Shirt *Construction* techniques

[Hendrick]

As a rule, topstitching is done on the visible side. Here's how I was tought to do a Brooks brothers style sleeve inset. Obviously, the seam allowances here are different between sleeve and corpus of the shirt. I was tought to baste right to right, the sleeve under the corpus at half the seam value then stitch at the correct value on the sleeve side. Then pick out the basting and fold the seam allowance of the sleeve over the allowance of the corpus and iron on the right side, seam folded correctly. Now, on the inside, settle and baste the seam at about half the width of your topstitch. Don't hesitate to wet the insides with a swad of natural spunge or brush and some water with starch. Turn rightside and lower your iron vertically on the seam for the excess allowance to settle (it is mostly bias...). Then topstitch from the right side. Never pull and always guide your work curved on the machinebed when topstitching. Lastly, thin out seam ends at a 45 degree angle where they are going to be felled; it will make better felling and topstitching your sideseams...

Cheers, Hendrick

[spookietoo]

Guys, lots of great info here. I'm about to tackle a few shirts for myself, so will see how it goes.

So, to repay the favor just a tiny bit:

If you heat the fabric with the iron first, the glue will melt into it, and then you can iron over it to glue the layers together - just be careful not to get it on the sole plate of your iron!

I honestly never fret over glue gunk on my iron anymore. You simply need to run it over a dryer sheet to remove the glue. I keep one in a zip lock bag with a couple of paper towels next to my ironing board. The towels prevent the oils from the dryer sheet from getting on your board cover and then I also iron over them to remove the oils and residual glue gunk from the sole plate. Learned this from a home sewing forum. One of my favorite "hacks".

[EvanTA]

I'm also trying my first proper dress shirt, will post some if I'm pleased with it. I had finished it through attaching the collar but didn't like how that turned out so am revisiting it. Construction-wise I followed the process outlined in the DPC video and it came out very clean, I just didn't like the shape so I'm making up a new version and swapping it on. The collar band came up too high at the front of my neck so I trimmed/shaped that some to reduce the height, and while it fit nicely around my neck at the bottom of the collar band it was loose at the top, so I shaped the band a bit similar to how I have with a curved waistband (slashing and curving inward). Hope this one turns out better so I have a standard band shape that I can re-use.

Here's a question for others regarding pattern differences between casual and dress shirts, first some context: I had only made casual shirts before the dress shirt, so my plan was to convert the casual shirt pattern to a dress shirt pattern. First thing I noticed was that when I fully buttoned up my casual shirt the collar was actually pretty loose and sat somewhat low on my neck. I had not been worried about what the collar would look like fully buttoned up, I liked how it looked unbuttoned or with top buttons undone and that was enough. It sits nicely along the back of my neck and at my shoulders, but then the neckline drops low along the front of my chest. Not dramatically, just a small difference. So, I brought that neck line a little higher up for the dress shirt, and it fits/looks nice now and allows for a snug fitting collar. Then I wondered if I should copy this adjustment to my casual shirt pattern, but I'm not sure I want to - I like that it sits more open.

So my question is, do you have this difference between your shirt patterns where the casual shirt neck is a little more open at the front? It especially works well on a cuban/camp collar, I think. And for that matter, are there any other differences in the pattern you have found you like that distinguish between a casual shirt and a dress shirt? The shaping of the sides seems like an obvious one, having a dress shirt more tightly tailored and maybe adding darts (I personally don't like darted shirts, but I can see it as more appropriate on a dress shirt). I also like a slightly shorter cuff for a casual shirt - 2" instead of 2.5" on a dress shirt. Curious if others approach it similarly.

[Gerry]

So my question is, do you have this difference between your shirt patterns where the casual shirt neck is a little more open at the front? It especially works well on a cuban/camp collar, I think. And for that matter, are there any other differences in the pattern you have found you like that distinguish between a casual shirt and a dress shirt? The shaping of the sides seems like an obvious one, having a dress shirt more tightly tailored and maybe adding darts (I personally don't like darted shirts, but I can see it as more appropriate on a dress shirt). I also like a slightly shorter cuff for a casual shirt - 2" instead of 2.5" on a dress shirt. Curious if others approach it similarly.

It's rare that a shirt collar looks good both buttoned and with the top one or two buttons undone. It's usually a case of one or the other. I love Italian Collar shirts and have amassed a small collection of vintage examples for cloning/educational purposes. The majority were designed to be open necked. One or two have top buttons but they either only look good fully buttoned, or (more commonly) better open-necked and the top button was a waste of time. I also own a vintage Arrow shirt that has a camp/revere collar. It looks fantastic buttoned with the loop, but mediocre open, with the loop undone.

