Employing Mary

Mary still doesn't have a foot. I haven't had much opportunity to hunt one down and, unfortunately, using the foot of my regular dummy is not an option. To stay in place, it uses a mechanism that's inside the dummy, not on the foot. Mary is stuffed with newspaper and has a cardboard bottom. She will need a foot she can just stand on.

That said, something suddenly occured to me yesterday: if I want to work on a top, I could just put her on the table...

Which is just what I did.

I'm playing around with a big silk shirt which proved to be a rather unwilling candidate for refashion so far. Mostly because of its two breast pockets which rendered to front of the shirt pretty much useless.

After taking this picture, I've taken the shirt off and ironed it. Then, I put it back on Mary, this time making sure that it was on straight. I very carefully pinned the pleats, making them neater. I plan on basting them next. After that, I'll make the back. There is a plan for it.

In the picture, I've been playing around with white tape and a bit of Mary-fabric to try and determine a proper line for the armhole. It seems tempting to keep the shoulder width and call it a cap sleeve, but, unlike Mary, I need to be able to move my arms forward. I'm still contemplating sleeve options. I won't have a lot of of material left for it, so it will have to be a short sleeve at most. Any suggestions?

As requested...

by Creative Mama in her comment to my latest post.

She wants to know how to draft that pleat I used for my skirt because, wait for it... She wants to get back to wearing skirts!

Now, I need to make one thing clear: I don't grant all requests. Not because I'm nastly but mainly because, in many cases, it's not as simple as it seems. That's why I do tutorials for jersey tops, but not for trousers.

However, this is a very simple request to grant AND for a good cause.

Dear Creative Mama, if you've done any pattern drafting yourself, you probably have a skirt sloper (when I learnt pattern making, everyone had to start with that, even if you not planning on ever making a skirt). If you don't, you can use any normal pattern for a straight skirt. I' going to give the instructions for a pattern without seam allowance.

On your sloper or pattern, the back piece will look like this:

If it has added width for a back vent, remove it.

Make sure the pattern is at the length you want.

Determine how deep you want your pleat to be. In the finished product there will be two double pleats on top of each other, behind the center back seam. So the added room for movement will be pleat depth times eight. My pleats are 5 cm deep.

The pattern for the pleating looks like this:

The dotted lines will be the fold lines. There's 5 cm between each of those in my pattern.

When you are sewing the skirt, simply start by sewing the center back seams of pleat and skirt above the pleat.

Then, press the pleats, matching the diagonal lines at the top.

Stitch the tops together, ending at the center back seam.

To save fabric or to use a contrasting colour in the pleat, you can also cut the pleat section seperately. In that case, just take care to keep the seam, joining it to the skirt, out of sight.

It is important to pick a fabric which can be pressed well or you could (which I don't like, but it is an option) narrowly topstitch each pleated edge to keep it in shape.

I hope this is clear to you. Just let me know if there are any more questions. Or suggestions. Or other requests. Or thanks ;)

Everything but the stockings

I promised their would be colour to my autumn sewing, didn't I?

This skirt has been finished for over a week but I really wanted to be able to show it off the way I had imagined it. Without resorting to black or grey wardrobe staples.

The mustard coloured wool isn't from stash, I bought that recently. I really wanted a colour like it for my autumn/winter colour scheme, so, when I stumbled across this stuff when shopping for zippers, I couldn't resist. And because there was 'only' 4.5 meter left on the roll, the seller offered me a serious discount if I would just take the lot. Which means I will have to make more clothes in this colour. I'm thinking about a matching jacket, either nipped-waisted and New Look-alike or early 60's style block-y, and maybe a mod dress and/or a full skirt of some kind.

This is a very simple pencil skirt with a double box pleat at the back (my own pattern). And yes, it fits properly, I just pull it weirdly by trying some 'fun' posing... It is lined.

The shirt uses up all the fabric I had left over from making this dress, a viscose/rayon. I had drafted a different blouse, which used way to much fabric. Then, I made this, which is in fact a very quick and easy adeption of my basic sloper.

I love how it turned out. I sewed the lower ends of the darts so the blouse would fit smoothly when tucked in but just look at the shape that creates!

I may just have to make a dress based on this pattern... I think it would even work with a longer sleeve.

So far, I've mostly sewn button-down blouses but now, I've really developed a taste for vintage-style ones with side or back closures. There may be more.

And most of all, I'm happy with these colours. I, used to wearing black and muted colours as I am, would wear this in real life. Everything in colour but the stockings. And both pieces would combine really well with black, grey, brown and olive as well. The colour scheme is here to stay!

drape-neck top

Just a quick post, since this turns out to be a week with way less time for sewing or blogging than I expected.

