Chapter VI: Preface (6)

This diagram I consider very valuable for illustration, because it represents an entire garment from neck to ankle in one continuous form, and on slopes in perfect harmony with the slopes of the body, running to a point at each end, each point at an angle of 15 deg., and both joined at the widest part, representing the largest part of the body, but cut off at the neck and at the feet. The upper part again represents the vest, as the simplest garment worn by man. The starting point for the garment is at a point where the angle of 15 deg. has a width of 17½ numbers. The connecting points of the two angles of 15 deg. are at the front of the waist, or at the pit of the stomach, where the body turns backward, upward and downward, and at the largest part of the seat. The lower point of the angle of 15 deg. is a center for the pants, from which center all connection for the seams may be swept with certainty. And, although this point is not convenient to sweep from for every pants we cut, a cutter must know from what point he can obtain his balance without going to the point—all of which is fully described in the article on “Pants.”

DIA. XIV.

This is simply the lower part of Dia. XIII, but the sides are closely connected on the angle of 15 deg., showing the pants in one solid sheet, which will fit the form of the bare body from waist to ankle. This diagram is in such a position that a new beginner may learn how to produce a nice slope for the side seam. But it is intended to serve for other and more important illustrations. It is to illustrate more fully the so-called back slope.

The upper part, or the waist, is in a perfect square from the front base. If the front and the back bases are laid on top of each other, all the sweeps from point 80 will fit together and the whole front and back will lay in position as most all pants are cut. From the position of this diagram, there is no side, nor back slope; it is simply a square block, consequently, the so-called back slope is only an imagination. But the most important point to illustrate is the following:

Considering the ankles 1¼ inches apart, will give to each side ⅝, and the front base line would run down parallel with the center of the front, though slanting backward, and parallel with the front of the leg. Now, it is true, the lower part of Dia. XIV is on an angle of 15 deg., but the upper part is also on a square, and we will now consider the back square line finished clear down to the bottom of a pants, and cut out a square sheet of stiff paper, as long as a pants may be and as wide as the seat requires to go around it, say 40 inches both ways, and place it on and around the body of a person whose front of abdomen does not reach outside of a straight line, running parallel with the front slope of the legs, and in this position the sheet will fit to the body all along down in front, as well as the back of the waist from the seat upward. The center of the front and the center of the back run parallel up and forward and the square sheet will fit it, but at the top of the side, and at the bottom of the side and at the bottom of the back the square sheet, wound around the body will be too large, and must be reduced as follows: On top of side of waist one or two gores are cut to represent the difference between the seat hip and waist measure. The bottom at the side and at the back is reduced from a square to a slope of 15 deg., all of which is taken off from behind. It should be observed on Dia. XIV that the center of the front and the center of the back seams run parallel upward and forward above the seat lines, and from the seat lines downward, both the front and back forks start outward of the square, all of which is to be turned inward to pass forward and backward between the legs.

The square sheet must be considered for the outside cover, as though the legs were grown together. Again, a square sheet must be considered so adjusted to the upper body that the square sheet closes in all around the front from top to bottom, and from the seat to the waist in the back, but stands off at the bottom behind where the square is to be reduced to an angle of 15 deg. from seat to bottom. Whatever such a square, wound around the upper body is too large at the waist, must be reduced by one large or by two small gores at the top of side, and it will be found that the reduction of the angle of 7½ deg. is always the difference between the seat and waist measure, and if the waist is as large as the seat, no reduction is required, and if the waist is larger than the seat, allowance must be made at the side and in front. If that division is not properly made the crotch will show the fault, because the sides will take up their share, whether they have too much or too little cloth.

DIA. XV.

The figure on this diagram is poorly drawn, but it serves to illustrate. It gives the side view of the crotch, and illustrates why a larger waist must receive more cloth in front than a normal waist. Fig. I shows the pants from the front or back view, but this gives the side view, the back running backward and the front forward and away from the body. In this position the pants must be considered as in opposite position to Dia. XIV, and connected on the crotch seams. Dia. XV is intended to illustrate the bases for the small waist as well as for the large waist. On the small waist the body of the waist is even with the front pants base, but when the waist becomes larger the base will have to be considered as located inside of the front of the abdomen, as shown on the figure. When the base strikes the front of the body, as on a small waist, the front can be swung sidewise and backward on a straight line, and the back can be swung forward and sidewise, but in order to conform to the seat the back must form the sack for the seat first.

