Chapter VIII: Preface (8)

Military and clergymen’s coats should be cut pretty straight in front and should have a large gore, say ¾ in., cut in the middle of the forepart, and starting high up; and the center of the front should not be drawn in with a stay, for this drawing in of the front edge will largely return and show small wrinkles at the edge, particularly on fine broadcloth. If all the surplus cloth is cut away and balanced by that gore, then nothing is to be drawn in, and a stay at the edge is simply put on to keep it from stretching, and to confine the canvas closely and permanently to the edge.

On single-breasted sack coats a small gore may be cut under the lapel, particularly for a longer roll. If a gore is cut for a short roll the collar must be quite straight in front, or else the lapel will pull too far downward. But for a short roll it is just as well to omit it altogether, or balance it otherwise as follows: After the forepart has been basted to the canvas, cut two or three gores in the canvas over and along the chest. Cut each gore about ½ inch wide, and about 3 in. across. Around these gores secure by good basting the position of coat and canvas; then draw the gores together, and shrink away the fullness of the outside, which may easily be done, then put the stay on even—by which means all surplus cloth, usually cut away as gores in the front of a frock coat, is used up and balanced in a sack. Drawing in the canvas without cutting it will never make a smooth job. But all this requires—that the coat be made by one who knows how to make it, and is willing to make it as it ought to be made. Otherwise it would be best to cut a sack without that gore.

On a double-breasted sack the gore under the lapel should be large and all surplus cloth taken away there, particularly so if the coat is to be buttoned up to the chin.

The diagrams show the position of the center of the back and front as well as any description can make it, but the reason why I have been describing it so closely is, that I desire to show the why and wherefore all seams are precisely so and so. Neither do I claim that they must all be just so, by the least fraction of an inch, but to show a general law which governs the whole. I must refer to still another important point. On a sack coat that is sewed up all around over the seat, or nearly so, the side seam and the seam in the center of the back may be both cut oval so as to give the form of the seat, particularly on a short sack. On a frock coat the back center is thrown out below the tack, and all roundness over the seat is produced by two curved lines on the side of the back and side of the front skirts, all of which is shown in the diagrams. The center of the back is open below the tack, and a curved line there would simply produce a curved edge, but would not give the oval form to the garment. If it is desired to roll the lapel further down, a gore should be cut somewhere in the forepart, and whatever the gore and its seams take up must be allowed in front, or else the coat will be too small there. This gore gives more roundness of breast and consequently a longer roll.

However, it should be borne in mind that a longer roll of lapel should never be made wider on top; but, on the contrary, smaller. A large or long roll must be produced by roundness of the parts created by gores from some direction, and not by the width of the lapel. For this purpose, I will refer to the overcoat in Dia. X. If that overcoat is cut for a short roll, the small gore will produce a good lapel; but if the roll is to be longer, the width of the lapel must be reduced, not by reducing the front edge, but by enlarging the gore under the lapel. If the lapel is not reduced in width, the long roll will fall over too far toward the armhole, and no coat looks well with an extremely broad lapel on top. The width of the lapel depends on fashion, but all lapels should be wide enough to admit the button-hole and leave a reasonable space in front and back of it. It looks bad to see the button-hole too close to the front edge, or almost touching the seam behind.

According to the present style, a lapel should be 2 in. wide at the bottom, 2½ in. in the middle, and from 2 to 2¼ on top; but there is no law against making it a trifle wider or smaller. But this work has nothing to do with fashion, and all fashionable points must be obtained from the regular reports of fashion.

Again, it will be noticed on the single-breasted coat, as shown in Dia. I, that the front of the forepart has a gore cut in its center at the waist seam but none above or under the lapel. There being no gore under the lapel to produce the oval form of the chest, the gore must be cut below, else the coat will swing off from the front of the body. The point of that gore must point to the center of the breast, and may run straight downward or may be turned somewhat backward. Whenever that gore is cut, the bottom of the forepart must be rounded on and along the bottom of the gore, or its sewing up will cause a kink at the waist seam.

