution’) against a purchase from the couture house. Parisian couturiers typically offered four ways to purchase models. The wholesale couturier could purchase an example of the garment (the ‘model’), a calico toile, a third or quarter scale model, or a paper pattern. Models and toiles were sold with comprehensive information regarding component parts, materials and trimmings.6 Some Parisian couturiers refused to sell their models as paper patterns. Balenciaga would not, as he felt that ‘they did not adequately demonstrate how the garment was constructed nor the quality of the components.’7 Toiles were an intermediate option, and still an expensive outlay. Articles in 1949 and 1955 illustrate that, on average, a toile cost wholesale couturiers’ around £100. Some Parisian firms’ toiles, including Jacques Fath’s and Balenciaga’s, were, however, more expensive.8 A 1958 Tatler article indicated that Balenciaga’s £1000 entrance fee gave buyers the ‘privilege of buying two toiles’.9 Wholesale couturiers could also buy the original model to copy. This was the most expensive option; however, it provided them

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

95

with comprehensive information regarding the garment. In some instances, particularly if the garment appeared to be complexly constructed or perhaps had a ‘new or unusual cut of sleeve or skirt’, it was sensible to purchase the original model, in order to copy the garment as accurately as possible.10 There are very few accessible records of how many garments wholesale couturiers bought in Paris; certainly they would try to cover the deposit they paid to view each show. However, one 1958 article suggested that Kuperstein typically spent around £2,000 each season with Balenciaga which allowed him to buy three to four garments.11 It should be noted that wholesale couturiers paid more for Parisian couture models than both the private buyer (who bought the garment to wear) and the department store buyer (who also purchased with the intention of copying – but generally in smaller runs, with the copies they created often made-to-measure). In 1954 a private client would pay around 130,000 francs (£130) for a woollen suit from Balenciaga, whilst a department store paid 265,000 francs (£270). Wholesale couturiers paid as much as £1000–£1500 for the same item.12 In addition to the purchase price, wholesale couturiers had to pay purchase tax and customs duty in order to import the garment into Britain. This dramatically increased the price of the garment, meaning a dress seeming to cost £1000 would eventually cost more like £1500.13 For these reasons it was only possible for wholesale couturiers to buy a small number of original models to copy. If there were others they wanted to reproduce, they would have to be created from memory. During shows attendees were not permitted to sketch and were only allowed to make notes in order to try and minimize unsolicited copying. If attendees were caught drawing, they were liable to have their notebooks confiscated and be banned from attending future shows. A Dior collection pamphlet from Autumn/Winter 1951–2 demonstrates how the couture house treated copyists. It stated, ‘it is forbidden to make sketches or take photographs of the models presented; unauthorized publicity given to original models makes the offender liable to prosecution; any unauthorized copy constitutes an infringement liable to penalties.’14 Designs would be re-captured from these scant notes in hotel rooms, toilets and cafes in the immediate aftermath of the shows. It was essential that those who attended the shows had a photographic memory for what they had seen. As Starke suggested, ‘nobody in his right senses would pay £700 for just one model but what we see and remember of a show make it worthwhile.’15 In the eyes of the press many of these memorized copies were extremely authentic. Picture Post journalist Cynthia Judah suggested that ‘some of the most faithful

96

Wholesale Couture

and successful copies and adaptations are those whose cut has been analysed and carried home in someone’s head.’16 There were also other more precarious ways of both copying and purchasing models. Judah suggested that in order to try and reduce costs some firms would send a representative disguised as a private customer. This would enable the representative both to purchase a couture model at a lower price, and also memorize some of the designs shown. This was, however, illegal and could result in the firm being blocked from making future purchases and viewing the shows of that couturier.17 Wholesale couture copying in London was largely legal. Whilst, as Veronique Pouillard illustrates in Paris to New York: The Transatlantic Fashion Industry in the Twentieth Century, a number of American designers and manufacturers were prosecuted for dress piracy in Paris, there is little evidence to suggest British firms were subject to the same type of court cases.18 Despite a thorough review of the British and American press only one instance of British dress piracy involving a wholesale couturier has been found. Adolph Burger was a key figure in the London wholesale couture trade.19 Born in Cernauti (now Chernivtsi, Ukraine) in 1910 Burger spent the early part of his career working as a designer in Berlin. In 1936, owing to Nazi persecution, Burger emigrated to London. Initially he accepted a position as a designer for Kuperstein, before becoming a designer for another wholesale couture firm, Silhouette de Luxe. By 1960 he was a partner in this business.20 Many of Silhouette de Luxe’s designs were copies and adaptations of Parisian couture. However, in 1960 it seems Burger overstepped the mark and was caught in a ‘couture model piracy sweep’ with copies of thirty-six sketches of models from Dior and Jacques Esterel’s collections. This case appeared on the front page of WWD and was reported as follows: Interrogated at length before being allowed to leave France were Adolphe (sic) Burger, director of a prominent London upper-bracket coat and suit manufacturer called ‘Silhouettes (sic) de Luxe’ and British designer Joan Florence Owens. Both British buyers were staying at Elysees Park hotel when French economic police, headed by chief inspector Besson, interrogated them […] Of the 36 sketches found, 14 were of Dior models and 22 from Esterel’s collection of 70 models […]. Dior and Esterel representatives were called to the French ministry of interior to identify the sketches of models from each house. An Esterel spokesman said the exactness of the sketches was amazing. He said it was ‘stenographic.’21

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

97

It has not been possible to trace whether Owens was a designer for Silhouette de Luxe, or whether she ran her own business. Regardless, this case was extremely unusual and was also reported in the Telegraph. Burger stated in the Telegraph article that he had ‘nothing to fear’ and had been to Paris on his ‘own free will’ to answer questions related to the case.22 Whilst these articles suggest the gravity of the charge, there is no indication that either Burger or Owens was prosecuted. This incident suggests the severity with which the French prosecution services treated copyists. However, it seems plausible that this case and its associated publicity acted as a warning to others in London to be more cautious when sketching in Paris. After returning from the Parisian shows London wholesale couturiers began work on their copies and adaptations. If copying from memory, wholesale couturiers could begin work on their adaptations straight away. Judah suggested that ‘within twenty-four hours’ of arriving back in London Sybil Zelker of Polly Peck, a firm that straddled medium range and wholesale couture production, would have discussed the sketches with her fitter, had a paper pattern ‘worked out’, chosen materials and had a garment ‘ready to go into production’.23 Most wholesale couturiers would, however, have to wait for their original Paris models, toiles or patterns to arrive before they could begin work on their copies and adaptations. Typically, these would arrive in Britain three to four weeks after the show.24 Copies could take a long time to reproduce if the process of adapting for mass manufacture was complex, and if a number of toiles needed to be made before putting the garment into production (Figure 4.1). Once produced, the garment had to be shown to press and buyers, appropriate promotion planned, and finally garments had to be delivered to stores. Some wholesale couturiers could get their designs into stores in as little as six weeks; however, other manufacturers’ copies appeared up to nine months after they were first shown in Paris.25 Wholesale couturiers produced multiple versions of the models they had seen and purchased in Paris. From precise copies, to garments that bore little resemblance to the Paris originals other than in small design and construction details such as sleeve shapes, pocket flaps and button placement. Typically, a purchased model would be used to create at least one ‘line-for-line’ copy – a garment almost indistinguishable from the original.26 These garments gained extensive press coverage in Britain. Iris Ashley suggested of such copies that ‘in many cases you would have to see the original French model alongside the British version before you could be sure of the difference. Even then it is often only a matter of the fullness in the underskirts, the material of the dress being identical.’27

98

Wholesale Couture

Figure 4.1  Sybil Zelker (right) and her fitter working on the adaptation of a Paris couture model by Givenchy, photographed by Maurice Ambler, Picture Post, April 1955. © Mary Evans Picture Library.

Similarly, in a later article Ashley suggested that Kuperstein had bought one Balenciaga dress, a black short evening dress in Seker’s wool-chiffon. She wrote that Kuperstein’s ‘identical dress in the same fabric will sell for less than a tenth of the original.’28 In both of these articles Ashley describes the dresses as ‘identical’, and visually it seems that it was hard to tell these garments apart. This was because firms were able to use the same fabrics as the Parisian couture garments (when originally shown in Paris). Whilst the exterior appeared to be remarkably similar, the modifications were likely observable in the interior construction of the garment. For example, a Parisian couture piece would have far more hand finishing present than a wholesale couture copy and typically have more internal structural elements such as boning, lining and padding than a copy would. One of the largest differences, however, and part of the reason why wholesale couturiers could offer their garments at such low prices, was because they were made in standardized sizes. At the time Ashley wrote these articles most wholesale couture firms offered around six sizes (typically a size range

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

99

10–20, around a 6–16 in modern British sizes). On the other hand, the original couture garment would have been custom fitted for each individual customer, possibly with individual modifications made to the design too. Whilst ‘line-for-line’ copies were a key feature of wholesale couturiers’ production, each design purchased was expected to be adapted into more than one garment. For example, a 1959 Times article suggested Rose and Blairman had purchased just one Balenciaga suit and this had been used as the inspiration for a coat, a dress and two suits.29 Christopher Carr-Jones of Susan Small further highlighted this – stating that when the company purchased a Balenciaga model it would expect to get about eight to ten derivatives from it and reproduce each of these derivatives 400–500 times.30 These production numbers for individual models were fairly standard. Zelker suggested that Polly Peck made from 100 to 500 copies of each Parisian couture garment, and it took on average around 300 dresses to justify the expense of buying a Paris original.31 Typically, wholesale couturiers showed between 60 and 100 models each season to press and buyers. Some, but not all of these models, would have been copies and adaptations. Each prototype working model would cost wholesale couturiers between £50 and £100 to manufacture. However, around a third of the models shown would not go into full scale production. Many garments were discarded at this stage because of a lack of orders and high production costs. Wholesale couturiers had to carefully predict which Paris trends would be popular with the press, whilst also considering what store buyers would be prepared to stock. From a collection of an initial sixty or more models Garland suggested that on average only six garments would be ‘runners’ and two would be ‘Fords’.32 The process of turning a Paris original into one for the London ready-to-wear market was a challenging and potentially time-consuming one. It required an understanding of Parisian couture alongside international expectations of British ready-to-wear, as Judah put it a ‘flair for humanizing extreme fashion’. Those who adapted Parisian couture needed a good eye for what garments were translatable to mass manufacture, where precision fit was not possible. As Judah suggested, ‘whatever the price, a good Paris copy has to be carefully converted for the home market. It has to be wearable, which a direct re-make of a modeldependent on expert individual cutting and fitting – could scarcely ever be. And it has to keep a new, provocative and even alien look to it.’33 Wholesale couturiers had to balance their products carefully so that the Parisian flavour was evident without being too outré for the masses.

100

Wholesale Couture

The fashion buyer Wholesale couturiers, as press articles attest to, had a challenging relationship with fashion buyers; however, these figures were essential in order to ensure that their products were stocked around the country. The fashion buyer in the period under discussion was largely viewed with contempt. Buyers from outside London were typically cautious in their purchases and unwilling to take risks. Garland suggested that ‘buyers have a reputation – not wholly without reason – for being terrors.’34 Janey Ironside went further and wrote that: To a nervous fashion designer the word ‘buyer’ has almost the same spinechilling sound as the word ‘Boney’ had to children during the Napoleonic wars. Buyers are at the moment the Ugly Sisters of the fashion scene, wicked, venal, spoiling all design – Cinderella’s fun – even looking the part. ‘She looks like a buyer’ is almost the most cutting thing that one can say about anyone in the fashion world.35

In 1959 Katherine Whitehorn wrote an article for The Spectator after viewing the Fredrica buyers show. She offered an illuminating view of the press/retail catwalk preview, and the opinions of fashion buyers. Entwistle and Rocamora have suggested that: The staging of the catwalk show is a staging of the gaze; the gaze of the participants sitting in the audience, who are at once its object and subject. […] The gaze circulates around the space rather than emanating from a central point so that all players are both subject and object of the gaze in the game of visibility.36

­ ntwistle and Rocamora went onto suggest that those who view fashion E shows have to ‘look the part’ even if they are not the subject of the show.37 Indeed, Whitehorn sets the scene in her article so that it is not only the clothes that are under scrutiny but the buyers themselves who were being observed too. Whitehorn stated, ‘I found myself opposite a dismal trio from the Midlands: two solid women in frightful and identical cream hats (their suits raspberry and royal blue) flanked by a man who yawned repeatedly above a parti-coloured shiny tie.’ This description suggests that, in her opinion, these unfashionable people were not suited to choosing clothes for the stores.38 One of the problems highlighted in this article was that store buyers were largely not willing to stock the more avant-garde pieces that journalists promoted in magazines, Whitehorn went on to suggest that: The model swished out in a delicious Ascher print of greens and peacocks, featured by Woman and Beauty. ‘Fancy featuring that’ said my buyer in

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

101

astonishment. ‘I wouldn’t look at it, would you? And a loosely bloused dress provoked an equally disgusted reaction from a store manager on my left: ‘Dual purpose dress,’ he muttered. ‘You can be pregnant at the front or at the back.’39

Wholesale couturiers recognized the limiting effect of store buyers and Starke suggested that ‘buyers underestimate the taste of the public over and over again […] They keep saying, “Of course, we’re six months behind in the provinces” – but who keeps them behind? They’ll always play safe and just order what went well last year.’40 Why then were buyers not willing to take risks? Of course, there was the financial issue of buying something different that they were not sure their customers would want to purchase. However, there was also an issue of sizing, and particularly questioning how high fashion garments would scale up for their local clientele. By the late 1950s this was beginning to change, and some manufacturers had suggested that they were able to sell exact copies of Parisian couture outside London. In 1958 Anne Bruh, designer for Frank Usher, suggested that, ‘you can [now] sell the most extreme lines from Paris in Leeds, Manchester and Bradford without any trouble.’41 Despite this, surviving examples of wholesale couture are testament to the limited risks buyers were prepared to take. The majority are relatively simple – single coloured sheath dresses by Dorville, brocade party dresses and brightly coloured suits by Frederick Starke and Simon Massey’s tailored coats survive in relative abundance (Plate  5). However, the avant-garde designs that closely followed Parisian couture and were featured within magazine editorials have largely not survived, likely because they were not widely purchased by store buyers. There are, however, some exceptions.

The designs of Frederick Starke Ltd Frederick Starke’s output was a mixture of individual designs created especially for Frederick Starke Ltd., couture adaptations and couture copies. Whilst Starke was adamant that ‘no copy’ appeared within his collections, this was not the case and there are many examples of Starke’s line-for-line copies in magazine editorials and advertisements.42 Ernestine Carter suggested that Starke’s skill was in his adaptation of couture pieces: ‘[He] distils and adapts the ideas he has garnered so that they are gradually reduced to a button, the turn-back of a cuff, the set of a collar, the drapery of a skirt.’43 He was widely praised in the press for his ability to spot new trends: ‘known as something of a rebel, […] even his

102

Wholesale Couture

Figure 4.2  Frederick Starke pigeon grey wool suit with vibrant crimson cummerbund sash, 1952. © Victoria and Albert Museum.

rivals admit he seems to have an infallible built-in radar which tells him when a fashion will catch on with British wearers.’44 This, combined with fair prices, high quality, typically British, fabrics and fine workmanship, ensured that Starke was internationally recognized as a leading wholesale couture designer.45 One of the best examples of Starke’s translation from couture original to wholesale garment is a 1952 suit in the V&A’s collection (Figure 4.2). The suit is made from pigeon-grey wool with a crimson satin pleated cummerbund waist sash on which the jacket fastens with self-covered buttons. Donated to the museum by Ruth Sampson, she had seen the suit in Vogue in May 1952 and wanted to wear it as her going away outfit (Figure 4.3). The Vogue article suggested that the suit could be purchased from Galleries Lafayette in London; however, on contacting the store, Sampson found that they had sold out. After chasing the suit ‘from shop to shop’ someone took pity on Sampson and Starke was contacted directly. He sent a suit specially for Sampson to Galleries Lafayette.46 Sampson purchased the suit as a Starke garment; however, it was a copy of a Fath design, which appeared in both French and British magazines in 1952

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

103

Figure 4.3  Frederick Starke suit, photographed by Norman Parkinson, Vogue, May 1952. Credit: Norman Parkinson/Iconic Images.

(Figure 4.4). The suit featured in the April 1952 issue of Harper’s Bazaar described as follows: ‘Fath. A bolero, a cummerbund – romantic notes. A lean, bullfighter’s suit of dark grey wool with a starched white linen blouse, a wide red sash.’47 Whilst no original versions of the Fath garment are known to survive, a comparison can still be made between the two suits. Starke’s suit is a line-for-line copy of Fath’s; however, the original design has been slightly modified. The Starke suit jacket features full length slim sleeves with a decorative rouleau loop button fastening, whereas the Fath suit has turn back cuffs. Furthermore, whilst Fath’s suit included a breast pocket with attached handkerchief the Starke suit does not. The two shirts are also slightly different. The Fath shirt features tiny black buttons whilst the Starke suit has larger white buttons. There are also clear differences in workmanship. Other than the buttonholes, the Starke suit appears

104

Wholesale Couture

Figure 4.4  Jacques Fath suit, photographed by Karen Radkai, Harper’s Bazaar, April 1952. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines UK.

to be entirely machine stitched and is unlined. Conversely, similar Fath suits from the same period are largely finished by hand and include beautiful linings. It is quite unusual for a Starke suit from this period to be unlined – most of his surviving suits have his distinctive monogrammed ‘Frederick Starke’ lining. The suit, including blouse, cost £ 21 19s which was, compared to other 1952 Starke suits, relatively inexpensive (on average Starke suits cost 24 guineas in 1952) explaining perhaps why this suit is unlined. Starke was not the only British manufacturer to copy Fath’s bullfighter suit. In May 1952 W&O Marcus advertised an ensemble showing striking commonalities (Figure 4.5). This was described as follows: ‘Cover Girl cocktail dress in black ottoman, with white pique vest and brilliant emerald cummerbund’.48 Whilst the cummerbund was a different colour the ensemble itself is incredibly similar.49 Other minor alterations include an additional waist belt (which neither the Fath or Starke versions have) and a pleated shirtfront with bow-winged collar (both the Fath and Starke versions have a ruffled shirt). Medium range firm Sambo fashions also produced an adaptation of the suit. Their versions featured a full, rather than pencil slim skirt; however, the suit had the same jacket and

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

105

­F igure 4.5  W&O Marcus advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, May 1952. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines UK.

cummerbund clearly copied from Fath.50 Indeed, the design was copied by manufacturers across London, at varying price points. Another by M. Gilchrist and Son, illustrated in Women’s Wear News on 13 March 1952, was described as follows: ‘The new rib-high bolero jacket is featured on a less expensive model above a narrow skirt with built up belted waistline.’51 This illustrates a challenge often experienced by ready-to-wear firms, copying the same designs. This is also why it was imperative to make small alterations, so that copies were visually different enough from each other. In the Dress Detective Ingrid Mida uses Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus to explain the prestige value of a Dior jacket to its original owner. She states, ‘habitus provides a link between the embodiment of dress and […] the choices reflected by class and lifestyle.’ She goes on to quote Bourdieu who considered that ‘aesthetic preferences are most marked in the ordinary choices of everyday existence, such as furniture, clothing or cooking, which are particularly revealing of deep rooted and long-standing dispositions because, lying outside the scope of the educational system, they have to be confronted, as it where, by naked taste.’52 The jacket chosen by Mida was featured in Harper’s Bazaar. She suggests that ‘wearing a garment

106

Wholesale Couture

by Dior, especially one that has been photographed for a prominent women’s magazine, like the velvet jacket, marked the wearer as one of the elite.’53 Arguably the same is true of the Starke suit donated by Sampson. The suit, when examined, shows remarkably few signs of wear – suggesting that it was worn only as Sampson’s going away outfit and then carefully stored for over forty years until it was donated to the V&A. It is possible Sampson regarded the garment as ‘special’ and deserving to be preserved because it had been worn at a special moment. However, as the accession records points to her knowledge of it is a ‘Vogue featured’ piece, it suggests that she carefully preserved it because of this connection too. Writing in 2022 this suit is one of just two pieces by Starke within the V&A collection and is one of less than twenty garments held by the V&A which could be defined as wholesale couture. However, the accession of this suit was considered important as the justification for acquisition indicates: ‘this stylish tailored suit was featured in Vogue Magazine May 1952. […] Starke was a top model house level designer and did much to promote the British industry. This is an excellent example of his work and will be an asset to the collection.’54 This suit, as a letter from Sampson to curator De La Haye highlights, was donated after Sampson saw an article in the Financial Times asking readers to consider donating pieces for the exhibition The Cutting Edge held at the V&A. The article requested any of the following garments: a debutante dress by a British fashion house, a floral frock by Horrockses and a ‘furled umbrella’ silhouette suit by the likes of Matita.55 Whilst the article did not ask specifically for garments by Starke, Sampson remembered her sister having a suit similar to the Matita one featured in the article and this prompted her to write to De La Haye.56 Sampson’s letter reveals further clues about the suit and its owner that cannot be read in the suit itself. The letter alludes to Sampson’s class, but also points to the suits special meaning and offers an explanation as to why she likely wore it just a handful of times: ‘as soon as I saw it, I knew I had to have it. Several members of my family came with me from South Yorkshire and we all had adjoining rooms at the Dorchester, and they shopped for their outfits for my future wedding as well – what fun we had!’57 The suit, as can be seen, was a physical representation for Sampson of these memories. More than just her going away suit, it connected to shared experiences with her family. This speaks not only of the importance of this suit to Sampson, but more generally to the power of clothes and their ability to elicit memories.

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

107

The inclusion of this suit within The Cutting Edge must also be considered in the context of the exhibition’s academic premise. It stated, The Cutting Edge […] will investigate the innovative and distinct qualities of British Fashion since the war. Through the work of over a hundred designers […] the dynamics of British high fashion will be explored, providing an insight into Britain’s third largest industry […] No area more immediately reflected the underlying tension between tradition and modernity in British society than fashion.’58

The Starke suit in its materiality epitomizes a synthesis between tradition and modernity – the British suit, a classic piece, yet the way in which it was tailored, the bold flash of crimson meaning that in the 1950s, it was also the height of modernity. The V&A values the piece as a Starke garment, first and foremost, a prime example of high-end ready-to-wear as its display in The Cutting Edge was testament to. Yet, considered more broadly, this Starke suit is indicative of the complex notion of ‘British’ fashion in the 1940s and 1950s. The suit is both Parisian and British in its design and illustrative of how intertwined the Parisian couture and London ready-to-wear industries were. In 1947 journalist Jean Guest lamented the lack of originality in London designs stating, ‘we must accept the dictum of a famous London couturier that “Paris creates fashion; London creates clothes”.’59 Was this a fair criticism? Certainly, there is some truth to this statement, London wholesale couture firms were creating extremely wearable clothes, largely inspired by Parisian fashion. Yet, this discredits the skill of fashion designers working for wholesale couture firms in the 1940s and 1950s. Whilst they were often copying Parisian designs, their role was far more complex than simply copying, and they should be seen as fashion designers in their own right.

­The fashion designers During the 1930s and 1940s wholesale couture designers were expected to be multiskilled, needing a good understanding of pattern cutting and grading alongside actually designing garments. During this period there was however still little recognition in Britain of the important role that designers could play in ready-to-wear firms. Speaking to students at Barrett Street Trade School in 1938 Settle suggested that many fashion firms placed importance on their management, travellers, showrooms and advertising ahead of their designers and that designers were poorly paid ‘Cinderella’s of a very large part of the dress trade’.60 Consequently,

108

Wholesale Couture

until the 1950s, designers within all sectors of the London ready-to-wear industry were afforded little respect. It is partially thanks to this low status that it is challenging to trace the men and women who actually created designs for wholesale couture firms between the 1930s and 1950s, those figures who sketched, draped and toiled the models that eventually went into production. Starke, as discussed previously, can be seen as something of an anomaly. He was at the helm of Frederick Starke Ltd, one of a small number of wholesale couture firms with one figurehead who performed both the roles of head designer and managing director. Starke joined his parents’ company A. Starke & Co in the 1920s and began designing for them very early on, despite having no formal design training. In many ways the fact that Starke designed, or rather according to interviews designed, his own collections set him apart from his contemporaries and also aligned him with the London couturiers, most of whom were men and of a similar age to him. Jones has suggested that the arrival of a group of young educated men who produced fashionable dress was an important part of the professionalization of the fashion design industry, helping to turn the craft they practiced from dressmaking to couture. She stated that by 1936 twothirds of London couture dress houses were operated by male designers.61 This professionalization influenced the wholesale couture sector too and would have benefitted men like Starke. This can similarly be seen with Leslie Kaye of Harry B Popper Ltd., who, from 1957 after Popper’s sudden death, fulfilled the role of both managing director and head designer of Harry B Popper.62 Kaye had joined Popper’s business at the time of its foundation in 1950. Initially put to work in the workrooms, Kaye learnt how to cut and make garments for two years before taking on managerial responsibility within the business too. From its formation, Harry B Popper focused on principles of meticulous attention to detail and ‘unostentatious’ simplicity. All clothes were made in the Harry B Popper workrooms, and every dress and suit was tried on for size prior to despatch. These were principles continued by Kaye in the late 1950s and early 1960s, helped by the backing of many original staff who had worked under Popper himself.63 It is notable in the late 1950s that Starke and Kaye were often mentioned together in international press advertising, both regarded internationally as ‘couturiers’ thanks to the quality, price and associated prestige of their garments. The majority of wholesale couture firms operated as family businesses, with husbands, wives, brothers, sisters and children involved at different levels of the company. In some instances, there was a design partnership between husband and wife. Leo and Greta Newman, the couple behind Rima, were both creatives.

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

109

Greta designed garments, whilst Leo designed some of the fabrics. However, more typically the family patriarch took on the role of company director whilst their wives or partners became style advisors, models or designers for the company. Peach Benabo, second wife of Harry Massey, is one such example. Massey and Benabo met in 1941 and married in 1948. Benabo began working as a saleswoman for Massey in 1942, before becoming a designer at Simon Massey Ltd. in early 1943, despite no design experience. She suggested, ‘I’ve never studied art – can’t draw a single line […] but I managed by draping material over stands and explaining my ideas to the cutters.’64 Here Benabo trivialized the skills needed by fashion designers in the wholesale couture industry, as others indicated their role was much more complex. In 1961 Barrie profiled the directors and designers of five leading ready-to-wear firms: Leslie and Fay Carr-Jones (Susan Small), Jean and Kenneth Parry-Billings (Jean Allen), Max and Anne Bruh (Frank Usher), Raymond and Sybil Zelker (Polly Peck) and finally Starke. All of these companies operated as family business and copied and adapted couture designs, although their output was a mix of medium range and wholesale couture fashion. Illustrating the significance of these firms, when discussing the Carr-Jones’, Barrie wrote that the pair meant ‘more to millions of women in Britain and abroad than the latest pop singer or the most vigorous cabinet minister.’65 Each of Barrie’s interviews considered how the company in question went about designing their garments, effectively demystifying their design process. The Zelker’s interview suggested that: Sybil Zelker drapes, swathes, twists and pins an uncut dress length until a design takes shape, then drops everything to turn and sketch deftly on a large pad. ‘I don’t begin with any clear-cut plan’, she says. ‘The fabrics inspire me as I go along. I find certain materials just cry out to be made into certain shapes.’66

This article illustrates the importance of draping on the stand as a design method for wholesale couture firms. However, this series speaks very little of the fact that these firms all created couture copies, instead indicating the artistry and design skills needed to create their visions. Indeed, by suggesting Zelker went about designing without ‘any clear-cut plan’ it is implied that these were creations from her own head, not copies. This seems to be a clear choice of Barrie to obscure that these firms copied couture, as a similar 1955 profile of the Zelkers in Picture Post had made extremely clear how they copied couture.67 Barrie’s series also noted how many other designers were working for some of these firms, although they remained anonymous. Fay Carr-Jones suggested that

110

Wholesale Couture

she headed a team of three designers, whilst Jean Allen stated that three design assistants helped her to execute her vision.68 These articles effectively indicated that there was not a single creative genius behind wholesale couture firms, rather a wider team created their designs. The importance placed on in-house design skills by such firms really began to change in the 1950s, thanks to the increasing prominence of fashion design courses at art schools including the Royal College of Art and St Martin’s School of Art. The young designers graduating from these courses were widely profiled in the press and many in the 1960s helped to transform the fortunes of struggling wholesale couture firms as is discussed in chapter seven. Between the 1930s and late 1950s whilst designers played extremely important roles in wholesale couture businesses, it was very rare that their name, unless they were part of the family who actually ran the company, was actively publicized. Despite this, it has been possible to trace a small number of wholesale couture designers. One such designer is Harald Mahrenholz. However, his name only came to light because of legal action he took against his employer. Mahrenholz was born in 1904 in Breslau (today Wroclaw, Poland). He came from a cultured Jewish family and was a talented artist. Mahrenholz began his fashion career in Germany, running a high fashion ladies salon at Lutzowufer 9, Berlin. Owing to Hitler’s regime he emigrated to London in 1937. Initially Mahrenholz worked as a designer for the bespoke dressmaker Maison Arthur in Dover Street for twelve months, from October 1937. Whilst working for Maison Arthur it was a term of his employment that he was not, for one year, ‘to concern or interest himself in any business similar to that of Maison Arthur within a radius of two miles’. In January 1939 Mahrenholz was offered a new position as a designer for Kuperstein with a wage of £20 a week. However, this contract was terminated early in September 1939 with one weeks’ notice, rather than the three months stated in his contract. This was because Kuperstein felt that Mahrenholz had broken his agreement with Maison Arthur – deeming his business similar to Maison Arthur, and within a radius of two miles. Kuperstein also felt within his rights to terminate the contract because he believed Mahrenholz was still operating his own business in Berlin. Despite Mahrenholz’s business still existing in Berlin it appears that his, like many other Jewish businesses, had been forcibly aryanized. Edward Symmonds, managing director of Reville Ltd., was called to give evidence in the case and stated that from his knowledge of the trade, the business of Maison Arthur Ltd. was ‘quite different’ from Kuperstein’s. He suggested that Kuperstein was a ‘wholesaler who supplied stores and shops, whereas Maison Arthur Ltd. dealt direct with individual customers.’ The verdict was reached that Mahrenholz had not breached his agreement with Maison Arthur Ltd. and he was awarded £350 damages and costs.69

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

111

This court judgement speaks of the difficultly in defining London fashion firms and the blurred lines between various sectors. Whilst Mahrenholz’s tenure with Kuperstein was relatively short, it still illustrates that in London there was certainly an overlap in the design skills needed for both bespoke and ready-made clothing. It is illustrative of Mahrenholz’s design skills that in 1946 he established his own couture house, Harald on Curzon Street, Mayfair. There are two notable exceptions to the veiling of wholesale couture designers: Olive O’Neill, designer and later director of Rose and Blairman, and W.H. Wallace, designer and later director of Spectator Sports. O’Neill was unquestionably one of the most important figures in the British ready-to-wear trade. Often profiled in the British press, O’Neil was widely respected by other fashion professionals. Carter suggested that when she was starting her career as a fashion journalist she asked her editor where to begin, in terms of learning about the fashion industry, her editor suggested she went to O’Neill as she would tell her ‘everything’ she needed to know, thanks to her long and varied career in the industry.70 O’Neill was born Olive Leavey Fryer in 1902 in St Helen’s, Lancashire. In 1926 she married Gordon Leo Molloy O’Neill. This marriage seemingly ended in the late 1930s; however, Olive retained the surname O’Neill for the rest of her life. O’Neill spent her childhood in Southport and was interested in designing clothes from an early age. An interview in The Sunday Times suggested that she was expelled from Southport School of Art because tutors disapproved of the colours she used together, like pink and orange.71 O’Neill, along with her sister Mabel Mary Fryer, became associated with Rose and Blairman in the early 1920s. In 1926 the sisters briefly severed their connections with Rose and Blairman, becoming directors of Messrs. Marten Stewart of Morley House, Regent Street, a wholesale house for sportswear and knitted goods.72 However, this was a shortlived venture and by February 1928 O’Neill had rejoined Rose and Blairman as their showroom manageress.73 This was a time of much change for the company, with a move to large, striking premises, Dorville House on Margaret Street. It is unclear when precisely O’Neill’s role in the company changed from showroom manageress to designer, but this seems to have taken place in the early 1930s. In December 1934 she became a joint director of the company alongside Harold Rose and David Blairman.74 O’Neill’s design and adaptation skills were highly regarded, and she was quick to adapt Dior’s corolle line in 1947 for the British public, replicating the distinctive hourglass silhouette in a range of suits and woollen dresses. A June 1947 article suggested ‘whereas Parisian designers are insisting on special six-inch-deep corsets, so tightly boned that the wearers can hardly breathe, Mrs O’Neill says

112

Wholesale Couture

English women wouldn’t stand this tyranny, and has achieved the same effect by building up the hips of her jackets and skirts with canvas padding.’ The article went on to indicate that the full skirted styles had been replicated with stiffened canvas petticoats.75 This illustrates that whilst O’Neill copied the Dior line, she carefully considered what British women would be prepared to wear in her translation process. Unquestionably O’Neill’s aesthetic was inspired by Parisian couture; Carter described her as an ‘avowed disciple of Balenciaga and Givenchy’; however, as Carter went onto suggest O’Neill had ‘evolved her own expression. Her pared away, simple, casual clothes, announce their origin as clearly as if they were signed on the outside instead of being labelled within.’ Indeed, O’Neill’s design aesthetic was one built on simplicity. She described her garments as ‘background clothes’ designed to show off ‘very handsome jewels.’ By the late 1950s O’Neill was designing her dresses with bodices which were ‘two sizes too big’, to make her clothes appear easy rather than overly tight ‘sausage skins’ as was the tendency, she felt, of many British women at the time. O’Neill wanted her clothes to be easy to wear and move in, designed for women living active lives, still ultimately following the tenets on which Rose and Blairman was founded in the 1920s (Figure 4.6).76 Spectator Sports launched in the summer of 1933, at 39 Margaret Street, London initially as a subsidiary department of Rose and Blairman. Wallace was, from the outset, the head designer of the business, and the initial design

Figure 4.6  Olive O’Neill at work in her office, Tatler, 6 December 1961. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

Avenue Montaigne in Market Street

113

focus of the company was sportswear and tailored suits.77 By November 1933 Spectator Sports was no longer affiliated with Rose and Blairman, removing from the Margaret Street address to 30 Cavendish Square with Wallace becoming director as well as designer. From the foundation of the company, Spectator Sports’ garments were amongst the most striking of those created by wholesale couturiers. Already in 1933 Spectator Sports were creating garments which later came to typify wholesale couture output. Indeed, the firm was amongst the first to self-define themselves as wholesale couturiers with the words ‘wholesale couture’ appearing in their advertisements from c.1935 onwards. Spectator Sports published a bold mix of advertisements in the 1930s, with many borrowing from the latest artistic trends – illustrations rendered in a bold moderne style, surrealist collaged images reminiscent of Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dali’s work or photographs shot in striking ‘art deco’ room settings. Many of the photographs feature an expanse of mirrored surfaces, an abundance of light and modern furniture including curved tub chairs and bird’s-eye maple desks. The wide variety of fabrics Wallace used for garments perfectly complimented the surroundings, whether glittering lame, matt crepe or slippery satin, the overall effect created through these images was strikingly modern. This is perhaps best encapsulated in a December 1933 Drapers’ Organiser advertisement (Figure  4.7). Shot in the Spectator Sports showroom it sees a

Figure 4.7  Spectator Sports advertisement for a two-piece effect evening dress consisting of black crepe skirt and red and gold lame blouse, Drapers’ Organiser, December 1933.

114

Wholesale Couture

model posed against furniture designed by Gerald Summers and manufactured by his company Makers of Simple Furniture. These are very early examples of Summers bent plywood modernist designs and demonstrate Wallace’s patronage of the finest contemporary designers of the period, certainly Wallace later stated that one of his personal hobbies was interior design.78 Prior to joining Rose and Blairman, Wallace had been a fashion designer in New York, working for two of the most prominent American high-end ready-to-wear firms, Charles Armour & Bro Inc and Hattie Carnegie Inc. It can be seen that Rose and Blairman’s appointment of an American designer in 1933 was indicative of the British demand for American style high-end garments.79 Wallace’s appointment was reported in the trade press in both New York and London, suggesting the prestige associated with his name. Whilst Wallace spent his early career in New York, documents exempting him from internment, indicate that he was born Hans Weissenberg in 1906 in Konigshutte (today Chorzow, Poland).80 Throughout his London career he used the name Wallace H Wallace, or W.H. Wallace, but did not officially renounce the name Hans Weissenberg until 1940. Whilst still ultimately part of the immigrant European Jewish community who ensured the success of the London wholesale couture, his American design experience set him apart. Wallace’s double immigration established his position as a prestigious immigrant and, at the time of his appointment, he was viewed as American not European. Unquestionably Parisian design influence was essential to London wholesale couture, as this chapter has illustrated. However, American design influence was significant too, as the example of Wallace suggests. Wholesale couturiers have typically been regarded as copyists, but this chapter has demonstrated the complexities of designing wholesale couture garments. Companies still employed designers and some of these were transformative powers for the industry at large, particularly O’Neill, who, whilst largely forgotten today, was a pioneer in her day – a successful businesswoman, as well as designer, deserving of further in-depth consideration. O’Neill, as I demonstrate, carefully re-fashioned couture garments so that they were better suited to customer’s lifestyles. Chapter five considers this idea of the re-fashioning of haute couture garments for wholesale couture consumers’ lifestyles in more depth, questioning the symbolic value attached to the wholesale couture label and the role of promotion and branding in establishing the significance of wholesale couture.

