I made one sleeve and put it on my muslin (which is not made of muslin at all — since I have a muslin shortage — but rather a weird fused fabric). It fit into the armhole quite well considering how unsuitable the fabric was, but I decided that I could stand to narrow the shoulder line by about 8mm and the upper chest about 2.2cm. So this might need to feed back into a future draft as a wider armhole diameter and narrower front width. As for the shoulder seam length, I'm not sure off the top of my head if Müller & Sohn have you use a shoulder line width measurement, or if they come up with it automatically from the back width (which is given more ease in their blouse draft example than in the base pattern).
Having considered all that, I had another look at Neue Mode 22957, which is what I'm now thinking of making next. Since it has puffed sleeve caps, I want a very neat fit in the shoulder width, so as not to build out the shoulder line even more. I decided to cut a 34 in the upper torso, blending into 38 under the arm. The 34 is somewhat shocking to me, but it seems to produce the right armhole depth and shoulder width, and combined with the 38 further down, makes it easy to get the sleeves wide enough (of course, the gathers help too). So apparently my torso might be quite cylindrical. Explains several things.
There are a couple of other alterations I've done, and I'm a little concerned about the shape of the back armhole in the Neue Mode (too much of a J rather than an L?) vs. my blouse draft, but I'm probably going to go ahead and cut in fabric soon. The combination of sizes also had the advantage that the 34's buttonholes are the only ones marked, and end up spaced just about right in spite of the reshaping.
Showing posts with label Müller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Müller. Show all posts
2014-01-20
Fitting the fitting shell
I've copied off separate bodice and skirt pieces from the fitting shell. Before I go further, here's how I adjusted the fit after drafting.
Comparing this to my old fitting shell, it's surprising how much narrower it looks, especially in the bodice and the width across the armhole. I don't know how much of this is an ease difference vs. a size difference.
- The basic pattern is supposed to have a very long front waist dart, from (below) the bust, to the greatest intake at the waist, curving to a smaller intake at the hip, then continuing straight down to the hem. The book says that this continuation can be reduced or left off if necessary. I just turned this into a normal, hip-length fisheye dart, and also reduced the intake. The smallest part is now actually above the marked waistline.
- I made the hip curves at the side seams much flatter, and they actually continue almost straight for 2-3cm below the waistline, so it's more of an S-curve than a normal hip curve. If I compare my new fitting shell to my old one, I used to think my waistline was about that much lower than I have it on this pattern. Maybe it was. Now, I have bone structure and "other structure" that is keeping my waist higher up. Before, maybe that bone structure was obscured and/or I had more "other structure" going on higher up. Or maybe I just placed the waist too low before — I could definitely see that happening with the way I worked with the fitting shell pattern at the time.
- I lengthened the centermost back waist darts by about 2cm at the bottom.
- I dropped the front neckline by a little over 1cm, and widened it slightly at the sides.
- When tracing off the separate skirt pieces, I slid in 1cm of width, half centered on each dart (increasing the dart intake to keep the waist size the same). I haven't yet tested the fit to decide whether this was a good idea or whether I'd have do something to the side seams as a result.
Comparing this to my old fitting shell, it's surprising how much narrower it looks, especially in the bodice and the width across the armhole. I don't know how much of this is an ease difference vs. a size difference.
2014-01-19
Progress on the fitting shell
I've finished the torso of the fitting shell, more or less.
It might've been better if I'd added some to the back hip area, as it might be pulling in a little in front. That would've required either creating a back princess seam, or creating a hinge and swinging the side seam out toward the hem, if one does it according to the instructions. I didn't really want to do the former on the dress fitting shell; as for the latter, I don't really want flare but I could see possibly avoiding this by using a second hinge to make the side seam straight again below the full hip. In any case, it'll be very straightforward to add width right where it's needed when I copy off a version with a waist seam.
It's interesting to me that the Müller system starts without a waist seam; all of the American fitting shells I've seen have waist seams and you are then told to stick the pieces together (with different tradeoffs for the different ways to do this) if you want a sheath dress. I'm going to have a look at my books later and see which option might best correspond to the inverse of this process.
