Combination of Frock and Sack.
Diagrams [I], [II] and [III] are the same, and are made over the same pattern. Dia. [I] represents the center of the back running parallel to the center of front, as it must be when the garment is on the body. Back and sidepiece are connected at the hollow of the waist, within a square of 20½ numbers. The back’s position, running parallel to the center of the back of the body, requires a spring over the seat and hip, starting at the hollow of the waist. Here it will be noticed that that square running parallel to the back of the body, meets the seat, and must spread apart to cover the seat, and the inserted spring furnishes the cloth required over the seat and hips. But what is put on behind must be taken off in front, for the run of the square brings it outside of the body in front of the waist, and must be reduced 15 deg. from the front of waist down, and the bottom of the front must be lengthened 15 deg. in order to make it level. If the center of the front and the center of the back be of any value as a base, then the base lines must run parallel to the front and back, or at least they must be so considered in order to obtain the amount which gores and wedges may require, or the location of the same.
In Dia. [II] we find the fore part in the same position as in Dia. [I].; and, in fact, all fore parts are in the same position, and whatever change is seen is caused by the turning of the sidepiece or back, or both. But the back and sidepieces have been changed, and in place of their being 15 deg. out of plumb, we find them on a plumb line resting at the shoulder blade, and thence straight downward. Thus turning the back base 15 deg. will cause the original square of 20 to form an angle of 15 deg., or a curved line of 20½ numbers, which is the position of Dia. [II]. This diagram represents an angle of 15 deg. at such a width that it will cover the whole body, seams included, for a man’s coat.
In order to find the width, the starting point for a garment is at a point where the angle of 15 deg. has a width of 17½, as in Dia. [XIII]. Hence the square of 17½ within the angle of 15 deg. That angle of 15 deg. represents a sheet wound around the body, which body we must here consider without arms. Said sheet closes in at the breast and shoulder blade, and at the side of the thigh and the back of the seat. In this position the back of the waist must be reduced by one or two gores, as on a sack or a frock coat.
Now let me say, that the theory of deducting the actual waist measure from the breast measure, and thereby finding the amount of gores to be cut out in the back of the waist, is a delusion, because the space which is taken up by that sheet at and around the waist is never measured. It so happens that the angle of 15 deg. requires a reduction of about 2 in. in all at the back of the waist, which is equal to 2 in. less than half breast. But the angle of 15 deg. is always the same, while the waist proportion changes. But suppose that the actual waist measure is as much as, or more than, the breast measure. Would not that same sheet, wound around such a form, require a reduction in the back? By using two bases in front, as the front base of the square of 20 and the front base of the square of 17½, which are just 15 deg. apart, we are able to shift the back from one base to the other—not to uncertain points, but just 15 deg.
The general plan upon which this book treats, is to work from the corner of a square, or from the centre of a circle, or from certain other angles, such as 7½ deg., 15 deg., 45 deg., 135 deg., etc. Dia. [III] is made for a purpose. It is likewise drawn within the angle of 15 deg., and is intended to represent the difference between sack and frock coats. Dia. [II] is arranged with a view to cutting purposes, for all parts are separate on a smooth surface, not in their natural position; but, by the aid of science, we know just how much they are out of their natural positions. Dia. [III] has the sidepiece changed, so that it laps with the forepart at the waist seam. In so turning the sidepiece down, the back will necessarily come along, and we find that it has shortened one-half of a number, on line 9 over the front. By turning the sidepiece in at the waist, the top of the back sidepiece seam falls backward one-half, thus making the square 18 for a three-seamed sack, as it is for a five-seamed frock.
The top of the sidepiece and back lap two seams, as they must be when sewed up, and the armholes are the same for both sack and frock coats. The lap of the sidepiece and forepart, and the lap of the bottom of the sidepiece and top of the back skirt, are explained as follows: A sack coat is wider at the back of the waist and runs down straighter than a frock. A straight line from the shoulder blade down to the seat is shorter than a line running down closer and in a greater curve toward the body. The circumference which the sack coat occupies at the back of waist is larger than that of a frock. The closer the garment fits to the body of the back the narrower it must become, and at the same time it must become longer.
