Zipper Fly Construction- Underlayer Seam always shows

[Bifurcator]

Thanks again for all the help, tips and advice.
I read through Hostek and Reinhardts fly construction directions. I did a mock up of Hostel's. It was a little difficult to follow, but I gleaned a few insights like the importance of doing a lot of baste stitching and he attached zipper to facings and shield before attaching to the pants. He only suggest offsetting right and left sides by about a 1/4" at top, going to zero at bottom, so the right side zipper seam was still showing at the bottom, anyhow I was only trying his way to gain insights.

I think a few key takeaways are
-mark the CF line, where left side needs to overlap to and baste before sewing zipper to facing on left side
-Dont force the curve part of rise on left side into a straight line at CF, it creates buckling. As long as it's cover seam and top stitch of right side it's ok.
-basting wherever the fabrics tend to want to pull
-watch and avoid the presser foot pulling/stretching the fabric


After the Hostek mock up I did another mock up (below) using my construction and using the tips and advice given.
On this one I sewed the rise seam below fly last, which made it easier to create the fly, especially the left side with J-stitch, but was a little tricky to get the presser foot all the way to the bottom of the J Stitch because flys facings are sewn down at that point.

I do think maybe I will try straightening out the left side front, where zipper is attached, a little. Even though its overlapping, the curve isn't really doing anything for the fit and does make aligning to CF line difficult.
I still need to fine tune J-stitch shape and still not completely happy with what's going on beneath the fly so going to continue tweaking/experimenting construction and pattern in that area.




On another note, any chalk recommendations or tips? I use mainly cotton fabrics and it seems to always leave a permanent mark. It makes doing the final garment sewing much harder because I'm always scared to use it on final cloth.

[Gerry]

That's the best results so far, well done. As I hinted at earlier, you'll have more control over the j-curve, and probably get a cleaner result at the base if there's bulk, if you do it by hand and pick stitch. Plus the stitching will be more invisible.

As for chalk, avoid the waxy stuff. You get a nice line with it and it's great for doing outlines that are going to be concealed, but it's not a good idea to use it to mark the surface of cloth where it will be visible. It tends to leave a residue.

Any natural chalk should be okay. When you're done, dip the bristles of a firm clothes brush in a bowl of water and brush the chalk away. That should get rid of it all. Avoid pressing chalk that's used to  mark the run of top stitching, however. Apply the chalk after pressing otherwise you can ingrain the marks into the cloth. Especially if you've used steam.

For lighter coloured cloths you can use an erasable pen. Pilot are a good brand. Although sewing firms make these things,  they're usually cheap and nasty and run/dry out quickly. Pilot, on the other hand, are designed for drafting and are a quality product - they last. The ink disappears with the heat of an iron. It can, however, leave residue. You always have to test your fabric. On some shirting, even though it's natural cotton, I've had faint white marks left after pressing. Sometimes you have no option but to use chalk.

[Greger]

Did someone post this already?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130511020830/http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3298&st=18

[Bifurcator]

Thanks...each one get's a little better.  These are a more casual style, so pick stitching isn't quite the right look for this one, but will keep it in mind.

Thanks for the chalk and pen advise.  I picked up a couple of pilots and a brush.  I'll try the wet brush technique next time.  I think part of my problem is accidently pressing too.  I think I just need to be more cautious in general.

That's the best results so far, well done. As I hinted at earlier, you'll have more control over the j-curve, and probably get a cleaner result at the base if there's bulk, if you do it by hand and pick stitch. Plus the stitching will be more invisible.

As for chalk, avoid the waxy stuff. You get a nice line with it and it's great for doing outlines that are going to be concealed, but it's not a good idea to use it to mark the surface of cloth where it will be visible. It tends to leave a residue.

Any natural chalk should be okay. When you're done, dip the bristles of a firm clothes brush in a bowl of water and brush the chalk away. That should get rid of it all. Avoid pressing chalk that's used to  mark the run of top stitching, however. Apply the chalk after pressing otherwise you can ingrain the marks into the cloth. Especially if you've used steam.

