Ceil Chapman, Draping Genius

My recent obsession with everything Ceil Chapman means that my eye goes straight to her designs when I peruse Pinterest.  I am usually lazy about clicking through to original sources, but something made me follow through with this picture, and boy am I glad I did - because it led to a treasure trove of gorgeous designs.

Mme. Grès is often referred to as the queen of draping, but I believe Ceil Chapman gives her a run for her money.  So I was thrilled to find these patented examples of her designs; how wonderful to find original source material, complete with dates, and even a few clues as to construction if you look closely.

It also brought to mind the idea of fashion copyright - a hot button topic in recent years.

Certainly there are a limited number of ways to cover the human form, and I suspect that at this point, they have all been done before.  Can anything really be considered new or fresh?  Comme des Garçons “Lumps and Bumps” Collection from 1997 comes to mind – but other than wearable art, would it not be possible to find “copies” of any garment if you look hard enough?  

And what about an a-line dress – can someone claim ownership over a design that is incredibly basic?  How complex does it have to get before a design is truly distinguishable from another?  I can see the designer of a massively intricate haute couture creation getting credit in perpetuity for their genius, but then again, how likely is it that someone would or even could copy it.  

Does anyone really think that the disposable copies that are mass produced and hocked by fast fashion companies are anything like the designer originals?  I doubt that someone willing to spend $500 for a designer dress with an expectation of quality goods is going to be happy with the cheap knock-off version.  The average consumer would never be able to afford that expensive design.  So is the designer, in fact,  losing a customer?  Probably not.  And is this terribly different than the department stores that were purchasing quality goods from fashion houses fifty and sixty years ago and having a talented individual create a house brand version?   

Since consumers (or the majority of them) no longer seem interested in buying quality instead of quantity, and demand that the very latest must-have item arrive at their door tomorrow morning, getting rid of the H&Ms and Forever 21s of the world seems rather hopeless.  After all, quality and old world craftsmanship is never going to happen quick enough for people in this instant gratification age.

How about using part of the design such as the bodice, and pairing it with a different skirt?  Would that be considered a breach?  Here are certainly instances where Ms. Chapman has borrowed her very own ideas.  A petal bust here, a surplice bodice there, simply swapped with a skirt from a previous design.

And what would you think about someone re-producing one of these designs - the patent, after all, is long expired.  Personally I would find it extremely tacky to make a profit off of a line for line copy (but I don't imagine huge corporations really care about anything other than money).

But putting aside the question of whether or not there is anything proprietary about fashion design, these looks are fabulous.  And I will admit that I am not above borrowing or being inspired by those who I consider the masters.  Isn't imitation considered the highest form of flattery?  Legality aside, I sure do love looking at and being inspired by beautiful things. 

Now if only I could find an original version of the pattern I am currently working on or the original patented line drawings - wouldn't that be something!?  

[Click on image for source]

An Interview with Seamstress Erin

I have been fortunate to meet some wonderful bloggers from The Bay Area over the past couple of years, including the lovely Erin of the blog Seamstress Erin.  Have you seen her new pattern release, the adorable Presidio Purse?

She has been interviewing bloggers in a recurring series regarding their thoughts on Sewing & Style - if you would like to hear more of my ramblings on the subject, head on over to Seamstress Erin.

Origami Sleeves

Another wonderful feature of this design is the rather intricate sleeve.

When it comes to measurements and drafted pieces not matching up (vintage or contemporary patterns alike), I always assume I am the one who has made the error.  However, when it comes to directions, I often find myself second guessing the illustrated diagrams and wording even before getting the pieces in my hands.

And I have to admit that when I happened upon the diagrams for this sleeve craziness, I scoffed.  What were they thinking sewing things with raw edges out?!  Well let me tell you, the writer of these particular directions knew exactly what they were doing with these origami-like creations.

Thank you, my muslin, for proving me wrong before I made a huge mistake!  By the way, all of those bias cut layers use a lot of fabric and I would have been rather peeved if I had to re-cut them out of expensive or precious material.  

They also look very similar.  To help keep everything straight, I pinned the letter names of each individual piece right on the fabric until the sleeve was completely finished.