The front edge of a vest must also be explained, although the different diagrams cannot fail to make the correct impression. In Dia. XIII, it will be noticed that in the front of the neck a small gore has been cut, which will bring the straight front line to the oval shape of the body. On a frock coat the larger gore toward the waist effects the same thing. On a vest the under arm cut is made where the gore in the frock coat is cut, and consequently the vest has that gore balanced in the side seam. A vest cut close up to the neck and without collar would not look well to have a gore cut in front of the neck, and so the deduction is made in front by starting the front-edge about 3¼ numbers from the point of 135 deg., and on the plumb line, and meeting the front line again at line 9. On a double-breasted vest, which is intended to button all the way up to the neck, and lap over to the other side, this gore must be cut, not where it is marked in Dia. XIII, but in a cut forming the lapel, and which cut should be as large as the gore shown in Dia. II. It is impossible to make a double-breasted garment of any kind without that large gore if it is intended to fit the form when buttoned over. It is true, very few vests of that kind are made; but that kind of a cut must be made in all double-breasted garments if a well-fitting front is to be obtained when buttoned up.

From line 9 to line 15 the front line is the front edge of a single-breasted vest, receding a trifle at the lower button. Very few vests are cut all the way up to the neck, and consequently the gore at the neck, as in Dia. XIII, is entirely cut away and of no account. Single-breasted vests that button up, say to about 2 in. above line 9, can be fitted without any gore; but the front edge should be worked so that it will not stretch out in making, particularly around the open neck. Low-cut vests, and without turn-down collars, must be fairly well drawn in at the open neck, or the long opening will gape more or less. Single-breasted as well as double-breasted vests with a low opening should have half an inch gore cut under the collar. The gap may be taken away by drawing the neck in with a thread or stay; but a gore is better—the maker should know just what to do with it. Stretching the collar will never do any good—it will give the collar a different shape, but will never bring a gaping front to the body.

In producing a double-breasted vest, 1 to 1½ in. may be added to the front edge, and the buttons set back that much from the place where they would be if the vest were single-breasted. To obtain the proper balance for the bottom of the double-breasted vest along the buttons, so that both sides meet, sweep from 3¾ at the plumb base line on Dia. IV through the bottom of the front part of the angle of 15 deg., or as far backward as the buttons will be located. This is a sure sweep. (See Dia. IV.)

Besides the gore under the collar, or the drawing in of the edge around the neck of a double-breasted vest, I have found in a majority of cases that it is well to lengthen the back, say ½ inch—which gives the front a better opportunity to settle in its place. It is ten times better to have the back of a vest a trifle too long than too short. The difference between a vest and a coat may well be observed from Dia. I, II and IV. It is useless to describe them, and I will conclude this article with the following remarks:

A coat must fit best behind and at the shoulders, for the front can be regulated by moving the buttons, and for this reason a center line in front is not important; but it is very handy to have one for a system, whenever you want a straight front.

A vest is intended to fit best in front, and for this reason the front is cut loose at the front of the waist. The vest is cut off a few inches below the waist, and a trifle loose cloth will not show; but if a coat were cut as loose there the skirt below would flare in all directions. To regulate the top button of a coat and vest, so that the coat will cover the vest when buttoned, place the top button-hole, say on line 9 for the coat, and ½ in. lower for the vest. The single-breasted coat has one inch more cloth there, and the button may be set back one inch on the coat, and on the vest as near as the button-holes when buttoned. The coat will cover the vest about one inch, and this may be used as a guide whenever the opening of the coat and vest are lowered.

To the center of the front also belongs the lapel, and a cutter should know just how much to use for that purpose, and with that object in view examine the front of a clergyman’s coat as shown in Dia. I. A coat of this kind is, of course, without turnover or lapel, but it must be loose, though not too wide; and if it is correct that the angle of 135 deg. makes the top of the front just large enough to sew it up with a seam, providing a large gore is cut below at the waist, then it follows that the buttons and front of the button-holes must be sewed one seam back of that line, and enough cloth left in front of the base as is required in front of the button-holes and in front of the buttons. If the edge is bound half an inch on the button-hole side and one inch on the button side it will answer very well; but if the edge is turned in one more seam must be allowed. The space in front of the button-holes should not be less than five-eighths inches and may be three-fourths, and the button side may have one-half an inch more for extra lap.