When both the front and the back is settled to the shape of the body, the center of each runs up and down and parallel above the seat line. The larger waist extends outside of the base and after the front is swung sidewise, to the side of the back, the front of the pants must be considered to be brought forward to the front of the body, the hinge being at the side, and when the front of the pants is swung forward with the hinge or swing fastened to the side, the centre of front is too small and must be supplied with extra width. Pants, as well as coats, are fitted from the side forward to the front and from the side backward to the back, and if the diameter of the center of the body from back to front is larger than on the normal form, the ends of the front will not reach the centre of the body in front and more waist proportion must be allowed there. The back must be considered stationary and requires no allowance behind, but may require allowance at the side if the waist is well filled up there. (See Dia. XX.)

In case of a back or forward leaning waist, Dia. XV will show that the crotch must be considered stationary, and the crotch must also be considered as a hinge on which the upper body swings back and forward, and that if the backward leaning waist requires ½ inch less cloth on top of front, the top of back must receive that ½ inch again, or else the so-called back slope will become too large.

The descriptions of Dias. XIII, XIV and XV should be well considered by every cutter. I have figured on them for over twelve years and the result is here given. Others might have done it in less time, but so far as I know, nobody has done it yet.

DIA. XVI.

Dia. XVI shows the front and back of equal width except the tops of each.

DIA. XVII.

This presents the small front and wide back.

DIA. XVIII.

Dia. XVIII illustrates the principle of the fold in the seat, and the back and dress front nearly alike.

DIA. XIX.

Represents pants of the present style and fashion. The waist is as short as it ought to be for fine pants. Contrast the length of the waist with Dia, XXI. Dia. XIX is calculated for a size 38 seat with a knee 19 inches wide. If this is laid out with a 35 scale, the knee will become 17½ inches wide, which is a good width for a close fitting pants, which will soon come in style again. When small pants legs come in style again, the crotch of such pants will have to be reduced about one seam, and at the bottom the centre will be the same centre, while at the knee the centre of the angle of 10 deg. is also a guide, but there the outside requires about ½ less than the inside, because the inside of the leg is straight, while the outside is hollow.

DIA. XX.

This diagram was made over a pants pattern of the following proportion: Seat, 46 in.; Hip, 47; actual waist measure, 46; waist as made up, 49 in.; knee, 22½; and bottom, 20½ in.

DIA. XXI.

This diagram was made for the purpose of illustrating a pants with a high waist, and how it is to be cut on top in order to have such a pants feel good around the short ribs, and still fitting at the hollow of the waist. The more spring such a pants has near the short ribs, the better it will be. But the buckle straps must be set low, or at the hollow of the waist, so they do not draw that width backward. For the sake of making a change, I have thrown the top of front of the dress side out ¾ and the undress side is to be ⅜.

DIA. XXII and XXIII.

Are the same thing. They are here reproduced to give a correct idea of the so-called “back slope.” Both are turned from point 80, or from the point of the angle of 7½ deg. All connections, or nicks for the seams are on the sweeps from point 80. The leg seams are dislocated, but the balance is the same, and both will fit the same when on the body, and I claim that there never was a truer pants system produced than is represented by these two diagrams.

The complete angles of the different degrees are not made, but the base line, running down to 80, is on the same spot on all foreparts. From point 80 the forepart of Dia. XXII is thrown forward, and in Dia. XXIII it is thrown sidewise, all of which may be imitated on a pants leg, after it is sewed up. Now it will be noticed that each of the two diagrams has a double side, on which it makes no difference where the nicks are located, as long as they are on top of each other, but the disconnected sides must be nicked by the sweeps from point 80.

Five years ago I sent the principle of Dia. XXII and XXIII to the publisher of the “AMERICAN TAILOR,” and the answer may be found in the “AMERICAN TAILOR” of November, 1886, page 98. But as other questions were involved in the same article, and as the “AMERICAN TAILOR” pleased to notice me in 1883 about a certain challenge, I will reproduce the whole of it.

In 1882 I had the following advertisement in the Tiffin papers, of which I sent a copy to the “AMERICAN TAILOR”:

TO THE PUBLIC.

Having spent the best part of the last ten years in working out
a scientific calculation of the outlines of the human body, I
have, after endless ups and downs, discovered, and worked out,
an entirely new and heretofore unthought of

PRINCIPLE OF GARMENT CUTTING.

I am now ready to announce that my customers may rest assured
that they will not only get a fashionable and well made suit of
clothing, but that they shall also feel at home in it when they
have it on.

Lest it be said that this is only a new game of brag, and to
show that all present systems which are known are without a
reliable base, I make the following

Challenge to any Tailor or Cutter of Gents’ Clothing from
Anywhere:

To cut and make a frock coat, a sack coat, a vest, a pair of
pantaloons, and a whole garment from neck to ankle without any
cross seams, for a person of any shape or form, whom none of us
have ever measured or made clothing for, we will decide by lot—

1st. By what system or rule the coat pattern shall be cut;

2d. The number and size of gores—if any—the fore-parts shall
have, and how many seams the sack coat shall have—5, 4, 3, 2—or
entirely seamless, except shoulder and sleeve seams;

3d. How many seams the pants legs shall have;

4th. All widths and lengths of the several parts of each
garment;

5th. All unforeseen questions arising from the above conditions.

