Posaune, I'm glad that makes more sense.
For the proportionate figure, the arm scye is as follows:
The scye depth is calculated as (1/8 bust measurement or 1/4 basic proportion
) plus (8 cm or 1/4 back nape to waist measurement, less 2 cm
The back portion of the scye width is made up of the difference between 1/4 (chest + 4 cm) and 1/2 back width, as measured out from the center back line
. Alternatively, in place of the measured 1/2 back width, the half back width may be calculated as 1 cm plus 1/8 basic proportion, plus 1/4 basic proportion.
The back part of the scye is then drawn 1 cm out from the measured/calculated half back width mark, and shoulder point N extended out by about 1.3 cm.
The front portion of the scye width is equal to 1/8 of the basic proportion, plus 0.25 cm.
Point L1 is drawn 3 cm above L, where the scye touches. I have used Morris's guideline for drawing the scye with 1/6 of the basic proportion (drawn up from point L on the draft), which seems to hold true.
I'm having quite a bit of fun churning out drafts and studying where adjustments made alter the entire fit. I've also been coming up with more questions, naturally.
According to Maria Mori's book, for the front bodice, the extra length needed to cover the bust altitude is figured by taking the back scye depth, plus 0.8 cm plus 1/3 of the shoulder dart width P-P1. On my last draft using my own measurements, I calculated this amount (1/3 of P-P1) to be almost identical to that of Morris's method using 1/12 of the basic proportion. Is this amount really enough to accommodate a larger bust size?
I have tried to compare this draft against my own front nape-to-waist measurement, but it is off by quite a long stretch. Assuming that my posture is not to blame, this begs the question of whether the calculated addition to front length is not enough, or if the neck size is being drafted too small (or that my neck is disproportionate.) The back neck width is calculated as 1/8 of the basic proportion, plus 1 cm. (Morris's book gives either 1/4 of the neck circumference, less 1/2 inch (approx. 1.27 cm), or 1/6 of the basic proportion less 1/4 inch (approx. 0.64 cm).)
(I'm waiting on my husband to build my cutting table/work bench, so unfortunately I do not have the luxury of testing these out in full scale just yet! I have been working in 2D on SketchUp, which I suppose has saved a vast quantity of paper at least...!)
What would be the best way to take a balance measurement for the female figure? Surely it would be possible to have, purely as a reference point to check the posture of an individual, a method of comparing the back nape to waist length against the center front neck to waist measurement, thus avoiding the bust prominence entirely? Perhaps I am yet again missing something (!), but I cannot see how the nape-to-waist-over-bust measurement can accurately isolate and show posture discrepancies, considering the bust itself may be larger or smaller than average in addition to stooping or erect posture.
I would like to know what amount of front balance - for both the "skeleton's posture" and bust prominence - is deemed to be proportionate in relation to the back nape-to-waist measurement, and when to deviate from the proportionate draft and use the alternative disproportionate drafts listed in the book.
The book also doesn't show the amount to drop the front waistline shaping by. I have seen fixed measurements given as standard elsewhere, ranging from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch. (Strange why I remember those amounts in inches, as I prefer to work in metric.) I presume this amount would have to be adjusted based on the figure type.
Perhaps the biggest pitfall of this book is the number of errors in the table of proportionate measurements. I can only assume they are errors, as there are several figures which don't seem to follow any kind of pattern. I created a table with the dimensions of drafts for each proportionate size given. I have tried to cross-check the front balance of the drafted patterns by calculating and comparing the given front nape-to-waist measurement, but it keeps coming up off. Would it be possible to swap these figures for a given set of proportionate measurements that is known to be correct? Or do different systems consider different shapes to be proportionate, thus making cross-referencing impossible...? More research is in order.
(Do forgive me if I'm asking silly questions and please excuse my ramblings!