I'm going through each drafting method I come across in my library and am testing each one out. Some of the resulting drafts have been laughable, in part due to my own errors as well as those of the methods themselves! It's an excellent opportunity to learn nonetheless.
Right now I am attempting the basic bodice block from "Basic Pattern Cutting" by Maria Mori. Unlike the vast majority of books covering drafting intended for amateurs that I've seen, it uses proportions. I'm using my own measurements as the acid test. Accordingly, I'm following the directions for the heavily busted figure.
The directions state in order to draft for this figure type, one should use the chest measurement in place of the actual bust girth. From looking at the provided chart of measurements, they assume a standard/proportionate figure will have a 4 cm difference between bust and chest.
When drafting the back bodice for a large bust, they state to use the chest measurement plus 4 cm. Why 4 cm? My assumption is that this is so the proportions would be in line with that of a same-chested figure but with a proportionate bust. My reasoning for this is because for a proportionate figure they use the bust measurement throughout. For the back bodice on a proportionate figure, they would use 1/4 bust (for back A to B) without adding 4 cm.
Moving onto the front bodice, the instructions state to use 1/4 bust plus 4 cm for the width of the bodice for both a proportionate figure as well as a large busted one (front A to B). Why is this the case? Why would it be an addition of 4 cm here?
Nowhere in this book is there any mention of ease, so I assume the 4 cm isn't for that. I know that a bust circumference measurement does not provide any information as to the distribution of the girth... using 1/4 alone of the bust for the front bodice draft is inaccurate in my situation.
Any help or thoughts on this would be much appreciated! I am currently stumped. (Though that may be due to the heat. We've finally got summer weather!)
(https://s31.postimg.org/bne7gpdt3/bodice4cm.png) (https://postimg.org/image/bne7gpdt3/)
Here is a copy of the proportionate measurements from the same book:
(https://s32.postimg.org/c2vcz2cjl/bodicemeasurements.png) (https://postimg.org/image/c2vcz2cjl/)
This system is too old and limited. It depends on the bust cup how much you have 4, 6 or.... more centimeter. And the length from neck to waist must change accordingly. Think of a hill, you have to climb it up and down. This is a longer way then walking on a plain straight across. And how more soil it needs to be covered than a plain. Most proportional system can't provide a straight out of the box draft for big busted because they are not porportional anymore. There are some rules to follow so your pattern will be in balance.
If you use the bust circ mes. for calculating the back for big busted you will have a too big back and a too small front. It depends where and how she combines the bust circ with other measurements. The chest is supposed to be a "skeletton" measurement and the bust is thought of extra flesh added. So only in front.
But for exercise it is good - you noticed already the flaws.
lg
posaune
Quote from: Futura on July 19, 2016, 07:59:31 PM
Any help or thoughts on this would be much appreciated! I am currently stumped. (Though that may be due to the heat. We've finally got summer weather!)
What's the confusion? The 4 cm is the ease or tolerance (per body half) chosen by the designer for this block pattern, resulting in a total of 8 cm around the bust. That isn't an unusual value, both Natalie Bray and Shoben/Ward for instance use 10 cm in total for a basic block pattern.
Part of the 8 cm will be taken away in the centre back at E and in the shoulder dart at S, as well as disappear in the shaped side seam.
back E–F = back A–B = ¼ assumed bust = ¼ × (chest table value + 4 cm)
front R–F = front A–B = back A–B + 4 cm = ¼ assumed bust + 4 cm, or, for larger figures, = ¼ assumed bust + ½ × (real bust - assumed bust) + 4 cm
Totalling on this line: ½ assumed bust + extra for larger bust + 4 cm tolerance. Simples. Or not?
Quote from: lepus on July 20, 2016, 01:51:03 AM
What's the confusion? The 4 cm is the ease or tolerance (per body half) chosen by the designer for this block pattern, resulting in a total of 8 cm around the bust. That isn't an unusual value, both Natalie Bray and Shoben/Ward for instance use 10 cm in total for a basic block pattern.