Each to pay his own expenses, and all goods to be selected from
the same piece and made up in the same style.

No garment is to be tried on the person it is made for until at
a public trial, when the judges, selected by lot and who must
not know who made them, shall decide, and their decision must
be final.

This challenge shall stand good for three months, unless sooner
accepted.

G. F. HERTZER.

TIFFIN, O., January, 1882.

To which the “American Tailor” replied in the December number of 1883, in the following sarcastic style:

“THE CHAMPION CUTTER OF AMERICA.”

“According to the rules which govern sporting matters, the town
of Tiffin, Ohio, has the proud distinction of being the abiding
place of the champion cutter of America. Mr. G. F. Hertzer, the
gentleman to whom we refer, issued a challenge some two years
ago to all the cutters in the town of Tiffin in particular, and
those who might be scattered here and there through the rest of
the world, in general, to compete with him in a cutting match
under certain conditions calculated to insure fairness. As the
challenge was not accepted, Mr. Hertzer is, as we understand
it, entitled to the proud appellation of champion cutter of
America. It is in full accordance with the eternal fitness of
things, that the championship should be located in Ohio, and in
the liberality of our heart we are perfectly willing that it
should remain there. As Mr. Hertzer’s challenge was published
in a local paper, it is within the range of possibility that
it may not have been seen by several cutters, whose fault or
misfortune it may be, to dwell outside of the precincts of the
town of Tiffin. But, however, this may be, we are prepared to
admit that it is not likely any cutter in this country, outside
of New Jersey, would have had the temerity to have accepted it.
Mr. Hertzer is, therefore, fully warranted in asserting that,
‘_this challenge_ has not been accepted by any one, and now I
claim that there is not a cutter or tailor inside or outside
of Tiffin, who can accept and beat me, until he has my book on
cutting, which, in due time will be published.’ About the only
suggestion that we are able to offer the profession, by way of
consolation, is that when Mr. Hertzer’s book shall be published
they may be enabled, by purchasing and studying it, to compete
with the author with some faint hope of success. Meanwhile,
Mr. Hertzer wears, by virtue of the non-acceptance of his
challenge, the sonorous title of the champion cutter of Tif—no,
of America. We take off our hat.”

When I sent the principle of Diagrams XXII and XXIII, I enclosed the following advertisement, and other questions, which are explained in the answer:

“_Be Diligent to Gain Knowledge for Knowledge is Power._”

SEVEN POWERFUL REASONS

Why I claim that I cannot be beat

In fitting gents’ and boy’s garments and why I claim that I
can beat any cutter in fitting large waisted men or boys, and
persons with low shoulders or long necks.

1. I have spent more time, more money and more brains on the
science of gents’ and boys’ garment cutting than any other
cutter; and I can prove it.

2. I know more about cutting and fitting gents’ and boys’
garments than any other cutter, and I challenge any one to
disprove that fact.

3. During the last four years I have challenged any cutter
or tailor to go with me in a cutting match and I have had no
response.

4. I can alter and refit any misfitting garment which your
tailor may have sponged on you as long as there is cloth enough
to do it with and the victim is willing to pay for it.

5. I furnish the material for garments cheaper than any other
merchant tailor and charge no more for my work than those who
cannot make the above claims.

6. Selling from samples, it is my interest to sell first-class
material only.

7. I work and sell for cash.

The above reasons should induce everybody to entrust their next
order of clothing to your obedient servant,

G. F. HERTZER.

(_From a circular of Wanamaker & Brown._)]

(_From a circular of Wanamaker & Brown._)]

The following sledge hammer blows followed:

_From the “AMERICAN TAILOR” of Nov. 1886, page 98._

ANSWER TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Mr. G. F. Hertzer, of Tiffin, Ohio, asks us in a recent letter,
to give a combination of a frock and sack, having the same
shoulders and explain the difference in the seams and account
for the stretch, or shrinkage of the frock coat waist seam,
which can not be effected on a sack. We are by no means certain
that we understand what our correspondent means, but we think,
that in the May and June numbers of this Journal for 1884 we
gave the desired information. We cannot afford the time to
enter into lengthy explanations of a problem unless it is
clearly stated, and of general interest. Mr. Hertzer also asks
the following questions:

1st. Why we give Fine Trade Designs without sleeves?

2d. What we mean by “half scye.” “I asked,” he writes, “the
opinion of several cutters. One said it meant the half measure
of the armhole, and another that it meant half the measure
around the arm. Is either right? If so, can you find two
cutters who would not make one or two inches difference in that
measure?”

