Updated: Remind Me Not To Do This Again...

OK, my fabric from Fabric Mart has arrived, and I have to say, the whole experience was a huge pain in the ass. The company has just changed its international shipping policy (yes, Canada is considered to be international, although Pennsylvania - shipping hub - is closer to Toronto than, say, half of the continental US) and, new courier firm, FedEx won't actually leave parcels at a receiver's door - even if a) the vendor and then b) the receiver indicate this preference.

I spent a good, stressful, 30 minutes on the phone with both Fabric Mart and FedEx to try to resolve this. Fabric Mart, apparently, lobbied unsuccessfully with FedEx on my behalf. In the end, I convinced the shipping dept. to leave the parcel on my porch "as long as the courier felt comfortable with the security of the environment". The alternative would have been to return the fabric as I'm not hauling ass for an hour by public transit to pick up a parcel. Fabric Mart agreed that this wouldn't be reasonable and agreed to refund my money for returned fabric - though not for the $30.00 of shipping (half of the total charge for 4.5 yards of fabric).

Every fucking time I order fabric online (twice now) or other stuff that arrives from America via courier (too many times to count), I have such a dicey experience. Somehow things never implode when I order from the UK.

Yes, I've got an axe to grind. I shouldn't have to order things to my American parents for re-post to me (USPS creates fewer difficulties). I shouldn't have to pay $30.00 for the privilege of crappy service. I blame Fabric Mart as much as FedEx. If they cared about my regular business, they wouldn't be charging me almost 400% more in shipping than they do someone who lives 2 hours drive away from me (on the other side of the Canada-US border). And they wouldn't expect me to manage the stupidity of bad courier service. Indeed, they wouldn't be using bad courier service.

In brief defense of Fabric Mart, they have recently changed their shipping method because the post office in the region is closing. And they were assured, so they told me, that FedEx wouldn't erect barriers to simple delivery. Of course, they should have beta tested that on someone other than me, no? They did say, were I to order from them again, that I could indicate a preference for USPS shipping and they'd find a way to make it happen. I wonder if they're advertising that to others, or if they'll change their newly minted FedEx arrangement in light of what they've just discovered about FedEx.

The sad thing about this situation is that the fabric I received is good. The modal is actually of excellent quality and the colour is great. It came with matched thread (for extra $). And the lavender sweater knit, while synthetic to the touch, does not look it. It's got lovely drape and hand.

But you know what they say: Challenging fabric-buying experience, good sewing experience. Or is that something I made up?

Update to respond to Kay's comment about shopping local: Trust me, I shop local more often than I order online re: every kind of item except for RTW lingerie. If I can buy a) Canadian-made products and/or b) anything from local shops I will every time - unless the prices are sincerely out of control (as is the case with RTW lingerie). When the costs are outrageous, I have to decide how to spend my money and, sometimes I will buy online. Note: Vis a vis local lingerie - I bought at bricks and mortar shops for 10 years before I got sick of the mark up. So I did my time supporting that local import, IMO.

Now, on the topic of buying fabric locally - except for 2 occasions (the latest from Fabric Mart, documented yesterday) - I have done this every time. I am frequently dismayed by the lack of good knits, specifically sweater options, in luxe textiles. I've been known to spend 30 bucks a yard on fabric at a local shop, simply to support my continued ability to purchase locally in the future.

This summer, the last large-scale Canadian fabric store (FabricLand) closed shop at the only central location they had remaining (at Yonge and Bloor), despite the fact that I spent hundreds of dollars a year there while it was around. Now there are no full-service options left that I can get to with any convenience - I don't have a car and I don't hoof it to the middle of nowhere - I live downtown for a reason.

I support King Textiles, World Sew and numerous other small shops in the garment district on a regular basis. Sometimes, I want something that I can't find in TO so I go off-road. I'm not apologizing for it. I very strongly believe in shopping locally. I also believe in getting what I want.

PS: I have routinely spoken with shop-keepers of all ilks about stocking my preferred items. Sometimes they're game - and I keep on with them. Other times they decline for a variety of economic or logistical reasons, in which case I look elsewhere. Thanks for raising this question, Kay.

Culottes, Then and Now: Two Muslins Equals Twice the Confusion

Is it possible to be more confused than ever, as I dissect the muslins for the modern (B5681) and vintage (M9805) versions of the culottes?

