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...

Elegant Problem

Does the vintage excitement here never end??

As it happens, a little while ago, I read Casey's post on some family-heirloom vintage patterns she recently received. This was one of the many gems:

Simplicity 4538, image courtesy of Casey's Elegant Musings

I was immediately enthralled. How chic, how body con, how (um) boxy in the construction. Those mid-century sewists really had it going on!

I searched online. I didn't find it. I even spoke with friends about this fascinating pattern I came across that's basically a square with holes for your head and arms. Just 2 seams! It went over well...

To compound the matter, Casey actually posted a photo of the finished garment today, and I almost climbed through the computer screen to snatch it from her then and there. (That sounds violent, I realize. I mean it only in the most pacific way.)

Oh, how I LOVE it!

It looks old fashioned, but not costume-y. It's got a great line. As a person of narrowish shoulders, it's just the kind of line that flatters me.

Fortunately, one of the commenters on Casey's latest post included a link to a similar vintage pattern: the Vintage Magic Blouse. I decided to spring for the pdf ($3.99 USD) and a minute later I had a new item for the metaphoric Sew List. Note that the pdf is just 2 pages of instruction. It doesn't include a bunch of 8.5x11 pages to tape together. It just tells you how to make the top, which includes some tubular knit having 54"circumference. (Note: Tubular knit is simply a width of fabric that's attached in a tube. That means it doesn't have any side seams. It's like a big cowl, if that makes any sense. Or a tube that a knitter would knit in the round.)

OK, I thought. I can get with this. I called a few of my usual stores in the garment district to ask about the availability of fabric that fits that description. Apparently, there's no challenge finding tube knits in that size range, but they're all variations on cotton aka t shirt knit aka not chic for a vintage garment!

Finally I asked the guy at King Textiles why I couldn't find myself a nice cashmere or merino. (I've noticed, in the past, the dearth of fine textiles in tube format.) And here's what he told me: You can't find tube fabric in luxe knits in Canada because, by and large, Canada doesn't mill fabric. It imports fabric.

Can you believe that cashmere tube knit is mega expensive to import and the demand just isn't that high? Honestly, the worst thing about living in Canada is trying to get stuff. You'd think we were in Australia. (Note to Australians: No offense! You're just kind of far away, and we're right here! All 12 of us.)

So, now my immediate life goal is to source some luxurious fabric having the kind of drape that will lend itself to constructing the Magic Blouse.

Please help.

If you live in Europe or if you know of some Euro based online vendor - or even an US one that sells tube knit in high-end textiles - pls. advise. I'd love to know how to source this stuff.

The more I sew, the more I learn that I am only limited by the textiles available to me. And, being in the middle of a distribution wasteland, I have to expand my horizons.

Culottes, Then and Now: The Experiment Begins

I've got so many things to say about the culottes experiment, I barely know where to start.

I suppose it would be useful to remind you all now:

• I'm no expert at either a) sewing or b) culottes. Follow along at your own risk. I recommend waiting to see how it all goes before using any of the info I opine about at length.

• I'm totally enlisting your feedback. You who are sewing experts, you who have made many vintage patterns - those of you who've made culottes (specifically) - we need your help! I'm going to say a bunch of things based on what I've read, or what I've surmised, but if you know better (or different), do tell.

• I'm showing a lot of photos of the versions of Culottes (M9805 aka vintage and B5681 aka modern) and, at least for the next couple of posts, they're all displayed with the inner leg pleats folded closed. That's the only way I could reasonably compare the crotch curves. You'll see what I mean as I go on.

• My Vogue TNT is a modern Big 4 size 14 pattern. The Butterick modern pattern is a size 16. Hmmm. Wonder why I didn't consider cutting the Butterick in a size 14 given that modern sizing is standardized. Size 14 correlates to waist 28", hip 38". Size 16, as I've mentioned, is a 30" waist and 40" hip. I'm somewhere, size-wise, between the two but by using slimmer seam allowances and in light of pattern and fabric ease, I tend towards 14. Interesting that I forgot this... And to complicate matters, the vintage culottes are a (vintage standard) size 18. That correlates to a 30" waist and 39" hip. But vintage patterns are sometimes said to fit small. No doubt, fabric and pattern ease are really going to factor in. I only wish, at this point, I could predict how.
  

So, to get started, here are a few intro photos of side-by-side views of my now-traced TNT (V1166), M9805 and B5681. I urge you to notice on the "non-crotch" sides of the pattern pieces, specifically:

• How utterly straight to the waist the TNT is. (Left piece)
  
• How relatively curvy the vintage pattern is. (Right piece)
  
• How the Butterick is more like the TNT. (Middle piece)
• How much longer in the crotch both culottes pieces are in comparison with the mid-rise TNT pants pattern.
  

Back pieces, side-by-side

Front Pieces, side-by-side

Even accounting for my generally necessary, short crotch adjustment (about 1.25 inches on both front and back pieces - which you'll observe has already been done on the TNT), the culottes are way longer in the rise. I think that's partly cuz they're meant to be higher waisted than the pants. And I've read, in Pants for Real People, that culottes are meant to hang away from the body at the crotch by a much further distance than pants. How much farther, alas, they didn't say. We're merging the skirt with pants, peeps. Currently, it's a mystery.

