April 2011

Rayon Crepon Jacquard Tunic

Fri, 04/29/2011 - 09:17 — Maggie

Rayon Crepon Jacquard Tunic

I've finished a version of the Simplicity 2696 classic tunic in a rayon crepon jacquard from FabricMart. This is meant to be wearable, but also a mockup before making this in linen. A linen version would definitely have some embroidery around the neckline. I'm not totally sure how I feel about this one. It didn't turn out bad, but somehow looks weird. I haven't quite identified what looks weird about it. Perhaps the fabric looks more like home dec than something that should be worn. My big problem with it, however, was the instructions. Particularly, the instructions, or lack of instructions, for the keyhole neckline. This second picture is the front piece. As you can see, the front is cut out as one piece, with a rounded neckline that does not reflect the final shape. There's a stitching line for attaching the facing (er, is it a facing? Or a placket? I've been using the term facing, but isn't a facing usually turned to the inside rather than to the outside?) But there's no cutting line. Nor are there any instructions that actually tell you to cut the slit that allows you to turn the facing to the outside. Apparently, the slit is supposed to magically appear. I complained about this in chat the other night. dfr told me to open up the side seams, since Simplicity's instructions say to sew up the sides before sewing on the facing, but that makes it almost impossible to sew the facing. drsue said "sew first then cut." That was what I really needed to know. Simplicity's poorly ordered instructions so far as sewing the side seams were certainly annoying, but it was the total absence of any instructions about cutting the slit that allows you to turn the facing to the outside that really boggled my mind. It says to clip the corners and trim the seams, but to me, cutting several inches down the middle does not fall into the category of "clipping corners." So, I finally finished it, and the pattern wasn't bad, but the instructions were. Much thanks to dfr and drsue for the instructions in chat that I actually followed. Had I continued trying to follow Simplicity's instructions, my head would have exploded.

Simplicity 2696 Front Piece Simplicity 2696 Vague Instructions

**Drawings and text of pattern instructions copyright of Simplicity Creative Group. Excerpts are shown here for the purpose of clarifying my commentary and criticism of this pattern and accompanying instructions, as outlined in Title 17 U.S. Code, Chapter 1, § 107. I have no affiliation with Simplicity Creative Group.

14 comments

Eyelets vs. Grommets

Thu, 04/21/2011 - 15:51 — Maggie

Eyelets and Grommets
The ones on the top were sold as eyelets, the ones on the bottom were sold as grommets.
A major difference when buying eyelets vs. grommets is that eyelet sizes are described just by fractions of an inch, as opposed to the grommets which usually do list the size in fractions, but also list the standard sizing. When you look at the list of the sheet metal grommets and plain washers at GrommetMart, the primary listing is the 00 through 6 size, with the size in fractions of an inch in parenthesis.
In the row of eyelets here, the first is a 1/4" Dritz eyelet from CleanerSupply, the second (the one with only one piece) is the standard 1/8" eyelet you get at any craft store and can get in all different colors, and the last one is 3/16" two-piece Dritz eyelet that I think I got at Michael's Arts and Crafts. The inner circumference of those last two seems almost the same to me, although the outer circumference on the two-part 3/16" eyelets is definitely larger. The ones from Michael's A&C have different packaging and say "The Sewing Basket," but they're still made by Dritz. I can't find them on their website; there's a Michael's next to the Lowe's around here.
The bottom row are the grommets. I don't have the tools for the first two. The first one is a 3/8" grommet from Cleaner Supply (they don't have grommets in any other size and I was having trouble picturing just how big they'd be.) The second is a size 00 grommet from corsetmaking.com and the third a size 0 from Amazon

Dfr still says that the difference is whether they're one or two piece, but if the whole row on the top is eyelets, the pieces can't be the distinguishing factor, right?
The tools are different. Grommeting tools are usually pretty expensive. The size 0 ones I got on Amazon were less than $10, but that's still more than eyelet tools usually are. The grommeting tools are bigger, and heavy. The ones for the eyelets are light and flimsy-feeling.

ETA: Okay, so it wasn't dfr. Val is the one who said the difference was 1 vs. 2 pieces.

5 comments

Resources & Information

Thu, 04/21/2011 - 07:49 — Maggie

This information is now contained on the Links and Resources page.

