# Caveat Emptor: Darts: Necessity ... or Sewing Inability?



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*Darts: Necessity ... or Sewing Inability?*

​
The construction of the human torso is such that in virtually 100% of cases the rear waist is smaller - often markedly so - than the front waist. In order to properly fit then, the back waist of the shirt or blouse needs be smaller than the front. Because the only appropriate seams for this purpose in a shirt or blouse are at the sides, this forces the pattern designer to make a much sharper curve in the back part as shown by the red line in the diagram. The black lines portray an unshaped side seam. For the majority of sewers, properly sewing this French seam with differing curves offers a daunting challenge. The greater the difference between back and front waist, the more difficult the sewing.

The only cure? Sew slower ... an anathema in modern production facilities.
Enter ... darts. Randomly selecting an area off to each side of the back, the fabric is gathered into a cone shape and sewn with a straight seam, effectively reducing the amount of showing fabric. Note in the photo how obvious this is ... and how it affects the design line of the stripes.

​
As a styling feature, some like this design; others hate it. In either case, the choice should be one of styling and not, except in the rarest of circumstances, one of necessity.

I've often been asked exactly how far a good shirtmaker can go without using darts ... so we experimented. The greatest reduction we were able to sew without causing puckers was from a 44" chest to a 31" waist ... or 13" of difference. Rare it is - usually limited to professional bodybuilders - that the difference is greater than that.

Again, darts are the easy way out of an oft-occuring circumstance. They are infinitely easier to sew than the alternative.

Darts: Necessity or Sewing Inability? You decide.

Copyright ©2010 Kabbaz-Kelly CustomShirt1.com | Photos Copyright ©2007-©2010 Alexander S. Kabbaz - All Rights Reserved - Reproduction Prohibited​


----------



## Shirted (Feb 1, 2010)

This is very interesting, thank you. Are these mainly a feature of building a new shirt? If I bring a purchased shirt to a tailor to bring in the chest and waist, are they likely to use darts or can it be avoided?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shirted said:


> This is very interesting, thank you. Are these mainly a feature of building a new shirt? If I bring a purchased shirt to a tailor to bring in the chest and waist, are they likely to use darts or can it be avoided?


 Although they are likely to use darts unless instructed otherwise, what you are hinting at can be done. However, instead of just putting in two stitches, the tailor will have to completely rip (unstitch) the side seams. This will make the process considerably more costly - and more risky - than just putting in darts, for once the fabric is cut from the shirt body it cannot be replaced. This, vs. a dart, which can be unsewn and made smaller.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I've never gotten why some people want this on men's shirts. It's a waste of time and looks effeminate.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Jovan said:


> I've never gotten why some people want this on men's shirts. It's a waste of time and looks effeminate.


 I've heard various reasons from the wearer's point-of-view, the primary one being "because it looks custom-made". Personally, I am in the opposite camp except when creating women's blouses. In that case, darts are of greater necessity due to the shorter waist-length concurrently containing curvature of a different order of magnitude.

From the shirtmaker's point-of-view, it's simple economics. Darts are cheap to sew and can be easily removed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That's why I have that view: Men simply don't need them.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I don't like them. I think they look effeminate. But if I'm wearing a jacket anyway...

Jw, I've got a 38" chest, 28" waist, 5'6", is the 13" drop a proportion thing or is that an absolute number?

I'm also assuming such work is only really available on bespoke shirts.

Many thanks for the info Alexander!


----------



## richardUK (Nov 29, 2009)

strange

i assume this is only the case for people with a large difference in size over their body area?


i have a 3-4" difference between waist & chest size, & buy slim-fit shirts

having just checked the shirts, none of them have darts.
however, they do have small pleats at the top of the back, where they join the shoulder/collar area
checking the side seams, on patterned shirts it can be seen that the extra fabric at the top is reduced as you go down the seam to the waist.

these are not expensive shirts either, just standard CT or TML £25 each ones


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Leighton said:


> I don't like them. I think they look effeminate. But if I'm wearing a jacket anyway...
> 
> Jw, I've got a 38" chest, 28" waist, 5'6", is the 13" drop a proportion thing or is that an absolute number?
> 
> ...


Most good tailors should be able to handle the 10" drop.



richardUK said:


> strange
> 
> i assume this is only the case for people with a large difference in size over their body area?
> 
> ...


 Most ready-made shirts have a waist supression of 3". That is 3/4" x 4 (3/4" each on the 2 front pieces and both sides of the back piece). That is what you are seeing.


----------



## Sufferable Fob (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm not a fan of darts.


However, I'm also not a fan of fitted shirts, either - and I'm happy with a boxier fit.



I'm not surprised that production sewing favours darts over curved seams - but I would hope that smaller-scale tailors would know this skill.

I made a dress with "princess seams" for a friend - which had wildly different curves to accommodate the bust - and I didn't find it to be unduly challenging to sew. I had to pin the pieces together, instead of just running them through the machine, and I understand this is undesirable in a production environment, but it wasn't really a bother at all.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

Funny that you use a striped shirt to show those darts. I recently bought a real bargain of a shirt off styleforum so that the seller could raise money for Haiti. The shirt is a Balenciaga and having never owned anything from this designer I decided why not. The shirt is almost identical to the one in the picture - darts on a pinstriped shirt - but the darts are IN THE FRONT !! (I was not aware of that from the pics!)

