MAINLY FOR WOMEN

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 October 1928, Page 3

MAINLY FOR WOMEN

ITEMS OE INTEREST

(Notes by

Marjorie)

SOME GOOD FEATURE. WHAT EVERY WOMAN HAS. I have never seen an ugly woman in my life, writes Margaret Bannerman, the famous actress. Every wosome good feature —good eyes, a beautiful nose, fine teeth, a beautifully moulded face, or a pretty mouth. Or maybe a charming complexion. Nature sees to it that there is compensation for all. Nature adjusts beauty and distributes it with a generous hand and a rare cunning. Nature is a darling, really. We all see beauty in a different way. “Each to his choice,” as Kipling says. But I rejoice the lot has fallen to me to see all my sisters through rosy glasses. Of course, sometimes people will say to me, “I can’t see what you see in her.” And sometimes I may say of a woman many people are praising, “I don’t see what you are raving about.” But, on the whole, in the universal scheme of things I believe that women come off very well. As far as features alone go, I do not think that the race goes to the beautiful. While I cannot bring myself to use the word “plain” in connection with any woman, I do not believe that those less beautiful are handicapped in this world. I would be the last person to say that they are.

There are certain classes of work that may demand a strict type of beauty. Foi’ example, on the stage it creates a good impression in the beginning. But even on the stage beauty alone will get you nowhere — well, nowhere beyond the front row of the chorus. Vivacity is a much greater asset than beauty, and grace beauty’s half-sister —must be close at her side.

Quite an ordinary face will be beautiful by the set of the head upon the shoulders. Laughing eyes will have missed their meaning if they do not make you realise they go with a fore-shortened nose.

I have often been asked if I think a plain woman has to work harder for her place in the sun than a pretty one. Obviously this is a question I cannot answer because it is one I do not understand. No face is plain to me, because every face is the indication of a character, and all character is interesting. And it is character that gets there in the end. Life may be made easy for the pretty girl for a while, but if she has nothing back of her prettiness she is going to come an awful crash before long. When that fatal hour comes discontent spreads an ugly veneer, even on the most perfect features, I advise her to start in young and cultivate her brains and her wit and her charm, and I would like to remind all pretty girls that it is just as bad to be self-conscious of their good looks as for the less good-looking to be selfconscious of their lack of them. I would say the pretty woman has a pull for the first half-hour over her less perfect sister, but the vivacious. woman will put it all over her in thirtyfive minutes, and the woman of charm, no matter if her features are as mixed as a Christmas pudding, is the finest stayer of them all.

Azalea blue crepe de chine was used to express this very charming afternoon frock. There is a petalled effect on the skirt, the draperies falling into points, and a charming finishing note is seen in a narrow silver belt.

WIFE'S BOBBED HAIR. AN ANGRY HUSBAND. A wife who bobbed her hair and lost her husband applied for a maintenance order at Canterbury, England, recently. Mrs Marton said that when her husband went to spend the Christmas of 1926 with her at Whitstable and found she had bobbed her hair, he was very annoyed, hardly spoke to her, and left the next morning. In evidence, Marton admitted that when he found his wife had cut her hair contrary to his wishes he was very much annoyed and only stopped overnight. He attributed his failure to support liis wife to ill-health. Both parties were middle-aged, and the wife said her hair was bobbed owing to rheumatism of her hands. An order for 10s weekly was made.

MODERN GIRL’S DRESS. VIEWS ON COST DIFFER. Does the modern girl pay more for her clothes now than the girl of 1914? According to the calculation of the Ministry of Labour she does—l2o per cent, more —but according to the big stores she does not. An official of a West End store said to a reporter yesterday: “The principal difference between pre-war and post-war clothes is quality rather than price. Whereas a woman in 1914 might buy an outfit for £2O which would last her several years, and then be passed on to a relative, or be cut down for the children, a woman nowadays will buy one for the same cost, or less, but it will not last long because the materials are not so solid. The average modern -woman does not want clothes to last her a life-time. She likes variety, and with the fashions changing so rapidly she could not afford to buy dresses of costly material which become old-fashioned in six months.

