Mr. G. F. Hertzer, of Tiffin, Ohio, asks us in a recent letter,
to give a combination of a frock and sack, having the same
shoulders and explain the difference in the seams and account
for the stretch, or shrinkage of the frock coat waist seam,
which can not be effected on a sack. We are by no means certain
that we understand what our correspondent means, but we think,
that in the May and June numbers of this Journal for 1884 we
gave the desired information. We cannot afford the time to
enter into lengthy explanations of a problem unless it is
clearly stated, and of general interest. Mr. Hertzer also asks
the following questions:
1st. Why we give Fine Trade Designs without sleeves?
2d. What we mean by “half scye.” “I asked,” he writes, “the
opinion of several cutters. One said it meant the half measure
of the armhole, and another that it meant half the measure
around the arm. Is either right? If so, can you find two
cutters who would not make one or two inches difference in that
measure?”
In reply to the first question we would say that we have but
twice given a “Fine Trade Design” without a sleeve draft. In
one case we said that the sleeve should be drafted as taught
in “Theory and Practice,” but in the other omitted to do so,
thinking, perhaps unwisely, that our readers would understand
that it should be so drafted.
In reply to the second question, we desire to say that by “half
scye” we mean half scye, not half knee, nor half waist, nor
half anything else. The armhole of a coat is the scye, but a
man’s arm is not, therefore it is absurd to suppose we could
mean the measure around the arm.
If, as our correspondent suggests, there is a cutter living who
cannot measure the scye twice without a variation of one or two
inches, or if there is a cutter who cannot measure it fifty
times with less than one-eighth inch difference, that cutter
should devote his mind and muscle to hod carrying.
Our correspondent sends us, in his letter, small drafts of two
trousers which look unlike each other, and asks us to tell him
how they differ, and if each will fit the same man?
There seems to be no difference in the drafts, except in the
location of the seams. But whether there is or not is of little
consequence. Life is too short for us to draft the patterns to
full size and devote an hour or so to the solution of a problem
of no importance.
Mr. Hertzer concludes his letter as follows: “Since the
foregoing was written, I have received the ‘AMERICAN TAILOR’
for this month and I see that others make the same request
about frock and sack coats.
As far as I know the diagram on page 77 may be suitable to
others, but I am not smart enough to derive any benefit from
it, for it is not complete—frock coat skirt is not in full, nor
are the fitting points given on the front shoulder, and minus
sleeve.
Should I use my own pattern and fail to make a good sack, you
would say that my patterns are not correct, or that I did not
follow your instructions. It leaves too many holes for you to
slip out of. Now if you would give all the fitting points, then
we would have a fair chance to try it. This is plain talk, but
you always solicit the opinion of your subscribers, and here is
mine without coloring.”
This “_plain talk_” is about as silly as anything we ever read.
The draft referred to is an illustration of how to cut a sack
by a frock coat pattern, and does clearly illustrate it. It was
not a coat system, and the skirt of a frock coat has no more to
do with it, than a box of matches. “If a cutter drafts a sack
as we explained by a poor frock coat pattern, he will produce a
poor sack, but if he uses a good model, he will make a success
of it.” We don’t “_slip out_” of anything, as our correspondent
intimates, and certainly have wisdom enough to prevent our
making ourselves ridiculous by endeavoring to get down to his
intellectual level.
In an advertisement which was enclosed in the letter under
discussion, Mr. Hertzer says: “I have spent more time, more
money, and more brains on the science of gents’ and boys’
garment cutting than any other cutter. And I can prove it.”
Possibly if he had spent less brains, he would have on hand a
more liberal supply, than he seems to have in stock at present.
So far the columns of the “AMERICAN TAILOR.”
The following local appeared in the Tiffin “TRIBUNE” of Dec. 9th, 1886: