Threads Logo Threads Logo Facebook Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Headphones Icon Favorite Navigation Search Icon Forum Search Icon Main Search Icon Close Icon Video Play Icon Indicator Arrow Icon Close Icon Hamburger/Search Icon Plus Icon

Sign in or become an insider to access this story

Sign In

The Obsolete Pattern: Re-creating a 1930s Men’s Union Suit

Article Image

As a fan of vintage patterns, I am especially drawn to styles that are no longer (or rarely) worn today: garments like smoking jackets, painters’ smocks, ladies’ bed jackets, and formal gloves. On eBay recently, I purchased a vintage men’s pattern lot that included a pattern for a men’s union suit, Simplicity 1335 (in my size no less), which dates from the early-to-mid 1930s.

A rare find

Simplicity 1335 pattern

Notice the NRA eagle in the lower left-hand corner symbolizing FDR’s National Recovery Administration, founded in 1933—and declared unconstitutional two years later. Simplicity 1335 is a rare pattern, although the union suit itself was ubiquitous in the early decades of the 20th century. It was popularized in advertisements by such well-known menswear manufacturers as BVD, Munsingwear, and Hanes. The word union refers to the combination of top and bottom into a single garment; in the United Kingdom, this undergarment style was known…

Start your 14-day FREE trial to access this story.

Start your FREE trial today and get instant access to this article plus access to all Threads Insider content.

Start Your Free Trial

Sign up for the Threads eletter

Get the latest including tips, techniques and special offers straight to your inbox.

Sign Up

Threads Insider

Get instant access to hundreds of videos, tutorials, projects, and more.

Start Your Free Trial

Already an Insider? Log in

Subscribe to Threads today

Save up to 42% and get a free gift



  1. Rmcalister77 | | #1

    Hi Peter, I just made the same union suit yesterday, but I’m finding that my back and seat of the suit is awfully baggy... While the front fits me just fine, the back has too much room. Is this how it is designed or what do you suggest I do to tailor fit it better?

    1. User avater
      Peter_Lappin | | #2

      One thing you might try is to adjust the button placement on piece "D" so that there's more overlap, resulting in a less baggy fit. The fit is definitely roomier than a standard pair of stretch underwear: remember that men wore MUCH fuller pants so there was more room for extra fabric. Hope that helps!

      1. Rmcalister77 | | #3

        Thank you! I will give this a try!

Log in or become a member to post a comment.

More From Threads

Discussion Forum

Recent Posts and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |

Threads Insider Exclusives

View All
View All

Shop the Store

View All
View More