In reply to the first question we would say that we have but
twice given a “Fine Trade Design” without a sleeve draft. In
one case we said that the sleeve should be drafted as taught
in “Theory and Practice,” but in the other omitted to do so,
thinking, perhaps unwisely, that our readers would understand
that it should be so drafted.

In reply to the second question, we desire to say that by “half
scye” we mean half scye, not half knee, nor half waist, nor
half anything else. The armhole of a coat is the scye, but a
man’s arm is not, therefore it is absurd to suppose we could
mean the measure around the arm.

If, as our correspondent suggests, there is a cutter living who
cannot measure the scye twice without a variation of one or two
inches, or if there is a cutter who cannot measure it fifty
times with less than one-eighth inch difference, that cutter
should devote his mind and muscle to hod carrying.

Our correspondent sends us, in his letter, small drafts of two
trousers which look unlike each other, and asks us to tell him
how they differ, and if each will fit the same man?

There seems to be no difference in the drafts, except in the
location of the seams. But whether there is or not is of little
consequence. Life is too short for us to draft the patterns to
full size and devote an hour or so to the solution of a problem
of no importance.

Mr. Hertzer concludes his letter as follows: “Since the
foregoing was written, I have received the ‘AMERICAN TAILOR’
for this month and I see that others make the same request
about frock and sack coats.

As far as I know the diagram on page 77 may be suitable to
others, but I am not smart enough to derive any benefit from
it, for it is not complete—frock coat skirt is not in full, nor
are the fitting points given on the front shoulder, and minus
sleeve.

Should I use my own pattern and fail to make a good sack, you
would say that my patterns are not correct, or that I did not
follow your instructions. It leaves too many holes for you to
slip out of. Now if you would give all the fitting points, then
we would have a fair chance to try it. This is plain talk, but
you always solicit the opinion of your subscribers, and here is
mine without coloring.”

This “_plain talk_” is about as silly as anything we ever read.
The draft referred to is an illustration of how to cut a sack
by a frock coat pattern, and does clearly illustrate it. It was
not a coat system, and the skirt of a frock coat has no more to
do with it, than a box of matches. “If a cutter drafts a sack
as we explained by a poor frock coat pattern, he will produce a
poor sack, but if he uses a good model, he will make a success
of it.” We don’t “_slip out_” of anything, as our correspondent
intimates, and certainly have wisdom enough to prevent our
making ourselves ridiculous by endeavoring to get down to his
intellectual level.

In an advertisement which was enclosed in the letter under
discussion, Mr. Hertzer says: “I have spent more time, more
money, and more brains on the science of gents’ and boys’
garment cutting than any other cutter. And I can prove it.”

Possibly if he had spent less brains, he would have on hand a
more liberal supply, than he seems to have in stock at present.

So far the columns of the “AMERICAN TAILOR.”

The following local appeared in the Tiffin “TRIBUNE” of Dec. 9th, 1886:

TALK ABOUT A TAILOR.

If You Step on a Man’s Corns He Will Howl.

This seems to be the case with the editor of the AMERICAN
TAILOR. The November number, 1886, of that journal contains
over a column of red hot shot against our townsman, G. F.
Hertzer, for having an opinion of his own, and claiming that
he has spent more “brains” over the science of gentlemen’s and
boys’ garment cutting than any other cutter. If the AMERICAN
TAILOR wants to prove that G. F. Hertzer is “silly” and with
“not much brains left,” he ought to come out and accept his
challenge for a cutting match, and beat him on his own ground.
Ridiculing him will not amount to anything as long as Mr.
Hertzer turns out such nice fitting garments as he does at
present.

A copy of which was sent to the editor of the AMERICAN TAILOR, and later I have enclosed a clipping of it, in every letter which I have sent to that office, but the editor being so far above my intellectual level, never answered, so far as I know.

Now I have a Christian spirit in me, even if I do not come up to be a good Christian, for it is my misfortune to be always below the level, but having received enough slaps to make one cheek sore, I do now, as a true Christian, offer the other side, by asking more questions.

1st. Why did you use a poor frock coat pattern, for illustration, as you indicate, by saying: “If a cutter drafts a sack as we explained by a poor frock coat pattern,” etc.?

2d. Will not the diagram on page 77 in the October number of 1886, to which I alluded, produce the half sack coat nearly ½ inch larger than the frock, by sewing one seam less on the sack?

3d. Will not the sack coat armhole be nearly ½ inch longer over the back for the same cause?

4th. Will not the whole side of the back of the sack coat be nearly ½ inch longer than the frock for the same reason again?