It might've been better if I'd added some to the back hip area, as it might be pulling in a little in front. That would've required either creating a back princess seam, or creating a hinge and swinging the side seam out toward the hem, if one does it according to the instructions. I didn't really want to do the former on the dress fitting shell; as for the latter, I don't really want flare but I could see possibly avoiding this by using a second hinge to make the side seam straight again below the full hip. In any case, it'll be very straightforward to add width right where it's needed when I copy off a version with a waist seam.
It's interesting to me that the Müller system starts without a waist seam; all of the American fitting shells I've seen have waist seams and you are then told to stick the pieces together (with different tradeoffs for the different ways to do this) if you want a sheath dress. I'm going to have a look at my books later and see which option might best correspond to the inverse of this process.
2014-01-18
Fitting shell type 1: Müller/Hofenbitzer
I could use a new set of fitting shells. Last time (2007) I started with a Butterick fitting shell pattern which, in the size I used at the time, probably started off too big in the upper torso, and I was never convinced that I'd got the armholes, shoulders, and upper back quite right. They are now just too big overall and probably don't fit my posture anymore either. Likewise, I drafted trousers using the Minott method, but they are also now too big, and I'm not sure I placed the waist at its real height in that draft.
So I've been looking through these. (I should mention, the Armstrong was in this stack just for completeness because it does very briefly mention taking measurements from a real human, but that isn't anywhere near being the focus of that book. The duct-taped book is a used copy of Jan Minott's Fitting Commercial Patterns.)
In theory I'd like to have drafts from several or all of them to compare to each other. Really, I might be obsessed enough to try it. But for now I'm working on the one in Müller & Sohn's Kleider und Blusen.
I almost started with Guido Hofenbitzer's Maßschnitte und Passform (new late last year) instead. Both of these books create similar styles of basic patterns (with no waist seam to start, unlike the usual American style). They cover certain figure/posture variations and how you can draft a basic pattern differently from the start to address them.
M&P seems less densely written; for one thing, I think it tends to use less of the sentence-structure variation that can make German harder for a non-native speaker (such as myself) to read. It also covers trousers in the same volume, as well as a bigger selection of possible figure variations. This is where I ran into trouble: you have to compare your balance of front and back measurements to an ideal. Then, by using these comparisons and observing the person being measured, you decide what variations (or combinations thereof) are causing the differences from the ideal, and by what amounts different areas will need to be adjusted. I played around with these calculations for quite a while, but eventually felt like I was wandering off into the weeds; in any case, I didn't think I should necessarily trust my measurement set that far in the first place. So I decided to go back to K&B, just get a first draft done and see how well it worked. I hope to come back to M&P later and maybe at least reverse-engineer how my fit issues would have been classified.
So I've been looking through these. (I should mention, the Armstrong was in this stack just for completeness because it does very briefly mention taking measurements from a real human, but that isn't anywhere near being the focus of that book. The duct-taped book is a used copy of Jan Minott's Fitting Commercial Patterns.)
 |
| What I spend the big bucks on. |
In theory I'd like to have drafts from several or all of them to compare to each other. Really, I might be obsessed enough to try it. But for now I'm working on the one in Müller & Sohn's Kleider und Blusen.
I almost started with Guido Hofenbitzer's Maßschnitte und Passform (new late last year) instead. Both of these books create similar styles of basic patterns (with no waist seam to start, unlike the usual American style). They cover certain figure/posture variations and how you can draft a basic pattern differently from the start to address them.
M&P seems less densely written; for one thing, I think it tends to use less of the sentence-structure variation that can make German harder for a non-native speaker (such as myself) to read. It also covers trousers in the same volume, as well as a bigger selection of possible figure variations. This is where I ran into trouble: you have to compare your balance of front and back measurements to an ideal. Then, by using these comparisons and observing the person being measured, you decide what variations (or combinations thereof) are causing the differences from the ideal, and by what amounts different areas will need to be adjusted. I played around with these calculations for quite a while, but eventually felt like I was wandering off into the weeds; in any case, I didn't think I should necessarily trust my measurement set that far in the first place. So I decided to go back to K&B, just get a first draft done and see how well it worked. I hope to come back to M&P later and maybe at least reverse-engineer how my fit issues would have been classified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)