Now, I will refer to Dia. III and XII. Observe the circle which is drawn from 60 degs. on the right and through 135 degs., which circle gives as good a top to the lapel as anything that can be contrived, and the whole front produces an extreme cut-away. If the lapel is to be run further down, all we find necessary to do is to allow on the bottom of the lapel, say three-fourths inches, and shape the upper part according to notion. If we desire a long roll of the lapel, a gore should be cut under the lapel, and the gore and seam again allowed in front, so that the original width of the circle and on top of the lapels, is not destroyed. There is no question but that a larger lapel requires a trifle more width around the second or third button-hole, but how much must always depend upon the notions of the cutter; but in all cases the lapel of a single-breasted coat should be large enough to allow the second or third button-hole, or all, to be made without coming in the break of the roll, and a neat lapel need never be larger than for that purpose, no matter how low it is to roll. It is here where the touches of a fancy cutter can be seen, and a cutter has always a chance to become more proficient on that point. Even with the greatest care he may often obtain a lapel that does not suit him. But the cutter alone can not do all. The journeyman must have the taste and the ability to make it so that it will not only suit the cutter, but will also be admired by the public.

If the front of Dia. I was to be sewed together with a seam like the back, the front line of the angle of 135 degs. would have to be cut through, and that would fit down to between lines 15 and 17½, but below that point the front would have to be reduced 15 degs., and at the same time where the front requires reduction, the back requires an addition, all of which is shown in Dia. I.

There is one more important point to be considered in connection with the center of front and back, and this is the length. For particular forms, or for odd forms, it may be measured as follows: From the top of back measure straight down behind, and again, from the top of back measure forward, striking point 11¼ on the plumb base line, as near as you can, and from that point go straight down to a level bottom for both back and front. To obtain that level bottom by the scale, make both back and front even long from the point of the angle of 135 degs. for a frock coat, after all seams are sewed.

For a sack coat, make the front about ¾ shorter than the back, for the reason that the back of a sack coat is also ¾ shorter than that of a frock coat, and which is fully illustrated by the lap of the bottom of the sidepiece and top of skirt in Dia. III. This calculation holds good for the normal form, and for the long or for the short neck, but for the stooping and for the erect form it ought to be measured, especially in extreme cases.

THE WAIST SEAM AND BOTTOM.

It cannot be supposed that all seams of a coat will run according to the slope of the body when a pattern is laid on the flat table. The run of the seams, when covering the crooked form of a man, must always assume a different position when laid out on a flat surface, which is fully demonstrated in the back slope of pants. But a cutter should know how much they are out of gear from a certain line or base. If a cutter is able to cut a frock coat with a waist seam running horizontally around the body when the coat is on, then it will be easy for him to produce a square bottom, which is always in good style, and a coat that is too long or too short at one place is always a misfit. On the contrary, a horizontal waist seam is not in good taste. A stylish waist seam is on a gentle curve upward at the side when the coat is upon the body.

Taking the side as a guide, the back may be ½ in. lower, and the front may be 1 in. lower. But the position of the human form is so different in different individuals that we can seldom find two men recording the same position of the waist seam when having the same coat on. This being the case, a cutter should come as near to it as possible. The true position of the bottom of a coat, or of the run of the waist seam, can best be found by measuring with a straight-edge from the level floor upward. The position of that seam, as shown in Dia. II, may be considered as a fashionable run, but there is no law to prevent us from curving it more or less.

As shown in Dia. III, it will be noticed that ¾ length of the back is absorbed by the lap of the top of the skirt, and bottom of side piece, and consequently the front must also be shortened that amount, at the bottom from the side forward, in order to make it square. On the sack coat the back and side piece are in the same position, and consequently the bottom is square. The shaving off of the front of the skirt for cutaways has nothing to do with the foregoing calculation.

So far I have paid attention mostly to straight fronts, because they must be cut just right, for a straight front coat will be spoiled if the bottom of the skirt laps over too much or hangs apart. In cutaway coats no such trouble exists, but it is necessary to observe the following difference between a cutaway and a straight front. A straight front is usually a longer coat than a cutaway. A longer coat is required to have a fuller skirt toward the bottom, so that, in walking, the legs can have play enough and yet not strike the coat with every step; and the longer the coat the more space is required. A cutaway coat is always a short coat, but a short coat may also have a straight front.

Now, a short coat should have its skirt so arranged that it will close in well to the body and not flare in all directions; and for this purpose I refer to Dia. III, which front is the proper shape for a regular cutaway, as well as for a dress coat. Below the gore, in the center of the forepart, the upper seam just laps over the skirt enough to straighten the seam when the gore is sewed up. The gore itself would naturally run straight downward, but it is turned at the waist seam and run forward into the skirt seam, which will take away all surplus flare at the side of the skirt. The connection of the top of the skirt and side piece is the same for all coats. All must hang the same (straight down at the back), and all changes between the full skirt and cutaway are made from the under arm cut, forward.