It is pretty wild looking and probably the slimmest cut shirt I have ever owned. So slim in fact that it is simply "over-darted". It fits basically fine if a bit too conformal till half-way down my ribs and then it pulls in tightly expecting to wrap around the stomach I had twenty years ago. Unfortunately when its buttoned up now there are distinct ovals formed between the lower buttons from the over-pressure of my middle aged stomach.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Alexander,
How do pleats (side pleats or a centre box pleat) or shirring affect the fit of the back of the shirt? What advantages do they provide over a plain back?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Alexander, is that then why I get so much excess material bunched at the sides in cheaper "classic cut" shirts?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

deanayer said:


> Funny that you use a striped shirt to show those darts. I recently bought a real bargain of a shirt off styleforum so that the seller could raise money for Haiti. The shirt is a Balenciaga and having never owned anything from this designer I decided why not. The shirt is almost identical to the one in the picture - darts on a pinstriped shirt - but the darts are IN THE FRONT !! (I was not aware of that from the pics!)
> 
> It is pretty wild looking and probably the slimmest cut shirt I have ever owned. So slim in fact that it is simply "over-darted". It fits basically fine if a bit too conformal till half-way down my ribs and then it pulls in tightly expecting to wrap around the stomach I had twenty years ago. Unfortunately when its buttoned up now there are distinct ovals formed between the lower buttons from the over-pressure of my middle aged stomach.


You may be able to take out the darts.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Matt S said:


> Alexander,
> How do pleats (side pleats or a centre box pleat) or shirring affect the fit of the back of the shirt? What advantages do they provide over a plain back?


Side pleats at the yoke seam permit you greater freedom for arm movement while keeping the top of the back trimmer as, if correctly ironed, they only open when necessary. Although center-back box pleats allow the same movement freedom, they also add 2.5"-3" to the rear waist and seat. In some OCBD shirts this is considered more traditional as a styling ingredient than anything else. They are very difficult to press correctly. On those occasions when we are asked to make them, we sew the box pleat closed in correct position at the rear waist using a triangle stitch as you might see on a sleeve placket. This gives the ironer a guide as to how to fold & press the entire plear.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Alexander, is that then why I get so much excess material bunched at the sides in cheaper "classic cut" shirts?


 Yes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> It's a waste of time and looks effeminate.




Leighton said:


> I don't like them. I think they look effeminate.


You two have a very odd take on what is effeminate (and would not fare well in the currently running Gays In The Military thread over in the Interchange).

I use them (darts), often. They acheive exactly what KMan says. A certain hero of mine, Gen. Black Jack Pershing , used them front and back. When Pancho Villa ran from the general like a bandit, which of course he was, I don't think he thought he was being chased by a girlie man.

Now, Alex, why would you always have to rip the side seams when taking them in? I understand that you would need to take more from the back than the front, but couldn't this essentialy be achieved by creating a dart from the rear fabric, but *right at the seam,* leaving the front untouched and, because it's adjacent to the seam, not appear as a, ahem, gay dart.​


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Well, when women used to wear blouses and not dress shirts in the style of men, darts were the sole property of men's fashion. But now, women wear dress shirts (don't get me wrong, I think they look sexy in them, but thats another thread...) and their dress shirts are darted. So in today's world, darts are probably more closely associated with women's clothing.

As for gay's in the military... I personally don't care one way or the other, but think its up to the military to decide. They're the ones who have to deal with it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

P&P: This has _nothing_ to do with our views on homosexuality. If you can't see that then there is no help for you.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> P&P: This has _nothing_ to do with our views on homosexuality. If you can't see that then there is no help for you.


Nor did I say that it did, so don't jam your words in my mouth. My point (a light one which continually seems to escape you) is that if you think a certain tailoring technique is effeminate then you're certainly not prepared to discuss the somewhat heavier topic of peeing next to a gay dude at latrine time, but never mind since you will continue to always not catch on where you and I are concerned.)



Leighton said:


> As for gay's in the military... I personally don't care one way or the other, but think its up to the military to decide. They're the ones who have to deal with it.


Leighton, out of respct for Alex who began a very infornmative thread re shirt tailoring, I had no intenttion of turning this into an interchange style deal (Alex: I apologize), but it was you and Jovan who brought up the effeminate thing. If shirt darts appear that way to you guys, then so be it. Personally, I've always regarded darts as gender neutral. Actually, that's not quite true; until you two brought this up the words gender and dart never ever appeared in my head on the same afternoon. ​


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

^ +1. This is about style and look (and whether it's a shortcut for the maker). Why on earth is it necessary to categorise something as effeminate? It's fine to just not like it, surely.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

P&P you are making nothing into something. I'm done on the subject of darts and my own personal perception. At this point, I don't care what you think.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Peak and Pine said:


> Now, Alex, why would you always have to rip the side seams when taking them in? I understand that you would need to take more from the back than the front, but couldn't this essentialy be achieved by creating a dart from the rear fabric, but *right at the seam,* leaving the front untouched and, because it's adjacent to the seam, not appear as a, ahem, gay dart.