Part of the 8 cm will be taken away in the centre back at E and in the shoulder dart at S, as well as disappear in the shaped side seam.
back E–F = back A–B = ¼ assumed bust = ¼ × (chest table value + 4 cm)
front R–F = front A–B = back A–B + 4 cm = ¼ assumed bust + 4 cm, or, for larger figures, = ¼ assumed bust + ½ × (real bust - assumed bust) + 4 cm
Totalling on this line: ½ assumed bust + extra for larger bust + 4 cm tolerance. Simples. Or not?
Umm, not. You're pretty much right with what you've said, but the part about "chosen by the designer" needs clarifying: Since this is supposed to be an ease free block, the 4cm, as you noted, is accounted for by the fact that the bust point is lower than the depth of scye line which uses the bust measure, and there are subtractions from this measure at centre back and side seams (and possibly at the back dart, since the location of the apex is unspecified). The designer has "chosen" to round these subtractions to 4cm using some arcane method (it looks as if this 4cm is converted to 1⅓" in the instructions, and 1⅔" in the note; 4cm is closer to 1½", anyway).
Also, what
you've said is correct: the front
should be
¼ assumed bust + ½ × (real bust - assumed bust) + 4 cm, but since the instructions are to use a quarter of the real bust measure, it will only be
¼ assumed bust + ¼ × (real bust - assumed bust) + 4 cm.
There's at least one error in the proportional measurements table, as well.
Many thanks for your replies. I am certainly finding it good practice to go through these different methods!
Lepus, thanks for writing it out clearly. And thanks Posaune for mentioning bust cup sizes. (I swear this heat is getting to my head! I was doing fine until the temperature skyrocketed.)
Learner, I am inclined to agree that it is intended as an ease-free block. None of the drafts throughout the book include ease, at least not explicitly.
Where in the instructions for a large bust adaptation does it list
real bust - assumed bust? From my own reasoning I figured this was the case, but I don't see that written. My interpretation of the large bust directions is that
Front A to B = 1/4 bust plus 4 cm and nothing else. What am I missing...? :(
Does the amount given as 4 cm added to 1/4 chest measurement vary with bust size? I don't see any mention of the difference between real bust and assumed bust, unless the 4 cm here is their sloppy interpretation of said difference based on their proportional table...
Quote from: Learner on July 20, 2016, 04:00:12 AMThere's at least one error in the proportional measurements table, as well.
Arcane method is right! The proportional measurements table is sketchy at best. At first guess I imagine they converted from in to cm and only rounded to 2 figures, but halfway through the book it looks the other way round...! It is quite frankly a bizarre book. I have never seen these drafting methods used in any other book for amateurs. It even includes a section in the back covering the most basic of sewing methods, but fails to mention the fact that none of the drafts include any amount of wearing ease. Strange, but also interesting.
Yes, it would be easier to use a book without such mistakes, but I am learning so much from experimenting with each method I come across, even those books I disagree with.
Thanks so much to everyone for your assistance - it's very much appreciated! :) My apologies for being thick skulled due to the temperature.
Quote from: Futura on July 20, 2016, 04:52:39 AMFrom my own reasoning I figured this was the case, but I don't see that written.
Unless, the book actually
doesn't say this due to an error on their part...?
After reviewing F.R. Morris's book "Ladies' Garment Cutting and Making" (the section for "Basis of Provision for Bust Development" at https://web.archive.org/web/20100110213522/http://vintagesewing.info/1940s/4x-lgcm/lgcm-03.html), I am under the impression the +4 cm in the back here is a fixed amount. It would be to create enough back width from the "raw measurement" of the chest to what is assumed proportionate and wearable.
Quote from: posaune on July 19, 2016, 10:48:30 PMIt depends on the bust cup how much you have 4, 6 or.... more centimeter. And the length from neck to waist must change accordingly.
Posaune, I assume this amount depending on the bust cup only changes in the front. I see in this drafting method the front length is influenced by the width of the shoulder dart (A to R equals A to E of the back plus 1/3 of P to P1 of the front plus 0.8 cm, in which P to P1 is the dart width). What scale would have been used to determine the +4, 6 or more centimeters amount for the front bust cup allowance? The chart provided has the chest and bust difference for a proportionate figure at 4 cm. My guess is this is roughly equivalent to a B cup.
It seems there are many ways to interpret this amount of 4 cm! :) It is an excellent learning experience, and I am fully expecting to reach different conclusions and see things differently as I proceed further!