The coat, as represented by the above front and back views, I have on hand and intend to keep it, and anyone can examine it and satisfy himself that it is not misrepresented. My intention of making it, and representing it in this book, was to illustrate what a hot iron and a skilfull workman can do with a straight piece of woolen.]

5th. Will not nearly ½ inch more width, and nearly ½ inch more length, in a sack coat back, produce the sack coat too large over the blade?

6th. Will not the extra length of nearly ½ inch in the sack back armhole produce too much under sleeve behind?

7th. Must not all armholes of both frock and sack coats be the same, if one is to fit as good as the other?

8th. When was Miss Scye born? In what dictionary did she live in 1886? Where is her headquarters now? Is she single, or is she married to Mr. Arm?

NOTE.—Fig. I and Fig. and Dia. XV, and Dia. II, X, XIV, XV,
XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, were drawn and finished in ink by
myself, and they are in my own writing. All others were made
by regular artists, as they claimed to be, after my pencil
drawings. But the above mentioned had so many mistakes that
I had to throw them away and make new drawings. All Dia. in
the Supplement are my own drawing. It may be that my lines
and figures are not so nicely drawn, but I know that they are
correct and that they are plain. It may also be, that in the
opinion of some, I have drawn too many lines and put on too
many numbers, but this book is not written for professors
alone, but for students and new beginners in cutting, as well
as for tailors, and can not be made too plain.

UNDER SACK COATS.

For a three seamed under sack, Dia. III and VIII answer all purposes. The parts of Dia. III place the height of back at 13½. A five-seamed sack is to be made, for three reasons: 1st. In order to put in more waist proportion in the side of the waist. 2d. To fit the over-erect form. 3d. To make an overcoat. The normal form can be fitted with a three-seamed under sack from the smaller sizes up to size 38, but the larger sizes out to be cut as five-seamed, because they usually require more waist. It is true smaller sizes have sometimes very large waists, but from one-half to three-fourths addition to the side at line 17½ will cover it. Boys usually wear sack coats; and, guided by this work, the breast measure for a boy should not be taken looser than that for a man, because the scale of one-half breast and 2½ in. will provide for that, to the full extent.

To make a five-seamed garment over Dia. VIII, for the purpose of giving more waist proportion, simply enlarge the square, say 1 inch, and cut out the surplus thus obtained from under the arm, or still better, leave it on the coat as an outlet but allow the seam on the under arm cut. I wish to add, however, that it is easy to stretch the side-piece on the under arm cut when it is sewed up, and it tends to improve the side if properly done; but if it is stretched at all, it must be done so upward, and whatever it is so lengthened, say perhaps half an inch, must again be reduced over the center of the back. All this may look trifling, but you must remember that half an inch more or less cloth in the length of the back will make quite a change in the fit.

To make a five-seamed garment, for the purpose of fitting an erect form, examine Dia. VIII, and you will notice a dotted “V” on line 17½, or at the hollow of the waist. At the side seam this wedge is five-eighths of an inch, and to fit the erect form this wedge must be folded up in the pattern; and to accomplish this on a flat paper the pattern must be cut through under the arm and above the point of the wedge, when the fold can be laid smoothly, but the pattern will divide at the arm as an artificial gore, representing the gore sidewise. The square will enlarge in proportion to the gore cut, and the upper portion of the back will fall downward and shorten from its original position five-eighths, or the width of the fold at the side seam. But although the back appears to shorten on top it retains its balance over the shoulder blade. The actual shortness is at the hollow of the waist. In folding up the gore across the side piece will cause the side piece to make a sharp curve at the side, and a sharp hollow or kink behind, and both must be straightened by cutting away the curve at the side and by filling out the hollow behind, so that the under arm cut will represent two straight lines. In regulating the under arm gore, two seams must again be allowed at the armhole, and the balance may be cut away, or it may be used as an outlet, which may come very handy sometimes. In sewing up that gore, the side piece usually stretches easily upward, say another three-eighths, and said three-eighths must again be taken away from the length of the back over the shoulder blade, and for this reason Dia. VIIIa has the height of back at 12¼, or 1¼ less than Dia. VIII.

For further explanation of this fifth sack coat seam, or under arm gore, and as to the difference between the erect and the large waisted form, I refer to the article on large waists.

Large waists and erect forms are mostly combined in one person, because when a person’s waist grows forward the shoulders throw themselves backward, in order to keep the body in balance, and if this would not be the case, a large waisted person would tumble forward unless supported by something else. Anybody can see how this works. Take a normal waisted form with a coat which fits well in the back and place a sack of flour, or any other weight of fifty pounds, in front of this waist, supported by the arms, and the whole upper body will throw itself backward in order to keep its balance, and the back of this coat will become too long across the hollow of the waist behind, because the front of the coat cannot stretch like the body itself.