­5

These labels stand for quality: Promoting wholesale couture

In 1940 Britannia and Eve, a general-interest magazine targeted at middleclass women, published an article on the significance of labelled garments. It stated, ‘Women are beginning to look for labels on their clothes. Not for Paris names, nor for other ritzy names, but for those which tell that this dress, this outfit, was made by British designers and manufacturers, who miraculously manage to combine top class styling and workmanship with reasonable pricing.’1 Illustrated in this article were a number of pieces by wholesale couture brands including Koupy and Susan Small. The language of this article is suggestive of an increasing trend from the 1930s onwards in which the manufacturer’s label, particularly the wholesale couture label, became progressively important to the British consumer. This article also indicates a patriotic spirit which was already apparent early in the war and a desire to buy products from recognizably ‘British’ brands. This desire to buy branded garments was not necessarily new, but the focus on specific British labels as arbiters of a fashionable line was certainly more prominent, not least because it was increasingly challenging to buy goods from overseas. From the early 1930s onwards, articles in the fashion trade press had made clear how important brand names were for selling clothing, with brand labels becoming widely recognized as assurances of quality. As a 1934 Drapers’ Organiser article suggested, ‘we all begin to realise that buying goods with no brand is like consulting a doctor with no degree. No man in his right senses would buy a nameless car. Why should he buy a nameless raincoat?’2 Labels in fashionable dress, particularly wholesale couture garments from the 1930s onwards, became signifiers of a certain class of garment. During the 1940s the prevalence of labelled ready-to-wear increased significantly. Indeed, as Christopher Sladen has suggested the ‘emphasis on labelled goods’, alongside ‘closer links between retailer and manufacturer’, were

116

Wholesale Couture

two of the biggest developments within the British fashion industry between the 1930s and 1960s.3 This chapter considers how wholesale couturiers branded and labelled their products and the multifaceted avenues through which they promoted their work: from magazines and newspapers to television.

­Labelling wholesale couture Between the 1930s and 1970s wholesale couturiers used a plethora of different label styles, from printed to woven in a variety of sizes. However, these labels tended to have quite specific fonts and wording on them. Firms used either a signature style label, mimicking handwriting (and mimicking the practice of many couturiers), or a bold block typeface incorporating the manufacturers name. The majority of wholesale couture labels stated either ‘London’ or ‘Mayfair’, capitalizing on the symbolic value of firm’s London headquarters. As can be seen in Figure 5.1 a variety of other text could also feature on wholesale couture labels; however, almost all contained the phrase ‘Made in England’, highlighting the importance of English manufacturing as one of the selling points of wholesale couture. In his essay ‘Haute Couture and Haute Culture’ Bourdieu argued for the significance of the labelled garment stating that ‘the creator’s signature is a mark that changes not the material nature of the object but the social nature.’4

Figure 5.1  Various wholesale couture labels, 1940s and 1950s. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

These Labels Stand for Quality

117

Implying that the garment itself, the quality of the fabrics it is made from, were of lesser importance, culturally, than the label placed within it, the label effectively transforming the object it is stitched to. It is the label and the designer, the distinguishing socially recognizable aspects of the garment which may alter the wearer’s social position. As Bourdieu goes on to suggest, ‘what is involved is not the rarity of the product, but the rarity of the producer.’5 This can be seen with wholesale couture whereby the distinctive label distinguished and elevated the garment, especially in a period where such firms’ labels were becoming more widely recognized. The increased use of fashion advertising helped to ensure the significance of the wholesale couture label. Bourdieu suggested, ‘what makes the value, the magic, of the label, is the collusion of all the agents of the system of production of sacred goods.’6 In fashion ‘magic’ is created not only through the garment itself but also through connected promotion in advertising and editorial features. Wholesale couture advertisements indicate that firms were placing labels in their garments from the 1920s onwards. Early 1930s Dorville advertisements state that their distinctive triangular tab was to be found in ‘every’ garment.7 Similarly, Matita advertisements from the late 1920s onwards show that their Goddess of Sport label appeared on all Matita garments as a ‘sign and guarantee’ that they were genuine. In 1928 Matita ran an advertising feature which discussed the graphics of this label. It stated: [Max Adler, managing director] took her from life, as she appeared with her Alsatian wolfhound on the sunlit promenades of the beautiful pleasure city [Cannes] beside the Mediterranean Sea. Everyone else saw her and everybody was entranced. She was a sensation; a catch of the season. But Mr Adler saw something more than an apparition of graciously athletic womanhood, exquisitely dressed, in an appropriate setting. He saw in this charming lady a symbol of the ideal for which he had worked in his creation of Matita Sportswear; and after the manner of the artist he took the living model and translated it into the beautiful design which […] is now the badge of this House.8

The Matita label was representative of the 1920s and 1930s energetic, modern woman. Through something as simple as the graphic rendering of their labels, Matita tapped into the desire for active lifestyle that was so prevalent in this period. Whilst only represented in silhouette on their labels, Matita returned time and again to the same idea in later photographic advertising. Images often featured models taking part in sports or enjoying the outdoors life, whether at the beach or in the countryside.

118

Wholesale Couture

Whilst advertising implies that wholesale couturiers were stitching brand labels into their garments from the 1920s onwards, very few branded wholesale couture garments that predate 1946 survive, for a number of reasons. Almost all wholesale couture garments produced pre-1946 were made from natural fibres, primarily wool. Such fibres are particularly susceptible to pests such as moths, meaning they are less likely to survive. Most wholesale couturiers’ output was focused towards tailored clothing, or day garments, practical pieces that would have been worn time and again. The shortages of the Second World War meant that many of these garments would have simple been worn until they fell apart or were repurposed. Furthermore, wholesale couture garments were, prior to 1950s, typically not produced in runs of more than a few hundred per garment, meaning there were less pieces made by these companies than there were after the war. Of those earlier pieces that do survive, it is striking that the labels are often quite large woven examples, typically stitched into necklines. It is conceivable that many were removed simply because they were uncomfortable against the skin. One other reason why so few early wholesale couture pieces survive relates to retailers’ practices. Surviving examples demonstrate that retailers often stitched partially, or completely over wholesale couture labels, and articles suggest that in some instances wholesale couturiers’ labels were removed completely by retailers who replaced them with their own in order to conceal the identity of their suppliers and ‘focus all the goodwill on themselves and their shops.’9 This rendered products retailed by a single store one and the same despite being made by different manufacturers. In these instances, the ubiquitous store label was present within wholesale couture garments, regardless of who made or designed the garment, the store label monopolized it. Why then, were shops not keen to stock branded products? Fashion and Fabrics suggested that retailers resented branding and advertising by manufacturers, as it was a ‘breach of traditional trade etiquette.’10 The journal also suggested that such a practice ‘entailed a certain loss of individuality, the same goods being available in other shops in other towns. It also meant consenting to a fixed price and a rigid profit.’11 Furthermore, some retailers considered that unbranded and unadvertised products represented better value for the retailer as instead of spending money on costly advertising, manufacturers were able to spend it on improving the quality of products, or alternatively offering them at a lower price to retailers.12 Some manufacturers did attempt to circumvent the removal of their labels. From the 1940s onwards monogrammed linings were added to some Frederick Starke and Simon Massey garments (typically suits and more expensive dresses). This ensured that even if the label was removed the garment would still clearly be their design (Figure 5.2).

These Labels Stand for Quality

119

Figure 5.2  Frederick Starke light brown check wool jacket with velvet accents. The jacket features Starke’s monogrammed lining. There is no manufacturers label present in the jacket, only the Fortnum and Mason label in the neckline, early 1950s. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

The practice of removing labels became less common as the 1940s progressed owing to an increasing consumer desire to buy branded goods. Already in January 1940 Drapers’ Record suggested that war shortages had demonstrated the ‘strong hold’ brand names held with the public. The article went on to state that ‘there is a prestige possessed by the branded article […] It is a hallmark of quality which satisfies the customers’ desire to possess merchandise of repute.’13 By 1949 Fashion and Fabrics suggested that ‘people everywhere are very “brandconscious”. They “look for the label” when they buy. A good label […] will not sell many poor-quality goods, but if the merchandise is right, the name is remembered, and goodwill is built up.’14 Despite some retailers’ reluctance, there were many advantages to stocking branded garments. Branded products reduced the risk of unsold stock as retailers were informed which garments manufacturers would be advertising and the manufacturer would supply appropriate display material at the beginning of each season. During the selling season retailers received their

120

Wholesale Couture

deliveries timed with press advertising thus ensuring that the garments were in stock when manufacturers’ advertisements appeared within magazines.15 This was part of a closer relationship that formed between stores and manufacturers that increasingly saw power transferred from the stores to the manufacturers. Certainly in the wholesale couture sector there was less reliance on wholesalers who worked as middlemen between retailers and manufacturers in the post-war period. Widespread advertising could provide cachet for the store (i.e. stocking a certain exclusive brand) or cachet for manufacturers (their products being sold in a popular and respected department store) helping mutual benefits to develop. Furthermore, consumers increasingly relied on brands rather than retailers to make their fashion choices. This is suggested by Scott James in her autobiographical novel In the Mink. She wrote that consumers ‘instead of saying “I always go to such and such a shop, their dresses are excellent”, were beginning to say, “I always try to find a Rima (Or Dorville or Starke) they suit me best.”’16 The addition of wholesale couture labels helped to provide manufacturers with a level of autonomy and at the same time increased their culpability should something be wrong with the product. As the wholesale couture label became more visible within garments so it became easier to distinguish such products from one another. In 1946 the BoT introduced a new non-Utility label which further distinguished wholesale couture garments from other ready-to-wear: the 11011, or ‘double elevens’ label. The label was initially unpopular with manufacturers and the public alike, considered too similar to the CC41 label (used on Utility garments), and without any real meaning. This led the BoT to publish a special press notice in July 1946 to explain what the label meant: This mark does not mean that the garment is a Utility one. On the contrary, it means that it is in the most expensive range of that manufacturer’s non-Utility production, for a manufacturer may use it only if he is using cloth which is not Utility and for which he has paid more than a given price.17

This label was supposed to be stitched where it could easily be seen; however, it is indicative of manufacturer’s dislike of the label that it is often found hidden in hems, side seams and waistbands.18 Many felt that having to ‘brand’ a high end garment in this way effectively devalued it. However, this label helped to establish certain wholesale couture brands as amongst the most expensive one could buy, and the corresponding quality of garments carrying the double elevens label is evident. Indeed, today this label stands as a sign of distinction in post-war British garments, marking them out as high fashion pieces (likely copied from Paris) and made from quality materials (Plate 6).

These Labels Stand for Quality

121

The copied label or the labelled copy Between the 1940s and 1960s the British fashion press repeatedly highlighted the significance of London wholesale couturiers to the general public, demonstrating that it was through them that the Parisian couture aesthetic was consumed. For example, Joy Matthews stated that: I’ve been talking to the people who matter as much to you as the Paris designers, the people who between them produce millions of coats, dresses, suits and skirts every year in Great Britain – the clothes that are sold in the shops all over the country. The clothes that YOU wear […] Whatever the Paris geniuses have in store for us this Spring, it is what these men and women buy, what catches their eye, what they like or dislike that shapes your fashion future.19

This quote must be understood in the context of the dominance of Parisian fashion in the 1950s, whereby lines were dictated from Paris each season. For this reason, a good adaptation of a Paris original carried a cultural capital of its own, demonstrating that the wearer was knowledgeable about the latest silhouettes from Paris. Discussing Canadian and American copies of French couture Alexandra Palmer suggests that ‘by the mid-1950s, a good copy and a loose affiliation with the original couture garment began to be a perfectly adequate means for Canadian and American stores to acquire the cultural capital that was previously associated only with “real” couture models.’20 Furthermore Palmer states, ‘For many […], the copy […] became as good if not better than the original because it had been re-engineered for their taste and was cheaper and more appropriate for their lifestyle.’21 I argue the same is true of London wholesale couture garments, despite neither being made nor designed in Paris, they were still inextricably connected to the Paris original. Such garments were marked with a couture ‘lineage’ which helped them to ‘retain strong notions of exclusivity’.22 The labelled wholesale couture product must, however, be recognized as a dichotomous one. At once, the label marked the garment as an authentic original produced by the name on the label. Yet, at the same time marked it as, likely, a copy of a Parisian couture garment. How far consumers recognized that such garments were copies of Parisian couture is open to speculation. In the 1930s some manufacturers had advertised that their garments were couture copies. For example, one 1931 Dorville advertisement promoted a ‘facsimile by Dorville of the Molyneux three-piece in marl jersey or mousse: coat lined contrast in Milanese – for seaside or town wear. Price 7 guineas’.23 By the 1940s wholesale

122

Wholesale Couture

couturiers had stopped advertising that their garments were couture copies. Some indicated that they were still keeping abreast of Parisian trends, a 1940 Koupy advertisement for example suggested that despite the war they were one of the ‘few English houses who sent their designers to visit the Paris shows’.24 However, post-war most wholesale couturiers focused instead on their in-house design skills. Starke for example ran a series of advertisements with the tagline ‘Frederick Starke designed it.’ Occasionally retailers in Britain did still advertise that they stocked copies of Parisian couture by London wholesale couturiers, one such advertisement placed in The Times by Knightsbridge department store Wolland’s featured ‘Givenchy’s slim black cocktail sheath faithfully copied by the Famous London Fashion House of Frederick Starke’.25 However, this practice was certainly not common in Britain, and it was more often medium range garments which were explicitly advertised as couture copies. One Rembrandt advertisement in Vanity Fair suggested, ‘Rembrandt loved it best of all the season’s Paris models … translate it literally for you in the finest wool: Dior’s “Bernique” […] cut to spell perfection to your figure in the easy beauty of its every line.’26 This change in practice was tied up with wholesale couturiers attempts to assert an aura of creativity and exclusivity within their advertising material. However, they had little control over editorial content featuring their garments and it was often here that it was made clear their garments were copied from Parisian couture with headlines such as ‘Hints for Ensuring Haute Couture at Your Price’ and ‘Paris in the London Shops’.27 One such article stated, ‘In our last two numbers, we showed you the big news from the Paris collections. Already, in our own shops, you can find winter clothes which incorporate the best of the new lines, fabric and details.’ These articles used considered language to make it clear that garments within them were copies. Garments were described as ‘inspired by’, ‘adaptations’ or even ‘after’ a certain designer. This unquestionably borrows from the lexicon normally used to describe art. It illustrated that the garment was a copy, whilst also indicating the artistry of Parisian couture. For those knowledgeable consumers who purchased the British copies and adaptations arguably there was a double cachet. The well-known ready-to-wear label itself was covetable, but the connection to a couture garment enhanced this further. By the late 1940s wholesale couture garments carried a level of prestige in their own right, thanks to heavy advertising by firms in magazines and appearances in editorials, the workmanship and quality of such pieces, and the high, and for many aspirational, prices of such garments. A wholesale couture label was a marker of quality, authenticity and distinction.

These Labels Stand for Quality

123

Print advertising of wholesale couture One of the key ways wholesale couturiers affirmed their names with the public was through print advertising. Wholesale couturiers advertising strategies differed across publications; however, most advertised heavily in the fashion and trade press from the 1920s until the late 1950s. In the 1920s and early 1930s it was the advertisements of Matita and Rose and Blairman which feature most prominently in the trade press, for example both advertised in most issues of the trade journal Drapers’ Organiser. Drapers’ Organiser launched in January 1914, its original tagline stated that it was a ‘business building magazine for Drapers, outfitters and clothiers’.28 It was quite unlike most other trade journals at the time and by the 1920s was printed in a large format with glossy pages. Drapers’ Organiser’s advertising pages are particularly striking, and even in the 1920s, before many other magazines adopted the process, some of their photographic advertisements and editorials were printed in colour. Many of these colour plates were prepared by Sun Engraving co. Vivid, bright and true to life, these show the dynamism of garments (Plate 7). Drapers’ Organiser, through its advertising and editorial content, promoted the dress and textiles industry broadly, including yarn, fabric and garment manufacturers within its pages. It is also striking in the 1930s that advertisements in the journal covered the broad spectrum of fashion manufacturing in Britain; low-price ready-to-wear garments were seen alongside London couture pieces from the likes of Stiebel and Hartnell. Drapers’ Organiser was however an anomaly and on the whole fashion and trade magazines prior to 1945 were largely printed in black and white with retailers’ advertisements dominating their pages. In March 1945 Drapers’ Organiser rebranded itself as Fashion and Fabrics. An article in that issue suggested that ‘Drapers’ Organiser was not an adequate guide to the policy and contents of the journal in the Nineteen-forties, with its emphasis upon Fashion.’29 Whilst the trade journal The Ambassador is well-known amongst scholars of the twentieth-century fashion industry, the importance of Drapers’ Organiser, and its Overseas edition, launched in 1946, has been overlooked. Indeed, editorial imagery was not so creative as was seen in The Ambassador; however, at the time the two were certainly of similar importance. In 1945 for example W. Ireland, Director of Thomas Marshall Ltd, described Drapers’ Organiser as having been ‘one of the outstanding fashion journals of the past thirty years’.30

124

Wholesale Couture

The 1940s was a difficult period for the publishing industry, owing to paper rationing which started during the Second World War and continued to affect the industry for the rest of the 1940s. This meant that some magazines, including Vogue, became notably slimmer than their pre-war antecedents, and others, like Drapers’ Organiser, changed from a large to small format with poorer quality paper. Despite this, as Jobling has suggested ‘magazines and periodicals not only doubled their circulation between 1938 and 1952 but in the same period advertising within them also increased around 40 per cent.’31 During the Second World War Vogue published a series of advertisements under the titles ‘These Labels Stand for Quality’ and ‘Vogue’s Page of Names to Remember’ which included the labels of various fashion, accessory and beauty brands. Owing to paper rationing it was not possible for firms to take out individual full-page advertisements; however, many were included in joint advertisements such as these. For example, the December 1941 issue of Vogue saw Mary Black, Matita and Frederick Starke appear in a ‘These Labels Stand for Quality’ feature. It stated ‘spend your coupons wisely and buy garments which bear a reputable name. These manufacturers are determined that their standards will be maintained.’32 A ‘Vogue’s Page of Names to Remember’ advertisement in June 1943 stated ‘war conditions restrict advertising, which is why in this issue there are only small reminders of these well-known branded names.’33 Again, the majority of firms within this advertisement were wholesale couturiers. These advertisements concentrated on promoting brand names rather than specific garments. They were a more economical form of advertising and at a time of intense shortages, cut out photography costs. Furthermore, it was not cost effective for firms who were only able to produce small runs of garments to advertise one specific piece. During the war some wholesale couturiers chose to continue advertising alone, but without specific garments. For example, in 1942 Kuperstein published an advertisement without garments which stated, ‘your Koupy model you so much love, available in the past at every leading store and speciality shop, is now unavoidably scarce but when you do find one at your pet shop you can be sure that Fabric, Finish and Styling will maintain the high standards that has always been associated with the name.’34 Similarly, in 1942 Matita published an advertisement with a moiré fabric background and an illustrated white silhouette of a model in the foreground, although no specific models were promoted. It stated, ‘Although limited, Matita models are still to be found at the best shops – a fact in itself which proves the practical value of fine tailor-made clothes that will long retain their impeccable shape and style.’35 All of these advertisements were designed to keep brand names at the forefront of the consumer’s mind, despite the shortages manufacturers encountered.

These Labels Stand for Quality

125

Paper rationing continued in the immediate post-war period. However, from early 1946 onwards lavish spreads of advertisements by wholesale couturiers started to reappear in fashion publications including Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar and in trade journals such as Fashion and Fabrics and The Ambassador. Generally, the advertisements of wholesale couturiers were found occupying the expensive front pages of such publications and indeed dominated their advertising pages. The Statistical Review provides some data on wholesale couturier’s advertising spending in the post 1946 period. This journal published advertising expenditures for various firms under the category ‘Outerwear (Women’s and Children’s)’. Between 1946 and 1955 Rose and Blairman’s advertising spend outstripped all other wholesale couturiers almost every year. It was only as the mid-1950s approached that other wholesale couturiers, notably those who also produced medium range garments, began to spend more, with Susan Small spending the most by 1955. Over this period Rose and Blariman and Brenner Sports, typically the two most prolific advertisers, regularly spent at least £5000 per annum on advertising. Whilst this was high in comparison to other wholesale couturiers, some of whom rarely spent over £1500 a year, in comparison to some medium range and mass production firms, their spending was limited. Gor-Ray were consistently the biggest advertisers in the Women’s Outerwear category, spending over £70,000 per annum on advertising after paper rationing ended. Berketex, Dereta, Windsmoor and Harella were amongst the next highest spenders, but each of these firms rarely spent over £30,000 per annum. Gor-Ray’s advertising spend totally eclipsed them. Their higher spending is understandable when one considers that these firms placed advertisements in a diverse range of publications from daily newspapers to fashion and general interest magazines.36 Until the mid-1950s wholesale couturiers restricted promotion of their garments to high fashions magazines such as Harper’s Bazaar and Vogue and the key trade publications including The Ambassador and Fashion and Fabrics. In the late 1950s, however, many did begin to branch out, increasingly promoting their garments through magazines which were targeted towards younger and working-class women. This saw them placing advertisements in a similarly diverse range of publications to many medium-range firms; however, their advertisements were still not so frequent. Wholesale couture advertisements were typically printed in black and white. It is likely they relied on black and white because of the high cost of colour advertising. For example a Vogue Book of British Exports colour page cost £120 in 1947 and a black and white just £75.37 Furthermore, as a 1947 Advertising Weekly article suggested, colour was still unreliable, prone to fade and often did not truly represent what had been photographed.38 Brenner Sports was the exception to

126

Wholesale Couture

this rule and more often their advertisements were printed in colour. Already in the 1930s they were placing highly saturated colour advertisements in fashion publications and continued to do so throughout the 1940s. This also accounts for why their advertising expenditure was amongst the highest (Plate 8). Wholesale couturiers’ advertising styles changed quite dramatically in the 1930s, from text heavy features, often including multiple garments, as discussed in chapter one, to image focused, stripped back advertisements providing little more information than the manufacturer’s name. As the standards of photographic reproduction improved, it was felt that the image alone could convey enough information. In many ways this style of advertising also sought to distinguish wholesale couturiers from medium range producers whose advertisements, on the whole, tended to be more text heavy. Furthermore, whilst most medium range manufacturers included the price of their garments in advertisements, wholesale couturiers did not, helping to emphasize the exclusivity of their pieces. From the 1930s onwards advertisements for daywear, suits and coats were largely shot outside, often in recognizable London locations, with iconic cultural landmarks used as backdrops. Wholesale couture eveningwear advertisements on the other hand were studio shot, or more often, photographed within the wholesale couturiers’ showrooms in a dramatic manner. Typically for cocktail, dinner and evening attire a fairly dark background predominates, with the model gently spot lit, rarely looking towards the camera. The props, if there were any in such images, tended to be antique furniture (Figure 5.3). These advertisements

­F igure 5.3  W&O Marcus advertisement, Tatler, 29 November 1944. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

These Labels Stand for Quality

127

suggest refinement and luxury in their presentation, with their styling echoing that seen in fashion editorials at the time. The antique furniture that appears within the images stretches them back to the past, but also signifies what stood for good taste when they were shot.

Modelling wholesale couture Between the 1920s and 1930s most of the models who appeared in wholesale couture advertisements were stage and screen actresses. Matita for example used actress Nora Swinburne for most of their advertising during this period, her name printed prominently in the advertising copy. During the 1930s Joyce Barbour, Hilary Charles and Margaret Vyer also appeared regularly in wholesale couturier’s advertising, their names appearing in the copy. This practice ceased in the 1940s, and whilst wholesale couturiers continued to use actresses as models for their photographic advertising, they were very rarely named. In 1947 for example, Kay Kendall, a relatively well-known British actress thanks to her appearance in the 1946 film London Town, featured in the majority of Starke’s advertising, yet was not named. By the late 1940s it was professional models rather than actresses who appeared in the majority of wholesale couturiers’ advertisements. This is indicative of the professionalization of the modelling industry that had taken place. These models, no matter how famous they were, were not credited in advertising. Most wholesale couture houses employed permanent house models, who generally modelled for their house alone. On rare occasions these models were, however, loaned out to other houses. Alongside these models they also employed freelancers who worked on short term contracts for multiple different houses at the same time. House models were paid significantly less than freelance models, but house modelling did at least offer a degree of job security. Carol Dyhouse has suggested that at the top end of the market, models projected an ‘image of aristocratic, ladylike breeding, a somewhat mannered and haughty disdain’.39 Cherry Marshall, who was a house model for Spectator Sports and Susan Small, agreed suggesting that models spoke with cut-glass accents, no matter their background.40 There was a recognized look of models too, and the majority were tall, willowy and white. There were, however, some models who can be seen as anomalies in the trade and had successful careers despite the fact they did not conform to the conventional beauty standards of the time. This included diminutive Alicia Darke, who was just 5 ft 1. Despite

128

Wholesale Couture

Figure 5.4  Spectator advertisement featuring Seignon Nystrom, Tatler, 4 July 1945. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

her small stature she modelled straight size clothes for a number of wholesale couture houses during the late 1940s.41 Another was (Dorothy) Seignon Nystrom (nee Robertson). Nystrom was born in 1911 in Bhamo, Burma (modern day Myanmar). It is unclear when Nystrom moved to Britain, but by 1939 she was certainly working as a model – the 1939 register records her as a typist and mannequin.42 Throughout 1944 and 1945 for example she, almost exclusively, modelled Spectator Sports garments. Slim and elegant, she was unquestionably one of the most striking models of the period with her high arched eyebrows and glossy dark hair (Figure 5.4). Despite the supposed haughty elegance of many models, the look presented in wholesale couture advertising, particular those including day garments like coats and suits, was meant to be aspirational yet achievable. As a Fashion and Fabrics article discussing successful advertising suggested: The professional woman can see herself in most of these advertisements […] These women are doctors, business people, barristers, solicitors and welfare workers. Their main interests are in their work. But they are discerning about

These Labels Stand for Quality

129

good clothes. The professional woman pays well for what she buys and at her best is the ideal customer. She will buy a complete ensemble, is trained to appreciate expert opinion and looks for sound advice on her clothes.43

This article clearly identified the expected clientele of wholesale couture firms. Such advertisements were about purchasing a total look, and perhaps even buying into a certain lifestyle. This is strikingly different to the message of 1930s wholesale couture advertising, where it is clear that clothes were designed for leisure activities. A 1933 Rose and Blairman advertisement suggested ‘for the beach, the pool, the sun-deck, for the golf course and the tennis courts there are Dorville models. If you swim, lunch, snooze, sunburn, tea, tennis and wander into the casino, you’ll be wearing a Dorville model.’44 However, by the postwar period wholesale couturiers’ designs were largely targeted at the modern working woman. In this period women occupying the professions listed in the Fashion and Fabrics article were likely middle-class. As Gerry Holloway suggests in Women and Work in Britain since 1840, ‘middle-class women were more likely to work for personal fulfilment and to have received adequate education to achieve interesting careers.’45 Furthermore, Holloway suggests that after the Second World War ‘young middle-class single women no longer had to justify to their family the desire to take paid work.’ Rather, it was desirable that they did work – at least until they married.46 Whilst after marriage many women did give up their jobs, there was, as Holloway suggests, increasing numbers of married women who chose to continue working.47 This is suggestive of an increasing independence that was desired for women and was reflected in their clothing choices. In the 1940s there was much discussion in the fashion and trade press about the modern working woman, and her position in society which wholesale couturiers tapped into in their advertising. One 1943 article in the Drapers’ Organiser suggested that: A new post-war purchasing power will be in the hands of women of every class. Those who have had a taste of economic independence are not likely to throw it away carelessly. Many will endeavour to combine business activities with social and domestic duties. No longer will there be a weaker sex, socially and economically […] After the war women will have more money and more independence in spending that money. […] If women demand a normal, decent, free domestic and economic life, no power or politician in the world can refuse. The writing is already on the wall. That women have made up their minds to enjoy financial and economic equality with men is evidenced by the present intention of women MPs to insist, when Parliament reassembles that post-war credits due to wives should be made out to them instead of to their husbands.48

130

Wholesale Couture

During the late 1940s and 1950s wholesale couturiers typically used the same small selection of models including Nola Rose, Shelagh Wilson and Barbara Goalen. Charles Castle suggested that Goalen was ‘the first to give the profession prestige and the first to become a celebrity heralded by the press.’49 The press attention that Goalen received was a-typical for a British model at the time; she was profiled widely and became a recognized name at a time when most British fashion models were un-credited. Indeed, as Picture Post suggested: She is not Britain’s top model for her face or form, although both are pleasant enough to assist. It is, perhaps, because she has the natural qualities of a good actress and an intensely feminine delight in display. She learns her character and lines through clothes. She assumes the distinctive personality which the dress designer and photographer want of her […] she also has originality and has cultivated a Goalen style.50

It was perhaps because of these ‘actress qualities’ that Goalen was highly favoured amongst wholesale couturiers, meaning she was able to wear a wide variety of garment styles with ease. Goalen largely modelled either haute couture or wholesale couture, as she suggested, ‘I always did high fashion and I never touched anything that wasn’t top quality […] because in those days if you did, you were finished.’51

T ­ extiles Goalen featured in one of Starke’s 1948 advertisements for dresses made from Ascher scarf squares (Plate 9). This advertisement is a striking anomaly to the typical style of 1940s wholesale couture advertisements. The presentation of the advertisement, the use of Goalen, and the dresses seen within it all warrant further discussion. The design of this advertisement is particularly eye-catching. Originally presented landscape rather than portrait it is tinted with an extreme saturation of colour which creates a visual pop, the vibrancy of the colours having more akin with American rather than British advertising at the time. As Harold Koda has suggested, American magazines were at ‘the forefront of image reproduction quality’ and accordingly advertising images were more often presented in vivid colour.52 The advertisement states, ‘Frederick Starke uses scarf squares by Ascher in this original dress for resort wear.’53 The description of these dresses as resort wear connoted a sense of luxury and that these garments were for those with the time and money to travel internationally and holiday in places where such a garment would have been appropriate. Typically, Starke’s 1940s

These Labels Stand for Quality

131

advertisements featured only one model; however, in this instance multiple models were used to show the variety of jewel-like colours that the dress came in. The advertisement clearly foregrounds Goalen, placing importance on her. Despite being shot only a year into her modelling career, it demonstrates her early notoriety. The dresses featured within this advertisement received considerable press coverage, described by Apparel Production as ‘a hit of the season’.54 The dresses involved clever construction with two scarves used to form the skirt and one scarf used to create the bodice and sleeves.55 Each scarf was decorated with a dried sunflower print designed ‘exclusively’ for Starke by Sigmund Pollitzer in 1947 as part of Ascher’s ‘Ascher squares’ series.56 The scarves used to create these dresses were quite large, each measuring 90 cm square; the large size of the scarf indicates how it was possible to make the dresses using just three scarves. As can be seen in the advertisement each of the dresses utilized a slightly different arrangement of the scarves to great effect. Starke’s Spring/Summer 1948 collection included a number of Ascher fabrics. He also used an ‘exclusive’ Christian Berard silk crepe printed with a pattern of ladies dressed in Victorian and Edwardian garments, that received widespread publicity (Figure 5.5). The fabric was used for a number of different garments. One dress in pale blue had a ‘shirtwaist bodice and skirt of unpressed pleats’57 and another, which featured in Fashion Forecast, was made from black or navy crepe with a peplum waist and slim skirt. Ascher fabrics were amongst the most

Figure 5.5  Frederick Starke dress in Ascher printed rayon. Print designed by Christian Berard, Film Fashion Review, 1948.

132

Wholesale Couture

fashionable in London during the late 1940s and 1950s, their silks and rayons suited for both dresses and lightweight suiting. They were used extensively by Starke, Rima, Matita and Spectator Sports, who favoured the whimsical, unusual prints that could turn a simple garment into a piece of wearable art. Whilst wholesale couturiers generally borrowed their garment shapes from Parisian couture the majority relied heavily on British and Irish fabrics. Aside from Ascher, as a 1948 Ambassador editorial made clear, wholesale couturiers were using a wide variety of British fabrics from leading companies, covering the breadth of British manufacturing capabilities. These included crease and crush resistant nylons from West Cumberland Silk Mills, printed fabrics by Nahums and Berne silk manufacturing co and woollens from Shielana (Plate 10).58 However, in the 1940s Britain was still widely known for its woollen fabrics, not necessarily the silks, rayons or modern synthetics that were being produced. This began to change thanks to manufacturers like Ascher and West Cumberland Silk Mills, who worked closely with wholesale couturiers. One article suggested that Miki Sekers of West Cumberland Silk Mills would ‘consult with Frederick Starke, Susan Small and the other leading wholesale firms just as he does with Mayfair couturiers or his Paris customers’.59 It is notable that the couple behind Ascher, Lida and Zika Asher (born 1913 and 1910, respectively, in Prague, Czechoslovakia), and Sekers who founded West Cumberland Silk Mills (born Miklós Szekeres in 1910 in Sopron, Hungary) had emigrated to Britain to escape the Nazi regime in the 1930s. It was not just the British garment manufacturing industry that was transformed by refugees from Europe, but the textiles industry too. In 1962 Olive O’Neill discussed her own close relationship with fabric manufacturers. She suggested that she had used fabrics from Northern Irish fabric manufacturer Stevenson’s of Dungannon for so long, that the two firms had ‘almost grown up together’. ‘They are in sympathy with my ideas about design: they understand the fabric I need and they will work tirelessly and experiment endlessly on shades and textures until they have found exactly what I want.’ One such fabric Stevenson’s created especially for Dorville was Dorlinic, a ‘cool, uncrushable, washable, wear-and-go anywhere fabric’. This was a lightweight viscose fabric which was designed to resemble linen.60 By the 1950s many wholesale couturiers had begun to turn away from their reliance on natural fibres, and experimented with newly developed synthetic fibres, recognizing that consumers increasingly desired the easy-care properties synthetic fibres could offer. From 1958 onwards Dorville incorporated Courtauld’s ‘Courtelle’, an acrylic fibre which could be woven or knitted to create a washable, warm, crease resistant fabric, into a range of garments in

These Labels Stand for Quality

Figure 5.6  Dorville dress in Orlon, photographed by David Olins, Tatler, 30 December 1959. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

Figure 5.7  Dorville casuals jumpsuit in Helanca, photographed by David Olins, Tatler, 30 December 1959. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

133

134

Wholesale Couture

their trademark silhouettes. In 1961 a particularly striking editorial appeared in Tatler promoting synthetic fibres (Figures 5.6 and 5.7). It featured a range of garments from a diamond harlequin print playsuit by Dorville casuals to a Jean Allen ballgown. The designs shown in this editorial included traditional suits and dresses alongside extremely modern designs. This editorial illustrated the versatility and opportunity that many firms, particularly wholesale couturiers, felt synthetics offered by the late 1950s.

Promoting fabrics, promoting London Between the 1930s and 1960s wholesale couturiers’ reliance on British fabrics is clear. In 1951 Fashion and Fabrics Overseas published a series of advertisements which promoted both fabric and garment manufacturers. It is highly likely these advertisements were paid for by fabric manufacturers as in 1949/50 they were paying for similar advertisements to appear within this journal in conjunction with IncSoc.61 Whilst wholesale couturiers’ garments often appeared in the advertisements of fabric manufacturers the scale and scope of this advertising campaign is worthy of further discussion. This campaign was initiated in February 1951 and each individual advertisement provided details of both the fabric and garment manufacturer. A letter addressed to overseas buyers from Alec Brenner states ‘[these adverts] demonstrate both the quality of the fabric for its purpose, and the ingenuity of our members in making the greatest use of these world-famous fabrics’.62 It seems this first run of advertisements were successful as over the course of 1951 similar advertisements promoting British fabrics alongside wholesale couture garments appeared in the journal. The advertising campaign appearing in the February 1951 issue saw models shot in London tourist destinations that would have been familiar to overseas buyers (Figures 5.8 and 5.9). For example, a Spectator Sports suit is seen in front of Big Ben, a Matita floral print two-piece in the Tate Gallery, a Brenner Sports coat in St James’s Park and a Frederick Starke evening dress at the Royal Opera House. These images give an insight into the activities that women who wore wholesale couture might partake in. The inclusion of galleries and the Royal Opera House suggests that women who wore wholesale couture were cultured, educated women. These advertisements, with London as the backdrop, also provided a visual reminder that London firms produced these garments and imply that London was imbued within the garments themselves. London’s

These Labels Stand for Quality

135

Figure 5.8  Frederick Starke dress made from pure silk and rayon Nottingham lace from the range of Harry Johnson Ltd, 1951. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Figure 5.9  Editorial spread featuring garments by members of the MHG, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, February 1951.