I finished this top literally minutes ago, which explains the not-so-great picture: I didn't keep trying until I had a decent one.

The fabric is a very thin, and ever-so-slightly sheer olive/brown cotton jersey from my stash. I pattern is one drafted last winter, made up in orange knit and blogged about here. Although I love the look of the first top, the fabric is just a bit too synthetic for my liking. This new one may be less striking but it will go well with my planned colours for autumn/winter.

I have another fabric in my stash which would work well with this design (and I'm thinking of using it within the next two weeks). If you're interested, I'll do a how-to for it (pattern and sewing) then.

Everything you never wanted to know about button closures

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my earlier post about the 'button-rule'. I've learnt some interesting things because of your efforts.

For those of you who haven't read their comments, I'll summerize the main points here.

- Thanks to Dora and Vibeke, it is clear that there is indeed a (Old Testament) rule in the Bible, forbidding women to wear men's clothes. As I understand it, it is part of a body of rules covering all aspects of life. Many of these were never obeyed by christians in Europe and some, like this particular one, have been interpreted differently at different points in time.

There might be a semi-religious ground for the 'button-rule' but I haven't found any evidence to support that theory.

- It was Tanitisis who found more information about the theory that women's closures were meant to prevent indecent exposure when riding (or preparing to ride) side-saddle. Apperently, most ladies ride with their legs to the horse's left. I did a quick search myself, and she's absolutely right. However, I don't agree with her conclusion that this would make the buttons gape most visibly.

As this image shows, the opening between the buttons would point to the back of the horse when sitting straight. I guess the stable boy would hold the head of the horse when the lady was getting on it, so this set-up might actually help to preserve her modesty.

Lastly, I can't believe I didn't check Wikipedia on button information before. There wasn't much on the rules for button closures. There was only a short reference to it, in the entry about buttonholes. However, one very important bit of information was added here: according to the person writing this, the maids dressing the ladies, and indeed all common women, would wear shirts which had the same kind of closure as men's shirts. Unfortunately, there's no picture, no specific example is given and there are no dates at all.

If this claim is true, it would be a strong point in favour of the 'ladies being dressed' theory. After all, it is very likely that this feature of ladies' dress would become a bit of a status symbol, which was copied by other women even though it didn't serve a purpose for them. Once adopted by a large percentage of the female population (say, in the Victorian era), it would have become a standard for the growing RTW industry.

I also learned a bit more about buttons and button closures in general. Apperently, the oldest buttons ever found are between 4000 and 5000 years old, made of sea shell and excavated in the Indus valley. There are also examples from Bronze age China and Ancient Rome. In all these early cases, a button was used as an ornament, not as fastening, it was like a sew-on broche.

The earliest functional buttonclosures are from 13th century Germany. They became a common feature on the close-fitting garments fashionable in 13th and 14th century Europe.

Although it's not mentioned specifically in the article, I guess this was mostly in men's wear because, if I remember correctly, women of that era mostly wore wide dresses with separate, laced-up stays (as pointed out in the comments, I'm not correct: stays weren't worn until the 16th century. although lacing was a normal closure on womens' garments). Unfortunately, I don't own a book on fashion history which goes back that far...

E's new coat

You may have noticed a lack of new creations here recently. Or a lack of heavily documented planning...

Well, there was a reason for that. I was sewing an autumn/winter coat for E.

He wanted a coat which would be casual enough for everyday use but could be worn with his only suit without looking out of place as well. His career changes of the past year have forced him to brush up his wardrobe a little bit, but he did not yet have a coat to match.

Getting the fit of the basic block right took me a lot of time.

In women's wear, you can draft almost every top from the basic, fitted sloper. As long as you remember to add ease for certain garments and styles, of course. For men, there's no such thing as an all-purpose top sloper. Every piece of traditional men's attire, shirt, jacket, vest and coat in formal and casual shapes, has its own basic draft with added ease inherent to the style. You have to know these pretty well in order to make educated guesses about which one to use for a slightly less classic design.

I had tried to make him a coat last winter, based on a block draft for a formal jacket. Which utterly failed. I threw away last year's drafts and made a fresh start using a block for a casual jacket from one of my pattern making books. Drafted based on E's measurements of course. As it turned out, that block included a lot of ease in the body, which I had to take in, and not quite enough in the sleeves. Maybe E's built is just more athletic than the average.

