Garment cutting in the twentieth century

by Günther F. Hertzer

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.