In the position of Dia. I or IV, it makes little difference if a back is
cut narrower or wider at the bottom of the armhole, because all parts lie
near to their natural position, which they must assume when the garment
is on the body. A narrower and a broader frock coat back, cut with the
same gore and with the same height as in Dia. II is apt to change the
fit and may spoil it entirely. Dia. I, II, III and IV show a different
height of the back. In Dia. I the height of front is 9 and that of the
back is 14⅜. In Dia. IV the height of back is 14 on line 9 in front. In
Dia. II the height of back is 15, but at the junction of the back and the
sidepiece the line is dislocated and turned up, 15 deg. along the back.
In Dia. III the frock coat back is 14¼ above line 9, and the sack coat
back is only 13½ above line 9, though both sack and frock coat backs are
even, and the same, from top. The difference of distance, to the point,
where both strike line 9 on the front is caused by the smaller frock coat
back and the wider sack coat back at their junction, and that position
must be well understood by a cutter, because most all diagrams sent out
by Reporters of Fashions are laid out in position as Dia. II, or nearly
so, not because it is a true position, but, because all parts can be cut
without piecing.
Now, it must be admitted, that the position of the front, the back and
the sidepiece of Dia. I are nearer in position to the body, at, and
around the waist, than Dia. II or III, and though Dia. I is not in
perfect harmony with the body, we must admit, that Dia. II and III are
far more out of the way. It will be seen, that if the frock coat back of
Dia. I were cut 1 in. wider at the junction with line 9 over the front,
it would become ¼ shorter on top as soon as it was thrown in position of
Dia. II, and the variation would be still greater, if it were done on a
broad sack coat back. Observe that the frock coat back in Dia. III is
higher on and above line 9, but when both are thrown down and in at the
waist and parallel with the front base, both will assume the same height.
As long as all the parts are cut in the same proportion, it matters
little or nothing in what position we place them on the cutting board,
but it matters a great deal whether they are in the right position when
on the body.
The angle of 135 deg. is always the same, and from it the shoulder slope
is 22½ deg., but, if we take the square of 17½ and make calculations from
that base, the shoulder slope is 30 deg., but the parts are all the same.
As long as the diagrams are laid out in a square of 20, as Dia. I and IV,
the back may be made a trifle narrower or wider, and it will not endanger
the fit of the garment, although it is always bad policy to change
a diagram, and particularly a curved seam. A seam always represents
something taken out, or something placed there, and a seam calculated for
a certain point, and 1 in. one way or the other may make a decided change
in the appearance, or in the fit.
The simplest garment is the vest as far as Merchant Tailoring goes; but
simple as it is, there are seldom two cutters who produce it in the same
way, and with the same result; and the same is true of coat and pants.
This goes far to show that no true system of garment-cutting is in
existence, or if it be, it is in the hands of cutters who do not know it
as such, even by those who may use it—certain it is, that no such system
is in print.
Now, I will consider the vest in its natural position, on a square of 20,
although the gore under the arm will bring it out of that position again
as soon as the seam is sewed up. Back and front being in their natural
positions, or nearly so, we can cut the under arm seam further backward
or forward without injury to the fit. But as soon as we make the width of
the back considerably wider or smaller, we find that the height of the
back above the arm-hole changes—when the back is thrown into an angle
of 15 deg., or in a square of 17½. The smaller the back is cut, on the
square of 20, the shorter it will become above the armscye, when thrown
in a square of 17½, providing always that the turning of the back starts
somewhere at line 9, which crosses line 11¼ under the armhole, at an
angle of 15 deg.
When both frock and sack backs are thrown downward and in a square with
line 9, or parallel to the front base, then it will be found that the
backs are all of the same length. Further, I refer to Dia. III, and line
9 on the front base. Lines 9 and 11¼ cross each other in the center of a
square of 20, and the crossing lines are at an angle of 15 deg., for the
simple reason that their bases are 15 deg. apart. The width of an angle
of 15 deg. is ¼ of its length. In the case of forming a diagram within
a circle, and on a diameter of 20 units, as in this work, we find the
half-diameter 10 units, or 10 in., or 10 numbers of the scale, just as
we may please to term it. That angle of 15 deg. is 2½ in. wide at 10 in.
length. It spreads ¼ of an inch in every inch of its length.
Now, in case of cutting a vest, the back and front are cut through in
the center of the square of 20 on line 9, and if the back is swung into
a square of 17½ and parallel to line 11¼, the height of back remains 14.
But had the back been cut 1 in. wider, its height would be 14¼; and had
it been 1 in. smaller, the height would be 13¾. Had the back been cut 3
in. smaller, as for a sack coat, its height would become 13¼, and had the
back been cut 6 in. smaller, that is, 4 in. wide, then its height would
become 12½ only.
