Cutting trousers- a cultural divide

We've been discussing trousers on the T&C forum & it occurred to me that I haven't really looked at trousers on my blog. Largely because I feel that there is a lot less room for individual expression and nuance in trousers than in jackets, which I, of all people, should know is not really true. I explain.

Working in the RTW industry in Canada gives me an interesting perspective in that I sell garments in Canada, the United States, and sometimes central America, Europe and Asia; regional variations in taste and fit are more obvious to me than someone who only sells into one market. But let me focus on Canada and the U.S. who share a similar history and culture but have very distinct tastes in trousers. I can sell basically the same cut of jacket into the States as I do in Canada, though generally a little easier in the U.S., but the trousers are a deal-breaker. It has always been a basic truth in our trade that (despite the fashion cutomer whose preferences bounce around quite a bit) Americans like a big, roomy, pleated, high-waisted trouser and Canadian prefer the opposite, namely a trim, plain-front, low-rise trouser. We had some leftover suits hanging in stock that had been cut for the States and no matter what kind of promotional price we might offer in order to get rid of them here, nobody wanted to touch a pleated, easy trouser so we had to cut them down to slimmer, plain front versions in order to liquidate them in Canada. A major expense (and royal pain) but we had to do it.

The British and the Neapolitans have different cultures and sartorial traditions so it is understandable that their preferences in cut should differ, but why would we find such a disparity between Canada and the U.S.? I've never really thought much about it until now.

Which brings me back to my next project. Bigger, easier trousers are more forgiving in their fit and require a bit less shaping in order to get a good fit; close-fitting trousers, like those that I cut for myself, need a bit more help. I just got a nice, sturdy piece of English cloth from which I'm going to make a suit and we'll look a bit at the shaping that goes into a traditionally-made trouser. Some of it is at construction level, but the shaping that I do in pressing can be used by anyone who is pressing their trousers at home to refine the fit a bit.

My next suit- a navy twill with a soft pink stripe.



Having typed this, I wandered over to T&C to see that Sator had posted this article on shaping the trousers. which saves me the work of having to illustrate it. I don't have much to add except that in a factory setting in order to control the amount of stretching and shrinking, we shift the knee notch up by 1/4" to 3/8" on the back panel- this has the effect of introducing fullness into the calf area and shortness in the back of the thigh. When we press the seams open and crease the trouser we then stretch the back thigh and front calf, eliminating any ripples of fullness in the seam and doing the same shaping.

The waistband should also be shaped, which is not illustrated so I will do that. To allow for that shaping, we ease some fullness on the front panels onto the waistband when sewing it on ( which is alluded to in the German text).

So here's a bit of a recap of the German text on ironwork, but with an explanation of WHY we are doing it. Note that normally I construct the fly before joining the front to the back but it would be difficult to see the result of the shaping so I am putting them together in the wrong order for the sake of this demonstration.

When the two panels are creased along their center line and placed next to each other, we see a gap at the thigh and the knee. Trousers which are narrower at the knee will have a greater gap and require more shaping than ones which are a little looser, as will trousers which are cut closer at the thigh. These are not really flared bottom trousers- the camera distortion makes it look like that.



If we shift the back panel to meet the front as if the seams were joined, we can see the excess length this creates at the back of the trouser, which often puddles around the wearer (not to be confused with a garment which has not been cut properly for forward hip posture, which will also puddle around the calves)



To make up for this extra length in the back we will use a combination of stretching the seam around the thigh and the knee, and shrinking a bit of the length out at the back. As David rightly pointed out in the T&C discussion, the trouser is subject to strain during wear so some shaping is bound to be lost- this is true of some of the shrinking so I prefer to do more stretching than shrinking. Notice the stripe line in the back panel.



The panels are then joined and the back of the calf given some additional shaping.



Here is the waistband which has been pressed into a curve to conform better to the waistline. Lower-waisted trousers need more shaping than higher-waisted ones.

