# Best steps to becoming a tailor.



## WayneCorry (Nov 21, 2008)

ive been doing minor alterations to all my clothes for years now. im a big fan of brookes brothers and have always wanted to know more about how the clothes i wear are made.. i have no idea how to actually get into the world of tailoring. im not sure if its an apprenticeship kind of matter. i know i could go to school but i already finished with a degree in history. being that that wont help me much in this field i figured there has to be a way for me to get hands on experience. working for free? do they actually pay you but start you as some assistant the way a carpenter might hire someoen to basically just sweep and make rough cuts. im very interested in this and if anyone has any advice i woudl read it with great appreciation. 

thanks.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I am about to add some tailoring manuals to my LL list, which is dominated by cutter's manuals at the moment. Keep an eye out other there.

If you want to be good enough to be hired by a bespoke tailoring firm, I suggest that you be able to make up a pair of trousers for yourself. If you can draft the pattern for a pair of trousers, that would be even better. If you can make a collarless waistcoat/vest then you are well on your way to a career as a tailor. The bare minimum skills you need to make it as an apprentice is to be able to hand make a button hole, stitch on shanked buttons, and make pockets. Just being able to make basic alterations can make you more of a liability to a small bespoke tailoring business than an asset. At least, that is what my tailor tells me.

Unfortunately, cutting/pattern drafting is bloody difficult. It is like learning architectural drafting. You just about need a degree. I have done a PhD and I still find it hard, even though I have studied many cutting manuals. Little wonder that tailor's aren't managing to find time in a busy practice to teach apprentices their skills 

If you can learn these skills, however, given the ever dwindling competition out there, you will be able to charge _whatever_ you like as a bespoke tailor.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

BTW, if you get only one book in my _Bibliography_, please get _The Art of the Tailor:
_

It has almost everything you will ever need to know. There are incredibly detailed instructions in there on cutting, and making up every imaginable garment. Get someone to buy it for Christmas if it's too expensive.

It may change your life.


----------



## omanae (Aug 19, 2008)

A good tailor friend of mine went to what was basically a Tech school for tailoring. He said that it has since closed, but I would guess that some research might find something similar. He was very knowledgeable and quite skilled. I know it can seem frustrating being that you already have a bachelors, but if you really want to pursue this as a life-long career I would think that a few more years of school/training are not that large of a sacrifice. Some of the skills in pattern adjustment and proper cutting/sewing techniques must be learned to be reputable and produce quality garments.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

omanae said:


> A good tailor friend of mine went to what was basically a Tech school for tailoring. He said that it has since closed, but I would guess that some research might find something similar.


This is a problem that is common worldwide. My tailor says there used to be course offered through the technical college here. He himself studied there and the classes used to be full. The prescribed text was A.A. Whife and he still keeps its three volumes in his store. Over the years, the amount of interest gradually waned and they eventually stopped offering the class.

That means, there is a dwindling number of bespoke tailors out there. On the plus side, it means that anyone resourceful enough to figure out how to cut and tailor will have little competition. You could easily charge $7-1000 for a bespoke two piece in a place like NYC.

BTW my LL _Bibliography_ has been updated to include extra references on making up as well as cutting. Everything that a cutter and tailor needs to know can be found in there.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

Ooh! No!

That book from Sartorial Press is not one that I recommend. In fact, the Modern Tailor, Outfitter and Clothier is still protected by the Berne Convention, so I question how much of the content in the SP book can be printed.

Pattern drafting is engineering. And, the ability to understand how fit flattens out on the 2D plane requires a lot of practice. All of my patternmaker (and, a few tailor) friends can look at a pattern laying on a table and point to the exact areas of the curves that will be problematic when sewn or if the pattern is completely bust.

But... take heart: a tailor is only a stitcher. If you want to learn how to operate a sewing machine, that's relatively easy. Cutting is a whole other matter.

We learn to sew before we learn to draft because we need to understand the mechanics of construction before we can design patterns. This is why quality is a problem these days. Children are shoved through a 3-month CAD training program and convinced they are patternmakers. Old garmentos know better. And, we make every person who applies for a patternmaking job sew several styles before we ever take them into the pattern department.

I'm in process of discussing a proper self-study course with a couple colleagues. If you're interested, please email me and I'll keep you apprised of that project.

For the short term, however, an excellent (German) magazine is _Rundschau für Internationale Herrenmode und Schnitt-Technik_. The Mueller and Sohn school produces this magazine and also publishes many instructional books on the subjects of drafting and making up.

If you can, try to get Clarence Poulin's book: _Tailoring Suits the Professional Way_. Or, Stanley Hostek's books: _Men's Custom Tailored Coats, Men's Custom Tailored Pants, Men's Custom Tailored Vests,_ and _Hand Stitches_.