For lighter coloured cloths you can use an erasable pen. Pilot are a good brand. Although sewing firms make these things,  they're usually cheap and nasty and run/dry out quickly. Pilot, on the other hand, are designed for drafting and are a quality product - they last. The ink disappears with the heat of an iron. It can, however, leave residue. You always have to test your fabric. On some shirting, even though it's natural cotton, I've had faint white marks left after pressing. Sometimes you have no option but to use chalk.

[Bifurcator]

Did someone post this already?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130511020830/http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3298&st=18

This is great- thank you!  I'm going to dig through those other old posts when I have some time.

[Bifurcator]

This is the latest one, that still needs some tweaking at the bottom, but is pretty clean overall.  I did completely straighten the seam where the zipper attaches and left overlaps.  I love the look of having the zipper on the curve, but see image below this one to seeing buckling affect I continued to struggle with.  I've yet to see how this straightening of the seam is going to affect the fit (fingers crossed).


Here you can see the buckling affect I couldn't avoid when trying to forced the Curved Front to the CF. I don't know if it's because it's too curved or the combination of the curve and the angle, but essentially it seemed difficult trying to overlap to concave curves that angled away from each other.


This is the left pattern cut all the way to the seam line along the zipper length.

[Gerry]

Bifurcator, you're still thinking two-dimensionally and the body isn't a flat surface, is it. Furthermore, your mock-up doesn't reflect the reality of what happens when the two sides are overlapped (you're trying to join them like a seam, which isn't the end result).

I've done the following by eye, so it's not to scale or exact: the shape is generally curved like the front but I've deliberately exaggerated the overlap to prove that it isn't problematic. Firstly, fold over your seam allowances to the wrong side as can be seen here:



Note that I've had to tear the paper in order to do this. It replicates the stretching required by the iron in order to release the tension along the outer edge. Also note that the two sides are only joined at the base of the crotch curve; and that the upper parts overlap as they wish to fall (hopefully as we've designed for). In this example, I added 'underlap' to the right hand side of the pattern, graduating it into the original crotch curve as demonstrated earlier. Not very accurately done, but hopefully you can see that it's a continuous seam (albeit one with cuts along it - the limitations of paper), rather than the Poulin example which abruptly cuts the underlap short. The right side slips under the left side - they're not sewn together as a seam, are they.

Now see things from the front:



Note how everything curves nicely if you're not trying to push it against a flat surface. Starting the crotch curve higher deemphasises the crotch by allowing a little more ease over the front. It looks more natural with higher rise/traditional trousers.

[Greger]

Hosteck and I were talking about one fly is a little straighter than the other (it might be in his book). Forgot which side. A book I was reading said to shrink one side a little bit. It said Never Stretch. Gerry is saying stretch the seam allowance, which is a different subject. So, One side of the seam is shrunk and the other side (seam allowance) is stretched. Some of the pressing maybe best pressed over a ham, mit, or sleeve roll.

[Hendrick]

Hosteck and I were talking about one fly is a little straighter than the other (it might be in his book). Forgot which side. A book I was reading said to shrink one side a little bit. It said Never Stretch. Gerry is saying stretch the seam allowance, which is a different subject. So, One side of the seam is shrunk and the other side (seam allowance) is stretched. Some of the pressing maybe best pressed over a ham, mit, or sleeve roll.

I was tought that the underpart should be 3mm shorter than the upper fly and that the weight and bulk of the material is in play as well.

Cheers, Hendrick

[Bifurcator]

Bifurcator, you're still thinking two-dimensionally and the body isn't a flat surface, is it. Furthermore, your mock-up doesn't reflect the reality of what happens when the two sides are overlapped (you're trying to join them like a seam, which isn't the end result).

