I found something VERY interesting on Ebay: a highly unusual bunnysuit
https://www.ebay.com/itm/158125400919
The description says it was worn by the seller's mother in 1961 at the Chicago Playboy Club, but there's so many unusual details here.
The eras and associated items seem to be a mishmash of eras, and not 1961. The early 1960s still had yarn tails (if they look like sherpa fabric in photos, they're yarn tails), and as far as I can tell, the garter is late 60s or early 70s or even later. No known Bunnies wore this style of garter (the closest are the Cabaret Bunnies in 1980s, which suits often had lace detailing and suspender style garters, but not elastic leg garters), and I found an ad for a very similar type of garter (but only in white or black -- images found online show a black garter with white lace, so it doesn't seem to be dyed) in the July 1972 issue of the magazine, so it's merch, not something issued to the Bunnies.
It's pretty common for suits this old to accumulate related Playboy items that weren't initially associated with the suit when it was issued.
But here's the thing that interests me the most: the suit itself.
There's a few things that stand out.
I'm going to start with the more minor things and then go to the big glaring thing.
First: the color. I'm guessing it's discolored and not a shot fabric, but it's really hard to tell with the lighting and angles. Evidence for this is that the crotch area of that second photo isn't that darker and bluer purple color (as opposed to the lighter purplish pink of the rest of the suit) that you see on the torso near the boning. The stitching color is also a much bluer color than the rest of the suit, but that doesn't mean quite as much because some of the stitching appears to be a completely different thread, and sometimes suits used different colors of thread on the inside or for things like the hooks and eyes. The crotch area has what appears to be a water stain and it's a more blue purple, closer to the color near the boning:
I suspect that either wear and improper handling faded the majority of the suit, or the boning had some sort of chemical reaction and discolored the area on the torso.
Second: the rosette appears to attach with a pin back. There are no hooks on the suit near the hip, and she wears it on a cardigan or jacket in the worn image. (Bunnies were issued two suits, typically in two different colors, and two pairs of shoes, which they got dyed to match, so the color of the suit differing in the photo makes sense to me.)
I did find this image of a Bunny from the Los Angeles Club in 1965 with the same jacket and her rosette also on her jacket:
The bunny on the right does not appear to be wearing a rosette nametag at all, but other Bunnies photographed the same year at the same club in this digital collection are also not wearing nametags. This may have just been how suits were in the early 1960s -- it's hard to find information about them before the late 60s revamp (when fur tails were added, along with some other design detail changes).
Third: the hip lacing appears to be grey. This might also have discolored over time, but I don't see any discoloration in the knots. Here's a later suit for comparison, when they would use dyed to match shoelace material for the lacing:
Also, this suit has a plain metal zipper instead of a color matched one:
Lapped zippers with a metal toothed zipper were standard.
Have you noticed it yet? The main thing that caught my eye?
That's right, this is the ONLY suit I have ever seen that's LINED.
Everything else about the construction looks pretty normal. Hanging loops. Hooks and eyes for the tail. The zipper. The bias hemming. Having pockets in the cups for padding (though these are unusual cups -- we'll get to that). Having the Bunny's name written in the cup. Hook and eye on the zipper top. The boning placement. As far as I can tell from the limited photos, the way the hip lacing holes work.
But every other suit I've seen is unlined. Here's that orange suit again:
These are very very standard in terms of interior construction. Note the details here. The boning channels are sewn directly to a white strength fabric with the channeling material itself visible. The cups are some type of padded fabric or possible foam covered in fabric that is visible. You can see the underwire channeling, and the cup pockets are confined to just the cups. The side seams are sewn together and left raw, not contained by the strength layer like all the other seams. (This is because suits were manufactured as a front and back, with fronts coming in 34D or 36D, and then sewn together on site to fit the bunny. This was standard by 1963, as Gloria Steinem describes the process in A Bunny's Tale.)
By contrast: the suit that Bunny Patti is wearing is lined in the same material as the suit itself. The boning channels seem to be sewn to this lining, but are contained inside the suit rather than visible. Also, the pouches for bust padding start at the underbust rather than at the cup itself, and are sewn at the outer edge of the cup (past the underwire edge).
Take a close look at this photo again.
(I also outlined the edge of the cup padding pouch in green)
Look on the far left side, around where I circled. You can see stitching for the boning channel, and...wait, what is that? A seam? A seam that is NOT raw edges?
This is the side seam. If you look on the outside of the suit, a classic suit's side seam starts right next to the bust cups.
This is the outside of this suit, with the rough placements of the underwire and the boning highlighted in yellow. Compare to the orange suit above -- you should be able to see the seam edges that far down.
The photos aren't of a quality where it's definitive, and there could very well be a raw-edged seam that's just slightly out of view, and I'm seeing something else in that photo. But from how it appears? It looks like it was lined AFTER it was fitted to the Bunny.
If this is truly a 1961 suit, it might be that early suits had different construction than later ones, and that this was more "handmade" (all clothing is handmade) rather than factory made and standardized like the later suits were. Most extant suits are later 60s, 1970s, and 1980s, so a very early 60s suit is a very rare find.
The photograph appears to be real, and the seller claims that their mom (the original owner of the suit) worked at Playboy "for many years" (through the 1980s, it seems, based on their other items for sale). Everything is pointing to this being a real suit -- fakes and costume versions even from the 1960s looked different. Also, as a fun aside, someone who appears to be the same woman, with the same name, was photographed for a May 1977 pictorial titled "Bewitched By Older Women" (lmaoooo) where she was 34 (brb crumbling into dust). This would have made her roughly 18 in 1961. If she worked for Hef for many years, it would make sense as well that she would have items of different eras, and also possible have a merchandise item like the garter.
So! Very very unusual suit here. I wish I could afford it, because I am FASCINATED by the construction. This appears to be a suit made potentially pre-standardization? I'm inclined to believe it's a real suit despite the oddities, and it being so early is why it has so many differences from the suits I'm used to. The second club to open was Miami in May of 1961, so it's very possible that the suits were made in-house prior to a second club opening, but I would need to go back to some original sources to see if there's confirmation of that.
Very fun, uh, rabbit hole to go down, regardless.
blakekathryn
origamiaround
yousharknotpass
vaporwave
2087