If you're truly interested in learning pattern drafting and grading, then the best references are by Jack Handford: _Professional Patternmaking for Designers: Women's Wear and Men's Casual Wear_, and _Professional Pattern Grading for Women's, Men's, and Children's Apparel_.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

jsprowls9 said:


> Ooh! No!
> 
> That book from Sartorial Press is not one that I recommend. In fact, the Modern Tailor, Outfitter and Clothier is still protected by the Berne Convention, so I question how much of the content in the SP book can be printed.


I don't always agree with Doyle's commentary myself but the stuff he rips off other authors is superb. Yes, it's probably illegal, but it's the only way of getting hold of a some of the stuff in there these days. Naughty but convenient.



jsprowls9 said:


> Pattern drafting is engineering. And, the ability to understand fit on the 2D plane requires a lot of practice. But... take heart: a tailor is only a stitcher. If you want to learn how to operate a sewing machine, that's relatively easy. Cutting is a whole other matter.
> 
> We learn to sew before we learn to draft because we need to understand the mechanics of construction before we can design patterns. This is why quality is a problem these days. Children are shoved through a 3-month CAD training program and convinced they are patternmakers. Old garmentos know better. And, we make every person who applies for a patternmaking job sew several styles before we ever take them into the pattern department.
> 
> ...


I've got Poulin's book. The others I'll have to check out. I also own one modern text by Lori Knowles, and another by Winifred Aldrich.

Modern cutting starts with Henry Wampen, a mathematics professor. He was interested in how the Greeks and Romans used a proportionate system to ensure that marble statues were anatomically accurate. He then tried to create a system of proportionate cutting that reproduced what sculptors do in turning a marble block into a 3-D anatomical form to permit tailors to turn a 2-D block pattern into an 3-D anatomical form. So, modern tailoring really does have it roots in Classicism.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Well, for starters, I believe you need a trade certificate.


----------



## Shirtmaven (Jan 2, 2004)

FIT offers classes in patternmaking.
i would also offer to do simple alterations for friends.
right now there is more money in alterations then in making suits to order!
Once you get your cutting skills down. you can always outsource cut garments to several sewing factories in NYC.
Carl


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

Scoundrel said:


> Well, for starters, I believe you need a trade certificate.


LOL! Nope. This is a fallacy. Though, conventional training does help. But, the opportunities are becoming thinner. We've already said this, though.

What I don't like about conventional fashion schools (I've flopped out of 3 of the best - two in Europe) is that they insist on shoving you through fine arts classes and 3.75 yrs of "girl" fashion, womenswear, bridal, evening gowns before you get to the whopping 12-wks of menswear *and* tailoring. That, plus the "senior project" is to make a suit, which they try to teach you in the space of 6 of those weeks, so the students are set up to fail or perceive themselves in a negative light.

What I also don't like about conventional fashion schools is the instructors have little factory experience. I was told many times (in school, mind you) that my patterns were not "industry standard" when, in fact, I was cutting and fitting about 5 styles a day in a factory on the other side of town. I knew the industry operated very differently than what instructors (who, at best, interned in a factory in the fusing dept where they did the least amount of harm) thought it should operate like.

RE: Lori Knowles. This is a good textbook. She teaches linings and facings (my biggest pet peeves - and, the most revealing symptom of inexperience) the way they are actually done in factories. That said, there are even easier ways of achieving the end result. But, if you get to the same end that she teaches, you will have done it "right". I also like some of her suggestions for marking of pattern pieces - they are an improvement upon the most common systems. IOW: She gets it. She has clearly worked in a factory and proved her theories before espousing them.

Cabrera was a highly respected instructor at FIT. In fact, the last time I was in Beckenstein's one of his apprentices came in to pick up some fabric while I was shooting the breeze with Neal. Neal introduced me to him and proceeded to tell me about Cabrera and how this man (wearing a beautifully handmade suit) apprenticed under him, entering the industry in his 40s! Such a charming story. But, the workmanship on the suit was great and it was easy to draw a straight line between Cabrera's methods and the suit this man was wearing.

That said, I like Cabrera's book. But, I think there's a lot more to learn. In defense, there's only so much that can be imparted through a book; and, he (and, his co-author) didn't try to be make it more than it should have been - a supplement to a comprehensive training program.

Oh!

And, "modern" cutting did not start with Wampden. While he was a mathematician, he just attempted to codify an existing system. The proportional drafting system has been in use over 5,000 years, in China. Granted, early Chinese garments were mostly cloaks, robes and rudimentary pants. But... the method of calculating proportional measurement came to the Greeks by way of Chinese explorers; and, the system is based on the location of acupuncture points. In any event, the English eventually trained the Chinese in "Western" suitmaking, the Chinese refined the system and gave it back to the English and then it chased all over the planet, eventually becoming standardized in American factories during the 40s and post-WW2 era, went to Japan, and now it's coming back to us via Japan & Korea.

Sorry... this is one of those things I get completely geeked out about.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I don't wish to become a tailor, (Only to afford one!) but that was fascinating. Thanks to all for history and added insight! :idea:


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

jsprowls9 said:


> Sorry... this is one of those things I get completely geeked out about.