How to sew a button on a suit

Following up from the previous post, and because someone on Ask Andy asked for it, here's a quick tutorial on sewing buttons on a suit. It's a little different from sewing buttons on a shirt.

Mark your button placement, make a large knot in a length of thread, thread the needle and insert it between the layers, 3/4" away from the mark, and come out at the mark.



Take a small stitch, forming a loop, and insert the needle through the loop (making a knot). Pull tight and repeat.



Pull on the big knot (the one 3/4" away from the button mark), bunching the fabric and clip off the knot- the thread tail will slip between the layers and be hidden. This way the end will not slip and loosen by accident.


Insert the needle through one of the holes in the button, hold the button against the coat, and place a match or similar device over the button. Take a stitch across the match, into the coat, coming back up through the button. Repeat several times through each hole.



Remove the match and pull the button away from the coat. Wrap the thread tightly around the shank that has been formed until the button stands up on its own. Insert the needle through the base of the shank, make a small loop to knot like when starting, pull tight and repeat twice.








Insert the needle into the base of the shank, between the layers of cloth, and come out 3/4" away from the button.



Pull tight, then clip the thread close to the cloth so that the tail will slip between the layers of cloth.



The shanked button should stand firmly like this; if it is at all loose, remove and redo it.



In response to Jordan's question, I don't like plugging buttons which involves making a hole in the cloth. Overcoat buttons are done the same way as regular buttons, but I put a stay button behind them- this prevents the button from ripping out and making a hole when subjected to a lot of strain. Instead of just catching the cloth when taking the stitch, go all the way through and sew through the stay button on the reverse side.





Metal buttons can also benefit from a stay since they are sometimes heavy, and often expensive. I occasionally make golf blazers with the club crest and club buttons. These buttons come as a set in a fancy jewel-type box with velvet padding and losing one is not a good idea. A stay prevents damage to the cloth and prevents them ripping out. To get them to stand up straight instead of looking limp and droopy, use a heavy waxed thread size 8/3 (40) or bigger. Since they already have a shank you don't need to make a new one, just make sure your stitches are firm and you wrap tightly enough that the buttons stand but not so tightly that you make the cloth pull.



In response to Lynn's question, I am using a size 4 glazed thread made especially for sewing on buttons. Gutermann's M1003 which is available at retail (their heaviest stuff), would work if it were waxed and pressed.

Sewing buttonholes by hand

Something I've been too lazy to do myself- a video on sewing buttonholes by hand. It's in Japanese but I think the images speak for themselves. Slightly different technique from mine, I will try this one out and report (minus the paper template- how do they get that to stick?). And if anyone speaks japanese and feels inclined to translate I am sure there are many besides just me who would be interested.



UPADTE:

I like it. It's a nice, low-profile buttonhole with a less bulky purl.

A look under the hood- mystery suit

A friend donated what was sold on ebay as a vintage Savile Row suit to my dissection project. At first glance it had most of the hallmarks of a SR suit but a few details were bothering me. I'll get into those in due course. One of my first reactions was also that the finishing was quite a bit neater than I'm used to seeing from SR (except the buttonholes which were meh), but one of the houses could have discovered someone fantastic..... In the process of taking the thing apart there was a surprise and a possible clue. Again, all in due course.


First off, there is no maker label, no customer label, only the cloth label- Scabal. There is also no indication of this garment ever having been worn; was this a RTW suit or a window sample? Was this made for Scabal to showcase their cloth? The interior was carefully engineered, suggesting a different approach to the lining than we usually use in bespoke (as in, a proper paper pattern appears to have been carefully made for the lining). I notice that the canvas used is quite stiff, which is not unusual for many SR houses. The pockets, both inside and out, have been very carefully made, and the inside pockets are particularly well done with tiny little jets. The envelope flap on the inside pocket, as well as several other key parts, have been stiffened with tailor's soap or starch, giving a very crisp, firm appearance. It is obvious that neatness and cleanliness area high priority for this maker.



