TEMPLATE ERROR: Unterminated string literal in [data:blog.url == "http://sewskateread.blogspot.com/2015/02/newsflash-april-burda-early-preview-and.html;] before 104 Sew Skate Read: Inside Patrones

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Inside Patrones

Ok, so I recently bought a bunch of older Patrones magazines from Ebay.  Turns out that they are mostly from the early 2000's, but that is ok with me - I thought they were a great price, even though some of the pages had marking and scuffs.  The pattern sheets were included, and we all know that is the most important part.

Patrones!
While I am really happy with the magazines, I have to take this time to go on a bit of a rant - why can't anyone label the Patrones issue numbers correctly on Ebay????  Seriously guys, it's not that hard.  It is right under the big colored box and it says "No. ###."  Not complicated.  You don't need to know Spanish.  I have only had 1 or 2 instances where Burda has been labeled incorrectly on Ebay, but I have only had 1 or 2 instances where Patrones has been labeled correctly.  It is maddening.  I mean, the pictures have been accurate so far, but never the labeling of the issue number.  I just don't understand why it is so hard.  Seriously guys, get it together.

Anyway, though I think a lot of these patterns are a bit blocky or oversized for my taste, there are a lot I actually want to make too.  Mostly coats, which I am perfectly ok with.  Let's take a look:

From Patrones #163 (September 1999):

Coat #9 (on the right) - I love the shape and classic style.
Coat #10 (on the left) - Another fabulous classic coat (sorry the picture is so dark).
Coat #41 (on the left) - Not a fan of the huge fluffy collar, but I love the
single-breasted style, and the length is really elegant.

From Patrones #189 (October 2001):

Coat #20 (on the left) - Classic coat that makes me think of the 60s.
From Patrones #192 January 2002:

Skirts #18 and #19 - This issue has a lot of great basics like blouses, skirts, and pants.

From Patrones #202 (November 2002):

Check out the shoulders on that coat!  I am also liking the ruffly cardigan in the middle.
Coats!  I don't know why but I am obsessing over the green toggle coat in the middle.
More coats!  So many options...
From Patrones #249 (October 2006):

Coat #7 (on the left) - I am obsessing over this coat!
I love this entire wardrobe section!
The skirt with the little roses, the gathered green shirt, and the fitted jacket...
I might have to make all of these.
There were a lot of other good patterns in these magazines, but these were my favorites.  One thing I have noticed - it seems like the Patrones patterns are a bit more classic and timeless than the Burda patterns.  I mean, I have some Burda magazines from the late 90s/early 2000s and you can definitely tell that most of the clothes are from the late 90s/early 2000s.  It seems to me that Burda patterns are more trendy and current, but that the older patterns are more easily identifiable for a certain era.  With Patrones it seems like a lot of the patterns are very classic shapes, with the styling and photography helping them seem more timeless.  Burda will probably always be my first pattern love, but Patrones is coming up a close second.

4 comments:

  1. There are definitely some timeless pieces from what I see in the photos. I love the idea of sewing patterns from magazines, and then I remember I'd have to trace them off, lol. My hand is just not steady enough to do that. :]

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the insider look at the Patrones magazines. I have never actually seen one before (it must be a dark little rock I live under!!!) Love all the coats, and the ruffly collar on the cardi - if only we all had more sewing time...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, one of the mixed blessings of Burda is that it is often very of the moment. But all those Patrones look completely current without looking trendy. I may have to start buying Patrones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ohh nice score! The older issues are quite good - Patrones & Manequim are so fashion forward the issues stay current for so long :)

    ReplyDelete