Bodice Backs - The Single piece Y vs. the 3-piece Back

[BarbaraSmith]

My Dears, when making a single-piece "Y" back on a dress bodice, from a commercial pattern that calls for three pieces, can you just tape those three pieces together and treat them like one?

Also, when you go to make the "Y", is that just a tiny little tuck, topstitched, or is it corded?

Is there any trick to making that tuck, or do you just DO IT? 

Many thanks!
Barbara

[Elizabeth]

Yes, you can usually just overlap the 3pc back to make a 1 pc back... you'll know this immediately, if you can stack the seams and they match right up with no fiddling needed--it's an indication that the seams are decorative only, and don't have any fitting or dart control built in.

The method I like best (seen on original dresses) is this one:

Baste a line of stitches through the lining and bodice fabric, right where you want your finished tuck to go.

Use your fingers, slipped between lining and bodice from the side, and "push" a teensy bit of fabric (less than 1/4") up over that row of basting stitches.  This will be a bias-grain curve, so it should go over without any pinches or puckers.  Press that little tuck in place.

Topstitch by hand very close to the folded tuck edge.

I've not noted a corded tuck in that back edge as a predominant feature of mid-century sewing.  It's not needed for strength or emphasis.

[BarbaraSmith]

Thank you so much! I've recently seen a reference stating no cording, but I wanted to check it against your excellent brain, as well! 

Sounds totally do-able. Okay, I'm off to 'speriment. 

Cheers,
B.

[Joanna Jones]

I've seen a lot of references to a tucked, one-piece back being more common (?more accurate?) than a true 3-piece pack.  I have a slight posture issue ( I'm working on it, Auntie Maude!) that results in a dip in at my waist, and I find that only a true 3-piece back can fit into that curve.  Am I period correct or not? (With apologies to Elizabeth Walpole)

[Carolann Schmitt]

Hi, Joanna -

"More common" does not necessarily mean "more accurate".

A tucked one-piece back does seem to be more common in original dresses, but it's not a huge margin over a true 3-piece back. A true 3-piece back is very accurate. There are times when a true 3-piece back is necessary in order to get the best fit, just as there are times when a true 3-piece back offers the best use of the fabric.

I once examined an original dress with a seam down the center of the center back section. The wearer may have had a very curved back, or the dress may have been recycled from a back opening bodice (but that still doesn't explain the curved center back seam). And then there are all the variations on the lining: tucked back over a flat lining, tucked back over a 3-piece lining; 3-piece back over a flat lining, 3-piece back over a 3-piece lining, linings with a seam down the center back, etc. etc. 

Regards,
Carolann

[bevinmacrae]

After struggling to match up prints and plaids using true 3 piece backs, I was much relieved to find out about how to make that little tuck in a one peice back! I have found this much easier! Those ladies back then really knew what they were doing! But I still use the 3 peice back on coats and basque-type bodices. Plus, I think all the gentlemen's coats have 3 peice backs in them, right? So I didn't totally escape!
I also use a pattern that was for a 3 peice back. For cutting out the piece, I pin the back and side back next to each other with the center back on the fold. Later, when I go to make the stitching for the tucked curve, I use the side back pattern peice to mark a perfect curve on both sides. If I had a one-piece pattern, I would find this difficult.
The technique is deffinately a lifesaver!
~bevin

[Carolann Schmitt]

A 3-pc back is necessary whenever a portion of the bodice extends below the waistline, including basque bodices, some women's outergarments and some men's coats, e.g. frock coats, dress coats, but not sack coats; and whenever the seam is needed for fitting.   

Good tip on cutting out, Bevin. When I cut mine, I just use my 1-pc lining pattern and add width to the fabric on the lower half of the armscyes and the side seams. Either way works! 

One caution about commercial patterns with a 3-pc back:
On original garments, the width of the center back section at the waistline is very narrow - averaging 1.5"-2", with some as narrow as 0.5" and some as wide as 3". If you happen to wear a small size, then the width of this pattern piece may be close to the originals. However, many of these patterns were graded up for larger sizes by adding width to this center back section. The result is a size 18 or 20 bodice with a center back section that is 8" wide. Whether you're making a 1-pc or a 3-pc back, you'll likely need to modify to correct this error.

Regards,
Carolann

 

[Anna Worden Bauersmith]

What is the rationalization on the resizing giving such misproportions? I just redid a bodice that at first glance I thought was a 2 piece back before found the back curve seam waaaayyyyy over. With the bodice closed, the space between the curves at the lower back was about 12 inches. I took out 7 inches on the back when redoing it, making the space 5 inches wide. Not great but better. Is this just a modern method of sizing that doesn't translate on period patterns or is it completely a flaw is resizing?