To appreciate the neatness it is perhaps useful to compare the pocket to another one made using the same basic technique by a Hong Kong tailor (thanks for photo sent by Schneidergott). Note also the hand finishing of the armholes.

NOTE- I have put large size photos so you can see up close. If you have trouble with your monitor, click on it and it will take you to the Flickr site where they are hosted. Click on All SIZES, then LARGE to see the full res photo.



Placing the garment on an old tailor's dummy we see that the collar sits flush with the chest and tight to the neck. I put the garment on (it's rather tight fitting) and moved around a bunch and the collar stayed put. The collar, in my opinion, is rather binary- either it sits well or it doesn't- there is no middle ground, and in my opinion this collar sits well. All the more surprising to turn it up to find that the pad stitching has been done by machine. It is a self-cloth under collar which has the advantage of being finer and thus a bit flatter than felt or melton, but the linen canvas has not even been padded using the typical padding machine but with a plain machine. The rest of the collar construction has been done by hand so I don't think this was done to save time or money since the savings is really quite negligible- the line of stitching around the neck line is meant to hold the seam allowance in place, not to fell the collar to the coat- the felling has been done by hand. This speaks to the debate over hand padded versus machine padded collars; machine padded collars, done with the padding machine, are rolled to some degree but not as much as when done by hand and the proponents of hand padding insist that machine padding is inferior. Here we have a collar that has been padded by plain machine yet exhibits all the characteristics of a well-fitting collar. Hand padding would not make this fit any better- it can't get closer to the chest or neck, and there is absolutely no sign of it lifting away no matter how I move in it. Home sewers take note.






The interior is a typical buggy-lined finishing, done by hand, very neatly. The seam edges are piped with a tiny 2mm (less than 1/8") piping; the piping is sewn on right sides together at 2mm, then it is turned over the edge, pressed, stitched very precisely along the edge, then stitched again about 4mm away to fell the raw edge of the lining tape. Working in such small scale, the seaming has to be absolutely perfect for it not to look a mess, and they have done a very good job. Notice also, if you can, the hand finishing at the side seam, which we can compare to the finishing of SG's HK coat.



The vent underlay is round, and the piping around this edge is done just as perfectly as the straight edges; anyone who has gone around corners like this knows how difficult it can be to control, especially where bias areas tend to stretch and move. The work on this is impeccable.



Compare the seam finishing to another example posted on the web by a SR house

Contrasting piping is very decorative but I think it needs to absolutely perfect to not look sloppy. My personal preference would be the way this mystery suit was done (in terms of piping width and precision).



The buttonholes, as I mentioned, are disappointing considering the high level of finishing, but I have seen much worse.



The lapel has been padded by hand, with a layer of lining between the canvas and the cloth. Multiple layers padded together give added shape so not a terrible idea. The edge tape is applied by hand, and while there is no pick stitching in the traditional sense that it goes through all layers, the seam has been understitched by hand to prevent it rolling out to the wrong side. The facing is understitched by hand a second time, 1/4" away, below the breakpoint for extra reinforcement.


Like the collar, the canvas has been padded by machine. There are certain SR houses that do this so it is not necessarily an indicator of inferior workmanship. The machining is done in neat, precise rows which might have actually taken more time to do than it would have taken to do by hand; machining, though, gives a certain stiffness to the already firm canvas. Some prefer structure and cleanliness over softness


Curiously, the gorge has been sewn by machine and tacked on the upper side of the collar. This means that the top collar was not just stretched and worked over the undercollar, trimming away excess and then felled by hand in the usual manner by the tailor; a paper pattern had to be pre-engineered to fit over the undercollar. This tells me that the cutter had some pretty advanced skills, and on certain cloths it is much cleaner to sew the gorge by machine than by hand, so this is not surprising given the attention to cleanliness in the rest of the garment.



