From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V3 #182 Reply-To: h-costume Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Wednesday, September 13 1995 Volume 3, Number 182 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: Re: Parsons Design School (fwd) Re: H-Costume Digest V3 #181 Handsewing vs. machine sewing Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing Re: Handsewing vs. machine sewing RE: Handsewing vs. machine sewing Machine Vs Hand Sewing Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset RE: Machine Vs Hand Sewing FW: RE: needed - buffalo buttons RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset resources for fabric research (was RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices) RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset Re: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Johanna R. Forte" Subject: Re: Parsons Design School (fwd) In response to your inquiry of where Parson's is, the answer is NEW YORK CITY. Johanna R. Forte Costume Designer Kutztown University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 13:55:56 PDT From: marie@caesar.quotron.com Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest V3 #181 Can the duct tape method be used to prepare a Uniquely You dress form? No, I don't have the growing foam version. marie@caesar.quotron.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:24 CDT From: ROBERT@UIAMVS.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU Subject: Handsewing vs. machine sewing I am interested in whether using machine sewing in places where it cannot be seen has an effect on the overall garment. I have heard that garments hang differently when hand sewn instead of machine sewn. Can anyone give me specific examples or a better description of this difference? When the stitching won't be seen, how much of a difference does it _REALLY_ make? How easily discernable is the difference to the untrained eye? How big a sample would I need to do of handsewing so that I can get a feel for the difference in appearance, so that I can judge which costumes (and what portions of the costume) are worth the extra investment of time? Thanks for your help. ****************************** Wendy Robertson Serials Cataloging University of Iowa (319) 335-5894 wendy-robertson@uiowa.edu ****************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:30:17 -0600 (CST) From: BJHILL@STTHOMAS.EDU Subject: Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing This is an answer to a question I have been puzzling for some time now. I plan on starting a few projects this winter and do not own a sewing machine but am considering purchasing one. I have no problem with hand sewing the costumes I plan to make, and am actually looking forward to making a new set of clothes for next years re-enactments, but am wondering if I am not biting off more than I can chew by handsewing everything. If anyone has comments on Brands of machines they have used and features that are handy to have I would greatly appreciate it. thanks in advance, brian hill bjhill@stthomas.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 15:36:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Keith Subject: Re: Handsewing vs. machine sewing Machine stitched seams are much stiffer than those done by hand. This can affect how comfortable a garment is (in the arm holes for example). Another place handstitching makes a difference is in interfacing. Fused interfacing--on tailored garments--is stiffer and flatter, while hand tailored interfacing is more supple and has a better and more natural turn-of-cloth. Lastly, hand basted stitches allow for more control in adjusting ease, and basting is superior to pinning or free-matching when sewing seams by machine; the seams are well-matched and won't bunch around the pins. Kelly ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 15:39:39 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: RE: Handsewing vs. machine sewing Handsewing doesn't always hang differently, but it can. It depends on what handsewing techniques were originally used. For example if you are attaching an organ-pipe or cartridge pleated skirt to a bodice, doublet, or yoke, there is no machine substitute as it uses what I've heard called the "stab" stitch. I personally feel that all machine embroidery looks obviously machine sewn, though I have seen a few people with REALLY high quality machines fake up blackwork shirts fairly well. This technique does not usually pass close inspection, but is not obvious to the untrained eye. Frankly, for day-to-day sewing, most of us can't handsew as well as people who started handsewing during childhood and did so all their lives several hours a day. Much of the 1870s-1900s handsewn Victorian and Edwardian vintage pieces that I own have stitches far tinier than what we normally use for long seams (as if you set your machine on the tiniest buttonhole stitch length and sew straight stitches). I have a very hard time differentiating some of the handstitching from the more modern repairs without a magnifying glass, because it is so even and small. I would not be at all concerned with standard seams if I were you, sounds