On My Site:

A Discussion of Boning Types
Links to Corsetry Patents
Eyelets and Grommets

On Other Sites:

Sewing in General
Pattern Review
Dfr's Plaids Page
Jilly's Welt Pocket Help Part 1 , Part Two, Part Three

Corsetry
Foundations Revealed - the Corsetmaker's Companion
CorsetMakers LiveJournal group
Bridges on the Body
Lara Corset's List of Known Historical Corset Manufacturers
Antique Corset Gallery
Sidney Eileen's Corsetry Tutorials
The Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a rather large online collection, including quite a lot of corsets, many with very detailed and high-resolution images.

Other Costuming
How to Sew a Venetian Camicia

Costuming Eye Candy and Inspiration:
Starlight Masquerade Gallery of Renaissance Costumes (In particular, they have some absolutely gorgeous Venetian dresses!)

Supplies
King and Company on Etsy -- Great prices on good busks and coutil
Rolls of Boning on RichardTheThread
10-yard rolls of spiral steel boning on Corsetmaking.com
Grommetmart -- lots and lots of grommets Rivets too.
DragonTown Corset Supply lists continuous steel boning sold by the yard on their site. It seems to be up in the air as to what they'll have at any given time, and you have to try to add it to your cart before you know if they have it. They have a good price on the 1/4" flat steel, especially given that it's by the yard. The price on their 1/2" flat steel is significantly more expensive than RichardTheThread's price, but could still be worth it if not much is needed. RtT's 70-yard increments can be prohibitive. Their prices on the spiral steel are quite good too, although a tad higher than corsetmaking.com's. Depending on what's in stock at any given time, DragonTown seems like a pretty good source for continuous steel boning. Their busk prices aren't too good, though.

Cleaner Supply and Wawak are the best, cheapest source for standard notions like zippers, buttons, needles, seam rippers, thread, and high-shank feet. They're the same company, with the same inventory, but CS focuses more on their dry-cleaning supply side and Wawak focuses more on their tailoring side. They have the same return address. Wawak's shipping is a dollar higher, but they're more likely to have sales on tailoring supplies. I use them interchangeably.

Add new comment

Corsetry

Thu, 04/21/2011 - 07:38 — Maggie

Add new comment

Boning Types

Tue, 04/19/2011 - 13:03 — Maggie

I've been meaning to get up pictures and an explanation of different boning types ever since I first got the spiral steel a couple weeks ago. I'm definitely liking the spiral steel, particularly for the boning channels at my sides. I haven't used any curved boning channels, so the side-to-side flexibility hasn't been too much of an issue, but with blush dupioni corset, both the duct strapping and the flat spring steel bones at the sides got permanent kinks in them after a bit of wearing. (I can iron them flat again, but it's preferable that they not to that to begin with. I'm also not sure how the bending and unbending will affect the life of the bones.) I used the regular (thinner) flat steel on either side of the grommets, and a thicker white steel bone the next seam over. I might have used the thicker ones for the sides of the boning channels, but I didn't have many of the thicker ones. The lighter weight bones do seem a bit too thin for stabilizing the lacing, but so far it hasn't caused any problems; we'll see if that changes with extensive wear. I didn't use any duct strapping in my denim corset. The duct strapping isn't bad, but is definitely softer and more flexible than steel or cable ties, and more reactive to body heat. It's significantly thinner than the cable ties, though, and also quite easy to sew through. I haven't actually used the plastic meant-to-be-boning boning at all. I got way back, before I did the duct strapping thing.
My preference for corsets is definitely a combination of flat and spiral steel. For other boned bodicies or anything else that needed a bit of extra structure, duct strapping is excellent, though. While it seems too flimsy for corsets, it's easy to cut, doesn't upset my machine to sew through it, and isn't too thick; it's actually very versatile.
Boning Types: Boning types in my possession; the four to the left are plastic, and the four to the right are steel.
From left to right:
--a heavy duty cable tie (duct tie? the 15" 120lb kind.) (from the hardware store)
--perforated duct strapping (it only comes with the little holes, I use a revolving hole punch to cut them bigger so that I can use the duct strapping to stabilize eyelet) (from the hardware store)
--duct strapping, cut lengthwise
--plastic boning (I think it was from Joann)
--1/4-inch spiral steel from corsetmaking.com
--1/4-inch white steel boning from corsetmaking.com
--"extra-thick" 1/4-inch white steel boning from corsetmaking.com (no, your eyes aren't deceiving you, it really is wider than the other1/4 inch stuff, my ruler says 5/16ths of an inch) and
--1/2-inch white steel boning from voguefabricstore.com Boning Types -- Thickness: Left to right, that's the plastic duct strapping, plastic boning from Joann, extra-thick "1/4inch" (actually 5/16ths of an inch) wide white steel boning from corsetmaking.com, a cable tie, regular 1/4" white steel boning (which actually is 1/4 inch wide) from corsetmaking.com, and spiral steel boning from corsetmaking.com. Unless you count the thickness of the casing of the plastic stuff from Joann, the cable tie is definitely the thickest. The extra-thick spring steel isn't too far behind, but is much, much sturdier. The spring steel is actually thinner than it looks in this picture. I had trouble getting a good side-view photo.

