Why is Samantha AGs bestselling doll?

[rachie421]

Thanks for all the interesting answers! I was busy with school so i couldnt get on earlier in the week. I agree with a lot that has been written. I also will acknowledge my mistake of calling Samantha Victorian. I knew that she wasnt, but AG tries to market her as such so thats what i did as well. Thats always irratated me as too, mostly because i think the Edwardian era was A LOT nicer anyway in both clothing and mentality. Anywho, someone commented on Samantha having brown hair and eyes and i actually do like that about her. I have the same combination and it is rarely regarded as "beautiful" with dolls or cartoon characters but with AG, Samantha is known as the pretty girl. Lastly, I wanted to agree with whoever mentioned Felicity being both a tomboy and girly. I always loved that about her because characters are often sterotyped one way or another and she was more complex in that regard.

[Katie from IL]

Samantha is the American Girl collection's signature doll. Has anyone looked at the American girl collection logo lately? The logo is of a girl on her stomach, reading a book. Inside the girl there is an outline of a doll sitting. That doll is Samantha, I believe wearing her cranberry holiday dress(notice the big bow in her hair and at the back of the dress). I think that logo has been around for awhile, and that logo stands for the entire historical AG collection.

[rebecca191]

I was never a big Samantha fan. I've loved history since I was a kid, but I've never really been into the 1900s... I've preferred the 1800s and earlier. The two historical dolls I have are Kirsten and Josefina. I wish I had gotten Felicity as a girl - I probably never will, I want a pre-mattel to match and they are too expensive for me (plus so much of her stuff is retired). I do have a Samantha doll - it was my older sister's, and she left it here for me years ago, she doesn't want it. But I never played with her, or bought anything for her, I just had no interest in her and still don't. I'm keeping it, it's in perfect condition, and pre-mattel from like... very early 1990s, maybe the year Felicity came out?, so I guess it's nice collectible. She never played with her, just displayed her (she liked display dolls more). I actually did enjoy the Samantha stories, but I just didn't have any interest in collecting doll items from that era.

[rachie421]

I have always been aware that Samantha is part of AGs logo and perhaps their "signature" doll but I dont think that has anything to do with how popular she is among collectors or young girls. I think she became their most popular doll for whatever reason and as such, they have marketed her more than the others and it has created a continous circle. The young girls are attracted to what they see more often and which doll has more items.

[mayergirl]

Just wanted to note that technically, the American Victorian period was different from the British. Victorian styles lingered in America much longer than they did in England. My great-grandmother's house was built in 1906, but architecturally, it is considered a Victorian home. Here in America Victorian was a style, not a reign.

[amandajg]

I remember when I was in 3rd grade EVERYONE (including my best friend at the time) wanted Samantha, although for some reason unlike them I had always adored Kirsten for a long time. Anyways, I'm not sure what the popular attraction to Samantha was, but I think it is safe to say that she was and still is the most popular AG. There are several thoughts I have as to why this might be. First of all, I think it has a lot to do with her more "feminine" style. Generalizing a bit, girls who are into dolls can relate to this. Kirsten was a bit more down-to-earth with her pioneer practicality, and Molly was a bit more of a tom boy and didn't have quite as feminine of clothes. (At that time there was no Felicity, Addy, Kit, Kaya, Josefina, or AGTs... but I think we can keep going and saying that Addy was like Kirsten, Kit is less "feminine" like Molly, Kaya is not as easy for most girls to relate to, and Josefina likewise might not be as easy to relate to because her outfits are so culturally-entrenched and not something that most girls today can relate to well, and likewise with Felicity). Putting the problematic classification of calling Samantha "Victorian" aside, I think that there is something about the so-called Victorian era or fin-de-si?cle styles here in the States that still holds a bit of nastalgia. People still build Victorian-style homes (they were especially popular back in the mid-90's), you can still buy Victorian-style or Edwardian-style furniture and decor (Bombay company has several Edwardian-looking pieces, Tiffany-style lights are hugely popular on QVC, etc). There's something about it that still attracts a lot of people, and perhaps many mothers or grandmothers pass on this particular taste to their daughters. Another possible explanation is that AG is generally marketed towards a upper-middle class or upper-class clientelle. Now this is not always true, it holds some weight, generally speaking. (After all, they do have their stores on Michigan Avenue and 5th Avenue, undoubtedly two of the most upper-class shopping streets in the U.S.) If you think about it, what can those girls who are from the mid-to-upper middle class or upper class relate to most? A girl like Samantha, who unlike Kirsten, Addy, Kit, or Molly, doesn't have a lot of concerns about penny-pinching and can instead enjoy leisurely activities a la the Victorians. (OK, so maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but there must be some contaigen from their parent's tastes and socio-economic status that trickles down to girls' overwhelming preference for Samantha). So, I don't want to generalize and say that no one who isn't from the middle or upper classes can enjoy AG, and certainly lots of girls can enjoy any of the AGs regardless of their family's economic status, but I think that it is worth taking into account. Anyways, those are just a few of my thoughts...

