Blog Archives

Simple grading to sew Vintage

6/27/2019

To complete my journey on this pattern, I decided to make one for myself! I was going to modify the modern reissue of this pattern because this vintage pattern is SO small, read last weeks blog about it. But I decided to enlarge the vintage one instead to better keep the original shapes.

I am going to do some simple, simple grading and a little custom adjustment.

First, measure, measure, measure ...

Bust, waist, back waist length, bust point to point and bust point to waist.

I am an older lady and my bust is lower than it used to be.🙃

I decided to give myself 4" ease in the bust instead of 6" like the patterns calls for and 1" ease in the waist instead of the zero ease that pattern has.

So, I needed to add 4" to the bust, 4" to the waist and 1/2" length from shoulder to waist.

Which works out to adding 1" to the width of the front and the back pattern pieces. Since each piece is cut twice that equals 1" four times. I added a little to the neck and the most to the side front and side back. And I lengthened it using the line drawn on the original pattern,

For the peplum I figured out how much larger my pattern was all along the waist and added it in several places.

If this wasn't a precious vintage pattern I probably would have drawn lines all over it to or even cut it up to make these enlargements. OR I could have made a copy and then cut it up. But I did it the way grading was done before computers. I traced a little, then slid the pattern one way and then the other.

I did take advantage of the one adjustment line on the pattern to add the 1/2" to my waist length.

I adjusted the darts for my lower bust point.

And, to make sure my darts are the correct shape along the cutting line, I fold the dart like I would sew it THEN cut out the pattern through the folded paper.

Rulers and curves smooth out all the lines.

Here is the original pattern laid over my new pattern, a little longer and wider.

Adding to the peplum but still keeping the correct shape took a few tries. You can see the small tuck I ended up taking to make the final fix.

I just happened to have some vintage fabric I bought at the Thrift Store for 50 cents a yard! The frugal me is so happy! You can see it is only 34" wide.

The fabric was not in one continuous piece so I had to do some clever cutting. This is the back of the peplum. I had to seam two pieces to make this, but I carefully matched up the stripes.

You can tell by looking at the inside.

I finished the neck, sleeve edge and hem of the peplum with bias. The pattern says to stitch a 1/4" hem along one side to prepare it.

There was no suggested width in the pattern. I looked in several sewing books I have from the 30s and 40s, but no suggested measurement there either. Since purchased bias tape is cut 1" and finishes at 1/2" after the edges are pressed, I decided to cut this bias 1 1/8" wide just to give myself a little wiggle room. You really wouldn't want it any wider because a wider bias would not easily go around the curve of the neckline.

This makes the sewing interesting because the seam allowance on the garment is 5/8" wide but the seam allowance for the bias is 1/4". I had to sew carefully with my seam gauge.

I suppose if I was smarter I could have cut the bias a little wider (3/8" wider). Then I could have matched up the cut edges while sewing and just trim the excess away after. I had to do some trimming anyway.

My learning curve. I will do it better next time!

All of this bias has to be slip stitched in place. To hand sew faster, I take several stitches in a row without pulling the thread all the way through.

Then I will put the long thread for 7 or 8 stitches all at once. This does save time.

I made my own shoulder pads with the scraps let over. And let me tell you the scraps were pretty small.

And I cheated and used a zig zagged the edges. Yeah, I know, I should have hand overcast it. But, I'm not a purest.

Now onto my pants fitting challenge!

2 Comments

Vintage vs. Modern - one design, two patterns

6/19/2019

18 Comments

Today I am comparing this pattern from 1947 with its reissue that came out in 2013. It is a really pretty blouse. A good one to choose for a modern reissue. But, I know for a fact that Simplicity did not use the original pattern pieces for the first few reissues they published. Simplicity does not have an archive. So, they just drafted from scratch using the pattern envelope illustrations.

CORRECTION! Since I published this blog I found out Simplicity does have a small archive. They used to have a huge plant in Niles, Michigan. When then closed the plant a couple people from the New York office went there and rescued the old patterns that were there! They also started buying vintage patterns to reissue as well. (June 27, 2019)

After the first few reissues, Simplicity started buying copies of vintage patterns to do a proper job in house and also used patterns from the vintage collection my sister Theresa LaQuey has. She has a lot Simplicity patterns to her name!