I've done the following by eye, so it's not to scale or exact: the shape is generally curved like the front but I've deliberately exaggerated the overlap to prove that it isn't problematic. Firstly, fold over your seam allowances to the wrong side as can be seen here:



Note that I've had to tear the paper in order to do this. It replicates the stretching required by the iron in order to release the tension along the outer edge. Also note that the two sides are only joined at the base of the crotch curve; and that the upper parts overlap as they wish to fall (hopefully as we've designed for). In this example, I added 'underlap' to the right hand side of the pattern, graduating it into the original crotch curve as demonstrated earlier. Not very accurately done, but hopefully you can see that it's a continuous seam (albeit one with cuts along it - the limitations of paper), rather than the Poulin example which abruptly cuts the underlap short. The right side slips under the left side - they're not sewn together as a seam, are they.

Now see things from the front:



Note how everything curves nicely if you're not trying to push it against a flat surface. Starting the crotch curve higher deemphasises the crotch by allowing a little more ease over the front. It looks more natural with higher rise/traditional trousers.

Yes, good point about thinking in 2-D and wanting the garment/fabric to lay flat while sewing and after.  I definitely want a garment with shape, in the right places. Figuring out how to control that shape and where it lays is a never ending learning curve

To be fair, I understand it should overlap not connect like a seam.  I think my photo/pattern mock-up was a little misleading.  This is what it looks like in garment form and when I push that curve of the wearer's left side to meet the line on the wearer's right side it buckles, but to your point it doesn't necessarily need to lay completely flat.  I am getting a little bit of an issue with the facing "rippling"/ buckling at the edge.  But I think a lot of this is just coming down to practice at this point.




Anyhow, really appreciate you taking the time to shed light on this problem.  I feel like I'm starting to beat a dead horse now and just need to practice, tweak, and practice some more.  Even more so I need to get back to making full garments and let go of it trying to be completely exact and perfect, for now.....

[Bifurcator]

Hosteck and I were talking about one fly is a little straighter than the other (it might be in his book). Forgot which side. A book I was reading said to shrink one side a little bit. It said Never Stretch. Gerry is saying stretch the seam allowance, which is a different subject. So, One side of the seam is shrunk and the other side (seam allowance) is stretched. Some of the pressing maybe best pressed over a ham, mit, or sleeve roll.

I don't remember reading that in Hosteck's book, but I didn't read from front to back, just jumped around to the constructions I wanted to try, I also don't retain much...haha...so quite possibly I did read it and just forgot.  If you look at the image I posted above it would seam to make sense to make the left side straighter, reducing the concave shape. I may give it a try.  If it's minimal I can see it hurting the fit of the garment especially if the underside still retains it's curve.
I'm not sure which side I would shrink. 
I do remember Hosteck mentions cutting the facings a little more hollow than the garment at front curve.  I think this would give it a little more room or hollowness in that area.  I believe he refers to it as "spring", but I could be mixing that up.

[Bifurcator]

Hosteck and I were talking about one fly is a little straighter than the other (it might be in his book). Forgot which side. A book I was reading said to shrink one side a little bit. It said Never Stretch. Gerry is saying stretch the seam allowance, which is a different subject. So, One side of the seam is shrunk and the other side (seam allowance) is stretched. Some of the pressing maybe best pressed over a ham, mit, or sleeve roll.

I was tought that the underpart should be 3mm shorter than the upper fly and that the weight and bulk of the material is in play as well.

Cheers, Hendrick

The underpart being the right side of the garment and corresponding fly shield?  Just 3mm taken off the top?
thanks

[Gerry]

This is what it looks like in garment form and when I push that curve of the wearer's left side to meet the line on the wearer's right side it buckles, but to your point it doesn't necessarily need to lay completely flat.  I am getting a little bit of an issue with the facing "rippling"/ buckling at the edge.  But I think a lot of this is just coming down to practice at this point.

If you place the back of your hand underneath the cloth where the rippling is, it will probably disappear; though the edges don't look pressed, so some of that distortion may be tension from the seams having been turned back. The seam edges at the curve are mostly on the bias, so the cloth should naturally stretch how it needs to with only a light press over a ham.