Basic fit sorted, I turned to the actual design. It's got raglan sleeves which incorporate a back yoke. Details are button tabs, single welt pockets, a zipper closure and a simple convertible collar. (I lightened the picture of the back to show the detail)

The fabric is a densely woven, but not very thick, black wool coating which had been in my stash for over a year. It was very nice to work with and I still have about 2 meters left... I used a zipper which I bought last year, for my first attempt at a coat for E and black lining and fusible interfacing from stash.

I'm fairly happy with the coat. It looks good, cleanly finished and properly made. I fret a little over the fit at the front, where a crease seems to form between the neckline and armpit. I didn't notice it in the muslin. However, this isn't supposed to be a closely fitted item, so it might be all in my perfectionistic head. Most importantly, E is happy with it. He likes the look and the fit and is very pleased that the finished product allows him more freedom of movement than he thought it would (I expected this, the lining allows him a fair degree of movement inside the coat, unlined muslins didn't have the same effect). He is looking forward to wearing it a lot. :-D

The necessary evil of sizing

I promised you a post with this subject, so I'll give it a go. I really don't think I can cover all the different aspects of this sticky topic in one post, but I may have a little bit of extra insight. But, more about that later.

First of all, don't we all hate size tags? And the fact that they always

seem to be wrong? Sewing your own clothes may seem like a way out of the limbo of the changing rooms, but be honest, is it really? Every pattern you buy comes in sizes and now, you have to try and pick the right one without being able to try stuff on...

These are just two examples of sizing tables. The pink one is Burda's, the grey one comes from Knipmode (where "bovenwijdte" = "bust measurement", "taillewijdte" = "waist measurement" and "heupwijdte" = "hip measurement").

You may have wondered about those ever-wrong sizes. Why are you a size 34 in one store and a 38 in the other? Why do you often have to pick a larger size than your usual RTW one when studying the sizing tables of sewing patterns? Isn't there some kind of standard?

Well... That's the point, isn't it? There is no standard. There is no rule telling fashion brands or pattern makers that such-and-such are the measurements for each size.

The only regulated sizing I know of (and I haven't made a study of this, so there may be many more cases) was in the US in the 1950's when sizing for womenswear was done by bust size, in three different shape categories. In fact, more than the confusing sizing, I think it's a pity we lost the notion of different clothes intended for differently shaped women in today's fashion jungle. Although it seems we just have many more different shapes nowadays...

As a 'rule', fashion companies (for RTW and sewing patterns) try to size their products according to their customer's expectations. That's the reason sizes run (much) smaller at youth-oriented stores like H&M. Not just the number stuck on the main size (bust circumference for dresses and tops, hip circumference for bottoms) differs, but also the ratio between measurements. Again, this is based on the target customer.

A company which only sells in the Netherlands, or northern Europe (like sewing magazine Knipmode) will make its designs for rather tall women (Dutch women are tall, on average). And a company selling mainly to 35+ women will decide on a much curvier basic block than one selling to ages 15 to 25.

In RTW, you would do well to seek out and remember the brands which best fit your body shape.

You probably knew most of that already. However, there's another nastly little secret which will sound familiar to the experienced seamstress.

Fashion companies have to start somewhere when making a new design. In theory, this starting point is an ideally shaped specimen of the body type of their target audience, in their most average size. However, many brands have to present clothes to retailers to sell them and for that reason, they may prefer to go with a smaller than average size which looks better on a hanger.

In the Netherlands, the size most brands do their fitting for is 38. Their own 38. Usually combined with a height of 1,70 meter and a B cup. That's why I said seamstresses would recognise this. This is what all the talk of full bust and small bust adjustments is all about. It's why they're needed. And why anyone with a seriously different cup size has such trouble buying clothes ready-to-wear.

Another major cause of confusion is what is known as 'size inflation'. Apperently women are more eager to buy if they are pleasantly surprised by the size on the tag. To use this effect even while people are generally getting larger, companies regurlarly adept their sizing tables. Those selling sewing patterns do this rarely. They know their customers are used to go by the sizing table and will only change it if they feel there is a real, over-all change they have to respond to. For example, about two years ago, Knipmode changed its sizing. They made each size slightly bigger but, more importantly, they changed the standard height from 1,68 to 1,72. To suit the afore mentioned tall Dutch woman. In doing so, they lost me as customer because my measurements had now pretty much dropped off the chart.

Ready-to-wear manufactures live by their ability to respond quickly to the market they're in. They employ people who constantly monitor the application of their blocks and adept the size and fit of those blocks to customer demand. So they may change quickly and often.