Anyway, back to this pattern, which I happen to really like. I used it when I wrote my article on piecing for Threads in their Feb/March 2017 issue.

But, let's cut to the chase! Ever since I realized I owned a copy of the original 1947 pattern, I've been wanting to see how they are different. As a retired person, I now have the time.

I will show you the two muslins I sewed up. I chose the scoop neck view because the vintage pattern I have is cut away at the lower neckline so I can't make the one with the collar. This older pattern has one pattern for all three views with a cut away for the different necklines.

Now, you can just SEE the differences. Original is on the left.

So, you can see the original pattern emphasizes the shoulders much more, which makes the waist appear smaller. The 1947 pattern uses shoulder pads, which build up the shoulders as well. Also, the peplum slopes more and has more of the fullness in in the back. A flattering line, I think.

Now I will compare the wearing ease for the two patterns.

My vintage pattern is a 12 (30" bust, 25" waist) but I added 1" all around and lengthened the waist 3/4" so it would fit my modern size 6 dress form.. So it is now for body measurements of a 31" bust and 26" waist. The finished garment measurements are 37" bust and 26" waist. This gives 6" ease in the bust and no ease for the waist.

I used size 8 from the modern reissue. The body measurements are 31 1/2" bust, 24" waist. The finished garment is 34 1/2" bust and 26 1/2" waist. This gives 3" ease in the bust and 2 1/2" in the waist.

Hmmmm. 6" to 3" difference for the bust ease and 0" to 2 1/2" difference in the waist. Or to put it a different way, the difference between the bust and waist for the 1947 pattern was 11"" and for the 2013 pattern only 8".

A little ease in the waist is nice but maybe not 2 1/2". Interesting, too, considering the body measurements in 1947 had the waist larger in proportions to the bust than now a days, even though the garment silhouette was more narrow waisted.

So, let's get down to the nitty gritty! Take a look at the patterns pieces given for each version.

4 vs. 14!!!

Why is this? Well, here are the pieces the 2013 pattern has that the original doesn't.
2 additional fronts and backs (with a multi size pattern you can't have a cut away for a second necklines)(too many lines, too confusing)
4 facings (front and back for both necklines)(the original uses bias tape cut from scraps for the neck and the front pattern piece has an extension that folds back to form a self facing)
Waist ties (the original gives measurements to cut them by suggestion)
2 pieces for neck bow and knot (the original says to use a piece of knotted ribbon)

AND ...

2 different buttonhole placement strips (for the 2 different blouses in the 4 sizes offered in the multi sized pattern) That's a lot of tissue.

To amuse myself, I weighed the pattern pieces for each pattern.

The pattern pieces for the 1947 pattern - 0.2 ounces, for the 2013 - 0.7 ounces.
Everything including envelope and instructions in 1947 - 0.7 oz, in 2013 1.6 oz.

WOW

It is interesting to see the difference in the shoulders. The original has wider shoulder and a distinct underarm curve. The black dot along the shoulder seam in the original is for shoulder pad placement.

For which, by the way, they give you no instructions or measurements. You were just expected to make shoulder pads.

The back shows the same differences even more clearly.

You can see how the original pattern on the right has a tighter curve at the waist which gives the peplum more flare.

The original pattern instructs you to hem this peplum with bias tape used as a facing then hand slipped stitched in place. The newer pattern says to make a double rolled machine stitch hem. Just a sewing choice.

I didn't make the view with the collar, but I thought you would be interested in comparing the two collar patterns. Very different!

Look at the two neck finishes. I really like the look of the bias tape. It does need to be hand slip stitched down. So it would take a little longer, but so nice! No big facing showing through.

Two more things to compare. I find it interesting that, to save fabric for some sizes, the older pattern asks the home sewer to open up the fabric to a single layer and wedge the pieces in very close. I don't think you can read it in the photo, but in tiny writing in the blank spaces on the older pattern is the word "bias", so people knew where to cut the bias for the neck, sleeve hem and peplum hem facings. Those spaces are not very large. This bias strips would have had to be pieced many times. And no where is a measurement for the length or width of this bias.

I'm not sure if the average modern sewer would have to patience to do all that, single layer cutting and making bias for everything. I would love to hear your opinions.