It's similar with three-roll two jackets. Those that are designed to look good once rolled tend to look terrible if fully buttoned (assuming that the top button is functional). Similarly, a lightly structured front that happens to roll down to the next button will never look as sharp/good as a purposely designed roll-two; and will often look better fully buttoned.

As a rule of thumb casual collars tend to be lower profile and one can get away with a slightly wider neck opening/collar.  Knock up a test garment with cheap shirting to compare the difference and use your eye to decide. Aesthetics is everything when it comes to collars.

Casual shirts also tend to be worn outside of the trousers, the hems being straight and coming down to the fullest part of the seat/top of the pubic bone (usually the same position). How fitted you want to make either type of shirt is a matter of taste.

[Schneiderfrei]

I love Italian Collar shirts and have amassed a small collection of vintage examples for cloning/educational purposes.

Gerry I would love to see an image of what you mean.

G

[Gerry]

Schneiderfrei, I've posted these images before. An Italian Collar Shirt I made a couple of years ago:





I've only known about these shirts for a few years, but have become totally obsessed by them. The one piece collar has a facing that extends into the body. Without the normal 'hinge' of a collar seam, the tension at the neck resolves in a beautiful roll. Same thing as the 'Cooper Collar', which was a refinement of the ICS and came later (I'm such a nerd I looked up the patents).

The shirt is cut in such a way that one wouldn't be able to button it to the top, even if a buttonhole was  provided. Hopefully we can all agree that it would look terrible too, ruining the aesthetic created.

[Greger]

Beautiful rolls on the shirt. Like the pockets, too.

[Schneiderfrei]

Schneiderfrei, I've posted these images before. An Italian Collar Shirt I made a couple of years ago:

Hi Gerry,

Thank you very much. I had forgotten.

Also great design, almost like a shirt waistcoat. very elegant.

G

[Gerry]

Beautiful rolls on the shirt. Like the pockets, too.

Thank you Greger. The pockets are period specific (late 50s). Mostly they were done as rectangles when on the hip, but I saw a couple of vintage IC shirts with these slant openings and copied the look.

At some point I need to redo this design and in a better cloth (Oxford). I have around 15 vintage shirts now, most of them IC, and I've learned a lot from examining them. The one-piece collars had a slightly lower profile. Typically the height at the back was 2.5 inches plus an eighth or a quarter to account for the fold. Once folded, the collar is approx. 1.25 inches high. It's a more sporty look, whereas a higher collar is for dress/normal shirts.

That's only a minor thing, but virtually all of my vintage examples did two things to create a better-looking front. The button-stand overlap is invariably 5/8ths as opposed to 3/4 in (which I used); and although the buttonholes are spaced 5/8ths from the placket edge, the buttons are brought closer to the front by a quarter, so they're sewn 3/8ths from the edge. By minimising the wrap at the front, there's better symmetry between the two sides and the roll on the right isn't choked by the left. It's a bit like double vs single breasted jackets, but on a micro scale for a shirt. This arrangement also allows for a higher neck-opening (if desired).

[Hendrick]

Nice! The collar shape is great and falls perfectly. I am just curious to know what sort of interlining you used that gives this roll...

Cheers, Hendrick

[Hendrick]

Reminds me by the way, dear shirtmakers... A few years ago I was in a french mens' store, trying on a shirt with a cutaway collar. The guy at the store said it was a "col Italien", Italian collar... I told him "we call that a cutaway collar" and that an Italian collar is a "one piece collar". No no, goes the salesguy; "that we call a "bowling collar". Another person, I guess German was looking round the store as well and interrupted him, saying "no, that is a "schiller collar".

Cheers, Hendrick

[Gerry]

I am just curious to know what sort of interlining you used that gives this roll...

The interfacing isn't that critical, Hendrick. These shirts have an inherent roll due to the way they're designed; and the roll can be controlled to a certain extent when drafting (once the basic principles are understood).

That said, I favour light-weight calico. It has to be soaked in very hot water because of the shrinkage (typically around 10%); plus whatever chemical treatment the cloth receives needs to be washed out - the water after soaking is noticeably discoloured (a brackish yellow).