Let me start with the requisite provisos:

• The photos you are about to see are not lovely, they're functional. I'm wearing fabric in a dicey colour. The lengths of fronts and backs of these franken-muslins are not equal (I approximated when I cut the leg openings). I'm rather impressed by my "sewing documentarian" drive. I could not feel more wretched about how I looked at the moment they were taken - no doubt, aided by a hideous hormonal situation.

• I thought taking photos would clearly tell the story - and indicate which pattern works best on me. I'm not sure if the exercise has yielded that effect.

• In this instance, crotch curve is almost meaningless, from what I can tell. The crotch, on each pair, hangs far enough away from my own body that it is - and need be - simply an approximation of the human crotch curve.

• I used 5/8" seam allowances, as both patterns instruct. Neither muslin fits small. Remember, I probably could have stood to go down a size (based on the size of my sloper), esp. if I diminished seam allowances to 3/8" or 1/4".
  

• At first, I actually wore the McCalls pattern backwards?! Something seemed off, but I couldn't quite figure out what was wrong. Um, it's weird when that can happen.

• Remember, I closed the pleats so what you're going to see is not actually an accurate representation of the final fit in the leg - just in the crotch. This is particularly germane as pertains to the vintage McCalls, which extends the pleat to the waistband. That means, should I choose to make the vintage culottes, there will be a big ole pleat right at the thickest part of my body. Not so appealing, on reconsideration. Mind you, maybe it would be chic in its authenticity and in light of its overall curvier dimensions? Not surprisingly, the modern pattern curtails the pleat at the base of the crotch on each leg. Modern designers seem to recognize that women of this era don't tend to want to emphasize abdominal girth.

OK, get out your critical sewing faculties...

As you can see, the modern pattern, on the left, has 2 darts in the front and a much narrower profile. The McCalls, on the right, is so wide at the leg opening that I question whether I like it (at least when it's lying flat).

And here you can see the Butterick muslin on me. I think the hips and legs fit well. The waist could use a little narrowing.

Here's a close up of the crotch curve. Note: You think I'd have taken more care with the sewing given that y'all are going to be looking at the minutiae, but I was really just trying to get from point A to point B. Sloppy sewing is very evident in the next photo, the shot of the culottes derriere:

I realize that I look rather asymmetrical here. That's as much cuz the pants legs are totally uneven as because I pinned the back. I did press the seams but not until after I sewed everything up (so lazy!) so the wrinkly bit below the arrow is about bad ironing.

Having said that, I wonder if the drag lines on the left buttock may be an issue. What's that about?? You'd get a better sense of things if I had put in an actual zipper but that SO wasn't going to happen. For example, the V shaped drag lines centred within the back darts is a function of the lack of zipper, IMO.

Something tells me I should make the darts less wide but I could just be grasping at alteration straws.

Now, let's move on to the McCalls vintage culottes:

OMG, I do not like what they're doing to my stomach - or what they're not doing, as the case may be. Can you imagine how dire this might be if I add in a pleat that extends to the waistband? Do you see the excess of fabric (IMO, of course it might be design) below the darts? On the plus side, the waist fits alright. Note: That's the waist I straightened slightly to the hip on the back piece. I might remove that adjustment, or diminish it slightly.

Above is a photo of the drape at the crotch. It looks quite like that of the Buttericks, as far as I can tell. Of course, the pattern pieces are practically the same at the crotch so that shouldn't come as a surprise. Note that the vintage pattern has a higher rise. It actually covers my navel, even in the absence of a waistband. I estimate this is a 10.5 inch rise. (I should measure it.)

Now, gotta say, I don't know if it's cuz I pressed this garment better, or if it's because the darts are a different width (they are definitely longer) than the Butterick ones, but the back side here looks better than the Buttericks. It doesn't hurt that the back legs are practically the same length in this photo... Or that this pair has a side opening, not a back opening, so the integrity of the back piece isn't being impacted by the lack of a proper closure.

I find myself in this terrible dilemma: I much prefer the Butterick fronts and I think I prefer the McCalls from the back. Is there any way to solve this??

For starters, please do let me know:

• Do you agree with my fit assessments?
• Do you have any solutions for improving the fit on the Butterick backs?
• Do you think that the McCalls are a lost cause, given the front pleat situation?
• Which pair would you make? Which pair looks better-suited to my shape, in your opinion?