And last. The original pattern had 3 views, but the new one only 2. If you are just looking at the art on the envelope you can't really tell that one of the views is a high neck blouse without a collar.

The original has a high neck with collar, high neck no collar and scoop neck views.
The newer one only had the high neck with collar and scoop neck.

So, there you have it. A glance into the minds of two pattern makers working 47 years apart from each other. Both pretty blouses, but different, for sure.

BUT, I'm thinking ... I bet I could modify the modern pattern to be more like the original. So, that will be a future blog, probably in a few weeks. Need to make a pair of pants that actually fit me. Pants are SO hard!!!

18 Comments

Vintage sewing - interfacing and facings

6/13/2019

10 Comments

Every time I sew a vintage pattern from the mid 1960s or earlier I am always surprised and perplexed that interfacing is NEVER called for, unless it is serious tailoring. Some people I've talked to about this have surmised that most people knew how to sew at that time and just knew where and how to use interfacing. I'm not so sure.

I own a fair number of old patterns and a lot of old sewing books. So I decided to do some research and share my findings with you!

Here is a group of Simplicity patterns from very early 30s through mid 40s. You can tell the very early patterns because the envelopes are so small. Simplicity was founded in 1927 and for the first few years they used this small envelope.

None of the patterns I have from this time use interfacing. Even the big turn back collar on this bathrobe is sewn without it.

But I do like the floating scissors in this illustration. So clear!

Remember these two patterns from the 1940s I compared a few weeks ago? Link to this blog.

Still no interfacing used, even though they both tell you to make bound buttonholes down the front. I found that so hard to believe ... BOUND BUTTONHOLES in one layer of cotton fabric???

But then, I found this 1950s sew along film. It is really interesting to watch, but fairly long, about 20 minutes. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, go to a bit past the 7 minute mark. There she demonstrates sewing neck facings without any interfacing.
PROOF!

Although, it seems Vogue and McCalls, at least, were using interfacing by the 50s.

But it was applied differently than we do it now a days. LOOK.
The interfacing was assembled separately, basted to the garment pieces, then the facing (which had no interfacing) was sewn on. The reason it was done this way was to prevent the shadow of the seam allowance showing to the outside. The interfacing sewn this way gives an extra layer of fabric between the outer fabric and the seam. When the interfacing is applied to the facing instead, the seam allowance is right next to the outer fabric and therefore it is more likely that a shadow or ridge of that seam allowance will show on the outside, especially after pressing.

These two patterns were published in the late 1960s, right before and right after Simplicity started using interfacing in all the places we use it today. If you notice they both are for a 34" bust, but the one on the left is a size 14 and the one on the right is a size 12. This was the last time the major pattern companies updated their size measurements to be in line with ready to wear.

This seems to be the be change over. The one on the left ... no interfacing. The one on right INTERFACING! But done this way.

This is when I was learning to sew. I was taught to sew the interfacing to the garment first, then sew the facing on, trim and understitch. This was, of course, sew-in (non-fusible) interfacing. Fusible interfacing was being made available to the home sewer at around this time, too. But, not many people used it. Fusible can actually make things look worse, if you don't know how to use it.

It became clear that, if you are going to use fusible interfacing for a neckline or armhole, it needs to be fused to the interfacing NOT the garment, because there will be a clear ridge visible from the outside where the edge of the interface stops.

So, that is how we got to where we are today. I believe pattern companies were trying to keep home sewing simple at first without interfacing. Simplicity holding on the the simpler method for the longest. Then, to give more professional results, they introduced interfacing using the custom sewing method, applying it to the garment first. But, then when fusible interfacing appeared on the scene, the interfacing needed to be applied to the facing instead to avoid an interfacing "shadow".

This is my collection of vintage brand named sewing books. I mostly have Simplicity going back to 1935, the one on top. The facing instructions in yellow above are from the "Let yourself sew" from 1972 on the far right. I also have several Singer sewing books back to the 1920s, a very old Butterick, one McCall's and a couple published by the Coats and Clark thread company.

The 1935 Simplicity book has "Helps for Troubled Sewers". So reassuring!

Simplicity had the best company slogan, too!

But you have to check out the cover from this McCalls book from the 60s.