Diagram VIIIa is made especially for the erect form, and is in all respects like Dia. VIII except the “V” closed up across the hollow of the waist, and the three-eighths stretch of the side piece upward, and the consequent shortening of the back of 1¼. The difference at the front edge cannot be considered a fitting point. If Dia. VIIIa is used for a large waisted form, which is mostly always erect, then the gore between the back and side piece should be cut like Dia. VIII, or nearly so. In all cases, whenever the waist becomes fuller, or the person more erect, the spring over the seat may be enlarged, and if it becomes too large, it is less trouble to reduce it than if the spring is too small. A good outlet over the seat and center of back of a sack coat comes very handy sometimes, but such a seam should be sewed by hand, because the machine will usually cut its edges.

Now, in considering the above, a cutter must observe if the form he intends to fit is erect or stooping, or large waisted, or if there is a combination of such, or other abnormal conditions. The single erect, or stooping, or large waist, or long or short necked person is very seldom to be found; there is mostly a combination of two or three abnormal conditions combined in one person.

The gores between the back and the fore part of both Dia. VIII and VIIIa are cut out pretty close at the hollow of the waist, and it will never hurt any sack, cut over either of them, to have one-half inch more at line 17½. Dia. VIIIa may be used for the normal form, providing the depth of the back is made 12¾ numbers above line 9, and I have often used it for such with good results.

A sack coat with two seams and which is intended to conform partly to the hollow of the waist in the back must have a spring over the center of the seat, starting at the most hollow part of the hollow of the waist. Said spring cannot be obtained by allowing it at the side of the back which may be six or seven inches wide. Even if said spring were able to push the coat back over the seat it would at the same time push the coat upward and backward and away from the waist, and make it too wide and too long there. The only way to make such a coat good is to cut the spring, intended for the center of the back, at the side, and stretch the side of the back, under the iron, and at the hollow of the waist, and press the whole back in the shape of the pattern as in Dia. VIII and deduct the seam behind.

Sacks without any downward seams will never be in demand until we come closer to oriental fashions, or until we fall back upon cloaks. For the purpose of finding out how close I could come to making a reasonably good fitting sack in the back of the waist, without any seams downward, I have made four of them during the last 12 years. The first one I had to rip up again and make it up into a smaller size as a three seamer. The second and third I sold as cheap coats and the purchasers never found out that they wore seamless coats. They were better than a great many five seamers seen on the street, though they were loose coats at and around the back of the waist. One of them I had photographed on myself, both front and back views, and have the photo still in my possession. One back and one front view I sent to the office of the then “AMERICAN TAILOR,” and a letter in my possession says that they consider it a good fit for such a coat. The last seamless coat I made last summer, 1891, and have it on hand now, and I intend to keep it at least for the present. A front and a back view of that coat will be found in “Figures and Diagrams.” For the last six months I have kept it for a show coat, with a card on it offering $25 to any cutter or tailor who will make one like it, and which fits as good or better. So far I have had no call for the $25, nor did I expect a response, because it will not pay anybody to make one even for $25, and risk a fit. I made the offer to advertise my work, that was all.

The fit of a seamless coat must be put in by the maker, and it takes a cutter and a maker who knows what he is about, and one who don’t care how long it takes to make one and what it costs; in fact, it must be a work done for pleasure—not for profit, except perhaps to gain knowledge, for “_Knowledge is Power_.” Now I will give a description of how such a coat may be made:

Select a good fitting sack coat pattern with three seams, and one which is not cut very close at the side of the waist, that is a sack cut pretty straight. The one I have on hand now is cut over Dia. VIII, and as size 36. The height of the back above line 9 over the front should not be over 13, but the top of the back should be placed at 2½, so that the portion over the blade is short and the top of back cut close to the point of the angle of 135 deg. If the top of back becomes too close to the neck, it can be cut down after the coat is tried on. On account of the short back, the armhole must be cut pretty low and well forward. The front must also be cut large and fitted to the body after the back has been regulated. After the pattern is thus cut, proceed as follows: Close the back and the front from the bottom to the hollow of the waist, lapping the seams; at the bottom of the armscye the front and back will lap over about 1¼ inch; fit the pattern to the back so that one seam is deducted from behind at the neck and at least two seams at the bottom, so that the hollow of waist shows as little surplus cloth as possible. Over the seat, the cloth may be stretched in width, thus obtaining some artificial spring over the seat. Cut the back, and the back of the armhole to within 1½ inch to the front of the armhole and not quite as deep as the pattern. In cutting the pattern the back shoulder seam must be cut pretty low at the armhole and should be at least as low as 8 for the reason that the lap of the pattern at the side seam will bring both back and front shoulder seam too close together and would have to be pieced, but if the back shoulder seam is thrown down, and the front up, both will come out right. Now the next thing to be observed is to make an artificial wedge of whatever the back and the forepart lap at the bottom of the armscye, running out to nothing at the waist. This must be done by stretching the bottom of the armhole in width, and which stretch must be extended down to the waist, but nothing must be stretched at the waist, for the waist is too wide already, owing to the hollow of the back, in the pattern which can not be imitated on the straight coat back. That stretch must start at the point of the shoulder blade say about 4 in. from the center of the back, and must continue to the front of armhole. The stretch will throw the front of armhole forward of whatever the stretch amounts to, and for this reason, the front of the armhole must be cut 1½ in. backward, of what it is intended to be. After that artificial wedge is stretched in, the back side seam may be marked and stitches drawn in, and the forepart fitted to it and the front of armhole may be cut complete.