I have a sense of how I'm going to proceed, but it's by no means a done deal. I'm curious to know if you are thinking along the same lines?

That Other Purchase I Neglected In the Last Post

Y'all know I field a quite a few lingerie questions from readers. I do love talking about that topic and it seems my enthusiasm is infectious! Oftentimes, I'm asked about good brands for relatively large breasts on relatively small frames and I espouse my faves: Freya, Panache, Charnos, Fantasie, Miss Mandalay, Fauve. But there's another brand I do refer - with the proviso I've never had the chance to try it for myself. That's Curvy Kate. I have to tell you, I don't appreciate the marketing. It's tacky, in my opinion. But the bras are reputed to be very well-fitting with uplift, support and in numerous styles - many of them "sexy".

Recently, Brastop.com was having a mega sale on various styles. How mega? Well, I was able to buy a set, all in, with shipping and tax, for $40.00 CDN. (Note: Brastop, also fairly tacky, while we're telling it like it is, has the best prices on bras evah. I suggest you check it out before buying on Figleaves. Cuz when the styles are there, the prices can't be beat.)

Anyway, the style is not new - it's the Criss Cross, of which the company stocks variations regularly. I wanted a new "basic" black bra, good under most outfits, and this one fit the bill:


You can see the matching thong undies here, but only in red, for some reason... I was able to buy them in black.

This thing took 2 weeks to arrive at which point I was seriously intrigued to rip open the parcel and to try on the bra which was - wait for it - too small.

Yes, my friends, much as I have told you all again and again, the likelihood of buying a new brand of bra, sight unseen, that fits - even when you know your own shape incredibly well - is, well, slim.

It's super irritating. It makes me question the universe and my place within it. I would have been smarter to buy 2 or 3 sizes in the one order. But I didn't, so I had to return the bra I did buy for the next size up. Thankfully that size was in stock. And now I'm waiting for it.

Let me tell you: The Criss Cross fits small in the back and in the cup - at least compared with Freya and most of the other brands listed above (but not Panache, which also fits small in the cup). If you're on the cusp of either, go up a size. You know how I extol the virtues of the snug back. Well, this one was almost too tight for me to deal with. Almost - but I hate it when bands loosen after 10 wears - so I'm going to stick with the norm and give it a go. The cup, alas, the one I bought was too small. How do I know? Well, the gores didn't sit flat against my chest. Breast tissue smushed toward the side cups. Sure, the under wire was flat against my rib cage. No, there wasn't any top-cup pillowing. But this thing was too small.

All this is to say, it's all in a day's work of online bra shopping. Until you know a brand - and maybe even the individual styles within it - it's guessing. Doesn't matter how much time you spend thinking about bras and fit and the like.

What's my sense of Curvy Kate, at this point? The quality is quite good from a fit and support perspective. The materials are not luxe but they are wearable. (In truth, I prefer a higher quality fabric.) I suspect this line provides a great way to get good fit without spending a fortune. So, for all of you out there who have told me that you need support, like to wear "sexy" and youthful looks and are either unwilling or unable to spend $150 - $200 on a set, this may be for you. Seriously, you couldn't walk into a department store and find a matching set for less than $40. And while that price is on super sale, those deals are available on a semi-regular basis online.

Some Things I've Bought (And A Weather Lesson)

Ah, the online vortex of consumerist compulsion... Sometimes it's so fun to fall into your lure.

Winter is very drab. I can't complain of cold; I've worn my 3/4 sleeve spring jacket with the exception of 2 really freezing days. But what we sacrifice for warmth is sun. It's the way it goes in this geographic area. Intermittent high pressure systems (cold and clear), which tend to come from the arctic, allow the heat to bleed off into space at night, resulting in extreme daytime cold - but glorious sun. When it's warmer and more humid here, that warm air has come from the south; it brings insulating clouds at night. Clouds that do not dissipate in the day. The jet stream (as part of the La Nina effect?), with all its cold air, has mercifully stayed well north this winter and has completely missed us thus far. So we're living in the endless, damp, early November. Have I ever mentioned how depressing it is in November in Toronto?

Any Canadian reading that last paragraph is smiling right now. Admit it. All we talk about here is the weather.