So far I am thinking that this is a very well-made RTW garment because of the level of engineering in the lining and collar- this shows some extra work on the cutter's part which is often reserved for when several garments will be made off the same pattern. Otherwise a lot of this work is left up to the tailor, which is clearly not the case. What tells me for sure that this is NOT a RTW garment is the fact that the inlays, thread tacking, and chalk marking which we see only on bespoke garments are still intact, like here at the shoulder and sleeve seams.



There is evidence of alterations to the side seams which would have been done during a baste fitting so there is no longer much doubt in my mind that this was a bespoke garment fitted to somebody. Then I notice the absolute giveaway, which don't really show up in photos; balance construction lines are still faintly visible in chalk. Not only was this garment bespoke, but there was no paper pattern- it was drafted directly onto the cloth. The horizontal lines at the breast, the shoulder blade, the side seam level and waist line are still visible, as well as lines used to calculate shoulder slope, neck width and front scye position.

Ordinarily I draft onto paper, cut from that, then transfer any adjustments during fittings back onto the paper. Some dispense with the paper altogether but then there is no record for the next time we cut for the same client (we do hope to have repeats after all). This cutter must have drafted onto the cloth, fitted, then ripped down to make a paper pattern from the ripped pieces. Regardless, not only the finishing is good but the drafting is good too.

Curious, I studied the construction lines and some of the measurements and it would correspond quite closely to something drafted for a 36" chest from a Modern Tailor, Outfitter and Clothier draft by Whife. Worth noting is that the coat and sleeve length are definitely for a short person (I'm guessing around 5' 6").


There is no wadding in the sleeve head to break down over time, instead a bias cut strip of cloth similar in weight and construction was sewn in as a sleeve head. This idea of sleeve heads and shoulder pads "breaking down over time" drives me a little nuts. I think a garment should hold up over time and look the same ten years from when it was delivered. Hearing tailors tell their clients "oh it will break down over time" sounds like a way of getting customers out of the shop to me. Or shoddy practices which don't hold up.


Gong back to the hem underlay, I noticed it was crisper than the seams, but since a good deal of starch had been used in other parts I was not surprised. I decided, however, to unpick the piping and found paper in the seam. I am reminded of the technique of using tissue paper to cut and sew difficult cloth like chiffon. You would lay the underlay piece on a piece of paper which would prevent it shifting as you go around the corners, place the lining tape and sew around the edges through all layers. The paper will help reinforce the edges when turning the piping and make the job that much cleaner. Then the excess is torn away, leaving only a small amount hidden under the piping.


The final little bit of curiousness is this- the newsprint used was from a Chinese newspaper. So either this suit was made in China or Hong Kong (this would have been made before the reunification) by a foreign-trained cutter and tailor, or some tailor shop was using immigrant labor (very possible as well).

Interesting......



In response to a question, I really don't know if it was common to use mainland workshops during the British period, but I will ask the question at WW Chan, who say that the work is "OK" and pretty typical of HK during the 80s. And here is the rest of the paper that I managed to get- it's not terribly clear but maybe you can see something?

Dying Arts

I just came off a cruise of the Mediterranean. One thing that struck me was the sophistication of Roman art, architecture, science and technology- they had lavishly decorated homes with running water, sewage, self-cleaning latrines, indoor heating systems.... then wandering the medieval village of old Rhodes it seemed as though the dates had been reversed. The simple, almost crude, architecture and sanitation of a thousand years later seemed as though it should have come first, with the Roman villages coming a thousand years after. How much knowledge and craftsmanship was lost during the dark ages?

The Celcius Library, around 1 BC, I think. Ephesus, Turkey.



Medieval Rhodes, over a thousand years later, when sewage in Europe was dumped into the streets from overhanging windows.



