Fitting a Jacket or Frock

[Rob Bruno]

All,
I have had the opportunity recently to view several original Confederate frock coats and jackets.  One thing I have notice is that many of them have darts sewn in the neck line and in the body from the bottom of the jacket or from the skirt/body seam up.  I know these darts are sewn to adjust and fit the coat to the body of the person.  My question or search for advice concerns the process of assembling and then fitting the coat.  Did the tailors of the time take measurements, make patterns, cut and assemble the shell of the coat, do the fitting, make adjustments, and then sew in the lining?  I am looking for the process.  Many of the patterns and assembly I am using now has that you make the coat, make the lining, put right sides together, then sew around the outside, and turn it right side out.  However, most if not all of the tailored garments I have looked at have the lining panels whipstitched into the jacket or frock possibly one at a time.  I am wondering if the less refined, ie issued jackets, where sewn the way I am currently sewing, and the tailored, ie private purchase, are put together very differently with the lining panels put in after a fitting.  Any advice on the process or steps to the process would be great.  Although I have looked at only Conf. items, I would guess the process is the same for Federal and civilian fitting.  One more side question, would the darts on the coat say anything about the tailor's ability?  In other words, if a tailor got it right the 1st time, would they be considered better and would the person wearing the coat have a better coat?

[Carolann Schmitt]

My question or search for advice concerns the process of assembling and then fitting the coat.  Did the tailors of the time take measurements, make patterns, cut and assemble the shell of the coat, do the fitting, make adjustments, and then sew in the lining?

Based on my study of tailoring manuals and examination of original civilian garments, yes. 

Many of the patterns and assembly I am using now has that you make the coat, make the lining, put right sides together, then sew around the outside, and turn it right side out. 

That process is often referred to as "bagging the lining" in contemporary sewing books. Based on my research to date, it is an assembly process that was introduced into this country about or shortly after mid-century, and came into wider practice in the post-war era - especially in the last quarter of the century.  Some clothing history texts credit Jewish tailors in Eastern Europe for developing the process. They brought it to this country and introduced it to the tailors and manufacturers employed in the rapidly-growing ready-to-wear industry.  It does not appear to be used by the majority of individual tailors or tailoring firms until the decades after the war, even into the early 20th century. 

Some of the pattern companies have done extensive research on how period garments were constructed and include these details in their patterns.  Some of the other companies have used modern construction methods when writing their instructions. As you continue to examine original garments, it will become apparent which patterns incorporate period construction methods into their offerings.

However, most if not all of the tailored garments I have looked at have the lining panels whipstitched into the jacket or frock possibly one at a time.

That is the method I find on most original civilian clothing. You can find wonderfully detailed photos of the process in many of the posts by Jim Ruley.

I am wondering if the less refined, ie issued jackets, where sewn the way I am currently sewing, and the tailored, ie private purchase, are put together very differently with the lining panels put in after a fitting.  Any advice on the process or steps to the process would be great.  Although I have looked at only Conf. items, I would guess the process is the same for Federal and civilian fitting. 

The same basic construction methods are used for civilian garments of any type. The quality and skill of the sewing and tailoring varies, but the assembly process is the same.  Military uniforms, especially Confederate articles, is not my area of interest and my knowledge of their construction is rather basic. It is my understanding that most of the "issue" items were produced either by sewists at home or via a depot system that employed civilian sewists and tailors. I do know know if these individuals may have crossed paths with and/or learned the technique from an immigrant tailor that was familiar with the process. That doesn't seem to be a common occurance, which leads me to believe that bagging the lining into a coat would not be a common practice. It would be common to use the same construction processes that had been used in the past, which I believe would be a lining that is attached after the basic construction is completed. Again, my knowledge of this area is limited and I welcome any information or corrections others may have.

One more side question, would the darts on the coat say anything about the tailor's ability?  In other words, if a tailor got it right the 1st time, would they be considered better and would the person wearing the coat have a better coat?