Anna

[Carolann Schmitt]

It's a modern technique applied to a period pattern, without realizing what it will do to the lines of the dress or what was done during the period.

Modern grading techniques involve a combination of slashing and spreading plus adding to the seam lines. I suspect that technique was used when the pattern was graded, except that's not how it was done during the period.

The narrow width of the center back section is a trompe l'oeil (fool the eye) effect. The curved lines of the seams or tucks draw the eye in and down; when it reaches that narrow section at the waist it makes the waistline look smaller. Add in side seams that are 'pushed' toward the back and the effect is magnified. If the pattern was drafted from an original garment with a small waistline, it may have seemed logical to assume that a bodice with a larger waistline would have a wider center back section. But when you compare original bodices with varying waistlines - from 22" to 36" - that center back section is always in the same average width of 1.5" - 2.5", and the extra width is added at the side seams.

I think this error occurred on one of the first commercial patterns, and several other pattern makers just assumed it was correct. 

Carolann

[Anna Worden Bauersmith]

I see how that works.

I haven't hear "trompe l'oeil" in a long time. We used to talk about it at the gallery with the 4th grade tours. I can see how that works as well. Nice trick in any era.

Anna

[bevinmacrae]

That's the other reason I use the side back peice to mark the curves rather than the senter back peice, I can get those folds nice and close to each other just by swinging the peice, no matter the size of the bodice. The center back peice inevitably makes the folds too far apart.
~bevin

[Elizabeth]

Usually, you'll be able to draw a lovely curve ONE direction--either on the left or the right.  So, figure out which way you're best at drawing a free-hand curve, and draw it on a paper version of your back bodice.  Fold in half, and prick pins through the line to mark the other side.  Open up flat, and you'll have mirror-image, lovely curves.  I prick with a pin through the "pattern" to mark on the fabric, and baste away.

[BarbaraSmith]

Well, there's another myth shot down - all three backs are "accurate," just one is more "common" than the other. (That being the one piece with the sewn "Y" tuck)

I had thought the true 3 piece was inaccurate, from comments I'd read, and didn't know the single piece with no "Y" was also accurate until Elizabeth said it was on wrappers.

Thank you very much!
Barbara

[Elizabeth]

That's the EXACT problem with hard-and-fast "rules" about period clothing--there are SO many variations that are all "within the range of normal" that we can have a huge variety of styles, and all be perfectly accurate, if we've carefully considered which combinations go best together, and what is most suited to our location and impression needs. 

So far, the only hard-and-fast RULE I can come up with for mid-century is this:

None of them wore nylon/polyester content underwire bras. 

And that's about it.

Seriously--there are so many valid variations on everything else, the hardest challenge is figuring out which variations are best for your particular situation!

[Carolann Schmitt]

Then there are these variations - less common than the three-piece variations but accurate:

- Three piece backs with a gathered center section
- Flat one piece backs (I think these are the ones Elizabeth mentioned for wrappers)
- One piece backs with gathers
- One piece backs with pleats
- Backs with just one center section, the side back pieces are cut as part of the bodice fronts - no side seams

Elizabeth and I were typing at the same time, so "what she said". Any one of these may be more common to a particular style of dress or a particular fabric or a particular impression.

My only "absolute" for mid-19th century clothing is a dropped armscye. There are variations for everything else.

Or, as Martha McCain said, "Don't be so dogmatic."

Regards,
Carolann

[BarbaraSmith]

ROFL! When did Martha say that? 

I love that you just gave me permission to take a few gathering tucks in my one piece wrapper back. My "fitter" suggested it.  I didn't want to have to re-draw that back piece just to take it in a tad at the waist.

Of course, it will get totally re-done again on January 20, since I was waiting for the corset to be done, and now with promise of Nona to help pin me, I can't imagine beginning the dress before January 20. 

I'm stealing "Don't be so dogmatic!" for my list of humorous excuses for farby-ness. 

Though "It's a Flemish Style" is still reining supreme, since I have never seen a costuming book on Flemish Fashions of the Mid-19thC. 

LOL,
B.

[Carolann Schmitt]

Ah ah ah ah - now just hold on a second, Barbara.   

You can use that phrase as Martha intended - as a comment on those who persist in thinking there is ONLY one way to do something when there may be several ways it was done during the period. She said it when we were working together on a project last year.

You may not use it as an excuse for farbyness - or I'll haul out the cargo snood and book a cross-country flight! 

 

[BarbaraSmith]

HA HA!!! Okay, fair enough!  Totally can't use Martha as an excuse for Farby-ness! 

Off to write the definitive website on Flemish Fashions of the Mid-19th Century. 

LOL,
B.