You're in good company, my friend.

For anyone interested in learning tailoring, nothing can compare with the good old-fashioned apprenticeship. Count on spending 4-8 years, though. :icon_smile:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

jsprowls9 said:


> RE: Lori Knowles. This is a good textbook. She teaches linings and facings (my biggest pet peeves - and, the most revealing symptom of inexperience) the way they are actually done in factories. That said, there are even easier ways of achieving the end result. But, if you get to the same end that she teaches, you will have done it "right". I also like some of her suggestions for marking of pattern pieces - they are an improvement upon the most common systems. IOW: She gets it. She has clearly worked in a factory and proved her theories before espousing them.
> 
> Cabrera was a highly respected instructor at FIT. In fact, the last time I was in Beckenstein's one of his apprentices came in to pick up some fabric while I was shooting the breeze with Neal. Neal introduced me to him and proceeded to tell me about Cabrera and how this man (wearing a beautifully handmade suit) apprenticed under him, entering the industry in his 40s! Such a charming story. But, the workmanship on the suit was great and it was easy to draw a straight line between Cabrera's methods and the suit this man was wearing.
> 
> That said, I like Cabrera's book. But, I think there's a lot more to learn. In defense, there's only so much that can be imparted through a book; and, he (and, his co-author) didn't try to be make it more than it should have been - a supplement to a comprehensive training program.


I too like Cabrera's book. I also suspect there is more to learn. You some get glimpses of that when old cutter texts give you very quick overviews of making up (usually at the end of the book, as an afterthought). You can find that in Croonborg's Blue Book, and also in Die Zuschneidekunst. There is also a bit on making up in the Lounges, Reefers and Norfolks volume of Vincent's C.P.G.. Some of his C.P.G., including the Lounges & Reefers volume can be downloaded complete in PDF format - link now added to my _Bibliography_.

Knowles I ended up excluding from Bibliography because I found it too factory orientated to be that useful for bespoke tailoring. Maybe I should take a more careful look at it in case there are insights that are useful.



jsprowls9 said:


> Oh!
> 
> And, "modern" cutting did not start with Wampden. While he was a mathematician, he just attempted to codify an existing system. The proportional drafting system has been in use over 5,000 years, in China. Granted, early Chinese garments were mostly cloaks, robes and rudimentary pants. But... the method of calculating proportional measurement came to the Greeks by way of Chinese explorers; and, the system is based on the location of acupuncture points. In any event, the English eventually trained the Chinese in "Western" suitmaking, the Chinese refined the system and gave it back to the English and then it chased all over the planet, eventually becoming standardized in American factories during the 40s and post-WW2 era, went to Japan, and now it's coming back to us via Japan & Korea.
> 
> Sorry... this is one of those things I get completely geeked out about.


Fair enough, but I for one think Wampen doesn't get enough credit and praise for the incredibly thorough system that he founded. He is still the father of modern cutting, and the garments we wear today are still shaped by his ideas, even if almost nobody other than cutting geeks like us have heard of him.

Here is an illustration from one of Henry Wampen's original publications in the 1830-50s:










Here is a discussion of Wampen - in the context of his relationship to Rousseau and Classicism in the arts and the architecture of the 19th century:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

BTW I am constantly adding new posts and discussions to my Bibliography thread:



Alex (a tailor) has already contributed and I think Chris Despos has at least read it, jefferyd and jsprowls, please feel welcome to contribute to it. Schneidergott is the other contributor to the thread and as a tailor in Solingen, German he is very knowledgeable. If there is anything factually incorrect then please speak up.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Swell discussion from some obviously very knowledgeable participants. A shame the person who posed the original question has not reappeared to thank or comment.

I would have this question of him: are you looking to become a tailor as a trade, or is your quest more limited (and delightfully selfish): you want to be able to tailor the stuff _you_ want to wear.

It's the second catagory in which I fall.​


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

Sator said:


> BTW I am constantly adding new posts and discussions to my Bibliography thread:
> 
> Alex (a tailor) has already contributed and I think Chris Despos has at least read it, jefferyd and jsprowls, please feel welcome to contribute to it. Schneidergott is the other contributor to the thread and as a tailor in Solingen, German he is very knowledgeable. If there is anything factually incorrect then please speak up.


I think the time has perhaps come for the RTW industry to publish some of the more recent developments in cutting and making up. The latest cutting manuals are very old and do not reflect current anthropometric data, they were also not intended to address some of the sizes which we now sell in the U.S.- our size scale now runs from 34 to 70! Furthermore, those cutting systems were quite loose; Joshua Byrne pointed out in a LL thread that "I also think to suggest that any professional cutter would use a book, or a system derived from it, is very questionable, as we all know that in practical terms these systems are far from accurate. " In RTW we have the opportunity to observe our patterns being cut and made into hundreds, if not thousands of garments EVERY DAY and are able to refine our patterns, and consequently our own personal systems of cutting to a great degree. There are many things that we take quite for granted about cutting and making up that are nowhere mentioned in any of the books I have come across and for the sake of the future of the trade, someone should publish these things. Many have long been afraid to share their trade secrets in order to maintain an advantage over competitors, and often for fear of being shouted down as being wrong (since many of our trade tend to be quite bellicose) and the type of journals which today would be most useful died long ago.