A very good way to change the full skirt of Dia. II to that of a cutaway is as follows: Cut the skirt pattern like Dia. II, then from the under arm cut downward, fold up the pattern, say 1¼ in. at line 30. The side piece and skirt remain stationary. The fold is brought from the top of the front, and the top of the front of the skirt is changed to the shape of Dia. III. All frock coats should fall straight downward from the seat, whether long or short, and for this purpose I have made the backs the same on both cutaways and straight fronts, both leaving perfect connection between the bottom of the side piece and the top of the back skirt, except Dia. III, which is produced for a different purpose.

All changes in the spring toward the bottom of a coat must be made by reducing the lap between the forepart and the skirt from the side seam forward. Dia. II may be considered to have enough spring for a full flowing skirt of the present style, while the cutaway may be made even at the front, but so that the top of the skirt and the bottom of the forepart run on a gentle curve, after the gore in the forepart is sewed up. That part of the waist seam of a cutaway should be cut like Dia. III, that is, a lap of about ⅜ at the gore upward, and even again in front. Dia. III is made with a gore in the front of the waist seam, but that gore is calculated for a dress coat skirt, which requires the skirt to close in pretty well when the coat is on, and is good for all extreme cutaways. In the production of a dress coat it will again be found handy to have the coat and vest on the same base, because it looks horrid to see such a coat front shorter than the vest.

The back, and the fold between the back and the front skirt, and all over and below the side piece, must be the same on all coats, that is, all must hang straight down. But after all, the back skirt of a cutaway may be cut closer than the skirt in Dia. II, for the reason that a short cutaway cut scant at the bottom of the back skirt will not go apart as easily as it would do if cut, say 10 in. longer.

Dia. II gives a good representation of the run of the bottom, and the lap at the waist seam shows 1 number extra length for the curve of the chest. The skirt of any double-breasted frock coat should be cut so that when done and the front laps over, both the waist seam and the bottom meet.

Now, providing the lengths are all well calculated, it becomes simple to make these points meet, and it is done as follows: In front of the plumb base line make the skirt even length and shape in all respects like Dia. II. From the under arm cut forward, sink the forepart waist seam 1½ at the plumb base line and the same at the front edge. At the bottom drop the front of the skirt about ⅜ to ½. The bottom of the back is ¼ longer at the side than it is behind, or at right angles with the center line of the center of the back. At line 30 the center of the back is thrown out 1 number and that much is again reduced at the side of the back, as a gore. Throwing outside 1 in. and cutting 1 in. away at the side produces the oval shape over the seat. If the center of the back was placed at the base and the sides made even from line 25 down, then the whole back part would appear flat.

The under arm cuts in Dias. II and IV, are based upon the difference of the diameter of the body from side to side, close under the arm and at the hollow of the waist. The diameter of the normal male form may be considered to measure one inch less at the waist than at the chest, both backward and forward and sidewise, and the circumference of such a body may be computed as being one-ninth less waist than the breast on the whole measure, as 36 breast and 32 waist.

Now, it should be observed that Dia. II and Dia. IV are laid out in different squares, and that if Dia. IV were laid out in the same square as is Dia. II, the gore under the arm would be 3¼ at the waist, as it is on Dia. XII. When I say above, that all coats and vests have the under arm cut calculated according to the difference of the diameter of the waist from side to side, I mean a coat laid out as shown in Dias. II and XII, and a vest as laid out as shown in Dias. IV and XI. Each requires about one inch reduction at the waist and at the under arm cut. The coat is simply that much larger over the hips, as the swing of the side piece from a square of 20 to a square of 17½ amounts to.

The square of 18, for either a three-seamed sack, or a frock coat, may be reduced at the waist as shown in Dia. II, and if the diameter of the waist indicates that more space is required at the side, it should be allowed according to that indication. Some men are quite well filled out in the sides of the body and flat in front, while others require more waist proportion in front. The waist proportion on a frock coat cannot be made according to the close measure taken over the vest, but must be made according to the measure over a well-fitting coat when buttoned up, and to be taken as large and as loose, yet as snug, as the coat really requires it to be. Some may call this an actual measure, and some may contend that this measure cannot be taken correctly, but, be that as it may, nevertheless it is a measure, which gives an indication of what is wanted, and also a truer indication than a measure taken tightly over the waist. By the waist measure, I mean the measure at the hollow of the waist and not the waist seam of a frock coat. The hollow of the waist is a permanent point on every human body, but the waist seam changes according to style or notion; and the width of that seam should come pretty near to the actual measure taken over the coat when buttoned up.