This is a regular “Fig.-mill,” and has been bothering me for the last ten
years, and strange as it may appear, I could never comprehend it myself,
much less explain it to others, until now and during the years of 1888
and 1889. Here, then, is the result: If we have a good pattern we cannot
change the width of the back while it remains in an angle of 15 deg.,
or in a square of 17½, without changing the height above the armscye.
All patterns, or most all of them, are cut in, or pretty nearly in the
position of the angle of 15 deg., or the square of 17½, for the reason
that it is the most convenient way of cutting. A cutter must understand
that; and, although it is convenient to the cutter, the parts of the
garment are in an unnatural position at the waist, and he must be able to
know how much they are at variance.
During the last ten years I have been pronounced as a “crank” when I
claimed that I would yet show, that the height of the top of the back
depended upon its width at the bottom of the armscye and not upon certain
proof measures which are not proof at all. As to “crankism,” I can
console myself with the host of “_cranks_” who have preceded me, and
who are to-day revolutionizing the world with their so-called cranky
ideas. If it were not for the “_cranks_,” the oxen would still be the
principal “_threshers_” of the wheat to-day. Persons of small minds,
and contracted ideas, who have never had an idea which they could sell
for anything, or which anybody would accept for nothing, are the ones
who are quick with reproaching another for being “cranks.” But the term
“_crank_” has no reproach for me, because all the various machinery
which is used throughout the world to-day is turned and kept in motion
by some kind of a crank, no matter if it be turned by _hand_, or _foot_,
or by _horse_ or _steam_ power, or by _electricity_. Without “_cranks_”
the world’s machinery would soon rust, but as long as the boiler is not
bursted, or the crank is not broken, just so long will we be kept flying,
and by constant friction, we will be kept bright, and we shall be able
to fulfill our destiny in this world, by doing our share toward making
mankind, whatever the Supreme Architect has ordained it to be.
Garment fitting is not a positive rule. A garment is not made of sheet
iron, where every sixteenth of an inch variation would give a great
amount of friction. A garment that cannot stand one-eighth to one-fourth
of an inch variation on almost any point is a misfit from the start.
Again, the present style of men’s garments is loose—always has been and
always will be. Even when tight pants were in fashion they were loose
over the body itself. Who will be umpire in the case of fits? Who will
prove that a certain pants leg must be just so wide in order to make a
fit, or conform to style? Who will contend that the waist of a coat must
have just so much space, and no more nor less, to make a fit? Almost any
reasonably well fitting coat can stand a little alteration in the heighth
of the neck one way or another without injuring it. A well balanced 36
coat will hang well on sizes 35 and 37. If that is the case (and very
few will dispute it), then it proves that a well balanced coat may be an
excellent fit even if it has more or less cloth surface in some places
than it might have.
Dia. III is especially made to illustrate my idea about the width of the
back part of different garments, at the bottom of the armscye. The vest,
with its height of back at 14, might also be placed thereon, but it is
not, because I thought too many lines would spoil the illustrations.
In practical garment cutting, a cutter is often compelled to cut some
backs narrower or smaller on the same kind of a garment in order to save
material, or in some cases, when a larger garment is to be cut down to a
smaller size, where the points around the back of the armhole, or at the
shoulders, cannot be made even with our patterns, then it comes handy
for a cutter, if he be able, to place certain quantities on either back
or front and take it off on the other. Whenever that has to be done, lay
your garments, or the pattern, out in a square of 20 or its equivalent,
and change the parts in that position, and the lengths of the backs will
take care of themselves.
This brings me to another point. An extremely broad frock coat back at
the bottom line of the armhole requires a pretty straight sidepiece
toward the back, and such a seam may be the better off, if the back is
held a trifle full over the blade; while an extremely narrow frock coat
back requires a very curved sidepiece toward the back, and such a back
should be basted or sewed pretty close on the sidepiece toward the blade.
Each of such backs assumes a different height of back when laid out in
the angle of 15 degrees, and each requires a different treatment when
sewed on the sidepiece.
All the heights of the frock and sack coat backs in this work are
calculated to be of certain width at lines 9 and 11¼ over the front, and
all back widths at that point should be as shown in the diagrams. The
swing of the back, or the turning point of it, is calculated from line
9, no matter if the back lays in a square of 20, or if the back part of
that line be turned 15 degrees. No article in this work is more important
than this one, and every cutter should make himself thoroughly familiar
with its meaning, because it is a new idea in garment cutting, and I will
predict that in the Twentieth Century all cutters will recognize that
principle. It may be brought to a finer point, but the principle will
stand as long as the square and the compass are recognized and used.
Neither do I expect such recognition without some “_tall kicking_” for
few men will acknowledge that they have been groping in the dark while
they have been claiming that they knew all that is worth knowing about
garment cutting.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]