like someone trying to lay a guilt trip on you. What period(s) are you doing? There are also ways to hide stitches, like the "stitch in the ditch" method, as well as machine stitches which can look like whip stitches if used on the right materials. I like using a blind hem stitch to lay twisted buillion, cord, and flat trims on velvet and felted wool. If the stitch length matches the angle of the twist, one side of the cross-over stitch falls in the twist and the other looks like a whip stitch was taken over the cord. The straight stitches between fall into the velvet. This can look much better than zig-zag or top-stitching! I'd much rather spend my handsewing time on embroidery, smocking, or beading. I like my older mechanical Viking 6360, with a low gear and cams. They are about $300 used. I can sew through leather and it goes through 4 layers of 10 oz canvas or coating wool with ease. With a change of needles and thread, I can do French heirloom lace insertions...BTW, sewing machines are definitely OK for later period Victorian and probably CW....Isn't the patent date something like 1854? Erin Harvey-Moody said she thought they were commercially available in the 1860's. Anyone out there have a date? Julie Adams -- julie_adams@corp.cubic.com (619) 630-6318 Vista, CA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 19:02:45 -0400 From: Zachary Kessin Subject: Machine Vs Hand Sewing - ------- Forwarded Message > > >Handsewing doesn't always hang differently, but it can. It >depends on what handsewing techniques were originally used. >For example if you are attaching an organ-pipe or cartridge >pleated skirt to a bodice, doublet, or yoke, there is no machine >substitute as it uses what I've heard called the "stab" stitch. > >I personally feel that all machine embroidery looks obviously >machine sewn, though I have seen a few people with REALLY >high quality machines fake up blackwork shirts fairly well. This >technique does not usually pass close inspection, but is not >obvious to the untrained eye. > >Frankly, for day-to-day sewing, most of us can't handsew as well >as people who started handsewing during childhood and did so all >their lives several hours a day. Much of the 1870s-1900s >handsewn Victorian and Edwardian vintage pieces that I own have >stitches far tinier than what we normally use for long seams (as if >you set your machine on the tiniest buttonhole stitch length and >sew straight stitches). I have a very hard time differentiating >some of the handstitching from the more modern repairs without a >magnifying glass, because it is so even and small. I would not be >at all concerned with standard seams if I were you, sounds like >someone trying to lay a guilt trip on you. What period(s) are you >doing? > >There are also ways to hide stitches, like the "stitch in the ditch" >method, as well as machine stitches which can look like whip >stitches if used on the right materials. I like using a blind hem >stitch to lay twisted buillion, cord, and flat trims on velvet and >felted wool. If the stitch length matches the angle of the twist, >one side of the cross-over stitch falls in the twist and the other >looks like a whip stitch was taken over the cord. The straight >stitches between fall into the velvet. This can look much better >than zig-zag or top-stitching! I'd much rather spend my >handsewing time on embroidery, smocking, or beading. > >I like my older mechanical Viking 6360, with a low gear and cams. >They are about $300 used. I can sew through leather and it >goes through 4 layers of 10 oz canvas or coating wool with ease. >With a change of needles and thread, I can do French heirloom >lace insertions...BTW, sewing machines are definitely OK for later >period Victorian and probably CW....Isn't the patent date >something like 1854? Erin Harvey-Moody said she thought they >were commercially available in the 1860's. Anyone out there have >a date? > From the 150 year retrospective in in Sept 95 Scientific American: Note about Isaac Singer of NY NY geting a patent in 1851. I have a 199x model singer low end and it will not go threw heavy stuff. I did about 1/2 of my last doublet by hand came out very nicely. If I can get my 1951 singer to work it probably would do the trick. Get something heavy duty if you can aford it. - --Zachary Kessin zkessin@bedlham.com x^n+y^n=z^n has no integer solutions other than 0 for n>2 I have a wonderful proof of this, but it won't fit in a .sig file. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 19:13:08 -0400 From: BBrisbane@aol.com Subject: Re: handsewing vs. Machine sewing If you have a winter to while away, handsewing garments is not biting off more than you can chew! Actually, Ive done all the major seaming for a 1350's mans kirtle, hose and under drawers in 5 days of not too dilligent work. Great Wardrobe rolls quoted in Textiles and Clothing for the Museum of London give times required to complete garments: apair of hose in half a day, a lined hood in a day, a lined cloak in six days, a tunic or super tunic up to six days depending on complexity. These are for 14th C clothes, and by professionals, of course. My advice is to enjoy the slowed experience of sewing and delayed gratification. Also, you may find it easier to perform some operations, and control the fabric better for smoother seams, necklines, etc. Don't rush, and the fantastic results and people goggling at it will be well worth the time. Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 16:31:15 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset | -Have you even seen oyster-shell patterns used on any picture of | a Tudor gown? I haven't. That sort of knocks the "period" aspect | right out the door right up front. Fabric choices, and finding a | fabric just like the fabrics in the pictures (i.e. no polyester or mylar | gold lamee' substitutes) are critical into making a costume look | period. This raises a philosophical question: what do we consider period? The portraits, garments, and textiles we have surviving today are a tiny fraction of what must have existed during the Tudor period. Is it necessary, then, to find a fabric "just like the one in the picture"? If you're trying to recreate a specific garment, certainly, you would want to come as close to the actual fabric as possible. But if we were all to adhere to that same standard, all the time, we would end up with a collection of costumes that poorly reflected the actual variety of costumes that must have existed at the time. For this reason, I see nothing wrong with choosing fabrics that bear similarities to things that existed in period, but are not exact copies. Also, some substitutes may be closer than we realize. One costumer who had the opportunity to study surviving specimens of cloth of gold first hand told me their appearance was virtually identical to modern lamee', which we consider to be tacky and cheap-looking today because it is so cheap. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 16:41:27 TZ From: Edward Wright Subject: RE: Machine Vs Hand Sewing | >From the 150 year retrospective in in Sept 95 Scientific American: | Note about Isaac Singer of NY NY geting a patent in 1851. | I have a 199x model singer low end and it will not go threw heavy | stuff. I did about 1/2 of my last doublet by hand came out very nicely. | If I can get my 1951 singer to work it probably would do the trick. | Get something heavy duty if you can aford it. The good news is that Singer is once again manufacturing its old-fashioned all-metal sewing machines. I have seen the electric "Singer Classic" -- all metal in a bent-wood case -- selling for $119 in local department stores. I've also seen a treadle-powered version, including the table, available mail order (from the Cumberland General Store) for around $350. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 20:11:58 PDT From: Fred Meyer Subject: FW: RE: needed - buffalo buttons - ---------------Original Message--------------- Julie, Can you give me information about the Single Action Shooting Society? I recently spoke to a gentleman about this society, and apparently he gave me the wrong name. I went to the library to find the society's address with no luck. He mentioned the Single Six-Gun Society, is this the same? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Lena Meyer premier@bright.net - ----------End of Original Message---------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 17:00:24 PDT From: julie_adams@corp.Cubic.COM Subject: RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset >>This raises a philosophical question: what do we consider >>period? The portraits, garments, and textiles we have surviving >>today are a tiny fraction of what must have existed during the >>Tudor period. Is it necessary, then, to find a fabric "just like >>the one in the picture"? Ed, Ignore for a moment the angst a lot of people have about the word "period". There are a lot of resources for fabric research other than a few pictures. We can use many sources available to determine what was popular and available at the time, such as manufacturing and purchase records, archeological finds, etc. We are not talking about 11th century Islam here, either, there are LOTS of paintings from this period. There were a lot of fabrics available in 1530's Venice that were neither available or practical in England. Unless you have done research and have the documentation, you are just guessing. IMHO, you may as well guess that everyone would wear Reboks on their feet and wear sunglasses, because "they would have worn them if they could." I won't make any excuses for being a purest. It is an individual's choice not to do research (and sometimes I whip out that T-tunic too), or to do the research and still choose create their own style, but there is no need to justify it with "period". Why not just say I chose this fabric because I liked it? I guess we will have to agree to dissagree on this subject. >>we would end up with a collection of costumes that poorly >>reflected the actual variety of costumes that must have existed >>at the time. I don't agree with your conclusion. There are a lot of paintings of this period of Townspeople in market squares. The fabric variety is not usually what stands out in the mix, but usually wierd things like the space aliens with batons walking through Bruegal's peasant market that cause my mind to reel, or guys in top hats.... I also disaggree with your friend after being up close and intimate with a variety of Renaissance metalic textiles in Germany and a recent Ottoman Turk exhibit in LA. I feel the difference between real metal and synthetic lamee is enormous in its depth, the weight of real gold in fabric makes it hang differently as well. To me it would be like saying that corduroy looks just like silk velvet. My response to Sarah was to let her know what me, julie (and Mistress Julianna), would double-take on. I'm just trying to be honest in saying that if I see a corduroy Tudor, it won't even register. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 21:52:55 -0400 From: jreymes@curtis.eagle.ca (Jennifer Reymes) Subject: resources for fabric research (was RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices) >Ignore for a moment the angst a lot of people have about the >word "period". There are a lot of resources for fabric research >other than a few pictures. We can use many sources available to >determine what was popular and available at the time, such as >manufacturing and purchase records, archeological finds, etc. Though for an earlier period, TEXTILE IMPORTS IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: THE EVIDENCE OF THE CUSTOMS' ACCOUNTS, by Henry S. Cobb in COSTUME Number 29 is an interesting read. Mr. Cobb was formerly a Clerk of the Records in the House of Lords (UK). His Principal research interest is in late medieval overseas trade. His article gives a well documented account on the textile (and related) items brought into the various ports of England 1340-1481 (approx). To study textiles and dress of any period it is advisable to research what was available. BTW, 'COSTUME' is the annual journal of the Costume Society (UK). If any one is interested in information on how to get back issues, or joining the Costume Society, contact me, or if there is enough interest I could post it to here (?). I highly recommend the journals. Jennifer Reymes jreymes@eagle.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 20:35:46 -0500 (EST) From: "D. R. Leed" Subject: RE: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset > If you're trying to recreate a specific garment, certainly, you would > want to come as close to the actual fabric as possible. But if we were > all to adhere to that same standard, all the time, we would end up with > a collection of costumes that poorly reflected the actual variety of > costumes that must have existed at the time. For this reason, I see > nothing wrong with choosing fabrics that bear similarities to things > that existed in period, but are not exact copies. I myself have been guilty of looking at someone's costume and thinking, "how weird!" simply because I'd never seen an example of it in period pictures, etc. A few month's later, I saw its exact duplicate in a book, much to my chagrin. about handsewing: I don't claim to be as good as a period seamstress, but I do handsewing as a hobby. Even with small, even stitches, the seam looks slightly different on the outside...it has a slight "wavy" shape when compared to machine sewing, because there's only one thread on alternate sides rather than two threads on either side. It's not noticeable unless you look hard, though. I was wondering: what is the difference, in drape, weight and texture, between modern satin and period silk satin? I've heard legendary tales of the latter, but don't know if it's the fabric or its $30 a yard price tag that makes people swoon over it. Drea ============================= We've secretly replaced their dilithium crystals with new Folger's crystals. Now let's watch them go to warp. ============================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 18:30:28 PST From: Kat@grendal.rain.com (June Russell) Subject: Re: Boning for 1530's Bodices & Corset :- I believe I that most Tudor gowns have bodice, skirt, and :undersleeves of the same color and fabric. Most MidTudor (like Jane Seymour, Anne Boleyne, Mary I as a Princess, Elizabeth I as a Princess, Jane Gray, etc) have bodice, skirt and the upper sleeve all the same color. I've been researching this time period for quite some time, and I've never seen this dress with them different colors (unlike Italians). The Folded back lining of the upper sleeve is fur, velvet or a brocade. The false lower sleeve can match the forepart, or be different (in the "after Holbein" Jane Seymours, for example). The forepart (under skirt, petticoat, whatever you call it) is usually in a brocade or voided velvet. I suspect they could be of plain fabric like a taffeta or faille/ottoman, but the portraits don't show it. As mentioned, a lot changes when you get to the "Elizabethan" time period. Kat Kateryne of Hindscroft ( June Russell ) pacifier.rain.com!grendal!kat kat@grendal.rain.com Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat! ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V3 #182 ******************************* A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, send the command lines: unsubscribe h-costume-digest subscribe h-costume end in the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Thanks and enjoy the list!