In order to observe the difference of the location of waist proportion, let us consider Dia. I, which is laid out in the same position as a vest, although the square is ½ larger. Here we find a reduction of ¾ at the hollow of the back, or between the sidepiece and back; and on line 20 we find a spring of ¾ at the waist seam between the front and sidepiece.

The normal form requires a reduction of 1 in. at the under arm cut, on a vest, and about ½ in front, which ½ is again thrown out behind as a spring over the seat; and which is not waist reduction or waist addition, but must be considered as something to conform with the turn of the body from the pit of the stomach downward and from the hollow of the waist in the back downward. This cut under the arm on a square of 20 is a natural gore for a vest, while for a coat the same spot requires a spring, which is also a natural one for a coat, and both are in their place because the nature of the garment requires it, not the body itself. There are men with quite small and tapering waists, and for such the underarm cut must be made larger, while others with very full waists spread sidewise and require the under arm cut smaller—or no cut at all but a spring.

Now, in making our calculation for the waist proportion according to diameter of the body, the following must be observed: If the full diameter of the waist, from side to side, is 1 in. less than that of the chest from side to side and under the arm, it will throw ½ inch taper on each side; but the diameter covers the double body, and the double garment, or one front and one back on each side, consequently each half back and each half front requires a taper, or a reduction of ½ inch, and for this reason the vest, as a garment cut close to the body, has a reduction of 1 in. under the arm, and which 1 in. is to be taken away on the forepart as being the best shape.

On a vest, I find that all waist allowances may be divided between the side and front with very satisfactory results, but extremes should have a trifle more in front than at the side. On a coat, the most of waist allowances should be at the side, because surplus cloth at the front of a coat will produce too much skirt below, while on a vest it will not show, because the vest is cut off or ends a few inches below the waist.

The cut between the sidepiece and back of a frock coat should never be changed for waist proportion. This cut is not made or calculated according to waist proportion, but is made for convenient cutting. However, this must be observed: Short men require the waist higher up than the scale produces, and in consequence the hollow, or the turn of the sidepiece, should be where the hollow of the waist actually is, and not at line 17½, as shown in Dia. II. Therefore just the contrary must be observed on tall and slender persons. I find that the difference of the length of the waist between short and tall persons is about this: If the style allows the waist seam to be located at line 20 for the normal form, then a short person may have that seam at 19 and a tall one at 21, while the hollow of the waist is 2½ higher, all of which can be measured on each customer.

LARGE WAISTS AND THE NORMAL FORM.

This article includes all sizes, from the smallest child to the largest man, and is to be applied on all forms whose whole waist measure is more than one-ninth part less than breast. When a child is born its waist is larger than its breast. The normal growth of the waist is a constant reduction of its relative proportion to the breast, until we may find, at the age of 20, a waist of about four inches less than breast. After that age the waist has a tendency to become larger again, more or less, until we again find some individuals with the same waist proportion as when they were born.

Now, is not a child with its waist larger than its breast, of normal proportion? Is not a man who measures 48 breast and 50 waist, of normal proportion? The present conception of a normal form, as being four inches less waist than breast, is wrong. This proportion is found in the medium sizes, as 36 breast and 32 waist but it can be called a normal form for that size only. We may find 44 breast and 40 waist, but they are exceptions, though I have found one 43 breast and 37 waist. The child of 24 breast and 20 waist is not to be found; consequently the normality of the proportion of four inches less waist than breast is a myth as far as cutting garments is concerned, and cutters must make calculations for each individual customer; or, as in cutting for ready made clothing, the different sizes must be classified according to their normal conditions.

But taking 36 breast and 32 waist as normal for that size, we find also that it means a waist which is one-ninth part less than the breast, and if we make a diagram to fit that size and enlarge it to size 54, it will fit a waist one-ninth less than that breast, or a waist of 48; but such forms are not in existence as far as I know. If we diminish it to breast size 27, it will fit a waist of 24, which may come pretty near to a great many boys of that size; but the great majority of that size have fuller waists, and the younger the child is the larger its waist proportion will be found to be.

