May. 21st, 2017 05:18 am
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)


intermission: a bodice draft from progressive pattern making and cutting out for needlework by mrs. e. griffith, originally published in 1931 (i have a seemingly unchanged reprint from 1946). i drafted it for a 96 cm bust - that's what would be proportionate for my height - because i could already tell that the shoulder area was going to turn out weird, and that a larger bust measurement was going to make it worse. some of the weird is caused by the fact that it seems to have a shoulder seam that's slightly displaced towards the back, but even without that, the shoulders are obviously too wide. (though weirdly, the neck width is good!) the length would actually have been okay when that really was my bust measurement, right now the front would be too short - that happens because they only measure the back length and add a fixed quantity to get the front length, instead of measuring both. still, it's an interesting system, i like the way they get the bust dart by just adding a certain amount to the front length, drawing the front side seam too long by that amount and then adding a dart to remove it. i wonder if i could rework the whole thing a bit...

May. 18th, 2017 02:31 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)
          

i tried a thing with drafting bodice patterns, because you know i'm obsessed with understanding why sewing patterns look the way they do. plus a scaled-up version of the final pattern, ready for testing. it actually looks almost exactly like one i made years ago, but now i know why! progress! plus i know that it's impossible to make patterns for things like bras or corsets from that pattern and have them fit without alterations, and what you'd have to use instead. namely, the second bodice front in this row (the very first sheet is a bodice back, it doesn't change between the different versions, though i'd move the darts a bit for actual garments). or the first, if you want distinct cups. no point in getting rid of distinct cups only to add them right back...

i now feel like i have to apologise to pia of http://overflowingstash.com/ even though i've never actually interacted with her in any way, because at one point i looked at her moulage pattern and thought that the shape of the bust circle couldn't possibly be right. no, it's exactly right, it can't be a perfect circle in that particular kind of pattern. and man, i've generally learned so much from her experiments in patternmaking. i'm very glad she's shared all of that online. i'd totally buy her a virtual cup of coffee or something if i could.

Jun. 24th, 2016 06:27 pm
elsewhence: (guide text adventure)
aaactually a lot of the reason women's jeans tend to have smaller pockets is because as of right now, they typically have lower waistlines. the lowest point where the bottom of the pocket bag can sit relative to your body is predetermined: it's the lowest point your fingertips can comfortably reach when your arms are at your sides. if it sat any lower than that, you'd have to bend your knees or do other weird contortions to be able to reach everything inside the pocket. therefore, if you want to wear a fashion waistline significantly lower than the natural waist, you will necessarily end up with smaller pockets. it has nothing to do with ~*sexism*~.

(came to mind because i just drafted a skirt pattern with pockets. hell if i'm ever wearing an outfit that isn't a costume and requires me to carry a handbag.)

May. 3rd, 2016 11:21 pm
elsewhence: (look out of the window)
yay, someone else who understands how complicated the hip measurement actually is.

i even read a pattern drafting book the other day that acknowledges that some cases of "large difference between waist and hip measurement" can only be solved with very deep side seam curves. there's no point in whining about how that'll introduce too much bias into the side seams, if you have a wide pelvis there's no other way, front and back darts can only remove excess fabric from the front and back, the end. miracles.

Jan. 10th, 2016 05:16 am
elsewhence: (r2-d2 surprised)
suddenly tempted to try drafting a cloth doll pattern because i've realised that except for the head, it's really just a bunch of basic clothing patterns merged together...

Sep. 27th, 2015 10:52 pm
elsewhence: (alligator)
why does everyone have such a giant boner for müller und sohn's drafts. they aren't very good at all. there's no readily apparent connection between the body measurements and what gets to applied to the pattern. maybe it works for industrial purposes, i wouldn't know, but for personal patterns it's possible to do so much better.

also i just drafted a sleeve that fits the armscye without ease even though my bicep is disproportionally large whoops. even though i was pretty sure that wouldn't work with a disproportionally large bicep measurement. let's see how it looks in fabric.