A dart creates shaping, allowing a flat piece of fabric to curve. There are instances where shaping can be achieved using a combination of cutting, steaming and pressing. In other instances, a dart is mandatory to obtain a proper fit. Using a dart appropriately is usually a sign of the tailor's skill. Frequently it's the inexperienced sewist that does not know how and where to use them correctly.

Regards,
Carolann

[J-Waters]

I think all bespoke tailors (custom) do the Open Coat method and not the bagging method. Open coat method allows, much easier, the use of inlays for growing children and those adults who get wider or narrower, thus, giving the garment longer use for that person. Outlays are used for the fitting. Even darts are not cut until after the fitting, so the tailor can make the dart narrower if necessary, or move it.

Many have used Muslins or toiles for basic fittings, but not all of them. Muslins are a very good idea for the inexperienced cutter with plenty of outlays.

[Jim_Ruley]

Hi Rob,

I own a reprint of a 1901 "Tailor's Guide" written by P.N. Hasluck, who edited the tailoring journal "Work" in London.  Although it was written 35-40 years after the Civil War, the techniques presented are all classic hand tailoring methods.  The only garment which is "bagged" is the vest, and that is to attach the back and lining in one step.  Vest fronts, coat fronts and coat backs are all cut out, pocketed, canvassed, and lined before being put together (the lining edges are turned back to allow the wool seams to be sewn).  This is basically what J-Waters means by "open coat", I believe.

From a functional viewpoint, "bagging" the lining is a timesaving device.  The disadvantage is that the lining is only attached to the shell around the edges.  In extreme cases, people attach the sleeve linings to the body linings before bagging, so the lining isn't even anchored at the armscye.  This results in the lining sticking to the shirt when the coat is taken off, and pulling ungracefully at other times. 

Was "bagging" done at the time on cheaper garments?  We can't rule it out, since few to no "slop shop" clothes have survived.  If you choose to do it, I would at least sew the lining to the armscyes before adding the sleeves, and tack it at the neck seam to keep it from pulling.

One more side question, would the darts on the coat say anything about the tailor's ability?

I'm going to disagree with Carolann here (!)  For a woolen garment, the absence of darts may be testimony to a tailor's ability.

I base this on DeVere's and other period manuals which talk about "shrinking and fulling" in order to build a round shape into the wool.  Darts are needed for roundness on silks, linens and cottons, and for worsted wools which do not respond as well to the iron.  However, woolen broadcloth or flannel are easy to shrink and full, and you can build in quite a bit of curvature with proper use of the iron.  With all the different seams in a frock coat bodice, and a separately cut lapel to help round out the chest, there is no reason why darts are needed for a conventional body shape.

I would say a good sign of a tailor's sewing ability (as opposed to cutting) is darts that are pressed flat, all the way to the point, with the seam allowances pressed open, not just to one side.

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Nicole Hansard]

I would say a good sign of a tailor's sewing ability (as opposed to cutting) is darts that are pressed flat, all the way to the point, with the seam allowances pressed open, not just to one side.

I usually cut the dart open to within an inch or so of the top.   I am always afraid my stitches would eventually pull out if I clipped closed to the top of a dart because this leaves no seam allowance.  Are there any tips to keep this from happening?   

[Carolann Schmitt]

Hi, Jim -

Point taken on woolen garments, especially for conventional body shapes - and some unconventional ones.    I have noticed darts used more frequently on fabrics that are not as accommodating as wool, especially garments made from silk, velvet and some cotton fabrics. They also appear to be a fairly common solution for fitting issues on certain unconventional body shapes .