Add new comment

My Denim Corset May Be Done

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:04 — Maggie

Denim Corset -- Done? Denim Corset Back Denim Corset Inside Alrighty, before dfr's head explodes, I'll put up some more pictures. I think it may be done. I haven't flossed the tops of the bones, but I'm not sure if I want to. I used the narrow flower trim at the top edge, so flossing at the top might look a bit off.
It still has a few loose threads, mostly from ripped out stitching lines. Getting rid of all the thread after undoing a seam is really time consuming! The unpicking itself is fast, and really doesn't bother me; unpicking seams and changing them a bit is just a part of sewing. But getting all the bits of thread off? Annoying!
I took dfr's advice and removed the boning from the seams that go right over my bust, moving the boning channels to either side instead. I'd actually already created an extra boning channel just to the outside of those seams, and the other one I added to what's actually the facing around the front, so that's plenty sturdy.
The corset is quite comfortable, even with the extra waist reduction! There's something disorienting about putting it on and placing it correctly-- the waist tape is placed correctly, I just put it on a bit too high up when I tried it on before-- that's also why the upper edge was too high. I've mentioned before that my natural waist isn't the part of my torso that's naturally the narrowest; corseted, the circumference around the bottom of my rib cage is actually narrower than my true waist. And once the laces are tightened, it's almost impossible to deliberately pull it up or down. So I have to fight the natural inclination to place the narrowest part of the corset (the waist) at the narrowest part of my uncorseted torso (the bottom of my rib cage.)
So, the fit is pretty good, wrinkling is minimal, it's comfortable, and manages some waist reduction! I'm pretty happy with this one. It's either done, or done-except-for-a-couple-of-details. I'm wearing it, anyways.

This was the first corset I've used real grommets for. I haven't ordered from GrommetMart yet, and grommeting tools are generally quite a bit more expensive than eyelet tools. But then I found theLord & Hodge Size 0 Grommet Kit on Amazon. They didn't have a size 00, the 0 was the smallest they had, so I went with that, since it was so much cheaper than any of the other grommet kits I'd seen. I'll have to get size 00 tools eventually, but size 0 is even what Sydney Eileen uses, so it can't be totally wrong, can it? So I've finally used two-piece roll-and-not-split grommets.

7 comments

More Progress on My Denim Corset -- Bottom Edge Bound

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 18:54 — Maggie

Denim Corset -- More Progress 25 Inches!: I got another inch of reduction!
I've gotten the bottom edge bound, and most of the flossing on the bottom. I think I'll have to lower the edge under my arms a bit, it feels too high. And the bottom edge pulls apart a bit. But the fit is a definate improvement, and there's not too much in the way of wrinkling. And I can get my waist down to 25 inches! I still have a bit of a gap in the back, too. It feels like I might have placed the waist tape a bit too high; it feels like it's putting pressure on my floating ribs, and I'd meant it to be just below that, I'm not sure exactly how I screwed that up.
It's using mostly 1/4" spiral steels, with flat steels on either site of the grommets in the back, and a couple of cable ties in the back, too; I'm low on flat steels. I'm pretty happy with the progress, though!
The top edge pulls apart, too. I might actually just cut a centimeter or so off the top all around, or almost all around, rather than only lowering the sides under my arms, perhaps it just comes up too high in the front.
There might even be a coutil version in the near-ish future.