Hmmm.
I knew something wasn't right with what I was reading.
I double checked it only to discover from working with a small scale scanned copy, I'd missed an entire line of text and part of the illustration!
Frustrating? No doubt. Embarrassing? Perhaps...! Alas, my eyes need looking at.
Thanks everyone for putting up with that! A learning experience to say the least! ;)
After revisiting my actual hard copy of the book, here is my understanding of the ease calculation for larger busts. Please feel free to correct, laugh at or delete as you see fit. ;) It is my hope that this may aid anyone else who might stumble across the book in question ("Basic Pattern Cutting" by Maria Mori) and be curious enough to try it (despite its errors), but need a wordier explanation, although I make no assumptions as to the accuracy of the following...
For every 1 cm difference between the real full bust measurement and the proportionate-to-chest bust size (as calculated), add 0.25 cm to base 4 cm of ease for the front half bodice pattern.
Example (using arbitrary imaginary measurements simply to illustrate):
Real bust as measured = 112 cm
Chest = 98 cm
Bust as proportionate to chest according to chart provided = 98 + 4 cm = 102 cm
Amount in excess of 4 cm to add to front half pattern for large bust as follows:
(real bust as measured minus bust as proportionate to chest) x 0.25 cm = (112 - 102) x 0.25 cm = 2.5 cm
Amount of ease to add to front half bodice pattern = 4 cm + 2.5 cm = 6.5 cm
So, front half of pattern = 1/4 real bust as measured + 6.5 cm = (112/4) + 6.5 cm = 34.5 cm
Back half of pattern drafted for large bust = (bust as proportionate to chest)/4 = 102/4 = 25.5 cm
Half pattern total = 60 cm
Full bust width of pattern = 120 cm, which = real bust of 112 cm plus 8 cm of ease.
Alternatively, one can draw a line equal to (real full bust measurement + 8 cm) / 2, calculate the width of the back half pattern, and the length left over will correspond to the front bodice half pattern.
Thank you, now it makes sense. How are the armholes derived?
lg
posaune
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! :) )
Ohoh
there are too many questions. What is the basic proportion?
For Ladies balance measurements it is more complicated as with men.
You have an upper balance and a lower one. For drafting you need both. And when you take the measures you have to deceide which belongs to which.
lower is simple: (waist to floor) CB and CF must be the same and the side seam will be more depending on the hip curve so bigger than CF and CB.
Not so the upper. As you wrote it depends on the bust size (and posture). You can say it must be as long as the back + X. If you are very rounded in the back the X will be small - if you are a Cup F it will be big.
And it depends on the place of the waist line, for theory assume the lower balance is okay and the waistband is horizontal.
In my drafting system the waist line will not drop, all what with X is added goes up.
example: For a bust about 90 -99 it is Backlength + 4. For a bust circ from 110 -119 it is backlength +(1 to 1.9) + 5
Other systems go down. You see this a wide field.
Because as you said different systems have different proportions. So my numbers are of no use for you. A proportional system helps you making drafting easier. You can compare the measurements to your taken ones and see where they differ.
But don't forget if you have an old system - remember the modern human being is not built like they were in older days. In my opinion it is interesting to see and you learn a lot, but....................
lg
posaune
Oh dear! You are right, I forgot to include the basic proportion...! I must have missed that when I cut and pasted the text into the forum from drafting it in my email account.
The basic proportion according to this book is: 1/3 bust + 1/2 back nape to waist measurement, less 5 cm or 1/3 bust + 15 cm (= 6 inches).
The scale 1/3 bust + 15 cm is the same as used by Morris for sizes larger than a 36 inch bust.
Ah, a upper balance and a lower one? Most fascinating!!! I will study your post further after I have had lunch... :) Many thanks for your reply. Sorry for thinking of so many questions :( ;)
Okay, after many months dealing with house renovations and a nocturnal 1 year old, I think I understand the concept of upper and lower balance. Maybe if I'm lucky I will have some time to study! ;)
I am wondering if it would be worth purchasing the Muller & Sohn textbooks. The only reservation I have is that I would prefer to have an older edition, as I don't like the thought of contemporary lines influencing my drafts...! I understand that the average human shape may have changed over the decades, but I enjoy studying the drafts as they were intended throughout different eras.
