Part 21
Breast, 45; waist, 48; hip, 48; seat, 40. Dia. IV as the model. Breast measure taken over the shirt. The under arm cut is ½ inch at the hollow of waist, but both back and front meet below and above. This ½ inch is simply to give form to the seams. Top of back is 4¼—side of neck 4 for top of collar band—bottom of neck band 5¼. Side of shoulders at 60 deg., 9¼—shoulder seam even, but ¼ inch spring at the neck may be good. Center of back is on the line and spring of ½ at the bottom—height of back, 14¼. From the point of the angle of 135 deg. go down 7 numbers for the front edge of the vest and go forward a ¼ at line 9—1⅛, at line 15—1⅜ at 17. Cut a small gore in the forepart, below the pocket, in order to make the front to conform to the oval form of the body. The description of this vest and Dia. XX will fit the same person. This vest, made up and placed on a person of 36 breast and 32 waist measure, will fit at the shoulders, and if it is left to hang alone, will simply be too large all around the breast and around the waist, but hangs good. There is one peculiar feature in this or all large vests cut according to this work, which should be considered. You can draw all surplus cloth together behind, or in front, or at the side, or you may pin it up even all around, and the fit of the shoulders will remain. For this reason, vests one size too large will fit the same, and are better than if one size too small. Cut all vests ½ waist and 2½ inches at the waist line, and pay little attention to the hip line, as long as the sides have an opening over the hips. If no opening is left there the hip line must also receive ½ hip and 2½ inches. Allow all extra waist proportion, by allowing one half of it in front and one half at the side of the back. Any other surplus width, which may be desired may be allowed at the center of the back, where it may be buckled up smooth.
VIII.—Frock Coat for a Very Stooping Form, and with Very Round Shoulder Blades.
MODEL: DIA. II.
Very hollow breast—front of waist and back of waist very erect—square of 18—front of armhole ⅝ in front of 45 deg., where armhole and sleeve meet at 10¼—back sleeve seam laps ¾ at line 8—top of back at 3—side of neck at 3½—height of back above line 9, 15¾—width of back at 9½, 7⅜. Centre of back is hollowed out ⅜ at the hollow of the waist, meets base at 22 and at line 35 the edge for the finished hook is 1¼ outside. Gore between the side and back: ¾ at the armhole—⅞ at 15¾—1¼ at 15—1½ at 17½—1⅜ at 20—1 at 25—1 at 30. Underarm cut: ¼ at 15—¾ at 17½—¾ at 19½. The shoulder seam laps ⅜ at the neck and ¾ at the blade. Front edge: 1¾ in front of 3—1⅛ in front of 9—meet at 14—3¼ at 20—2½ at 30—1 at 35. No gore in breast, but ¾ gore in the front waist seam. Drop front skirt ¾ at the base.
IX.—FAT MEN’S OVERCOAT.
Breast, 52; waist, 60. Form, very erect; front of waist band forward and abdomen very large and round. The shoulders are normal, and the shoulder seam have the same spring as Dia. X. The model is Dia. X. The square is 19¼ numbers, and 1¼ numbers are cut out as a gore under the arm, and the sidepiece stretched upward ¼. The large square and the large gore under the arm, throw extra waist proportion into the center of the forepart. Neck from 135 deg.—top of back 3⅜—side of back 3¾—at 60 deg. 3¼—base 3¼—armhole from 135 deg.: front sleeve nick at 10¾—at 60 deg. 8⅞—at 45 deg. or top square 9⅞—width of back at 8 is 6⅞—bottom of armhole is ¾ above line 11¼, and the front sleeve base is forward two seams. The front of armhole is on 45 deg. Center of back: height of back above line 9 is 12½ numbers—from line 15 spring out 1¼ at 25. Center of front from the plumb line base: top ¾—½ gore, ¾ to edge—at 11¼, 4¾—at 20, 6—at 30, 6—drop front of bottom 1, and set the buttons back from the edge about 2½ inches.
Now, while I am describing “_Odd Forms_,” which in reality are not odd at all, only a trifle different from the so-called normal form, it may be well, to point out another fact: For coats and vests all large-waisted forms require either a proportionately smaller scale with extra allowance in front of the breast, or if the measure and the scale are used the same as on a small-waisted form, the square must be made smaller, and the front must be that much larger.