Now, the position of the sidepiece in Dia. [III] just furnishes that extra length required, as well as the greater reduction in width. When the sidepiece is drawn even with the forepart at the waist seam, the lap of the sidepiece and the top of the skirt behind will crawl inward to the more hollow part of the waist, and the extra length is thereby taken up. The spring is not used in a sack, neither is the larger gore between the back and front; but both are omitted and a gore of about 1 in. is cut out, as for a sack, thus obtaining the larger width for the shorter back. The frock coat back has lost ¾ in length, hence the frock coat back on Dia. [III] is 14¼, while the sack coat back is only 13½, for the reason that it is broader at the junction with line 9 over the front. When both backs are thrown down and into a square of 20½, or in the shape of Dia. [I], the frock coat back reaches line 9 at a depth of 14¼, and the sack coat back reaches line 9 at a depth of 13½, but actually both have the same length from O. The extra length of the frock coat back and sidepiece above the bottom of the armhole is really a delusion, but the extra length of the sidepiece at the waist and at the back is used up, while the closer frock coat waist crawls more inward to the body.
Compare Article on “[Narrow and Broad Backs].” For illustration, let us suppose we have before us a man with a well-fitting sack,—not one that fits skin-tight at the waist and spreads out below over the seat, but one that is just what the ideal sack should be, which is loose, yet showing the outlines of the form. Say we button it in front, and draw over the waist a tape-line. We shall find that the more we draw it together the looser and wider it will appear to be; and the bottom of the back will become too short, because the line closer to the body requires more length, which in this case will be drawn up from the bottom. It shows too much width, because the circle closest to the body requires less of it. But more of this will be said in the article on “[Erect Forms].”
For particulars, it should be observed that Dia. [III] is in a square of 18, and that Dia. [VIII], or the three-seamed sack, is in the same square. A three-seamed sack would naturally be two seams less in the square than a five-seamed frock, which would bring the square for a three-seamed sack to 17½. But the turning of the sidepiece causes the square to enlarge ½, hence the square of a three-seamed sack is the same as on a five-seamed frock, or 20½ numbers. See Dia. [VIII B].
Overcoats.
Frock, Three and Five-seamed Sacks.
The breast measure is to be taken over the undercoat, but close. The difference between an undercoat and an overcoat is just as much as the difference between a vest and an undercoat, and though all three garments pass over the same surface, and must fit the same body, each one has a different function to perform, and each of them is used for a different purpose. In comparing the vest and frock coat on the angle of 15 deg., we find that the vest has a gore under the arm at line 17½ of say 3¼, while the frock undercoat has only about 2 numbers cut out in both gores, and, besides, the waist seam of the frock is to be stretched from ½ to ¾ inches—all of which will make the half frock coat about 2 in. larger over the hips than the vest. The frock overcoat requires the full angle of 15 deg. at the under arm cut and at line 17½, and a trifle lap at line 20. Besides, there may be a trifle more width allowed in the center of the back as well as in the gore between the sidepiece and back, say from ¼ to ⅜ at each point, all of which constitutes the difference at the side and back of waist between the vest, undercoat and overcoat. As long as the front of the overcoat falls straight downward ½ inch more or less such width amounts to very little, because the coat being open in front the buttons may be set forward or backward. If coats were open behind there would never be any trouble to fit the back, but the cutter’s vexation would then be found in front.
Again, in comparing the vest, under and overcoats at the neck, we find another distinct difference. While the shoulder for a vest may be fitted with the angle of 135 deg., and could be produced equally as well without any shoulder seam, the undercoat requires say ½ inch spring toward the neck. The curving of the forepart at the shoulder seam is done to throw roundness toward the shoulder blade, for which purpose the shoulder seam is thrown backward at the arm. If the shoulder seam was located at the top of the shoulder, or where a vest shoulder seam is located, then that seam would admit of no curve, but would necessarily be cut straight, or with a spring toward the neck.