Carolann

[Rob Bruno]

To All,
Thanks for the helpful and detail responses.  As far as finding darts in the types of material, I have looked at uniforms, again Confederate, made of jean, satinette, and wool that have the darts.  So, I will let Jim and Carolann discuss that.   I was curious about the skill of the tailor because of the vanity of many of the officers.  Basically, would someone look at anothers coat and see the darts and if his does not have any think that his coat is better made.  I don't know if that makes any sense, but hopefully one might understand what I am asking.  I don't know as much about the culture as I should. 
To Jim's comment about the linings not being attached.  I have looked at two, only two, document Richmond depot jackets.  Both did not have the linings attached in the armceye or to the body.  There were subtle differences in construction, but the big one for this discussion was that one of the jackets had the facings attached and the lining was whipsticted to the facings and the bottom of the coat.  The panels of the lining appeared to be assemble as one then applied to the facings.  The other, had the all the panels and facings attached and what looked like "bagged" to the jacket.  I remember looking at this because that was one of the questions I had when I put together my first Richmond Depot jacket.  I am wondering if the seamstress or tailor that was working for the depot used this quicker method.  I believe they were paid by the number they completed, not by the hour it took to sew it.  Interesting enough, I looked at another documented Richmond Depot jacket that had its linning altered for warmth.  There is a letter that goes along with the coat that states the owner drew the jacket from the depot and had the lining altered in Richmond because it was very cold.  This coat had about 8 pieces, some small, some large, sewn together to make a heavier lining.  That lining was attached at the armceye.  A side note, whoever assemblied that did an amazing job with left over pieces of material to make something worthwhile.  On the opposite side, all of the officer coats so far had the technique that Jim has describe.  Some if not all the lining panels are applied and whipstitched down.  I am thinking that if someone was paying to have these coats made, they used the traditional and better methods of tailoring.  There has been a variety, but some similar technigues.  I guess I am still wondering if a tailor would assemble just the outside "shell" of the coat, then do a fitting with no lining, make any alterartions or darts, then sew in the lining when the fitting was correct?
Thanks,
Rob

[Ian McWherter]

I was curious about the skill of the tailor because of the vanity of many of the officers.  Basically, would someone look at another's coat and see the darts and if his does not have any think that his coat is better made.  I don't know if that makes any sense, but hopefully one might understand what I am asking.   

I guess I am still wondering if a tailor would assemble just the outside "shell" of the coat, then do a fitting with no lining, make any alterartions or darts, then sew in the lining when the fitting was correct?
Thanks,
Rob

Tailors use many darts in the assembly of a garment based on the customer's unique shape. There is only so much stretching and fulling that one can do and some fabrics are more forgiving than others, it is often the case that "darts", "fishes" or "puffs" have to be taken out, even with superfine wool garments, to achieve a good fit. Louis Devere recommends taking out two darts along the front edge of a frock coat for the fulling of the breast (practically every pattern drafting system shows these darts along the front edge), he also recommends taking out darts to full the skirt of a dress coat, for single breasted frocks a dart is needed under the collar to aid in the roll and for thin bodies he recommends taking out darts at the waist for better fit.

Professional tailors don't use cotton sloppers for fittings, they use the wool that your finished garment is made out of for your "mock-up". Why, they were so proficient in the art of drafting and cutting that they simply drafted the pattern straight onto the cloth and cut your garment. Military coats are close enough to civilian coats that I believe many tailors cut out the garments on practically the same lines as they would for a civilian coat. When the mock-up was assembled they then made the changes necessary to achieve a "military" look by taking out darts at the neck line for a tight military collar and darts were taken out often at the waist for that tight martial fit. When the fitting was complete and the customer was satisfied (as well as the tailor) all the remaining pieces, lining, padding, etc., would be cut out and the finished garment was then assembled. 

These details are born out in the study of actual surviving garments, like the ones you've excellently studied. These garments show how tailors in reality put their clothes together and are the best example of their skill. I have examined an original late 1840s early 1850s man's tailcoat that had darts sewn in the skirts to full it (this was a beautifully constructed garment by a tailor who knew his craft very well), Abraham Lincoln's frock coat that he wore to Ford's Theatre (Which can be seen in the "Assassination" edition of the Time Life series) has darts sewn into the waist, this frock coat from 1862 has darts sewn into the waist:



So darts were used very often in men's tailored wool garments to achieve a good fit and do show the skill of the men who employed their use.