First thing first, I removed some length in the crotch on both culottes pieces - approximately 1.25 inches. I don't know if it's the right course of action, but I have to start somewhere:

Back pieces, adjusted for crotch length

Front pieces, adjusted for crotch length

I think that's enough info for this post. My eyes are starting to cross...

Any thoughts about the experiment at this point? Please weigh in!

Ladies Wear

As I continue to work my way through the pieces, envelopes and instructions sheets of my new old patterns, I am blown away. What beautiful antiques.

But they're so clear. Seriously, peeps, if you can understand the arcane instructions of a modern pattern, you'll have no problems working with those of ye olde ones. They haven't really updated the technical language in about a hundred years, from what I can tell.

1960s:

From 1965, Butterick 2674 is a ubiquitous sheath with a gored skirt. The jacket is optional! (I imagine that piece of marketing is somewhere in the instructions, complete with the exclamation mark.) This pattern is a size 16 1/2 (original pattern sizing), which means the envelope measurements show the bust is 37", waist 31" and hips 41". Unless the thing is small i.e. no pattern or fabric ease allowed, I'll probably have to do a bit of amending of the hips at least. But gotta love a bust measurement on a close fitting garment that will, theoretically, fit right out of the packet.

Awesome update: The woman who owned this pattern previously, put tons of notes all over the place, including one, faintly, on the front of the envelope which - if I'm interpreting it correctly - indicates that the finished garment measurements are: bust 37.5" to 38" (perfect for me!), waist 33.25" (gonna have to grade down) and hips 40" (also need to take a little bit away, but not as much as the envelope measurements would have me believe). Ya'll know how relatively easy it is to alter a waist and hip width vs. fixing a bodice for a full bust. I'll take that trade off.

OMG - other awesome update!!! - the woman left a remnant of the fabric she used to make her garment. It's a blue and brown geometric floral!!! And she either updated her facing pieces to suit herself, or she lost them and recut them - OUT OF NEWSPAPER PIECES. The journal used was "The Rural Lifeline". There's a small add that talks about the Dayton Power and Light Company, so this woman must have lived in Ohio! Oh, other update: She was from Fletcher, Ohio.

Let's reflect on this. Another real person with a real life expressed her sartorial perspectives with this dress, a good 5 years before I was born. We will wear it as relevantly as one another.

I feel overwhelmed. I want to make all of these gorgeous garments so much but I don't know where to start.

Have you ever had this sense when working with vintage patterns? Have you ever felt sublimely connected to another person on the basis of finished garment measurements and her lady-like script from another era?

I have to reflect and recuperate. More patterns tomorrow.

Culottes, Then and Now

Let's go on an adventure, shall we?

In full disclosure, it's a sewing adventure, so you might already be bored. But I'm going to try to make it fascinating, like that subtype of documentary on PBS about physics (let's say) which, on the surface, is miserably dull but, despite yourself, by the end you are sad not to hear at least another hour's worth of info about the Law of Gravity. Note to reader: Once you get down to it, everything is somehow about the Law of Gravity. And is narrated by Martin Sheen.

OK, here's what I'm gonna do. Ya'll know about this pattern:


And you know this is the culottes pattern I have chosen to make as part of my Spring Basics Palette.

Wouldn't it be entrancing to see how they differ a) from each other - one vintage and one modern pattern and b) how the crotch curves of the original patterns differ from my own prior to alteration?

I know, you're drooling with anticipation.

But let me tell you a few other things before we get started on this path that's probably gonna take a few posts (and days of work, for that matter).

Sewist from way back, Lana, advised that:

• Culottes date back to the 30's and were a kind of upgraded riding gear for women of that era.
• Vintage versions tend to be made for those of extremely minimal derriere.
  

The new culottes (B5681) are a size 16 and the vintage ones (M9805) are an 18. These correlate with envelope sizing - waist 30" / hips 40" and waist 30" / hips 39". Standardized sizing has changed over the years, just to make things challenging.

I very gently opened the vintage pattern - still in factory folds - and carefully ironed it. You might as well tell me if this is a terrible crime to vintage. On the plus side, it made it possible for me to trace.

I also traced the modern pattern, though it was a total pain in the ass for something I could buy again tomorrow.

As yet untraced, boring, modern pattern...

Sassy, as yet untraced pocket of the vintage pattern.

How adorable that you get the WHOLE waistband when you sew vintage! (In truth, you get the whole waistband with the modern pattern too...)

More modern... Note that step action where the pleat meets the crotch. That doesn't happen in the vintage version (see below)...

More vintage... See how much more A line the vintage version appears to be? The modern one looks positively straight.

I love the way vintage patterns look. This one provides an ingenious double line to cut between in order to ensure you don't slice any of the seam allowance off when cutting into your fabric. This pattern also includes stitching lines in addition to cutting lines, so you can actually see the pattern sloper (aka block). Of course, modern patterns do not.

Intriguingly, the vintage pattern tissue was in very good shape, but the instructions (on construction paper) are definitely suffering the ravages of time. Weird since I don't think the pattern was ever used.

So, whatcha think? Are you game to compare vintage and modern garments? I'm going to muslin each of these (the top parts, any way) and which ever fits better will end up being the pattern I use to make my Spring Basics Palette culottes.