Given that this book opens with a 2 page long casual reminder that “Flappers” weren’t the norm in the 1920′s, they were a specific youth subculture, I was so excited to keep reading. Unfortunately? While this book is likely great if you're looking for something pretty to look at that's simple and only contains visual references... If you've picked this up thinking it would be a legitimate sourcebook on 1920's fashion, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
There really isn't much to read; for as thick as this book is (and it is very thick), I could estimate the word count- not including image sources- at maybe 3,000 words... 5,000 - 6,000 if I'm really being generous; there is a 1 page "Preface", and the 14 page "Introduction" (that's counting the pages with intro text on them). But once you get passed the introduction, the rest of the book is all pictures (except for a 4 page "select Bibliographies" section, plus acknowledgements, an index that is practically useless, and a small bibliography- all located at the end of the book).
That's it. That's all there is.
All the pictures are organized into four sections: Inner, outer, evening, accessories, and "other". And I genuinely don't know what book on this good green Earth that one reviewer read to make them say it had "good essays in front of each section", but they certainty didn't read this book (2011); regardless of what section one is flipping through, there is absolutely no accompanying text; there are no section prefaces talking about anything.
There's no section prefaces telling you about the standards for the categories; common prints and fabrics, favored cuts; history and silhouette changes through the decade; or otherwise informing you about trends and the like... Nothing ... You are simply given a page that tells you which category you've stumbled into, and the rest is a varied mix of fashion plates, advertisements, and vintage photographs from the era- which they couldn't even be assed to organize chronologically through the era at the very least.
Hell, there isn't even a boudoir, lingerie, or undergarments / foundation wear section, and there is no Sportswear section, ether- though these do get a few brief pages in "other" (along with wedding dresses and children's clothes) despite being categories with more than an ample amount of plates and extants to warrant their own categories entirely. Likewise there's is no menswear in the book at all- only womenswear.
You could honestly just save yourself the $30 this would cost you, and find 90% of these images for free in various online galleries hosted by museums, historical image databases, and so on and so forth. Because without accompanying information this book should have in order to legitimately call itself a sourcebook? There's virtually no difference between looking through it, and looking through a digitized gallery... Which is incredibly disappointing because when something calls itself a sourcebook, and is this thick and heavy to boot, then I expect it to actually be a sourcebook- not a glorified pinterest board.
The 1930's "definitive sourcebook" is the same as the 1920's one by the same two authors... And when I say "the same", I meant that it's practically the exact same book- just with different pictures and information in the introduction.
It follows the same format almost down to the mark. It's all just photos. There is no mention of cut, cloth, production, methodology, preference, or anything; what historical information is provided is sparse and virtually useless... It's literally just... All the exact same all over again.
Honestly, nothing that I have to say about this one is very much different to what I had to say about their 20's sourcebook. So there's really no point in repeating myself. Though I will say that I genuinely cannot fathom how they keep producing the same exact book and considering them "definitive source books"! I can't! Truly, what must have gone on in their mind to have convinced them that a book of mere photos and illustrations with no mention of anything genuinely related or relevant to fashion and its history and production at the time, would make these "definitive" in any true meaning of the word? They must have lost their marbles.
I'm praying this series gets better as it goes on, but I've no hope for that and one book left to get through.
The 1940's "definitive sourcebook" is only slightly better than the 1920's and 1930's ones by the same two authors- and you can read my review of the 1920's one over here; nothing I have to say about this one is very much different to what I had to say about their 20's sourcebook (and everything I said about the 20's applies to the 30's nearly to the letter), so there's really no point in repeating myself.
The only difference between this 1940's sourcebook and the other two, really, is that the introduction is longer and the sections actually have introductions of their own finally- if you can call a 1 page bit of text an introduction to 200+ pages of fashion plates that still aren't chronologically organized, anyways. Even with that minor improvement, however, the book is basically the exact same- right down to the organization.
Overall, the book can once again be boiled down to essentially being a glorified pinterest board... This one's just vaguely more informative this time.