DIA. XXII and XXIII.
Are the same thing. They are here reproduced to give a correct idea of the so-called “back slope.” Both are turned from point 80, or from the point of the angle of 7½ deg. All connections, or nicks for the seams are on the sweeps from point 80. The leg seams are dislocated, but the balance is the same, and both will fit the same when on the body, and I claim that there never was a truer pants system produced than is represented by these two diagrams.
The complete angles of the different degrees are not made, but the base line, running down to 80, is on the same spot on all foreparts. From point 80 the forepart of Dia. [XXII] is thrown forward, and in Dia. [XXIII] it is thrown sidewise, all of which may be imitated on a pants leg, after it is sewed up. Now it will be noticed that each of the two diagrams has a double side, on which it makes no difference where the nicks are located, as long as they are on top of each other, but the disconnected sides must be nicked by the sweeps from point 80.
Five years ago I sent the principle of Dia. [XXII] and [XXIII] to the publisher of the “American Tailor,” and the answer may be found in the “American Tailor” of November, 1886, page 98. But as other questions were involved in the same article, and as the “American Tailor” pleased to notice me in 1883 about a certain challenge, I will reproduce the whole of it.
Dia. XXII.
Dia. XXIII.
PATRIARCH MILITANT.
CLERGYMAN’S COAT.
In 1882 I had the following advertisement in the Tiffin papers, of which I sent a copy to the “American Tailor”:
TO THE PUBLIC.
Having spent the best part of the last ten years in working out a scientific calculation of the outlines of the human body, I have, after endless ups and downs, discovered, and worked out, an entirely new and heretofore unthought of
PRINCIPLE OF GARMENT CUTTING.
I am now ready to announce that my customers may rest assured that they will not only get a fashionable and well made suit of clothing, but that they shall also feel at home in it when they have it on.
Lest it be said that this is only a new game of brag, and to show that all present systems which are known are without a reliable base, I make the following
Challenge to any Tailor or Cutter of Gents’ Clothing from Anywhere:
To cut and make a frock coat, a sack coat, a vest, a pair of pantaloons, and a whole garment from neck to ankle without any cross seams, for a person of any shape or form, whom none of us have ever measured or made clothing for, we will decide by lot—
1st. By what system or rule the coat pattern shall be cut;
2d. The number and size of gores—if any—the fore-parts shall have, and how many seams the sack coat shall have—5, 4, 3, 2—or entirely seamless, except shoulder and sleeve seams;
3d. How many seams the pants legs shall have;
4th. All widths and lengths of the several parts of each garment;
5th. All unforeseen questions arising from the above conditions.
Each to pay his own expenses, and all goods to be selected from the same piece and made up in the same style.
No garment is to be tried on the person it is made for until at a public trial, when the judges, selected by lot and who must not know who made them, shall decide, and their decision must be final.
This challenge shall stand good for three months, unless sooner accepted.
G. F. HERTZER.
Tiffin, O., January, 1882.
To which the “American Tailor” replied in the December number of 1883, in the following sarcastic style:
“THE CHAMPION CUTTER OF AMERICA.”
“According to the rules which govern sporting matters, the town of Tiffin, Ohio, has the proud distinction of being the abiding place of the champion cutter of America. Mr. G. F. Hertzer, the gentleman to whom we refer, issued a challenge some two years ago to all the cutters in the town of Tiffin in particular, and those who might be scattered here and there through the rest of the world, in general, to compete with him in a cutting match under certain conditions calculated to insure fairness. As the challenge was not accepted, Mr. Hertzer is, as we understand it, entitled to the proud appellation of champion cutter of America. It is in full accordance with the eternal fitness of things, that the championship should be located in Ohio, and in the liberality of our heart we are perfectly willing that it should remain there. As Mr. Hertzer’s challenge was published in a local paper, it is within the range of possibility that it may not have been seen by several cutters, whose fault or misfortune it may be, to dwell outside of the precincts of the town of Tiffin. But, however, this may be, we are prepared to admit that it is not likely any cutter in this country, outside of New Jersey, would have had the temerity to have accepted it. Mr. Hertzer is, therefore, fully warranted in asserting that, ‘this challenge has not been accepted by any one, and now I claim that there is not a cutter or tailor inside or outside of Tiffin, who can accept and beat me, until he has my book on cutting, which, in due time will be published.’ About the only suggestion that we are able to offer the profession, by way of consolation, is that when Mr. Hertzer’s book shall be published they may be enabled, by purchasing and studying it, to compete with the author with some faint hope of success. Meanwhile, Mr. Hertzer wears, by virtue of the non-acceptance of his challenge, the sonorous title of the champion cutter of Tif—no, of America. We take off our hat.”