Old mueller books are not easy to get and they are not cheap. I wish you luck.
lg
posaune
Schneiderfrei has given some Mueller pdf's from the 50er on this page.
Thanks Posaune, I had looked in the past but couldn't find a thing! Will need all the luck I can get. ;)
Might you have any recommendations for books (or other sources) on drafting women's clothing, dating from around the 1970's?
Hmm, have found several old Muller & Sohn books for sale, but they all date from the 50's and 60's. Is there a reason why there are not any from the 70's? I assume the title would have been the same.
I think I am done with wading through typos - I need to study from a better system! It is impossible to decipher any true meaning when there is no clear standard of what the presumed proportionate figure actually is. Any suggestions or recommendations would be very much appreciated! :)
Sometimes I wonder if I simply am hung up on millimeter discrepancies, and the method is actually useable... (That still would not account for the utter lack of discussion on ease and appropriate waist reduction ;) )
Do you find a lot of typos in the old Mueller books too? Some of the new stuff has unforgivable errors as well.
Futura,
I have some editions of Mueller.
The last - I think - is the 21. edition, printed 1993. (Dresses and blouses) Coats and jackets - there is a newer one.
It is very straightforward and very generally held. Not going into the different fashion stuff.
I have the 20. ed. too, bought in the 80ies. A very good one. And I think this books are all in use and nobody want to part with them.
Between these 2 is a huge gap. The 20.ed is done more for the custom tailor (like all the older ed.s) the 21 is leaning more to the industry. Understandable because it is the need of the reader and how the young tailors are educated nowaday. No use to close the eyes.
I like the old ed.s because they talk about a lot of stuff, which is now nearly forgotten. But they changed over the years some systematic drafting; example: deriving the bust dart width and other stuff.
If you went for: Hofenbitzer, Bekleidung, Schnittkonstruktion in der Damenmode. You'll get skirts, Trousers, bluoses and Dresses, Jackets all in one book . Modern - but the drafting is done very basic - without much going into fashion
here an excerpt
www.europa-lehrmittel.de/downloads-leseproben/62369-1/519.pdf/
or there were some typhos in the first edition so they put the right thing in the net. Good to see how it works:
www.europa-lehrmittel.de/downloads-downloads/32/62369_1_korr.pdf/
you can see what you are choosing. It is surprisingly cheap. The drafting is nearly the same as Mueller.
If you want other systems there are many around.
lg
posaune
Thank you so much for the information Posaune - I do genuinely appreciate it.
As for the Müller & Sohn books, I suspected they are being held onto! I will have a closer look at the Schnittkonstruktion in der Damenmode book.
I find the custom tailor mindset to be more useful than modern industry standards, for my own purposes. I can understand how the older books would contain different information than the modern editions. On the home sewing side of things, I have seen entire chapters erased in what was supposedly the same book over 40 years. Probably to reduce do-it-yourself knowledge, thus forcing individuals to buy more commercial sewing patterns...
I can find the following Müller & Sohn books for sale online:
Schnittechnik der Damenbekleidung - Konstruktionen für Röcke und Hosen (dated 1975)
Schnittechnik der Damenbekleidung - Konstruktionen für Blusen und Kleider (listed as 1970, but the cover typeface looks more recent...?)
There are copies available of Der Zuschnitt für die Damenschneiderei, dated 1961 and 1962 at the latest. I cannot find any editions later than this.
I do very much like the lines of the 1970's styles. Maybe I am limiting myself too much in terms of sourcing decent textbooks? I can however, find numerous Rundschau issues from the 70's.
I understand enough of drafting to follow along reasonable well, at least in principle. From this forum (and the Cutter and Tailor one), I can manage to blunder my way through the German drafts. Alas, I wish I continued my language studies in school...! I imagine this is where also having a modern English translation of Müller & Sohn could be invaluable.
You must look at the edition no. Mueller has only recently add the date. the 75 must be ed. 20 or 19. The covers look oldfashioned. New were done in the 90 th
Inside the Rundschau journals, you'll find sometimes a basic draft but many drafts of fashion. They always start with the "Grundschnitt" (basic pattern) and show you what you have to do to get the look. There are explainations why and how. The basic draft changes now and then. Remember the 80ties with the large armholes and shoulder pads? Great change in the draft. There was no book it was only in the journals. In the 90ties it was all turned back to get a close fitted Grundschnitt. This is done till now. (21 ed.)