To answer your question as far as three commas from its end, I would say that:

a] It would be difficult to sew because of the thickness of the adjacent side seam,
and
b] It would create inordinate bulk on the side of the shirt which would irritate the wearer even more than your insertion of sexuality into this thread has irritated me,
and
c] It would look pretty damn ugly.

As for the part of your question _following_ the third comma from the end ...

If I comprehend your meaning, you are saying that a dart in the rear of the shirt appears as a ahem gay dart? Either you're homophobic or you attach a degree of levity to darts which is extraordinary. If the former, you have my pity; if the latter, my sympathy.

And a brief rant of my own:

Is there no possibility for you to allow that there is a difference between gender and sexual preference? We don't often hear the term "curvaceous" as a description of the male form. On the contrary, it is often applied to the distaff as, in the minds of many, an accolade.

The sole purpose of darts, no matter whether the shirt buttons are on the right or the left, is to impart _curves_ to the shape of the shirt. Can you not follow the simple logic that a more _curvaceous_ shirt might be construed by most as an effiminate shirt?

End of rant.


----------



## oroy38 (Nov 11, 2009)

Having never made a shirt before (but having some sewing and darting experience...thanks mom) I hope you take my statement merely as speculation rather than one backed by strong evidence.

I don't think that darts are a necessity, but their popularity isn't really a question of sewing inability either. I think it has to do more with the factory/mass production mentality.

It's all basic economics. Sewing curved seams takes more time, and time = money.

With 99% of the population not giving a rat's ass how their shirt fits, they can afford to cut out a bit of quality sewing by darting shirts or even not darting them at all. Simply put, it just isn't worth it for most manufacturers to take the extra time to sew curved seams when nobody is really going to care except us.

For what it's worth, I've darted several of my shirts and most of those who know me would characterize me as anything but effeminate.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Roger Moore has noticeable darts on his dress shirt (by Frank Foster, I believe) in Octopussy. I'm sure many of his other shirts have darts (I just haven't looked). Though he may be somewhat of a dandy, I wouldn't doubt his sexuality.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Either you're homophobic or you attach a degree of levity to darts which is extraordinary. If the former, you have my pity; if the latter, my sympathy.
> 
> The sole purpose of darts, no matter whether the shirt buttons are on the right or the left, is to impart _curves_ to the shape of the shirt. Can you not follow the simple logic that a more _curvaceous_ shirt might be construed by most as an effiminate shirt?.


Why so mean? I addressed nothing to you of a similar nature. I'm not getting this.

For what it's worth, a couple of posters here nixed darts because they thought them effeminate. This surprised me and we began an exchange. I use shirt darts and mentioned that Gen. Pershing did also. The use of the word _ahem _means something cute is about to follow. You say that the sole purpose of a dart is to impart a curve to the fabric. I prefer the word _shape_. Numerous additions, including darts, can provide shape to a man's clothing, none of which would seem to carry a perjorative connotation including, I hope, the 1 ¾" wide strips of cereal box cardboard inserted into my pant cuffs to make them stand up and stand out, seriously (if not, I would have said _ahem_). I equate effeminate with girlie. I an not alone in this. The dictionary seems to think so too. You often display humor and wit in your postings, but you don't have the franchise on this. As to the question posed to you by me re placing shirt darts adjacent to side seams and therefore making them less noticeable and negating the need to rip the seams (to which you responded with a three-point no), I have done this and continue to do so and (1) they are not difficult to sew and (2) the excess fabric does not chafe since you snip and bind it and (3) it is not ugly because you cannot see it. I was going to send you a cuff clam for your b'day, but now am having second thoughts.

The Peakster​


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Question. And I don't know the answer. In 2010, are darts more common on women's or men's dress shirts?


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The sole purpose of darts, no matter whether the shirt buttons are on the right or the left, is to impart _curves_ to the shape of the shirt. Can you not follow the simple logic that a more _curvaceous_ shirt might be construed by most as an effiminate shirt?


No. Only if you:
a) Define a dart as imparting a curve, rather than just a shape. Their function is to equalise two disparate measurements. That this is done by imparting a curve is happenstance. And
b) Move from 'curve' to 'curvaceous'. One is neutral. The other imparts gender. A dart is a fold in a piece of cloth. I don't see the gender in that. And
c) Regard curvaceous as not only being a woman-only characteristic (which I grant you), but also regard the term, in relation to a garment worn by both sexes, as implying a sexual characteristic to a man. Which is not simple logic so much as simple nonsense.

Not that I care particularly, but I don't understand why a shirtmaker should define client choice in prejudicial terms. It can't be good for business.



> End of rant.


Good choice


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> Question. And I don't know the answer. In 2010, are darts more common on women's or men's dress shirts?


Women's shirts, and it's not even close. The majority of women's blouses have them. As the expert Mr. Kabbaz pointed out, they're practically a necessity if you're going to try to closely follow the curves of a woman's torso.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr. Kabbaz's use of "effeminate"*

Curve is geometrical, shape is topological and psychological. "effeminate" is the expression which became controversial - it is often used in derogatory connotation.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Peak and Pine said:


> Why so mean? I addressed nothing to you of a similar nature. I'm not getting this.