But before we proceed further, remember that in trying to fit coats in the back according to the waist proportion, more garments are spoiled than made better; for, in the first place, the smallness of the back part of a coat does not depend on waist proportion at all, as shown elsewhere. The hollow of the waist behind is not to be fitted at all, but passed over; and its proportion is of no account until it is almost as large as the breast. Breast 40 and waist 37 requires no addition to the waist.

Breast 42 and waist 45 (with seat 45) I find I can fit very well by omitting the gore under the arm, and in place of the gore lapping the side piece and front ¾ in. at the waist seam, and adding 1¼ in front, which will allow 3 in. extra width for a waist that is 6 in. out of proportion on the whole. And it is further accounted for as follows: The 1 in. omitted gore and the ¾ lap makes 1¾, and the 1¼ in front make 3 in. in all, or only one-half of the actual measure, which may appear as too small, but we must consider that the hollow of the waist for the normal form is not to be fitted but passed over, and a larger waist will fill it out better, that is all. To obtain a correct waist proportion on a coat is quite a trick, and cannot be learned from the books; and a cutter must consider each customer well. A correct waist measure may be taken over a well fitting coat when buttoned up, and the coat made precisely like that measure—all seams and lap for buttons and button holes to be taken into consideration.

One thing should be observed: The front angle of 15 deg. is 5 numbers wide at line 20, where the waist seam is located. But on a large form the waist is higher up, say at line 18, and the width of the front angle (as 5 at 20) must be re-established at, say 18; that is, we must go outside of the front line of 15 deg. The same thing ought to be done at the side, and the lap of ¾ made at the waist seam and not at line 20. Line 17½ is established for the hollow of the waist, and line 15 as the turning point of the body in front. Line 20 as indicated is for the top of the hips, and the waist seam for a frock coat regardless of style or fashion.

But on corpulent men, these lines stand too far down, and on slim persons they are too far up; consequently, these lengths must be measured, and as the waist seam runs at right angles with the back, as on a square of 17½, and as a point for line 20, take the outside of the elbow, and for line 17½ take the inside of the elbow. The elbows are a sure guide, for they always fit into the hollow of the waist, and no man can strike both of his hip bones with both of his elbows at the same time. As a general rule, I claim that the angle of 135 deg. will cover every form of large waists, providing the sides and the shoulders fit. Every cutter can try this by cutting the double angle of 135 deg., neck and all, and put it on as a cape by closing it in front. To imitate the large waist simply lift the front edge forward—and notice the result. Or it may also be tried on a corpulent form, when it will be found that the angle of 135 deg. will cover it. A piece of pattern paper will do for that purpose, or even a piece of muslin. But coats are not made from sheet iron, and if otherwise well balanced can stand a great deal of abuse at some places. Therefore, no cutter will fail if he divides the extra waist proportion intended to be allowed into three equal parts and place two parts at the side and one part in front, starting all at the armscye lines.

On coats all allowances should be scant in front, because plenty allowance there would throw too much skirt in front. A vest is cut off a few inches below the turn of the body a trifle more will not show, and may be balanced again by cutting a gore in the middle of the forepart below the pockets, particularly if the abdomen turns very abruptly. A vest is better ½ in. too large in the front of the waist than that much too small.

On a frock coat, extra waist proportion can be given by dividing it all over the front and side of the forepart; but on a three-seamed sack the side seam is too far behind to be of much help. And it is best to enlarge the square of 18 numbers to the amount of waist proportion required, and reduce it again by a cut under the arm upward, as a five-seamed, for both under and overcoats.

Breast 48 and waist 50 can be fitted by enlarging the square from 1 to 1¼ in.—1 in. often yields excellent results. But by enlarging the square for any purpose, we ought to consider this: If we enlarge the square 1 in., point 13½, as on a sack, and on line 9 in front will sink down ¼ of the 1 in., which will make the back that much shorter on line 11¼. This is very little, but it ought to be known to the cutter that a short back is always better for a large waisted form than a long back. (See Dia. X.) Bear in mind that an under coat for a large waisted form is about the same thing as an overcoat that fits the normal form.

There is always a class of men found who complain that they seldom have a coat large enough in the armholes, unless the coat is too large all over. Such persons are usually well filled up at the side of waist and hips, and require their coats large there, and if this is not done, the sewed up back cannot give, and consequently the coat must give in front, and the whole of it is drawn backward, taking the armhole with it, and striking the front of the arm, while the back of the armhole shows too much cloth. A coat which swings loose at the back and around the side of the waist will never cut the front of the arm; it may be small all around the armhole, but it will only feel close and will not saw on one spot only.