136

Wholesale Couture

history, heritage and traditions formed an important part of British fashion advertising, the use of London landmarks situating London as Britain’s fashion capital. The ideas of tradition and heritage lay central to the appeal of British fashion both at home and abroad. Particularly during and immediately after the Second World War, with Britain still in a period of instability, the ‘past [was] an obvious refuge’. Britain’s fashion profile, particularly as seen in advertisements, was not necessarily forward looking but often borrowing heavily from stereotypical ideas of the country’s past.63 It is striking that prior to the 1960s it was very rare to see wholesale couture garments posed in front of ‘modern’ or contemporary buildings. As Rocamora suggests ‘fashion magazines  […] regularly anchor fashion to the most desirable and mythical spaces. Like the many books, films and paintings that have supported a spectacular vision of the city.’64 The seductive appeal and symbolic value of traditional London can be seen within these images – certainly it can be argued that such images encouraged overseas buyers to visit not only to see the collections but also to see the city itself – inspired by the romantic and idealized visions they saw in advertisements such as this.

­Wholesale couture and the BBC In terms of advertising there was one new and developing medium that proved of importance to wholesale couturiers, and primarily members of the MHG; television. The BBC had begun transmitting television programmes in the 1930s; during the Second World War, however, television was, in effect, switched off and the BBC did not again transmit programmes until June 1946. As soon as programming resumed fashion became an important part of the BBC’s agenda. The immediate concerns and possibilities of television were recognized by designer and businessman Richard Busvine in a Fashion and Fabrics article in August 1946. Before the BBC began to transmit fashion programmes, he felt there were three things that both the BBC and fashion firms had to consider. ‘First, to what extent is the BBC interested in fashion? Second, the financial position regarding programmes. And thirdly, how will the Corporation’s no advertising rule affect things?’ Busvine went onto suggest that as early as 1946 BBC executives were ‘keenly interested in the possibilities of fashion’.65 However, the majority of the article was devoted to discussing the ‘tricky question’ of how to credit fashion firms. As will be seen, this question was one that dogged the BBC throughout the 1940s and 1950s.

These Labels Stand for Quality

137

There doesn’t seem to be any hard and fast rule, but past experience […] suggests that while the Corporation will readily give credits to individuals it will not countenance the use of commercial titles […] there seems to be no objection to using the names of groups or associations, and it is highly probable that this is the source to which the BBC will most frequently turn when in need of models. Undoubtedly, such groups are better equipped to offer representative collections.66

Documents held at the BBC Written Archive Centre illustrate that from 1946 onwards, before television was again transmitted, there were concerns about how fashion firms should be credited within broadcasts. In a letter dated 1  April 1946 Mary Adams (BBC producer) questioned G.R. Barnes (BBC executive) as to the ‘rule’ about naming firms within television broadcasts as they were already encountering problems.67 Between May and July that year a number of letters were sent addressing this issue. The general consensus was that the names of firms should not be broadcast within programmes, unless their names were ‘held to be of legitimate news interest to the listener’.68 Which fashions were of ‘legitimate’ news interest to viewers? Haute couture? Wholesale couture? Or mass-produced? Still in 1946 there were very few licence holders owing to the prohibitive cost of televisions (a basic television cost around £42 in 1946). This suggests that the BBC’s primary target audience was the upper and middle classes. One can therefore assume that ready-to-wear, of the calibre that wholesale couturiers were creating, was of ‘legitimate’ news interest. It is likely that the MHG’s association with the BBC began shortly after television transmission resumed and a number of letters between members of the MHG (particularly Starke) and the BBC exist to confirm this. From the outset, Starke was concerned with the lack of credits given to individual firms. In a letter dated 13 October 1947 he wrote: It seems to me that rather a short-sighted policy has been followed in not mentioning the names of the houses participating in these shows, especially when they are names well-known to the public that by being mentioned would serve a useful purpose and increase the appeal of your programme if the ordinary member of the public could feel that these clothes shown are purchasable. Our name is already well-known to the general public and it could hardly be considered that BBC television would be in any way commercializing their function. It is a fact that the great French fashion industry was built up in the past by publicity and free mention of the creative houses in it by the press and any other mediums available, and it seems to me that you are in a position of great service

138

Wholesale Couture

to the industry and indirectly help our aspirations in the world export market.

From our point of view, unless there is some mention of the originating house, televising of our products can serve no useful purpose.69 The BBC took Starke’s letter seriously, Cecil McGivern (BBC programme director) regarded Starke’s letter as an ‘ultimatum’ and considered that wholesale couturiers would not lend garments to the BBC unless their names were mentioned. McGivern believed that such firms did not ‘need’ to lend the clothes to the BBC, and that the MHG was in a powerful position because the BBC wanted their clothes, and this meant that the MHG could legitimately ask to be credited.70 From 1951 onwards the association between the BBC and MHG was strengthened thanks to the MHG providing garments for BBC announcers to wear on television (primarily for Mary Malcolm and Sylvia Peters with occasional garments for guest announcers). The idea was first mooted in 1951 that members of the MHG should dress announcers. There was much discussion as to whether IncSoc or the MHG should be approached to provide clothes for the announcers. A letter initially considering the situation in 1951 suggested that whilst it was possible that IncSoc could dress the announcers, they would expect credit or payment for the clothing. At this point the BBC viewed IncSoc fairly negatively: A lot of the Incorporated Society members are considered to fall into this class [haute couture], except for their paramount interest in advancing their own fortunes. It seems that all the houses are in increasing financial difficulties and are taking up various means of escaping from them […] English haute couture still exists primarily to dress individual clients, rather than to create models as Paris houses do to give a lead to the fashion industry. The Incorporated Society’s influence on English fashion is limited since the wholesale trade is not admitted to their collections.71

This letter, by criticizing IncSoc, demonstrates the strong position that the MHG held within the industry in the early 1950s. In the BBC’s opinion the MHG represented wholesale couture in the same way that IncSoc represented haute couture. It is also possible that the BBC were aware of IncSoc’s opinion regarding the potential benefits of television. Hardy Amies suggested in 1948 that television was ‘a waste of time and that he was disinclined to participate in television broadcasts.’72 Furthermore, in 1947 Joan Gilbert of the BBC had proposed television interviews with each of the ten members, but ‘it was decided

These Labels Stand for Quality

139

that in view of the limitations of television at the present this proposal was of no interest.’73 The final decision to use the MHG for announcer’s wardrobes was made in late 1951. B Clive Rawes (television presentation editor) suggested diplomatically that there was ‘no need’ to use IncSoc and that members were ‘leaders of fashion and therefore tend to be too dramatic and too sophisticated for a home medium’.74 Instead it was felt that wholesale couturiers could offer what they wanted for the announcer’s wardrobes, and that they were able to dress them in an ‘up-to-date but not extravagant way’.75 There were some issues, however, and the BBC was aware that the MHG would expect some kind of credit or payment for its goods. Rawes felt that either there needed to be a ‘straightforward business arrangement’ with the MHG whereby members were paid for the clothes supplied, or there was to be ‘a broader arrangement to allow us to select clothes free of charge giving in return some form of credit’.76 It seemed sensible for the BBC to approach a group like the MHG because it believed that members would be willing to accept a credit of the MHG rather than individual credits for each member. The BBC felt that approaching the MHG would not jeopardize its no advertising rule. The garments chosen for the announcers were supplied to the BBC at wholesale prices. After some discussion it was agreed that whilst the clothes were largely to be bought off-the-peg, some garments would be specially made (in different materials or colours to what was available to the general public) or custom fitted to the announcers.77 MHG members supplied garments for BBC announcers between 1952 and 1958. The contract ceased because it was men rather than women who undertook most of the announcements by this point.78 In examining this collaboration, it is unclear whether this was a useful link-up or not for the MHG. The BBC WAC provides much information regarding the arrangement – however, it seems that there was very little print promotion for the clothing Malcolm and Peters wore. On balance it seems that the MHG did not necessarily get the individual publicity they desired for each of their houses from this arrangement. Clothes by MHG members were also regularly featured in special fashion broadcasts, which again raised issues as to how group members should be credited. The MHG felt it was unfair that IncSoc members were credited individually when their garments were shown, whilst MHG members were not. IncSoc, it appears, were viewed as ‘above’ the BBC’s rules. Initially the BBC suggested that they credited IncSoc because ‘it is felt this is not vulgar advertising, as few of our women viewers could afford to buy the creations that flit so elegantly across the screen.’79 However, by 1952 this view was changing, much to IncSoc’s chagrin. In order to try and

140

Wholesale Couture

retain IncSoc’s special treatment their secretary Lillian Hyder provided a number of justifications. She stated that ‘the aim of [IncSoc] is to focus world attention on London fashions and British fabrics[…] And in this the designers are supported by all the British textile industries’ and furthermore that IncSoc members ‘did not advertise.’80 This was only partially true; in the 1930s most London couture houses had advertised, and still in the 1950s their garments appeared within textile manufacturers’ advertisements, furthermore IncSoc’s minutes during the late 1940s suggest that some of their budget was spent on advertising.81 As E. Cousins, secretary of the MHG, suggested IncSoc were a ‘fully commercial group’.82 If the BBC were not prepared to name IncSoc designers in their broadcasts then, as Hyde’s letters suggested, representatives for the BBC would not be invited to the London couture shows. She wrote: ‘it would be most helpful to me if you would confirm that the Designers’ names will always be credited, as otherwise, it is going to be very difficult to induce them to issue the many invitations asked for by the BBC.’83 In effect Hyder tried to coerce the BBC into continuing to name IncSoc firms. The opportunity to view the haute couture fashion shows was a perk staff involved with televising fashion did not want to lose. By 1954 the BBC was recognizing the increasing power of the MHG and ready-to-wear fashion more generally. When the issue was discussed again it was felt that MHG members should be named because not doing so would be ‘possibly depriving ourselves of dresses etc. which viewers want to see’. And that ‘viewers would be no less interested and might even be more interested in the naming of, say, a Rembrandt model, since it would represent a type of dress more easily within their reach.’84 The reach and popularity of moderately priced fashion on television is clearly seen in the number of letters of enquiry the BBC received. In 1950, 13 fashion programmes produced 483 letters of enquiry about items.85 By 1954 over 1,000 enquiries were handed over to the fashion adviser after, it appears, just one showing of garments at what the BBC considered ‘popular prices’.86 When the issue was discussed again in 1957 it was suggested that ‘clothes from the wholesale houses are of more direct interest to our viewers and very often more related to any new fashion coming from Italy or France which may have caught public interest.’87 Whilst the BBC did not change its no advertising rule, or bend its rules for the MHG, it seems that that the group, and other wholesale couturiers, did find ways around it. For example, special features appeared in magazines and newspapers documenting the clothing that appeared in televised broadcasts (Figure 5.10).88 Furthermore a November 1954 television show of MHG garments, compered by Michael Whittaker, garnered nationwide newspaper coverage mentioning

These Labels Stand for Quality

141

Figure 5.10  ‘Our Fashion Show on Television’. Behind the scenes of a special televised broadcast from Fashion Fortnight, featuring wholesale couture garments. Left: white satin ball dress by Frank Usher, Right: pink gossamer and velvet ball gown by Arthur Banks, photographed by Norman Parkinson, British Vogue Export Book, No. 4 1953. Credit: Norman Parkinson/Iconic Images.

the names of participating firms.89 Whilst the collaborative agreement with the BBC was not of promotional benefit initially for the MHG, they did manage to use the arrangement to their benefit in the long run. These collaborations demonstrate the importance of the group to the British fashion industry at the time. It is also suggestive that the MHG was considered a representative body for the top end of the ready-to-wear sector. Furthermore, the information found at the BBC WAC points to the already dwindling position of London couturiers in the 1950s and the importance of ready-to-wear fashion for the average British consumer. The prevalence of wholesale couturier’s garments on television must be recognized as a wider part of their promotional strategies. Even if these televised programmes did not directly sell garments, they ensured public awareness of the MHG, and consequently the firms who were part of it. Branding and promotion were vital to wholesale couturiers and the increasing prevalence of branded products was a significant part of the expansion of the ready-to-wear industry in

142

Wholesale Couture

the mid-twentieth century. As Ewing suggested, helping to transform relatively small firms into ‘powers that led the industry’.90 As this chapter has shown branding established certain wholesale couture labels as covetable commodities for middle-class women across the country and it was through wholesale couture brands that Parisian couture was effectively consumed by these women. Branding, and increasingly aggressive promotional methods must be seen as vital to ensuring the success of wholesale couture and, like manufacturing methods, promotional methods were largely inspired by the American industry. However, wholesale couturiers had an ace in their back pocket, London and the connected symbolic power of the capital city. This chapter reiterates the significance of London to wholesale couturiers brand identities, demonstrating that London was often central to their advertising. London was symbolically desirable beyond Britain though, and the next chapter goes on to consider the export of wholesale couturiers’ products and the vital role London played in the promotion of wholesale couture overseas.

­6

London prepares an invasion: Exporting wholesale couture

In 1938 the British edition of Harper’s Bazaar published an advertisement from London wholesale couturier Matita (Figure  6.1). In this advertisement two elegantly dressed models, one in a plain suit with a bold check cape worn on top, a hat on her head at a jaunty angle, the other, hatless, in a light fur jacket over a dark coloured suit, are seen posed against the backdrop of Radio City in New York. Both look at something in the distance, posed as if unaware of the photographer’s lens, captured in a seemingly happy candid moment, lost in the

Figure 6.1  Matita advertisement, Harper’s Bazaar, February 1938. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines UK.

144

Wholesale Couture

joy of being in New York. This advertisement was one of a selection published by wholesale couturiers in the British press which spoke of their export success internationally. Advertising such as this indicates the cachet associated with exporting British garments, the importance of the American market and that by the late 1930s, not only was wholesale couture a desirable commodity in Britain, but increasingly internationally too.1 This chapter locates the discussion of wholesale couture within the wider international context, demonstrating the global networks wholesale couturiers were part of and the importance of collaboration across the sector. By the late 1940s wholesale couturiers were exporting to many foreign markets, a 1947 report indicating that MHG members were showing their collections in New York, Sydney, Toronto, Sau Paulo, Lisbon and Brussels.2 Collective and collaborative international selling trips were an important part of the MHG’s activities during the 1940s, and increasingly they also enticed international buyers to London to view their collections at events such as Fashion Fortnight. In 1958 the MHG was reorganized and became the Fashion House Group (FHG), a group with ambitious export plans who hosted their first London Fashion Week (LFW) in 1959. During the 1950s and 1960s FHG members were particularly successful in Europe. The value of European orders almost quadrupled between November 1961 and November 1963, meaning that by the mid-1960s 40  per cent of members’ export business came from Europe.3 However, the decision has been taken to focus here on wholesale couture exports further afield; to the United States, Canada and Australia. These markets have been chosen because of the wealth of original material available relating to both export orders and international trips by wholesale couturiers. Furthermore, as newspaper reports suggested, Australia and Canada were most wholesale couturier’s biggest Commonwealth markets by the 1960s and the United States was typically their largest international market beyond Europe and the Commonwealth.4

Exporting to America From the mid-1940s onwards, wholesale couturiers largely targeted the American market with their export trips, as American dollars were vital to help rebuild the British economy post-war. The United States was an advanced producer of ready-to-wear and whilst the country had a very strong ready-to-wear industry of its own, Americans ‘were also the dominant consumers of these goods long before

London Prepares an Invasion

145

their foreign counterparts.’5 The American predisposition for ready-to-wear surely made it an attractive prospective market. This drive towards the American market was evident across the top end of the British fashion industry. In its 1950 annual report IncSoc suggested that their activities were targeted almost exclusively at ‘developing the dollar market’.6 From 1946 onwards MHG members travelled regularly to the United States, taking special collections with them and touring the stores that retailed their products. These overseas trips were an essential relationship building exercise with retail customers. They recognized that buyers wanted to meet the figures behind their firms, and also that they were far more likely to buy in large quantities on buyer’s ‘home ground’.7 As articles in WWD attest to, wholesale couturiers were certainly exporting their garments to the United States in the late 1930s too. This was part of a two-way trade where company directors personally visited the United States on business, taking inspiration from the advanced ready-to-wear industry, particularly in New York and also promoted their own garments. Kuperstein for example travelled to America throughout the 1930s, studying the market carefully to understand what American buyers wanted. According to WWD Kuperstein first showed British models to American stores in 1937. Some of these garments were described as ‘Paris inspired’; however, most were ‘typical little British suits, rich in tailoring detail […] priced to appeal to better shops’. Garments were made with British fabrics and the journal noted that all fabrics were ‘exclusive with the firm while using them’.8 In 1941 a large number of wholesale couturiers took part in a concentrated export drive to the United States which was indicative of the future shape of export drives after the war. This drive, initiated by the Women’s Fashion Export Group of Great Britain (FEG), was led by manufacturer Percy Trilnick. Trilnick was born Pyzer Trilnick in Bethnal Green in 1897 to Jewish émigré parents, from the Grodno region of what today is part of Belarus, but was, at the time of their births, part of the Russian empire. Trilnick began his career in London with H. Gordon Selfridge. He then worked as a furniture salesman in America for around eighteen years. Trilnick returned to London c.1934 and established his business importing American ready-made ‘popular price’ garments, one of the pioneers of this practice. However, when war struck Trilnick was forced to manufacture in London. With his experience of the American industry in 1940 he saw an opportunity for more of a two-way trade and to export high-quality British ready-to-wear to America.9 Plans for the FEG trade mission were set in motion in early 1941. From the outset Trilnick was the delegation leader, an ideal choice thanks to his prior

146

Wholesale Couture

experience in the United States. He was accompanied by five other delegates who represented manufacturers from across the ready-to-wear trade. The mission saw around 2,000 garments from over eighty different ready-to-wear manufacturers exhibited in New York. Store buyers came from across the United States and Canada to view garments. Almost all of the major London wholesale couturiers operating at the time took part in the trade mission. However, unlike later export drives this was not necessarily London focused, many firms who took part were based outside of London, particularly Manchester. The garments shown were all designed for the Autumn season, and, as articles made clear, the majority were knitted sportswear and tailored dresses and suits. Garments were largely made up in Scottish and Yorkshire tweeds, novelty woollens, worsteds and light-weight wool materials.10 Trilnick described the garments as ‘fashions typical of the British town and country scene which will bring back memories of Yorkshire and Scottish moors; our famous racecourses; the fairways of our renowned golf clubs.’11 It is clear from Trilnick’s description that these garments, for an international audience, played into stereotypical visions of British life with a focus on fashionable tailoring. The needs and desires of an American audience had been carefully considered, however. Garments were made to American sizes, not British, and prices were designed to appeal to American budgets – landed prices were between $10 and $100. The majority of orders were for the higher price ranges, suggesting the exclusive, luxury product that American buyers largely wanted from British ready-to-wear houses.12 There was, however, no attempt to ‘copy’ American styling in these models; they were British designed garments that had very distinctly British style about them. As a WWD article put it ‘the type of merchandise that American tourists bought in erstwhile tourist days from London stores.’ This article noted, however, that many of these garments were designed by Viennese designers, indicating that already in 1941, the influence of Viennese immigrants on the British ready-to-wear industry was strong, and despite these designers’ nationality they were viewed internationally as creating a ‘British’ aesthetic.13 This export drive was incredibly collaborative, described as ‘one of the most co-operative schemes that the London garment trade can ever have embarked upon’ and helped pave the way for close co-operation across the ready-to-wear sector after the war. As one article suggested: There is to be […] a production scheme whereby unbombed unbusy group members will make for blitzed competitors or one seeing a surfeit of American orders and unable to keep up delivery dates. On the financial end several houses

London Prepares an Invasion

147

who do not feel they have the right kind of merchandise to offer the American market are helping to support those who have. Comment says it’s the kind of thing that could not have happened two years ago. Some of the bomb pits north of Oxford Circus are probably responsible for a new feeling in the trade.14

One surviving garment produced for this export mission has been found (Figure 6.2). This jacket, purchased from an American vintage dealer in Dover, Ohio in 2021, was originally part of a suit, produced by Rima. The suit featured in two previews of the export mission, in WWD and in the British edition of Harper’s Bazaar.15 The Harper’s Bazaar editorial (Figure  6.3) described it as follows: ‘a chestnut tweed jacket with separate cape of checks in chestnut, grey and yellow, a pleated checked skirt’.16 The suit is indicative of the wider trends of the export mission; the jacket is simple in shape, with padded shoulders, gently following the contours of the body, a softened version of the ‘mannish’ tailoring that was popular in London early in the war. The main design feature is the unusual flash of contrast tweed around the buttonholes. The workmanship of this piece is particularly fine, with many elements finished by hand. Careful workmanship was particularly desirable in the American market, seen as one of the key selling points of wholesale couture. This garment also has a surfeit of

Figure 6.2  Conker colour wool suit jacket by Rima with caramel wool accents around the buttonholes, 1941. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

148

Wholesale Couture

Figure 6.3  Editorial feature including the Rima suit jacket seen in Figure 6.2, Harper’s Bazaar, June 1941. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines UK.

labels. When retailed in London this would have only had the large satin Rima label, the others were added for the American market. The ‘Exhibition Label’ seen here appeared in all models produced for the export mission, such labels indicating a prestige associated with the export mission. The 1941 export mission was a success, despite some difficulties, notably with the sheer volume of garments taken. In November 1941 it was reported that a second mission was planned, this time with a smaller collection as the coordination between such a large number of manufacturers, with only a small number of delegates travelling to New York, had proved difficult. However, owing to the increasing challenges posed by the Second World War this second export drive did not happen. It was not until 1946 that British fashion manufacturers again looked to America and sought dollars for British made clothes.17 Their post-war export missions were, however, unquestionably inspired by the 1941 activities of the FEG. There was a small group of wholesale couture firms who were particularly popular with American buyers in the post-war period. As early as 1947 WWD suggested that Rose and Blairman, Matita, Brenner and Koupy were already ‘well known’ to American buyers.18 These names, alongside Starke and Rima

London Prepares an Invasion

149

post 1947, were mentioned time and again in the press. Many of the directors of these firms travelled regularly to the United States, most focusing their energies in New York but also travelling to key cities including San Francisco, Chicago and Lose Angeles in the late 1940s too. Many of these trips were specifically marketed as ‘Model House Group’ trips or shows, and it is indicative of the prestige associated with the MHG that in 1949 Susan Small joined the group. The company was deemed an important addition as they were already making regular trips to the United States but also saw the benefits of collaborating with MHG members.19 Kuperstein was particularly successful in the United States in the late 1940s. A  1949 article suggested that ‘as far as this new trend in buying of British ready-to-wear is concerned, the house credited with doing the biggest business currently in the US is Koupy, a house which now shows […] twice a year in New York.’20 Indicative of this success, in 1948 Kuperstein took $100,000 worth of orders for his spring line. Kuperstein was interviewed by WWD in 1948. This interview provides invaluable insights into the struggles of exporting British ready-to-wear to America and where, according to Kuperstein, other manufacturers were going wrong. There were two key reasons why Kuperstein felt British manufacturers struggled to sell garments. Firstly, they did not understand shipping logistics and the customs which American buyers would incur. Secondly, they did not understand what fabrics American buyers desired and why. Whilst American customers wanted British fabrics, many were looking for lighter weight versions than were popular in Britain. This was because such fabrics were better suited to American climates and that, by then, American homes were typically better heated than in Britain. In America until the 1960s there was an emphasis on London designed garments made from natural fibres, and there was little desire for synthetics. It was only in the early 1960s that American and Canadian buyers begun to order British garments made from synthetic fibres in any real quantities.21 Ultimately, however, Kuperstein suggested that British manufacturers had to offer ‘exclusive’ garments which featured distinctively British styling. American buyers wanted to buy something different to what American manufacturers were offering and it was vital that wholesale couturiers set up special arrangements with stores to increase the seeming exclusivity of their garments.22 The American press responded favourably to wholesale couturiers’ trips in the late 1940s. In 1948 for example WWD suggested that the MHG were ‘considered by American buying offices in London as the one section of the British wholesale trade that has a chance to do business with the United

150

Wholesale Couture

States’.23 When MHG members Brenner, Matita, Rima and Starke showed their collections in June 1949 there was also a positive reception from the American press. WWD reported that: The presentation […] demonstrated that a fashion show can be rather terrific without the benefit of glamorous evening dresses or patently ‘display’ pieces. This show […] reveals to what degree of excellence British ready-to-wear makers have progressed in turning out tailored clothes, smartly designed and made that do credit to their famed fine woollens. In design and cut many of these fashions, some sophisticated and others more conventional, recognizably profit from Paris influences. You see these in pocket and seaming details in suits derived from curved hips, in high breast pockets, in panel or wrapped skirts, and in whirling great coats.24

This presentation, as the article highlights, concentrated on tailored garments, something that MHG members focused on in the American market in the 1940s and 1950s. This article also helps to explains why London was largely an Autumn/Winter buying market for the United States. However, it also demonstrates that American buyers appreciated the combination of Parisian and London styling in MHG member’s garments.25 This was a point of contention for wholesale couturiers throughout the 1940s and there was split opinion on whether firms should or should not offer Americans copies of Paris garments. In 1948 Kuperstein suggested that it was a ‘mistake’ to offer copies of Parisian garments to the American market. He stated that ‘American manufacturers are quite as clever and bringing something to the US that American manufacturers can make earlier and cheaper is poor practice. British manufacturers must rely on their own individual designing.’26 However, in the same year Starke included three Parisian copies in his New York collection, ‘to test the possibility of selling such items, British made in British fabrics, in the American market’.27 Overall it seems these were popular and wholesale couturiers garments were widely praised for the amalgamation of Parisian and London elements. One 1949 article suggested, ‘New York welcomed designs on classic lines yet embodying Paris inspired details; fabrics of super British quality yet geared to American living.’28 Whilst American copies of Parisian couture were widely available it would appear that the main reasons for buying the British versions instead was the British fabrics used and the high quality manufacture.29 This complex American desire for London wholesale couture is seen in department store advertisements. The San Franciscan department store H. Liebes and Co. imported large quantities of wholesale couture, which were often featured in their advertisements. Starke’s garments featured particularly

London Prepares an Invasion

151

often and illustrate the cachet his garments offered the store. The majority indicate that the garments featured were ‘exclusive’ to H. Liebes and promote that Starke’s garments were ‘Paris inspired’ yet; they also promote the traditional ‘English’ elements of garments. An advertisement in the San Francisco Examiner suggested ‘you’ll be “Starke” crazy this fall in these elegant wool suits from our fabulous collection designed by Frederick Starke of London, made in England, exclusive at H. Liebes. Madly exciting designs (many Paris-inspired), luxurious British textured woollens, extra special hand detailing.’30 Another H. Liebes advertisement featured two Starke garments illustrated against a backdrop of Big Ben. Such topographical tropes were often employed in order to promote British products, reminding the potential consumer where these were made and designed. As Palmer has suggested for the Canadian market, but equally true in the United States: ‘garments were valued not only by the status of the designer but also by the design reputation of their country of origin.’31 Therefore it was necessary to promote the garments (and producers) nationality alongside the product itself. Within such advertising the 1950s hierarchy of fashion cities is clear. Whilst certainly the London nature of such products increased their symbolic value, by mentioning Paris too it enhanced the symbolic value of these garments further. Within much American and Canadian advertising for London wholesale couture a ‘gendering of urban identities’ becomes clear. Gilbert has suggested that Paris has generally been regarded as the ‘feminised capital of pleasure’ whilst London is regarded as ‘a more masculine city of work and business’.32 Consequently advertising of London wholesale couture in both the United States and Canada often featured landmarks and iconography related to men, male icons, power and work. It is striking that Nelson’s column, Big Ben, British Policemen and the Queen’s Guard often featured in the background of such advertising. These images played on stereotypical visions of London as a historic power and represent the city’s imperial past (Figure 6.4). From the inception of the MHG, clothes by group members were regarded as being suited to American tastes. An article in Fashion and Fabrics Overseas suggested: Their fashion silhouette is correct, but never extreme. They are built to wear and keep their shape. Styled to be right for the moment, they are adaptable and can be worn months ahead. The clean, uncluttered line is typical even in dressy stylings. British women have never cared much for fuss, or for heavy trimming, and it is the taste of the well-bred English woman, which these clothes reflect. The high-grade finish is outstanding. British tailoring houses are renowned for quality, meticulous detail and fine finish; these are never sacrificed to the

152

Wholesale Couture

Figure 6.4  T Eaton advertisement for ‘English Models’ including Matita and Rima, 4 March 1948. Credit: Originally published in the Montreal Gazette, a division of the Postmedia Network Inc. demands of mass production. All the component parts that go to make up a garment- canvas, lining, thread, buttons, zips, belts- are as carefully considered as the cut and line.[…] Fashionable styling that is the epitome of quiet good taste, combined with British tailoring standards – these qualities make dollar best-sellers out of British clothes.33

Whilst Fashion and Fabrics Overseas was a British trade journal, American newspapers, journals and even designers agreed with these sentiments towards what America women wanted from their clothing. This article highlights a level of simplicity in dress that was appreciated in the United States and was an aesthetic that American designers including Claire McCardell, Vera Maxwell and Tina Leser followed. In 1946 for example American designer Clare Potter stated that ‘the best dressed women are generally the most uncluttered and simply dressed.’34 This was also iterated by a number of London wholesale couturiers time and again, particularly O’Neill and Starke. Starke stated for example, ‘I like extreme simplicity myself, simplicity plus good proportion.’35 British ready-to-wear garments were generally more expensive than their American counterparts but as journals such as Fashion Forecast suggested they offered ‘superior value’ to the customer, thanks to their hand finishing and high quality fabrics.36 Illustrative of this, a 1949 article reported that British

London Prepares an Invasion

153

garments were ‘so good […] they could be worn inside out’.37 Despite the relative low costs of garments in their home market, as Starke suggested ‘[for] British workmanship and top grade British fabrics [Americans] did not question $84 for a suit or $175 for a formal evening dress with jacket’.38 Starke argued that American consumers had a ‘high standard of living’ and this led to increased demand for the ‘snob value of an imported label and the urge to buy something which is not to be found in every shop in the high street.’39 Wholesale couturiers recognized this demand and set up special arrangements with certain stores so that they had exclusive rights to garments within a region.40 This was not only a consumer desire but a retail desire too. British garments were popular with American retailers because on the whole they offered a larger mark-up for stores than those produced in the United States.41 Furthermore, wholesale couturiers, as they produced garments in small runs (which enhanced their exclusivity), had a greater flexibility than mass manufacturers when it came to alterations, able to modify garments slightly to suit retailers’ needs. As Fashion and Fabrics suggested, ‘you are not tersely told that to alter so much as a buttonhole means changing a master pattern, which is uneconomic. […] Be as choosey as you can, that is the tradition of English tailoring.’42

Starke in the States Starke travelled to the United States on selling trips throughout the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. A 1962 tour of the Midwest was particularly widely reported on and mid-western press articles point to Starke’s importance for the British fashion industry at large. The Kanas City Times suggested, ‘he is responsible in many ways for the rise of the ready-to-wear clothing industry in England.’43 Whilst this was an exaggeration it does point to the high regard that Starke was held in. Similarly, The Wichita Eagle pointed to Starke’s status as a figure who had helped to build the London wholesale couture industry and as a visionary promoter of fashion as well as a designer, suggesting he was one of the ‘first’ to recognize the potential American market for ‘good’ British fashion. ‘His clothes owe their popularity in home and overseas markets to the fact that here women find true high fashion translated with characteristic “Starke simplicity” into really wearable clothes, meticulously made in the finest fabrics.’44 Despite a review of American newspapers little else has been found to suggest that other wholesale couturiers were held in such high regard by the American

154

Wholesale Couture

press. Whilst garments by brands such as Matita, Koupy and Brenner Sports appeared regularly in American department store advertisements, the company bosses were not lauded by the press like Starke was. Having a name and a face to connect to the brand was important for the American press and a number of the articles and advertisements featuring Starke’s products also include an image of the man himself. This developed sense of personality in North America was likely thanks to the regular trips that Starke took, making him a recognized figure, and emulating the way in which couturiers were presented within the American press. Whilst the success of Starke in the United States was largely down to the products themselves, Starke’s rapid delivery times also made him popular with American buyers. In 1956 Starke, as Patricia Keighran reported, ‘pulled off a coals-to-Newcastle trick of selling £100,000 worth of dresses to the United States’. The order, Keighran wrote, was ‘important enough for BOAC to start a new hanger service in their Transatlantic aircraft to accommodate them’. Such a service meant that garments could be exported to the United States via airplane in special hanging compartments for up to fifty garments. Garments therefore arrived ‘uncrumpled’ and could be put out in store straight away.45 American stores expected shorter delivery times than home trade customers and slow and problematic deliveries of garments to the United States had hampered British firms since the 1940s.46 However, as early as 1948 MHG members were a notable exception to the problem of slow deliveries.47 In 1953 Fashion and Fabrics highlighted Starke’s speed of deliveries. The journal suggested that American stores responded positively to Starke’s garments and then went on to iterate the importance of short delivery times to British exporting firms: In America, probably more than in any other country, fashion is perishable very swiftly. The shipment of clothes or fabric to a store ten days too late may sometimes make the shipment virtually worthless, for promotional timing is allimportant. Starke has shown a lively appreciation of this, to the extent that the suits are in the store ready for selling within a month of receipt of the order.48

The speed of Starke’s deliveries ensured his garments were widely promoted in large-scale advertising features by the American stores that stocked his products. In the late 1950s and early 1960s Starke’s products were extensively featured in the advertisements of stores across the United States and Canada. Reviewing American newspapers from just 1958 and 1959 demonstrated that Starke’s garments were featured in the advertisements of at least twenty major American and Canadian department store chains including Holt Renfrew, Bonwit Teller and Macy’s. Starke had been successful in the United States from

London Prepares an Invasion

155

the late 1940s onwards; however, by 1960 his American export business had become really significant. In 1960 it was reported that 40  per cent of Starke’s mainline was exported – and almost half of this percentage went to America. At the time Starke claimed to be ‘the biggest exporter of suits ‘of a high level’ to North America- selling fifteen percent of his total suit production to the United States and Canada.49 Significantly, on the international stage, Starke was often regarded as a couturier. This is evident in department store advertisements where his name is placed alongside London and Parisian couturiers with no distinction, or where he is simply referred to as a couturier. Iris Ashley suggested that in Britain ‘he has been regarded by stores and press as just one of our best wholesale designers. No more, no less. But New York rates him much higher.’50 American press reports highlighted Starke’s role as the designer as opposed to the company director, pushing him towards the functions of a couturier. The Kansas City Times suggested that Starke designed ‘every’ piece of his collection.51 Similarly WWD claimed that: He does all his own designing. A team of young girls, all trained in the workrooms, assists. ‘We have no employed designers.’ […] ‘I use a toile only on extremely difficult cutting. My main influence comes at the fitting. I try to eliminate anything unnecessary. That’s how I do it. The finished item usually has little resemblance to the original sketch which is good because I am a very poor sketcher.’52

This acknowledgement of Starke as a couturier came from two factors: the uniquely British nature of wholesale couture and the production methods of British ready-to-wear. As a 1949 article put it, wholesale couture clothes ‘involve enough handwork and individual treatment to warrant calling these exports “custom-made” fashions.’53 Whilst American designers were producing excellent ready-to-wear clothing, the industry did not have quite the same hierarchical divisions as in Britain. Starke was regarded as a couturier because his garments were closer, for Americans, to couture than ready-to-wear. Starke’s connection with department store Bonwit Teller helps to evidence why he was perceived as a couturier in the United States. In 1958 the company placed full-page advertisements in a number of newspapers promoting their international ‘Originals’. Starke was listed alongside haute couturiers including Pierre Balmain, Simonetta and Hardy Amies (amongst others) and was one of only two wholesale couturiers (noted alongside Leslie Kaye) to receive this distinction in 1958.54 Bonwit Teller sold exclusive ‘couture ready-to-wear’ by these eminent international designers. The garments made up in the ‘couturiers’

156

Wholesale Couture

workrooms, were scaled to standard American sizes (8 to 16) rather than made up in British/European sizes, as was generally the case, sidestepping the oftenrepeated issue of uneven British sizing.55 In this instance garments by Starke were made in England and shipped to the United States. However, this was not always the case. In some instances, international stores bought a single model from a wholesale couturier with the rights to reproduce the garment in their own workrooms. Whilst, as Settle suggested, ‘the difference was complete’ between wholesale couture and haute couture in Britain it was not so for overseas customers. The article went onto suggest that the designs were so similar in terms of both fashion content and quality that the wholesale couturiers ‘provide something of a headache to the couture for with foreign trade it is hard to tell where the two differ’. The overseas buyer, Settle suggested, ‘does not care from whom it comes […] provided only that the fashion lines are distinctive, both of current taste and of British workmanship and that the fabrics used are equally interesting.’56 As can be seen, for international buyers, wholesale couture could offer a sense of exclusivity without the price tag of haute couture.