I love studying the old texts out of interest and because sometimes I come across a new idea to try out, but it is really the hands-on, day-to-day practice of our trade which leads to the perfection of it. I'll have a look at your list and if I see anything missing (which I rather doubt, since you seem to be quite well-read) I will certainly add it.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

jefferyd said:


> Furthermore, those cutting systems were quite loose; Joshua Byrne pointed out in a LL thread that "I also think to suggest that any professional cutter would use a book, or a system derived from it, is very questionable, as we all know that in practical terms these systems are far from accurate. " ...There are many things that we take quite for granted about cutting and making up that are nowhere mentioned in any of the books I have come across and for the sake of the future of the trade, someone should publish these things. Many have long been afraid to share their trade secrets in order to maintain an advantage over competitors, and often for fear of being shouted down as being wrong (since many of our trade tend to be quite bellicose) and the type of journals which today would be most useful died long ago.


I have heard of modern cutters who do use old systems. However, there have been countless cutting systems published some are superb, but many are awful. Giles reviewed all English language publications in 1895/6 and he dismissed a lot as being charlatans who often spend more time tearing strips off others to hide the lack of any useful information in their own writings in a way you could describe as rather "bellicose". Many a tailor has simply taken his trade secret to the grave. All in all, I also do get the feeling that so much has been published that it is hard to come up with much that isn't a reinvention of the wheel, and there is not much new under the sun.

I myself draft off Devere's system. I have tried several other systems but I just end up coming back to him again and again. Giles singled him out for praise amongst _countless_ other texts. I read much more modern texts and often find them struggling with things that Devere had figured about a hundred and fifty years ago. In fact, modern texts strike me as being quite dumbed down compared to Devere, possibly to make cutting seem more palatable to young students. The real surprise was that Devere leads me to draft a lot of things in a way that matched the way my own bespoke tailor cuts my coats - only more refined and systematic.


----------



## gentleman amateur (Mar 2, 2008)

WayneCorry said:


> ive been doing minor alterations to all my clothes for years now. im a big fan of brookes brothers and have always wanted to know more about how the clothes i wear are made.. i have no idea how to actually get into the world of tailoring. im not sure if its an apprenticeship kind of matter. i know i could go to school but i already finished with a degree in history. being that that wont help me much in this field i figured there has to be a way for me to get hands on experience. working for free? do they actually pay you but start you as some assistant the way a carpenter might hire someoen to basically just sweep and make rough cuts. im very interested in this and if anyone has any advice i woudl read it with great appreciation.
> 
> thanks.


Good luck! The trend has seen a net decrease in tailors, and if the suit becomes an artifact of the past, which I hope does not happen in my lifetime, then the trade die.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

Everyone develops and evolves their own system over time. In the years that followed the civil war, every tailor on the face of the planet was also a self-published author. Reading some of those articles were a hoot!

But...

I think custom make tailors would benefit greatly from industry methods. Our work is much more precise (from the beginning) and faster. Artistry and skill have not left the industry, it's mythperception and obfuscation that prevents us from seeing it for what it is.

The reason factory methods work is because we get rid of a lot of the un-necessary (read: charming) steps in the processes because those flourishes don't serve the end result. I would be fired the first time it took 6 fittings to get a style right. Even if the fault truly lay with an indecisive designer, I am the one wasting development funds, so I'm the one that gets the boot.

I don't know what Jeffery's daily fitting load looks like. But, when I worked in a factory I had to fit at least 3 styles a day to keep up with the volume of work crossing my bench. That's between 500 and 600 styles and fitting models I've had to be "hands on" each year. Multiply that by the number of years each of us has been in this industry and then compare the number of bodies we've had our hands on to what walks into a custom tailor shop.

I digress.

To Jeffery's point about our colleagues being bellicose. This is true. The reason none of us in the industry entertain the notion of sharing our knowledge is because we spend the majority of our careers being ripped down by our peers, mentors and bosses. We are conditioned to tow the line and just keep our heads down, focusing on quality work. And, the moment we think too highly of ourselves, there's someone there to remind us that we stepped out of line.

Personally, I think the tradition, itself needs to change. I don't need to sew pockets for 7 years to know how to do them well enough to move onto the next lesson. If it takes me 7 yrs, then there's clearly something wrong with the method of transferring knowledge and information - it's ineffective.