[Ian McWherter]

After having ruled for nine years as Prince Regent, the Prince of Wales ascended the throne as George IV, in the year 1820. As a man, he was distinguished for his shapely figure, his polished manners, and fine taste in dress. His admirers used to call  him the first gentleman in Europe. No other English King has paid such attention,, or devoted so much time, to his personal adornment as George IV. He frequently spent several hours in consulting with his tailor and trying on his clothes, and devising improvements; some workmen were kept in attendance, so that the improvement which his majesty suggested one day might be tested on the next. to him is attributed the dictum, "that where you see a crease, there take out a fish."

This is an excerpt from The Art of Cutting and History of English Costume by Edward Giles

[Jim_Ruley]

Louis Devere recommends taking out two darts along the front edge of a frock coat for the fulling of the breast (practically every pattern drafting system shows these darts along the front edge), he also recommends taking out darts to full the skirt of a dress coat, for single breasted frocks a dart is needed under the collar to aid in the roll and for thin bodies he recommends taking out darts at the waist for better fit.

DeVere does indeed indicate darts at these positions, but from his text I interpret these as optional.  In particular, the waist dart is recommended only for thin men, "thin" in this case meaning greater than a six inch difference between the chest and waist measures.  That's not going to be an issue for most reenactors  .  Obviously many tailors preferred to use darts as Ian indicated.

Military coats are close enough to civilian coats that I believe many tailors cut out the garments on practically the same lines as they would for a civilian coat. When the mock-up was assembled they then made the changes necessary to achieve a "military" look by taking out darts at the neck line for a tight military collar and darts were taken out often at the waist for that tight martial fit.

However, not every original officer's coat has darts in either the neck or the waist.  It is also interesting that DeVere does not show these in his (British) uniform coat drafts in the book.

Professional tailors don't use cotton sloppers for fittings, they use the wool that your finished garment is made out of for your "mock-up". Why, they were so proficient in the art of drafting and cutting that they simply drafted the pattern straight onto the cloth and cut your garment.

Professional cutters (tailors just stitch things together  ), working in an established business with "house" styles, make the same kind of garments over and over.  They are so familiar with the pattern and style that they can look at a client and visualize the changes needed by "rock of eye".  They also generally leave inlays to allow for the eye being slippery  .  However, any tailor or cutter making an unfamiliar style for the first time who doesn't make a mockup is taking a big chance.

Basically, would someone look at anothers coat and see the darts and if his does not have any think that his coat is better made.

I don't think so, unless possibly he had some background in the clothing trade.  Sometimes in recreating the past we focus much more closely on details than the people we represent did.  I imagine an officer trying on his new coat would notice things in the following order:

- How well it fit; ideally following his body contours stylishly but without binding anywhere
- Quality of the cloth and workmanship
- Conformance to regulations, or his special requests for trimmings and features

He probably wouldn't pay any attention to construction details at all unless he had worked in the trade.

In contrast, when a reenactor inspects a coat, we are likely to hear about:

- Quality of buttonholes and number of stitches per inch
- Color and precise chemical composition of the material
- Conformance to a known or assumed original pattern or style

Fit is a distant fourth, or worse.  Many reenactors will accept an ill-fitting garment that is otherwise "authentic", or assume that because their "authentic" coat is uncomfortable that that must be "authentic" also.  This is understandable for enlisted military impressions, but the original civilians and officers were considerably more discerning.  It's ironic to think what the conversation would be like if one of "us" could travel back in time and walk into an original clothing store  .

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Ian McWherter]

However, not every original officer's coat has darts in either the neck or the waist.  It is also interesting that DeVere does not show these in his (British) uniform coat drafts in the book.

I think it was just a matter of discretion on the part of the tailor. British uniforms of the 1860s have an altogether different look than 1860s American uniforms, which were much more simple.

Professional cutters (tailors just stitch things together  ), working in an established business with "house" styles, make the same kind of garments over and over. 

Well, a "journeyman tailor" sewed clothing together, but couldn't draft and cut. A "cutter" simply drafted and cut but couldn't sew. A "master" tailor could sew, but didn't (that's why he's the master), and would personally draft and cut a customer's garment if he didn't employ any cutters. 