All of this is a propos of justifying my latest purchases, online or otherwise. When the weather sucks, trinkets bring a metaphoric warmth.

You know about my vintage pattern foray. What a great experience that has been. Most recently I acquired simple, vintage blouse instructions online, by pdf:

Many of you have tried this pattern and the feedback has been good!

I'm going to add the item into the Spring Basics Palette cuz I think it will look great with culottes!

I also bought modern patterns, for example B5681 the Culottes challenge comparator.

On this topic, you may be aware that I intend to tailor a couple of suit jackets this summer. I already own this Claire Schaeffer pattern. But I do appreciate less conservative jackets, which is where this one comes in:

Decades of Style 3009

I have to be honest, while this modern take on a vintage pattern is totally appealing, and while I experienced prompt client service, the shipping mark-up charged by this independent pattern company strongly disinclines me to ever order from there again. In brief, I had a few (polite) conversations with a contact who explained every which way that they were not going to change the policy wherein sending a USPS package to Canada costs almost as much as the pattern itself. The times are changing peeps. MANY companies are starting to realize that it's unfair to make money on Canadian shipping - when they're not doing the same extortionate thing in their native lands.

Then there's my latest online fabric purchase moment:

Navy Modal - it's a beautiful, durable fabric. Clio sold me on this!

This sweater knit has been featured at length by Carolyn (Fabric Mart ambassador :-))

Fabric Mart has many interesting offerings, but 4 lbs of fabric cost $30.00 in shipping. That's as much as the discount fabric itself.

And, while we're on this topic - how is it that I go instantly from spending a half hour cleaning out scraps from and organizing my fabric cupboard to buying new stuff I'll barely be able to fit into it??

Look, I have a rationale: The sweater knit is to make the aforementioned magic blouse (it's not in the Spring colour scheme, but whatevs). And modal is something that you should buy whenever you can find it. Neither sweater knit nor modal are readily available in my city. And, the total cost still brought my fabric to under 15 bucks a yard. Nonetheless, the shipping has put me off, yet again. I have enough access to fabric locally that, next time I feel like going far afield, I'm most likely to take a trip to NYC and buy a whack of fabric from the garment district, rather than to incur charges that irritate me.

Finally, I bought one other item, RTW at a bricks and mortar store - a very unusual occurrence for me. As you know, I have need of slightly more conservative clothing in my current role, as I attend a few meetings a month of the most formal, professional variety. Holt Renfrew was having a sale and I got the following suit (note: I got mine in the richest navy, natch):

Theory Hydric Melora Collarless Jacket, image from Polyvore

Theory Jeldra Hydric Pants, image from Net-a-Porter

Oh, I know, rub it in my face how I said suits are so cliche, so old-school. But the early-90s girl in me just couldn't get the jacket without the pants. Even though I'm kind of on the fence about the pants. They're that low slung style that the young people wear. I had to order in a larger size from Calgary because I cannot bear to wear my pants tight in the ass. And the alterers will need to remove the front internal pockets (they add bulk) and shorten them by a very wasteful foot of fabric. No, I'm not altering them myself. Even though they will charge for alteration on sale merch, I have no interest in spending a whack on pants (on sale) followed by doing my own alterations.

The jacket fit me perfectly, PERFECTLY, right off the hanger. That's almost unheard of in my universe. So, till I can DIY clothier my own suits, this one will be an elegant alternative.

Note that I do not take a purchase of this financial magnitude lightly. But I do think formal wear (and that's what a suit is, after all) should be very well-made and perfectly fitted. Theory never fails on these fronts. I'm of an age and stage that I choose only to wear what looks and feels excellent. And I am tremendously grateful to have that ability at this time.

I can't wait to perfect a couple of fitted jacket slopers - at which point I'll be able to make my own suits in every format, with relatively luxe materials, likely for under 200 bucks each.

Lord, this post has taken me all morning to construct. I have tea at the Windsor Arms this aft (carb attack of the highest order, I realize) and skating with M tomorrow. How on earth am I going to make any headway on those culottes muslins this weekend??

So, what are your thoughts on any or all of the zillions of pics and links within this post? Let's strike up some interesting conversation.

Crazy Update: Man, I totally forgot about a whole other purchase I neglected to discuss. That's going to have to be the subject of another post. This day has to start sometime...