Exporting wholesale couture to Australia and Canada Whilst the United States was a desirable market for London wholesale couturiers, many firms, thanks in part to preferential trade agreements and historical connections, were very successful in Commonwealth countries too, with Canada and Australia being the most important markets. Palmer has suggested that department stores T. Eaton and Simpson’s were the ‘most important’ national department stores in Canada with both stores stocking a range of European couture and London wholesale couture.57 By 1948, Vogue Book of British Exports suggested that T. Eaton was, ‘collectively the largest importer of British consumer merchandise’.58 Suggestive of T. Eaton’s support for British fashion was a special ‘British import week’ held in association with Vogue Export Book in 1952. Promotions were arranged across stores in twelve Canadian cities with special shows in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Whilst Canadian stores held ‘buy British’ weeks prior to this, the Vogue Export Book sponsored weeks were ‘on the grandest scale so far’.59 The support of Canadian stores is also evident in the number of Canadian buyers who attended London fashion shows.60 17 of some 126 buyers who attended the First LFW came from Canada – approximately 14 per cent of the total buyers that season.61

London Prepares an Invasion

157

Palmer has argued that in Canada ‘there was a consensus that all European design was culturally superior to North American and carried with it authority in taste and style’ and that ‘the hierarchy of design was governed by the stature of the country as a cultural centre and by Canadian understanding of that country’s taste.’62 This is clear in advertisements where the garment’s country of origin is promoted alongside the product itself. It is also demonstrated in the comments of Canadian retailers and buyers. For example, Doreen Day of T. Eaton suggested that British designers created clothes that were ‘beautiful and appropriate, catering for the Englishwoman who has generations of well-dressed ancestresses behind her. [They] make the right clothes for the right occasion – they know the difference between an evening dress and a dinner dress and never confuse the two.’63 The Canadian market for British garments was similar to that of the United States, British tweeds owing in part to the climate, sold well in Canada. Palmer has suggested that they ‘were considered suitable for Canadians due to their conservative design and reputation for quality and durability’. Certainly, for Canadians the consensus was that ‘good’ design equalled longevity, and therefore ‘justified the cost of luxury consumption’.64 Silhouette de Luxe were amongst the most successful wholesale couturiers in Canada. Director Fred Dannen travelled regularly to Canada and in 1949 he visited Montreal and Toronto with a collection of fifty models.65 The brand featured in Canadian advertising in the late 1940s and one such advertisement for Freiman’s in Ottawa, lauded the ‘superb creations’ of Silhouette de Luxe. ‘Turning aside from the usual strict tailoring expected from English designers, Silhouette de Luxe brings you high fashion styling, gently feminine styling, in fabrics that are of the very finest [quality].’66 It is interesting to note the choice of language here, and that these designs did not follow the ‘strict tailoring’ expected from London houses, indicating that these garments were Paris copies. Unlike American and Canadian buyers, Australians wanted more diverse garments from wholesale couturiers. As both advertisements and editorials make clear there was a strong market in Australia for British day and evening dresses. Full-colour editorials of London wholesale couture garments, particularly eveningwear, appeared regularly in Australian Women’s Weekly for example (Plate 11). The Australian department store David Jones regularly exhibited large displays of British fashion and placed considerable orders with MHG members.67 In the winter of 1947 David Jones placed orders with group members for $48,000 of stock.68 For the store, the designs of London wholesale couturiers were particularly important. In 1948 VBBE reported that a David Jones display of MHG garments was ‘given prominence equal to the presentation

158

Wholesale Couture

of French couture fashions last year, with big publicity promotion and window displays, and a gala premiere for an invited audience’.69 Furthermore, in 1952 the store showed a £150,000 collection of British fashions, the largest collection ever brought to Australia. The selection included wholesale and couture models and as the Sydney Morning Herald suggested covered ‘everything from tweeds to the most formal and glamorous evening gowns, each garment an example of the high quality and workmanship traditional in English manufacture’.70 This again highlights the wide variety of British clothes that Australian stores stocked.

Fashion Fortnight As can be seen, wholesale couturiers travelled internationally to promote and sell their products. However, there was also a desire to persuade international buyers to visit Britain. This meant that wholesale couture firms could show full ranges of garments as opposed to the small selection they could take when they showed internationally. Consequently, in 1948 a new London-based trade initiative, Fashion Fortnight, was introduced. This two-week event was a joint endeavour between manufacturers and the BoT, designed to entice international buyers to Britain to view collections from across the fashion trade. Fashion Trade Weekly suggested that the idea for Fashion Fortnight came from IncSoc. Lillian Hyder, IncSoc’s secretary, saw an opportunity for widening the scope and appeal of the couture openings and considered that their showings should be supported by other sectors of the fashion industry.71 Alongside couturiers, Fashion Fortnight drew together a number of ready-to-wear focused organizations. In 1949 these included the MHG, The Guild of Creative Designers and the Mantle and Costume Manufacturers Export Group. Fashion Fortnight’s mission was to help Britain establish ‘a reputation for well-styled, well-made garments for everyone, and not only for the exclusive designs of the big ten for the wealthy customer’ and to provide buyers a set time to view collective showings from across the British fashion industry.72 The main event was a combined show held in the ballroom at Grosvenor House, whilst throughout the fortnight buyers could view garments at the firm’s showrooms.73 From the outset there were issues with Fashion Fortnight, and these were widely reported in the fashion trade press. After the show in 1948 Fashion Trade Weekly stated, ‘whatever the illusions of the Fleet-street sub-editors who ran such bold headlines in Monday morning’s papers, nobody in the trade

London Prepares an Invasion

159

expected London’s first Fashion Fortnight to attract overseas buyers by the hundred. High-style fashion business just isn’t done that way.’ The article went onto suggest that whilst the shows attracted ‘the full force of the press’ there were very few foreign buyers.74 The lack of foreign buyers was likely caused by the timings of the shows. For the wholesale couture trade the dates of Fashion Fortnight, July and January, were wrong in terms of putting out new collections. This meant that in 1948 and 1949 they showed garments from current ranges (that buyers had likely already seen) rather than garments that were ‘new’ to the market. The issue of timing was put to the BoT and from 1949 onwards it was decided to hold a ready-to-wear Fashion Fortnight in May and a couturiers one in July. In 1949 the number of overseas buyers attending was still, however, ‘extremely small’. Overseas buyers who did attend felt the events could be spread over one week, and Fashion Trade Weekly questioned ‘is the hope of drawing big numbers of overseas visitors to the London fashion market a vain one? Is the better plan to take the London market to the buyers?’75 Despite these issues by the early 1950s the shows of Fashion Fortnight were widely praised. In 1952 it was suggested that ‘since the war the Fortnight has undoubtedly served more than anything else to build up the prestige of British fashions overseas. As the year’s most important fashion event, it deserves the encouragement and support of the entire trade.’76 Fashion Fortnight was an exercise in collective effort for the promotion of the fashion industry at large and saw the MHG work with other organizations. Members began to recognize that it was beneficial for export to work with firms from across a wider scope of the fashion industry. It is possibly thanks to this collaborative arrangement that the MHG was reconstituted in 1958 and many of its members became part of the FHG.

The Fashion House Group In 1958 the FHG was formed. This group included the majority of MHG members; however, the FHG was a more powerful and inclusive organization, representing a greater cross-section of the industry and offering clothes at a more diverse price range.77 Already by 1954 the MHG was exporting garments to twenty-four countries; however, by the late 1950s there was a desire to reach even further with British ready-to-wear clothes. The formation of the FHG was representative of four changes which had occurred within the ready-to-wear sector; the consumer shift towards medium range ready-to-wear, the mechanization of the industry, the desire for global business and the diverse

160

Wholesale Couture

markets that fashion companies were targeting, particularly the young. The name of the new group was also indicative of the changes taking place. By the late 1950s the term ‘Model House’ was rarely used in the fashion industry. The name, ‘Fashion House Group’ was more encompassing and suggestive of the diverse identities of the firms who were part of the group. Whilst the FHG represented a change in terms of collective action in the fashion industry, all members continued to produce high-quality fashionable clothing, as had been the case with the MHG. Thirty-two manufacturers were invited to become members of the FHG but initially only seventeen firms joined.78 Only firms that had ‘reached some standard of excellence in a particular field’, Frank Usher for cocktail dress for example, were allowed to become members of the FHG (Plate 12).79 Perhaps the most important of the ‘new’ members was Polly Peck, whose director Raymond Zelker was FHG chairman between 1962 and 1964. The first chairman of the FHG was Leslie Carr-Jones of Susan Small. Sheila Black suggested that the early success of Carr-Jones was because he was ‘trusted and liked’ within the industry.80 Starke, from the formation of the FHG, was a key member and held two tenures as chairman/president of the group: 1960–2 and 1964–6. The first public display of the FHG’s activities was London Fashion Week held in May 1959. It seems that the FHG had taken on-board the criticisms fielded at Fashion Fortnight, that it was too long, which prompted the shorter ‘week’ format. Whilst the firms involved were fully aware that it was necessary to visit other countries to engage new business there were advantages to an event held in London, as it meant that the city itself could be utilized as a promotional tool. LFW had a dual aim, not only to promote fashion but also to sell London to international buyers more generally as a tourist destination. There was widespread press excitement around the first LFW with a Times article describing it as ‘the most important event of its kind since the end of the war’.81 Parties and receptions were held alongside joint shows and individual displays in firm’s showrooms to encourage buyers to visit. During the inaugural LFW events included a reception at the House of Commons with members of parliament conducting guests around the Chambers and House of Lords, a performance at the Royal Opera House, a visit to Glydenbourne, dinner at the Tower of London, and the heads of the fashion houses took overseas buyers on pub crawls.82 The large size of the FHG enabled it to put on these grand-scale receptions for buyers. This lavish entertaining was a concept borrowed largely from American fashion businesses, something various company directors had

London Prepares an Invasion

161

experienced on their many trips to the United States. The combined shows were also a borrowed concept and it can be seen that these attempted to emulate Giovanni Giorgini’s innovative Florentine fashion shows of the early 1950s, which included a diverse range of garments.83 The most significant element of LFW was the combined show. These shows were devised by Michael Whittaker, with whom MHG members had worked with previously and reportedly cost £25–£30,000 a season to stage.84 The scale of the first LFW show was unprecedented. Around 200 models were shown to buyers in a two-hour show which saw garments presented quite differently to the traditional catwalk. A journalist in Drapery and Fashion Weekly offered a particularly vivid description: ‘the group had worked on the idea of dramatising the show, introducing constant “ensemble” movement punctuated by conversation-piece tableaux. Not catwalk, no one-girl-at-a-time commentary, just names and number […] This was no place for the conventional mannequin walk.’85 The carefully choreographed show, featuring pop music and dancing, was an innovative concept and one clearly targeted towards an emergent youth fashion market. Whilst retrospective reviews suggested that the show ‘struck exactly the right note’,86 a number of journalists at the time criticized ‘everybody dancing and tripping about’ and the ‘gimmicks’ of the show.87 Judy Fallon went further suggesting, ‘fashion is after all a serious business, and buyers should not have to be wooed by pop tunes and dancing girls. Surely what buyers want is just to be able to see clothes.’88 These comments illustrate that British journalists believed such shows should have been a pure selling exercise rather than an opportunity for visual spectacle. Arguably there was, however, a different motive to such combined shows. These dramatized shows, coupled with receptions at prominent London locations were designed to encourage international buyers to visit LFW; they were not simply about selling garments, rather the hard sell happened in manufacturers’ showrooms. The FHG’s shows were engineered to gain publicity from the international press; however, it is unclear overall whether theatrical shows and elaborate receptions encouraged or discouraged sales. The critical voices came from British rather than international journalists – who were not necessarily the target audience. Increasingly such shows involving pop music and dancing, combined with elaborate or distinctive receptions which the FHG had pioneered, became commonplace across the fashion industry.89 The FHG were successful throughout the early 1960s (Plate 13), holding biannual LFWs alongside special international shows in various countries including Germany, France and the United States. However, as early as 1960

162

Wholesale Couture

there were already internal group problems which were indicative of the changing shape of the fashion industry and the dwindling position of wholesale couture. In November 1960, a spokesperson for Matita stated ‘no serious buyer can waste time with fashion week. Did buyers like the joint show? Definitely not. Was it a short cut to the collections? There is no short cut to the collections.’90 Similarly in 1961 A spokesperson for Dorville said, ‘the group’s large-scale activities don’t tie up with our scale of production. We do considerable export to a number of countries, but practically all is done through our own channels. We don’t like collective shows or such lavish entertaining.’91 Some manufacturers felt that the collective shows and entertaining were not worthwhile and there were other ways to export internationally, believing they were better alone as the FHG was no longer representative of their business model. This was exacerbated in 1961 when the sizeable medium-range producer Steinberg & Sons joined the FHG. The company was manufacturing couturier Hartnell’s ready-to-wear, and in October 1960 had acquired a substantial holding in Horrockses (Fashions) Ltd. Their membership caused discontent amongst other group members and Rima, Arthur Banks and Dorville all left at the beginning of 1961. These were some of the key wholesale couturiers, all of whom produced fairly expensive garments and it is indicative of the changing focus of British ready-to-wear that those who produced high-quality garments were amongst the first to leave. These firms all felt that the group had become too big, and no longer represented ‘their’ kind of manufacture. An Arthur Banks spokesperson stated, ‘the group now consists of such high-powered huge firms we smaller people can’t keep up’.92 Whilst the FHG continued to exist until 1966, and during the early to mid-1960s was incredibly successful, it is clear that the shape of the industry was already changing, and this was felt most keenly by those firms who produced traditional wholesale couture. Already by 1961 conglomerates were beginning to take over the London fashion industry, a trend which would continue into the 1960s and see the decline and eventual extinction of wholesale couture. This chapter has considered how wholesale couturiers exported their garments internationally, demonstrating that for most of the period under discussion a traditional look was more marketable internationally, particularly in the United States and Canada. It has also considered the collaborative efforts of the MHG and FHG and how they sought to entice international buyers to London to purchase wholesale couture. Chapter seven turns to consider the youth market, questioning how wholesale couturiers tried to branch out and attract younger customers for their garments, both at home and overseas and why eventually, the sector ceased to exist in the late 1960s.

­7

Switched on clothes for swinging girls? Youth fashion and wholesale couture

Interviewed by Jean Soward in 1958, Starke suggested that ‘the day of the private couturier and astronomical prices is over […] The future and reputation of Britain’s fashions in world markets will stand or fall by her ready-to-wear manufacturers.’1 Starke felt that wholesale couture could provide the level of luxury consumers desired, negating the need for couture or bespoke garments. When one considers the number of London couturiers who increasingly turned their businesses over to largely (or completely) ready-to-wear operations by the late 1960s, it can be seen that Starke’s thoughts were rather prophetic. London couture, as Starke accurately predicted, was dying, but the late 1950s also saw the beginning of wholesale couture’s gradual decline too. The 1960s were a decade of change for the fashion industry, a decade unquestionably fixated with youth. This chapter considers how, from the 1950s onwards, wholesale couturiers tried to attract younger consumers to their garments. It also reflects upon the increasing popularity of garments designed by and for young British designers, questioning how wholesale couturiers worked with these young designers and also why their popularity, particularly in international markets, ultimately signalled the dwindling power of wholesale couture. This chapter does, however, recognize that this decline was not caused by youth culture alone and that there were other factors, that contributed to the declining status of wholesale couture, namely the rise of fashion conglomerates and the increasing desire for lower priced fashion.

Diffuse and diversify By the 1950s wholesale couturiers had recognized the importance and spending power of the youth market and many began to offer lower price diffusion lines, to complement their wholesale couture garments. This was part of an increasing

164

Wholesale Couture

trend whereby London makers turned away from the production of tailored garments in British woollens towards dresses in simplified cuts and materials such as cotton and rayon. Bide has suggested that this trend was initially a ‘question of economics’ thanks to both the rising cost of staff wages and the materials used in such garments. Whilst wholesale couturiers certainly still produced tailored garments, it is noticeable that by the mid 1950s most were producing inexpensive cotton and rayon garments alongside them. As Bide has argued, these changes caused ‘a re-evaluation of what London’s industry, and subsequently British fashion, was known for’.2 These garments were representative of a more casual style of dressing that was becoming increasingly popular with the public at large. In 1954 Starke followed this trend, launching his diffusion line, Fredrica. Starke dramatically changed his advertising strategy for Fredrica. Promoting the new line in publications targeted towards working-class women, such as Woman & Beauty and Vanity Fair and spending significantly higher sums on advertising. The first Fredrica advertisements appeared in March 1954 (Figure  7.1). According to the Statistical Review in that month, Starke’s advertising spend was £1800 – more than was typically spent on advertising per year.3 Similarly

Figure 7.1  The first advertisement for Fredrica dresses in ‘Wemco’ cotton, Harper’s Bazaar, March 1954. A surviving example of a version of this dress can be seen in plate 14. Courtesy of Hearst Magazines UK.

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

165

inflated figures were seen when Starke launched the first Fredrica Autumn collection – spending £1292 on advertising in September 1954 alone.4 The new advertisements moved away from the brands’ earlier advertising style and instead featured a mix of illustrations and photography. The models used in these advertisements appear younger than those used for Starke’s mainline, and the advertising style was more playful than it had been previously. It is significant that Starke chose a feminine name for this new brand. This was to appeal to a specific mid-range audience who were used to feminine brand names – the likes of Polly Peck, Rhona Roy and Linzi Line. Their names utilized alliteration to great effect and were friendly sounding, approachable names suggestive of their accessibility to the general public. The wording of Fredrica advertisements hinted to the new clientele that was being targeted, ‘gaydebonair-inexpensive-fabulous Fredrica. The freshest in the field – a new crop of cottons – everything luxurious but the price – styled with the fine distinction of Frederick Starke originals.’5 The new line was received well by the press, described as ‘bread and butter fashion with a generous helping of honey’. Peggy Briggs wrote in the Daily Mirror that ‘Mr. Starke is giving the working girl a break. Our picture shows the sort of clothes he is making to sell in YOUR shops at YOUR prices next year.’6 The wording of this editorial highlights that for most consumers, Starke’s mainline would have been out of reach; however, the Fredrica range was priced more in line with medium range garments (retail price 3½–8 guineas). Starke exploited the cachet of his mainline in order to promote Fredrica. The so-called ‘snob appeal’ of the Starke mainline persisted, but at prices more suited to the average working girl’s pocket. These garments were primarily targeted at young (likely unmarried) working women, who, largely still living at home, had a reasonable disposable income. It should be noted however that, as Holloway has suggested, ‘in the 1950s and 1960s, economic independence was still a dream for most women.’ For most young women, it was still difficult to leave their family home as women’s wages were ‘significantly lower than their male counterparts’.7 The difference in cost between Starke’s mainline and Fredrica is best illustrated with two sunsuits. In 1953 for his mainline Starke produced a ‘boufe’ sunsuit (Figure 7.2) with matching circle skirt in printed cotton priced at £14 14s. In 1958 when he produced a similar set for Fredrica (consisting of a sunsuit, skirt and additional matching jacket), the price was significantly lower, costing 8 gns (Figure 7.3). These examples demonstrate that whilst Starke suggested Fredrica was new he had nevertheless experimented with such styles for his mainline prior to the launch of Fredrica, albeit at a higher price. Starke’s 1958 sunsuit

166

Wholesale Couture

Figure 7.2  Frederick Starke cotton boufe playsuit and matching skirt. Britannia and Eve, June 1953. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

Figure 7.3  Fredrica cotton playsuit and matching skirt, 1958. The set originally came in three colours: tan, purple and blue. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

seen in Figure 7.3 was extremely popular and featured in editorials in Sketch, Woman and Beauty, Harper’s Bazaar and Vanity Fair (Figure  7.4) and also in an advertisement for Fergurson Fabrics who produced the distinctive fabric. The editorial in Woman and Beauty showed the garment both fashioned as a dress and simply the sunsuit, demonstrating the versatility of the garment. Here

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

167

Figure 7.4  Marla Scarafia in a Fredrica print cotton playsuit, photographed by John French. This image originally appeared in Vanity Fair, 1958. © John French/Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

readership needs to be considered, Woman and Beauty was targeted primarily at working-class women, and the adaptability of this garment increased its desirability for this market. The editorial stated, ‘A treble lifer this, because it’s a sunsuit, dance dress and office or town dress all in one. For dancing, wear the skirt over the sunsuit. The jacket-bodice buttons up the back and you’d never think they’d come apart!’8 By studying original Fredrica garments alongside related editorials and advertisements, it is possible to understand how Starke offered Fredrica garments at such low prices: firstly, pieces were almost always unlined; secondly, garments were produced in longer runs than his wholesale couture pieces meaning fabrics and trimmings could be purchased in bulk (the majority of the first collection was made in Wemco cotton); and thirdly, garments with identical silhouettes were produced season after season reducing pattern cutting expenses. The three dresses in Plate 14 were all part of Starke’s Spring/Summer 1954 Fredrica collection. The red dress in the foreground retailed with a matching jacket at £5 15s 6d, the brown dress retailed at £6 5s and the green dress retailed at 5 gns.9 The brown and green dresses are both relatively well made, although the seam allowances throughout are much smaller than on mainline Starke garments. The red dress, however, shows signs of poor workmanship: a lot of

168

Wholesale Couture

the stitching appears rushed, is uneven, and consequently the fabric has frayed in places. It is entirely possible this simply represents poor workmanship of an individual seamstress. However, In May 1954 the Irish Times reported that the entire production from the first Fredrica collection had sold out in under four weeks. Studying the red dress, it seems plausible that owing to the unexpected success of the line additional garments were made, at speed, to meet the demand.10 Starke suggested that he launched Fredrica in 1954 in order to ‘break the virtual monopoly of Horrockses’.11 In stating this Starke was implying that Horrockses had control over the top mid-range market for cotton dresses. Certainly, when Starke launched Fredrica, the prices were comparable. In terms of design, similarities are also apparent, many 1950s Fredrica garments were full-skirted dresses with matching jackets in bold novelty or floral prints; design features for which Horrockses were known. Arguably in addition to attempting to ‘break’ this monopoly, the Fredrica range was also targeted at those consumers who were purchasing low price American ready-to-wear. Many of Starke’s Fredrica designs bore noticeable similarities to the bold novelty and floral prints produced cheaply in America at the time. As the 1950s progressed Starke turned to producing more avant-garde pieces for this line too. Some garments still evidently borrowed from haute couture designs and others spoke of how inspirational British youth culture was for the brand’s aesthetic. Figure  7.5 for example shows a series of Starke’s ‘beat girl’ outfits produced in 1959. These garments were adaptations of the outfits worn by young women in bohemian Chelsea at the time. The outfits consisted of a tightly belted bottom-skimming corduroy jacket worn with tights. These outfits, produced in vibrant jewel tones including red, royal blue and ‘mouse’, would have been considered risqué, and certainly suggested the different markets Starke was beginning to target. Indeed, Starke himself was keenly aware of the widespread influence of the youth market stating in 1960 that ‘women wear the same clothes at every age. Indeed, girls no longer look to their mothers for taste and judgement, it’s the other way round. The young are the big influence on 1960 fashion. They started the leather jacket, the raincoats, the trousers and all the casual sports clothes that all women wear.’12 In the 1960s Starke shifted his focus towards his Fredrica line and away from his Frederick Starke wholesale couture mainline, recognizing the increasing international desire particularly for these garments. London was, by this point, internationally recognized as a fashion centre for young ready-to-wear fashion. Whilst Paris was still important, the positioning of fashion cities, and what they were known to produce, shifted in the 1960s. As Gilbert has suggested, other

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

169

Figure 7.5  Three models dressed in Frederick Starke’s ‘tights’ and corduroy jackets on Bruton Street, 1959. Credit: Bettmann/Getty images.

cities were not trying to ‘usurp’ Paris, ‘but the whole geometry of fashion’s urban ordering was changing’. Gilbert goes on to state that between the 1950s and 1980s there was a ‘re-configuration of the relationship between elite fashion and mass-market clothes that redefined the role of the key cities’.13 London, with its focus on ready-to-wear was at the centre of this reconfiguration. Adburgham confirmed this new role of London ready-to-wear in 1966: One extraordinary thing about today’s short short skirts is that they have put London into the fashion picture as has seldom happened before. Paris believes … Italy believes … New York believes that in London everyone wears skirts many inches above the knee, young and old, and it has done our image good, not bad. When last did these countries look to England, to London rather, as a trend setting centre?14

To cater towards these youth markets, it was extremely important that wholesale couturiers employed designers who understood them. For many by the 1960s this meant employing designers straight from art school. However,

170

Wholesale Couture

whilst the 1960s was the decade in which this explosion of youth fashion designed by the young came to prominence, the foundations that paved the way for this to happen were laid much earlier.

­Training fashion designers The 1930s was the first decade in which the role of the designer for the ready-to-wear industry began to change, experiencing a complete volte-face between the 1930s and 1960s. In order to instigate change within the industry it was realized that the education of young designers had to be improved. There was much consideration of whether designers should be workroom trained, learn their trade in trade schools, or in art schools. In 1938 Settle suggested as follows: The girl who has actual knowledge of cutting and making at her fingertips, and knowledge of the inside of the business, can beat her outside rivals hands down […] Girls who have a casual art school training without, proper cutting, pattern making, costing and the rest of the real work will not be the designers of the future any more than a girl with superb workroom experience can do herself justice if she has not had first class art work and special colour training.15

In 1933 The Council for Art and Industry (CAI) was established owing to a lack of governmental policy on design. The CAI’s mission was to improve the ‘public’s understanding of the social, cultural, and aesthetic benefits of design, to enhance standards of design education, and to influence manufacturers as to the economic advantages that would accrue from investment in design.’16 Central to the CAI’s activities were the reports it created. ‘Design and the Designer in Industry’ was initiated in 1937. One of the reports created by the CAI was ‘Design and the Designer in the Dress Trade’ (DDDT), written by the CAI dress committee. It is entirely possible that this committee was formed in response to a 1934 Spectator article. This article suggested that those associated with the fashion and fabric trade expressed their disappointment at ‘finding that only two or three of the members of the Council are definitely associated with the design and manufacture of furniture and house decoration and that there are no authoritative representatives of the textiles trade’.17 The dress committee included key figures from the fashion industry including Settle, P.J. Reynolds (editor of Harper’s Bazaar) and dress historian James Laver. The rest of the committee were BoT and education officials.

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

171

DDDT was commissioned in 1939. However, owing to the Second World War was not published until 1945. Despite the six-year gap between commission and publication it still gives an enlightening view of the position of the ready-to-wear designer. The report does not explicitly state that it focuses on ready-to-wear design; however it does suggest that ‘good’ and ‘original’ design should not be the preserve of the upper classes. Consumers, it suggested were developing a greater ‘appreciation’ of design at all levels of the market.18 The Committee hoped that by encouraging good design across all sectors of the market they could reduce the need for imports of cheap, well-designed dresses from America and Europe. DDDT aimed to discover how the standard of British fashion design could be improved and creativity was a major issue that the report tackled. During the 1930s the main route into design was via trade schools. Most manufacturers believed designers could only come from the workroom and training schools rather than art schools. However, the report suggested that workroom recruited designers ‘lacked creativity and merely adapted foreign designs.’19 The committee pushed for the establishment of a new fashion course within an art school and they considered that the Royal College of Art (RCA) was the best location. Owing to the report and consequent restructuring of industrial design courses at the RCA the new fashion course was established in 1948.20 Madge Garland was placed in charge of the RCA fashion course. Garland had an illustrious fashion career behind her and had excellent connections with various sectors of the fashion industry. She had worked as a fashion journalist internationally and had also been in charge of the merchandising for department store Bourne and Hollingsworth.21 However, Garland had never worked as a fashion designer and was not a maker. As Bide has argued, this meant that students’ ‘academic credentials and creative skills’ were pushed, rather than their technical ones. Self-presentation and networking were also vital skills which Garland imbued into the new course.’22 The new fashion course was held in high regard by the fashion press. In 1949 Harper’s Bazaar suggested that it was ‘the first official recognition of fashion as a serious industry’. The magazine placed emphasis upon the fact that it was not a school of dressmaking and referred to is as a ‘serious educational centre’.23 The curriculum was under Garland’s jurisdiction and she keenly utilized professionals from the fashion trade as lecturers.24 In the spring term of 1949 alone this included couturier Bianca Mosca, wholesale couture designer Olive O’Neill and fashion journalist Settle. Garland stated that the curriculum was

172

Wholesale Couture

‘part practical, part creative’. Classes included tailoring, fashion theory and taste, costume history, millinery and accessories, design within a price limit and cutting. Garland also organized visits for the students. These were designed to help students ‘absorb’ the atmosphere of fashion and included trips to clothing factories, plays, fashion shows, beauty demonstrations and even the editorial conferences of fashion magazines.25 Starke was, from the very beginning, closely associated with the RCA fashion course. In 1947 he was on an ad hoc advisory committee for the college from which Garland drew tutors and also agreements to give bursaries and vacation work to students.26 Starke’s 1948 showroom diary indicates that only weeks after the first cohort started, students visited Starke’s showroom to view his collection. RCA students were not alone in viewing Starke’s collections. The 1948 diary also indicates that students from South East Essex School of Art, Croydon School of Art, Edmonton Technical Institute, Sir John Cass School of Art and Hammersmith School of Art visited the showroom (Figure 7.6).27 Starke was also involved with the RCA in other ways and between 1952 and 1955 he was a visiting lecturer on the fashion course.28 It is suggestive of the high regard Starke was held in that both his successor and predecessor in

Figure 7.6  Starke was not alone and may wholesale couturiers invited students to visit their showrooms to view garments. Here, students from St Martin’s School of Art are seen attending a Rose and Blairman fashion show at Dorville House, 31 March 1948. Credit: TopFoto.

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

173

this role were couturiers (Digby Morton and John Cavanagh). After Starke left this position he retained close connections with the RCA and set up a yearly scholarship in his name.29 He also took on students for three weeks placements in both his workroom and salon, so, they could ‘see from the inside how a business is run and, in watching, learn some of the elements of the trade’.30 Visiting lecturers such as Starke were vital to the course, as Settle suggested these industry professionals gave an ‘actuality and life to teaching’, were able to ‘answer student queries on how their businesses were run’, sealing ‘close contact between theory and reality’ in their training.31 Such an arrangement, however, was not just beneficial for students but for Starke too, allowing him to cherry-pick strong students to work for him. The fashion course at the RCA was one of a number of courses that helped to improve the position of the fashion designer. However, as Bide has illustrated at the same time courses such as this diminished the skills of makers. Garland from the beginning ‘located creative labour exclusively in processes of design rather than manufacture’.32 It can be understood why Garland and her successor Janey Ironside focused on design as opposed to manufacture. As Angela McRobbie has suggested, both women had an ‘uphill struggle convincing the fine art establishment of the value of the course’ as the ‘strong connotations of sewing and dressmaking […] marked it as a practical and domestic activity’.33 In her autobiography Ironside suggested that a system of local and government grants in the post-war period allowed young people to have freedom to experiment with the arts, rather than having to go straight into employment.34 However, certainly in the early years, the RCA fashion course mainly attracted middle-class students. Indeed, the RCA course bred a new kind of fashion professional, one who, typically, was a less rounded professional than in the 1930s and 1940s when designers were expected to be adept manufacturers – able to pattern cut and make as well as design garments. Despite this, the designers who emerged from the RCA had one key skill on their side, networking. Many of the young designers who emerged were excellent self-publicists who managed to spread their own name (and their designs) quickly. Increasingly, as Settle highlighted, ready-to-wear firms recognized the benefits of employing art college students rather than those ‘making their way from the workroom up’.35 The significance of the RCA course for the fashion industry was highlighted by fashion journalist Moira Keenan in 1961 when she suggested that the RCA was ‘the blood bank of the fashion industry. Every year a handful of students emerge highly trained, alive with enthusiasm and ideas to infuse fresh life into the houses clever enough to snap them up.’36 Starke was

174

Wholesale Couture

amongst the figures who ‘snapped up’ RCA students. In 1961 he employed at least one of the eleven graduates of the fashion course and in 1963 Settle suggested that Starke, Susan Small and Sambo fashions, were key employers for RCA graduates.37 Starke’s recognition and cultivation of young designers must be acknowledged as one of his pioneering activities. Demonstrating this, in 1965 he created a new line, ‘Sugar and Spice’ designed by Susan Price, who was just 23 when her first collection was presented.38 Whilst having no formal design education of his own, Starke understood the benefits of employing creative young designers straight from art school.

The new young designers Most wholesale couture and medium range firms introduced new lower price lines in the 1960s. Some of the most important included: ‘Miss Dorville’ (Rose and Blairman), ‘Dollyrockers’ (Sambo Fashions) and ‘Trend Group’ (Cojana). The majority sought young art school trained individuals to design their new lines, recognizing the mutual benefit achieved by employing young designers. These designers helped firms revitalize their image and appeal to the lucrative youth market that often had a large disposable income to spend on clothing.39 One young art school graduate who transformed the fortunes of a wholesale couture house was Janice Wainwright. Wainwright had trained at Wimbledon College of Art, Kingston School of Art and then the RCA. In her final year at the RCA she began working one day a week at Simon Massey, joining the firm fulltime after graduating in 1964. The cachet associated with Wainwright’s designs was quickly recognized and the labels were updated to state ‘Simon Massey London. Designed by Janice Wainwright’. Wainwright’s designs were amongst the most striking and creative created for any wholesale couture house during the 1960s. Her fluid designs captured many different fashion trends of the 1960s and early 1970s. She worked collaboratively with a number of textile designers including Veronica Marsh, Celia Birtwell and Anthea Davies and reportedly even had some fabric made up from swatches of 1930s fabric she found in California. In 1970 she produced various iterations of a maxi-cardigan which could be worn by itself, or with a matching maxi dress, hot pants or trousers underneath (Plates  15 and 16). The design was clearly popular and multiple examples of the design survive – in a range of fabrics, including glitter stretch lame and printed tricel jersey.

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

175

Wainwright spent eight years with Simon Massey, leaving in 1972 to establish her own eponymous label at 47 Poland Street. Wainwright’s designs for Simon Massey were certainly striking; however, as she explained there were issues working under the label, notably pricing. She often had to carefully consider the designs in order to keep the prices of garments relatively low and felt it was less restrictive when designing by herself.40 Her prices early on ranged from around £12–£50 whereas her garments under the Simon Massey label were rarely above £20. Wainwright joined Simon Massey as a relative unknown; however, by the time some young designers joined wholesale couture firms they were established names in their own right. One example was Kiki Byrne, who designed her first line for Frank Usher in 1964. Norwegian Byrne had trained at Harrow School of Art and established her first boutique on Sloane Street shortly after completing her training. By 1959 she had relocated to the heart of Chelsea, based at 145 Kings Road. This shop initially sold a mixture of her own designs alongside other London ready-to-wear labels (the jumpsuit in Figure  5.12 was stocked ‘exclusively’ at her Kings Road store, for example). Byrne subscribed to the ‘offbeat’ Chelsea aesthetic with her own garments, WWD suggested she designed: ‘long-bodied, short skirted unfitted dresses, sleeveless and collarless for wearing over sweaters or shirts.’41 Byrne’s garments were expensive compared to most other young designers, priced up to around £35 (although, it should be noted, priced lower than her rival Mary Quant). It is perhaps owing to these prices that in late 1963 both her ready-to-wear and couture business were wound up.42 Despite the failure of this business, just months later Frank Usher were keen for Byrne to design a new line for them. This was at a significantly lower price point than she had previously designed at, Byrne herself suggesting ‘it will give me more satisfaction as a designer if my clothes reach more women.’43 It can be seen that Byrne creatively chose to move in the opposite direction to Wainwright. Whereas Wainwright wanted more creative freedom, for Byrne it was important for her styles to reach more women. Indeed, these two designer’s aesthetics were quite different and Byrne’s was built on a more pared back silhouettes than Wainwright’s. The 1960s were a period of flux in the industry and some of the smaller labels who created high fashion clothes struggled because of lack of business acumen. Byrne’s name was often cited in the contemporary press alongside Quant, although it was suggested that she offered a ‘less extreme’ look than could be found at Bazaar.44 Byrne and Quant were part of a notable shift in the London fashion geography, whereby most of the leading designers were based in

176

Wholesale Couture

Chelsea rather than Mayfair and were not only designers, but also retailed their own garments. When one considers the struggles experienced by wholesale couturiers discussed in chapter  four it can be understood why these young designers turned to retailing their own garments – side-stepping the issue of retail buyers who were not prepared to stock their avant-garde designs. Most wholesale couturiers were, even if inspired by the young Chelsea look, still based in Mayfair. Despite the 1960s change in direction for many wholesale couture businesses, family ties were still extremely important. A number of key directors of wholesale couture firms had either retired or died by the mid-1960s and a new generation of younger family members began to take the helm.45 One of the most successful was Angela Cash (Figure 7.7). Cash’s parents Celia and Hyman Cash ran the ready-to-wear business ‘London Town’, a founder member of the FHG and Angela was involved with the company from a very young age.46 A 1958 article, whilst she was still in her mid-teens, indicated that she had already begun designing for her parent’s ‘Miss London’ line.47 In 1963 aged just eighteen, Cash began designing her own line for the company ‘Angela at London Town.’ Contrary to many other successful designers of the 1960s, Cash had no formal design training, although she was offered a place on the St Martin’s School of

Figure 7.7  Angela Cash (posed on pedestal) with two models in her creations, 20 October 1964. Credit: TopFoto.