 Because of this:

Peakster said:


> I had no intenttion of turning this into an interchange style deal (Alex: I apologize)


There is a great deal of time and work - like some 30 years worth - involved in being able to create this series of threads. The fact that there are differences between men and women ... the fact that people attribute certain styling characteristics as have a gender-based origin ... are insufficient to bring sexually based bias into what is meant as an educational thread on shirt styling & construction. As you noted, that is well left to the interchange and my initial reaction was to be somewhat insulted at your use of this thread for that purpose. Now that we have mutually peed on each other, let's move forward and go back to being friendly sparring partners. :icon_smile:



Peak and Pine said:


> As to the question posed to you by me re placing shirt darts adjacent to side seams and therefore making them less noticeable and negating the need to rip the seams (to which you responded with a three-point no), I have done this and continue to do so and (1) they are not difficult to sew and (2) the excess fabric does not chafe since you snip and bind it and (3) it is not ugly because you cannot see it.
> 
> The Peakster


(2) is the key here. Darts, by definition, are not "snipped" and are removable. What you have created using your method is actually a seam. I've no quarrel with that, or with its ease, or with its non-feel. It's similar to creating a princess seam *(qualification: "princess" is the name of a certain seam which may be gender based but is sexually neutral! :icon_smile *but in a different place. BTW, with all that work, you might actually find it easier to rip the side seam, trim it, and re-close.



Simon Myerson said:


> No. Only if you:
> a) Define a dart as imparting a curve, rather than just a shape. Their function is to equalise two disparate measurements. That this is done by imparting a curve is happenstance.


 Disagree. Imparting the curve to attractively shape the garment is the function.



Simon Myerson said:


> b) Move from 'curve' to 'curvaceous'. One is neutral. The other imparts gender. A dart is a fold in a piece of cloth. I don't see the gender in that.


The gender is not in the fold. The gender is in the curve, created by the dart, which is designed to emulate and enhance the curvaceous nature of the wearer.



Simon Myerson said:


> c) Regard curvaceous as not only being a woman-only characteristic (which I grant you), but also regard the term, in relation to a garment worn by both sexes, as implying a sexual characteristic to a man. Which is not simple logic so much as simple nonsense.


 "not only ... but also ... implying ... not ... as ..." Are we agreeing or disagreeing here? Should I argue or say "yea!"?



Simon Myerson said:


> Not that I care particularly, but I don't understand why a shirtmaker should define client choice in prejudicial terms. It can't be good for business.


 I don't define client choice. I either accomodate client choice or have the temerity to explain why I think it wrong. That said, if you would be so kind as to explain what you mean by "prejudicial terms", perhaps we could continue this.



Simon Myerson said:


> Good choice


 Yeah, my mother would have said the same thing. Thanks, Mom. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr. Kabbaz's clothes of soul cut from cloth of spirit*

The prejudicial "term" (Mr. Myerson) about which Mr. Kabbaz asks (I wouldn't call it a "term" because in _terminology_ a term requires a _definition_ - better would be prejudicial _expression)_ is "effeminate". I'm not sure what Mr. Myerson means by "client choice" and how "client choice" can be "defined", but Mr. Kabbaz used the expression "effeminate" in regard to aesthetic description of costume.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Naive said:


> The prejudicial "term" (Mr. Myerson) about which Mr. Kabbaz asks (I wouldn't call it a "term" because in _terminology_ a term requires a _definition_ - better would be prejudicial _expression)_ is "effeminate".


Ahh. Thank you. In response:

I am not one who would define darts as effeminate. I would define darts as either a preferred styling characteristic or a lazy shirtmaker's tapering method.

In my post above, I was simply understanding another's right to see a dart as a characteristic of a woman's shirt ... and my right to want this to remain a thread about shirts rather than one about sexual bias.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Sorry, Mr. Kabbaz - false attribution / clarity of border*

Please accept my apology for sloppy research, Mr. Kabbaz - you're completely right - Jovan and Leighton introduced this expression. I'm at a loss to recognize what Mr. Myerson means by "prejudicial term". - Your remark that you prefer to "define" this thread in a particular sphere is especially interesting if you consider that any domain requires fundamental concepts to clarify its borders/limits. Feminine and masculine are attributes of various domains.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I yield to no one in my appreciation of a philosopher's ability to render meaningless any clear phrase.

However, all I said was that labelling a dart as effeminate would not endear a shirtmaker to a customer who wanted one. There, that wasn't so hard was it?

I would like to meet Mrs Kabbaz (Senior)


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Naive said:


> Your remark that you prefer to "define" this thread in a particular sphere is especially interesting if you consider that any domain requires fundamental concepts to clarify its borders/limits. Feminine and masculine are attributes of various domains.


 After almost a decade on this forum, I've long since abandoned the thought that the preference of any O.P. might have any but the slightest influence on the twists and turns of a particular thread.

Just FYI, over the span of my tailoring career, I could cite a plethora of styling characteristics mentioned by men as "effeminate" and women as "masculine". Here are a few for further frolicking fodder:

Men citing as effeminate:
Shank buttons (FYI, see the formal shirt Tom Wolfe is wearing in the Caveat Emptor: Collars thread)
Button cuffs
Voile fabrics
One-piece collars without collar bands
Three-piece backs and four-piece fronts

Women citing as masculine:
Cuff links
Turnback cuffs of any kind
Center plackets
Cuffs longer than 1"
Collars with collar bands
Shirttails
3.2mm thick M.O.P. buttons


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Simon Myerson said:


> I yield to no one in my appreciation of a philosopher's ability to render meaningless any clear phrase.
> 
> However, all I said was that labelling a dart as effeminate would not endear a shirtmaker to a customer who wanted one. There, that wasn't so hard was it?