Fabric choice becomes important with these sleeves.  I am using a mid-weight wool, and anything thicker would make them just about impossible to construct.  There is a whole lot of bulk going on here and a bunch of trimming of seams.  If I found a fantastic brocade that demanded to be made up using this design, I would probably opt to do without all the extra overlapping pieces.  I think a plain three-quarter length sleeve would go beautifully with this look, although for my first attempt I am sticking with the original – if only for the challenge!

First misunderstanding resolved!

Bodice Muslins & Measurements

When I received this pattern, I did not have a suitable fabric in hand, but I wanted to get started just the same. 

First up, the muslin.  These days I often start out with a practice run, mostly for fit.  In this particular case, I would highly recommend one because of the complicated construction.  This is my kind of pattern – it takes more than a simple scan of the pieces and directions to figure out how everything fits together.  Also, there was a bit of grading to do, and I wanted to make sure everything was going to fit together properly. 

As I have mentioned, this dress is a vintage size 12/35” bust.  My first surprise was the finished measurements:  bust 35”, waist 25” – that means that no ease is included.  I initially thought that I had made an error.  But after checking and re-checking, the numbers were not changing. 

I recall learning in a class that seam allowances on historical fashions were often tiny (as small as ¼”) to save precious fabric.  I struck me as odd that women did not bust seams wide open, until I thought about their foundation garments.  Throw a corset on and your ribcage and waistline is not able to expand very much, making those tiny little seam allowances safe from tearing open after a deep breath.

It should also be noted that the RTW sizing of this pattern (35/25/36) would most likely be achieved with the aid of a girdle, long-line bra, and perhaps even a corset.  Since the body is already molded into shape with some serious undergarments, generous amounts of ease are unnecessary.  In fact, having no ease at the waistline would further help to achieve an hourglass figure by pulling everything in.  Hello, waist-stay!

I am not familiar, however, with a sleeved dress that is lacking an amount of ease through the bustline. 

It is not completely clear from the illustration, but this design sits quite wide at the neckline (as I found out once I put the muslin on my dress form).  It therefore makes sense that the piece would be drafted similar to a strapless gown.  This design has a draped bodice that lays over a fitted shell or “lining.”  That lining needs to fit snug to the body to create the proper draping and keep the bodice from falling down.  Another brilliant design feature from Ceil Chapman!

First mystery solved!

Just My Size

After yesterday’s rant, I thought I would explain how I figured out the proper size pattern for my figure after years of guesswork.

The McCall Company Sizing Chart

My very first apparel pattern purchase was McCall’s 8100.  I ended up with a pattern that contained Sizes 8-10-12, although my measurements were probably something like 35-30-36 at the time and I expected that the finished dress might be on the small side.    

The design has no zipper or button closure, but even so, it is horrendously oversized.  The finished bust measurement on the pattern is 41.5” – that means they are allowing a whopping 7.5” of wearing ease over and above the 34" full bust measurement for a standard Size 12.  If you would like to see the result, here is photographic evidence of the dress; the tie-back design is the only reason it fit at all.  

Sometime around 2008 I discovered PatternReview.com.  Suddenly I was exploring a fabulous online sewing community where thousands of individuals were well versed in a whole new language of FBAs, SBAs, and UFOs.*  I had absolutely no clue what they were talking about!  

In the ten years prior to finding the online sewing community, I was busy making dresses and costumes, and worked with an incredible costume designer in college where I picked up hundreds of random tips and tricks.  In the costume shop, I was the girl to go to if you needed to get a knot out of a length of thread, or if you needed a hem quickly hand stitched or a zipper unstuck during a quick change.  But I had never dealt with fitting anyone other than myself.  I was capable of putting an entire garment together, but never had to deal with choosing a size for someone or drafting a pattern. 

After years of trial and error, I confirmed that my frame was perfectly suited to a size 12 in Vogue/McCall/Butterick/Simplicity contemporary patterns (exclusive of a couple of minor alterations).  But why was that?  My bust and hips got a bit larger, and my waist smaller, but according to their fit chart, a Size 14 still looks like it should be the best fit.

Over the years, I have learned that The Big 4 (McCalls, Butterick, Simplicity, & Vogue) generally have masses of excess ease built into the designs.  Vogue patterns give me less of a problem in this regard, and Vogue designer patterns even less.  The most common exception to the over-ease rule is a strapless design – those follow the body measurement chart quite closely.