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

177

Art fashion course. Cash suggested that she was catering to her own peer group ‘the regular mod group’ aged sixteen to twenty-five, although her clothes also appealed to the ‘mod-mod’ aged eleven to sixteen. Cash, petite with a dark bob, was the epitome of her own look often appearing in editorials and promotional material for the brand. Whilst Cash’s name is no longer widely known, in the mid-1960s she was often mentioned alongside the most important young London designers including Foale and Tuffin, Jean Muir, Caroline Charles and Quant and should be considered as an important designer and entrepreneur of the period.48 Cash’s innovative fashion shows with dancing girls and pop music garnered considerable press coverage. One in 1966 took the idea of the fashion spectacle a step further, a ferry trip from Tilbury to Calais with a fashion show on board, attended by over 100 fashion writers and members of the press. It was described as ‘not just the usual parade of stiff models floating up and down a catwalk, but a real rave on the ocean wave!’49 Cash was highly regarded in the United States and widely toured the country, taking significant orders from American department stores including Bonwit Teller, Bloomingdales and Gimbels. In 1965 it was reported that she had sold £1,000,000 worth of clothes to America in a five-week tour, far outstripping the export figures of many wholesale couturiers in the same period.50

British Fashion ’66 In 1965 FHG members took part in a significant export drive to the United States, British Fashion ’66 (BF66), led by Starke. The majority of the firms who took part were members of the FHG; however, any ready-to-wear firm who wanted to be involved was invited to, the aim being to represent the diversity of the British ready-to-wear industry.51 Seventeen firms took part in the drive: seven FHG members, three FHG associate members and seven non-members. Parallels can be drawn between the Fashion Export Group trade mission in 1941 (discussed in chapter six) and BF66. These two trade missions had a similar aim; to increase exports of British ready-to-wear fashion to North American markets. Whilst far more garments were included in the 1941 show, BF66 was arguably a greater spectacle, regarded in 1965 as the largest ‘invasion’ on the American market.52 BF66 received financial backing from the government, it is unclear exactly how much money the government put in but the event cost approximately $100,000 to stage.53 This, it appears, was the first time that the British government had

178

Wholesale Couture

offered such financial backing to an international ready-to-wear drive. Starke had lamented the fact that the government did not support international drives in 1960 before a ‘French Season’ of fashion and culture arrived in London: Why don’t we put on a similar show in France? Because of the present status of fashion in the eyes of the British government. In this country any development of the fashion industry is done by private enterprise. The French government consider fashion one of their main exports and so they subsidise and protect it. It’s time the British government spread its own fashion propaganda. The fashion potential in this country is fantastic and should be exploited.54

BF66 saw three shows on board the Queen Elizabeth liner whilst docked in New York. After the show those taking part also presented their collections in special ‘showrooms’ set up in the Plaza Hotel, Manhattan. This export drive took two years of planning and was timed to coincide with the big fashion-buying week in New York in which 4–5000 buyers from across North America came to place orders.55 Starke was aware that in order to secure US business it was necessary to go out there to sell rather than expect buyers to come to shows in Britain and it was hoped that BF66 could raise British fashion exports three- or four-fold.56 The drive aimed to present a new image of British ready-to-wear to ‘kill forever the deeply engrained idea that dreary classics in wonderful fabrics’ were all London firms produced.57 Whilst some firms involved were producing what might be termed ‘classics’ this show was targeted primarily at the emergent youth market. The FHG benefitted from the inclusion of three young associate members in the show: John Bates (Jean Varon), Bob Schulz and Roger Nelson (Figure 7.8). These associate members did not pay group subscription and were enlisted to offer a different spectrum of fashion within the FHG shows. Despite the success of youthful fashions, it was important that BF66 offered a diverse range of garments, because the traditional look was still popular with American buyers, particularly classic tweed garments.58 Starke offered one of the most diverse ranges of all the firms involved in BF66. The pamphlet indicates that he showed his Starke mainline, Starke of London (Fredrica) and Sugar and Spice collections with prices ranging from $14 to $100. BF66 was well received by the press, Adburgham stated that it was the most ‘imaginative’ and ‘daring’ promotion undertaken by the British fashion industry.59 American journalists and buyers confirmed the success of the show. Buyers from Lord and Taylor were ‘ecstatic’, and Nancy White of Harper’s Bazaar called it the ‘finest fashion show ever put on this side of the Atlantic’.60 The New

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

179

Figure 7.8  John Bates of Jean Varon shortly after being elected as an associate member of the Fashion House Group. He stands with two models (Judith Allera, left and Stephanie Tartakoff, right) wearing his creations, 19 May 1965. Credit: TopFoto.

York Times reported that over a thousand buyers, fashion executives and press saw presentations and visited firms’ showrooms in the Plaza Hotel. Despite the ‘imaginative’ presentation press descriptions indicate the ‘hard-sell’ nature of BF66. One report suggested that ‘even America, home of the hard-sell has never seen a harder or more stylish sell than this.’ Furthermore, Felicity Green reported, ‘there is no clock-watching nine-to-five mentality about this working party. They are selling all hours of the day, and all hours of the night if necessary.’61 The success of the show was evident in orders, $934,000 (approximately £357,000) of orders were placed in total ($805,383 from the United States and $128,382 from Canada).62 BF66 was regarded in the contemporary press as a ‘fashion breakthrough’ and acted as a catalyst for other similar American export drives including a 1966 government-funded ‘hard-sell’ by the Clothing Export Council involving nineteen British firms. The success of BF66 was largely placed with Starke. Judy Innes stated that ‘Starke has been obsessed by the idea of capturing America for years. He has pursued the American market like a latter-day Sir. Galahad.’63 Scott James went further suggesting that Starke’s contribution to the export trade meant he was deserving of a knighthood: This success has not dropped out of heaven. It is the result of grinding effort and of the co-operation of individuals and prima donnas whose instinct is to go

180

Wholesale Couture

their own way but have miraculously been blended together. All this is leading up to the suggestion that its time somebody gave a substantial acknowledgement to Frederick Starke, who has sweated for years for British export and is the organising genius of the superb British fashion show […] which has stunned New York.64

Press commentary in the 1960s clearly demonstrates the importance of the FHG (and notably Starke) for the fashion industry at large. In 1962 WWD suggested that the group were the ‘mouthpiece’ for the British fashion industry.65 Similarly in 1965 the Financial Times considered that the FHG were ‘Britain’s leading fashion export organisation.’66 The FHG pioneered new presentation methods with their energetic fashion shows and also demonstrated new ways in which relatively diverse fashion firms could work together. As The Ambassador highlighted, the group was ‘the first of its kind […] responsible for others following in its footsteps’.67 The activities of the FHG inspired other fashion firms to work together. A notable example is the Associated Fashion Designers (AFD), founded in 1964.68 The group was reportedly created ‘in response to’ the FHG, and the type of clothes they produced. A spokesperson for the AFD suggested: ‘we were concerned that the image the [FHG], who regard themselves as the establishment, were promoting overseas did not coincide with the best potential market, which was based on Britain’s grown lead in young, kooky clothes.’69 The AFD initially consisted of nine members: Carol Freedman, Andre Peters, Mono, Mark Russell, Ricki Reed, John Marks, Marlborough dresses, Hildebrand dresses and Rhona Roy. In 1965 The Ambassador suggested they were Britain’s ‘newest and brightest fashion export group’ their formation described as the ‘most exciting event on the young fashion scene’.70 These were not, however, as Adburgham suggested in 1966 ‘the creative young designers whose individual names have become well known in this country and abroad’.71 Rather, these were largely well-established ready-to-wear firms who had increasingly turned to focus on youth lines. The AFD’s fashion shows demonstrate their self-identified young, kooky outlook. In 1964 they held their show at The Talk of the Town nightclub. The nightclub, as Gilbert has suggested, was one of the key locations of London’s new urban ‘young’ identity, so it was appropriate that the AFD held their show in such a place. The audience for the AFD’s shows was still overseas buyers, but by presenting their shows in locations associated with the young it highlighted to buyers the AFD’s target market and where they desired their clothes to be worn.72 The press largely responded negatively to the AFD’s shows. In 1965 Adburgham stated that their show was ‘memorable for its distinct lack of

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

181

taste, both in the clothes presented and in the manner of their presentation’.73 Adburgham’s was also critical of their May 1966 show, suggesting that ‘the finale was pure provincial pantomime, models weaving on stage in glittering garments and a tableau vivant of girls rising up from the bowels of the orchestra pit […] girls in silvery scales and slithery cocktail suits reclining in mermaid […] poses. Unforgettable, unforgivable, entertainment perhaps, but no one could call it fashion.’74 Adburgham’s detailed description demonstrates how the AFD, like the FHG, staged their shows as theatrical events – however, such shows, as this review illustrates, were not popular with the British press. The AFD’s fashion shows generated considerable press coverage, but most reports focused upon their ‘gimmicky’ shows, not the clothes they produced. Reviewing editorials from the same period indicates that whilst the AFD’s shows were extravagant their garments were not necessarily avant-garde and were in fact largely in keeping with fashions of the mid-1960s. The majority of AFD members were known for producing popular-price ready-to-wear, whilst most FHG members produced wholesale couture and lower priced diffusion lines. It can be seen in 1965 that the FHG was a more successful group, their activities far more widely praised by both the British and international press.

The end of the FHG The activities of the FHG must be seen as vital to the success and international status of the London fashion industry by the mid-1960s. The group were producing a variety of clothes that appealed to a wide cross-section of women and were also supporting new young designers. The group was exporting worldwide, and their international drives received extensive press coverage. Whilst their garments may not have been the imaginative, creative designs which London became associated with, they certainly sold high volumes of garments at home and internationally. LFW for example produced overseas orders that increased from £100,000 in 1958 to an estimated £4 1/2m in 1965. The success of the FHG can also be measured in terms of buyers attending the shows. In 1959 buyers from just twenty-two countries attended LFW, but by 1965 buyers from fifty-six countries came. It is particularly notable that over the six-year existence of the FHG the number of buyers visiting from the United States increased ‘ten-fold’.75 Despite the success of the FHG on 26 January 1966 the FHG announced that they were to cease operations. A statement from the FHG suggested that the

182

Wholesale Couture

original object was to make London the ready-to-wear fashion centre of the world ‘and in this it had succeeded[…]it is no longer possible for a small select group of public-minded sponsors to underwrite on its own something that will now benefit the whole industry.’76 However, the official reason for the end of the group offers a very simplified explanation. The demise of the FHG was caused by a multiplicity of connected issues: the diverse identity of the group, disquiet amongst group members, the changing shape of the British fashion industry and economic issues. Problems which, as suggested in chapter six, were already apparent by 1960, by 1965 had become too challenging to manage. In May 1965 the main event of LFW, the combined show, did not occur and instead individual collections were shown. The reason behind the hiatus of the joint show is unclear, but it is likely this was a socio-economic decision. By 1963 the group had grown to twenty-eight members, a mix of both large and small firms offering a wide variety of fashionable womenswear. However, between 1963 and 1965 the membership of the group fluctuated with just fifteen members left by late 1965. Fluctuating membership meant a drop in total subscription fee paid, and therefore decreased the budget for their joint activities. However, it was also possible that this show did not go ahead because of ‘squabbles’ between group members over finances and status that left some feeling that they would be ‘better alone’.77 Others left the group because they felt angered that the group promoted the whole industry and non-members were benefitting without paying subscription fees. By 1965 subscription to the FHG cost £500 a year, a considerable sum. In the 1960s the structure of the fashion industry was changing rapidly. Many firms had grown considerably with a number of FHG members becoming public companies. Textile companies in particular bought shares in many firms. In 1962 for example, Courtaulds bought a majority holding in Frederick Starke Ltd. as part of a national plan for ‘aiding British fashion’.78 Courtaulds were one of the largest manufacturing companies and by 1964 the fashion division of the ‘Courtaulds group’ included fashion brands Susan Small, Frederick Starke, Jane and Jane and Robert Dorland. By taking over such brands it guaranteed an existing market for the textiles they produced. A large number of those firms that were not bought out in the early 1960s ceased trading. It appears that the majority of those firms who wound up their businesses in the mid-1960s had not been able to change their production with the times. W&O Marcus for example, a founder member of both the MHG and FHG, ceased trading in August 1964. W&O Marcus had not appreciated how important the youth market and youth ‘styles’ were to the British fashion industry, their ‘sister’ line Marcusa was targeted at women aged over thirty. Others ceased trading

Switched on Clothes for Swinging Girls?

183

because they could not produce garments at the speed nor the price that was needed in order to remain competitive. By the 1960s there was an increasing demand for inexpensive clothing, produced quickly to meet ever-emerging new trends, the dawning era of fast fashion had arrived. As Elsbeth Juda suggested, ‘people wanted quick in, quick out fashion and the working girl bought a new outfit every week and the quality went down the board.’79 Quality had been vital to wholesale couture and this left many manufacturers in a challenging position, if they wanted to produce quality clothes at the price point people were prepared to pay they had to move manufacture overseas, which diluted the ‘British’ nature of their clothes. This left many with little choice other than to cease operations. BF66 can be read as a final swansong for London wholesale couture. However, the end of the FHG in 1966 should not be seen as a failure on behalf of the group and its members, rather, it is indicative of the changing shape of the industry. Those who managed to succeed in the late 1960s mostly did so through continued diversification of product lines and competitive pricing. By 1970 it was impossible to produce wholesale couture garments, manufactured in England and in British fabrics, at the price consumers were prepared to pay for ready-to-wear clothing.80 Furthermore, whilst Paris was still an important fashion centre, the model of copying and adapting French and Italian couture had changed. Whilst unquestionably firms in Britain still copied international couture, there were far more fashion centres to draw inspiration from and the old model of paying an entry fee to view the couture shows was waning. It can be seen that the activities of the FHG inspired the formation of other co-operative fashion industry groups. Starke, interviewed in 1966, felt that ‘something may come out of it [the FHG], maybe something broader’ he hoped for a ‘new single nationwide fashion and textile industry promotion organisation.’81 This was a prophetic statement, as later in 1966 the Clothing Export Council was formed under the chairmanship of Gerald Abrahams (managing director of Aquascutum), designed to support British fashion firms at overseas trade fairs and trade missions. This later became the London designer collections, which in turn was superseded by the British Fashion Council (BFC) in 1983, set up to promote British design worldwide. Demonstrating the connections evident within the industry, Cyril Kern, director of Reldan, whom Starke worked with at BF66, became the first chairman of the BFC. Today it is the BFC who organizes London Fashion Week, indicating that the contemporary London Fashion Week is in fact a direct descendant of the LFW established by the FHG in 1959. This chapter has considered the impact of the youth market on the wholesale couture trade, demonstrating how wholesale couturiers attempted to diversify

184

Wholesale Couture

their production in order to appeal to younger markets during the 1950s and 1960s. For many in the 1950s this proved to be a successful pivot of their business strategies. However, by the late 1960s, thanks in part to the changing shape of the industry and the increasing public desire for lower priced, more casual clothing, the wholesale couture industry could survive no longer. As the conclusion will illustrate, some figures did continue to work in the trade; however, unquestionably by 1970 the era of wholesale couture was over.

Conclusion

1966 signalled the end of the FHG; however, some of the key figures involved with the group would continue to influence the fashion industry, notably Starke. Starke resigned his directorship of the Courtaulds-owned subsidiary Frederick Starke Ltd in 1967 and promptly joined Reldan – one of the most successful ready-to-wear companies in Britain at the time.1 Reldan’s managing director was Cyril Kern, who, in the 1950s inherited his uncle Michael Nalder’s skirt factory. During the 1950s and early 1960s Reldan became increasingly successful thanks to a series of acquisitions including Ellandee (Childrenswear) and The Lancashire Handbag Company. In 1958 London couturier Digby Morton, recognizing the increasing power of the ready-to-wear market, joined Reldan too. Thanks arguably to Kern’s own age (born 1930), the company also understood the importance of the expanding youth market and supported a number of RCA students including Roger Nelson.2 Original pieces demonstrate that Starke’s design aesthetic remained relatively similar at Reldan. For example, he continued to produce brightly coloured brocade dresses and suits embroidered with gold and silver metallic thread, signatures of his Frederick Starke mainline in the 1950s and 1960s (Figure C.1). After this association ended, Starke turned his hand to retailing, opening a clothes shop in Bute Street, Kensington, alongside his wife Pamela in 1974.3 This was to be Starke’s final foray into fashion and he died aged 84 in 1988. In the late 1960s some of the small number of wholesale couture firms still operating began to look to their back catalogue of designs for inspiration. Matita advertised in The Lady, asking readers if any had 1930s Matita garments which they were prepared to lend for the 150th show. The company received a ‘surprising’ number of replies and some women were still wearing their 1930s Matita dresses and suits. Their young designer, David Skinner, was ‘enchanted’ by these clothes. His 1968 autumn collection was heavily inspired by them with long skirts gored or flared from the hips combined with long jackets, tightly fitted

186

Wholesale Couture

Figure C.1  Frederick Starke at Reldan brocade tunic suit, c.1969. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

at the waist. However, the clothes of 1968 were much softer with no padding to the shoulders or stiffening of any kind. Garments were made from soft Scottish and Irish tweeds, woollens, cashmere and printed jersey. This retrospective glance was not popular with all; Adburgham suggested that it had a ‘danger of promoting dowdiness’. She ‘deplored’ the revival of 1930s trends in the late 1960s, and all of what she called the ‘droopy dreadfulness’ associated with it, claiming that ‘when fashion is so backward looking, it is a sign of failing inspiration.’4 Despite Adburgham’s suggestions, the late 1960s revival of 1930s styles was extremely popular, particularly with the young who could not remember the 1930s the first time round. Whilst Adburgham suggested that it was a sign of ‘failing inspiration’, I argue this tapped into traditional ways in which the British fashion industry has sought to reinvent itself, by looking to the past. It can be seen that some of the most successful designers of the late 1960s and early 1970s, including the likes of Alice Pollock and Ossie Clark, were borrowing from past design styles in terms of fabric, print design and garment shape. Similarly, already in the early 1960s Quant had experimented heavily with traditional British tweeds reinvented into new, modern silhouettes. These examples highlight that the fashionable looks of the 1960s did not represent a complete split from the past, rather a continuation of what Britain did best, only employed in a new, novel way. This borrowing from the past is representative of what Ulrich Lehmann refers to as the ‘transhistorical character of sartorial

Conclusion

187

fashion’.5 As Lehmann indicates the creators of fashion ‘anticipate the things to come so well because they do not anticipate at all – they merely create the perfect expression of the contemporary spirit, which, ironically, manifests itself in clothes whose design is drawn from a past sourcebook’.6 It is also interesting to consider why many women in 1968 were still wearing their original Matita garments purchased thirty or more years earlier. This speaks of both the enduring style of these pieces and the quality of their manufacture. Indeed, the high-quality manufacture and fine finishing of wholesale couture garments is still evident today, with pieces from the 1940s and 1950s sought after by vintage wearers and collectors (Figure C.2). Often recontextualized by wearers in the twenty-first century, worn differently to how they were originally intended, their high-quality manufacture is still widely appreciated. Part of the failure of the wholesale couture sector in the late 1960s was that it could not keep up with the increasing speed of the fashion industry nor the low prices that consumers were prepared to pay in order to get their quick fashion fix. Wholesale couturiers did not want to offer low quality, low price garments, made at such fast speeds. Nor did they want to move manufacture overseas, which was one way of ensuring they could offer garments at lower prices, as this diminished the marketability of the ‘London’ nature of their clothes. This model has been dominant in the fashion industry for the past fifty years; however, in the 2020s there seems to be a turn away from fast fashion, an increasing recognition

Figure C.2  Black Matita jacket with rouleau fastening, 1940s and Brenner Sports green and black check double breasted jacket, 1950s. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

188

Wholesale Couture

of the damage this causes both to the environment and the people who make our clothes. Is there something that can be learnt from wholesale couture in terms of how to manufacture and consume in a more sustainable way? I would argue that there is. In terms of manufacturing, creating smaller runs of garments, with less waste, made locally and ensuring pieces are adaptable, incorporating large seam allowances for example, so that they can easily be altered. In terms of consumption too; seeking out high quality garments that have been skilfully finished and finding joy in buying investment pieces to be worn season after season. This is the first study to concentrate on the work of wholesale couturiers and has confirmed their significance to the international fashion trade. Wholesale couturiers clothed women internationally in wearable high-fashion garments, which were made to last. As this book has demonstrated, wholesale couturiers created diverse ranges of garments including everything from precise line-forline copies of haute couture to their own unique designs which found fame at home and internationally. They are, however, best recognized for their couture copies. As this book has argued, the skilful adaptation and reconfiguring of haute couture styles for a diverse market was an essential part of the fashion industry. It was through the designs of wholesale couturiers that middle-class women were able to consume haute couture style. Starke, as I have shown in various chapters, played a pivotal role in the wholesale couture industry. His own career neatly reflects the rise and fall of the wider industry. Establishing his eponymous company in 1933, he created some of the most faithful adaptations of Parisian and Italian couture during the 1940s and 1950s. However, his importance goes beyond his own business and he must be recognized as a tireless promoter of the London wholesale couture industry, continually seeking new ways to spread wholesale couture to international markets, whether through export drives or through new mediums like television. Starke came from an immigrant Jewish family, who themselves had worked in the wider dress trade. The wholesale couture industry was built on Jewish immigration and without various waves of immigration would not have been so vibrant or internationally successful. Many of these figures, Starke included, were proud Londoners too, and it can be seen that London was central to their personal and business identities. London’s history and heritage and the associated symbolic power connected to the city, became vital to how firms marketed their goods. The city itself was at the heart of a bustling network of interconnected spheres in the fashion industry, from fashion design and manufacture, to accessory design, fabric manufacture and fashion promotion.

Conclusion

189

Wholesale couture was primarily destined to be consumer by middle-class women in Britain. The economic situation in Britain between the 1930s and 1960s was largely advantageous to wholesale couturiers. This was a period which saw increased fashion consumption broadly. Wage growth coupled with lower prices of clothes, particularly in the post-war period, encouraged consumption amongst those who previously would not have been able to in the same way. Moreover, many wealthier consumers who had once purchased couture, could no longer afford to. Wholesale couture offered, for some, an appropriate alternative. This change in consumption practices is perhaps best illustrated by Fiona MacCarthy, who, on ‘coming out’ in society in 1958 noted that her own and her fellow debutantes dresses ‘mostly bore the more conventional labels of Frank Usher, Jean Allen, Susan Small’.7 It is clear that the wholesale couture industry was both competitive and collaborative. The Model House Group and Fashion House Group were vital to the mid-century London fashion industry, their pioneering promotional activities disseminated wholesale couture within fashion networks around the world. The MHG helped to organize the wholesale couture sector and it can be seen that the petitioning of the group in 1946 ultimately aided the postwar recovery of the sector more widely. Indeed, its date of foundation, 1946, is particularly significant. Historically, in terms of fashion, 1946 has been seen as an extension of the Second World War; however, historians must move away from considerations of the British fashion industry in the 1940s as being divided along the lines of ‘wartime’ fashion and ‘Dior’s New Look’. Whilst both were important, as has been demonstrated, 1946 was a year for rebuilding and reimagining the fashion industry. The FHG built on the activities of the MHG, promoting garments in more intensive collective shows in London and through international export drives. The group was keenly aware too of the increasing significance of the youth market and sought to support young designers who were making their way into the field. Marking a starting point, rather than an end point in terms of considering London wholesale couture, this book highlights the necessity for further research into other ready-to-wear pioneers whose roles and contributions deserve more in-depth reassessment. This includes figures such as Olive O’Neill, designer and director of Rose and Blairman, who also worked in an advisory capacity for other firms, notably Horrockses who dominated mid-range cotton dress market in the 1950s. O’Neill was a skilful designer, who adapted haute couture pieces and also designed her own covetable garments. However, she must also be seen as an anomaly in the trade, holding a position of power, as a joint director of Rose

190

Wholesale Couture

and Blairman from 1934, when few other women held directorial positions. It is however striking, in a book that deals with clothes for women, that there are comparatively few stories of female entrepreneurs and designers in this book. This is partially symptomatic of the available primary material. However, it is hoped that further research on London ready-to-wear seeks to tell rich stories which concentrate upon female design and business skills. Leslie and Fay Carr-Jones, the husband and wife team behind Susan Small, are also worthy of further consideration. Their business began as a specialist petite firm in the 1930s and was one of the first firms to recognize the benefits of using American manufacturing techniques. The company went through various production focuses, largely led by their head designer Maureen Baker who worked with the company from the 1940s until the 1970s and was perhaps best known for designing Princess Anne’s wedding dress in 1973. Here I have briefly touched on the activities and membership of fashion groups beyond the MHG and FHG, but other groups, particularly the Associated Fashion Designers and Guild of Creative Designers, are worthy of further consideration too. Henry Scott, the chairman of the Guild and director of wholesale couture firm Mercia, was a particularly interesting figure and was interviewed widely by the fashion and trade press in the 1940s. Wholesale couture was a diverse and vibrant sector of the London fashion industry and between the 1930s and 1960s clothed women, old and young, internationally. Whilst inspired by designs from Paris, and manufacturing from New York, wholesale couture with its high-style high-quality ready-to-wear garments, typically made using British fabrics, was uniquely British. The activities of the firms involved in the sector, as has been shown, helped to secure London’s position as a centre of ready-to-wear fashion.

Notes Introduction ‘Fanfare to a Brilliant and Busy Season’, Fashion and Fabrics, For June 1946, 9. Women’s Non-Utility Outerwear: Wholesale Model Houses, 28 August 1948, BT 94/249, Records of the Board of Trade and of Successor and Related Bodies, The National Archives (TNA); Kew, London, England. 3 Harry Hopkins, The New Look: A Social History of the Forties and Fifties (London: Secker & Warburg, 1963), 161. 4 Elizabeth Ewing and Alice Mackrell, History of Twentieth Century Fashion. 3rd ed (London: Batsford 1992), 119. 5 ‘The Well-Spent Pound’, Harper’s Bazaar, February 1957, 66. 6 Regina Lee Blaszczyk, Producing Fashion: Commerce, Culture, and Consumers (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2008), 16. 7 Christopher Breward, ‘Fashion’s Front and Back: Rag Trade: Cultures and Cultures of Consumption in Post-War London’, London Journal 31.1 (2006): 17. 8 Andrew Godley, The Development of the International Clothing Industry: Technology and Fashion Discussion Papers in International Investment and Management (Reading: University of Reading, 1997). Andrew Godley, Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship in New York and London, 1880–1914: Enterprise and Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001). Anne Kershen, Off the Peg (London: London Museum of Jewish Life, 1988). Anne Kershen, ed. The Promised Land? The Migrant Experience in a Capital City, (Aldershot: Avebury, 1997). Anna Nyburg, The Clothes on Our Backs: How Refugees from Nazism Revitalised the British Fashion Trade (London: Vallentine Mitchell & Co Ltd, 2020). 9 Michelle Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade. English Couture and the Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers in the 1930s and 1940s’ (PhD thesis, Royal College of Art, 2015). 10 Jane Dorner, Fashion in the Forties and Fifties (London: Allan, 1975), 29. 11 Maria Mackinney-Valentin, Fashioning Identity: Status Ambivalence in Contemporary Fashion (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 45. 12 David Gilbert, ‘From Paris to Shanghai: The Changing Geographies of Fashion’s World Cities’, Fashion’s World Cities, ed. Christopher Breward and David Gilbert (Oxford; New York: Berg, 2006), 12. 1 2

192

Notes

13 Hopkins, The New Look, 96. 14 See: Amy De La Haye, ed. The Cutting Edge: 50 Years of British Fashion 1947–1997 (London: V&A Publications, 1997), 17. Christopher Breward, Fashioning London: Clothing and the Modern Metropolis (Oxford: Berg, 2004), 158. Lesley Ellis Miller, Balenciaga: Shaping Fashion (London: V&A publishing, 2017), 101–2, 128–9. 15 Edwina Ehrman, ed. London Couture 1923–75: British Luxury (London: V&A publishing, 2015), 42. 16 See: Elizabeth Ewing’s History of Twentieth Century Fashion (first published in 1974). Roma Fairley, A Bomb in the Collection: Fashion with the Lid Off (Brighton: Clifton Books, 1969). Madge Garland, Fashion (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962). Elizabeth Grey, Careers in Fashion (London: Bodley Head, 1963). Janey Ironside, Fashion Alphabet (London: Joseph, 1968). Janey Ironside, Fashion as a Career (London: Museum Press, 1962). Janey Ironside, Janey: An Autobiography (London: Joseph, 1973). Eric Newby, Something Wholesale (London: Secker & Warburg, 1962). Anne Scott James, In the Mink (London: Michael Joseph, 1952). Alison Settle, Fashion as a Career (London: Batsford, 1963). Elizabeth Wray, Dress Design (London: Studio Publications, 1953). Raymond Zelker, The Polly Peck Story: A Memoir (London: Strathearn, 2001). 17 Sonia Ashmore,‘“I think they’re all mad” Shopping in Swinging London’, Swinging Sixties: Fashion in London and Beyond 1955–1970, ed. Christopher Breward, David Gilbert and Jenny Lister (London; New York: V&A publishing, 2006), 22. 18 Nancy Deihl, ed. The Hidden History of American Fashion: Rediscovering 20th Century Women Designers (London: Bloomsbury, 2018). Veronique Pouillard, Paris to New York: The Transatlantic Fashion Industry in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021). Veronique Pouillard and Johanna Zanon, ‘Wholesale Couture: Jean Patou’s Jane Paris Line (1929)’, Dress: The Journal of the Costume Society of America 46.1 (2019): 53–65. Alexis Romano, Prêt-à-Porter, Paris and Women: A Cultural Study of French Readymade Fashion, 1945–68 (London: Bloomsbury, 2022). Uwe Westphal, Fashion Metropolis Berlin 1836–1939: The Story of the Rise and Destruction of the Jewish Fashion Industry (Leipzig: Henschel, 2019). 19 Bethan Bide, ‘Austerity Fashion 1945–1951: Rebuilding Fashion Cultures in Post War London’ (PhD thesis, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2017). Bethan Bide, ‘Class and Creativity in Fashion Education: A Comparison of the Pedagogies of Making and Design at British Technical Schools and Art and Design Schools, 1870s–1950s’, International Journal of Fashion Studies 8.2 (2021): 175–94.

Notes

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28

193

Bethan Bide, ‘Fashion City or Museum of Fashion? Exploring the Mutually Beneficial Relationship between London’s Fashion Industry and Fashion Exhibitions at the Victoria and Albert Museum’, GeoHumanities 7.1 (2021): 1–18. Bethan Bide, ‘London Leads the World: The Reinvention of London Fashion in the Aftermath of the Second World War’, Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture 24.3 (2020): 1–21. Bethan Bide, ‘More Than Window Dressing: Visual Merchandising and Austerity in London’s West End, 1945–50’, Business History 60.2 (2017): 1–21. Bethan Bide, ‘The Fashion City and the Suburb: How Bentalls of Kingston Upon Thames Helped Rebuild Cultures of Fashionable Consumption in London after the Second World War’, The London Journal, 46.1 (2021): 47–65. Geraldine Biddle-Perry, Wartime Fashion: From Haute Couture to Homemade, 1939–1945 (London; New York: Berg, 2012). Christine Boydell, Horrockses: Off-the-Peg Fashion in the 40s and 50s (London: V&A publishing, 2010). Catherine Horwood, Keeping Up Appearances: Fashion and Class between the Wars (Stroud: Sutton, 2005). Geraldine Howell, Dressing for Austerity: Aspiration, Leisure and Fashion in Postwar Britain (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2017). Cheryl Roberts, Consuming Mass Fashion in 1930s England: Design, Manufacture and Retailing for Young Working-class Women (London: Palgrave, 2022). Rachel Worth, Fashion and Class (London: Bloomsbury, 2020). Cheryl Buckley and Hazel Clark, Fashion and Everyday Life: London and New York (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2017), 157. Mary Quant, Quant by Quant: The Autobiography of Mary Quant (London; New York: V&A Publishing, 2012), 36. Elizabeth Wilson, Only Halfway to Paradise: Women in Postwar Britain, 1945–1968 (London; New York: Tavistock Publications, 1980), 7. Gilbert, ‘From Paris to Shanghai’, 7. Ibid., 8. Ingrid Mida and Alexandra Kim, The Dress Detective: A Practical Guide to Object-Based Research in Fashion (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 27–34. Letter from Pamela Starke, RP/1995/2189, Archive of Art and Design (AAD), London. The other surviving wholesale couture archives are the W&O Marcus archive held at Herriot-Watt University and the Richard O. Porter archive held at the Archive of Art and Design. The Marcus archive containing mostly designs and technical sketches. Like the Starke archive, it is incomplete. The Richard O. Porter archive covers a broad date range: 1902–51; however, most of the material predates the Second World War. Thomas Osborne, ‘The Ordinariness of the Archive’, History of the Human Sciences 12 (1999): 53.

194

Notes

29 Anne Scott James, ‘The Men Who Understand Women’, Daily Mail, 5 May 1960, 6. 30 Anne Scott James, ‘Fashion Boost’, Daily Mail, 11 November 1965, 10. 31 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 131.

Chapter 1 1 ‘Advertisement’, Vogue, 12 October 1932, 24. 2 Kelly’s Post Office London Commercial and Trades Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1921), 1779. 3 Horwood, Keeping Up Appearances, 80. 4 Ibid., 82. 5 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, September 1928, LXI. 6 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, For February 1932, 67. 7 Agnès Rocamora, Thinking Through Fashion: A Guide to Key Theorists (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2016), 239. 8 Howell, Wartime Fashion, 1. 9 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 119. 10 Horwood, Keeping Up Appearances, 161. 11 Ibid., 8. 12 ‘Advertisement’, Sketch, 1 July 1931, 57. 13 Luca Vercelloni, The Invention of Taste A Cultural Account of Desire, Delight and Disgust in Fashion, Food and Art (London: Bloomsbury 2016), 5. 14 Passenger Manifest. Year: 1947; Arrival: New York, USA; Microfilm Serial: T715, 1897–1957, 258. 15 Like many figures in this book, owing to border changes, the Brenner’s saw the country of their birth they change multiple times. It can be challenging to trace many of these émigré wholesale couturiers simply because their country of birth was recorded differently on various official documents, depending on the borders of that time. The Brenner’s, for example, were typically referred to as ‘Austrian’, but also sometimes Polish. The city of their birth variously recorded as Lviv, Lwow, Lvov and Lemberg. 16 Households of Abraham Brenner and Aron Brenner, Spitalfields. Census Returns of England and Wales, 1921. TNA. This business does not appear in the 1921 Kelly’s Directory, which indicates it was likely established that year. There are other businesses operating from 46B and 47 Hanbury Street according to the directory. 17 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1922), 635. 18 Godley, Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship in New York and London, 20. 19 Ibid., 94. 20 Roberta S Kremer and Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, eds. Broken Threads: The Destruction of the Jewish Fashion Industry in Germany and Austria (Oxford: Berg, 2007), 49. 21 Westphal, Fashion Metropolis Berlin, 177–8.

Notes

195

22 ‘German Factories for England’, Palestine Post, 3 October 1934, 4. 23 Westphal, Fashion Metropolis Berlin, 247. 24 ‘Newmann’ household, 1939 Register; Reference: RG 101/833H. TNA. 25 ‘London Firm Plans July Shipment of Utility Garments in Novelty Woollens’, Women’s Wear Daily (WWD), 3 July 1945, 9. 26 Jonathan C. Kaplan, Kleider machen Leute: Jewish Men and Dress Politics in Vienna, 1890–1938 (PhD thesis, University of Technology Sydney, 2019), 118. 27 ‘How to Look for Records of Internees’, TNA, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ help-with-your-research/research-guides/internees/ 28 Internee cards of Fritz Dannenbaum, Walter Loewinberg, Heinrich Neumann and Leopold Neumann. WW2 Internees (Aliens) Index Cards 1939–1947; Reference Number: HO 396/189.TNA. 29 Rachel Pistol, ‘Routes Out of Internment a Handy Reference Guide to White Paper Categories’, Dr Rachel Pistol, 2020, https://www.rachelpistol.com/post/routes-outof-internment-a-handy-reference-guide 30 Kirsten Fermaglich, A Rosenberg by Any Other Name: A History of Jewish Name Changing in America (New York: New York University Press, 2018), 3. 31 Ibid., 2. 32 Ibid., 50. 33 Ibid., 6. 34 Household of Marks Masoff, Whitechapel, Census Returns of England and Wales, 1911. TNA. 35 With thanks to the Massey family for confirming this information via email in September 2022. ‘Notice’, London Gazette, 8 December 1939, 8223. 36 ‘Notice’, London Gazette, 12 December 1939, 8286. 37 ‘The Fight against Ceiling Prices and the Future of Wholesale Couture’, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, December 1946, 35. 38 ‘Haute Couture in London’, Economist, 4 August 1951, 270–1. 39 ‘London Letter’, WWD, 5 June 1959, 5. 40 Stuart Hall, ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, Diaspora and Visual Culture. Representing Africans and Jews, ed. Nicholas Mirzoeff (London; New York: Routledge, 2000), 224. 41 Records for student enrolment are held by University College and no record of a student by the name of either Starke or Weinbaum could be found during the 1920s when he supposedly studied there. Robert Winckworth, Email Correspondence, 4 February 2016. 42 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 131–2. Jean Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, News Chronicle, 23 June 1958, 6. Ernestine Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, Sunday Times, 17 May 1959, 17. Anne Barrie, ‘Presenting Frederick Starke’, Woman and Beauty, April 1961, 86–7. 43 ‘Does Your Husband Know Frederick Starke?’, Weekly News, 11 November 1950, 14.