On the ship was a hot glass show put on by the Corning Museum of Glass; three girls with impressive pedigrees gave glass-blowing demonstrations and I have to say I was impressed. They each started by sweeping floors, and they explained that it takes a minimum of six years of hard study to be considered competent to hold a gaffe. Sounds familiar. One of the girls had trained with a Murano family, and explained how the secrets were once jealously guarded by the families in Murano, that to divulge the secrets would get your hand cut off, but now there are only 7 remaining masters in Murano, each over seventy, and that their families are not interested in the art, which is at risk of dying out.

Something very interesting to me was that one of the girls emphasized the importance of a production job to perfect their skills. She said that doing one-offs were good, but once you started repeating the object over and over in a production setting, you got much better (something I have repeated often), but also that when you placed many of the same object side by side, the little imperfections you may not otherwise have noticed become much more obvious and you start to really develop to a new level of finesse and perfection. I had not thought about that angle.

I also saw a presentations by Turkish carpet weavers, who explained that their art, which often requires as many as two years for the completion of one rug, was dying because young people today would rather sit in front of a computer than a loom.

At which point I wondered if, long term, we are not entering another sort of dark age in which a certain level of craftsmanship, in which the artist is able to create something from scratch, unaided by machines, is about to be lost. Will the world look dull and mass-produced 100 or 500 years from now? Or maybe I've just had too much sun and ouzo......

A Look Under the Hood- Chanel

Yet another look inside someone else’s garment, but this time a real treat; instead of looking inside one garment we get a look at a whole bunch.


At the recent YSL exhibit the garments were, thankfully, not enclosed behind glass cases; I attracted more than my fair share of strange glances by lying flat on my back, trying to peer up the hems of dresses to see how things were finished inside and contorting myself around the garments to get a good look at details few would care about. In my most recent purchase I am saved the backache and the contortions; a new CD entitled Behind the Seams- The Schaeffer Collection, Volume One- Chanel does the work for me. Chanel has long been known for groundbreaking construction techniques and fanatical attention to detail; in this e-book we get a close up look at many of the techniques which made her famous.



David Page Coffin and Claire Schaeffer are both well known to hobbyist sewers and pros alike; this CD is a multimedia collaboration between the two. Claire is a well-known writer and teacher of couture sewing techniques who has visited ateliers and workshops around the world so it is not only through the historian’s or collector’s eye that we get to see these garments but from the perspective of a fellow sewing junkie. One can only imagine the amount of time and the vast sums it must have cost to accumulate such a collection so I am particularly grateful that she has chosen to share it with us. All photos and multimedia are by David, who I came to know a number of years ago when we collaborated on a few articles for Threads magazine, of which he was the editor, so I know the very high caliber of work to expect from any book he puts his name to. If five photos were finally used in an article, David would have shot over a hundred to make sure he had what he wanted, and this book certainly does not disappoint.


The book ships on an interactive CD and requires the free Adobe Reader. The content is intelligently and attractively presented and although some may prefer print versions, the fact that photos can be zoomed is a great benefit and I am finding that although I do enjoy physical books, I am beginning to appreciate the portability of electronic versions. I am about to go on vacation and as I carefully select which books I bring with me (bloody excess baggage charges) I am starting to wish more of my book were in electronic format- the Kindle is unfortunately not available in Canada yet :(

Full of great full-sized photos of the garments, it also looks at the individual construction details like these hand made buttonholes





And this hand set zipper




One warning- like me, you will be very tempted to run out and buy the biggest, best monitor on which to view these lovely images. I am stuck using PCs at work so I use them at home as well; on a hunch I brought the CD over to a friend’s house who has a sparkling new Mac 24” monitor, and do they ever sing. I am tempted to splurge just on the merit of the quality of image reproduction on this incredible monitor. But I digress.

Claire also looks at knock-offs, and how to spot counterfeits and misrepresentations which will be especially useful to other collectors. David includes information on how to use the book and navigate the interactive features which will be a huge benefit to those who may be new to this kind of format. Links to other web resources are also provided.

And on a similar subject, David will also be releasing a new multimedia book on making trousers soon.