So why do Size 14s turn out too big, especially around the upper edge of the bodice?  I am rather long-waisted and usually add from ¾ to a full 1 inch to the torso length, have a slight swayback, and my upper back is straight up and down without the standard bit of forward slouch, but that does not account for the sizing problem. 

Years and years into the sewing game, I started hearing about something called the “upper bust” or “high bust” or "chest" measurement being the thing that should determine which pattern size is appropriate, rather than the three numbers given on the back of the envelope – who knew? - and where the heck are they hiding that number if it is so darn important?!  This upper bust measurement, after all, gives a much more accurate fit.  Gaining or losing weight will not significantly alter this measurement, just as losing twenty pounds does not narrow wide shoulders, or vice versa.  Altering those areas can also be a bit of a nightmare because you have to deal with shoulder widths, necklines, and most importantly, the armscye, so starting off with a pattern that fits through this area is much more important than the full bust, waistline, or hip measurements.  For a dress maker, the full bust measurement is probably the worst indicator of overall body size of a woman.  Which is ironic, since many vintage patterns are only stamped with that single measurement. 

According to McCall’s chart, the upper bust measurement is 2” less than the full bust on their patterns (this is standard for most patterns as they draft for a B cup, which equates to a 2” difference between the high bust and full bust measurements).  My upper bust measurement is 34” which would put me in a size . .  .14.  Aargh!  That can’t be right?! 

However, it takes more than four or five basic measurements to create a standard bodice block and to describe a person’s complicated three dimensional form.  My upper torso seems to be narrower than average for my size (having to take in just about every halter design I have sewn up at the upper bodice has confirmed this fact for me).  

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the culprit: 3-4" of ease for a "fitted" dress - are they out of their minds?!

Instead, it works much better for me to start with a Size 12, which fits through the shoulders and upper torso, and make adjustments such as adding length to a bodice, or width through the hips.  As a dress enthusiast, I like to think of the shoulders and neckline as the foundation of my garments – of course, a skirt or pair of pants requires a different perspective (for those separates I start with the hips and alter to fit the waist as necessary, and for strapless designs I use the waist as the foundation.)

Some new "Custom Fit" designs offer a range of cup sizes in a single pattern envelope: A/B, C, D.  While I am technically a C cup these days, my attempts with the C cup bodice blocks have been rather dismal - probably because my torso is shaped like more of a rectangle than an inverted triangle.  The extra ease given to the C bodice turns out much too wide through the upper bodice/back area for me.  

Vintage patterns are especially tricky because all you get is a single size option.  I generally will only purchase vintage patterns with a 34" or 36” bust because I am lazy and would rather spend my time sewing than grading pattern pieces.  A 34" vintage pattern generally works as well as a Size 12 contemporary Vogue for me - that upper bust measurement is still at play and I rarely have to add inches for a bustline that measures three inches over the 34" sizing.  

For better or worse, every single pattern design is going have variations in ease chosen by the designer or the pattern drafter, which may or may not turn out just like the idealized illustration shown on the envelope.  Whether or not those finished measurements are appropriate for an individual body is what makes sewing challenging and a whole lot of fun!

So I suppose the solution to finding the right size is patience, and lots of trial and error - at least, that has been my experience!  Oddly enough, that first guess was the right one for me (regardless of the horrid fit of that first dress, and the changes in my body shape and measurements over the years, I keep coming back to a size 34).    

Keep in mind that simple alterations like shortening or lengthening bodice pieces, adding or subtracting width from a waist or hipline, and playing with full or small bust adjustments are much more likely to yield a proper fit than blindly following a measurement chart that may or may not contain your body measurements in a single size.  It took some time for me to realize that dropping the waist seam down by one inch would also solve the fit through my hips by moving those curves into the proper place on my body.  

And most important, remember that the full bust measurement on your pattern envelope is much less important than the upper bust.  And I haven't a clue as to why they would not include it on a basic sizing chart!

*SBA:  Small Bust Adjustment; FBA:  Full Bust Adjustment; UFO:  Unfinished Object

Does Size Really Matter?