MODELS.
AS THE COLLAR SHOULD BE PRESSED
When I sent the principle of Diagrams [XXII] and [XXIII], I enclosed the following advertisement, and other questions, which are explained in the answer:
“Be Diligent to Gain Knowledge for Knowledge is Power.”
SEVEN POWERFUL REASONS
Why I claim that I cannot be beat
In fitting gents’ and boy’s garments and why I claim that I can beat any cutter in fitting large waisted men or boys, and persons with low shoulders or long necks.
1. 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.
2. I know more about cutting and fitting gents’ and boys’ garments than any other cutter, and I challenge any one to disprove that fact.
3. During the last four years I have challenged any cutter or tailor to go with me in a cutting match and I have had no response.
4. I can alter and refit any misfitting garment which your tailor may have sponged on you as long as there is cloth enough to do it with and the victim is willing to pay for it.
5. I furnish the material for garments cheaper than any other merchant tailor and charge no more for my work than those who cannot make the above claims.
6. Selling from samples, it is my interest to sell first-class material only.
7. I work and sell for cash.
The above reasons should induce everybody to entrust their next order of clothing to your obedient servant,
G. F. HERTZER.
SHOULDERS.
(From a circular of Wanamaker & Brown.)
POCKETS.
(From a circular of Wanamaker & Brown.)
The following sledge hammer blows followed:
From the “American Tailor” of Nov. 1886, page 98.
ANSWER TO CORRESPONDENTS.
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:
TALK ABOUT A TAILOR.
If You Step on a Man’s Corns He Will Howl.
This seems to be the case with the editor of the American Tailor. The November number, 1886, of that journal contains over a column of red hot shot against our townsman, G. F. Hertzer, for having an opinion of his own, and claiming that he has spent more “brains” over the science of gentlemen’s and boys’ garment cutting than any other cutter. If the American Tailor wants to prove that G. F. Hertzer is “silly” and with “not much brains left,” he ought to come out and accept his challenge for a cutting match, and beat him on his own ground. Ridiculing him will not amount to anything as long as Mr. Hertzer turns out such nice fitting garments as he does at present.
A copy of which was sent to the editor of the American Tailor, and later I have enclosed a clipping of it, in every letter which I have sent to that office, but the editor being so far above my intellectual level, never answered, so far as I know.
Now I have a Christian spirit in me, even if I do not come up to be a good Christian, for it is my misfortune to be always below the level, but having received enough slaps to make one cheek sore, I do now, as a true Christian, offer the other side, by asking more questions.
1st. Why did you use a poor frock coat pattern, for illustration, as you indicate, by saying: “If a cutter drafts a sack as we explained by a poor frock coat pattern,” etc.?
2d. Will not the diagram on page 77 in the October number of 1886, to which I alluded, produce the half sack coat nearly ½ inch larger than the frock, by sewing one seam less on the sack?
3d. Will not the sack coat armhole be nearly ½ inch longer over the back for the same cause?
4th. Will not the whole side of the back of the sack coat be nearly ½ inch longer than the frock for the same reason again?
SEAMLESS BODY.
The coat, as represented by the above front and back views, I have on hand and intend to keep it, and anyone can examine it and satisfy himself that it is not misrepresented. My intention of making it, and representing it in this book, was to illustrate what a hot iron and a skilfull workman can do with a straight piece of woolen.
5th. Will not nearly ½ inch more width, and nearly ½ inch more length, in a sack coat back, produce the sack coat too large over the blade?
6th. Will not the extra length of nearly ½ inch in the sack back armhole produce too much under sleeve behind?
7th. Must not all armholes of both frock and sack coats be the same, if one is to fit as good as the other?
8th. When was Miss Scye born? In what dictionary did she live in 1886? Where is her headquarters now? Is she single, or is she married to Mr. Arm?
Note.—Fig. [I] and Fig. and Dia. [XV], and Dia. [II], [X], [XIV], [XV], [XIX], [XX], [XXI], [XXII], [XXIII], were drawn and finished in ink by myself, and they are in my own writing. All others were made by regular artists, as they claimed to be, after my pencil drawings. But the above mentioned had so many mistakes that I had to throw them away and make new drawings. All Dia. in the [Supplement] are my own drawing. It may be that my lines and figures are not so nicely drawn, but I know that they are correct and that they are plain. It may also be, that in the opinion of some, I have drawn too many lines and put on too many numbers, but this book is not written for professors alone, but for students and new beginners in cutting, as well as for tailors, and can not be made too plain.