Culottes, Then and Now: Muslin 1 Begins

OK, here are side-by each shots of the, left to right. TNT, altered Butterick (modern) and altered McCalls (vintage) culottes front pieces:

And here are the altered back pieces in a totally different order: Butterick, McCalls and TNT:

Like I said, I've got to start somewhere, so I've made reasonably minor crotch depth adjustments and I've also shortened the length by 1.25 inches. You'll also notice the shaded area with the arrow pointing to it which is where I added a reasonable amount (2/3 of an inch) of extra paper to straighten the hip to waist curve slightly. Thing is, looking at it now - and comparing it agains the original curve (see the 5th of 6 photos), that curve is practically as evident - the whole area is just wider. And, according to my estimations, widening this waist isn't going to help matters.

Well, the muslin is going to tell us whether the altered waist is too big and boxy, or whether it works.

Now below you can see the muslins I've cut out from some regrettably holey (bug-eaten?) worsted wool, vintage fabric that was gifted to me. (The kind gifter didn't realize that the fabric had seen better days. Guess that's what happens when fabric sits in your basement for 40 years.)

At any rate, it gives me the opportunity to make a muslin out of a wool fabric with good drape that I don't have to be sorry to use in this disposable capacity.

Note:

• I didn't cut the entire length of the patterns - I don't really care about the width of the leg below the crotch, at this point. It's not the puzzle I'm currently trying to solve. It's possible that the finished legs, as is, may be very wide. I am a person with narrow legs. But I think I can manage proportion by taking fabric out of the inner and outer legs at a later stage. I also don't have that much fabric to use in this capacity.

• You can see here how I've kept the inner-leg pleat closed for the muslin cutting. I really don't know if this is going to have some unintended (read: bad) consequences. Do I need to sew that pleat in order to determine what's happening with the crotch? Or is it actually a distraction on the matter of fit (it's just an extraneous element that doesn't actually impact the crotch so much as it abuts it)? I really have NO FREAKING IDEA. I mean, the pleat does go up to the waist on the McCalls. And it isn't like I'm going to leave out sewing the darts and (in the case of the McCalls) front pleats on the muslin. Again, if any experienced sewists can weigh in, I'll gladly take your feedback. Otherwise, wait till this weekend and, apparently, I'll play the role of the experienced sewist. :-)
  

Here's the McCalls (vintage) muslin:

OK, you can see where I've straightened the waist on the back piece, after all...

And here's the Butterick (modern) one:

Man, this is STRAIGHT compared with the McCalls above.

So, in the abstract, which shape of culottes do you prefer? You can really see the modern propensity for straight lines, yes?

Personally, I prefer the vintage shape (even as I may have mangled the waist to hip ratio on the back piece - or not). I like the way the legs flare. It's interesting to note that both patterns are basically the same length and the rise / waist height in both version is almost identical.

Please let me know your thoughts!

Mary Richards Was Here

Oh, the hipster was nascent, but these patterns show she was alive and well...

1960s:


It seems strange that Simplicity 7866 isn't from the 70s, but 1967 is the year it debuted. This pattern is the 60s masquerading as the decade it would evolve into. Dipping its toe in, as it were. I suspect, though I don't limit myself in terms of the decades I choose to wear, the 70s is my natural habitat. I was born in 1970, after all.

But look at the pants here, slim and creased, and the skirt with its short, gentle A line... Never mind the capes, each one more awesome than the last. And, you probably don't know this, but years ago I bought a couple of yards of plaid (red tones on white) in thick wool which would make an awesome short version. Of course, I'll have to match the plaid which is why I haven't used the fabric in all the time I've owned it. Maybe this will be the kick in the ass I need to undertake that challenge? Lord knows, it's taking up a third of my fabric cupboard.

In its day, the woman who made this wardrobe was sharp. She worked in publishing or advertising. She ate at a little place on Right Bank where they respectfully called her Mademoiselle. She was on the Pill.

BTW, are those envelope sketches mega-skinny or what?? I'm vaguely disturbed by the relative calf circumference going on.

1970s:

And here we are at the last vintage pattern I have purchased (so far). Simplicity 7069 is a lace-insert slip with a twist - it's for stretch fabrics! Um, given that I've got a less-than-compact collection lingerie fabrics, I'm hoping I can figure out how to turn some of them into some stretchy slips.