That all of this can not be done without trying on ever so many times is self evident. Otherwise such a job must be made of material which stretches well, and must be made up thin and the lining put in plenty large, so it can give, and it would be best to make up without lining. Nothing can be accomplished by shrinking. Everything must be done by stretching. Plenty outlets should be left at the neck and shoulder seams and in front of the breast. Such a coat can not be fitted on the cutting board, but must be fitted on the body.

May be it is nonsense to write about a seamless coat, but I have seen so many absurd ideas advanced about cutting garments, that this may not be the worst. But a cutter who knows the true difference between coats with different seams, certainly knows more than if he is compelled to swallow anything the Fashion Reports please to dish out for us, in the shape of diagrams for new “Styles.”

NARROW AND BROAD BACKS.

In the position of Dia. I or IV, it makes little difference if a back is cut narrower or wider at the bottom of the armhole, because all parts lie near to their natural position, which they must assume when the garment is on the body. A narrower and a broader frock coat back, cut with the same gore and with the same height as in Dia. II is apt to change the fit and may spoil it entirely. Dia. I, II, III and IV show a different height of the back. In Dia. I the height of front is 9 and that of the back is 14⅜. In Dia. IV the height of back is 14 on line 9 in front. In Dia. II the height of back is 15, but at the junction of the back and the sidepiece the line is dislocated and turned up, 15 deg. along the back. In Dia. III the frock coat back is 14¼ above line 9, and the sack coat back is only 13½ above line 9, though both sack and frock coat backs are even, and the same, from top. The difference of distance, to the point, where both strike line 9 on the front is caused by the smaller frock coat back and the wider sack coat back at their junction, and that position must be well understood by a cutter, because most all diagrams sent out by Reporters of Fashions are laid out in position as Dia. II, or nearly so, not because it is a true position, but, because all parts can be cut without piecing.

Now, it must be admitted, that the position of the front, the back and the sidepiece of Dia. I are nearer in position to the body, at, and around the waist, than Dia. II or III, and though Dia. I is not in perfect harmony with the body, we must admit, that Dia. II and III are far more out of the way. It will be seen, that if the frock coat back of Dia. I were cut 1 in. wider at the junction with line 9 over the front, it would become ¼ shorter on top as soon as it was thrown in position of Dia. II, and the variation would be still greater, if it were done on a broad sack coat back. Observe that the frock coat back in Dia. III is higher on and above line 9, but when both are thrown down and in at the waist and parallel with the front base, both will assume the same height. As long as all the parts are cut in the same proportion, it matters little or nothing in what position we place them on the cutting board, but it matters a great deal whether they are in the right position when on the body.

The angle of 135 deg. is always the same, and from it the shoulder slope is 22½ deg., but, if we take the square of 17½ and make calculations from that base, the shoulder slope is 30 deg., but the parts are all the same. As long as the diagrams are laid out in a square of 20, as Dia. I and IV, the back may be made a trifle narrower or wider, and it will not endanger the fit of the garment, although it is always bad policy to change a diagram, and particularly a curved seam. A seam always represents something taken out, or something placed there, and a seam calculated for a certain point, and 1 in. one way or the other may make a decided change in the appearance, or in the fit.

The simplest garment is the vest as far as Merchant Tailoring goes; but simple as it is, there are seldom two cutters who produce it in the same way, and with the same result; and the same is true of coat and pants. This goes far to show that no true system of garment-cutting is in existence, or if it be, it is in the hands of cutters who do not know it as such, even by those who may use it—certain it is, that no such system is in print.

Now, I will consider the vest in its natural position, on a square of 20, although the gore under the arm will bring it out of that position again as soon as the seam is sewed up. Back and front being in their natural positions, or nearly so, we can cut the under arm seam further backward or forward without injury to the fit. But as soon as we make the width of the back considerably wider or smaller, we find that the height of the back above the arm-hole changes—when the back is thrown into an angle of 15 deg., or in a square of 17½. The smaller the back is cut, on the square of 20, the shorter it will become above the armscye, when thrown in a square of 17½, providing always that the turning of the back starts somewhere at line 9, which crosses line 11¼ under the armhole, at an angle of 15 deg.