196

Notes

44 Barrie, ‘Presenting Frederick Starke’, 86–7. 45 Household of Benjamin Starke, Whitechapel. Census Returns of England and Wales, 1891. TNA. 46 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1888), 1831. 47 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1892), 457. Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1907), 2075. 48 Old Bailey Proceedings, 5 April 1897, https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse. jsp?name=18970405. 49 Godley, Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship, 53. 50 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1907), 448. Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1934), 879. 51 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, April 1928, XXVIII. 52 Godley, Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship, 21–2. 53 Andrew Godley, ‘Leaving the East End: Regional Mobility among East European Jews in London, 1880–1914’, London: The Promised Land? The Migrant Experience in a Capital City, ed. Anne Kershen (Aldershot: Avebury, 1997), 61. 54 London Gazette, 2 November 1945, 5360. Jewish Chronicle, 9 February 1917, 1. 55 London Gazette, 2 November 1945, 5360. 56 Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (New York: Routledge, 1993), 153. 57 Ibid., 154. 58 Jewish Chronicle, 15 September 1944, 4. 59 Hall, ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, 225. 60 Pamela Church Gibson, Fashion and Celebrity Culture (London; New York: Berg, 2012), 184. 61 Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 97. 62 Edwina Ehrman, ‘The Spirit of English Style: Hardy Amies, Royal Dressmaker and International Businessman’, The Englishness of English Dress, ed. Christopher Breward, Becky Conekin, and Caroline Cox (Oxford; New York: Berg, 2002), 134. 63 Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, 6. 64 Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, 17. 65 Starke’s name appears in the Tuczek customer ledgers; however, the handwriting is hard to decipher. Tuczek regularly repaired Starke’s shoes but the exact shoes he ordered cannot be ascertained. Nikolaus Tuczek Ltd: 1568/13, City of Westminster Archives, London. 66 Sevian Minasian, Nikolaus Tuczek, http://www.classicshoesformen.com/shoes/ nikolaus-tuczek-rare-historical-slipper-most-important-master-20th-century 67 Joanne Entwistle and Agnès Rocamora, ‘The Field of Fashion Materialized: A Study of London Fashion Week’, Sociology 40.4 (2006): 748.

Notes

197

68 ‘London’s Lindsey Theatre Acquiring Rep as Ace West End “Tryout” Spot’, Variety, 19 January 1949, 52. 69 Barrie, ‘Presenting Frederick Starke’, 86–7. 70 Carter stated, ‘he used to be one for the slopes until he achieved a certain fame as the only man who could look impeccably turned out with both legs in plaster casts.’ Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, 17. 71 Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, 6. 72 Sotheby’s, Modern British Drawings, Painting and Sculpture, 4 March 1959 and 14 July 1971. 73 Lawrence Freiman, Don’t Fall off the Rocking Horse: An Autobiography (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1978), 87. 74 Angela McRobbie, British Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry? (London; New York: Routledge, 1998), 13. 75 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 131–2. 76 Mary Lynn Stewart, Dressing Modern Frenchwomen: Marketing Haute Couture, 1919–1939 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 21. 77 Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 97. 78 Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, 17. 79 Nancy J. Troy Couture Culture: A Study in Modern Art and Fashion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 26. 80 Gilbert, ‘From Paris to Shanghai’, 13–16. 81 This company used various names including Madame Hetty and Brenner Sports. 82 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1922), 635. Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1925), 304. Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1941), 402. 83 ‘Hetty (Wholesale Gowns)’, Yorkshire Post, 1 November 1946, 5. 84 ‘Situations Vacant’, West London Observer, 16 March 1945, 7. 85 ‘Situations Vacant’, West London Observer, 13 August 1943, 8. 86 ‘Situations Vacant’, West London Observer, 31 August 1956, 11. 87 Neither of these women can be found despite extensive searches via ancestry. Here, their names are spelt exactly as Melchert did. However, it seems highly likely these spellings are incorrect. 88 Isabella Melchert, Fashion House of Messrs W. & O. Marcus Limited 1940–1965 (unpublished, 2003). 89 ‘Gone to Nottingham’, Drapers’ Organiser, January 1941, 22–3. 90 ‘People and Places’, Drapers’ Organiser, For October 1940, 44. 91 ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 4 November 1940, 2. ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 23 July 1943, 2. ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 12 January 1943, 2.

198

Notes

92 ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 30 November 1940, 2. ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 17 July 1943, 2. 93 ‘Houses and Properties to Let’, Nottingham Evening Post, 9 July 1941, 2. 94 ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 13 December 1940, 2. ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 4 March 1942, 2. 95 ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 25 October 1940, 4. 96 ‘Situations Vacant’, Nottingham Evening Post, 24 November 1941, 2. 97 ‘Situations Vacant’, Fulham Chronicle, 14 July 1944, 8. 98 Maurice Tuke, ‘Model House Problem’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 7 February 1946, 7. 99 Breward, ‘Fashion’s Front and Back’, 18. 100 ‘The “Trade” Moves into Couture Quarters’, Drapers’ Organiser, For April 1944, 4–5. 101 Barbara Worsley-Gough, Fashions in London (London: A. Wingate, 1952), 41–2. 102 Norman Hartnell, Silver and Gold (London: Evans Bros, 1955), 30. Breward, ‘Fashion’s Front and Back’, 18. 103 ‘Changes in Mayfair, Bruton Street for Business’, Times, 8 December 1928, 9. ‘Going Shopping in Mayfair, a Big Change Likely in Bruton Street’, Evening News, 8 December 1928, 1. 104 Kelly’s Directory (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1946), 1602. 105 Drainage plans for 31 Bruton Street 1935 and 1936, WDP2/0394/04, City of Westminster Archives, London. 106 Barrie, ‘Presenting Frederick Starke’, 86–7. 107 Ibid. 108 Stewart, Dressing Modern Frenchwomen, 35. 109 Penny Sparke, The Modern Interior (London: Reaktion Books, 2008), 75–6. 110 Ironside, Fashion as a Career, 48. 111 Emily Eerdmans, Regency Redux: High Style Interiors, Napoleonic, Classical Moderne, and Hollywood Regency (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2008), 121. 112 Caroline Evans, The Mechanical Smile: Modernism and the First Fashion Shows in France and America 1900–1929 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 150. 113 ‘Specialty Rooms’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 24 August 1950, 9. 114 ‘Dorville Décor’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 27 January 1949, 11. 115 ‘Modernist Showrooms for West End Wholesale Firm’, Drapers’ Organiser, July 1928, 28. 116 ‘Untitled’, Drapers’ Organiser, November 1934, 51. 117 Boydell, Horrockses, 33. 118 Sonia Ashmore, ‘Extinction and Evolution: Department Stores in London’s West End, 1945–1982’, London Journal 31.1 (2006): 43. 119 Scott James. In the Mink, 60. Ironside. Fashion as a Career, 47. 120 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, For January 1930, 38. 121 Worth, Fashion and Class, 114.

Notes

199

Chapter 2 Elizabeth Wray, Fashion as a Career. A Lecture Delivered at Leicester College of Art (Leicester: Leicester College of Art, 1944), 9. 2 Prudence Glynn, In Fashion: Dress in the Twentieth Century (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978), 122. 3 Fairley, A Bomb in the Collection, 56. 4 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion,127. 5 Amerigo Vasso, 1920 United States Federal Census. Census Place: Brooklyn Assembly District 9, Kings, New York; Roll: T625_1157; Page: 1A; Enumeration District: 49.7. Amerigo Vasso, 1930 United States Federal Census. Census Place: Brooklyn, Kings, New York; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 1765. 6 ‘London Dress Mfr. Established in NY Presents First Collection Here’, 20 August 1941, WWD, 13. 7 ‘Positions Wanted-Men’, WWD, 6 June 1935, 25. 8 ‘Situations Vacant’, Daily Telegraph, 23 July 1941, 2. 9 Godley, The Development of the International Clothing Industry, 8. 10 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion,127. 11 ‘Some Manufacturers Do Supply Specifications’, Drapers’ Organiser, For January 1937, 67. 12 ‘Measure Modom US Way’, The Telegraph, 11 April 1945, 3. 13 ‘1 ½ Inches or 2 Inches’, Ambassador, No. 11 1948, 5. 14 Mary Delane, ‘Women and Life’, Sunday Times, 25 July 1948, 7. 15 Garland suggested in 1962 that American stores stocked up to thirty-three sizes while London stores rarely carried more than fifteen. Garland, Fashion, 66. ‘It’s a Question of Size’, International Textiles, No. 3 1945, A. 16 B.J. Perkins, ‘U.S. Dress Houses in England Are Found Becoming Anglicized’, WWD, 15 April 1936, 1, 36. 17 Masoff was Massey’s birth name, see chapter 1. Kelly’s Directory of Essex, Hertfordshire and Middlesex (London: W. Kelly and Co, 1926), 188. 18 The 1921 census indicates that Massey was already working with Ornstein in some capacity. It suggests that his job role was as a ‘shop assistant’ for D.L. Ornstein, Manufacturer of Ladies Costumes. Household of Marks Masoff, Whitechapel. Census Returns of England and Wales, 1921. TNA. 19 Perkins, ‘U.S. Dress Houses in England Are Found Becoming Anglicized’, 1, 36. 20 ‘Krohnberg Producing Dresses in London Using US Methods’, WWD, 26 April 1933, 17. ‘Two New Yorkers Figure in New British Firms’, WWD, 7 August 1933, 17. 21 Barrie, ‘The Polly Peck Touch’, Woman and Beauty, May 1961, 68–9. 1

200

Notes

22 ‘Masoff and Portenoy Join in British Firm’, WWD, 13 March 1935, 29. 23 ‘British Affiliates to Combine Quarters in Larger Location’, WWD, 5 July 1935, 62. 24 Perkins, ‘U.S. Dress Houses in England Are Found Becoming Anglicized’, 1, 36. 25 Ibid. 26 ‘Charles Kuperstein Sails for US Jan 5’, WWD, 31 December 1937, 10. 27 Ibid. 28 ‘British Importers of American Apparel Switch to Own Source’, WWD, 3 November 1939, 16. 29 Perkins, ‘Krohnberg Brothers U.S. Dress Men Still in England Acclimatized to Condition’, WWD, 1 March 1943, 10. 30 ‘Situations Vacant’, Marylebone Mercury, 31 August 1940, 4. 31 Elizabeth Coxhead, ‘Utility: The Dress World’s View’, Liverpool Daily Post, 28 July 1945, 5. 32 Ibid. 33 ‘Possibilities of Utility Wear Export Are Examined’, WWD, 9 June 1948, 58. ‘Utility Fashions Win Foreign Buyer Interest’, WWD, 6 July 1948, 13. ‘London Firm Plans July Shipment of Utility Garments’, 9. 34 ‘Situations Vacant’, Harrow Observer, 22 February 1945, 6. 35 ‘£5 a Day for Dressmaking’, Daily Mail, 9 June 1945, 3. 36 ‘Sewing Machinists, Drapery & Dress Making Etc’, West London Observer, 25 February 1944, 7. 37 Wray, The Women’s Outerwear Industry, 279. 38 Ashley, ‘You’ll Be a Fashion Model … For the World!’, Daily Mail, 2 April 1959, 8. ‘There’s Goodwill in Famous Names,’ Fashion and Fabrics, January–February 1949, 104–8. 39 Alison Adburgham, ‘Personal Note in Ready-to-Wear’, Guardian, 20 November 1959, 7. 40 Harry Yoxall, A Fashion of Life (London: Taplinger, 1966), 74. 41 ‘High Grade Makers Have Big Plans’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 6 June 1946, 5. ‘That Word Couture’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 14 February 1946, 10. 42 Non-Utility Price Control and Export of Women’s Outerwear, 6 December 1948, BT 94/249, TNA. 43 Notes for Supplementaries, December 1945, BT 94/ 42, TNA. 44 Note of the Deputation from the United Committee of the Light Clothing Associations to the Parliamentary Secretary about Model Houses, 13 August 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. 45 ‘The Well Spent Pound’, Harper’s Bazaar, February 1948, 58. 46 Women’s Utility Outerwear- Made-to-Measure Garments, 6 July 1946, BT 94/ 42, TNA. 47 Letter to Miss Duncan (Wholesale Textiles Association), 11 December 1945, BT 94/42, TNA. ‘The Black Sheep Again’, Drapers’ Record, 3 August 1946, 24.

Notes

201

Wholesale Model Houses, 24 September 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. Note for the President Prices of Non-Utility Outerwear, n.d. (1945), BT 94/42, TNA. Tuke, ‘Model House Problem’, 7. Letter from Starke, 21 October 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. Non-Utility Price Control and Export of Women’s Outerwear. Frederick Starke, ‘Price Control and the Wholesale Model House’, Fashion Forecast, September 1946, 1. 54 ‘Can Quality Stay’, Fashion and Fabrics, January 1946, 16. 55 Starke, ‘Price Control and the Wholesale Model House’, 1. 56 Note of the Deputation from the United Committee of Light Clothing Associations to the Parliamentary Secretary about Model Houses, 13 August 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. 57 Notes for Supplementaries. 58 Wholesale Model Houses. 59 Alexis Romano, ‘Elle and the Development of Stylisme in 1960s Paris’, Costume 46.1 (2012): 76. 60 ‘Fanfare to a Brilliant and Busy Season’, Fashion and Fabrics, For June 1946, 9. 61 ‘Does Glamour Show Off or Show Up Your Shop?’, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, November 1946, 19–20. 62 Non-Utility Price Control and Export of Women’s Outerwear. 63 Louis Stanley, ‘The Second Battle of Britain’, Vogue, February 1946, 70, 88. 64 Wray, The Women’s Outerwear Industry, 55. 65 Paul Jobling, Advertising Menswear: Masculinity and Fashion in the British Media since 1945 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 25. 66 Ibid., 26. 67 PSC Paper 1638, Wholesale Model Houses, 9 September 1948, BT 94/249, TNA. 68 Non-Utility Price Control and Export of Women’s Outerwear. 69 Register of Manufacturers of Women’s and Maid’s High-Grade Outerwear, 19 March 1949, BT 94/249, TNA. 48 49 50 51 52 53

Chapter 3 1 2 3 4 5

Alison Settle, Fashion in the War Years, B.40.5, Alison Settle Archive, The University of Brighton Design Archives (BDA), Brighton. ‘Can Quality Stay?’, 16. ‘Style-Free at Last’, Fashion and Fabrics, For June 1946, 25. Georgina Howell, In Vogue: Six Decades of Fashion (London: Allen Lane, 1975), 167. Michael Sissons and Phillip French, Age of Austerity: 1945–1951 (London: Penguin, 1964), 135.

202 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Notes

Some press reports called the parade the midnight ball of fashion. Frederick Starke, ‘London Model House Group’, Fashion Forecast, March 1947, 25. ‘Personality Quiz’, Fashion Forecast, June 1947, 4. Betty Page, ‘Paris Still Leads’, Fashion Trade Weekly, Christmas issue 1946, 18. ‘Stanley Marcus on Selling to America’, Ambassador pamphlet, 1948, 5. ‘For Export Only’, Fashion and Fabrics, For June 1946, 2. Harold Koda and Kohle Yohannan, The Model as Muse: Embodying Fashion (New York; New Haven; Metropolitan Museum of Art: Yale University Press, 2009), 28. 13 ‘Fashion Leadership for Women?’, Vogue, May 1945, 3. 14 B.J. Perkins, ‘New British Designers Guild Plan Use of Confined Fabrics’, WWD, 28 December 1944, 1. 15 ‘Guild to Put on Non-Utility Export Display’, Drapers’ Record, 16 June 1945, 15. 16 ‘Putting British Fashion Industry on the Map’, Drapers’ Record, 30 June 1945, 12. 17 Constance Gepp, ‘Glamorous Gowns at London Show’, The Herald (Australia), 28 June 1945, 11. 18 ‘Putting British Fashion Industry on the Map’, 12. 19 Extract from the Sydney Morning Herald, 26 February 1946, Richard O. Porter, fashion wholesaler: albums 1902–1951, AAD/1995/10/3, AAD. 20 Letter from David Jones Ltd., 17 April 1946, AAD/1995/10/3, AAD. 21 Margaret Beveridge, ‘British Model Gowns Show What Can Be Done’, The Weekly Times (Australia), 20 February 1946, 20. 22 ‘New London Model House Group’, Drapers’ Record, 18 May 1946, 12. 23 Wholesale Model Houses, P.S.C paper 949 (A), 24 September 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. 24 Starke, ‘London Model House Group’, 25. 25 Brenner, ‘The Trend of English fashion’, Fashion Forecast, July 1946, 1. 26 ‘Point of View’, Women’s Wear News, 13 June 1946, 37. 27 ‘British Wholesale Couture’, Fashion and Fabrics, September–October 1946, 69. 28 ‘Untitled’, Ambassador, September 1946, 83. 29 Starke, ‘London Model House Group’, 25. 30 Ibid. 31 ‘London Model House Group’, Fashion Forecast, August 1946, 27. 32 Brenner, ‘The Trend of English fashion’, 1. 33 Starke, ‘London Model House Group’, 25. 34 From 1946 ‘retail couturiers’ were granted special concessions in order to help them increase their export capacity. This meant increasing their fabric and coupon allocations and granting import licenses (if two thirds were used for export) for certain foreign fabrics. Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 269. 35 Ibid., 273. 36 Starke, ‘London Model House Group’, 25. 37 Wholesale Model Houses, P.S.C paper 949, 24 September 1946, BT 94/66, TNA.

Notes

203

38 Handwritten note from G Spear(?) 18 September 1946, BT 94/66, TNA. 39 Leonora Curry, ‘London Model House Group’, Tailor and Cutter, 20 September 1946, 597. ‘The London Model House Group’, Fashion Forecast, October 1946, 10–11. ‘London Model House Group Shows Latest British Fashions to the World’, Women’s Wear News, 19 September 1946, 15. ‘Model House Group’s First Show’, Drapers’ Record, 21 September 1946, 52. 40 Alison Settle, ‘From a Woman’s Viewpoint’, Observer, 15 September 1946, 7. 41 ‘Model Group Debut’, 9. 42 Cripps, ‘Foreword’, ‘Design ’46: A Survey of British Industrial Design as Displayed in the ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition, Council of Industrial Design (COID) (London: HMSO, 1946), 5. 43 Mary Schoeser, ‘Good Design and Good Business’, Did Britain Make It?: British Design in Context, 1946–86, ed. Penny Sparke (London: Design Council, 1986), 71. 44 S C Leslie, ‘The Council of Industrial Design’s Selection Process’, 29 November 1948, AAD/1977/4/12, Victoria and Albert Museum: Records, Britain Can Make It Exhibition, AAD. 45 Cripps, ‘Foreword’, 5. 46 Jonathan Woodham, ‘The Politics of Persuasion: State, Industry and Good Design at the Britain Can Make It Exhibition’, Design and Cultural Politics in Post war Britain: The ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition of 1946, ed. Patrick Maguire and Woodham (London; Washington: Leicester University Press, 1997), 56. 47 Judith Clarke, Amy De La Haye, and Jeffrey Horsley, Exhibiting Fashion: Before and After 1971 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 22. 48 AAD/1977/4. 49 De la Haye, The Cutting Edge, 18. 50 Id/312 Summer exhibition 1946, note from Cripps to Leslie, 10 August 1945 quoted in Woodham ‘The Politics of Persuasion’, 46. 51 Robin Darwin, ‘Designers in the Making’, Design ’46: A Survey of British Industrial Design as Displayed in the ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition, COID (London: HMSO, 1946), 142. 52 Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 306. 53 IncSoc minutes 28 November 1946, Lillian Hyder, Secretary and Editor Working in Fashion Industry: Papers, AAD/2011/14/1, AAD. 54 ‘Wholesale Couture’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 28 March 1946, 8. 55 Wray, The Women’s Outerwear Industry, 55. 56 ‘Britain Can Make It’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 26 September 1946, 3. 57 Britain Can Make It Exhibition Catalogue (London: HMSO, 1946), 231. 58 Ibid. 59 Woodham, ‘The Politics of Persuasion’, 49.

204

Notes

60 The Council of Industrial Design’s Selection Process, 29 September 1948, AAD/1977/4, AAD. 61 ‘Make It Fashions’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 12 September 1946, 7. 62 Audrey Withers, ‘Fashion, Dress Fabrics and Accessories’, in Design ’46, 47. 63 ‘Available; Now 1, Soon 2, Later 3’, Ambassador, No. 10 1956, 97. 64 Darwin, ‘Designers in the Making’, 142. 65 ‘Munitions Inspired Most of the New Designs’, Women’s Wear News, 26 September 1946, 2. 66 ‘Britain Shows Its Designs’, Drapers’ Record, 26 September 1946, 41. 67 ‘Britain Can Make It’, 3. 68 ‘Spring Shows are Post-War’s Brightest’, Display, May 1946, 11. See: Bide, ‘More Than Window Dressing’. 69 ‘Available; Now 1, Soon 2, Later 3’, 96. 70 Schoeser, ‘Fabrics for Everyman and the Elite’, Design and Cultural Politics in Post war Britain: The ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition of 1946, ed. Maguire and Woodham (London; Washington: Leicester University Press, 1997), 70. 71 Woodham, ‘Britain Can Make It and The History of Design’, Design and Cultural Politics in Postwar Britain, The ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition of 1946, ed. Maguire and Woodham (London; Washington: Leicester University Press, 1997), 20. 72 ‘Make It Fashions’, 7. 73 ‘Factory Girls See Their Work at Fashion Show’, Yorkshire Post, 19 September 1946, 1. 74 ‘Models and Their Materials’, Ambassador, No. 3 1946, 102. 75 The additional ten firms were Lady in Black, Doree Leventhal, Louis Levy, Samuel Bloom, Fischelis, Madame Hayward, Elizabeth Henry, Martha Hill, Reissman & Chaim and Arthur Banks. 76 ‘Albert Hall Details’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 29 August 1946, 5. 77 ‘Personality Quiz’, 4. 78 ‘Come to the Ball’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 27 June 1946, 7. 79 ‘Albert Hall Models on Extensive Tour’, Women’s Wear News, 17 October 1946, 2. 80 Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 311. 81 ‘Come to the Ball’, 7. 82 ‘Greatest Fashion Show Ever Held: Albert Hall, Oct 2’, Drapers’ Record, 29 June 1946, 14. 83 ‘Nylon Gown Is Fashion Secret’, Dundee Evening Telegraph, 19 September 1946, 5. 84 Jean Guest, ‘Jean Guest’s Fashion Review’, Drapers’ Record, 11 October 1946, 20. 85 ‘Boxes and Beds’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 3 October 1946, 3. 86 ‘Does Glamour Show Off or Show Up Your Shop?’, 19–20. 87 ‘London’s Most Spectacular Fashion Show’, Women’s Wear News, 3 October 1946, 15. 88 Fashion and Fabrics suggested that some journalists had not fully appreciated the show as they had seen the preview rather than the parade itself.

Notes

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

205

‘The World’s Most Spectacular Floor Show Will Be a Yearly Event’, Fashion and Fabrics, November 1946, 25. ‘London Makes Bid for Fashion Lead’, Montreal Gazette, 26 September 1946, 10. ‘London’s Most Spectacular Fashion Show’, 15. ‘Boxes and Beds’, 3. ‘What Other Buyers Think’, Fashion and Fabrics, For July 1946, 20. Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade’, 316. ‘London’s Most Spectacular Fashion Show’, 15. Withers, ‘Fashion, Dress Fabrics and Accessories’, 47. Brenner, ‘The Trend of English Fashion’, 1. The Lady’s Book of Manners (c.1880s) qted in The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined, ed. Jane Alison and Sinead McCarthy (London: Koenig books, 2016), 74. ‘Britain Can Make It’, Harper’s Bazaar, October 1946, 52.

Chapter 4 1

See Liz Tregenza, ‘Copying a Master: London Wholesale Couture and Cristóbal Balenciaga in the 1950s’, Fashion Theory 25.4 (2021): 457–79, for examples of wholesale couture copies of Balenciaga’s designs. 2 The Florentine system was slightly different. Wholesale couturiers paid a fee of around £200 and this covered entry for two representatives for a week of collections at the Palazzo Pitti. Ironside, Fashion as a Career, 30. 3 Settle, Fashion as a Career, 37. 4 Iris Ashley, ‘Variations on Paris Themes’, Daily Mail, 25 September 1951, 2. Patricia Keighran, ‘By Dior – Made in England’, Daily Mail, 7 September 1956, 8. Maureen Williamson, ‘Just What Is the Line?’, Tatler, 24 September 1958, 584–7. 5 Joy Matthews, ‘Big Names in Britain Tell What They Think the Big Trend Will Be’, Daily Express, 14 January 1958, 5. 6 ‘Paris Copies’, The Times, 1 March 1965, 13. 7 Lesley Ellis Miller, Cristóbal Balenciaga (1895–1972): The Couturiers’ Couturier (London; New York: V&A Pub, 2007), 73. 8 Cynthia Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, Picture Post, 23 April 1955, 41. Marjorie Beckett, ‘Avenue Montaigne to Market Street: How Britain Adapts Paris Fashions’, Picture Post, 3 December 1949, 44. 9 Williamson, ‘Just What Is the Line?’, 584–7. 10 Ironside, Fashion as a Career, 46. 11 Ashley, ‘Which Dress Costs More Than £200?’, Daily Mail, 15 September 1958, 10. 12 Miller, Cristóbal Balenciaga, 73.

206

Notes

13 Settle, Fashion as a Career, 37. 14 Christian Dior Collection Pamphlet Automne-Hiver 1951–2, Francis Marshall (1901–80), Illustrator and Writer, Diaries, Sketchbooks and Papers, AAD/1990/2/8/2, AAD. 15 ‘Paris Copies’, 13. 16 Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, 41. 17 Ibid. 18 Pouillard, Paris to New York. 19 His birth name was Adolf; however, in Britain his name was generally spelt Adolph. 20 Westphal, Fashion Metropolis Berlin, 236. 21 ‘Police Find 36 Piracies of Diors, Esterels’, WWD, 12 February 1960, 1. 22 ‘Mayfair Man Questioned’, Daily Telegraph, 12 July 1960, 13. 23 Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, 41. 24 Elizabeth Wray, Dress Design, 29. 25 ‘Hints for Ensuring Haute Couture at Your Own Price’, Coventry Evening Telegraph, 19 August 1954, 4. 26 Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, 17. 27 Ashley, ‘The £150 Look from Paris Is £18 Here’, Daily Mail, 22 September 1950, 4. 28 Ashley, ‘Which Dress Costs More Than £200?’, 10. 29 ‘From Paris to Your Local Shop’, The Times, 19 October 1959, 13. 30 Miller, Cristóbal Balenciaga, 89. 31 Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, 41. 32 Garland, Fashion, 65. 33 Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, 41. 34 Garland, Fashion, 97. 35 Ironside, Fashion as a Career, 90. 36 Entwistle and Rocamora, ‘The Field of Fashion Materialized’, 744. 37 Ibid., 747. 38 Katharine Whitehorn, ‘Press v. Buyers’, Spectator, 6 November 1959, 644. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Williamson, ‘Just What Is the Line?’, 584–7. 42 Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, 6. 43 Carter, ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’, 17. 44 Keighran, ‘By Dior – Made in England’, 8. 45 ‘Does Your Husband Know Frederick Starke?’, 14. 46 Nicholas Smith, email correspondence, 23 February 2016. 47 ‘These Are the Suits of Paris’, Harper’s Bazaar, April 1952, 49. 48 ‘Advertisement’, Harper’s Bazaar, May 1952, 7.

Notes

207

49 The Marcus suit also appeared in The Ambassador Issue 5 1952, 109, in Women’s Wear News, 3 April 1952, 18 and is illustrated in a sketchbook in the Marcus archive. 50 ‘Untitled’, Ambassador, No. 8 1952, 109. 51 Elizabeth Shaw, ‘East London’s Place in the Field of Garment Production’, Women’s Wear News, 13 March 1952, 23. 52 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1998): 77, qted in Mida and Kim. The Dress Detective,195. 53 Mida and Kim, The Dress Detective, 195. 54 Justification for acquisition, AAD: 96/2126, AAD. 55 Marion Hume, ‘Your Country Needs Your Clothes’, Financial Times, 9/10 November 1996, IV. 56 Letter from Ruth Sampson to Amy De La Haye, 11 November 1996, AAD: 96/2126, AAD. 57 Ibid. 58 Academic premise of the exhibition for use by the press section, The Cutting Edge: 50 years of British fashion 1947 to 1997, AAD: 95/2189, AAD. 59 Guest, ‘When Is a Designer a Designer’, Drapers’ Record, 27 September 1947, 21. 60 Talk given by Alison Settle to the Barrett Trade school, 27 September 1938, FG7, BDA. 61 Jones, ‘Less than Art – Greater Than Trade’, 63. 62 Popper was of Italian heritage, born in Karlsruhe, Germany in 1893. According to internment records his birth name was Bernardo Popper, although he typically went by the name ‘Harry Bernard’ Popper. It is possible that prior to establishing his firm Popper worked for Charles Kuperstein. The BCMI catalogue indicates the designer of the Kuperstein garments was ‘H.B. Potter’, it seems highly likely (although has not been possible to prove in certainty) that this is a transcription error and should read ‘H.B. Popper.’ Internee card of Bernardo Popper, WW2 Internees (Aliens) Index Cards 1939–1947; Reference Number: HO 396/208.TNA. 63 Carter, ‘A House and Its Handwriting’, Sunday Times, 7 June 1959, 19. 64 ‘Brunette, 22, Our Dress Envoy to U.S., Is Model as Well’, Daily Mirror, 21 November 1945, 5. 65 Barrie, ‘Who Is Susan Small?’, Woman and Beauty, March 1961, 74–75. 66 Barrie, ‘The Polly Peck Touch’, 68–9. 67 Judah, ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’, 41. 68 Barrie, ‘Who Is Susan Small?’, 74–5. Barrie, ‘Window on Fashion by Anne Barrie Spotlights Jean Allen’, 56. 69 ‘Designer Wins Action for Wrongful Dismissal’, Drapers’ Record, 20 July 1940, 12. 70 Ernestine Carter, ‘A Designer and Her Handwriting’, Sunday Times, 10 May 1959, 19. 71 Ibid. 72 ‘Trade Activities from All Quarters’, Drapers’ Organiser, November 1926, 95.

208

Notes

73 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, February 1928, XXXI. 74 ‘D.O. Late News Bulletin’, Drapers’ Organiser, For December 1934, 89. 75 Jane Carmichel, ‘Women Are Talking About’, Fifeshire Advertiser, 28 June 1947, 4. 76 Carter, ‘A Designer and Her Handwriting’, 19. 77 ‘Untitled’, Drapers’ Organiser, July 1933, 102. ‘Untitled’, Drapers’ Organiser, November 1933, 114. 78 ‘Spring Suit’, Daily Mail, 16 April 1940, 9. 79 ‘Patterned Skirts with Monotone Jackets Are Preferences of English Wholesaler’, WWD, 3 July 1933, 9. 80 Internee card of Hans Weissenberg, WW2 Internees (Aliens) Index Cards 1939–1947; Reference Number: HO 396/189.TNA.

Chapter 5 1 ‘Untitled’, Britannia and Eve, 1 July 1940, 53. 2 ‘Why Branded Goods Are Popular’, Drapers’ Organiser, May 1934, 73. 3 Christopher Sladen, The Conscription of Fashion: UtilityCloth, Clothing, and Footwear, 1941–1952 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995), 107. 4 Pierre Bourdieu, Sociology in Question. Theory, Culture & Society (London: Sage, 1993), 137. 5 Ibid., 137. 6 Ibid., 138. 7 ‘Advertisement’, Vogue, 28 September 1932, 25. 8 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, September 1928, XI. 9 ‘Whose Name Should Be on That Label-Yours or the Manufacturers?’, Fashion and Fabrics, October 1949, 66–7. 10 ‘There’s Goodwill in Famous Names’, 104–8. 11 ‘Whose Name Should Be on That Label?’, 66–7. 12 Wray, The Women’s Outerwear Industry, 146. 13 ‘Retailers Important Role in Pushing Branded Goods’, Drapers’ Record, 20 January 1940, C. 14 ‘Whose Name Should Be on That Label?’, 66–7. 15 Wray, The Women’s Outerwear Industry, 143. 16 Scott James, In the Mink, 124. 17 ‘Official Affairs’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 11 July 1946, 6. 18 ‘That Top-Price Mark’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 18 April 1946, 5. 19 Matthews, ‘Big Names in Britain Tell What They Think the Big Trend Will Be’, 5. 20 Alexandra Palmer, Couture & Commerce: The Transatlantic Fashion Trade in the 1950s (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001), 175.

Notes

209

21 Ibid., 175. 22 Ibid., 174. 23 ‘Advertisement’, Drapers’ Organiser, 29 April 1931, 12. 24 ‘Advertisement’, Vogue, July 1940, 17. 25 ‘Advertisement’, The Times, 22 May 1960, 21. 26 ‘Advertisement’, Vanity Fair, February 1951, 7. 27 ‘Hints for Ensuring Haute Couture at Your Price’, 4. ‘Paris in the London Shops’, Harper’s Bazaar, May 1950; 43. 28 ‘No Title’, Drapers’ Organiser, January 1915, 17. 29 ‘Our New Title’, Fashion and Fabrics, For March 1945, 1. 30 ‘Our Change of Title Heartily Endorsed by All Sections of the Trade’, Fashion and Fabrics, For April 1945, 24. 31 Jobling, Advertising Menswear, 36. 32 ‘These Labels Stand for Quality’, Vogue, December 1941, 69. 33 ‘Vogue’s Page of Names to Remember’, Vogue, June 1943, 91. Advertisements with this title appeared between 1943 and 1946. 34 ‘Advertisement’, Harper’s Bazaar, November 1942, 16. 35 ‘Advertisement’, Harper’s Bazaar, September 1942, 15. 36 All issues of the Statistical Review consulted between 1946 and 1960. 37 ‘Untitled’, Advertisers Weekly, 6 November 1947, 284. 38 ‘Seeking Better Methods of Colour Reproduction’, Advertisers Weekly, 10 July 1947, 80. 39 Carol Dyhouse, Glamour: Women, History, Feminism (London: Zed Books, 2010), 3. 40 Cherry Marshall, The Cat-Walk (London: Hutchinson, 1978), 30. 41 ‘Clothes Are Their Business’, Britannia and Eve, 1 February 1947, 4. 42 ‘Dorothy Robertson’, 1939 Register; Reference: RG 101/432J, TNA. 43 ‘There’s Goodwill in Famous Names’, 104–8. 44 ‘Advertisement’, Vogue, 31 May 1933, 41. 45 Gerry Holloway, Women and Work in Britain since 1840 (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 181. 46 Ibid., 193. 47 Ibid., 179–80. 48 ‘Woman’s Post-War Power and Economic Freedom’, Drapers’ Organiser, February 1943, 15. 49 Charles Castle, Model Girl (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1977), 34–5. 50 ‘Model on the Move’, Picture Post, 9 February 1952, 27. 51 Castle, Model Girl, 36. 52 Koda and Yohannan, The Model as Muse, 28. 53 ‘Advertisement’, Vogue, May 1948, Inside cover. 54 ‘A Report on What the OTHERS Are Doing’, Apparel Production, February 1948, 69. 55 ‘The Scarf Dress Scores as Spring Print Success’, WWD, 5 January 1948, 21.