 Yes. Been there. Done that. You're correct. Temerity to opine is not my weak suit.



Simon Myerson said:


> I would like to meet Mrs Kabbaz (Senior)


Sorry, not possible ... she's sewing shirts for angels now. Providing for the wings makes for some interesting constructions. Sort of like a cut-open dart.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Naive said:


> The prejudicial "term" (Mr. Myerson) about which Mr. Kabbaz asks (I wouldn't call it a "term" because in _terminology_ a term requires a _definition_ - better would be prejudicial _expression)_ is "effeminate". I'm not sure what Mr. Myerson means by "client choice" and how "client choice" can be "defined", but Mr. Kabbaz used the expression "effeminate" in regard to aesthetic description of costume.


Wow, so much angst over a word I just +1'd to...

Shall we just say feminine then? Or "more common on women's clothing" or "reminds me of women's clothing" etc. Either case, the meaning of the word is feminine, if you want to add some other meaning thats up to you, but your taking at least my opinion way way way out of context.


----------



## brettski (Dec 13, 2009)

I own several darted shirts and rather like how they look on me. They do emphasize the difference between a larger chest and a smaller waist but on a man I think that looks more athletic than feminine.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

brettski said:


> I own several darted shirts and rather like how they look on me. They do emphasize the difference between a larger chest and a smaller waist but on a man I think that looks more athletic than feminine.


Ahhh! The peacemaker has arrived!


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Just wondering, but is the point of these threads to tell us that you are the only skilled, reputable, honest shirtmaker in the world today?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Gentlemen, I apologise for the confusion. "Effeminate" should have actually been "feminine," like Leighton suggested. My intent was not to imply sexual preference.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

iammatt said:


> Just wondering, but is the point of these threads to tell us that you are the only skilled, reputable, honest shirtmaker in the world today?


I couldn't possibly tell you what Mr. Kabbaz's intention was, but I will say that their _effect_ is to provide a wealth of free information to readers, information that is not available from any other published source of which I am aware. I don't understand how anyone could possibly complain about that.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Gentlemen, I apologise for the confusion. "Effeminate" should have actually been "feminine," like Leighton suggested. My intent was not to imply sexual preference.


It took you five days to finally cough that up?
​


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Ability of philosopher*



Simon Myerson said:


> I yield to no one in my appreciation of a philosopher's ability to render meaningless any clear phrase.
> 
> However, all I said was that labelling a dart as effeminate would not endear a shirtmaker to a customer who wanted one. There, that wasn't so hard was it?
> 
> I would like to meet Mrs Kabbaz (Senior)


The ability to render meaning or lack of meaning to a clear phrase is not task of philosophy, but of semantics. Phrases are within the domain of linguistics - meaning of phrases belongs to semantics. Philosophy is concerned with the problems of self, knowledge and pure thinking.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Act from knowledge*



CuffDaddy said:


> I couldn't possibly tell you what Mr. Kabbaz's intention was, but I will say that their _effect_ is to provide a wealth of free information to readers, information that is not available from any other published source of which I am aware. I don't understand how anyone could possibly complain about that.


Cuff Daddy believes it is not possible for him to know what intention Mr. Kabbaz has. It may be that Mr. Kabbaz has not merely one, but several intentions - for example, Mr. Kabbaz draws attention to the fact that he is not just knowledgeable, but makes shirts. If Mr. Kabbaz is well informed, this is a result of his activity. To know what one does is aim of becoming more conscious.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Naive said:


> To know what one does is aim of becoming more conscious.


Können Sie dies auf Deutsch sagen? Ich verstehe nicht die Bedeutung auf Englisch. Vielen Dank.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*DARTS ARE FOR MEN*

WHAT NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IS THAT DARTING THE BACK OF UNIFORM SHIRTS IS VERY POPULAR IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

deanayer said:


> Funny that you use a striped shirt to show those darts. I recently bought a real bargain of a shirt off styleforum so that the seller could raise money for Haiti. The shirt is a Balenciaga and having never owned anything from this designer I decided why not. The shirt is almost identical to the one in the picture - darts on a pinstriped shirt - but the darts are IN THE FRONT !! (I was not aware of that from the pics!)
> 
> It is pretty wild looking and probably the slimmest cut shirt I have ever owned. So slim in fact that it is simply "over-darted". It fits basically fine if a bit too conformal till half-way down my ribs and then it pulls in tightly expecting to wrap around the stomach I had twenty years ago. Unfortunately when its buttoned up now there are distinct ovals formed between the lower buttons from the over-pressure of my middle aged stomach.


the house balenciaga made ladies wear. i think it did a small bit of mens wear. there is a shade of brown with that name. your description of that shirt sounds like a ladies blouse. 
or they were trying to introduce ladies construction into mens shirts for a better fit. 
or they were trying to introduce a manish style into ladies wear.
this was in the post war era, when ladies wear was into the very high padded shoulders.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

a tailor said:


> WHAT NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IS THAT DARTING THE BACK OF UNIFORM SHIRTS IS VERY POPULAR IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY.