When a vest is finished, the collar will create a spring at the side of the neck, say about 1 in. on each side, which spring is required to turn upward and let the neck pass through. At and around the neck, there is perhaps a tie and a shirt collar, all of which is under the vest, and all require about ¾ spring on each side. Now, when an undercoat is worn over that vest and anything that is under it at the neck, it follows that the coat requires at least the same spring, and it must be produced as shown in the diagrams, and when we proceed further, and put on an overcoat over the undercoat, we must again make our provision for a spring at the side of the neck, particularly so when we know that the undercoat collar takes its full share of extra bulk at and around the neck.
The height or the top of back of the different garments must also be observed. While the top of a vest back is placed at three and three-fourths, the top of an undercoat back stands at three to three and a quarter, and the top of an overcoat back is at two and three-fourths to two and a half. The undercoat must cover the vest, say by at least half an inch, and the overcoat must cover the undercoat the same distance, and the nearer a garment comes to the neck the more spring is required at the side of the neck. No spring is required at the back of the neck, but at the side, and is put in by the aid of the shoulder seam, or by stretching the sides of the neck.
The foregoing descriptions correspond with the body, but they will amount to nothing if we destroy the relative balance of the front and bottom of the armhole. It is true all coats can be cut without that spring, by moving the fore part downward on the base until the two points meet; but by so doing all other points are changed, and new points will form. And while it is true that the new position of the points and parts will fit the same, it is equally true that the balance of the armhole and sleeve will also be destroyed, at least it will become necessary to readjust them, when each garment will then have a balance of its own. The purpose herein intended is to harmonize coats and vests on one base, and simply make the changes for each garment according to the requirements of the body at each particular point, and in all cases maintain the angle of 135 deg. and the balance of the armhole.
By saying that the balance of the armhole must be retained, I do not mean that the overcoat armhole must be cut just like that of the undercoat; on the contrary, an overcoat requires an armhole that is cut deeper as well as more forward. Cutting the armhole deeper, or more forward, does not destroy its balance as long as the sleeve follows. My reason why the armhole of an overcoat must be cut deeper and more forward, and consequently larger, than what will be obtained by a scale say 2 in. larger than the undercoat, is this: The armhole of an undercoat is always larger than the arm itself, and the body of the undercoat is also cut larger than the body itself, even over the vest. Undercoats are made up the heaviest at and around the armhole, and if any padding or wadding is put in, it is at the armholes and shoulders. All of which requires the overcoat armhole to be larger in proportion than the difference as obtained between the measure over the vest and over the undercoat. Besides, an overcoat to be comfortable must be looser in comparison with the undercoat—not only in the arms, but over the hips and seat. We may cut our armholes as large as we please, but if the coat has not enough cloth over the hips and seat the front of the armhole will be drawn backward, and it will strike the arm and cut it; and behind and below the arm, the back will appear too long and too wide, all of which will correct itself, if more width is given over the hips and seat. After all other parts are properly balanced, the overcoat armhole ought to be from ¼ to ⅜ deeper and more forward than that given by the scale for the undercoat.
In this connection I will repeat, that for the undercoat the normal form may have the armhole 2 seams back of the angle of 45 deg., and at the bottom the armhole may be from ⅝ to 1 in. above lines 9 and 11¼. The overcoat requires about ½ inch more, forward and downward, and in all cases the sleeve must follow by striking a line for the sleeve base 2 seams in front of the armhole, without disturbing the center of the back sleeve seam at 8.
All this must be observed in cutting any under or overcoat, because as soon as the armhole is cut forward the sleeve must follow in width, which must be started at the highest point of the top sleeve, and allowing all around in front. All calculations backward as to the center of the sleeve behind must be made from the same point for all, and which point is a right angle from the center of the back through the point of the angle of 135 deg.,—for all of which further explanation will be found in the Article on “[Armhole and Sleeves].”