Aug. 24th, 2015 09:30 pm
elsewhence: (jawa harmless)


trousers are not confusing, trousers are beautifully logical and regular. the end. the only thing that's even slightly odd about these is that they've been altered for knock knees, which means more shaping on the side seams and less on the inseams...




there's a really disproportionate amount of red jelly babies in this bag. not complaining, just confused.

Aug. 7th, 2015 05:55 pm
elsewhence: (invent the universe)
i've been playing with bifurcated garment patterns lately and this page pretty neatly illustrates why there's no such thing as "the trousers block". there's a whole bunch of different bifurcated blocks of different fit levels and the only thing they have in common is that if the waist and crotch are at the same level, the crotch curves must be the same lengths...

maybe i'll write something about drafting basic blocks at some point

Aug. 2nd, 2014 07:18 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)
i really like this series about how to make straight skirt patterns work, okay. nothing that's completely new to me, but good to see that someone else had the same ideas. like understanding that taking the hip measurement on the skin and adding a set amount of ease is unlikely to turn out well, and why, or assessing how the waist shaping needs to be distributed by simply looking in a mirror. there's so many people who don't seem to understand the basic principle that you can only remove excess fabric in places where there actually is excess fabric. (and additionally, only in places where the body curves in two directions at once, though that doesn't apply here. i've thankfully never seen anyone try to put shaping into the centre front or back of skirts or trousers.)

meanwhile, i've drafted trousers for the first time. i need to work out this whole outlet strips/extension cords situation before trying the pattern out though because i won't be able to hook up my sewing machine or iron otherwise, whoops. the pattern looks good though, i remain convinced that drafting trousers based on a skirt is not only very possible, but actually the best way of going about it. i mean think about it, the fit of skirts and trousers is identical from the waist down to the hips, if you base that part on a proven skirt pattern, you can exclude a whole host of potential causes for problems that crop up in the finished pattern...

Jun. 16th, 2014 05:41 am
elsewhence: (Default)
i'm totally looking into buying chinese patternmaking books now. i mean, i understand the subject matter well enough i don't really need the text. and really, if we're being honest, i don't need any patternmaking books anymore, i just collect them...

EDIT: ooh there's chinese editions of the bunka gakuen textbooks, too bad i just ordered the english version of the first one a few days ago. oh well.

Mar. 3rd, 2014 06:00 am
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)


how to pull a 1780s stays pattern out of a modern bodice block. magic is how. i insist that it's magic. and okay, it's not technically a complete pattern, but dropping the waistline a little and adding tabs would be easy, if i wanted to do that. or i can just use it as a base for later, shorter styles the way it is.

on the pattern outlined in green the bust measurement - more specifically the back bust measurement - is too small by 2.5 mm, to the right of that sheet is a pattern piece that i've traced out, slashed and spread to correct this. that's why i have two of the same piece.

(and i'd like to personally give hell to anyone who thinks that a difference that small doesn't really matter and you can just ignore it and it'll work out fine. there's already enough unavoidable sources of error in the whole process of garmentmaking, there's absolutely no excuse for stacking entirely avoidable ones on top of that.)

Feb. 24th, 2014 01:58 am
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)


i scaled up the 1780s stays from corsets and crinolines, but can only really conclude that their owner was pretty tiny compared to me. i mean, you have to account for the fact that they're meant to close with a lacing gap, say 2 inches or so, but that's still not that big...

(yes, that's a tape measure with inches on it. there's centimeters on the other side, but i figured most people likely to see this will have a better understanding of what inches mean. silly imperial system.)