Much military and quasi-military wear is made from synthetic fabrics which have a greater degree of inherent stretch than cottons. In addition, a huge majority of the military are not only physically much fitter than the average American, 60+% of whom fall into the obese-darts-unnecessary category, but tend to bulk up in the pectoral area during their regular ongoing exercise regimen.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr. Kabbaz's question of semantics*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Können Sie dies auf Deutsch sagen? Ich verstehe nicht die Bedeutung auf Englisch. Vielen Dank.


Please tell me first, Mr. Kabbaz, what it is that you do not understand in the sentence. I must ask you this regardless of which language I use in order to formulate better.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Methodology*



Peak and Pine said:


> It took you five days to finally cough that up?
> ​


Impatience is poison for deeper thinking.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Feminine versus Masculine, Effeminate versus ?*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> After almost a decade on this forum, I've long since abandoned the thought that the preference of any O.P. might have any but the slightest influence on the twists and turns of a particular thread.
> 
> Just FYI, over the span of my tailoring career, I could cite a plethora of styling characteristics mentioned by men as "effeminate" and women as "masculine". Here are a few for further frolicking fodder:
> 
> ...


Very impressive work, Mr. Kabbaz. If a distinction is made between <effeminate> and <feminine>, is it not asymmetrical that no such difference is made in polarity - only a single expression: <masculine>?


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Leighton's psychological interpretation of a linguistic matter*



Leighton said:


> Wow, so much angst over a word I just +1'd to...
> 
> Shall we just say feminine then? Or "more common on women's clothing" or "reminds me of women's clothing" etc. Either case, the meaning of the word is feminine, if you want to add some other meaning thats up to you, but your taking at least my opinion way way way out of context.


It is not a question of Angst. It is a question about language. I recommend you read Auden's preface to Owen Barfield: History in English Words.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Naive said:


> Please tell me first, Mr. Kabbaz, what it is that you do not understand in the sentence. I must ask you this regardless of which language I use in order to formulate better.


"To know what one does is aim of becoming more conscious." 
The sentence construction is incorrect. "Knowing what one does" cannot be an "aim of becoming more conscious". Your question directs me to explain what I do not understand in a sentence which is not constructed in English but appears as an English translation of a non-English language idiom. I'm sorry if that is not a very good explanation, but it is the best I can offer.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

[

a tailor said:


> WHAT *NO ONE HAS MENTIONED *IS THAT DARTING THE BACK OF UNIFORM SHIRTS IS VERY POPULAR IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY.


I believe Gen. Pershing's jacket was referenced (by moi) early on.



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Much* military and quasi-military wear is made from synthetic fabrics* which have a greater degree of inherent stretch than cottons.


I believe Black Jack knew little of polyester.

A special note to the individual who exhumed this thread, Naive Jr; tell us: before the internet, what did you do, tell all that crap to yourself?​


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> "To know what one does is aim of becoming more conscious."
> 1. The sentence construction is incorrect. 2. "Knowing what one does" cannot be an "aim of becoming more conscious". 3. Your question directs me to explain what I do not understand (4.) in a sentence which is not constructed in English (5.) but appears as an English translation of a non-English language idiom.


1. Which rule of grammar did I fail to observe in my sentence construction?

2. Cuff Daddy believes he cannot know what your intention is, so I meant by (what you transform into) <knowing what one does> to *include motive* - is this my mistake in formulation?

_Or is your objection <Knowing what one does> "cannot be an" <aim of becoming more conscious" the problem? Why don't you explain the reason or reasons why you believe this?_ Do you believe there might be another aim or aims of becoming conscious? If so, do you know these aims?

3. Why in your opinion does a question *direct* the person questioned to explain? Is the context of this website or my writing such that my interrogation has the character of* imperative*? Is question command? Doesn't the content of the question offer the possibility to be thought by the person asked, who can decide if he or she wants to answer or not? Or do you understand the word <direct> otherwise?

4. Everything I wrote was in English. When you asked me if I could express what I wrote in German, I didn't ask you to explain what you don't understand in any specific language. I just asked you to try to explain what you don't understand. Nevertheless, you refer to an unspecified sentence: "...in a sentence which is *not constructed in English*...", but to *which* sentence do you refer? I only wrote in English, so is the sentence to which you refer in your mind as speculation?

5. Furthermore you write me "...in a sentence which....appears as an English translation of a non-English language idiom" without any elaboration. You apparently believe what I wrote in English is a translation - how did you come to this conclusion? If what I wrote was a translation, do you think it is a translation from German? If you think what I wrote you is a translation of a German idiom, please tell me what this idiom is.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr P&P's sense of gravity*

A special note to the individual who exhumed this thread, Naive Jr; tell us: before the internet, what did you do, tell all that crap to yourself?​[/quote]

I went to the graveyard and compared my thought with the corpses to see what they share in common.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> *"To know what one does is aim of becoming more conscious." *
> The sentence construction is incorrect. "Knowing what one does" cannot be an "aim of becoming more conscious". Your question directs me to explain what I do not understand in a sentence which is not constructed in English but appears as an English translation of a non-English language idiom. I'm sorry if that is not a very good explanation, but it is the best I can offer.