210

Notes

56 Valerie D. Mendes, and Patrick Yapp, eds., Ascher: Fabric, Art, Fashion (London: V&A publishing, 1987). 57 Mary Delane, ‘Women and Life’, Sunday Times, 30 November 1947, 7. 58 ‘London Wholesale Model Houses Show Common Trends For Export’, Ambassador, No. 1 1948, 98. 59 Alison Settle, ‘London Fashion Prestige’, Yorkshire Post, 28 December 1949, 2. 60 ‘Dungannon Fabric and Dorville Flair’, Belfast Telegraph, 11 July 1962, 3. 61 Representatives of Fashion and Fabrics approached IncSoc in 1949 ‘suggesting that they should endeavour to incorporate a folio of page-advertisements in their December issue, paid for by 11 Textile Suppliers each advertising a model from a Member.’ IncSoc stated that they would prefer sketches rather than photographs to appear within these advertisements. 8 November 1949, AAD/2011/14/1, AAD. 62 ‘Advertisement’, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, February 1951, 11. 63 De La Haye, The Cutting Edge, 12. 64 Agnès Rocamora, Fashioning the City: Paris, Fashion and the Media (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 52. 65 Richard Busvine, ‘Now That Fashion Is Televised’, Fashion and Fabrics, August 1946: 30–1. 66 Ibid. 67 Letter from Mary Adams to G.R. Barnes, 1 April 1946, R34/56/1, BBC Written Archive Centre (BBC WAC), Reading. 68 Names of fashion firms and designers – Memo from G.R. Barnes, 21 May 1946, R34/56/1, BBC WAC. Fashion Broadcasts, Reports of dress shows in bulletins and talks, 10 July 1946, R34/56/1, BBC WAC. 69 Letter from Frederick Starke, 13 October 1947, T23/3, BBC WAC. 70 Memo from Cecil McGivern, 1 December 1947, T32/154, BBC WAC. 71 1 January 1951, T16/69/1, BBC WAC. 72 IncSoc minutes, 21 January 1948, AAD/2011/14, AAD. 73 IncSoc minutes, 21 May 1947, AAD/2011/14, AAD. 74 28 December 1951, Wardrobe Announcers file 1 1936–1952, T31/205, BBC WAC. 75 Television Announcers Wardrobes, 18 January 1952, TV PREMISES Supplies: London Model House Group 1952–1958, T17/122, BBC WAC. 76 28 December 1951, T31/205, BBC WAC. 77 Television Announcers Wardrobes, 18 January 1952, T17/122, BBC WAC. TV PREMISES Supplies: London Model House Group 1952–1958, T17/122, BBC WAC. 78 28 August 1958, T17/122, BBC WAC. 79 Letter from Stephen McCormack to Cecil Madden, N.D., TV TALKS FASHIONS’ 1946–1957, T32/154, BBC WAC.

Notes

211

80 Letter from Lilian Hyder to Mary Somerville, 28 February 1952, R34/56/2, BBC WAC. 81 AAD/2011/14. 82 Television fashion policy, 7 April 1952, R34/56/1, BBC WAC. 83 Letter from Lilian Hyder, R34/56/2, BBC WAC. 84 INCSOC, S.J. Lotbiniere, 10 August 1954, R34/56/1, BBC WAC. 85 1 January 1951, T16/69/1, BBC WAC. 86 Letter from Doreen Stephens to INCSOC, 11 August 1954, R34/56/1, BBC WAC. 87 Individual credits for members of INCSOC, 31 January 1957, T16/69/1, BBC WAC. 88 ‘Our Fashion Show on Television’, British Vogue Export Book, No. 4 1953, 46–55. 89 ‘Fashions for Spring’, Motherwell Times, 19 November 1954, 3. ‘Television Topics’, Portsmouth Evening News, 18 November 1954, 5. ‘TV Brings the Spring Fashions’, Fifeshire Advertiser, 27 November 1954, 3. 90 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 97.

Chapter 6 1 ‘Advertisement’, Harper’s Bazaar, February 1938, 2. 2 ‘London Group’s Overseas Promotions’, WWD, 3 November 1947, 15. 3 ‘Record Orders for Export Group’, Guardian, 6 July 1961, 8. Felicity Green, ‘It’s a Nice Line in Exports’, Daily Mirror, 7 February 1964, 9. 4 Charles Thomas Sities, ‘Londoner Shows British Styles’, Kansas City Times, 26 November 1962, 3. 5 Patricia Mears, American Beauty: Aesthetics and Innovation in Fashion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 3. 6 IncSoc 1950 Annual report, AAD/2011/14/1, AAD. 7 ‘The American Mind Is Ripe for British Fashion’, WWD, 21 July 1965, 10. 8 ‘Introduces Collection of London Coats and Suits to the New York Market’, WWD, 20 April 1937, 26. 9 ‘The British Market’, WWD, 1 April 1946, 7. 10 ‘Advertisement’, WWD, 15 April 1941, 4. 11 ‘Advertisement’, WWD, 8 May 1941, 4. 12 ‘Tweed Suits with Pleated Skirts Star in Big British Collection’, WWD, 4 June 1941, 3. 13 ‘British Women’s Fashion Export Group Appeals to U.S. Buyers to Publicize Lines’, WWD, 21 March 1941, 2. 14 Ibid. 15 ‘Imports Here Sustain the Prestige of Typical British Fashions and Woollens’, WWD, 3 June 1941, 3. 16 ‘The British Women’s Fashion Export Group Sends a Mission to U.S.A. and Canada’, Harper’s Bazaar, June 1941, 36.

212

Notes

17 ‘London Fashion Export Group Plans Second Trip to New York’, WWD, 25 November 1941, 4. 18 ‘British Apparel Men to Show Combined Collection in U.S.’, WWD, 10 1 October 1947. 19 ‘Dresses: Susan Small, Ltd., Joins London Group’, WWD, 11 October 1949, 21. 20 ‘American Buying Trends in the British Market’, WWD, 3 January 1949, 12. 21 ‘Few US Orders for London Ready-to-Wear’, WWD, 21 November 1960, 2. 22 ‘British Must Study U. S. Market’, WWD, 6 December 1948, 14. 23 ‘Slim Suits with Back Fullness Featured by Top London Firms’, WWD, 7 December 1948, 32. 24 ‘British Model House Group in Collective Show Here’, WWD, 8 June 1949, 8. 25 ‘American Interest in British Dress Market Increasing’, WWD, 25 May 1954, 57. 26 ‘British Must Study U. S. Market’, 14. 27 ‘Gray, Green, Prune Starred’, WWD, 13 May 1948, 3. 28 ‘London Models for New York’, British Vogue Export Book, No. 5 1949, 80. 29 Peter Head, ‘British Tie U.S. Sales Success to Fashions with a Different Look’, WWD, 11 April 1961, 31. 30 H. Liebes advertisement, San Francisco Examiner, 3 August 1960, Frederick Starke, Fashion Designer and Promoter: Press Cuttings, 1949–1969, AAD/2010/10/5, AAD. 31 Palmer, Couture & Commerce, 214. 32 Gilbert, ‘From Paris to Shanghai’, 8. 33 ‘These Clothes Have a Dollar Handwriting’, Fashion and Fabrics Overseas, September/October 1948, 106. 34 Virginia Pope, ‘Clare Potter Designs’, New York Times Magazine, 28 April 1946, 90. 35 Scott James, ‘The Men Who Understand Women’, 6. 36 ‘Favourable Comparison’, Fashion Forecast, October 1951, 27. ‘British Designed Clothes Take US Eye’, Beatrice Daily Sun, 11 September 1949, 5. 37 Ibid. 38 ‘London Manufacturer Plans for Sales Rise in American Market’, WWD, 28 June 1949, 40. 39 ‘The American Mind Is Ripe for British Fashion’. 40 ‘Frederick Starke Gives Franchise to 20 American Stores’, WWD, 28 November 1952, 47. 41 ‘Frederick Starke Operates on Two Distinct Price Levels’, WWD, 3 October 1960, 18. 42 ‘Imported London Originals’, Fashion and Fabrics, October 1949, 52. 43 Sities, ‘Londoner Shows British Styles’, 3. 44 Jan Whalen, ‘Strictly British’, The Wichita Eagle, 23 November 1962, 1F. 45 Keighran, ‘By Dior – Made in England’, 8. 46 Head, ‘British Tie U.S. Sales Success to Fashions with a Different Look’, 31. 47 ‘British Must Study U. S. Market’, 14. 48 ‘Promoting British Tailoring’, Fashion and Fabrics, No. 1 1953, 43.

Notes 49 50 51 52

213

‘Frederick Starke Operates on Two Distinct Price Levels’, 18. Ashley, ‘Toot Suit!’, Daily Mail, 9 October 1958, 10. Sities, ‘Londoner Shows British Styles’, 3. This article probably cites some fallacies. It is likely that Starke, considering his close connections with the RCA particularly, was employing art school graduates in his business at this point. This is perhaps more of an attempt to cite his creative control over the business. ‘Frederick Starke Operates on Two Distinct Price Levels’, 18. 53 ‘British Designed Clothes Take US Eye’, 5. 54 ‘Ready-to-Wear Imports at Bonwit, Chicago’, WWD, 7 October 1957, 4. 55 Emerson, ‘Originals Made by Couturiers Abroad Are Now Available Here’, New York Times, 12 September 1958, 22. 56 Settle ‘London Fashion Prestige’, 2. 57 Palmer, Couture & Commerce, 70–1. 58 ‘Clothes for Three Continents’, Vogue Book of British Exports, No. 1 1948, 72. 59 Vogue Export Book, No. 6 1952, 34–9. 60 In 1962 T Eaton alone sent seven buyers. ‘British R.T.W. Sales to U.S. for Fall Up to 50% Ahead’, WWD, 15 May 1962, 8. 61 ‘London Fashion Weekly Now Firmly Established’, Drapery and Fashion Weekly, 28 May 1959, 5. 62 Palmer, Couture & Commerce, 116. 63 ‘Tribute to Taste’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 29 July 1948, 6. 64 Palmer, Couture & Commerce, 221. 65 ‘London Model House Group to Show Here in April’, WWD,7 March 1949, 14. 66 ‘Advertisement’, Ottawa Citizen, 16 September 1948, 9. 67 ‘Too Much Attention for Paris Fashions’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 September 1951, 8. 68 ‘London Group’s Overseas Promotions’, 15. 69 ‘Clothes for Three Continents’, 72. 70 ‘British Designers Lead the World’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 1952, 3. 71 ‘The Fortnight’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 26 May 1949, 5. IncSoc 1950 Annual report, AAD/2011/14/1, AAD. 72 ‘London Fashion Fortnight’, Adelaide Advertiser, 30 March 1949, 9. 73 ‘London Fashion Fortnight’, 9. 74 ‘London Lure’, Fashion Trade Weekly, 28 July 1948, 14. 75 ‘The Fortnight’, 5. 76 ‘Fifth Fashion Forecast’, Fashion Forecast, January 1952, 21. 77 Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, 6. 78 ‘New Export Group for Fashions’, Times, 20 November 1958, 14. 79 Ruth Hall, ‘Why Doesn’t FASHION Begin at Home’, Times and Tide, 16 November 1961, 1944. 80 Sheila Black, ‘Down on Her Knees’, Financial Times, 1 June 1968, 12. 81 When ‘Quality Will Tell’, Times, 25 May 1959, 13.

214

Notes

82 Ambassador, No. 5 1959, 1–44. 83 See: Sonnet Stanfill, ‘Anonymous Tastemakers: The Role of American Buyers in Establishing an Italian Fashion Industry, 1950–1955’, European Fashion: The Creation of a Global Industry, ed. Regina Blaszczyk and Veronique Pouillard (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 146–69. 84 Hall, ‘Why Doesn’t FASHION Begin at Home’, 1944. 85 ‘London Fashion Weekly Now Firmly Established’, 5. 86 Ewing, History of Twentieth Century Fashion, 192. 87 Janey Ironside, ‘Now a Roman Spring for Mrs. Everyman’, Observer, 10 November 1963, 32. 88 Judy Fallon, ‘The Lily Needs No Gilding’, Irish Times, 03 June 1959, 4. 89 See Liz Tregenza ‘Location, London: Promoting British Ready-to-Wear 1959–1966’, Disseminating Dress: Britain’s Fashion Networks, 1600–1970, ed. Serena Dyer, Jade Halbert and Sophie Littlewood (London: Bloomsbury, 2022), 173–98, for an indepth discussion of the FHG’s early activities. 90 ‘Few US Orders for London Ready-to-Wear’, 2. 91 ‘Member Is Added by London Group; Dissention Still On’, WWD, 24 January 1961, 18. 92 Ibid.

Chapter 7 1 Soward, ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’, 6. 2 Bide, ‘Austerity Fashion 1945–1951’, 156. 3 ‘Untitled’, The Statistical Review, April 1954, 144. 4 ‘Untitled’, The Statistical Review, October 1954, 142. 5 Article of unknown origin in the Frederick Starke archive, 1954. AAD/2010/10/2, AAD. 6 Peggy Briggs, ‘Crackerjack Cottons’, Daily Mirror, AAD/2010/10/2, AAD. 7 Holloway, Women and Work in Britain since 1840, 181. 8 ‘At Weekends It Leads a Double Life’, Woman and Beauty, June 1958, 28. 9 Advertisements of unknown origin in the Fredrick Starke archive, 1954. AAD/2010/10/2, AAD. 10 Judy Fallon, ‘Wool Is Not Out of Place This Spring’, Irish Times, 1 May 1954,10. 11 ‘Frederick Starke Operates on Two Distinct Price Levels’, WWD, 3 October 1960, 18. 12 Scott James, ‘The Men Who Understand Women’, 6. 13 Gilbert, ‘From Paris to Shanghai’, 14–15. 14 Alison Settle, A Backwards Glance, V&A, 22 May 1966, L.60.5, BDA. 15 Talk given by Settle to the Barrett Trade school, 27 September 1938, FG7, BDA. 16 Jonathan Woodham, A Dictionary of Modern Design (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 99.

Notes

215

17 ‘Art, Industry and Fashion’, Spectator, 19 January 1934, 5. 18 Council for Art and Industry, Design and the Designer in the Dress Trade (London: HMSO, 1945), 3–4. 19 Ibid., 7. 20 There had previously been a dress design course at the RCA. This was run from 1936 by Mrs. Gibson. Susannah Handley, ‘Home Furnishers, Fashion Makers and Image Creators’ Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art. Eds, ed. Christopher Frayling and Claire Catterall (Somerset; London: Richard Dennis Publications; Royal College of Art, 1995), 72. 21 ‘Madge Garland’, Times, 18 July 1990, 14. 22 Bide, ‘Class and Creativity in Fashion Education’, 186–7. 23 ‘A New School for Fashion Design’, Harper’s Bazaar, March 1949, 46, 80. 24 ‘Madge Garland’, 14. 25 ‘A New School for Fashion Design’, 46, 80. 26 ‘50 Years On’, Times, 12 December 1972, 1. 27 AAD/2000/10/2, AAD. 28 RCA Annual Reports 1952, 1953 and 1954, Royal College of Art Archive. The 1952 annual report suggests that Starke purchased two models from the final dress show. RCA Annual Report 1952: 46, RCA Archive. 29 RCA annual Report 1955–1956: 66, RCA Archive. 30 Settle, Fashion as a Career, 26. 31 Ibid. 32 Bide, ‘Class and Creativity in Fashion Education’, 186–7. 33 McRobbie, Rag Trade or Image Industry?, 28. Handley, Design of the Times, 76. 34 Ironside, Janey, 114. 35 Settle, Fashion as a Career, 22. 36 Moira Keenan, ‘Designs for the Future’, Sunday Times, 25 June 1961, 31. 37 Settle, Fashion as a Career, 114. 38 ‘Young Offshoot’, Ambassador, No. 1 1965, 32. 39 By the mid-1960s young female wage-earners had as much as £12 a week to spend on clothes, cosmetics and hairdressing. Cynthia White, Women’s Magazines, 1693–1968 (London: Joseph, 1970), 113. 40 Ann Boyd, ‘A Label to Watch’, Observer, 25 February 1973, 3. 41 ‘Battle of Chelsea Brewing with Entry of New Designer’, WWD, 28 December 1960, 12. 42 ‘Notices’, Westminster & Pimlico News, 11 October 1963, 8. 43 ‘Untitled’, Sunday Mirror, 26 April 1964, 31. 44 ‘Battle of Chelsea Brewing with Entry of New Designer’, 12.

216

Notes

45 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss all of the figures who helped to revolutionise their family businesses, but other important figures include Christopher Carr-Jones (Susan Small) and Anthony Charles (Koupy). 46 Hyman and Celia were Jewish. The 1939 register indicates that Hyman came from a family heavily associated with both the men’s and women’s tailoring trades. Cash family. 1939 Register; Reference: RG 101/192B. TNA. 47 ‘Have You Met the New Miss London’, Torbay Express and South Devon Echo, 24 October 1958, 5. 48 ‘The Great American Love Affair’, Daily Mirror, 19 October 1964, 9. 49 Trilby Lane, ‘A Rave on the Ocean Wave!’ Rave, 1 September 1966, 11–12. 50 ‘The “With It” Girl’, Kensington Post, 17 September 1965, 5. 51 ‘London Fashion Pioneers Close’, Birmingham Daily Post, 27 January 1966, 22. 52 ‘Liner Will Spearhead Invasion of the US’, Coventry Evening Telegraph, 19 August 1965, 4. 53 ‘Fashion House Group Ceases Activities’, WWD, 26 January 1966, 21. 54 ‘The French Show Us the Way’, Aberdeen Evening Express, 16 February 1960, 2. 55 Jeffrey Blyth, ‘Now Orders Pour in for the British Smash-Hits of America’, Daily Mail, 8 November 1965, 8. 56 Judy Innes, ‘The liveliest Fashion Show Goes with a swing’, Daily Mail, 24 November 1965, 1. 57 Innes, ‘I’ve Never Seen so Many Men Cheer Up so Quickly’, Daily Mail, 30 October 1965, 3. 58 Black, ‘Trendsetters Rewards a Share of World Markets’, Financial Times, 26 April 1966, 8. 59 Alison Adburgham, ‘Export Argossy’, Guardian, 29 October 1965, 10. 60 Adburgham, ‘New York Falls for the British Line’, Guardian, 5 November 1965, 8. 61 ‘Fashion Spectacular’, Daily Mirror, 9 November 1965, 2. 62 ‘British Report That Sales Are Near Goal’, New York Times, 4 January 1966, 31. 63 Ibid. 64 Scott James, ‘Fashion Boost’, 10. 65 ‘British R.T.W. Sales to U.S. for Fall Up to 50% Ahead’, WWD, 15 May 1962, 8. 66 ‘Fashion Groups Export Chief ’, Financial Times, 31 March 1965, 10. 67 ‘Thinking Ahead’, Ambassador, No. 1 1965, 31. 68 Felicity Green, ‘The Rivals Engage Not in Bloody Battle – More of a Needle Match’, Daily Mirror, 25 October 1965, 7. 69 Ibid. 70 ‘Thinking Ahead’, 31. 71 Adburgham, ‘Fashion in an Ivory Tower’, Guardian, 26 October 1966, 8. 72 David Gilbert, ‘Out of London’, Swinging Sixties: Fashion in London and Beyond 1955–1970, ed. Christopher Breward, David Gilbert and Jenny Lister (London: V&A Publishing, 2006), 111.

Notes

217

73 Adburgham, ‘For Export’, Guardian, 26 April 1965, 6. 74 Adburgham, ‘View of Fashion’, Guardian, 06 May 1966, 10. 75 Ashley, ‘In Moscow and London’, 10. Starke, ‘A Tough but Rewarding Fashion Market’, 52. Innes, ‘I’ve Never Seen so Many Men Cheer Up so Quickly’, 3. 76 ‘End of the Fashion House Group’, Economist, 28 January 1966, 4. 77 ‘Fashionable’, Economist, 28 January 1966, 14. 78 ‘Courtaulds Buys Interest in Top London RTW House’, WWD, 14 December 1962, 19. 79 Elsbeth Juda quoted in Claire Wilcox, ‘Fashion and The Ambassador: The World Is the Customer of Fashion’, The Ambassador Magazine: Promoting Post-war British Textiles and Fashion, ed. Christopher Breward and Claire Wilcox (London: V&A Publishing, 2012), 204. 80 Wainwright stated that by the late 1970s it was extremely challenging to find the quality fabric she wanted, particularly lightweight diaphanous fabrics, manufactured in Britain. Penny Symon, ‘Janice Wainwright’s Fashion’, Illustrated London News, 1 October 1979, 104. 81 ‘Fashion House Group Ceases Activities’, 21.

Conclusion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

‘Designer Shift’, WWD, 4 May 1967, 32. Adburgham, ‘Group Fashion’, Guardian, 11 July 1968, 7. Serena Sinclair, ‘Benefits of a Starke Eye’, Telegraph, 22 April 1974, 10. Adburgham, ‘Nineteen-Thirties Depression’, Guardian, 2 May 1968, 7. Ulrich Lehmann, Tigersprung: Fashion in Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002), XVIII. Ibid., XVIII–XIX. Fiona MacCarthy, Last Curtsey: The End of the English Debutante (London: Faber and Faber, 2006), 87.

Bibliography Aberdeen Evening Express. The French Show Us the Way’. 16 February 1960, 2. Adburgham, Alison. ‘Export Argossy’. Guardian, 29 October 1965, 10. Adburgham. ‘Fashion in an Ivory Tower’. Guardian, 26 October 1966, 8. Adburgham. ‘For Export’. Guardian, 26 April 1965, 6. Adburgham. ‘Group Fashion’. Guardian, 11 July 1968, 7. Adburgham. ‘New York Falls for the British Line’. Guardian, 5 November 1965, 8. Adburgham, Alison. ‘Nineteen-thirties Depression’. Guardian, 2 May 1968, 7. Adburgham. ‘Personal Note in Ready-to-Wear’. Guardian, 20 November 1959, 7. Adburgham. ‘View of Fashion’. Guardian, 6 May 1966, 10. Adelaide Advertiser. ‘London Fashion Fortnight’. 30 March 1949, 9. Advertisers Weekly. ‘Seeking Better Methods of Colour Reproduction’. 10 July 1947, 80. Advertisers Weekly. ‘Untitled’. 6 November 1947, 284. Alison, Jane and Sinead McCarthy eds. The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined. London: Koenig books, 2016. Ambassador. ‘Available; Now 1, Soon 2, Later 3’. No. 10 1956, 97. Ambassador. ‘London Wholesale Model Houses Show Common Trends for Export’. No. 1 1948, 98. Ambassador. ‘Models and Their Materials’. No. 3 1946, 102. Ambassador. ‘1 ½ inches or 2 inches’. No. 11 1948, 5. Ambassador. ‘Thinking Ahead’. No. 1 1965, 31–2. Ambassador. ‘Untitled’. September 1946, 83. Ambassador. ‘Untitled’. No. 8 1952, 109. Ambassador. ‘Young Offshoot’. No. 1 1965, 32. Ambassador pamphlet. ‘Stanley Marcus on Selling to America’. 1948, 5. Apparel Production. ‘A Report on What the OTHERS Are Doing’. February 1948, 69. Ashley, Iris. ‘In Moscow and in London’. Daily Mail, 17 May 1961, 10. Ashley. ‘The £150 look from Paris is £18 here’. Daily Mail, 22 September 1950, 4. Ashley. ‘Toot Suit!’. Daily Mail, 9 October 1958, 10. Ashley. ‘Variations on Paris Themes’. Daily Mail, 25 September 1951, 2. Ashley. ‘Which Dress Costs More Than £200?’. Daily Mail, 15 September 1958, 10. Ashley. ‘You’ll Be a Fashion Model … For the World!’. Daily Mail, 2 April 1959, 8. Ashmore, Sonia. ‘Extinction and Evolution: Department Stores in London’s West End, 1945–1982’. London Journal, 31.1 (2006): 41–63. Barrie, Anne. ‘Presenting Frederick Starke’. Woman and Beauty, April 1961, 86–7. Barrie. ‘The Polly Peck Touch’. Woman and Beauty, May 1961, 68–9.

Bibliography

219

Barrie. ‘Who Is Susan Small?’. Woman and Beauty, March 1961, 74–5. Barrie. ‘Window on Fashion by Anne Barrie Spotlights Jean Allen’. Woman and Beauty, June 1961, 56. Beatrice Daily Sun. ‘British Designed Clothes Take US Eye’. 11 September 1949, 5. Beckett, Marjorie. ‘Avenue Montaigne to Market Street: How Britain Adapts Paris Fashions’. Picture Post, 3 December 1949, 44. Belfast Telegraph. ‘Dungannon Fabric and Dorville Flair’. 11 July 1962, 3. Beveridge, Margaret. ‘British Model Gowns Show What Can Be Done’. Weekly Times (Australia), 20 February 1946, 20. Biddle-Perry, Geraldine. Wartime Fashion: From Haute Couture to Homemade, 1939–1945. London; New York: Berg, 2012. Bide, Bethan. ‘Austerity Fashion 1945–1951: Rebuilding Fashion Cultures in Post War London’. PhD. Royal Holloway, London, 2017. Bide. ‘Class and Creativity in Fashion Education: A Comparison of the Pedagogies of Making and Design at British Technical Schools and Art and Design Schools, 1870s‐1950s’. International Journal of Fashion Studies, 8.2 (2021): 175–94. Bide. ‘Fashion City or Museum of Fashion? Exploring the Mutually Beneficial Relationship between London’s Fashion Industry and Fashion Exhibitions at the Victoria and Albert Museum’. GeoHumanities, 7.1 (2021): 1–18. Bide. ‘London Leads the World: The Reinvention of London Fashion in the Aftermath of the Second World War’. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 24.3 (2020): 1–21. Bide. ‘More Than Window Dressing: Visual Merchandising and Austerity in London’s West End, 1945–50’. Business History, 60.2 (2017): 1–21. Bide. ‘The Fashion City and the Suburb: How Bentalls of Kingston Upon Thames Helped Rebuild Cultures of Fashionable Consumption in London after the Second World War’. The London Journal, 46.1 (2021): 47–65. Birmingham Daily Post. ‘London Fashion Pioneers Close’. 27 January 1966, 22. Black, Sheila. ‘Down on Her Knees’. Financial Times, 1 June 1968, 12. Black. ‘Trendsetters Rewards a Share of World Markets’. Financial Times, 26 April 1966, 8. Blaszczyk, Regina ed. Producing Fashion: Commerce, Culture, and Consumers. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2008. Blaszczyk, Regina and Veronique Pouillard eds. European Fashion: The Creation of a Global Industry. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018. Blyth, Jeffrey. ‘Now Orders Pour in for the British Smash-Hits of America’. Daily Mail, 8 November 1965, 8. Bourdieu, Pierre. Sociology in Question. Theory, Culture & Society. London: Sage, 1993. Boyd, Ann. ‘A Label to Watch’. Observer, 25 February 1973, 3. Boydell, Christine. Horrockses: Off-the-Peg Fashion in the 40s and 50s. London: V&A publishing, 2010. Brenner, Alec. ‘The Trend of English Fashion’. Fashion Forecast, July 1946, 1.

220

Bibliography

Breward, Christopher. Fashioning London: Clothing and the Modern Metropolis. Oxford; New York: Berg, 2004. Breward, Christopher. ‘Fashion’s Front and Back: Rag Trade: Cultures and Cultures of Consumption in Post-War London’. London Journal, 31.1 (2006): 15–40. Breward, Christopher, Becky Conekin, and Caroline Cox eds. The Englishness of English Dress. Oxford; New York: Berg, 2002. Breward, Christopher and David Gilbert eds. Fashion’s World Cities. Oxford; New York: Berg, 2006. Breward, Gilbert and Jenny Lister eds. Swinging Sixties: Fashion in London and Beyond 1955–1970. London: V&A publishing, 2006. Breward, Christopher and Claire Wilcox. The Ambassador Magazine: Promoting PostWar British Textiles and Fashion. London: V&A publishing, 2012. Britain Can Make It Exhibition Catalogue. Exhibition Organised by the British Council of Industrial Design. London: HMSO, 1946. Britannia and Eve. ‘Clothes Are Their Business’. 1 February 1947, 4. Britannia and Eve. ‘Untitled’. 1 July 1940, 53. British Vogue Export Book. ‘London Models for New York’. No. 5 1949. 80. British Vogue Export Book. ‘Our Fashion Show on Television’. No. 4 1953, 46–55. Buckley, Cheryl and Hazel Clark. Fashion and Everyday Life: London and New York. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. Busvine, Richard. ‘Now That Fashion is Televised’. Fashion and Fabrics, August 1946, 30–1. Butler, Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge, 1993. Carmichel, Jane. ‘Women Are Talking About’. Fifeshire Advertiser, 28 June 1947, 4. Carter, Ernestine. ‘A Designer and Her Handwriting’. Sunday Times, 10 May 1959, 19. Carter. ‘A Designer and His Handwriting’. Sunday Times, 17 May 1959, 17. Carter. ‘A House and Its Handwriting’. Sunday Times, 7 June 1959, 19. Census Returns of England and Wales, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911 and 1921. The National Archives; Kew, London, England. Castle, Charles. Model Girl. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1977. Church Gibson, Pamela. Fashion and Celebrity Culture. London; New York: Berg, 2012. Clarke, Judith, Amy De La Haye, and Jeffrey Horsley. Exhibiting Fashion: Before and After 1971. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. Council for Art and Industry. Design and the Designer in the Dress Trade. London: HMSO, 1945. Council of Industrial Design. Design ’46: A Survey of British Industrial Design as Displayed in the ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition. London: HMSO, 1946. Coxhead, Elizabeth. ‘Utility: The Dress World’s View’. Liverpool Daily Post, 28 July 1945, 5. Coventry Evening Telegraph. ‘Hints for Ensuring Haute Couture at Your Own Price’. 19 August 1954, 4. Coventry Evening Telegraph. ‘Liner Will Spearhead Invasion of the US’. 19 August 1965, 4.

Bibliography

221

Curry, Leonora. ‘London Model House Group’. Tailor and Cutter, 20 September 1946, 597. Daily Mail. ‘£5 a Day for Dressmaking’. 9 June 1945, 3. Daily Mail. ‘Spring Suit’. 16 April 1940, 9. Daily Mirror. ‘Brunette, 22, Our Dress Envoy to U.S., Is Model as Well’. 21 November 1945, 5. Daily Mirror. ‘Fashion Spectacular’. 9 November 1965, 2. Daily Mirror. ‘The Great American Love Affair’. 19 October 1964, 9. De la Haye, Amy ed. The Cutting Edge: 50 Years of British Fashion 1947–1997. London: V&A Publishing, 1997. Deihl, Nancy ed. The Hidden History of American Fashion: Rediscovering 20th Century Women Designers. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. Delane, Mary. ‘Women and Life’. Sunday Times, 30 November 1947, 7. Display. ‘Spring Shows Are Post-War’s Brightest’. May 1946, 11 Dorner, Jane. Fashion in the Forties and Fifties. London: Allan, 1975. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. April 1928, XXVIII. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. February 1928, XXXI. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. September 1928, XI. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. September 1928, LXI. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. January 1930, 38. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. 29 April 1931, 12. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Advertisement’. February 1932, 67. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘D.O. Late News Bulletin’. December 1934, 89. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Gone to Nottingham’. January 1941, 22–3. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Modernist Showrooms for West End Wholesale Firm’. July 1928, 28. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘People and Places’. October 1940, 44. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Some Manufacturers Do Supply Specifications’. January 1937, 67. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘The “Trade” Moves into Couture Quarters’. April 1944, 4–5. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Trade Activities from All Quarters’. November 1926, 95. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Untitled’. January 1915, 17. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Untitled’. July 1933, 102. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Untitled’. November 1933, 114. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Untitled’. November 1934, 51. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Why Branded Goods Are Popular’. May 1934, 73. Drapers’ Organiser. ‘Woman’s Post-War Power and Economic Freedom’. February 1943, 15. Drapers’ Record. ‘Britain Shows its Designs’. 26 September 1946, 41. Drapers’ Record. ‘Designer Wins Action for Wrongful Dismissal’. 20 July 1940, 12. Drapers’ Record. ‘Greatest Fashion Show Ever Held: Albert Hall, Oct 2’. 29 June 1946, 14. Drapers’ Record. ‘Guild to Put on Non-Utility Export Display’. 16 June 1945, 15. Drapers’ Record. ‘Model House Group’s First Show’. 21 September 1946, 52. Drapers’ Record. ‘New London Model House Group’. 18 May 1946, 12.

222

Bibliography

Drapers’ Record. ‘Putting British Fashion Industry on the Map’. 30 June 1945, 12. Drapers’ Record. ‘Retailers Important Role in Pushing Branded Goods’. 20 January 1940, C. Drapers’ Record. ‘The Black Sheep Again’. 3 August 1946, 24. Drapery and Fashion Weekly. ‘London Fashion Weekly Now Firmly Established’. 28 May 1959, 5. Dundee Evening Telegraph. ‘Nylon Gown Is Fashion Secret’. 19 September 1946, 5. Dyer, Serena, Jade Halbert and Sophie Littlewood eds. Disseminating Dress: Britain’s Fashion Networks, 1600–1970. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. Dyhouse, Carol. Glamour: Women, History, Feminism. London: Zed Books, 2010. Economist. ‘End of the Fashion House Group’. 28 January 1966, 4. Economist. ‘Fashionable’. 28 January 1966, 14. Economist. ‘Haute Couture in London’. 4 August 1951, 270, 71. Eerdmans, Emily. Regency Redux: High Style Interiors, Napoleonic, Classical Moderne, and Hollywood Regency. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2008. Ehrman, Edwina ed. London Couture 1923–75: British Luxury. New York: Abrams, 2015. Emerson. ‘Originals Made by Couturiers Abroad Are Now Available Here’. New York Times, 12 September 1958, 22. Entwistle, Joanne and Agnès Rocamora. ‘The Field of Fashion Materialized: A Study of London Fashion Week’. Sociology, 40.4 (2006): 735–51. Evans, Caroline. The Mechanical Smile: Modernism and the First Fashion Shows in France and America 1900–1929. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Evening News. ‘Going Shopping in Mayfair, a Big Change Likely in Bruton Street’. 8 December 1928, 1. Ewing, Elizabeth and Alice Mackrell. History of Twentieth Century Fashion. 3rd ed. London: Batsford, 1992. Fairley, Roma. A Bomb in the Collection: Fashion with the Lid Off. Brighton: Clifton Books, 1969. Fallon, Judy. ‘The Lily Needs No Gilding’. Irish Times, 3 June 1959, 4. Fallon. ‘Wool Is Not Out of Place This Spring’. Irish Times, 1 May 1954, 10. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘British Wholesale Couture’. September–October 1946, 69. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Can Quality Stay?’. January 1946, 16. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Does Glamour Show Off or Show Up Your Shop?’. November 1946, 19–20. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Fanfare to a Brilliant and Busy Season’. June 1946, 9. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘For Export Only’. June 1946, 2. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Imported London Originals’. October 1949, 52. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Promoting British Tailoring’. No. 1 1953, 43. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Our Change of Title Heartily Endorsed by All Sections of the Trade’. April 1945, 24. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Our New Title’. March 1945, 1. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Style-Free at Last’. June 1946, 25. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘The World’s Most Spectacular Floor Show Will Be a Yearly Event’. November 1946, 25.

Bibliography

223

Fashion and Fabrics. ‘There’s Goodwill in Famous Names’. January–February 1949, 104–8. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘What Other Buyers Think’. July 1946, 20. Fashion and Fabrics. ‘Whose Name Should Be on That Label-Yours or the Manufacturers?’. October 1949, 66–7. Fashion and Fabrics Overseas. ‘Advertisement’. February 1951, 11. Fashion and Fabrics Overseas. ‘The Fight against Ceiling Prices and the Future of Wholesale Couture’. December 1946, 35. Fashion and Fabrics Overseas. ‘These Clothes Have a Dollar Handwriting’. September/ October 1948, 106. Fashion Forecast. ‘Fifth Fashion Forecast’. January 1952, 21. Fashion Forecast. ‘Favourable Comparison’. October 1951, 27. Fashion Forecast. ‘London Model House Group’. August 1946, 27. Fashion Forecast. ‘Personality Quiz’. June 1947, 4. Fashion Forecast. ‘The London Model House Group’. October 1946, 10–11. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Albert Hall Details’. 29 August 1946, 5. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Boxes and Beds’. 3 October 1946, 3. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Britain Can Make It’. 26 September 1946, 3. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Come to the Ball’. 27 June 1946, 7. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Dorville Décor’. 27 January 1949, 11. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘High Grade Makers Have Big Plans’. 6 June 1946, 5. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘London Lure’. 28 July 1948, 14. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Make It Fashions’. 12 September 1946, 7. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Official Affairs’. 11 July 1946, 6. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Specialty Rooms’. 24 August 1950, 9. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘The Fortnight’. 26 May 1949, 5. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘That Top-Price Mark’. 18 April 1946, 5. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘That Word Couture’. 14 February 1946, 10. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Tribute to Taste’. 29 July 1948, 6. Fashion Trade Weekly. ‘Wholesale Couture’. 28 March 1946, 8. Fermaglich, Kirsten. A Rosenberg by Any Other Name: A History of Jewish Name Changing in America. New York: New York University Press, 2018. Fifeshire Advertiser. ‘TV Brings the Spring Fashions’. 27 November 1954, 3. Financial Times. ‘Fashion Groups Export Chief ’. 31 March 1965, 10. Frayling, Christopher and Claire Catterall eds. Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art. Somerset; London: Richard Dennis Publications; Royal College of Art, 1995. Freiman, Lawrence. Don’t Fall off the Rocking Horse: An Autobiography. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1978. Fulham Chronicle. ‘Situations Vacant’. 14 July 1944, 8. Garland, Madge. Fashion. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962. Gepp, Constance. ‘Glamorous Gowns at London Show’. Herald (Australia), 28 June 1945, 11. Glynn, Prudence. In Fashion: Dress in the Twentieth Century. London: Allen & Unwin, 1978.