With more looks inside a wide range of trousers this book is geared toward home sewers primarily, but like his Shirtmaking book, even pros will be able to find interesting things inside, like close-up glances at (and inside) these bespoke trousers from SR firm Gieves and Hawkes.





There is a DVD accompanying the book, which is to start shipping any day now; here’s a preview of the DVD

Introducing Making Trousers: The DVD from David Coffin on Vimeo.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not receiving any kind of commission on sales of this or any other book or product- if I am choosing to plug it on this blog it is merely because I believe it is a wonderful resource.

Pattern Drafting 101

Pattern Drafting 101



There are a number of people who have expressed interest in learning how to draft suit patterns and are looking for a good text. While there are a number of (mostly out of print) texts on cutting (or drafting, I use these terms interchangeably) they all assume that the reader has spent the usual 8 years apprenticeship and is familiar with the rudiments. Of course, the best way to learn is to be taught, but there are those for whom this may not be easy so I will try to condense some of the basics in order to get you started.

DRAFTING SQUARE



The first thing you need is a drafting square. There are enough things to get your head around at first; don’t get tripped up by fractional divisions- get yourself a drafting square which will do part of the work for you. A list of sources can be found here.

The squares are available in centimeters or in inches and the one you choose should reflect the sizing norms that you are used to and will use. Most English language cutting manuals use inches as a basic unit so even though you may find the system archaic (we tailors love archaic stuff) you will probably be best off using a ruler set in inches. French, Italian and German manuals tend to be in centimeters, which is more civilized.

On one side of the square you will see boxes with numbers on them- they are grouped into divisions such as thirds, fourths, sixths, eighths, etc. More on this later, though this is very important, especially when you are starting out.

THE SYSTEM

There are a number of drafting systems published and you should choose one to learn at first, and choose carefully. Some systems were developed with the individual cutter in mind, that is to say, the bespoke cutter who would be cutting one at a time for individual customers, and others which were more geared toward wholesale (these are more rare). The bespoke systems had only side seam allowances included since inlays were added at the time of cutting , whereas wholesale systems have all seam allowances included. When starting out, it is important to find a complete text, not just individual draft instruction pages, since the instructions will not give important details such as which, if any, seams have been allowed. If you are unable to find the complete text, find out from someone familiar with it what seams were included and what inlays, if any, must be added.

Another thing to take into consideration is the type of construction lines. Some systems, like the one pictured above which is from Regal’s American Garment Cutter, will have you draft you pieces in such a manner which will require straightening after drafting- bespoke systems were usually such that you could draft directly onto the cloth and as such the basic construction lines will be the same as the grain lines and are easier for the beginner to grasp. Regal’s, Rundschau, the Modern Mitchell System are all excellent systems but a little complex for the starting cutter. The Cutter’s Practical Guide system as published by A. Whife, is a good system for beginners, however it is out of print and sometimes hard to find complete copies. The Tailor and Cutter magazine and the Modern Tailor Outfitter and Clothier (a rare and expensive 3-volume manual) are good sources. Many individual drafts can also be found at the Cutter and Tailor forum, as well as people who may be able to help you start out.


Most seam allowances at the time were of ¼”- today 3/8” is more common, and home sewing patterns allow 5/8”.

THE SCALE

Drafting and grading were based on the premise that one could predict the dimensions of the various parts of the body based on certain landmarks, a premise which is now under scrutiny and debate. It was also important that the system be easy to remember by the cutter so system of proportional cutting were devised around a scale.