You should watch patternmakers getting to know each other. There's a lot of walking around circles, sniffing each other. It's a lot like dogs sorting out territory and the pack order. It's a little entertaining. For me, I know *instantly* if I'll get along with someone just by looking at their patterns or their markers. Don't talk to me. Just show me a pattern or a marker and I'll tell you a fair clip about yourself.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Yes, I agree that the whole textile industry could with a shake up. This old hierarchical business of starting as the "umsie" sweeping the floors and sewing buttons before spending 7 years learning to make pockets, should be updated. As for pattern drafting, you need a degree akin to one in architecture to be able to a master that art. It's a pity nobody affords it that much respect.

I don't really understand this business of six fittings. I suspect it's often swank and done to impress the customer. Cutters like Thomas H. Holding (a really colourful and entertaining writer if there ever was one) around the 1890s-1910s loved to brag about how he can spin out a block pattern so good you only needed one try on, without a single alteration resulting from it. Croonborg 1907 says that you should only need one fitting and that two is the maximum required, but any more than that will make the customer anxious of a lack of ability on the behalf of the cutter.

Any system that requires six fittings to get it right must be _bloody_ awful. Apparently they need that at Anderson and Shepherd. When A&S do skip extra fittings for travelling clients the results have been a catastrophe. Yet, the finest and most comprehensive bespoke cutting systems make it clear that a decent system in the hands of a good cutter should avoid all of that hassle. This is what I mean when I say that I fear things have gone seriously backwards since the days of the old masters.

As for these modern "improvements", well, unless you guys publish like the older generation did, or at least put it out on the net, it might as well not exist - along with countless other trade secrets that have gone to grave unpublished over the centuries. Until I get to see them I still tend to think that any "novel" ideas can already be found in the plethora of older publications i.e. there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

Sator said:


> . As for pattern drafting, you need a degree akin to one in architecture to be able to a master that art. It's a pity nobody affords it that much respect.
> 
> I don't really understand this business of six fittings. I suspect it's often swank and done to impress the customer.


No, it's because most drafting systems were only so-so and you're right about the skills required to be a good cutter



> Croonborg 1907 says that you should only need one fitting and that two is the maximum required, but any more than that will make the customer anxious of a lack of ability on the behalf of the cutter.


Perhaps, but if you look at actual photos of early garments the fit was nothing like what we have come to expect today.



> This is what I mean when I say that I fear things have gone seriously backwards since the days of the old masters.


Again, look at vintage garments and I think you will find that not only the fit but the quality of construction has greatly IMPROVED since.



> As for these modern "improvements", well, unless you guys publish like the older generation did, or at least put it out on the net, it might as well not exist - along with countless other trade secrets that have gone to grave unpublished over the centuries. Until I get to see them I still tend to think that any "novel" ideas can already be found in the plethora of older publications i.e. there is nothing new under the sun.


The old drafts assume 1/4" seam allowances which are no longer the norm so they would have to be recalculated to take this into account.

Which of your old texts discuss the trueing of the sleeve to the armhole? Or the drafting of the sleeve to ensure perfect fit AND check matching? Or the proper distribution of fullness throughout the sleeve? Or how to modify a sleeve for a rope or a "spalla camicia"? Or the amount of fullness needed to properly stretch the top sleeve into a curve?

How many of the old texts discuss the need for a different spread amount for different button stances when drafting the undercollar? And how many top collar drafts have you seen, much less a two-piece top collar which doesn't require stretching and fits the neck much better? How many instructions are given for drafting facings and linings that won't be trimmed during making?

I have seen treatments of some of these things in more recent publications but nothing up to the standards that are in use in modern manufacturing where things are drafted to a 1/32" precision. There is a lot of information and refinements; perhaps when I retire I will write a book.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

jefferyd said:


> Perhaps, but if you look at actual photos of early garments the fit was nothing like what we have come to expect today.
> 
> Again, look at vintage garments and I think you will find that not only the fit but the quality of construction has greatly IMPROVED since.


It depends on how early. 1800-20's - the cutting system widely in use weren't that great. But on late Victorian and Edwardian garments I see photos suggesting that the finest tailors were superb (as were the dress makers). Keep in mind everyone used to go to a tailor back then. The expensive ones were superb, the cheap tailors were awful. I wouldn't judge a whole epoch based on something worn by a labourer or pauper. The finest cutter were obviously superb, just like when you see old 19th pianos, furniture or jewellery where the amount of skilled craftsmanship that went into them was amazing.

In any case, if there has been so much "progress" why do modern coats have comically deep arm scyes compared to vintage coats? Vintage bespoke coats have the snuggest possible arm scyes. They are even snugger than most modern bespoke coats. Old texts talk about measuring arm scye depth from front and back, scye width as well as circumference. The Fedora Lounge guys think that even vintage RTW (1930-50's) coats have snugger arm scyes than sloppy modern RTW ones. Even if some of the things you talk about are examples of "progess", they sound incremental compared to the giant steps backwards that have occurred with arm scyes - especially considering how critical a juncture in a coat the arm scye is.



jefferyd said:


> The old drafts assume 1/4" seam allowances which are no longer the norm so they would have to be recalculated to take this into account.
> 
> Which of your old texts discuss the trueing of the sleeve to the armhole? Or the drafting of the sleeve to ensure perfect fit AND check matching? Or the proper distribution of fullness throughout the sleeve? Or how to modify a sleeve for a rope or a "spalla camicia"? Or the amount of fullness needed to properly stretch the top sleeve into a curve?
> 
> ...


