THE CRAZE FOR FEWER CLOTHES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 178, 2 September 1914, Page 4

THE CRAZE FOR FEWER CLOTHES.

The failure of a well-known Bond and i Regent Streets 'firm, well known to women of all nationalities and particularly'to colonials, and famous for their fine underclothing and silk petticoats, etc., has caused much comment in feminine circles, especially when One of the pleas for failure put forward by the manager was the enormous loss owing to the present-day fashion of no petticoats and dainty "undies" being worn (writes a London correspondent). \We can go even further than that now, for our clothes grow scantier, but their cost increases, a problem whieh perplexes many. A year ago a of '' The Times'' wrote: —'' Certainly there is an orgy of undressing going on, and it shows no sign of abatement. And what is to be the end? It is difficult to see; but obviously when you have gone on undressing for a certain time, you come to the end of what there is to take off, and the only thing to do is' to put your clothes on again." We are not putting on our clothes again, the '' orgy'' has gone on since, and once more it is being asked, how far the fashionable woman's craze for "undress" is going, and how long it is likely to last. Last summer women bared their throat and ankles. Since j then their gowns have got' lower and lower, the winter had no effect on them., Under fur coats the most flimsy gowns were worn, the throat and chest well bared, and the poor ankles-cried in vain

for proper protection. Gowns have been slit, petticoats have vanished, stockings have become so diaphanous as to be embarrassing( to the Observer, whilst coverings for the upper portion of the body have been almost discarded—if you call a layer of tulle or ninon a covering. According to the leading designers in autumn fashions, there'is little sign of a return to more garments or fuller ones. No! For once, woman is determined to have her own sweet way. She has found that she can do without petticoats; she says she is much more comfortable* without them; is the most important pointr—rthat she has a better figure without all these bunches of material hung round Undoubtedly the particularly hot summer we are experiencing has-largely accounted for the lightness of dress. According to an expert opinion, '' You cannot have much less than eight ounces in a gown," and it is not because the gowns are not lined, that they are transparent, but because so little is worn underneath. The shedding of the : petticoat was -a deliberate matter worked out, gradually. First, it was one, instead of two, then a light thing hung on a tape instead of a band of Petersham to support something weighty. Can anyone blame us if we prefer the lightness and comfort of a slip' of Japanese silk or crepe de chine to those starched and frilled abominations of twenty years ago? By the way, it would be rather interesting to hear the. views'of the starch makers on the present-day fashions; surely, there must be a dead loss'to them since the fashion for making pasteboards of our underskirts, blouses, and linen skirts has departed! After all, it is not in the quantity of clothing that warmth depesds, but cer-

tain it is that some revulsion must take-, place before long against the fashionable woman who is garbed only in stock-' ingß and gowns. Yet prophets of-a re- ' vulsion against the scantiness in dress are confounded by the fact that women seem determined not to go back to the heavier and more enfolding costumes. To those who- point out that the lack of garments to-day would have givea "Victorian women a fit, "the fashionable reply that their dress is comfortable, and they intend to stick' td'it.