It is the same on the full-breasted and on the erect forms, and the description of Forms V and VI, as well as Dia. VIIIa, with their different squares ought to be sufficient to give a general idea of what is to be taken off behind in the square, and what is to be allowed in front. Large-waisted persons have mostly erect forms even if they should have prominent shoulder blades, or throw their necks down in front. At the hollow of waist they may be considered erect and mostly throw their arms backward, and all such forms require a smaller square and a larger breast. The best way to measure is this: Take all measures even and close, and reduce the square, and enlarge the breast according to the above description, and according to your judgment, and remember, that ½ inch more, or ½ inch less in the breast, or in the square, may be considered the outside limit, and that ¼ inch goes a good ways.
In regard to the amount, you better learn to depend upon your judgment, for if that should be ever so poor, it will be better than a so-called proof or balance measure, from the center of back forward. That measure, even if taken with the utmost care, will mostly depend upon the coat which the person wears, and not upon the body, which is to be fitted.
[Illustration]
LOW SHOULDERS.
Low shoulders and long necks are the same. Dia. IX shows the correct alteration for such forms as well as for the stooping form. The body between the arm and neck becomes longer than usual, and consequently the coat must be lengthened on each back and front alike. Attempting to cut the shoulders lower at the arm will never lift the coat up to the neck. If that alteration is correctly made no other portion is to be altered. All allowance for a longer neck should be given sparingly, as ¼ in. on each back and each front goes a great ways; only extremes may require more, and from ⅜ to ½ in. may be called correct for the average long neck. The front of the neck hole should not be raised on a long neck, for the very length of neck requires extra depth there. Addition for a longer neck should be started at the middle of the shoulder seam, as indicated by dotted lines in Dia. IX.
Raising the side of the back up higher requires the center of the back higher also, all of which may be run out to nothing at the sleeve base. Adding say ½ in. to the top of the neck will make the shoulder look broader, that is, the shoulder on top of the slope will contain more space from arm to neck, though the diameter of the shoulders from side to side may not be any larger. The armhole must be considered the same for all long or short necks, and the changes must be made upward, and above the armhole, as shown in Dia. IX, and if that is correct, the so-called “front shoulder point” exists in the imagination of each individual cutter only.
If the shoulders and the neck of all men were formed the same, there would be very little trouble to fit coats. But the longer, or shorter, or forward or backward leaning neck play smash with the fitting points. All kinds of imaginary proof measures have been invented, but they all will prove that they are not proof, unless the measure is a straight one, either horizontal, or perpendicular, or parallel. The proof measure, as shown in Fig. I, and which consists of the application of the angle of 135 deg., is a new measure, of my own invention, and it will do away with all the so-called long or short balance measures which have been used for the last century.
When I say give so and so much more for a long neck, I mean so much more than what is shown in Dia. II, all of which may be divided between the forepart and the back, but so that the top of back is never less than 2½ in. wide. I will repeat here that a long neck not only requires the shoulder straps longer, but the top and the side of the back must be cut closer toward the center, gradually running out at the front. If the shoulder seam has 1 in. spring, that is, ½ to ⅝ more than Dia. II, the top of back may be placed at 2½ and the side of neck at 3, and this will make a good proportion for the average long neck. So far I have found in my practice, that very few cases require more. The worst case I ever found was fitted with 1⅝ spring allowed on the forepart, with top of back at 2¼ and side of neck at 2¾, and I do not think that there is any shoulder which requires more. In all cases the collar must be sewed on easy, on each “_side of the neck_” not behind.
But here I will give another idea of fitting a long and straight neck: At the center of the back and from the back sleeve base upward, go outside of the base and allow say ½ in. “extra,” and at the same time allow ½ in. on top of back and at the side of neck. The ½ inch extra allowance on the back may again be reduced from the front of neck downward, but this is of little consequence, for if not cut off, the lapel and the breast will simply be that much larger, which is mostly a “_good fault_” for such a coat, and may often be quite necessary, as all such forms are mostly full breasted. If for any cause, the top of back and side of neck are placed closer toward the center, do not drop the front of the neck hole, because the extra spring at the shoulder seam will produce all extra length required.
The low and the high shoulders may be considered very indefinite terms, and a cutter must learn to use his judgment as to what each particular customer requires, but for the reason that Dia. II will fit at least 49 out of 50 persons, all changes must be made with great caution, because the actual shoulder is not to be fitted at all, and if anybody attempts to do this, he must cut low shoulders for most all, and the majority he will have to alter, more or less.