They made shoulders like the spalla camicia in the mid-1800s, which I have argued represents the survival in Naples of an older 19th century shoulder style that has gone out of fashion elsewhere. I think some of this stuff, especially the stuff about collars and linings was handled by tailors and not cutters. Tailors, unlike cutters, rarely if ever, published. I bet you the old cutters and tailors did know a lot of what you are talking about such as different collar constructions, lining, pattern matching etc. Vincent has things in there about pattern matching. I have read about old tailors who like to do things in fractions of inches. But unless you have a laser to cut on a machine, this sort of thing about cutting to the 1/32" means little to the bespoke tailor with tailor's sheers in his hand - even today.

I will readily admit that it would be disingenuous of me to say that they new absolutely everything little there is to _possibly_ know back then if much of their knowledge never made it to print. Likewise, there's no point in you saying huge progress has been made since unless it's put out in print too. Without it getting out in print there has been no progress made at all, as far as I am concerned. It is all just "ghost knowledge" along with the many pearls of wisdom that countless tailors and cutter took to grave. That's the harsh reality of it.

As we say in my profession: publish or perish. But then again, I don't think I'm saying anything you don't know.


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

Sator said:


> In any case, if there has been so much "progress" why do modern coats have comically deep arm scyes compared to vintage coats? Vintage bespoke coats have the snuggest possible arm scyes. They are even snugger than most modern bespoke coats. Old texts talk about measuring arm scye depth from front and back, scye width as well as circumference. The Fedora Lounge guys think that even vintage RTW (1930-50's) coats have snugger arm scyes than sloppy modern RTW ones. Even if some of the things you talk about are examples of "progess", they sound incremental compared to the giant steps backwards that have occurred with arm scyes - especially considering how critical a juncture in a coat the arm scye is.


Very true. But don't think that we are pleased about it. It may take a little more time to cut, but on the production floor it doesn't make a difference how many different variations on a cut we sew. To the retailer, however, who wants to reduce the numbers of SKUs (different types of fit) that they have to keep in stock, they insist on a garment which will fit as many people with as few alterations as possible- in the US this means BIG BIG BIG. I would much prefer to cut a more sensible armhole and jacket in general but the retailers protest. :devil:



> Tailors, unlike cutters, rarely if ever, published. I bet you the old cutters and tailors did know a lot of what you are talking about such as different collar constructions, lining, pattern matching etc. Vincent has things in there about pattern matching. I have read about old tailors who like to do things in fractions of inches. But unless you have a laser to cut on a machine, this sort of thing about cutting to the 1/32" means little to the bespoke tailor with tailor's sheers in his hand - even today.


Again, true, but a lot of the trimming and basting etc is not really necessary if one combines a knowledge of cutting and tailoring- the cutter cut big and let the tailor deal with it, who in turn wasted a lot of time fitting because the cutting could have been done better. I can't count the number of poorly fitting collars on bespoke garments (an example of a terribly-fitting collar on a SR garment recently appeared in a thread) simply because some fabrics don't give themselves to the kind of manipulation traditionally required- collars are die-cut in factories because of the absolute precision required so the 1/32" may not mean much to a bespoke tailor but it should. I have also seen some terrible sleeves on bespoke garments because there was a disconnect between cutter and tailor.



> As we say in my profession: publish or perish.


We say in my profession "I know everything, you are a farmer who knows nothing and I will tell you nothing because I am paid great sums of money to know what it is that I know and you don't". That will hopefully change.

Regardless of the system of cutting and its usefulness or not, that which will distinguish the great cutter/tailor is his ability to fit. A few good texts exist that treat irregularities in fit/posture and how to correct them but since many of them exist in combination, it is virtually impossible to document. The bespoke tailor will learn over time how to spot them and how to correct them. It is usually a very long process to learn, since you learn it one client at a time. He can speed up this process by studying draping, an art which is usually reserved for ladies wear. If pattern drafting is similar to architectural drafting, draping or fitting a garment is analogous to sculpture; to paraphrase one of the old masters, in every length of cloth is concealed a garment- drape this cloth over the body, cut away the extraneous cloth, and the garment will emerge. The rules of flat patternmaking are more or less dispensed with and one learns to observe the drape of fabric and to understand how it must be manipulated or cut in order to achieve the desired result, directly on a body or mannequin. While I do not drape my patterns, my experience in draping has an immense effect on my ability to fit a garment and is a course which I very highly recommend to anyone seriously considering any kind of career or hobby in clothing.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

As something who works part-time in academia it strikes me that the thing that Henry Wampen, as a professor of mathematics, really did for cutting in the 19th century was that he turned it into an academic discipline. After him everyone wanted to publish their _Grand System of Cutting Around Eternal Scientific Principles_ (that is a parody of course), in a rather delightfully pompous and grandiose Victorian way.