STOOPING FORMS.

(SEE DIA. IX.)

Stooping forms have so many variations that it is impossible to describe them all. The term “stooping” is generally applied to persons with prominent shoulder blades. We find them combined with long and short necks, large and small waists, hollow or flat in the back and front of the waist, and arms thrown backward or forward. All of these conditions must be observed and separately calculated, and a cutter will be kept constantly busy and on the watch. It is only where a cutter is thoroughly acquainted with the workings of this system of bases that he will be able to fit all forms as near as he is expected to do. All kinds of measures have been devised, and all sorts of imaginary bases have been adopted to fit the forms of a man; but where one cutter succeeds with a certain appliance, others utterly fail. The fact is, even if all measures should give the correct amount, the body itself could not be fitted except on a few specified points, and all defects should be covered up in place of imitating them. To fit the stooping form in all its details would result in a misfit from the start, particularly when the back of the waist is very hollow.

If we take a coat that fits a normal form, and put it on a stooping form of the same size, and button it under the chin, the neck will fit, but will stick out behind at the waist and spread apart in front. A reasonable way of altering it is to reduce the back seam of the side piece from the blade down, which will produce more curve over the blade and give more length to the back; and what is taken off behind at the waist is allowed in front. It is generally taken for granted that a stooping form requires his armholes more forward, but this is not always the case, for some of them throw their arms backward; and we find the contrary in a great many erect forms, who throw their arms forward—all of which the cutter must observe.

Now, suppose we permit the coat to be loose under the chin, and button one or two lower buttons. In this case we shall find that the coat will fit in the back of the waist, but at the neck it will be too loose and will gape all around the front. If we gather the wrinkles together in front we can make the breast fit the form, although the top of the back may be too short. So we can make our alteration on the spot again, always providing, however, that we are altering the pattern only, by starting at the front sleeve nick and laying a fold forward to the amount of whatever the fullness of the coat may indicate. This again will alter the pattern from that direction. It makes the front shorter in place of making the back longer. This last is the most reasonable way to alter a coat for the stooping form, for it must be remembered that in both erect and stooping forms the change proceeds from front to back, and at the waist.

The backbone is solid, although it bends, but it never becomes longer or shorter on the same form. If the body throws itself forward into a stooping position, the back bends and the front contracts at the pit of the stomach. If the body throws itself upward in a more erect position, the back bends the other way and the front expands at the pit of the stomach. The front only expands or contracts at the pit of the stomach. The backbone must be considered a hinge on which the whole body swings, just like a door on its hinges; and all alteration may be made from that point, either by stretching some parts or by folding up the pattern before the garment is cut.

If a stooping form throws his arms forward, then the armholes must be further forward of the front sleeve base. But in that case the front sleeve base must be just as much advanced. And again: Whatever the front of the armhole has been advanced must be added to the back of the armhole, for a stooping form has no larger arm than an erect form. The armhole must be moved forward, but made no larger.

This constant backward and forward movement of the neck, waist, and shoulders is one of the greatest studies any cutter will be obliged to go through, as it is, in fact, the only variation to be found in the normal form which cannot be measured, but must be taken by the trained eye of the cutter, and his practical knowledge of how to alter. Actual measurement, by whatever measure or name it may be called, is a delusion, for all so-called long or short measures around the shoulders, neck and arms must be taken close over a body which we do not intend to fit as snugly as the measure itself. As a rule, said measures are seldom applied, or transferred to a flat pattern on the same line as they have been taken over the form itself.

For illustration, we will examine the so-called upper shoulder measure, from the top of the center of the back to around under the arm and back again to the place of beginning. Said measure is always to be taken close, because any slack would again cause great variation in the hands of different cutters. By taking it close the tape will not strike the body of the coat under the arm at all, because the armhole is lower than the body itself, but the tape pulls the sleeve up and passes above the armhole. If cutters will go to the trouble and make a line on their patterns over which they transfer that measure, and then draw stitches in, they will find that when the coat is on the body they cannot even follow said stitches with the tape line, unless it is fastened every _few inches_. If that be the case, _what good is the measure_? If that measure is to do a cutter any good he must be able to follow a certain trail on the pattern, as he does on the coat when on the body, but that cannot be done. There is no one so blind as he who does not want to see.