As far as I know the coat and jacket and the dress blouse book (as CD) are avaible in english.
Good hunt
lg
posaune
Thanks, I guessed it would be edition 19 or 20. :)
Half of the listings I've been able to find for Müller & Sohn books only state a year. I am not sure why they don't have an edition, or where they are getting the date from
These are the two that claim to be 70's:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=&tn=konstruktionen%20fur%20blusen%20kleider%20system%20muller&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ats-_-used
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=16556422008&cm_sp=collections-_-3bWED4rMCgMamPGGrXAz9e_item_1_4-_-bdp
What is the difference in content between the above books and the Der Zuschnitt für die Damenschneiderei ones?
Yes, I definitely can imagine the basic draft being different for the 1980's! So over the decades did the basic pattern only change inside the journals, not the actual books? I wonder what would be the best way to proceed. I am tempted by the Rundschau copies I found...
It looks like there are English translated books/PDFs available for the modern dresses & blouses, skirts & pants, and jackets & coats books.
Yes, that is ed. 20. Very good in my opinion for a custom tailor. And not too expensive. First is dresses + Blouses (including some skirts) 2. is trousersand skirts.
Der Zuschnitt für die Damenschneiderei is just the first title. There are 3 subtitle 1.) dresses, blouses 2. Trousers, skirts 3. Coats and Overcoats.
The draft is so that you can do dolman, kimono, raglan, without changing much.
But the fashionstyle is more about end of the 60er.
lg
posaune
Ah yes, I forgot to include the subtitles. :) I meant to ask the difference in content between, say, Der Zuschnitt für die Damenschneiderei - Blusen, Kleider und Wäsche and Schnittechnik der Damenbekleidung - Konstruktionen für Blusen und Kleider.
Would the two books for sale on blouses & dresses and trousers & skirts show how to do a basic pattern? I ask as I cannot find any photos inside these particular editions.
Thanks as always!
Quote from: Schneiderfrei on November 30, 2016, 08:19:49 PM
Do you find a lot of typos in the old Mueller books too? Some of the new stuff has unforgivable errors as well.
I have not had the pleasure of trying out any of the Mueller drafts yet myself.
I do wonder if there is a mistake or omission in my copy of Natalie Bray's Dress Design. The logic for determining the scye depth seems incorrect.
https://twitter.com/yacurama
if you look under 19. november, you'll see a part of the book, 20. ed. You have the basic and they show you how to alter for a "Drachenkeil Kimono" or 2 pics later how to do the asymmetric dress with the collar.
After measuring instructions they show in details the basic draft. Severall dart rotations, straight form, A-Line a.s.o. So you have the basic for every style you want to do. Then some detailed styles from Dirndl to evening wear.
Blouses basics and styles. Vests and some skirts. After this collars, collars.
Next chapter is all sort of sleeves. Then going in detail for different body forms. They show how to do pattern for the industry, some garments for girls and for pregnant ladies. In older books they have wäsche (means night gowns pyamas and men's shirt).
the books with title "Schnittechnik..... are younger, the others are older. Because the industrial production takes a toll now. Zuschnitt is more custom tailor, Schnittechnik more industrial
lg
posaune
Most excellent! Thank you for that :) I will order those books tonight.
I imagine that the Rundschau issues would contain additional fashions different from those in the books?
Quote from: posaune on December 01, 2016, 08:19:59 AMSchnittechnik..... are younger, the others are older. Because the industrial production takes a toll now. Zuschnitt is more custom tailor, Schnittechnik more industrial
That is exactly what I was wondering - my suspicions were correct. What was the last Zuschnitt edition published? How often did they publish new editions of either?
Do you think it would be worth having the modern English translations as well? (Christmas is coming up so I have an excuse for a longer wish list ;) )
After the II.war they were very lively - there were many tailors then and the people wanted to look elegant again (time of Dior). The last edition for dresses is now 20 ! years old. In the ladies department they collect the draftings and how to do from the journals and put them into a year book.
http://www.muellersohn.com/fachbuecher/sammelbande
as you can see in the number of the drawings on the titles as newer the book as less is the drafting content. They have now skiped an issue per year and the journal is full of fashion pics. For a custom tailor real sad.