[acorniv]

Someone said they grew up lumping all lthe ate 1900's and early early 20th century years together into "Victorian". I think this is common. Teachers seem to almost know less about the diference than the average person, because they are taught to give overviews.

There were not only these eras, there were aesthetic movements within them The Art Neuveau or Fin De Sicle period was one of them - right at the turn of the century. another, actually a reaction to Art Neuveau, was called teh Aesthetic Movement. Art Neuveau started in Paris and quickly spread world wide ( but was huge in Paris). Edwardian things really have their roots in Art Neuveau. The leader of the fashion movement was named Worth, and he was the first person to put a label in his clothes - hence he was the first fashon designer. I have seen his work in Paris and noone has ever done more impecable work.

At the same time in Scotland, Rennie McIntosh and William Morris, plus some others were starting a movement called the Aesthetic Movement, which Liberty of London enthusiasticly marketed for them. Aesthetics were the first back to nature folks.

Although the Scots are credited with starting the movement, I really think there was an undercurrent ready to burst forth from Italy ( Fortuny) the US ( Tiffany. Isadora Duncan, Gustav Stickely) and the northern end of Europe at the same time. Because Aesthetics believed in hand work and used slower methods of constructon of all things, it was a movement that was primarily embraced by the leisure class. Samantha might very well have had clothes and furnishings that were from this movement ( AKA Arts & Crafts) Her dresses would have hung straighter, from the shoulder ( nothing binding was encouraged) and they'd have been handwoven from raw (usually tussah) silk, natural linen and cottons. They were embroidered with flowers generally, in hand dyed tones. Raised satin stitch seems to have been the favorite, but macrame and heavier laces like battenburg and crochet ( even out of rope) was sometimes done.

Fashions in furniture and especially in houses change much slower than in clothing. That is true even today. By 1904 we definatly were wearing Edwardian fashions, not Victorian, in the US, except for a few dour old women. I have many times heard that the US was behind Europe in fashions at this time, and it simply is not true. Ocean travel had become commonplace, and took considerably less time than in say, Felicity's day, and fashon news was eagerly awaited not only in US cities but even out in the sticks. We had an additional advantage - a man named Butterick ( I believe it was his wife, actually) invented paper patterns anyone could follow, and packaged them in lightweight packets that did not weigh down the mail trains much. This afforded even people of modest means to keep up with the latest fashons from Paris.

A wealthy girl would have been outfitted in the latest fashions of the day - it wasn't so much what the guardian's taste that mattered as doing 'the right thing' according to society.

If you can get hold of an old Delineator or the Designer magazine from 1904 you can see exactly what Samantha would have worn. I just pulled out a Designer from April 1904. There is bride on the cover.There are three full page ads for corsets before you even get to the outer fashions. Then lots of ladies wrappers and shirtwaist costumes. A wrapper buttoned up the front. A shirtwaist was a skirt and blouse. A javket costume meant it had an overblouse that hung loose at the waist. A waist was just a dress. There are several 'toilette's' and I can't tell what they mean by that.I am assuming around the house dress.

Then we come to an article titled 'Standard Fashions for Young People" Style 8599 is described as being sized for ages 4-12, and looks like Samantha's white dress wiht a collar that comes out to a point on the shulders - except the look of theday was rounded shoulders, and this dress is made of a drapy fabric to allow for that. Plus the points of the collar come down to her elbows. This colar is called a bertha, and the text states it can be made wihtout it - it's detachab;e. Underneaith is a sleeve not unlike Addy's school dress - an over and undersleeve. The bertha and sleeves are trimmed in guimpe like a sailor colar. The collar is very high and made of lace. The bouse bodice is full and gathered up into the skirt at the hip. Skirt is full and rather short and she wears black hose and plack pointed shoes.

Pale blue nun's veiling is chosen for htis dress, along with guimpe of white lawn, and all over nansook (eyelet) embroidery around the neck . Embroidered insertion trims the bertha and the sleeve caps and is also used for the belt. Edwardians invented gilding the lily.

Another dress loks very much like Sam's talent dress ( her only dress copied after a real dress), and here is one like Nellie's Meet dress, only it too has a high collar. . Coats are shown on the following page and all are cut very full - quite like the swing coats of the 1950's. Trivia note - Swing coats were originally designed to cover up Lucile Ball's pregnancy with Little Ricky.