What I like about calico is that it has natural adhesion to the cloth compared with a lot of purpose-made collar canvas. The latter tends to have a glassy feel and shirting shifts around easily over its surface. It's one of the reasons why people get wrinkles in the corners of collars that have sewn-in interfacing. It's not only that they iron in the wrong direction (towards the tips rather than away from them), but also that the interfacing doesn't grip the shirting, so there's no resistance to the motion and weight of the iron. Whereas calico feels a part of the cloth when used as interfacing.

Calico also has some spring to it. Not as much as canvas, but enough to make it viable as an interfacing. It creates a soft collar, but that's appropriate for casual shirts. Many of my vintage examples have thin, cotton interfacing (possibly batiste?). Like I say, it's not that critical.

Edit: the calico has to be unbleached. The bleached stuff is too soft and the needle can punch fibres through to the underside of the shirting so you get what some people call 'ghosting': tiny white marks along the stitch line. It's impossible to remedy and ruins a collar.

PS using calico is a good way to recycle toiles.

[Gerry]

Reminds me by the way, dear shirtmakers... A few years ago I was in a french mens' store, trying on a shirt with a cutaway collar. The guy at the store said it was a "col Italien", Italian collar... I told him "we call that a cutaway collar" and that an Italian collar is a "one piece collar". No no, goes the salesguy; "that we call a "bowling collar". Another person, I guess German was looking round the store as well and interrupted him, saying "no, that is a "schiller collar".

Italian-collars were originally called 'convertible' collars, because they could be worn open-necked or closed by using a tie to 'button up' the front. This is evidenced in the original patent (filed in Italy in 1949 and a year later in the US and parts of Europe):

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2651042A/en

It's probably why all the early 50s examples I've seen have huge collars. They only start to get sexy from around 1956/57 onwards.

[jruley]

The interfacing isn't that critical, Hendrick. These shirts have an inherent roll due to the way they're designed; and the roll can be controlled to a certain extent when drafting (once the basic principles are understood).

That said, I favour light-weight calico. It has to be soaked in very hot water because of the shrinkage (typically around 10%); plus whatever chemical treatment the cloth receives needs to be washed out - the water after soaking is noticeably discoloured (a brackish yellow).

What I like about calico is that it has natural adhesion to the cloth compared with a lot of purpose-made collar canvas. The latter tends to have a glassy feel and shirting shifts around easily over its surface. It's one of the reasons why people get wrinkles in the corners of collars that have sewn-in interfacing. It's not only that they iron in the wrong direction (towards the tips rather than away from them), but also that the interfacing doesn't grip the shirting, so there's no resistance to the motion and weight of the iron. Whereas calico feels a part of the cloth when used as interfacing.

Calico also has some spring to it. Not as much as canvas, but enough to make it viable as an interfacing. It creates a soft collar, but that's appropriate for casual shirts. Many of my vintage examples have thin, cotton interfacing (possibly batiste?). Like I say, it's not that critical.

Edit: the calico has to be unbleached. The bleached stuff is too soft and the needle can punch fibres through to the underside of the shirting so you get what some people call 'ghosting': tiny white marks along the stitch line. It's impossible to remedy and ruins a collar.

PS using calico is a good way to recycle toiles.

Nice looking collar, Gerry!

I am wondering what your "calico" is called on this side of the pond.  Ask for calico in a US fabric store and you will probably be directed to a rack full of small colorful prints on cheap plain weave cotton.  After checking with my friend Google it seems to mean something completely different in the UK...

[Gerry]

I am wondering what your "calico" is called on this side of the pond.  Ask for calico in a US fabric store and you will probably be directed to a rack full of small colorful prints on cheap plain weave cotton.  After checking with my friend Google it seems to mean something completely different in the UK...

In the 18th century, calico, floral prints from India became so fashionable that imports were restricted, because the wool industry was suffering. The flowery design became known as 'chintz'. Whether this cotton was calico or not, I don't know, but here are some examples of cotton chintz that I snapped at the V&A during a past visit:









According to Wikipedia: "while Europe maintained the word calico for the fabric, in the US it was used to refer to the printed design". What we in the UK call Chintz.

Looking at US terminology, the nearest thing would probably be unbleached Muslin with a tighter weave than cheesecloth. In the UK Muslin tends to have a sheer quality, and is also referred to as cheesecloth. Calico is denser and it has a little 'spring' (stiffness).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico#Terminology

Interfacing doesn't create roll in a collar, as shown in my photo. That's down to the unique design of a IC shirt. The interfacing merely enhances/supports the roll, which is inherent. As mentioned, the interfacing in my vintage shirts tends to be quite thin and soft, yet most of the shirts have a roll. Arguably many would benefit from a springier interfacing, but they still work.