If the translation is worth having, I can not answer. This depends on your willingness to learn. 2 of my friends have ordered and are happy learning by themselfs.
lg
posaune
Less drafting content is most definitely sad. I suppose a lot of fashion nowadays is quite repetitive.
Well, I have purchased the blouses & dresses and skirts & trousers books mentioned above. I also found a copy of the 17th edition for blouses & dresses, and of out curiosity ordered it too... despite my knowing it is too early for my purposes, it is interesting nonetheless. I found copies of the 18th and 19th editions, but those may need to wait until my finances recover.
I also bought several dozen Rundschau issues from the 70's. Now I am eagerly awaiting their delivery.
I noticed that the skirts & trousers book is the 21st edition. Do you know what approximate year that edition would correspond to? I could not find a 20th edition for that. I hope it is still from the 1970's and not 1980's.
I have the 22 ed. for dres and blouse it is from 1996, the 23. ed for trouser and skirts same year. As my older trouser book is in repair I can't look what the edition Number is.
If you need some help just ask.
lg
posaune
posaune, thank you for all of your help. No doubt I will have many questions once I receive the books. ;)
Now I am curious if those editions were ever offset in number. I wonder if the 20th edition for blouses & dresses was published the same time as the 21st edition for skirts & pants? I see booksellers listing years, but I don't know where they are getting those numbers from. It would be very interesting to catalog the Mueller book editions with roughly accurate dates.
Is it true that the 20th edition corrected a mistake in proportions for the front length? (http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2531)
It is very possible that they where edited the same time. As far as I know:
It was once 1 book: Dresses, blouses skirts overcoats, coats and pants.
In the 6. edition they deleted the dresses and blouses. So the ladies tailors were very angry and they did a 7th edition with dresses and blouses. From then on 2 volumes. The tailors - who did ladies costumes - where now satisfied and the ladies tailors too. In german there is tailor (Schneider) and tailor"ess" (Schneiderin)and believe me tailor"esses" where regarded inferior from their colleagues.
1954 was the 10th edition printed. Only 2 volumes. I do not know when they start printing 3 volumes: the trouser and skirt.
The Frontlength: it is already cleared in ed. 20. The calculation for the frontlength is now depending on bust circ. It is
backlength + 4(to 6 cm (depending on bust) ) + a special number (Uebermass = depending too on bust).
So Zuschneider is not right saying it was only 2 cm to short - it was more.
But as a ladies tailor you measure the front length and you compare it with the proportional measures because it is there are a lot of different bust circ around. You only draft with proportional measures when you are not sure why you have other numbers. So you can start the alterations easier from a standard.
lg
posaune
Quote from: posaune on December 07, 2016, 02:59:20 AM
In german there is tailor (Schneider) and tailor"ess" (Schneiderin)and believe me tailor"esses" where regarded inferior from their colleagues.
Not to derail the thread, but this is interesting. In English, I believe "tailoress" referred to a woman who made men's clothing; i.e. a woman practicing the same trade as a male tailor. A woman making ladies' clothes was termed "dressmaker".
So is it different in German? The Schneiderin makes ladies' clothing? So what is the German term for a man who makes women's clothing, or a woman who makes for men?
This is not vintage and you may not be interested but this seems like it would be a pretty good all around book to have in your library.
http://www.muellersohn.com/fachbuecher/vom-modellschnitt-zur-produktionsreifen-schablone
Yes, it was a gender thing, Jim. (Do you say so? And tailoress as word exists??). A woman did not make men's clothes till high in the 60th. Only shirts and such stuff.
The Schneider (man) made suits (jacket and skirt) and overcoats for women but no dresses or blouses. Or shall we say clothing which was formed with the iron was work for the Schneider? If he did dresses he was called Modeschoepfer like Dior or Uli Richter who celebrated his 90 th birthday this week or french: couturier
https://www.google.de/search?q=uli+richter+berlin&client=firefox-b-ab&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVgJKdzODQAhXGWSwKHWVpBv4QsAQINw&biw=1525&bih=674&dpr=0.9
Nowadays the apprenticeship and exam for a Schneiderin (woman) (can) include the making of men's clothing or only men's. And vice versa (I hope).