There was Russian. Indian, Chinese and Japanese influence in dress then too.

I learned something fun - I'd been of the imoressin that designers did not refer back to earlier eras for ashon ideas, but there is an article about how 1830's full skirts are this year's big thing for ladies. I always htink of the 1830's as having narrow skirts, but they did sometimes have a train, and so do these.

There is a piece on the lovely 'thin' fabrics of Spring - layered sheers were popular - Nellie's Meet dress is an example. I found a sleeve like hers too, only this one is much fuller, as they were in this period.

There is a monthly photo layout of women around the world - this one is the Middle East, and it is exactly as you'd expect - cloths covering the hair, and hanging down over the hip and over straight plain floor length dresses. Egyptian women hve lots of jeweltry and embroidery as do some women of Palestine.

Then we have an article instructing brides on how to entertain guests, and one thing they show is a woman serving with Felicity's chocolate pot.

Ther are *adorable* costuems for childen in Spring themes. I want to make the bird one! Also a bunny and a butterfly and maiden of the lily, whatever that is. I think it is Morticia in white. They are putting on a show.

Next article shows embroidery for your aesthetic movement shirt waist. Then standars white lace collars, etc. A childrne's story a bunny party, and a wonderful article on dying eggs ( all have faces drawn on and are in egg cups - Sam NEEDS an egg cup!_

An article on men's fashionns and an ad for a Ruben's infant shirt - in that day Sam was still an infant. This one wraps on with no buttons. It is cotton/wool, and does not look as itchy as Dr. Dentons.

Ther is an articvel about whether having patches on your clothes signifies you are poverty stricken, and an ad for a pneumatic bust form - they blew those voluminous blouse fronts up with an air filled rubber bladder, but you always suspected that, didn't you. The before and afer phtos are pretty funny. Many mnore corset ads, plus ads for all kinds of other beauty products. Etiquette hints, of course - etiquite ruled that day. Wanna date? Well thank heavens all the formalities of courtship are done away with, now that it is 1904. Now you are permitted to raise your eyes and look at the man you are interested in. They mention the hazard of being 'etiquited to death' like in the olden days when a courting couple's only chance for privacy was to speak through an 8 food tube that stretched across the room with the whole family present. Apparently this item is in a museum, thankd goodness.

There is a mother's advisory club article - perhaps we could use that again. They advise against bribing for good grades - that goes back that far? The advice has not changed, either but who has learned?

I think some of you would really enjoy a magazine from the eras of these dolls. They are a kick to read and your kids will like them too. Godey's and another I have (can't think of the name) served Kirsten and Addy. Vogue was already big in Kit and Molly's day.

Popsie

[amandajg]

Ohhh, another great post, Popsie!

I think that what a lot of people don't realise is that it's impossible to take everything going on at one point in time an put it into one specific category. Styles overlap, change, etc. The styles of a period are so intertwined with the politics and "culture" of the time (whether there are wars or not, trading patterns, popular places to travel, pop culture and trends, etc.), and generally not one thing is happening at once. Styles evolve, change, go backwards, forwards, sideways, etc. I know this well from my studies of architecture. It's virtually impossible to classify the architecture happening in a specific time frame into one category - in one country. The same is true with art movements. and, though I haven't studied it as much, I am certain it's true with fashion design. It's interesting how everything - from art to architecture, fashion, politics, culture, wars, etc., is so intertwined with eachother. Things are happening all over the place, and artists or architects or designers travel and take one idea somewhere else and that catches on there, etc. Lots of things happen at once, and a lot of what happens is based on what has happened before. That's what's so problematic about labels such as "Victorian" or "Edwardian" or "Modernism" or "Post-Modernism" etc.

[amandajg]

"Wanna date? Well thank heavens all the formalities of courtship are done away with, now that it is 1904. Now you are permitted to raise your eyes and look at the man you are interested in."

LOL - I need to get a vintage magazine! Too funny! (and scary...) [img]eek.gif[/img]

[acorniv]

Someone commented in this thread abotu Samantha's brown eyes and hair, and that has been on my mind ever since. How many dolls can we name that have this coloring? There are distinctive red heads, distinctive blonds, but brunettes?

Perhaps Samantha gives brunettes something that has really been lacking oin the doll world.

I also agree with two other things mentioned - Samantha is clearly the mascot doll of AG. Good point, Shortie 421, and that is always at the back of my mind about her. I don't like it much.

And there is the socio-economic factor. Amanda mentioned. I've been sort of semiconscious of this too. I wonder if some people feel the rest of the dolls are just riff raff and not worthy of hanging out with them? Then, does Nellie pass or no?