2 comments

Denim Corset In Progress

Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:45 — Maggie

Denim Corset Inside -- In ProgressDenim Corset -- In Progress Denim Corset -- In Progress -- Embellishment Options
When dfr completed her denim mid-Victorian corset, I realized that that too-tightly-woven-to-make-good-jeans denim in my stash was destined to be a corset. So, I've been working on an updated version of the corset pattern I drafted using the Foundations Revealed instructions, and dfr has, of course, been complaining about my lack of in-progress pictures. So finally, here are some progress pictures! I'm using mostly spiral steels, which I like so far. Flat steels on either side of the lacing, of course, and a few cable ties in the back, probably. I am somewhat worried that the spiral steels might be less supportive for my back. This is the first corset I've made using real grommets, and not using duct strapping in the back to stabilize the lacing; just the flat steels on either side. I'm using size 0 grommets (which I found, along with size 0 grommeting tools, on amazon.com for pretty cheap. For some reason size 00 grommets and grommeting tools are harder to find, and the tools are more expensive.)
So far I'm using some double-faced satin ribbon from a mystery box as the lacing. The regular corset lacing I have seemed too narrow. The satin ribbon is too thick to be practical with eyelets, but seems to work quite well with the size 0 grommets.
I'm mostly just boning along the seam allowances, plus a few added denim inserts that function as boning channels too. And as you can see, lining it with the cherry-print broadcloth. I'm trying to do most of the flossing before actually installing the lining all the way, so that the inside will (hopefully) look neater.
I'm thinking of doing some contrasting topstitching, but I haven't decided on a color, and I might not. Of course, I also haven't decided exactly what I want to do so far as embellishments. This last picture shows most of the options I'm considering; lace, trims and appliques from mystery bundles. But of course, I haven't made up my mind. I'll probably put up a few more in-progress pictures as I experiment with the different options.
And one more thing I haven't decided on is the binding. The denim I used is really too thick to be practical as a binding, so I still have to figure out what the heck will work and not look goofy. Serging the edge and then using lace as a sort-binding may be possible. Or some kind of contrast bias binding, although I have no idea what. Maybe purple cotton.. but I'm not sure that would look right.

4 comments

And on With the Gore-Talk

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 09:45 — Maggie

Gore Front Closeup
Gore Back Closeup: Please excuse the messiness, it's just a test-gore.

As I consider Gloria's small-dart suggestion in response to my last post about gores and gussets, I've realized that creating a tiny (5mm) dart is exactly what those Foundations Revealed instructions say to do; they just don't specifically say that this process creates a tiny dart. The way I'd been imagining it, that dart would have been impossible, especially with the expectation of making the edge into which I insert the gore wrinkle-free. But since nobody seems to ever really insert a gore into a panel without some decorative embroidery at the point, I'm thinking that that dart is how it's done, and it's the combination of embroidery and coercive ironing that makes it not look like there's a wrinkle.
Furthermore, look at these pictures. See how --especially at the bottom-- the fabric of the gore is being pulled outward, creating a rounded shape and putting it on level with the panel into which it's sewn? The physical impossibility of sewing the gore, right sides together, to the panel, and then having the whole of the gore completely to the inside of that panel is responsible for creating that shaping.

Further complicating the subject of gore-vs-gusset is the fact that the What is a gusset? Fashion-Incubator entry mentions two opposing opinions on the definition of gusset, and speaks as though it could be entirely possible that neither one is outright wrong. As Kathleen Fasanella is generally quite vocal about her belief that there are wrong ways of doing things, this leave me with the impression that there could be multiple, opposing definitions without one of them necessarily being wrong. Of course, I could be wrong about that, and the topic could be concluded on the F-I private forum, which I'm not a member of. (I've thought about buying her book and applying to join, as she is very knowledgeable. However, I can't imagine myself in manufacturing. Even if I were able to eventually turn sewing into a business [which I'm not sure I could do anyway,] corsetry doesn't seem to generally work in the same way as industrial sewing. She is the definitive authority on how to launch a clothing line, but I don't know if starting a ready-to-wear line and creating custom corsets overlap much. Even when industrial sewing machines are used, real [as opposed to fashion] corsetry isn't actually "industrial" in nature. When she refers to "the industry" that definition seems to fairly specifically exclude anything bespoke. The cornerstone of "industrial sewing" appears to be standardization and uniformity. [Actually, that could probably be said of almost any industry.])