Jeffrey, I think, this book is advanced. It shows how to prepare patterns for selling, be it for the industry or for fashion journals.
I look forward to Christmas (hint for my husband) hehe.
lg
posaune
Quote from: posaune on December 07, 2016, 09:29:55 AM
(Do you say so? And tailoress as word exists??).
From Noah Webster's 1857 "An American Dictionary of the English Language; etc." which may be found on Google Books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=V_8YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3&dq=dictionary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzyMbE7-DQAhVIKiYKHZ_CAro4KBDoAQguMAI#v=onepage&q=dictionary&f=false
Quote
Tailor, n. {Fr. tailleur.} One whose occupation is to cut out and make men's garments.
Tailor, v.i. To practice making men's clothes.
Tailoress, n. A female who makes garments for men. (emphasis added)
I also found "tailoress" in a number of period magazine articles, and a number of entries in period business directories.
With modern attitudes about gender neutrality, I expect most English-speaking women who practice tailoring today call themselves "tailor" rather than "tailoress", just as female pilots use "aviator" instead of "aviatrix". The word "seamstress", however, is still used widely. A man who sews, but is not a tailor, should be called "seamster" but the modern term seems to be "sewer". The problem is "sewer" (pronounced differently) also means a wastewater channel...
Thanks, Jim.
Not knowing how to pronounce it right hehehe
The problem is "sewer" (pronounced differently) also means a wastewater channel...
this made my day!
lg
posaune
In german if correct you use the professional title "Schneider and Schneiderin" every time - which is quite long. Some shorten it to Schneider/Innen. Equally awfull.
A men´s tailor had to handle a limited range of fabrics(mainly woolens) and a limited range of patterns. This heavy materials demanded a different working like heavy ironwork and hair canvas inner structures. Also women liked these kind of outfit and so men´s tailors did the so called "Schneiderkostuem" = tailor´s costume also for women when it became fashionable. Of course the Damenschneiderinnen=ladies tailors, who always have been used to work with a much wider range of fabrics and a much more creative and undocmatic approach to patterns, quickly extended their techniques to make a tailor´s costume.
I´ve also read that tailoring was not a job for women because handling the irons was considered too heavy for a women. Doesn´t take me wonders when I look at this wich is 7,8 Kilos: https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/d/altes-schneider-buegeleisen-60-euro-183966344/ (https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/d/altes-schneider-buegeleisen-60-euro-183966344/)
In regards to terminology, that is an interesting question. I wish I could have asked my grandmother as she worked for a tailor in Germany a long time ago, but I do not know what work she did specifically or what the position was called. I will ask around next time I speak to relatives.
(I do regularly make the mistake of writing "sewer" but fortunately haven't embarrassed myself as of yet! ;) )
On a different note, I'm pleased to announce that I received the 20th and 21st editions of the Mueller textbooks this morning! Almost better yet, I've tested photographing pages, uploading them to an online OCR webpage, and from that using an online translator. Not perfect, but through my own understanding in combination with both forums I could easily follow along.
Most exciting...!
Quote from: jruley on December 07, 2016, 12:12:48 PMThe word "seamstress", however, is still used widely.
Oftentimes it seems the word "seamstress" implies a woman who mainly does alterations or clothing manufacturing, without any input in design.
Locally the word "tailor" seems to be confused with the roles of seamstress and dressmaker...!
The terminology seems to vary from one place to another. In OZ the guys are tailors, the ladies can be tailors, dressmakers or seamstresses and the term "machinist" can be either men or women. I have known a number of ladies who could make men and women's suits, shirts, bridal wear, stretchwear, swimsuits, sportswear and the list goes on and on. Long ago there used to be "sweatshops" here when the rag trade was in full swing before the market was flooded out with Chinese imports and most of the folks doing the sewing were women of migrant origin working for appallingly low wages or doing outwork at home for even less.
Most of the ladies I knew worked for themselves and made specialised garments for unusual customers.
Add to that now impossibly cheap Bangladeshi imports.
Another blasted spam.