Naive said:


> 1. Which rule of grammar did I fail to observe in my sentence construction?
> 
> 2. Cuff Daddy believes he cannot know what your intention is, so I meant by (what you transform into) <knowing what one does> to *include motive* - is this my mistake in formulation?
> 
> ...


I specified the sentence. I have highlighted it above in *bold red*. If you are seeking an argument here, I am not. I am merely attempting to reply to your question. If this is causing you angst, let's just drop it.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Peak and Pine said:


> A special note to the individual who exhumed this thread, Naive Jr; tell us: before the internet, what did you do, tell all that crap to yourself?


 Was that really necessary?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Naive said:


> I went to the graveyard and compared my thought with the corpses to see what they share in common.


Was that really necessary?

Gents: This is a thread about darts. Speaking as the O.P. and _not_ as a moderator, can you all please keep your crap on the Interchange?


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr. Kabbaz's request for better formulation of my justification of his controversial expertise*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I specified the sentence. I have highlighted it above in *bold red*. If you are seeking an argument here, I am not. I am merely attempting to reply to your question. If this is causing you angst, let's just drop it.


If you specify the only sentence in question is that which I wrote in English my replies 3., 4., and 5., all of which referred to the form of question or a belief that I had in the first place translated from German are eliminated. Since you raise no objection to my syntax, reply 1. is no longer in view.

I really feel too old to be "seeking an argument", which I understand you to mean in a colloquial sense, a sort of psychological compulsion. I don't need to practice intellectual ping pong, if that's what you mean. My original intention was to point out that a criticism of your proclamation of expertise as self-praise - expressed above in the posting #40 by jammaz - is unfair as well as to criticize as sloppy and dogmatic CuffDaddy's assertion of epistemic inability to know your intentions here. Now I end up having to defend myself defending you, but I know you didn't ask for my defense.

You apparently have a New York meaning for angst. This word is etymologically derived from the German (and perhaps Danish) word eng and since you ask for a German translation you must know this. I do not feel any psychological constriction, but I do feel _doubt_ in respect to my English formulation after you negated it and asked for a German translation. I hoped you would indicate some ambiguity in my formulation which I could then correct or give me a reason why you think it's wrong.

To ensure the best German translation I shall consult native German speakers here to discuss it before I present it to you.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Sorry about the unnecessary and un-Shakespearian <crap>, Mr. Kabbaz*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Was that really necessary?
> 
> Gents: This is a thread about darts. Speaking as the O.P. and _not_ as a moderator, can you all please keep your crap on the Interchange?


That's an excellent question. Dart seems to have gone through some kind of metamorphosis which got out of control. I promise to keep all my >crap< (did Shakespeare use this word? No, certainly not in these 19th century meanings of defecation or rubbish or nonsense) on the Interchange and shall do my best to keep my promise.

Correction for/to "Methodology" #51: instead of "....*for* deeper thinking" substitute "...*to* deeper thinking".


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

P&P said:


> A special note to the individual who exhumed this thread, Naive Jr; tell us: before the internet, what did you do, tell all that crap to yourself?





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Was that really necessary?


No. We're supposed to be necessary here?



Naive said:


> I went to the graveyard and compared my thought with the corpses to see what they share in common.





Kabbaz said:


> Was that really necessary?


You actually understood what he said?
​


----------



## TEL (Nov 13, 2009)

Mr. Kabbaz - Thank you for the information on darts - it is sad that the thread has taken such a ridiculous direction. Ironically, one of my absolutely best fitting shirts is a slim fit from TM Lewin that utilizes back darts. I would have to say that I don't prefer the darts since I think they are obvious (especially striped shirts) and tend to break up the visual flow, but this shirt just FEELS perfect to me. I generally have the "blousing" issue - the shirt fits across the yoke, arms, arm hole, etc - but feels like a hefty bag with all the extra material hanging off the back! Even many slim fit shirts are "huge"! I've tried buying OTR and shrinking the crap out of them, but then the sleeves usually shrink (and at a solid 36.5" - I can't afford that!) I've had about ten MTM shirts and so far, except for the choice of style options, they have not been worth it - something is always "just not right". I just took a shirt to a local tailor today to re-size. I would have preferred opening the side and adjusting accordingly, and they would have done so, but it's just too cost prohibitive. I decided to go with darts as a test run and see if they have the same effect that the TM Lewin darts have. My next step will probably be to just send my beloved fitting shirt to various shirtmakers and ask them to copy the fit - minus the darts - and see if that works. Thanks again.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Threads are controlled by the wind. Sometimes it is a pleasant, gentle breeze flowing in one direction. At other times we have a tempetuous storm rushing hither and yon at breakneck speeds. 

And then there are threads where the only motion is caused by flatulence. In any case, it brings life to the discussion; verve to the style. Irrelevant rambling done.

Good luck in your quest. Carl Goldberg makes lots of shirts for Broadway shows. He's quite familiar with proper tapering. You might consider him as one place to try.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Novice question: Are the actual darts always visible? 
Obviously the effect is there, but can the stitched darts always be seen?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Novice question: Are the actual darts always visible?
> Obviously the effect is there, but can the stitched darts always be seen?