About a year ago, while at church on a Sunday, I noticed a man who sat in front of me; he wears different coats according to the weather. Two of such coats fit him as good as any can be made, but one coat makes him low shouldered while the other gives him the appearance of a square shoulder. The square shoulder coat don’t fit as close around the arm as the one with the low shoulder, but the square shoulder hangs good, sleeve included, and no one will ask anything better. Any cutter can satisfy himself on that point by trying on different good fitting coats, on the same person, and by doing so he will soon find that a solid measure around the arm and shoulder, or a so-called “_Balance Measure_” is one of the greatest delusions the Nineteenth century has brought forth, in so far as fitting garments is concerned.
But I must point to another reason why a coat can be fitted to the same person with either a square or a sloping shoulder. A coat cut too high up at the back and at the side of the neck will have the appearance of a lower shoulder, because the coat starts higher up. At the present time the style for the shoulders is toward a square shoulder, and I think that will be the style for some time to come. Looking back to continental styles and pictures, we find all coats high up at the back and at the side of the neck, and consequently all are represented as low shoulders.
In fitting clothing according to the present style, a cutter must see, though he is compelled to cut a coat for a long neck higher than usual, that it gets not too high, but as low as possible for that purpose, and cutters who are not _above trying on_ will often find it to advantage to change the height of the collar a trifle, thought the fit may be the same for all. This is another point which cannot be learned by rules, or from books, or in cutting schools, but must be acquired by practice, after a cutter’s mind has been directed to it, and his mind must be clear always, and never be benumbed by whisky, or by tobacco, nor by fast women.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
EXTRA SQUARE SHOULDERS.
Real square shoulders are seldom to be found unless the form is classed among the humpbacks, when the shoulders may even be higher at the arm than at the neck. By the term “Square Shoulders” is usually understood to be squarer shoulders than are ordinarily found. But right here let me say, that as long as the shoulders are cut on the angle of 135 deg. there is not much danger of getting them too low or too square for almost anyone, for the reason that coats are not to be cut skin-tight at the armhole. The armhole must be larger than the body all around, and no coat feels agreeable or looks well if the armhole is tight-fitting on the top of the arm or at the shoulder seam.
The shoulders should fit at the neck, but not tight. They should hang and balance themselves between the arm and the neck, where neither the movement of the neck nor that of the arms interferes with the coat. At the arm, the shoulders of a well-fitting coat should be loose, and as long as the sleeve fits so that it will not drag the armhole out of place such looseness will remain there, forming a square shoulder.
A shoulder that appears flat on the top, and breaks behind or in front, will always set better when the sleeves are out, because the sleeve-head is too short, pulling the shoulder downward, and it must make a break either in front or back of the arm; and it is for this reason that whenever they try on coats the journeyman is required to baste in one or both sleeves. For this reason, I claim the sleeve system, as laid down in this work, is far superior to any other. To fit the shoulders and the sleeves together is really a question of how not to fit the body of a person, and still, produce a garment which will take the eye of the public. A tight-fitting shoulder at the arm, and a tight-fitting waist in the back, are not the present conception of fit, or of style, for men’s garments, and in all probability never will be.
The shoulders are based upon a slope of 22½ deg., not because they slope just that much, for they may be 22 or 23 deg., or anything near that, but that is a good average; and 22½ deg. is the fourth part of a square, and is an even division of a square, and a known quantity.
I will here say: Extra square shoulders are seldom found which cannot be fitted by Dia. II, by simply cutting the spring between the shoulder seam ¼ less at the neck and placing the top of the back and the side of the neck say ¼ to ⅜ of a number lower, while the armhole remains as it is, including the sleeve. There is no question but that the lower, or the higher shoulders, can be fitted by making the change at the armhole, but in either case the whole armhole and the whole sleeve, as well as the waist, requires a re-adjustment. But I do not want to earn glory by giving a description of it.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
SCIENTIFIC CALCULATIONS IN THE SQUARE AND CIRCLE.
(SEE DIAS. XI AND XII.)
These are not given for practical cutting, but are given as an example of scientific calculation in garment cutting. Although they are quite plain they may be called scientific conundrums, because the present generation of cutters knows nothing about them.