If the pit of the stomach contracts or expands, that is no proof that the shoulder and arms also draw out of their normal position. If the breast measure be taken correctly, as directed in this work, passing over the point of the shoulder blades, then the round shoulders of a stooping form, and the flat ones of an erect form are included within the measure. Consequently nothing can be added to the blade for a round back nor taken away for a flat back—the change must be above or below, notwithstanding the appearance of Dia. II B. The round back requires his armhole more forward, and what is taken out in front of the armhole is again allowed on the back, making the back broader. If the back of the armhole is not supplied with what is taken out in front, the under and back sleeve will drag and pull backward. Because the stooping form may throw his arm forward, is no indication that his arms becomes larger, but it demonstrates that his armhole must be located more forward.

But again: Because a man is stooping is no indication that his back must be round. A man may throw his neck downward in front, but may also throw his arms backward, and stand very erect in the waist. Such a form requires his neck hole downward in front but does not require his armhole forward. The front and back of the armhole may be located as for the normal form, or even for the erect form.

Further: Because a man is classed among the erect forms is no proof that his back must be flat. We find plenty of so-called erect forms who throw their arms forward, and their backs become very straight in length.

The terms _normal_, _stooping_ and _erect_ are very indefinite, and I do not believe that any man is, or ever will be able to describe a stooping form alone in all its variations and combinations. All that can be done is to point out certain forms; and the cutter who starts out on his cutting tour through life must always be on his guard, and study his customers, and imprint their forms upon his own brain.

Now, as the breast measure contains the full size of a round as well as a flat shoulder blade, we must come to the following conclusion: That the stooping form requires simply more length in the back, or less length over the front, and years of experience teaches me that ½ to ¾ extra length over the blade is enough for the extreme stooping form, but such a form requires its length in the center of the back, or from the blade upward; and whatever the back is made longer on top must be shortened at the front, as is shown in Dia. IX, which illustrates the long as well as the short neck, and also the stooping form.

But there is no law to prevent a cutter from adopting a middle way, by leaving the forepart as it is and to make the whole back, say ½ longer and reducing that length again somewhere at the armhole, because a back that becomes longer behind requires no extra length at the side. This alteration is even to altering the back as for a long neck, leaving the front as it is for the normal form. If a coat fit at the neck but swings off at the waist, reduce the back of the side piece, say ¼ in., at the waist and stretch it downward to make it again long enough—all of which is required to lengthen the back ½ in. But if the stooping form should require his armhole further forward, ¼ is enough for the extreme. Point 8 remains the center for the back sleeve, all extra length being allowed on top.

In the conclusion of this article, I will say that I have given different views as to the making of alterations, because while cutting we can alter as we please; but if a garment must be altered after it is made, it must be altered as best we can, and if a garment is worth altering at all it is worth altering right. I will here again point to the fact that coats for stooping forms usually have a tendency to swing off at the back of the waist, and such garments can most always be brought to the body by giving the center of the back and the back seam of the side piece a good stretching under the smoothing iron from a point over the shoulder blade downward.

All alterations between the stooping and the erect forms can be better comprehended if we consider a well-fitting coat on a normal form as follows: Consider the coat cut through from each side to each back, and to each front, and consider the sides as on hinges, and then consider what the result would be if the form imitates the so-called erect or stooping positions. In that case the cuts across the hollow of the waist would open in front or back, as the case may be, and contract at the opposite. The result of the backward and forward moving of the body must be imitated by contracting or folding the pattern, just as a coat will full up in the back when the body becomes erect. Under the head of stooping forms also belongs the so-called “hunchback,” and to fit such forms will always be a hard job.

To fit them is not the right term in my opinion. They do not want to be fitted, for to fit them would just show their deformity, which should be hidden by his coat, at least in the back of the waist. Such forms are often very erect ones, and most of them throw their arms and shoulders up, making them extra square, and may be at right angles with the side of the neck. If the armhole is left, as for the normal form, as it should be, then the angle of 135 deg. must have a gore cut at the neck, and in the shoulder seam, of at least 1 in., and the top of the back placed say 1 in. lower, and the front of the neck 1 in. lower, while the side of the neck may be widened ½ in. only. This will not disturb the armhole and sleeve. The top of back and the top of front must be shortened, because there is no slope of the neck; the cloth runs straight over, and for this reason the side of the neck is to be cut out more, while there is no change whatever at the armhole.