Last year I was contacted by Deirdre of Vintage Pattern Lending Library and asked if I would like to test a pattern reproduction for her.  Umm . . . YES!  But it gets better . . . one of the choices was a 1958 Ceil Chapman design!!  And I am somewhat partial to Ceil Chapman since I had such fun working on my Emerald Green Gown a couple of years ago. 

Now I have my very own copy of Spadea 1251 – and so can you!  How awesome it that?!  A glorious and rather complicated design has been made available for more than one lucky soul who grabs the original for crazy sums of cash on ebay. 

Sizing is a little bit different for Spadea designs than other vintage patterns – it assumes more extreme measurements than your standard patterns from the 1950s.  When I was working with my first Ceil Chapman pattern, I came across this site which has some great information about the brand. 

This pattern is copied from a vintage size 12/35” bust, so it would have been the master pattern from which the other sizes were graded.  The measurements are as follows:  35” bust, 25” waist, 36” hips.  There seems to be a misconception that this was standard for vintage patterns in the 40s and 50s.  And looking at images from the period, I can understand why!

This got me thinking about sizing charts in general, so I dug out a few of my 1950s patterns. 

The following sizing charts are from patterns in my possession that are from the 1950s, either by copyright, or by my best guess after looking at the style lines and envelope illustrations.  Here is what is listed as a Size 12.

McCall	Simplicity	Vogue	Hollywood	Advance	Butterick	Mail Order
Bust  30	Bust  30	Bust  30	Bust  30	Bust  30	Bust  30	Bust  30
Waist  25	Waist  25	Waist  25	Waist  25	Waist  25	Waist  25	(no measurement given)
Hip  33	Hip  33	Hip  33	Hip  33	Hip  33	Hip  33	Hip  33

They are all the same!  But more interesting than that, these are not exactly the va-va-voom measurements that one might expect.  Instead, they seem more appropriate for contemporary clothing and figures with less of an emphasis on a small waistline.

The only exception to this standard is Spadea.

Spadea, it turns out, used a ready-to-wear size chart for their patterns - which is more in line with the girdled and curvy figure ideal of the 1950s. 

For more of a comparison, I went to find what Gap Corp. thinks are appropriate measurements for a contemporary body (one which does not wear a girdle on a daily basis).  As expected, the size numbers are utterly ridiculous.  Our vintage size 12 with a 25” waist has now become a size 0/XS  (Bust32” - Waist25” - Hips35”).  This is not as extreme as the ready-to-wear size chart of the 1950s, but still caters to more curves than the 1950s pattern sizing, which I find strange.  Clothing that is produced today does not take these proportions into account, so what is the point of their size guides?

Ready-to-wear clothing in the year 2014 does not seem to follow its own prescribed measurements, just as contemporary patterns from the Big 4 tend to offer more ease than is necessary for their size chart.  The McCall Company’s contemporary size 10 is 32.5” -  25” - 34.5”.  That is more extreme than the standard pattern sizing chart used in the 50s – a decade that epitomized the wasp waist and celebrated the hourglass figure.  Go figure! 

When did sizing get so darn complicated?  And why is it that people are so hung up on the number found on a tag in the back of their pants – it is meaningless without some kind of context.  The rumors that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 are, in fact, true – those numbers do not, however, have anything to do with contemporary American sizing, or take into account that she had a smaller than average waistline.  

So where did these arbitrary numbers come from?  Who decided that double digits mean a person is "fat"?  And what the heck does "00" mean?  Do we now long to occupy so little space that we disappear?  And in forty years will "00000" be the average size of a supermodel?  How many X's can you put in front of a size small before it becomes ridiculous?

Considering the variation that exists with the basic human body (a torso with four limbs attached including various squishy bits and fat deposits in different locations), it is a miracle that anyone looks halfway decent in clothing made to reflect an "average" build.  It certainly makes me grateful for the ability to make my own clothes!!

Yikes . . . that was not where I expected this post to go . . .

I am not sure what any of this has to do with a glorious Ceil Chapman design, but now that I have said it, I feel so much better and can get back to my happy sewing space!  

Dress Form Magic

I happened upon this short film over at Jonathan Walford's Blog and thought I would share (just in case you have not yet seen it!).

The collapsible dress form is extremely practical, but I never thought about what might go into the making of one.  Here is the answer:

And now I realize why a custom measured form costs so much extra!  I wonder what happens to all of those custom molds?