[Jim_Ruley]

British uniforms of the 1860s have an altogether different look than 1860s American uniforms, which were much more simple.

The "Undress Frock Coat" shown in the plate from the first edition (between pp 64 and 65), is a quite simple garment.  It could well be used as a prototype for an American double-breasted military frock, except for the Brandenburg cuff  .

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Jim_Ruley]

After having ruled for nine years as Prince Regent, the Prince of Wales ascended the throne as George IV, in the year 1820...to him is attributed the dictum, "that where you see a crease, there take out a fish."

In addition to being a sartorial micrmanager, "Prinny" does seem to have had some peculiar ideas about style.  I gathered the following anecdote from Norris and Curtis's Nineteenth Century Costume and Fashion:

Sir Morgan O'Doherty, Bart., once wrote that George IV might have had a great many good points about him -- concocting punch was one! -- "but as to dressing, he had the vilest taste.  I remember seeing him one day in a purple velvet waistcoat, with a running stripe of a gold tree, surmounted with gold monkeys upon it; and congratulating him on his exquisite taste in the selection of colors, he evidently felt very proud of my approbation, but when I recommended him a yellow coat with purple braiding, I think he smelt a rat -- he did not ask me to Carlton House for nearly a month afterwards." 

Norris and Curtis go on to say:

Like many earlier crowned heads of England this king had a mania for hoarding clothes, and at his death on the 26th June 1830 all the garments that had ever graced his august person during the course of fifty years were found in his wardrobes.  These were sold for 15,000 pounds.  They must have cost ten times as much!

Thanks,

Jim R.

[Ian McWherter]

Unlike Edward Giles I personally feel George IV was a buffoon (not just sartorially). I was simply using his quote as a example of the importance darts played in fitting men's coats.

[Dean McElroy]

...from what I've gathered reading about the different clothing trade work experiences of tailors such Thomas Mahon and Steven Hitchcock,it appears that one enters the trade at different stations along the way(some start as cutters helpers,some start and stay with "making"). It would appear to me that it would be a lot more work to interperet someones cutting style based on the cut fabric shapes from the many different cutters that those "making" have to deal with. For instance,it probably is easier to deal with the major houses of Savile row vs. the smaller or independent cutters out there..maybe that is why some tailors have their  own "maker".

Communication is probably an issue as well...do the cutters know how to communicate with their makers?..I know from my own apprenticeship in automotive that this is a big headache..what is on the workorder isn't necessarily what is..you could even put it in reenacting terms: Period Impressions could be a cutter as could Homespun patterns and you as the buyer of the pattern are tasked as the "maker" with turning out a wonderful garment..not easy if the instructions aren't complete or all the pieces aren't there..but with experience these guys have it is probably not a huge issue as they are a small,closeknit fraternity.

Now,can the cutter even cut? Looking at the different blogs and reading betweeen the lines a little I'm thinking as to who actually is superb or merely mediocre and never should have gone out on their own. One has to think of one of the reasons folks do this..the propaganda is that they are so good they are going to strike out on their own..some of the actual experiences(and mine) are that they are essentially incompetent and rather than getting fired or demoted they wind up in business for themselves...and then inflict their incompetence on an unsuspecting public..You've got one tailor's father who worked at Anderson&Shepard for 35 years and another who apprenticed their for most of the 90's and then is out on his own. I think what holds up Savile Row are the talented workmen who cut for the major houses and are there forever..and those who are known "makers" for those houses.

