There are 5 patterns, and somewhat confusingly, they jump pages to continue, leap-frogging each other. I don't know why this was done - it would make sense to keep the patterns continuous, and I don't see any benefit in layout terms, other than that there is a photograph on each of the first five pages, all in roughly the same place.
There was obviously a trend at the time to give women's names to various styles, and I suspect they got re-used rather frequently. This time, they are:
- "Mavis", worked in Patons Super Scotch fingering 2 ply - a short sleeved top.
- "Kathleen", also worked in Patons Super Scotch fingering 2 ply - a long sleeved top with a small jabot at the v-neck and long ribbed 'cuffs' reaching to the elbows.
- "Frivolity", worked in 2 ply Super-Fingering wool and Fine-spun Angora wool (the brands are not specified but the colours, Eau-de-nil green and pink, is) - a long sleeved top with a wide collar frill and turned-back long, frilled cuffs, the frills edged with the angora.
- "Breton", crocheted in Semco Pearl Cotton - short sleeved, with a panel in the front worked in colour, the flowers looking very 'folk art', described as 'an unusual front'.
- "Judith", worked in Patons Super Scotch fingering 2 ply again - sleeveless and round necked.
"Mavis" looks the most comfortable, and her build, combined with her hairstyle and the style of the top, give her slight hunch to balance a sporty look. "Kathleen", however, looks half-starved and awkward. Allowed to stand, I think she'd have looked quite graceful, and the jumper would have fallen more elegantly, but in this awkward perch, there's something almost of the ugly duckling allowed to attend the ball about her (to mix my fairy tale metaphors).
The model for "Frivolity" is not just perching on a table, she's having to turn three-quarters to face the photographer, and whilst she is obviously trying to look elegant and sophisticated, her blank expression and obvious discomfort make her look almost constipated. As if to make up for it, there is a sketch of a lithe, languorous exquisite lounging below it.
The model for the "Breton" again has the awkward hunch of someone perching on an edge rather than firmly sitting down, but she's made it look almost natural by gazing off at some imaginary bird while she perches on the equally imaginary fence.
Lastly, "Judith" who sensibly refused the photographer's penchant for table-perching and instead stands smiling comfortably at the camera. I don't know if it's the smile - real, but not modern-model-dazzling - the bobbed, uncurled hair or the bracelet worn above the elbow, but if someone told me she was a barmaid or a factory girl, it wouldn't have surprised me.
That's the odd thing about fashion - why should one top make you think "middle class, maybe a teacher until she married" and another "nice working class girl", when they are all advertising to the same market? I simply don't know enough about the fashions and expectations of the time to know if my feelings are in any way accurate, so please don't quote me!