Please tell me who this man is?

She is not in a professional sewing studio. This is supposed to be her home. So, is he her husband?? The next door neighbor? The mail man??? WHO? What man from this time would sit on the floor and pin a hem, anyway!

OK ... this is an update to this blog I'm writing on Sunday, 4 days after the original posting and ...
Well, I stand corrected!! after reading the comments below ...
See, my father would NEVER have sat on the floor and hemmed any of our skirts. But I had 3 sisters, so there was never a shortage of people who could and would make a hem in my home!
Thanks for all the comments!

If you are interested in knowing more about pattern company history, check out these three books. I own them all. They are full of such interesting stuff!

And now ... look what I found! The original and the reissued version of the same pattern. They are SO, SO different. This will take a whole blog on its own to talk about. Stay tuned.

10 Comments

1948 Simplicity dress - making it work!!

6/6/2019

6 Comments

This is what I wore last night on a date with my husband to see "All is True". I think this will be a keeper. It's comfortable, nice but not too fancy and the print will hide stains ... ha ha.

It was pretty easy to sew, but needed some modifications.

p.s. The movie is good. Especially if you are interested in the life of Shakespeare.

So, to start off, I did something I've never done before ... a tissue fitting. That is I pinned the main pattern pieces together and tried it on.

The circumference measurements for this pattern are very close to my measurements, but that's not the only thing to work about. I found out that it was quite long waisted on me.

It is a big time saver to be able to fold out that extra length in the bodice before cutting.

SO! pieces all cut and ready to go.

Need to read through the instructions so I can work on multiple sections at once. My favorite way to work. But, wait!

I seem to be missing a piece ... hmmm. Why can't I find a pocket facing piece?

Side note: Look! no shading to indicate right and wrong side of fabric, just interesting.

That would be because there isn't a pattern piece for a pocket facing, just measurements to cut a rectangle. A modern pattern would have a piece, which I don't think is necessarily clearer. I can become overwhelmed by too many pattern pieces sometimes.

I like this pocket though. You clean finish the side seam where the pocket goes and then slip the one layer pocket behind and topstitch it to the front skirt.

Another comment on the instructions for the facings in this 1948 pattern. No where do they ask you to use any interfacing, which I did, or instruct you to do any trimming/clipping of seams or understitching, which I did.

I made this dress using all modern techniques including serging and machine made buttonholes. It is what I'm used to. It is faster. And, I'm not a reenactor, just sewing for fun.

I need to do some research on when we started using interfacing and understitching though.
AH! next blog. 😊

BUT!!! this is not the story I want to tell today.

Here is the story. I tried on the dress and HATED it! It looked like something my grandmother wore. And this is when grandmothers really looked like old ladies. I think she was about my age ... sigh!

The dress fits well but ... what do I hate about it????

I remember something my aunt Erna told me a while ago. She said she always likes garments to have an "openish" neck. And that is exactly what this needed. The neck on the dress pattern was unattractively too closed.

So I pinned on some white ribbon to experiment with a new neckline and then cut up a craft envelope because it was close to the color of my dress form so I could get a good visual idea of this new neckline.

Then I made a tracing of the pattern without seam allowances. Don't want to ruin a nice 1948 pattern!

Next, laid it over the white ribbon marking the new neckline and traced that.

Checked it on myself to be sure it wasn't so wide my bra straps would show.

Went back to the original pattern to make working front and back facing patterns and to make sure everything fits.

I used these patterns to cut new facings with the little bit of fabric I had left.

I also pinned the facing patterns to the dress to cut my new neckline, after I picked off the bodice from the rest of the dress.

Then, of course, I had to carefully pick off what was left of the facing down the front of the bodice.

Sew it all back together and ...

I am MUCH happier, still something ... the skirt looks too long to me. But, that's an easy fix.

I find it so interesting that now a days, one can really get away with wearing a dress made from a 71 year old pattern with hardly changing it.

In perspective, I graduated from high school in 1971. There is no way we could have worn a dress made from a 1900 pattern then.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. I find it so interesting.

6 Comments

Simple grading to sew Vintage

Vintage vs. Modern - one design, two patterns

Vintage sewing - interfacing and facings

1948 Simplicity dress - making it work!!

From Andrea

Archives