In a plain color shirt they are much less visible than in a patterned shirt where they are overtly obvious. That said, they are visible.


----------



## TEL (Nov 13, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Novice question: Are the actual darts always visible?
> Obviously the effect is there, but can the stitched darts always be seen?


I have one shirt that is a solid light blue and the darts are barely noticeable. The darts themselves are not visible in the striped shirt I have, but there is considerable pattern distortion in the back that the eye is drawn to. Both of these shirts have a "plain back" - no pleats - which helps I think. The shirt that I just took to be re-sized with darts has shoulder pleats and I am betting that the tailor will dart the entire back length to coincide with the shoulder pleats. I have a feeling that this may turn out a little strange looking. However, it was a test shirt and I can always just re-open the darts.


----------



## luisduo (Aug 28, 2004)

I actually prefer the method of taking in the side seams than doing darts...I hate sewing darts.lol


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Mr. Kabbaz: Could you please post a picture of a person wearing a shirt you made (or direct me to the link)? Many thanks.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

​
​


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*What "happens" if and when one takes seriously what others say*

After Mr. Kabbaz (who sounds philosophically like Baruch de Spinoza) was criticized above (#40) on this thread,
I contributed (#45) what I believed to be a not merely operational (#42), but inherently necessary justification to his defense.

Mr. Kabbaz complained what I wrote was incomprehensible and asked for a German translation (#46):

*Aus Erkenntnis zu handeln ist Ziel der Bewusstwerdung. *
*Ziel der Bewusstwerdung ist, aus Erkenntnis zu handeln.*


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hey, Junior: give it up. Nobody cares.​


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

luisduo said:


> I actually prefer the method of taking in the side seams than doing darts...I hate sewing darts.lol


When getting an OTR shirt altered, I usually have to have the sides taken in AND have darts put in the back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sides can only be taken in so much, right? For me, darts seem to be the only way to prevent "blousiness" in the back of the shirt - no matter how much the shirt has the sides taken in. Keep in mind that my chest is 36 and my waist is 29 so I'm a bit smaller than the average man.

For the last few years, I've started to get most of my shirts via online MTM and while they fit great, I find myself still having to take them to my tailor to have darts inserted in the back. I've started to add that extra $15 to the cost of my MTM shirt.

I did see a Benetton shirt the other day in their store that had both back and front darts. The front darts did not look appealing to me at all.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

ChicagoMediaMan-27 said:


> When getting an OTR shirt altered, I usually have to have the sides taken in AND have darts put in the back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sides can only be taken in so much, right? For me, darts seem to be the only way to prevent "blousiness" in the back of the shirt - no matter how much the shirt has the sides taken in. Keep in mind that my chest is 36 and my waist is 29 so I'm a bit smaller than the average man.
> 
> For the last few years, I've started to get most of my shirts via online MTM and while they fit great, I find myself still having to take them to my tailor to have darts inserted in the back. I've started to add that extra $15 to the cost of my MTM shirt.
> 
> I did see a Benetton shirt the other day in their store that had both back and front darts. The front darts did not look appealing to me at all.


Your chest->waist drop should be easily handled using only the side seams. With a chest of 36" the minimum waist which can be handled using only side seams would be about 25".


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Your chest->waist drop should be easily handled using only the side seams. With a chest of 36" the minimum waist which can be handled using only side seams would be about 25".


Good to know. Thank you.

Maybe I will start getting my MTM shirts done in person instead of online.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

ChicagoMediaMan-27 said:


> Good to know. Thank you.
> 
> Maybe I will start getting my MTM shirts done in person instead of online.


You might want to contact M. Mathew. He can certainly fit you properly and he is right nearby in Oakbrook Terrace. 
mathewam <at> gmail.com


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Your customer list is certainly quite impressive. I hope that they have agreed that you can use their names.

However, it is rather difficult to judge the quality of the cut of your shirts on these pictures. Actually, most collars look rather ugly.



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> ​
> ​


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

newtrane said:


> Your customer list is certainly quite impressive. I hope that they have agreed that you can use their names.
> 
> However, it is rather difficult to judge the quality of the cut of your shirts on these pictures. Actually, most collars look rather ugly.


Why, thank you sir.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Aw c'mon, Alex. I just made me a big bowl o'popcorn and opened a Schlitz. Don't let me down.​


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Peak and Pine said:


> Aw c'mon, Alex. I just made me a big bowl o'popcorn and opened a Schlitz. Don't let me down.​


Slowly he turned ... step by step ...

Sorry P&P - no train wreck today. I just considered the source and moved on.


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

Alexander, do you have a website with just your shirt articles. I don't mind all the guy talk. I find men very interesting, and same sex issues don't bother me at all, but sometimes I just want to read the articles and try to absorb the construction information quietly. 
Thanks.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Padme said:


> Alexander, do you have a website with just your shirt articles. I don't mind all the guy talk. I find men very interesting, and same sex issues don't bother me at all, but sometimes I just want to read the articles and try to absorb the construction information quietly.
> Thanks.


I am currently rebuilding the shirt part of my website. Not in too much of a hurry at it as our capacity is full.

However, you can read most of the articles without the 'boy banter' from the links on . Just click on the "Back Issues of Sartorial Excellence News" link.


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

Thank you.


----------