In academia your reputation is based on your publications and what reputation you gain from publication far outweighs the disadvantage from having opened up your ideas for the whole world to see. Before Wampen cutters were very secretive about their methods, and it seems that as cutting has fallen from it's once high standing as a discipline akin to drafting in architecture or engineering, things has lapsed back to the pre-Wampen ways.

I do hope that can be reversed.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

"JefferyD said:


> I would much prefer to cut a more sensible armhole and jacket in general but the retailers protest.


Ahh! This is the beauty of regional or boutique manufacturing. The designers on this level get a chance to make a very specific fit. If it doesn't fit the Retailers' client base, the Retailers don't buy it. Also: regional brands tend to be more tightly connected to their Retailers - they're strategic partners - so, achieving a very specific fit is plausible - not so when working for a major label.

However, consumer behavior will trump every time. If the preponderance of customers in a particular store are label chasers, the regional brands have a hard time getting space because their fitting strategy is viewed as "not the norm".



"JefferyD said:


> a lot of the trimming and basting etc is not really necessary if one combines a knowledge of cutting and tailoring- the cutter cut big and let the tailor deal with it


Amen! Add to this that the extra outlets and inlays a bepoke cutter leaves which permit the tailor (i.e. stitcher) the ability to drape the garment for an individualized fit. That "philosophy" as it were, requires multiple fittings. So, it's part of the charm, the flourishes that make the bespoke process different than a factory.

When I'm figuring out a new style (i.e. designing through the flat pattern because I don't sketch very well) I use inlays and such, too. But, when the final garment is achieved, those extra bits are removed from the final pattern before it is made production-ready. Factories require precision.

RE: 1/32" precision. This is what I mean by being held to a higher standard. Let's also note that most of the rulers our companies/factories purchase are incremented in eighths of an inch. We have to mentally divide that space into fourths in order to achieve this degree of precision (i.e. this is a wrong tool for the job debate).

Oh! And, let's not forget the width of the pencil lead, too. Or... which side of the line to cut on.

On the topics of undercutting facings, docking/trueing seam allowances, making linings longer and wider than the shell garment, making the topcollars *after* the undercollar has been fitted, making the sleeves *after* the body has been fitted:

Wampden does not address this.
Whife does not address this.
Poulin does not address this.
DeVere does not address this.
*all* Tailor & Cutter publications do not address this.

All of these things I learned in factories.

Neither do any of these authorities discuss "walking" or auditing of patterns.
Nor how to correct an error if you find one. 
Where to notch, how to notch (i.e. mitigate mistakes).
How to mark (i.e. nap, one way, bi-directional, 4-way).
Where to place drill holes, why to use drill holes.
**To standardize darts!!**
They over-complicate match stripe.
They overlook motif placement, entirely.
They believe that warp grain is "true-est" (it's not).
They over-complicate the sleeve setting procedure.

...

All these things I learned in factories, too.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

Darn! Can't edit.

Anyway... the things I itemized, here. Are the things I used to be told in school that I was doing wrong. 

If you make a moderate quality suit, the undercollar and topcollar are separate pattern pieces. The topcollar is also taller and wider than the undercollar, to account for turn of the cloth along the edges. Because my pieces didn't match (they're not supposed to in real life!) the pattern teacher tried to tell me I didn't know what I was doing.

Ooh! Another teacher tried telling me I didn't know how to cut because I was cutting away all the lines in the marker (the comment about knowing which side of the line to cut on). She wanted me to make markers using a fat Sharpie pen and then cutting on the outside of the lines. IOW: She wanted me to make the pattern pieces 1/8" bigger all around than they were supposed to be.

And we wonder why some RTW fits lousy?


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

jsprowls9 said:


> On the topics of undercutting facings, docking/trueing seam allowances, making linings longer and wider than the shell garment, making the topcollars *after* the undercollar has been fitted, making the sleeves *after* the body has been fitted:
> 
> Wampden does not address this.
> Whife does not address this.
> ...


Most of these things are, again, _tailoring_ issues. Remember in big old fashioned tailoring houses, there was even the species of cutter who could not tailor garments. As I say, nearly all major publications in the past were written by cutters. Really thorough and grandiose multi-volume publications about tailoring (as opposed to cutting) were never penned. I am sure the tailors who received garments from the cutter would have struggled with all the things you mention, but the solutions they found rarely, if ever, made it to print. Collars, in particular, were left by cutters to the tailor to cut and make up.

BTW Cabrera does discuss the issue of making up sleeves after a basted fitting, but his book is more about tailoring than cutting. The cutters who wrote the grandest multi-volume encyclopaedias wrote as though their cutting systems were so perfect that the sleeve could be cut with all the other panels and be expected to fit perfectly. If the tailors who worked for them felt otherwise, that viewpoint never got to print.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

No, these are not sewing issues. These are cutting issues pushed off to the stitcher. Something that is never permitted in a factory.