SCIENTIFIC CONUNDRUM IN THE SQUARE.
Mark a square of any unknown surface; divide one side into 20 equal parts, each part of which is a unit, or one number of the scale; use said 20 parts as a scale, representing the half breast circumference, and 2½ inches; with this scale make a diagram or draft of a vest, or coat, according to this work—all of which is done before the size of the square is known. When done, measure the square, or 20 parts of the scale, by inches.
Now, suppose the square turns out to be 20 inches; the size of the garment is 35 breast, or 17½ inches and 2½ inches. If the square turns out to be 22½ inches, the garment will be size 40, and so on, always 2½ sizes less than the square. If, however, the size of the square is too small to make a full size, multiply its units by any number whereby you can find a certain desired size. For instance: If the square contains 5 inches, each ¼ inch is a unit, or one part of the scale. Multiply the 5 inches by 4 and you have 20 inches. Now, take 4 units of the original, which represents here 1 inch, and your new scale will represent 20 inches divided into 20 parts, and will also cut size 35. If you multiply the 5-inch square by 3½, you will produce 18 inches, and if you take 3½ units as 1 unit, each unit will represent ¹⁄₂₀ of 18 inches, and the size of the garment will be 30½. If you multiply the 5 inches with 4½, you will obtain 22 inches, and by taking 4½ units as 1 unit for the scale, each unit will represent ¹⁄₂₀ part of 22 inches, and the size will be 39.
SCIENTIFIC CONUNDRUM IN THE CIRCLE.
Divide the half-diameter of a circle into 20 equal parts; then measure the half-diameter of the circle by inches, and if said result does not give a required size multiply the same as in a square; use the same units, and the same result will be obtained. All this must be done as in a square of 20, but afterwards the square of 17½ may be produced as shown in the diagram.
Fractional multiplication will result in the same thing, but may result in the fractional sizes, as 34½, 35¼ and 36¾, and so on. The six points of the compass will give all the base lines correctly on the square of 20 as well as on the square of 17½. It requires no scale, for one main point will give the other complete. The full diameter of the circle is 40 parts, and the triangle, as shown in Dia. XII, contains 35, half of which is 20 and 17½, for which reason the square of 20 and the square of 17½ is adopted as a base.
With the aid of the above calculations a person can go to any cutter, obtain from him any graduated scale, and with it cut a garment before he knows the size thereof. Or he can select for himself a scale from any set for a certain size by simply finding a scale whose 20 units will correspond with the size. Should the scales contain too large or too small units, they may be multiplied or divided, and a new unit found by doubling or halving the units, or by dividing or multiplying them with any number, to gain the desired result.
The conundrum is this: To use an unknown square or an unknown circle to cut a garment, and produce the smaller sizes large enough and the larger ones small enough for all practical purposes.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CHIPS AND WHETSTONES.
A sweep from the point of the angles, as at 80, will make a horizontal line when the pants are on and inflated with the body. No squaring from any one line will make it perfectly horizontal all around. The sweeps from the points of the angles will always be together when the pants are correctly sewed up and flat upon the table. Said sweeps will not fit together in all positions, if made from any other points, which proves their common center; and they will always be found reliable for the connection of the leg seams when the front is cut small and the back wide, and for squaring the bottom of pants.
Never change the angle of seven and a half degrees as a base.
Never try to find the perpendicular and horizontal lines on a pants, except for a person who always stands perfectly still; and as no such persons are found, said lines are therefore useless.
Allowance in the curve of the back of a pants cannot spread like the front, but will hang there like a bag, and may even cut the seat.
Extra width should never be allowed in the back of the crotch; better allow it over the hip. Allowing extra width in the crotch is just like allowing extra cloth on the front of the armhole,—it makes the whole smaller.
The trick in altering any garment is to first ascertain what will make it worse, and then make the contrary alteration. Example: If a pants cuts in the seat pinch the top of the sides together, which will make it worse, then put a wedge in the top of the side seam, and reduce again in the center of back.
If you find your pants too large or too small do not change the drafts, but take the measure smaller or larger, as the case may be. Take the seat measure close, like measuring a barrel, and have no slack.
Your customer’s pants waist must be as large as what he measures when he is in a sitting position. A man’s waist in that attitude may expand anywhere from one to five inches.
A waist-band made according to the old teachings, as three-fourths inches more than half measures, will not stand the test, and is a delusion.