When both frock and sack backs are thrown downward and in a square with line 9, or parallel to the front base, then it will be found that the backs are all of the same length. Further, I refer to Dia. III, and line 9 on the front base. Lines 9 and 11¼ cross each other in the center of a square of 20, and the crossing lines are at an angle of 15 deg., for the simple reason that their bases are 15 deg. apart. The width of an angle of 15 deg. is ¼ of its length. In the case of forming a diagram within a circle, and on a diameter of 20 units, as in this work, we find the half-diameter 10 units, or 10 in., or 10 numbers of the scale, just as we may please to term it. That angle of 15 deg. is 2½ in. wide at 10 in. length. It spreads ¼ of an inch in every inch of its length.

Now, in case of cutting a vest, the back and front are cut through in the center of the square of 20 on line 9, and if the back is swung into a square of 17½ and parallel to line 11¼, the height of back remains 14. But had the back been cut 1 in. wider, its height would be 14¼; and had it been 1 in. smaller, the height would be 13¾. Had the back been cut 3 in. smaller, as for a sack coat, its height would become 13¼, and had the back been cut 6 in. smaller, that is, 4 in. wide, then its height would become 12½ only.

This is a regular “Fig.-mill,” and has been bothering me for the last ten years, and strange as it may appear, I could never comprehend it myself, much less explain it to others, until now and during the years of 1888 and 1889. Here, then, is the result: If we have a good pattern we cannot change the width of the back while it remains in an angle of 15 deg., or in a square of 17½, without changing the height above the armscye. All patterns, or most all of them, are cut in, or pretty nearly in the position of the angle of 15 deg., or the square of 17½, for the reason that it is the most convenient way of cutting. A cutter must understand that; and, although it is convenient to the cutter, the parts of the garment are in an unnatural position at the waist, and he must be able to know how much they are at variance.

During the last ten years I have been pronounced as a “crank” when I claimed that I would yet show, that the height of the top of the back depended upon its width at the bottom of the armscye and not upon certain proof measures which are not proof at all. As to “crankism,” I can console myself with the host of “_cranks_” who have preceded me, and who are to-day revolutionizing the world with their so-called cranky ideas. If it were not for the “_cranks_,” the oxen would still be the principal “_threshers_” of the wheat to-day. Persons of small minds, and contracted ideas, who have never had an idea which they could sell for anything, or which anybody would accept for nothing, are the ones who are quick with reproaching another for being “cranks.” But the term “_crank_” has no reproach for me, because all the various machinery which is used throughout the world to-day is turned and kept in motion by some kind of a crank, no matter if it be turned by _hand_, or _foot_, or by _horse_ or _steam_ power, or by _electricity_. Without “_cranks_” the world’s machinery would soon rust, but as long as the boiler is not bursted, or the crank is not broken, just so long will we be kept flying, and by constant friction, we will be kept bright, and we shall be able to fulfill our destiny in this world, by doing our share toward making mankind, whatever the Supreme Architect has ordained it to be.

Garment fitting is not a positive rule. A garment is not made of sheet iron, where every sixteenth of an inch variation would give a great amount of friction. A garment that cannot stand one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch variation on almost any point is a misfit from the start. Again, the present style of men’s garments is loose—always has been and always will be. Even when tight pants were in fashion they were loose over the body itself. Who will be umpire in the case of fits? Who will prove that a certain pants leg must be just so wide in order to make a fit, or conform to style? Who will contend that the waist of a coat must have just so much space, and no more nor less, to make a fit? Almost any reasonably well fitting coat can stand a little alteration in the heighth of the neck one way or another without injuring it. A well balanced 36 coat will hang well on sizes 35 and 37. If that is the case (and very few will dispute it), then it proves that a well balanced coat may be an excellent fit even if it has more or less cloth surface in some places than it might have.

Dia. III is especially made to illustrate my idea about the width of the back part of different garments, at the bottom of the armscye. The vest, with its height of back at 14, might also be placed thereon, but it is not, because I thought too many lines would spoil the illustrations.

In practical garment cutting, a cutter is often compelled to cut some backs narrower or smaller on the same kind of a garment in order to save material, or in some cases, when a larger garment is to be cut down to a smaller size, where the points around the back of the armhole, or at the shoulders, cannot be made even with our patterns, then it comes handy for a cutter, if he be able, to place certain quantities on either back or front and take it off on the other. Whenever that has to be done, lay your garments, or the pattern, out in a square of 20 or its equivalent, and change the parts in that position, and the lengths of the backs will take care of themselves.