..but perhaps its too strong a term to label someone incompetent..let's say they have weaknesses. This is something that can destroy a business or a career more than fabric selection and other things in the tailoring or any business for that matter. Mistakes..you can't have your tailoring customers coming back for alterations 'cause the stuff doesn't fit. For,instance, in one of my previous hobbies(a card game played in casinos) you basically had to execute with only one mistake in twenty plays,because the games advantage statistcally was only around 1%. You make lots of playing errors you are playing for nothing. Well,how do check this? You train to play with no mistakes(consistantly) and if you could win one big bet an hour you could expect that you were not making any mistakes (or few). Mistakes and lost revenue and customer base go hand in hand...especially in tailoring....my tailor Mr. Suh..used to do clothing "off the bolt". He told me it wasn't worth it to him(fiscally or workwise)..bring him a jacket or suit that fits and he will work with it..he does alterations work on clothes that essentially fit from the start. In our area there are a few who "make" but are rare and I wouldn't trust them anyway(what are the odds that these guys are any good) better to go to Neiman Marcus and get an off the rack  Armani or Joseph Abboud than go to these bandits,IMO.
-DM

[Rob Bruno]

I don't think so, unless possibly he had some background in the clothing trade.  Sometimes in recreating the past we focus much more closely on details than the people we represent did.  I imagine an officer trying on his new coat would notice things in the following order:

- How well it fit; ideally following his body contours stylishly but without binding anywhere
- Quality of the cloth and workmanship
- Conformance to regulations, or his special requests for trimmings and features

He probably wouldn't pay any attention to construction details at all unless he had worked in the trade.

In contrast, when a reenactor inspects a coat, we are likely to hear about:

- Quality of buttonholes and number of stitches per inch
- Color and precise chemical composition of the material
- Conformance to a known or assumed original pattern or style

Fit is a distant fourth, or worse.  Many reenactors will accept an ill-fitting garment that is otherwise "authentic", or assume that because their "authentic" coat is uncomfortable that that must be "authentic" also.  This is understandable for enlisted military impressions, but the original civilians and officers were considerably more discerning.  It's ironic to think what the conversation would be like if one of "us" could travel back in time and walk into an original clothing store  .

You really hit the nail on the head Jim as far as what "reenactos" look at as far as an authentic garment.  I have to say I was one of them.  When I first start my attempt to be more "authentic", I was looking at button holes and topstitching.  If someone would have shown up with darts in the front of their jacket I would have thought someone did a terrible job sewing that coat.  Not I am learning more and realize how important the skills, assembly and fit of jacket or frock are.  Yes, it would be interesting to see or more important hear the conversation in a clothing store.  We settle for such inferior cloths today and I don't mean in the reenactment world.  Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread.
Rob

[Jim_Ruley]

In our area there are a few who "make" but are rare and I wouldn't trust them anyway(what are the odds that these guys are any good) better to go to Neiman Marcus and get an off the rack  Armani or Joseph Abboud than go to these bandits,IMO.

I can't vouch for the quality of any of these English "blogging tailors" because I haven't seen their work (and couldn't afford their prices).  However, the real value of their sites for our purposes is the insight they give into techniques.  Many of the methods they've chosen to illustrate are the same (or very similar) to the ones shown in the 1901 book by Hasluck, and it's not much of a stretch to envision them being used in the mid-1800s.

Here are some links that I hope will be of interest:

On drafting bespoke patterns:
http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000030.html

On bespoke fitting procedure:
http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000022.html

On differences between bespoke, made-to-measure and "off-the-peg":
http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000016.html

On choosing a particular tailor:
http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000005.html

On shaping side seams with the iron:
http://www.desmerrionbespoketailor.com/folders/weblog/20061223-1/

On basting lapels:
http://www.desmerrionbespoketailor.com/folders/weblog/20061005-1/

On shoulder fullness:
http://www.desmerrionbespoketailor.com/folders/weblog/20060930/

Others may find a lot more interesting material by poking around on these blogs.

Thanks,

Jim R.

[J-Waters]

Here is another. http://www.martinstall.com/ On the right there are two scroll bars (the second one shows up after awhile). He is not only a cutter but also a tailor. He writes, and pictures included, about pockets, bridles and some other tailoring lessons.

Another tailor, his name I believe is Ali, has/had a website showing some of his construction methods (from SR). Lost the website address. His website was posted on Englishcut- not sure what happened to it. Me thinks he is only a tiailor and not a cutter.