224

Bibliography

Godley, Andrew. Jewish Immigrant Entrepreneurship in New York and London, 1880–1914: Enterprise and Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001. Godley. The Development of the International Clothing Industry: Technology and Fashion Discussion Papers in International Investment and Management. Reading: University of Reading, 1997. Green, Felicity. ‘It’s a Nice Line in Exports’. Daily Mirror, 7 February 1964, 9. Green. ‘The Rivals Engage Not in Bloody Battle – More of a Needle Match’. Daily Mirror, 25 October 1965, 7. Grey, Elizabeth. Careers in Fashion. London: Bodley Head, 1963. Guardian. ‘Record Orders for Export Group’. 6 July 1961, 8. Guest, Jean. ‘Jean Guest’s Fashion Review’. Drapers’ Record, 11 October 1946, 20. Guest. ‘When Is a Designer a Designer’. Drapers’ Record, 27 September 1947, 21. Hall, Ruth. ‘Why Doesn’t FASHION Begin at Home’. Times and Tide, 16 November 1961, 1944. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘A New School for Fashion Design’. March 1949, 46, 80. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Advertisement’. February 1938, 2. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Advertisement’. May 1952, 7. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Advertisement’. November 1942, 16. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Advertisement’. September 1942, 15. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Britain Can Make It’. October 1946, 52. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘Paris in the London Shops’. May 1950, 43. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘The British Women’s Fashion Export Group Sends a Mission to U.S.A. and Canada’. June 1941, 36. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘The Well Spent Pound’. February 1948, 58. Harper’s Bazaar. ‘These Are the Suits of Paris’. April 1952, 49. Harrow Observer. ‘Situations Vacant’. 22 February 1945, 6. Hartnell, Norman. Silver and Gold. London: Evans Bros, 1955. Head, Peter. ‘British Tie U.S. Sales Success to Fashions with a Different Look’. Women’s Wear Daily, 11 April 1961, 31. Holloway, Gerry. Women and Work in Britain since 1840. London; New York: Routledge, 2005. Hopkins, Harry. The New Look: A Social History of the Forties and Fifties. London: Secker & Warburg, 1963. Horwood, Catherine. Keeping Up Appearances: Fashion and Class between the Wars. Stroud: Sutton, 2005. Howell, Georgina. In Vogue: Six Decades of Fashion. London: Allen Lane, 1975. Howell, Geraldine. Wartime Fashion: From Haute Couture to Homemade,1939–1945. London; New York: Berg, 2012. Hume, Marion. ‘Your Country Needs Your Clothes’. Financial Times, 9/10 November 1996, IV. Innes, Judy. ‘I’ve Never Seen so Many Men Cheer Up so Quickly’. Daily Mail, 30 October 1965, 3.

Bibliography

225

Innes. ‘The Liveliest Fashion Show Goes with a Swing’. Daily Mail, 24 November 1965, 1. International Textiles. ‘It’s a Question of Size’. No. 3 1945, A. Internees (Aliens) Index Cards 1939–1947. The National Archives; Kew, London, England. Ironside. Fashion Alphabet. London: Joseph, 1968. Ironside. Fashion as a Career. London: Museum Press, 1963. Ironside. Janey: An Autobiography. London: Joseph, 1973. Ironside. ‘Now a Roman Spring for Mrs. Everyman’. Observer, 10 November 1963, 32. Jewish Chronicle. ‘Untitled’. 9 February 1917, 1. Jewish Chronicle. ‘Untitled’. 15 September 1944, 4. Jobling, Paul. Advertising Menswear: Masculinity and Fashion in the British Media since 1945. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Jones, Michelle. ‘Less than Art – Greater than Trade. English Couture and the Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers in the 1930s and 1940s’. PhD, Royal College of Art, London, 2015. Judah, Cynthia. ‘How Paris Fashion Reaches You’. Picture Post, 23 April 1955, 41. Kaplan, Jonathan C. Kleider machen Leute: Jewish Men and Dress Politics in Vienna, 1890–1938, PhD, University of Technology Sydney, 2019. Keenan, Moira. ‘Designs for the Future’. Sunday Times, 25 June 1961, 31. Keighran, Patricia. ‘By Dior – Made in England’. Daily Mail, 7 September 1956, 8. Kelly’s Directory of Essex, Hertfordshire and Middlesex. London: W. Kelly and Co, 1926. Kelly’s Post Office London Commercial and Trades Directory. London: W. Kelly and Co, 1888, 1892, 1907, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1925, 1934, 1941, 1946. Kensington Post. ‘The “With It” Girl’. 17 September 1965, 5. Kershen, Anne ed. London: The Promised Land? The Migrant Experience in a Capital City. Aldershot: Avebury, 1997. Kershen, Anne. Off the Peg. London: London Museum of Jewish Life, 1988. Koda, Harold and Kohle Yohannan. The Model as Muse: Embodying Fashion. New York; New Haven; Metropolitan Museum of Art: Yale University Press, 2009. Kremer, Roberta and Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre. Broken Threads: The Destruction of the Jewish Fashion Industry in Germany and Austria. Oxford: Berg, 2007. Lane, Trilby. ‘A Rave on the Ocean Wave!’. Rave, 1 September 1966, 11–12. Lehmann, Ulrich. Tigersprung: Fashion in Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. London Gazette. ‘Notice’. 8 December 1939, 8223. London Gazette. ‘Notice’. 12 December 1939, 8286. London Gazette. ‘Notice’. 2 November 1945, 5360. MacCarthy, Fiona. Last Curtsey: The End of the English Debutante. London: Faber and Faber, 2006. Mackinney-Valentin, Maria. Fashioning Identity: Status Ambivalence in Contemporary Fashion. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Maguire Patrick and Jonathan Woodham eds. Design and Cultural Politics in Post war Britain: The ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition of 1946. London; Washington: Leicester University Press, 1997.

226

Bibliography

Marshall, Cherry. The Cat-Walk. London: Hutchinson, 1978. Marylebone Mercury. ‘Situations Vacant’. 31 August 1940, 4. Matthews, Joy. ‘Big Names in Britain Tell What They Think the Big Trend Will Be’. Daily Express, 14 January 1958, 5. Mendes, Valerie D. and Patrick Yapp eds. Ascher: Fabric, Art, Fashion. London: V&A publishing, 1987. McRobbie, Angela. British Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry? London; New York: Routledge, 1998. Mears, Patricia. American Beauty: Aesthetics and Innovation in Fashion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Melchert, Isabella. Fashion House of Messrs W. & O. Marcus Limited 1940–1965. Unpublished, 2003. Mida, Ingrid and Alexandra Kim. The Dress Detective: A Practical Guide to Object-Based Research in Fashion. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Miller, Lesley Ellis. Cristóbal Balenciaga (1895–1972): The Couturiers’ Couturier. London; New York: V&A Publishing, 2007. Miller. Balenciaga: Shaping Fashion. London: V&A Publishing, 2017. Minasian, Sevian. Nikolaus Tuczek, N.D. http://www.classicshoesformen.com/shoes/ nikolaus-tuczek-rare-historical-slipper-most-important-master-20th-century Mirzoeff, Nicholas ed. Diaspora and Visual Culture. Representing Africans and Jews. London; New York: Routledge, 2000. Montreal Gazette. ‘London Makes Bid for Fashion Lead’. 26 September 1946, 10. Motherwell Times. ‘Fashions for Spring’. 19 November 1954, 3. New York Times. ‘British Report That Sales Are near Goal’. 4 January 1966, 31. Newby, Eric. Something Wholesale. London: Secker & Warburg, 1962. 1939 Register. The National Archives; Kew, London, England. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Houses and Properties to Let’. 9 July 1941, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 25 October 1940, 4. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 4 November 1940, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 30 November 1940, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 13 December 1940, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 18 December 1940, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 14 May 1941, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 24 November 1941, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 20 January 1942, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 4 March 1942, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 12 January 1943, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 17 July 1943, 2. Nottingham Evening Post. ‘Situations Vacant’. 23 July 1943, 2. Nyburg, Anna. The Clothes on our Backs: How Refugees from Nazism Revitalised the British Fashion Trade. London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2020. Old Bailey Proceedings. Old Bailey Proceedings online, 5 April 1897, https://www. oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?name=18970405.

Bibliography

227

Osborne, Thomas. ‘The Ordinariness of the Archive’. History of the Human Sciences, 12 (1999): 51–64. Ottawa Citizen. ‘Advertisement’. 16 September 1948, 9. Page, Betty. ‘Paris Still Leads’. Fashion Trade Weekly, Christmas Issue 1946, 18. Palestine Post. ‘German Factories for England’. 3 October 1934, 4. Palmer, Alexandra. Couture & Commerce: The Transatlantic Fashion Trade in the 1950s. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001. Perkins, B.J. ‘Krohnberg Brothers U.S. Dress Men Still in England Acclimatized to Condition’. Women’s Wear Daily, 1 March 1943, 1. Perkins. ‘New British Designers Guild Plan Use of Confined Fabrics’. Women’s Wear Daily, 28 December 1944, 1. Perkins. ‘U.S. Dress Houses in England Are Found Becoming Anglicized’. Women’s Wear Daily, 15 April 1936, 1, 36. Picture Post. ‘Model on the Move’. 9 February 1952, 27. Pistol, Rachel. ‘Routes Out of Internment a Handy Reference Guide to White Paper Categories’, Dr Rachel Pistol, 2020, https://www.rachelpistol.com/post/routes-out-ofinternment-a-handy-reference-guide Pope, Virginia. ‘Clare Potter Designs’. New York Times Magazine, 28 April 1946, 90. Portsmouth Evening News. ‘Television Topics’. 18 November 1954, 5. Pouillard, Veronique. Paris to New York: The Transatlantic Fashion Industry in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021. Pouillard, Veronique and Johanna Zanon. ‘Wholesale Couture: Jean Patou’s Jane Paris Line (1929)’. Dress: The Journal of the Costume Society of America, 46.1 (2019): 53–65. Quant, Mary. Quant by Quant: The Autobiography of Mary Quant. London: New York: V&A Publishing, 2012. Roberts, Cheryl. Consuming Mass Fashion in 1930s England: Design, Manufacture and Retailing for Young Working-class Women. London: Palgrave, 2022. Rocamora, Agnès. Fashioning the City: Paris, Fashion and the Media. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009. Rocamora. Thinking Through Fashion: A Guide to Key Theorists. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2016. Romano, Alexis. ‘Elle and the Development of Stylisme in 1960s Paris’. Costume, 46.1 (2012): 75–91. Romano. Prêt-à-Porter, Paris and Women: A Cultural Study of French Readymade Fashion, 1945–68. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. Scott James, Anne. ‘Fashion Boost’. Daily Mail, 11 November 1965, 10. Scott James. In the Mink. London: Michael Joseph, 1952. Scott James. ‘The Men Who Understand Women’. Daily Mail, 5 May 1960, 6. Settle, Alison. Fashion as a Career. London: Batsford, 1963. Settle. ‘From a Woman’s Viewpoint’. Observer, 15 September 1946, 7. Settle. ‘London Fashion Prestige’. Yorkshire Post, 28 December 1949, 2.

228

Bibliography

Shaw, Elizabeth. ‘East London’s Place in the Field of Garment Production’. Women’s Wear News, 13 March 1952, 23. Sinclair, Serena. ‘Benefits of a Starke Eye’. Telegraph, 22 April 1974, 10. Sissons, Michael and Phillip French. Age of Austerity: 1945–1951. London: Penguin, 1964. Sities, Charles Thomas. ‘Londoner Shows British Styles’. Kansas City Times, 26 November 1962, 3. Sladen, Christopher. The Conscription of Fashion: Utility Cloth, Clothing, and Footwear, 1941–1952. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995. Sketch. ‘Advertisement’. 1 July 1931, 57. Sotheby’s. Modern British Drawings, Painting and Sculpture, 4 March 1959 and 14 July 1971. Soward, Jean. ‘Jean Soward Meets Frederick Starke’. News Chronicle, 23 June 1958, 6. Sparke, Penny ed. Did Britain Make It?: British Design in Context, 1946–86. London: Design Council, 1986. Sparke. The Modern Interior. London: Reaktion Books, 2008. Spectator. ‘Art, Industry and Fashion’. 19 January 1934, 5. Stanley, Louis. ‘The Second Battle of Britain’. Vogue, February 1946, 70, 88. Starke, Frederick. ‘A Tough but Rewarding Fashion Market’. Financial Times, 5 July 1965, 52. Starke. ‘London Model House Group’. Fashion Forecast, March 1947, 25. Starke. ‘Price Control and the Wholesale Model House’. Fashion Forecast, September 1946, 1. The Statistical Review. ‘Untitled’. April 1954, 144. The Statistical Review. ‘Untitled’. October 1954, 142. Steele, Valerie. Fifty Years of Fashion: New Look to Now. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Stewart, Mary Lynn. Dressing Modern Frenchwomen: Marketing Haute Couture, 1919–1939. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. Sunday Mirror. ‘Untitled’. 26 April 1964, 31. Sydney Morning Herald. ‘British Designers Lead the World’. 13 February 1952, 3. Sydney Morning Herald. ‘Too Much Attention for Paris Fashions’. 7 September 1951, 8. Symon, Penny. ‘Janice Wainwright’s Fashion’. Illustrated London News. 1 October 1979, 104. Telegraph. ‘Mayfair Man Questioned’. 12 July 1960, 13. Telegraph. ‘Measure Modom U.S. Way’. 11 April 1945, 3. Telegraph. ‘Situations Vacant’. 23 July 1941, 2. The National Archives. ‘How to Look for Records of Internees’, https://www. nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/internees/ Times. ‘Advertisement’. 22 May 1960, 21. Times. ‘Changes in Mayfair, Bruton Street for Business’. 8 December 1928, 9. Times. ‘50 Years On’. 12 December 1972, 1.

Bibliography

229

Times. ‘Madge Garland’. 18 July 1990, 14. Times. ‘New Export Group for Fashions’. 20 November 1958, 14. Times. ‘From Paris to Your Local Shop’. 19 October 1959, 13. Times. ‘Paris Copies’. 1 March 1965, 13. Times. ‘When Quality Will Tell’. 25 May 1959, 13. Torbay Express and South Devon Echo. ‘Have you Met the New Miss London?’. 24 October 1958, 5. Tregenza, Liz. ‘Copying a Master: London Wholesale Couture and Cristóbal Balenciaga in the 1950s’, Fashion Theory, 25.4 (2021): 457–79. Troy, Nancy J. Couture Culture: A Study in Modern Art and Fashion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Tuke, Maurice. ‘Model House Problem’. Fashion Trade Weekly, 7 February 1946, 7. Vanity Fair. ‘Advertisement’. February 1951, 7. Variety. ‘London’s Lindsey Theatre Acquiring Rep as Ace West End ‘Tryout’ Spot’. 19 January 1949, 52. Vercelloni, Luca. The Invention of Taste A Cultural Account of Desire, Delight and Disgust in Fashion, Food and Art. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Victoria and Albert Museum. Collections Development Policy, 2019. https://vandaproduction-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2019/08/05/10/18/38/9432e948-aede-479abdee-3cb18be965c2/2019%20Collections%20Development%20Policy.pdf Vogue. ‘Advertisement’. 12 October 1932, 24. Vogue. ‘Advertisement’. 28 September 1932, 25. Vogue. ‘Advertisement’. 31 May 1933, 41. Vogue. ‘Advertisement’. July 1940, 17. Vogue. ‘Advertisement’. May 1948, Inside cover. Vogue. ‘Fashion Leadership for Women?’. May 1945, 3. Vogue. ‘These Labels Stand for Quality’. December 1941, 69. Vogue. ‘Vogue’s Page of Names to Remember’. June 1943, 91. Vogue Book of British Exports. ‘Clothes for Three Continents’. No. 1 1948, 72. Vogue Export Book. ‘Untitled’. No. 6 1952, 34–9. Weekly News. ‘Does Your Husband Know Frederick Starke?’. 11 November 1950, 14. West London Observer. ‘Sewing Machinists, Drapery & Dress Making Etc’. 25 February 1944, 7. West London Observer. ‘Situations Vacant’. 13 August 1943, 8. West London Observer. ‘Situations Vacant’. 16 March 1945, 7. West London Observer. ‘Situations Vacant’. 31 August 1956, 11. Westminster & Pimlico News. ‘Notices’. 11 October 1963, 8. Westphal, Uwe. Fashion Metropolis Berlin 1836–1939 the Story of the Rise and Destruction of the Jewish Fashion Industry. Leipzig: Henschel, 2019. Whalen, Jan. ‘Strictly British’. Wichita Eagle, 23 November 1962, 1F. White, Cynthia. Women’s Magazines, 1693–1968. London: Joseph, 1970. Whitehorn, Katharine. ‘Press v. Buyers’. Spectator, 6 November 1959, 644.

230

Bibliography

Williamson, Maureen. ‘Just What Is the Line?’, Tatler, 24 September 1958, 584–7. Wilson, Elizabeth. Only Halfway to Paradise: Women in Postwar Britain, 1945–1968. London; New York: Tavistock Publications, 1980. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Advertisement’. 15 April 1941, 4. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Advertisement’. 8 May 1941, 4. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘American Buying Trends in the British Market’. 3 January 1949, 12. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘American Interest in British Dress Market Increasing’. 25 May 1954, 57. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Battle of Chelsea’ Brewing with Entry of New Designer’. 28 December 1960, 12. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Affiliates to Combine Quarters in Larger Location’. 5 July 1935, 62. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Apparel Men to Show Combined Collection in U.S’. 10 October 1947, 1. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Importers of American Apparel Switch to Own Source’. 3 November 1939, 16. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Model House Group in Collective Show Here’. 8 June 1949, 8. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Must Study U. S. Market’. 6 December 1948, 14. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British R.T.W. Sales to U.S. for Fall Up to 50% Ahead’. 15 May 1962, 8. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘British Women’s Fashion Export Group Appeals to U.S. Buyers to Publicize Lines’. 21 March 1941, 2. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Charles Kuperstein Sails for US Jan 5’. 31 December 1937, 10. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Courtaulds Buys Interest in Top London RTW House’. 14 December 1962, 19. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Designer Shift’. 4 May 1967, 32. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Dresses: Susan Small, Ltd., Joins London Group’. 11 October 1949, 21. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Fashion House Group Ceases Activities’. 26 January 1966, 21. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Few US Orders for London Ready-to-Wear’. 21 November 1960, 2. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Frederick Starke Gives Franchise to 20 American Stores’. 28 November 1952, 47. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Frederick Starke Operates on Two Distinct Price Levels’. 3 October 1960, 18. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Gray, Green, Prune Starred’. 13 May 1948, 3. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Imports Here Sustain the Prestige of Typical British Fashions and Woollens’. 3 June 1941, 3. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Introduces Collection of London Coats and Suits to the New York Market’. 20 April 1937, 26. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Krohnberg Producing Dresses in London Using US Methods’. 26 April 1933, 17.

Bibliography

231

Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Dress Mfr. Established in NY Presents First Collection Here’. 20 August 1941, 13. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Fashion Export Group Plans Second Trip to New York’. 25 November 1941, 4. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Firm Plans July shipment of Utility Garments in Novelty Woollens’. 3 July 1945, 9. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Group’s Overseas Promotions’. 3 November 1947, 15. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Manufacturer Plans for Sales Rise in American Market’. 28 June 1949, 40. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘London Model House Group to Show Here in April’. 7 March 1949, 14. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Masoff and Portenoy Join in British Firm’. 13 March 1935, 29. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Member Is Added by London Group; Dissention Still On’. 24 January 1961, 18. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Patterned Skirts with Monotone Jackets are Preferences of English Wholesaler’. 3 July 1933, 9. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Police Find 36 Piracies of Diors, Esterels’. 12 February 1960, 1. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Positions Wanted-Men’. 6 June 1935, 25. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Possibilities of Utility Wear Export Are Examined’. 9 June 1948, 58. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Ready-to-Wear Imports at Bonwit, Chicago’. 7 October 1957, 4. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Slim Suits with Back Fullness Featured by Top London Firms’. 7 December 1948, 32. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘The American Mind Is Ripe for British Fashion’. 21 July 1965, 10. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘The British Market’. 1 April 1946, 7. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘The Scarf Dress Scores as Spring Print Success’. 5 January 1948, 21. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Tweed Suits with Pleated Skirts Star in Big British Collection’. 4 June 1941, 3. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Two New Yorkers Figure in New British Firms’. 7 August 1933, 17. Women’s Wear Daily. ‘Utility Fashions Win Foreign Buyer Interest’. 6 July 1948, 13. Women’s Wear News. ‘A Great Fashion Parade’. 26 September 1946, 29. Women’s Wear News. ‘Albert Hall Models on Extensive Tour’. 17 October 1946, 2. Women’s Wear News. ‘London Model House Group Shows Latest British Fashions to the World’. 19 September 1946, 15. Women’s Wear News. ‘London’s Most Spectacular Fashion Show’. 3 October 1946, 15. Women’s Wear News. ‘Point of View’. 13 June 1946, 37. Women’s Wear News. ‘Munitions Inspired Most of the New Designs’. 26 September 1946, 2. Woodham, Jonathan. A Dictionary of Modern Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Worsley-Gough, Barbara. Fashions in London. London: A. Wingate, 1952. Worth, Rachel. Fashion and Class. London: Bloomsbury, 2020.

232

Bibliography

Wray, Elizabeth. Dress Design. London: Studio Publications, 1953. Wray, Elizabeth. Fashion as a Career. A Lecture Delivered at Leicester College of Art. Leicester: Leicester College of Art, 1944. Wray, Margaret. The Women’s Outerwear Industry. London: G. Duckworth, 1957. WW2 Internees (Aliens) Index Cards 1939–1947. The National Archives; Kew, London, England. Yorkshire Post. ‘Factory Girls See Their Work at Fashion Show’. 19 September 1946, 1. Yorkshire Post. ‘Hetty (Wholesale Gowns)’. 1 November 1946, 5. Yoxall, Harry. A Fashion of Life. London: Taplinger, 1966. Zelker, Raymond. The Polly Peck Story: A Memoir. London: Strathearn, 2001.

Index Acquer 66, 88 Allen, Jean 109–10, 134, 189 The Ambassador 65–6, 79, 81, 83, 123, 125 American Manufacture 7–8, 10, 45–55, 62, 114, 121, 144–6, 149–50 Amies, Hardy 28, 138, 155 Armour, Charles 114 Ascher 8, 100, 130–2 Associated Fashion Designers 180–1, 190 Austerity 25, 54, 60, 67, 89, 90 Balenciaga, Cristóbal 54, 94, 95, 98, 99, 112 Balmain, Pierre 155 Banks, Arthur 77, 141, 162 Barbour, Joyce 127 Baroque 66 Barran, John 79 Barrett Street Trade School 107 BBC 68, 136–42 Berard, Christian 131 Berketex 125 Berlin ready-to-wear trade 21–2, 24, 96, 110 Birtwell, Celia 174 Black, Mary 18, 19, 30, 46–7, 66, 124 Bonwit Teller 154, 155–6, 177 Bourne and Hollingsworth 79–80, 171 Brambir, William 47 Brenner (family and company) 2, 8, 9, 18–20, 31–2, 40, 52, 68–9, 70, 78, 84, 85, 91–2, 125, 134, 148–9, 150, 152, 154, 187 Britain Can Make It 10, 64, 70, 74–86, 87 British Fashion Council 183 Bruton Street 25, 29, 35–7, 42, 169 Burnett, John 66 Busvine, Richard 136 Byrne, Kiki 175–6 Carnegie, Hattie 114 Carr-Jones Family. See: Susan Small

Cash, Angela 176–7 ­Ceiling prices 46, 55, 57–62, 63, 70, 71, 90 Charles, Caroline 177 Charles, Hilary 127 Chelsea 168, 175–6 Clark, Ossie 6, 186 Cleveland Belle, James 81 Clothing Export Council 179,183 Cojana 174 Copying 4–5, 11–12, 16, 46, 50, 59, 61, 69, 73–4, 90, 93–114, 121–2, 145, 150–1, 157, 183, 186 Council of Industrial Design 10, 64, 74–86 Courtaulds 132, 182, 185 Croydon School of Art 174 Dannenbaum, Fritz (Fred Dannen). See: Silhouette de Luxe Darke, Alicia 127 Davies, Anthea 174 Debenham and Freebody 57 Defining wholesale couture 56–62 Dent Allcroft 79 Department stores 8, 29, 43, 57, 68, 95, 120, 122, 150, 154, 155, 157, 171 Dereta 125 Designers in the wholesale couture trade 10, 11, 13, 24, 33, 45, 46, 52, 67, 74, 80, 81–2, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96–7, 101, 102, 106–10, 111–14, 115, 121, 122, 146, 153, 155, 163, 169, 189, 190 Dior, Christian 94, 95, 96, 105–6, 111–12, 122, 189 Dorland, Robert 182 Dorville. See Rose and Blairman East End Businesses 8, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28 Edmonton Technical Institute 174 Educating emerging designers 6, 170–4 Ellandee 185

234

Index

Esterel, Jacques 96 Exporting wholesale couture 1, 9, 11, 24, 52, 58, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73–4, 75, 87, 92, 137, 143–62, 177–84, 188–9

Hildebrand dress 180 Holt Renfrew 154 Horrockses 41, 106, 162, 168, 189 Hulanicki, Barbara 6

Fashion buyers 100–1 Fashion Export Group 3, 13, 144, 145–8, 159–60, 177, 179, 189 Fashion and Fabrics (inc Overseas addition and Draper’s Organiser) 66, 79, 80, 123–4 Fashion Fortnight 141, 144, 158–60 Fashion House Group 3, 5, 11, 144, 159–62, 176, 177–84, 185, 189, 190 Fath, Jacques 94, 102–7 Felber, Harold 8 Fellowes, Reginald Mrs. 79 Foale and Tuffin 6, 177 Frank Usher 101, 109, 141, 160, 175–6, 189 Fredrica. See: Frederick Starke Freedman, Carol 180 Freiman’s 41, 169

Ironside, Janey 173

Gardiner, Miss 79 Garland, Madge 79, 80, 99, 100, 171–4 Gilbert, Rosalinde 78 ­Gilchrist, M & Son 105 Givenchy, Hubert 94, 98 112, 122 Glenny, C.F. 80 Goalen, Barbara 130–1 Gor-ray 125 Government contract work 52 Green, Jane Elizabeth 8 Gross and Fuss 77 Grosvenor House 158 Grosvenor Street 31, 35, 40 Guild of British Creative Designers 10, 64, 66–8, 69, 77, 79, 86–92, 158, 190 H. Liebes 150–1 Hammersmith School of Art 172 Harella 125 Harrods 39, 56 Harrow School of Art 175 Hartnell, Norman 35, 37, 123, 162 Harvey and Clark 66 Havinden, Ashley 80 Hawick 32–3 Henry, Elizabeth 31, 78

Jaeger 77, 94 James, Charles 37 Jane and Jane 180 Jean Varon (John Bates) 6, 178, 179 Jersey Company 68 Jewish immigration 3–4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20–7, 28, 32, 33, 44, 47, 49–52, 96, 110, 114, 132, 145, 188 Jones, David 68, 157–8 Juda, Elsbeth. See: The Ambassador Juda, Hans. See: The Ambassador Kaye, Leslie 108, 155 Kendall, Kay 127 Kingston School of Art 174 Koupy. See: Kuperstein Krohnberg, Samuel and Louis 49–50, 52 Kuperstein, Charles 8, 9, 23, 33, 51, 68, 77, 78, 84, 95, 96, 98, 110–11, 115, 122, 124, 145, 148–9, 150, 152, 154 Labelling 115–23 Lancashire Handbag Company 185 Leathercraft 77 Messsrs. Legget Nicholson and Parterns 70 Leser, Tina 152 Linzi Line 165 ­Liss, Jack 49, 52 Llandudno 34 Loewinberg, Walter. See: Silhouette de Luxe London (myth, legend of) 7, 126, 134–6, 142, 150–3 London Fashion Week 11, 144, 156, 160–1, 181–4 London couture 3, 4, 5, 28, 30, 37, 57, 68, 70–1, 75–6, 77–9, 81, 123, 134, 137–42, 158–9, 185 Luchs, Joe 49, 52 Madam shops 43 Mahrenholz, Harald 110–11 Maison Arthur 110

Index Manchester Art Gallery 8 Mantle and Costume Manufacturers Export Group 158 Marcus, W&O 31–3, 54, 68, 104–5, 126, 154, 182 Marks, John 180 Marlborough dresses 180 Marsh, Veronica 174 Marshall, Cherry 127 Marshall, Thomas 123 Mass produced fashion 3, 49–52, 59, 125, 145, 154 Massey, Harry (inc Simon Massey) 23, 31, 49–52, 53–5, 62, 68, 101, 109, 118, 174–5 Maxwell, Vera 152 Messrs. Marten Stewart 111 Matita 14–17, 33, 48–9, 66, 77, 106, 117, 123, 124, 127, 132, 134, 143–4, 148–9, 150, 152, 154, 162, 185–7 Mayfair 7, 8, 31, 34, 35, 41, 53, 67, 82, 116, 132, 175–6 McCardell, Claire 152 Mellish Richardson 84 Mercia. See: Henry Scott Meredith, Ian 37 Middle class consumers 2, 4, 5, 14, 17–18, 26, 30, 44, 115, 128–30, 137, 142, 173, 188, 189 Midnight Parade of Fashion 10, 64, 77, 86–92 Mitchell, Leslie 86 Model House Group 3, 5, 9, 10–11, 13, 22, 62, 64, 66, 68–74, 74–86, 89, 90, 91–2, 135, 136–42, 143–62, 182, 189, 190 Mono 180 Morton, Digby 185 Muir, Jean 6, 177 Museum of London 8 Myers 68 National Museums Scotland 8 Neiman Marcus 65 Nelson, Roger 178, 185 Nesbitt, Robert 86 Newman (Neumann) family. See: Rima Non-Utility 57–62, 87, 120 Nottingham 33–4, 46 Nystrom, Seignon 128

235

O’Neill, Olive. See: Rose and Blairman Operatives in the wholesale couture trade 1–2, 15–16, 31–4, 45–6, 53 Ornstein, Morris 50 Paper rationing 123–5 ­Paris couture 1, 4, 6, 11, 38–9, 69, 93–100, 112, 121–2 Peggy Page 50 Peters, Andre 180 Pollitzer, Sigmund 131 Pollock, Alice 186 Polly Peck 50, 97–9, 109, 160, 165 Pontin, P. 79, 80 Popper, Harry B. 108 Portenoy, Irving 49–50, 52 Porter, Vivian 66, 68 Potter, Clare 152 Quant, Mary 6, 175–6, 177, 186 Reed, Ricki 180 Reldan 183, 185–6 Rembrandt 122, 140 Rentner 47 Retailing 17, 18, 43–4, 48, 51, 56, 57–8, 61, 69, 75, 80, 82, 100–1, 102, 115–16, 118, 119–20, 122, 123, 145, 148, 153, 157, 176, 185 Reville 110 Rhona Roy 165, 180 Rima 8, 22–3, 30, 37, 52, 68, 73, 78, 83, 84, 108–9, 120, 132, 147–8, 150, 152, 162 R.M.H.O. 60–1, 70 Royal Albert Hall 10, 64, 86 Royal College of Art 110, 171–4 Rose and Blairman 2, 6, 8, 13–15, 17, 33–4, 39–43, 46–8, 68, 99, 101, 111–14, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 129, 132–4, 148–9, 152, 162, 172, 174, 189 Rose, Nola 130 Russell, Mark 180 Russell, Peter 37 Sambo Fashions 104, 174 St. Martins School of Art 110, 172, 176–7 Schulz, Bob 178 Scott, Henry 57, 64, 66, 67, 86–7, 190

236 Scott James, Anne 79, 80 Second World War 7, 9, 10, 25, 31, 33, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 118, 124, 129, 136, 171, 189 Sekers 98, 132 Selincourt and Sons 66, 77 Seton Cotterill 66 Settle, Alison 63, 73–4, 80 Sharpe, J.S. 66 Silhouette de Luxe 21–2, 53, 68, 72, 96–7, 157 Simonetta 155 Simpson, Adele 47 Simpson’s 156 Sir John Cass School of Art 172 Sizing 45, 46, 47–9, 101, 156 ­Skinner, David 185 South East Essex School of Art 174 Spectator Sports 2, 43, 52, 68, 77, 78, 111, 112–14, 127–8, 132, 134 Sportswear (sportsclothes and sportskits) 13–18, 20, 111, 113, 117, 146 Starke and Weinbaum family. See: Starke, Frederick Starke, Frederick (company and man) 8–10, 24–30, 33, 35–9, 42, 44, 48–9, 56–60, 68–9, 71, 72, 78, 81–2, 93, 95, 100, 101–7, 108–9, 118–19, 120, 122, 124, 127, 130–2, 134, 135, 137–8, 148–9, 150, 151, 152, 153–8, 160, 163–70, 172–4, 177–84, 185–8 Stead, Albert 79 Steinberg and Sons 162 Stevenson’s of Dungannon 132 Stiebel, Victor 28, 37, 123 Summers, Gerald 114 Sun Engraving Co 123 Susan Small 30, 46, 99, 108–9, 115, 125, 127, 132, 149, 160, 174, 182, 189, 190

Index Swift, W.A. 80 Swinburne, Nora 127 T. Eaton 152, 156, 157 Taste 17–18, 38, 89–92, 101, 105, 121, 127, 152, 157, 157, 181 Topolski, Feliks 8 Toye, Wendy 86 Trilnick, Percy 51–2, 145–6 Tuczek shoes 28 Utility 31, 52–4, 57, 58, 62, 68, 75–6, 120 Vasso, Amerigo 46 Victoria and Albert Museum 8–9, 10, 64, 74–86, 87, 102–7 Vienna ready-to-wear trade 21–4 Vyer, Margaret 127 Wainwright, Janice 174–5 Weissenberg, Hans (W.H. Wallace). See: Spectator Sports Welford, C.R. 66, 88 West End businesses 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 31–2, 34–43, 112–13, 116 Whitelock, Charles C. 80 Whittaker, Michael 140, 161 Wilson, Shelagh 130 Wimbledon College of Art 174 Windsmoor 125 Withers, Audrey 79, 80, 91–2 Wolland’s 122 Wray, Elizabeth 45, 79 Yates, W.E. Ltd 84 Zelker family. See Polly Peck

Plate 1  Purple wool coat by Koupy and red wool coat by Simon Massey, late 1940s/ early 1950s. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 2  Dress of printed crepe by Rima. Fabric designed by Feliks Topolski for Ascher Ltd, c.1947. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

­P late 3  Koupy cherry red Utility coat with CC41 label, c.1942–5. © Museum of London.

Plate 4  Gobert jacket in blue paisley brocade with large shawl collar and peplum detail. The jacket has an R.M.H.O. label loosely stitched into the side seam, 518 was their company identification number, 1949. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

­ late 5  Frederick Starke green wool suit, late 1950s and gold and silver brocade P evening dress, late 1950s. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 6  Silk dress by Koupy with ‘double elevens’ label, c.1948.

Plate 7  Advertising image featuring a Matita tennis outfit, Drapers’ Organiser, for May 1930.

Plate 8  Brenner advertisement, Vogue, 19 February 1936. © Mary Evans Picture Library.

Plate 9  Frederick Starke advertisement featuring Ascher silk scarves, May 1948. © Retro AdArchives/Alamy Stock Photo.

Plate 10  Frederick Starke dress in Seker’s ‘crease and crush resistant’ nylon. The dress featured in Fashion and Fabrics in November 1949. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 11  Colour feature of Frederick Starke garments sketched by Rene Dalgleish. Are Media Pty Limited/The Australian Women’s Weekly, 5 September 1951.

Plate 12  Frank Usher cotton evening dress with hooped skirt c.1959. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 13  Front cover of Tatler, 9 May 1962 celebrating London Fashion Week photographed by Barry Warner. Dresses by Frederick Starke, Susan Small and Jean Allen, 1962. © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans.

Plate 14  Three Frederick Starke ‘Fredrica’ cotton dresses from the Spring/Summer 1954 collection. Green dress lent by Donna Grimaldi. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 15  Tricel jersey dress and matching cardigan. Label states ‘Simon Massey, Designed by Janice Wainwright.’ The textile print was designed by Anthea Davies who also designed prints for Biba, 1970. Photograph by Liz Tregenza.

Plate 16  Janice Wainwright for Simon Massey tricel jersey outfits, from the same collection as the dress and cardigan seen in plate 15, photographed by Jim Lee. Unpublished version of an image originally featured in Flair, February 1970. Credit: Jim Lee.