To recapitulate: A three-seamed overcoat can be cut over a three-seamed under sack, and two sizes larger, by the following changes: Top of back ½ higher; back ½ shorter, over the blade; armhole ½ more forward and ½ lower; ½ allowance at the front sleeve seam to follow the armhole; ¼ to ⅜ more spring toward the neck in the shoulder seam. At the center of back 1 inch more spring over the seat, and 1 inch more spring over the seat in the side seam, which must be started pretty well up, so that the hollow of waist receives about ½ inch.
In Dia. [X] the front of the neck is placed at 4, resting on the front line of the angle of 135 deg., which is as low and as far forward as it ought to be made for a short roll. Overcoats which are intended to button clear up, should have that point ½ higher and ½ backward, and the same may be said for the long roll. A long roll requires a smaller lapel, but a larger gore. Reducing the top of the front by a gore under the lapel will make a far better front than if the top of the front edge is shaved off that much, because it produces an oval shape to the breast, and takes up the surplus cloth in the center of the front—and more so on an overcoat where the front may lap the distance of 3 inches.
To produce a three-seamed over sack for a larger or fuller waist, allow say 1 in. more at line 20 and at the side seam, starting somewhere below lines 9 and 13½ and above line 15; but this allowance should not be more at the bottom than at the seat. It is not required, however, behind, or in the side seam, but more forward, and in order to throw that allowance of an inch forward to the side of the waist, the side seam of the forepart must be stretched perhaps ⅜ of an inch at the hollow of the waist and above, because stretching below the waist would do no good, as the width must be thrown to the waist and hip. A three-seamed over sack can be very much improved by judicious stretching, as well as by shrinking, for the reason that the forepart is a very large sheet, and if made up flat will never fit the outlines of a man. At least, if all parts are first properly stretched or shrunk a better result can be obtained than if made up flat. For instance, the front edge will never lap over the center of the body 3 or 4 in., and button smoothly, if it be not drawn in at least 1 in. all the way across the chest, unless the surplus length is drawn upward and balanced by a gore under the lapel. Now, although a three-seamed over sack can be made, I know that a five-seamed one can be made better. Cutters and tailors may try ever so long to bring a three-seamed overcoat correctly to the body without stretching or shrinking some parts, but they will never succeed as well as with a five-seamed one, and I refer you to Dia. [X].
It must be admitted that a great deal of the spread of the body is sidewise over the hips, or say in the middle of the forepart. On a three-seamed garment, this must be put on either in front or at the side seam, but on a five-seamed one this can be put just where it belongs, by enlarging the square and cutting the surplus width out again under the arm as the fifth seam. By so doing, the lap of the forepart and back over the seat of a three-seamed garment is thrown sidewise, and the back and sidepiece of the five-seamed one just meet at the largest part of the seat. All other points are the same in either the three or the five-seamed garment, except the length of back above the armscye, which must be shortened ½ inch on a five-seamer, and the side seam stretched ½ upward, which stretching upward will re-balance the length of back again over the shoulder blades.
The height of back, from line 9 upward, should be a trifle shorter on all overcoats than on undercoats. All overcoats should be cut so that they lean more toward the erect form, and also toward a large-waisted form. It is a fact, which should be well understood by cutters, that a good-fitting overcoat for the normal form will fit well, as an undercoat for the large-waisted form, because a large waist requires a shorter back, and again, the waist of an overcoat cannot be cut according to a waist measure with the tape drawn tightly over the undercoat, and as closely as the body will allow it to be drawn together, but the waist measure must be taken over the undercoat, as loosely as it hangs on the body, and this represents a large waist. If an overcoat be buttoned up, it must just pass around the undercoat as it hangs loose at the waist, and as soon as the overcoat is compelled to draw the undercoat together at the waist, it will be too tight for the purpose.