“Therefore, instead of buying . real silk dresses for several guineas, she will get a couple of equally attractive artificial silk dresses for less than the cost of the one.” Gloves, stockings, handkerchiefs, and the dainty underclothing which takes the place of the solid woollen and flannel variety all actually cost less cash down, it was stated, than in pre-war days. It was agreed by several big stores that women nowadays are only spending the same amount on clothes per year as they did in pre-war days, and that although the quality may not be so good or lasting they have far more hats, coats, frocks, stockings, shoes, gloves, etc., than in formei’ days. Men’s clothes are considerably dearer now than before the war, though the percentage of 120 was said to be rather over-estimated. The following figures are a fair average of the 1914 and the 1928 prices for the same quality goods: —

Of course men, like women, can Eave poorer quality at cheaper prices if they will.

DAYLIGHT SAVING.

Remember! . Advance the clock half-an-hour to-night. Daylight saving commences to-morrow. BLACK STOCKINGS. In matters of mode nothing is more striking than the way in which the whirligig of time transforms the grave into the gay, the lively into the severe, Puritan decorum, indeed, into Cavalier daring (remarks G.M.A. in an exchange). The Oxford authorities, for instance, believe that there is something staid, serious, and academic about black stockings, so that a woman under-graduate, when presenting herself for an examination, must adopt “subfusc” dress. “By ‘subfusc’ must be understood a white blouse, a dark skirt, black stockings, and black shoes.” Yet if black stockings are to-day considered all that stockings ought to be in demure dignity there have been periods when they have been deemed to exercise a diametrically opposite effect, and the very first wearers of black hose felt all the self-consciousness and devilry of the peasants who started to deck their, legs with plaited haybands. How Henry VIII. regarded black stockings is shown by the fact that he left behind him six pairs of them, compared with only one pair of white, purple, blue, or parti-colourings, and his daughter Elizabeth —a good judge of smartness and the arresting in her sartorial effects —had no happier moment than when Mistress Montague, her silk-woman, presented her with stockings that were coal-black. There is no doubt that these were regarded as being in harmony with her more frivolous moments, and that, had she sat for an academic examination, Queen Elizabeth would have donned her white stockings with the gold thread clocks!

A turp. of the years and white stockings, with men and women alike, are for ceremony, dark or coloured hose for the informal domestic occasion. Once, when Byron was a host at Newstead Abbey, somebody knocked against the legs of his great friend, Matthews, a Fellow of Downing. “Sir,” Matthews protested, “it may be all very well for you who, no doubt, have many white stockings to dirty other people’s, but to me, who have only this one pair, which I have put on in honour of our host, no apology can compensate for your carelessness. Besides the awful expense of washing!” Had “subfusc” dress for women come under the consideration of this early nineteenthcentury don, he would certainly have discountenanced the black stockings on the score of its lack of dignity, that, indeed, it degraded scholarship! BUTTONHOLES AND POCKETS. TRY BINDING THEM. If you are making your dress at home, and wish to give it a tailored effect, bind the huttonholes and the pockets. A little practice will be necessary if you have not already learned to do this, but the principle is soon mastered, and can be used to good advantage in finishing a smart garment. On coats, suit jackets, and tailored woollen dresses, the effect is especially chic. Mark, or sew, a straight line on the wrong side of the material, indicating the length and position of the buttonhole, or pocket. Then cut a strip of the same material to extend a little more than an inch on both sides and ends of the marked line. This strip may be cut on the bias, or true with tbe thread o£ the material.

Lay the strip on the material, right sides together, with the centre of the strip exactly over the marked line, and tack, Stitch a rectangle around the tacked line, as far from the line itself as the desired width of the buttonhole. Cut through both thicknesses of ma-

terial, almst to the end of the line. At each end make a very small diagonal clip toward the corner of the rectangle. Turn the free ends of the strip through the slash. Tack in place, press and stitch. In binding the inset pockets, make the strip long enough for the desired width of the pocket. —C.A.

£ s. d. £ s. d. 1914 1928 Suit. ... 4 4 0 10 10 0 Boots ... 0 15 0 1 10 0 Caps .. 0 5 0 1 7 6 Bowler hat .. ... 0 3 9 0 10 6 Overcoat .... 15 0 7 10 0 Collars 6d to 9d Is to 1/6