Usually the scale is equal to half the breast measure; for a breast measuring 40 inches around, the scale would be 20 inches. In European systems, the size is equal to the scale; a person with a 100 cm breast wears a size 50 jacket and the working scale is 50 cm. Some systems use a “scale” and a “working scale”, which may be something like one third of the breast plus 3 or six inches. The instructions will always indicate the scale. They will also indicate the base size used for the draft- for example they may state the scale is half the breast, in this instance 20”. Some direct measures will be used, such as waist length and full length, perhaps armscye depth and front shoulder measurements; the instructions will also state what these are FOR THE SIZE BEING USED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. If you are drafting in the same size as the instructions, you can use these direct measures. If you are drafting in another size you must use the corresponding direct measures which can be found in the book’s table of standard measurements (if it includes one) or from the client. Since you will not be cutting for clients for a good while, I suggest you stick with the numbers in the book. It is easier to check your mistakes if you do (and you WILL make many mistakes, at first).




The points of the grid of the draft are located using divisions of the scale- for example, the first neck point is usually somewhere around one sixth of the scale from the first point of the draft. This is where the drafting square becomes useful- if you are required to start calculating one sixth of 19 5/8” you are very likely to make mistakes. Instead, locate the scale amount on the sixths divisions of the square. In other words, if your breast circumference is 40, the scale is 20 (half the breast). You will locate 20 in the sixths division portion of the drafting square and locate your point this way without having to do any math. Suddenly the expense seems worth it, no?

THE INSTRUCTIONS

I have found that many instructions are a little loose in their wording (and sometimes include mistakes) so you need to use some common sense at times. While normally we are working with the half breast and half waist measures (or breast on division, as some state) they will sometimes refer to the “breast” or “waist”, not being entirely clear whether it is the full breast or the half breast. You must use a little common sense before applying the measurement to be sure which one they meant.

Many systems also take for granted that you know how to “sweep” a measure, how to apply a measure, and they maddeningly refer to “and develop in the usual way” without mention of what that usual way is.

To sweep a measure, usually when locating the neck point on the forepart, place one end of the square at the pivot point which will be indicated, place a pencil at the indicated measurement, and draw an arc. If you have a very large compass, this would be more precise. For example, if using a strap measurement to find the neck point, you place one end of the ruler at the front breast line near the armhole, find your strap measurement (say 12”) on the ruler, and keeping your pencil at 12” you sweep an arc. You will then place your ruler at the center front and sweep another arc, perhaps this time at 13” (the instructions will indicate what measurement to use)- the intersection of these points is your neck point.

Darts, vees and fishes are usually pretty loosely indicated in the drafts as it is assumed that you know how to locate and deal with them; some are more precise than others and you will eventually come to realize that it is largely a stylistic issue that is open to a lot of personal interpretation.

Many systems include (sometimes cryptic) references to making up, such as the need to full in, hold short, or stretch certain areas, or to the manipulations required, and in these cases, a good understanding of making up is really required to completely grasp the meaning. Keep in mind that before one started an apprenticeship as a cutter one had to have completed one’s tailoring apprenticeship.

LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT

AKA Practice, practice, practice.

This is a page from a student’s half-scale practice book from the Scuola Artistica di Taglio, Napoli. It is a good idea to start working in half-scale since you waste less paper and is easier to see your entire draft at once. Half scale drafting rulers are available for this purpose.



Most of the draft will seem cryptic at first to you. Some may seem like rocket science or advanced trigonometry and you will miss a lot of the subtleties of certain points and calculations at first. You will also make a lot of mistakes. Keep your work to refer back to later. Practice, practice, practice. If you can, work through all the drafts in the manual, then come back and start over again. Many of the little points you missed at first may be more clear now. I will keep updating this page as things occur to me (as the coffee kicks in) so check back here from time to time as well.

Good luck!

EDIT

Thank you for your comments, Kathleen. I agree that the proportional systems are very limited, particularly where oversizes are concerned. The drafting systems that I refer to are all older systems but are still in use in men's tailored clothing, both in bespoke and in RTW. I have included pages from three different publications which explain that the scales being used are half the chest and a working scale of half chest plus a certain amount. Length measures in tailored clothing are usually done with direct measure instead of scale, which is why the height is not incorporated into the scale for these systems, only the chest width. In Italy, the drafting systems for men most often use the size as the scale, and we know that the size is equal to half the breast measure.