Feb. 15th, 2014 06:09 am
elsewhence: (arkanoid and vaus)


halfassed 1790s stays mockup. i went with a sort of demi-cup cut after all and actually really, really like the shape it gives! it shapes breasts with a fairly definite top and bottom and yet there's still a little bit of a conical 18th century look to them, rather than the very round shape and sharply defined underbust of the regency proper. and it's really comfortable too! it's so much like period paintings, i love it.

i still need to work on it a bit - as you can see, it's a bit wrinkly, and i can't decide whether the shape is fine and it just needs more boning/heavier fabric or whether the top edge needs to be wider than it is right now. and in purely aesthetic terms i may want to reshape the back a bit, it currently has the really pointy back armscye that i like in dresses, and i might want a round one after all (though this shape did also exist in stays, keeping it wouldn't be wrong). off to a good start, though. much better than later gusseted styles.

Feb. 14th, 2014 05:15 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)


there, that should probably work. or let's put it like this, if the general concept of underbust proto-regency stays is a sound one, this should be a good way of putting it into practice. i copied the seam runs from 1780s stays even though they don't serve much of a purpose here because i only need to reduce the width from 89 cm underbust to 85 cm waist, which is taken care of by the back darts (hidden between the centre back and side back pieces). why not, it makes sense that the first attempts at stays for a new silhoutte would build on the ones in use before that point. i call it experimental fashion history.

this pattern is actually 5 cm smaller than my own measurements (or 2.5 cm on the half pattern) because it's going to lace at centre front, meaning a lacing gap isn't an option.

if all else fails, i can also set gathered cups into the cutouts. that's definitely a period option.




and on a completely unrelated subject, butter LONDON old blighty. we are all totally surprised by this development. i promise it doesn't actually have a different shade on each finger in real life, that's just the lighting. the ring finger is the closest to what it really looks like.

(also this is the first post with pictures hosted by imgur, because fuck you imageshack.)

Feb. 10th, 2014 07:59 pm
elsewhence: (switch sex)
ugh breasts are so inconvenient to fit. and also they're pinching and sore in a way that indicates my period is near. seriously, fuck female bodies.

(also i wish there was a way to talk about the period my body is responsible for without calling it my period. it isn't part of me, i don't own it, i don't want it, it should fuck off. i want to be neuter as far as reproductive ability is concerned, okay.)

Feb. 3rd, 2014 04:36 am
elsewhence: (r2-d2 fail)
so i drafted and set a really nice-looking and well-fitting sleeve and now it turns out the bust line of the pattern may still be too high. ugh. that would change basically half the pattern...

i so look forward to making regency things again. a well-made pair of stays and my bust line can be whereever i bloody well want it to.

Jan. 30th, 2014 08:00 pm
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
i don't actually understand how you're supposed to get a regency dress out of a single sari. seems like the skirt alone would eat up more fabric than one sari even contains...

Jan. 13th, 2014 03:31 am
elsewhence: (silly ikea person)
also, i'm really beginning to wonder whether bicep ease is similar to waist ease, in that the kind of figures that would once have been referred to as "fleshy" need less of it. i mean, i have ready-to-wear blazers that hardly have any - we're talking maybe 2 cm here, because my bicep is so much larger than what would be proportionate for the size that fits my bust - and they're definitely not uncomfortable or constrictive! and then i see people talk about how a basic fitted dress sleeve must include at least 5 cm of bicep ease, meaning a jacket sleeve would have even more, and seriously wonder what's going on...

Jan. 12th, 2014 09:32 pm
elsewhence: (look out of the window)
alright then i'm going to base the proportions of the lapels and closures on one of four's frock coats instead. at least some of these do have functional closures. see? you can tell from the way that the front edge slants outwards from the waist seam up, to mirror the button placement. on eight's the button placement also slants outward, but the front edge is perfectly straight, it can't possibly actually close. that's just too stupid and nonfunctional to bother with.

Jan. 12th, 2014 10:48 am
elsewhence: (invent the universe)
i hate how you can't really judge what collars with lapels are going to look like on the body without making a mock-up. this is why i hate them even though the draft itself is easy. i don't think i own any double-breasted garments i could copy from either, i mean i have a trenchcoat, but that's not entirely the same thing because it's actually a kind of convertible collar...