Dia. [X] is intended for a loose coat, and if a close fit be desired, the measure must be taken very close, and for such, a loose measure over the vest may be used, and in no case should a reduction be made in one place unless for an abnormal form. Dia. [X] is purposely made large, but it will hang well on three or four different sizes, or on anybody who can put it on, and is not of the odd forms. Furthermore, it will produce an overcoat which goes on, or comes off almost by itself, and which will not require the whole household to help to pull it on or off.
Dia. [Xa] is intended for a closer fit, but I will here warn trying to make overcoats fit very closely, for more are spoiled in the attempt than are made better. It is without gore under the roll, and may be used for a soft roll, either long or short. Being without gore under the lapel requires the coat drawn in pretty well over the front. It may be cut with a gore, by which surplus cloth may be drawn upward from the center of front, providing the amount used up for the gore is again allowed in front.
I will again repeat that Dia. [X] is for an erect form, and will cut a large but good-hanging coat. If this diagram be used for a more forward-leaning form, the spring in the center of the back may be reduced to 1¼ at line 30, starting at line 17½. All overcoats are the better off by having plenty spring over the seat, and if there be too much spring, it is easy to sew it in. Dia. [Xa] will be found to represent an overcoat for a more forward-leaning form, but not for the stooping form. The neck is cut pretty well upward, and besides the three-eighths spring at the shoulder seam, the side of the neck must be stretched at least ⅜ to ½ inch on each side, or else the collar will be too tight. Stretching the side of the neck, as directed in this work, requires that the shoulders at and around the side of the neck must be made up thin, and that all canvas and all padding must be cut away gradually, so that the facing can be stretched also. Holding the collar full, and without stretching the neck, or working the shoulders according to the shape of the body, may result in a fit, but one coatmaker may put life in that fit, while another makes the fit dead, or flat, or stale, or whatever it may be called.
Now a word about the bottom of the back. It may look odd to some cutters to see the bottom of the back shorter behind than at the side; but the whole bottom of Dia. [X] may be considered correct for the normal form, and it is the same in Dia. [II]. The shortness behind of any back is caused by the back being laid out in such a position that nothing is hollowed out at the waist behind, but a spring thrown outside of the center over the seat. The backs are laid out in such a position, because the armhole and the sleeve can not be connected, as they are, on either Dia. [VII] or [X], in any other way. But though, most all Fashion Reports have the backs hollowed out behind, and at the hollow of the waist; still I claim that it is a natural way, to lay out the upper parts of the backs on straight lines. When we observe the run of the center of the back, and when a coat fits the body well, we find that it runs down straight from the shoulder blade, to the hollow of the waist, no matter on what lines, or bases such backs are cut, but below the hollow of the waist, the back comes in contact with the seat and must be sprung out gradually.
To run a line for the center of the back inside of the square, can be done with the same result, but all other points must change, and it would show that the draft does not conform to the natural run of the body, which is flat behind and on straight lines. Now, right here, it might be observed by some that the seat and the shoulder blades are on about the same line, and which line may be called a plumb line, and that the back should be hollow at the waist and not come outside of that plumb line. If we observe the Fashion Reports we come to the conclusion that all diagrams are based upon that idea, and for more than twenty years I have labored under the same delusion. If I claim that the back of a coat runs straight down behind, I do not mean it to run straight down over the seat, like a shirt, but to run straight down from the shoulder blades to the hollow of the waist, which is about 15 deg. from a plumb line. Consequently the back of the seat is outside of that line, and the natural run of the coat back is outside of that base, but may be divided between the center of the back and the sidepiece of a frock coat, and also partly between the center of the back and the side of the back on a sack.
It is true that in Fig. [II] the plumb line as a base for the angle of 15 deg. is outside the body of the seat, but when the coat is on the body, the gores which are cut sidewise cause the back to be turned about 15 deg., running along with the body from the shoulder blades to the hollow of the waist, which is well illustrated in Dia. [I].