Either way, stop making judgements when laying things flat! You can't properly evaluate what's going on because you're buckling cloth out of shape: it wants to curve in a 3-D way (that's what we've designed for in the draft). Play around with the paper mock-up that I demonstrated and things will become a lot clearer in your mind (I can tell that you still haven't quite got it). The fronts don't oppose one another when curved, and when the crotch seams are joined and facing backwards. Everything complements each other.

Despite giving you an alternative method, you're continuing to pin in a way that creates buckling; which isn't helping, is it. I'd recommend basting instead; and baste over a ham or similar, so that there's some curvature to the fronts. That way you're securing the required shape with the baste stitches. You're also securing the required lengths, which I think is what Greger and Hendrick were talking about. If you think of arcs drawn from the same point, the outer arc (the LHS, which overlaps) is going to have more length than the inner one (the RHS, which underlaps).

Best that the aforementioned forum-members confirm that, though. It's not something I'd thought about before ... which is why I come here: I always learn new things!

[Greger]

Hosteck and I were talking about one fly is a little straighter than the other (it might be in his book). Forgot which side. A book I was reading said to shrink one side a little bit. It said Never Stretch. Gerry is saying stretch the seam allowance, which is a different subject. So, One side of the seam is shrunk and the other side (seam allowance) is stretched. Some of the pressing maybe best pressed over a ham, mit, or sleeve roll.

I was tought that the underpart should be 3mm shorter than the upper fly and that the weight and bulk of the material is in play as well.

Cheers, Hendrick

The underpart being the right side of the garment and corresponding fly shield?  Just 3mm taken off the top?
thanks

The other way of thinking about it, and I don't remember which, when it is on the left side it forces a slight curve, plus it has more to go over, being on the outside. The force part forces the outer edge to bulge out, which is desirable.
It was 20-30 years ago when I visited him twice. He lived about a 100 miles away. He brought up the subject, which I was still thinking about. I was asking if he had a booklet about fitting trousers. Sadly he didn't. His advice for fitting coats is very good in his coat book.

[Hendrick]

This is what it looks like in garment form and when I push that curve of the wearer's left side to meet the line on the wearer's right side it buckles, but to your point it doesn't necessarily need to lay completely flat.  I am getting a little bit of an issue with the facing "rippling"/ buckling at the edge.  But I think a lot of this is just coming down to practice at this point.

If you place the back of your hand underneath the cloth where the rippling is, it will probably disappear; though the edges don't look pressed, so some of that distortion may be tension from the seams having been turned back. The seam edges at the curve are mostly on the bias, so the cloth should naturally stretch how it needs to with only a light press over a ham.

Either way, stop making judgements when laying things flat! You can't properly evaluate what's going on because you're buckling cloth out of shape: it wants to curve in a 3-D way (that's what we've designed for in the draft). Play around with the paper mock-up that I demonstrated and things will become a lot clearer in your mind (I can tell that you still haven't quite got it). The fronts don't oppose one another when curved, and when the crotch seams are joined and facing backwards. Everything complements each other.

Despite giving you an alternative method, you're continuing to pin in a way that creates buckling; which isn't helping, is it. I'd recommend basting instead; and baste over a ham or similar, so that there's some curvature to the fronts. That way you're securing the required shape with the baste stitches. You're also securing the required lengths, which I think is what Greger and Hendrick were talking about. If you think of arcs drawn from the same point, the outer arc (the LHS, which overlaps) is going to have more length than the inner one (the RHS, which underlaps).

Best that the aforementioned forum-members confirm that, though. It's not something I'd thought about before ... which is why I come here: I always learn new things!

Yes, basting is best, it leaves the most movement to the cloth and shows bigger problems earlier. I have built far more womens' than mens' trousers but here's my approach. I like to make womens'trousers with a bit of nonchalance. But women hate front crotches with a "grin" so to speak. I project the shorter curvature of the front as a part circle and project a radius from where any unwanted bulging or waving sits. Correcting it by pinning, then opening the parts the curve changes notably. I like to do first toiles without fly (closed in the back) and cleaning out the front to get perfect "flat fronted" pants. I know this is more dress making technique than tailoring but it works for me.

Cheers, Hendrick