These kinds of lingerie items are so special and rare. Dainty, lightweight robes like the one on the left were standard bedroom wear in the ’40’s and before – the thing to wear between rising and dressing.
The contrasting colors of the rayon gown on the left are so unusual and little details like the tiny buttons and shoulder-augmentation make this a distinctive garment – not just something to throw on absentmindedly. It’s from the late 1930’s to 1940’s.
The gown on the right is even older. It is of white/ivory rayon satin, with side snap or hook closure in a plain sheath style. I’ve paired a bed jacket with it, made of similar fabric. This could be adapted to a formal dance or wedding gown and would be from the late 1920’s to the 1930’s, similar to a Coco Chanel design of that time (the dress – not the bed jacket).
Anyway, they are wonderful finds and gave me a real thrill to discover them! The fun never ends . . . . . . . . . .
MORGANA MARTIN, THE MAGICVINTAGESPY
BLOG: MAGICVINTAGESPY.COM
BOOK: HOW TO FIND THE BEST IN VINTAGE FASHION – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.COM
Magicvintagespy 
TWO LOVELY TRUE VINTAGE DRESSING GOWNS FROM THE 1930′S – 1940′S – Magicvintagespy
TWO LOVELY TRUE VINTAGE DRESSING GOWNS FROM THE 1930’S – 1940’S – Magicvintagespy
And no one wears stuff like this anymore, which is a shame. We sleep in an old T-shirt, we maybe throw on a ratty bathrobe, if we’re not getting dressed and going out we lay around in the dreaded sweatpants (or worse yet, the yoga pants that have never done yoga). We’ve become such lazy slots. 😟
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I agree it is a shame. But, what if those of us who prefer a little elegance in life decide to do it our way? I guess that’s what it’s all about – works for me! Love talking to people, like you, who get that, too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Magicvintagespy and commented:
I’m adding this to my current wedding dress series because I now believe that that’s exactly what the gown on the right originally was in the 1930’s! I didn’t have an archive photo of it by itself, but take a look . . . . .
LikeLike