Hey mom, you've been reading all this. Think you can inquire at school about the technical and definitional differences between a gore and a gusset?

2 comments

Gussets, Gores, and Trademarks -- Definitions

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:13 — Maggie

The Wikipedia article on gussets starts with the basic definition that "In sewing, a gusset is a triangular or square piece of fabric inserted into a seam to add breadth or reduce stress from tight-fitting clothing." While the Wikipedia article on gores states that a gore is "a segment of a three-dimensional shape fabricated from a two-dimensional material. The term was originally used to describe triangular shapes, but is now extended to any shape that can be used to create the third dimension." It should be noted that the gore entry is not specific to sewing; it's actually listed as a cartography article, although it also mentions parachutes, hot-air balloons, and round corners in duct-work.
These definitions lend themselves to the idea that a gore is used for the purpose of shaping while a gusset is added for the purpose of movement. I'm not sure why this would be different in corsetry, besides the obvious need to distinguish between a gore placed between to panels and a gore placed in a slit in a panel. However, given the close relationship between corsetry and costuming, I would think that corsetry-specific definitions for "gusset" and "gore" would actually get more confusing, since the use of gussets is so widespread in historical clothing.

Related side note:
There is also a brand of jeans called "Diamond Gusset" that uses (you guessed it) a diamond-shaped gusset in the crotch. While this would again lend itself to the theory that gussets are about allowing for freedom of motion, I'm seeing some problems here. For one, gussets aren't exactly a new idea, and these are being called "the original" gusset jean. Beyond that, they're referring to this gusset in the crotch of their jeans as a "our trademark gusset." Stop right there. Trademark gusset? At the top of their what is a gusset? page is the question "Why didn't someone think of this sooner?" Since when are crotch gussets a new idea? Or is the newness simply in applying it to jeans? Are jeans considered a different item of clothing than pants? I'm fairly certain that the term "jeans" refers to denim pants, denim being a specific type of twill. The variety of specialized fabric weave types is certainly fairly new, but can we call something new when it's an old idea, just a new fabric/pattern combination? Could there still be "original" crotch-gusseted khakis? But let's move on to the real problem with this statement about a "trademark gusset." 15 U.S.C. § 1052 states that registration of a trademark shall be refused if: "(e) Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, (4) is primarily merely a surname, or (5) comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional."
If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that a gusset could possibly be considered a trademark to begin with (which I highly doubt) part 5 is clearly problematic. Their own site states rather clearly that the gusset is functional; it's not a mark of distinction, it's a method of providing superior characteristics to their jeans, so the likelihood of this diamond-shaped gusset being a trademark strikes me as about zilch. There's good reason for this limitation on trademarks-- functionality is legally governed by patent law. If someone could trademark a way of making something, that trademark would be so ingrained by the time that patent expired that it would be impossible for anybody else to use it, despite the expired patent putting it in the public domain. Not only would covering functionality under trademark law be redundant, it would effectively remove all time limits on patents.
Of course, I'm being pedantic, and given that I see no legal statements or legally representative trademark symbols being used, after having written all this, it's now occurring to me that they're probably using the phrase "our trademark _______" in the colloquial sense of "something about us that differentiates us from the majority of similar products on the market," rather than in a technical, legal sense. Furthermore, those Diamond Gusset jeans are both reasonably priced ($50 jeans, $120 protective motorcycle pants) and made in America-- not only "Made in America" but completely made in America, down to the American-grown cotton! Their customer service information page states that they have a 90-day guarantee on materials and workmanship, and a "fair-play" statement that if something goes on sale within five days of having ordered it, you can give them a call and they'll adjust your order to match the sale price. So now I'm somewhat regretting having objected to their non-technical use of the word "trademark" but hey, I linked to them four times! And I've never claimed not to be a pedantic geek.

Erm, I had more specific ramblings about gores, along with pictures, but I'll save that for another post, and leave this one as a post about definitions. Suffice it to say I'm now satisfied with the distinction that gores are usually-triangular pieces used for shaping and gussets are usually-four-sided pieces used for providing an increased range of motion. That does make it difficult to distinguish between set-in-panel gores and set-between-panel gores. Gore type 1 and gore type 2? Gore A and gore B? Gore B and gore I?

4 comments