The (theoretical) bonus of a slip made of stretch fabric is that I can make unaltered versions for friends. Stretch is infinitely more forgiving than woven lace or silk, for example. And it's on-the-cusp-of-disco groovy.

This is how I justify the purchase of another lingerie pattern, more specifically one to make slips. Work with me.

Thoughts? Feelings? Do you own either of these? Which vintage decade best defines your style (at least right now)? Do tell.

Culottes, Then and Now: Comparing Crotch Curves

Most sewists will tell you that the most challenging part of making pants - and I believe that culottes do fall into this category for this purpose - is navigating the crazy minutiae of crotch depth.

How wide to make the back or the front crotch? How steep to draw the angle on each?

To complicate matters, culottes are not exactly pants. They're supposed to hang away from the body at the crotch by a longer distance - though who knows quite how much?? They're made (at least in the case of my modern and vintage versions) with an inner leg pleat on both front and back pieces.

Will that pleat meaningfully impact crotch depth? I suspect not, which is why I've cut my muslin fabric - see next post - with the pleats closed on the pattern pieces. At the muslin juncture, my goal is to ensure the tubes fit, not to manage non-impactful design elements. Of course, if I'm wrong - and pls. feel free to let me know your thoughts - my now-cut muslin fabric will be garbage.

Most sewists will also tell you to use one of your TNT pants patterns (those that fit like a glove due to 5-odd alteration cyles) to determine how best to adjust, prior to muslining, your next pants pattern.

I can tell you that works very well when you're going from pants to pants. Pants to culottes is more challenging, in the absence of relevant experience, because I don't know how - or how much - the crotch curve is meant to differ from that of the TNT pants. I've worked hard to make them the same. But you'll see how it's almost impossible to extrapolate one from the other, cuz pants fit against the crotch quite closely, while culottes will not.

Below is a shot of the crotch-area of the TNT on top of the Butterick back piece. I've shaded the areas that diverge particularly. You'll note how much taller from crotch to waist the modern culottes pattern is than the TNT. However, the crotch curve isn't all that different, in the scheme of things. Note that my TNT and the Butterick culottes delineate the crotch line on the back pieces. (The McCalls vintage pattern does not...):

The pen lines, in the photo below, demarcate where I've cut the Butterick back piece to reflect the TNT:

Below is the TNT pattern over the Butterick front piece. There's slightly more divergence here - it appears that the culottes angle is a bit more extreme than that of the TNT (see arrow):


Note: The top of the curve on the TNT piece (no arrow pointing) seems wider than the Butterick piece it rests atop because the seam allowance of the Butterick pattern centre front is folded back, while the TNT's is not. Because I've folded the culottes pleats it's not possible for me to show this differently without ripping the pattern.

The McCalls (vintage) culottes are very similar to the TNT at the front crotch (no photo available) - though I did straighten the waist down to the hip (as you'll see in the next post, which shows a photograph of all the pieces side by side). I did that because the TNT and the modern culottes share that design and, as a woman of a relatively full lower stomach, I didn't want to tempt fate. I don't adjust modern patterns in this way, but this vintage one has such a pronounced curve, it makes me nervous.

Update: I actually did the waist straightening on the back piece - for some reason I forgot that. The rationale is the same, but that's where I applied it. And I'm wondering at this moment - why did I alter the back piece for straightness when the area that concerns me (and that, apparently warrants straightening as the alteration) is the front waist, as it skims over my stomach? Hmmmm...

Finally, below you can see the rather extreme way I've had to modify the McCalls vintage back piece to more closely approximate that of the TNT (and Butterick, for that matter). I don't know how successful I've been - or (given the different hang needs of Culottes vs pants) how necessary that will be... Next post shows side-by-each shots.

It would be interesting to know how much of this modification - on all the pattern pieces - was required because of the difference between garment sizes: The TNT is a modern 14, the Butterick culottes are a modern 16 and the McCalls culottes are a vintage 18.

Any thoughts so far?

And while were talking, please let me know if these posts are making sense. I'm spending a ton of time on documenting this project which, I'm totally thrilled to do if it makes sense and interests my fab readers. It's possible I need more experience before writing about sewing in this kind of detail. Just cuz I can think it, doesn't mean I can tell it! So feel free to offer up advice...