A cutter or patternmaker who does not sew is the equivalent of a skinny chef and should not be trusted.


----------



## jsprowls9 (Jun 24, 2005)

Perhaps this can provide some context. 

The reason I say that it's a pattern issue is because we don't keep cutting implements at the sewing desk. Thread nips are only designed to cut threads. Razor blades are for ripping out seams and - only in a sample shop - will you ever find a ruler on the sewing desk:



Cutting implements reside on the cutting table and are only used by patternmakers or cutters. We work all these details out in the pattern, before garments are cut. The entire purpose for making an accurate pattern is so garments can be cut & sewn efficiently.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If Jeffery says pattern cutting today for rtw is better than what cutters and tailors of the past made, then he is way off. While todays rtw is way better than 45 and more years ago it doesn't even compare to what my granddad made. Even the rtw suits he bought and fitted for himself are so much better than the best rtw's you see today after they have been altered. Have you ever seen a sleeve pressed on a sleeve roll? Or, the small of the back being pressed into two different curves going into two different directions? So many garments are pressed on the flat or near flat- you can see it in the fiber that it is pressed flat. There is tailoring knowledge that I've never read before, but, have seen. 1/32" doesn't mean anything when making custom patterns. A pattern is merely an educated guess.

I learned about walking patterns at home.


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> If Jeffery says pattern cutting today for rtw is better than what cutters and tailors of the past made, then he is way off. While todays rtw is way better than 45 and more years ago it doesn't even compare to what my granddad made. Even the rtw suits he bought and fitted for himself are so much better than the best rtw's you see today after they have been altered. Have you ever seen a sleeve pressed on a sleeve roll? Or, the small of the back being pressed into two different curves going into two different directions? So many garments are pressed on the flat or near flat- you can see it in the fiber that it is pressed flat. There is tailoring knowledge that I've never read before, but, have seen. 1/32" doesn't mean anything when making custom patterns. A pattern is merely an educated guess.
> 
> I learned about walking patterns at home.


You're mixing up several elements here; comparing what your grandfather made (bespoke or MTM) to RTW is not the same thing. What I'm talking about is the art or science of pattern making for men's tailored clothing. there have also been a lot of technological advances in tailoring, but the advance of cheap clothing (cheap everything) has resulted in a reduction in the level of quality of most garments around.

To Sator's point, a lot of those things were a job for the tailor and not the cutter because the cutter was making an educated guess and the tailor was fitting around it. The top collar, for example, was cut large and then stretched and shaped and basted and trimmed and basted....... and not to always happy results. Some fabrics do not give so well to being stretched and consequently I have seen some absolutely terrible collars on bespoke garments. The undercollar is still stretched and shaped to avoid having a seam along the breakline, but we have since worked out a way to precut the top collar so that it will fit correctly once the undercollar has been shaped. This can be done in one or two pieces- the two-piece method being a better fit- instead of a seam along the breakline it is concealed 3/8" below the breakline in the same manner as the sleeve inseam is concealed. Now it is a simple job to construct a well-fitting collar, and this is only one example.

1/32" is perhaps not important to bespoke but it is terribly important to a factory. When several pieces come together and each has a variant of greater than 1/32" the combined variant can be 1/8" or even 1/4". Going back to the example of the collar, a 1/8" shift in the gorge line will automatically shift the breakpoint by 1". 1/8" too much or too little fullness in a sleeve can drastically affect its fit. A pattern maker (or cutter) who has learned to cut with the discipline required for factory production will cut his bespoke garments with much greater care and precision, and will be able to save a lot of time in making up the garment. Time=money and I have never heard someone complaining that they were not paying enough for their clothes.

There used to be trade journals in which all these advances were shared with the rest of the trade but unfortunately they have disappeared. Perhaps they will reappear in web format if we decide to go to the trouble to share with others.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

wayne i think we have gotten way off your question. 
the first step is learn to make a coat. you will not truly know what you are doing with pattern making if you dont know how to construct a coat. the most successful tailors i know were "bench coat makers" to start with. if you can make a coat you can easily make a vest or pant. and then the pattern makes sense and is so easy to understand.


----------



## WayneCorry (Nov 21, 2008)

i appreciate everyone's input.. while this whole thread is very informative i have been taking it fairly slow as some of this seems like another language. 

but thank you.. 

it seems i have alot of reading to do.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

BTW I just recently found these two free downloads:

These are actually very good and I'd recommend printing them out and studying them.

Here is a dressmaking text on-line that is also excellent and has useful sections on coatmaking:

https://www.vintagesewing.info/1940s/4x-lgcm/lgcm-toc-long.html


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/advice/mor...-beckham-and-robbie-williams-115875-20732368/


----------



## belinaro (Jun 30, 2014)

https://web.archive.org/web/2011031...esewing.info/1940s/4x-lgcm/lgcm-toc-long.html


----------

