Insertion exhaustion

Or 'So many hours, for so little result'.

The culprits

I'm on to the next item of my 1915 ensemble, the petticoat. For this I'm using the Ettie Petticoat pattern from Scroop Patterns. It comes with four different views, covering your petticoat needs from 1890 to 1920.

Image © Scroop Patterns

All the petticoats have lace at the hem as well as insertion lace on the ruffle. I chose view C as best for the skirt that I will, eventually, make. As well as the outer ruffle, there is a narrower dust ruffle underneath, also hemmed with lace.

When it came to buying lace, the choice seemed to be between cotton but a bit clunky, or finer but synthetic. I went for the former. The insertion lace was 2.5cm/1" wide but, because it is cotton, I decided to wash it first, just in case. Sure enough, it shrank a little. Fortunately I'd bought extra, so I thought no more of it.

I made up the ruffles, using lapped seams for a flatter finish rather than the recommended French seams. Then I applied the lace, following the extensive instructions given in the pattern.

The hem lace is applied first. It should have been stitched along the top edge, but I decided to do the stitching further down so that the stitching for the hem was covered by the lace.

Pinning on the lace

The pattern matching gods decided to smile on me, and the joins on both ruffles were perfect.

Ta dah!

Sewing the narrow hems was very fiddly, but on the right side, the machine stitching disappears into the lace as I had hoped.

The stitching is barely visible

The wrong sides were a little less successful, even though I sewed wrong side up. In several places I missed the hem, and had to catch it in place by hand.

Fine at the far right, off everywhere else

Anyway, on to the insertion lace. This I did sew right on the edge.

Very precise stitching was needed

I applied both bands before doing anything else.

All sewn on

Then it was time to, very carefully, cut the fabric behind the lace. The bold pattern made it easy to find the centre line.

I held it up to the light to cut it

The cut edges are pressed back, trimmed to 9mm/⅜" either side, the raw edges folded under and then stitched in yet more narrow hems. The pattern instructions warn that this is difficult to do with lace narrower than 2cm/¾", and this was the point where the lace shrinkage really became a problem - especially trimming off the tiny amount of excess fabric.

10 metres of doing this was very tedious

As is obvious from the picture above, I trimmed, pressed and hemmed one edge before starting on the other. I also only cut the centre of the second band once I had completed the first.

Eventually it was all done.

Dust ruffle and outer ruffle

I've written on here before that I am a slow worker, but this was absurd. It took me over 12 hours just to apply all the lace. Admittedly, I did things like carefully hand sew the lace joins, and I got a little faster with practice - I was very grateful to be sewing on my treadle machine, where I can control the speed easily. I must admit I found it a real grind, and sewing white lace onto white cotton with white thread on looong seams (I used an entire bobbin of thread overall) was very tiring.

It's given me a whole new level of respect for the women who did this sort of work for a (probably very meagre) living. Dover Publications' republication of the 1909 National Cloak and Suit Co. catalogue contains several pages of petticoats. A few just have flounces, but pintucks and/or insertions feature heavily.

5002 is the plainest, and cheapest

5006, with its rows of Torchon insertion, is similar to my petticoat. All for just 98 cents.

The lace I used is Torchon in thick thread

Obviously 98 cents in 1909 bought a lot more than it would now, but I can't imagine that the woman making this petticoat earned a great deal for all that work. It makes me very glad that I am making my petticoat purely for myself and am not on piecework - I would starve!

Another completed project

This time it's my first/second version of Butterick 3794; first because it was the tacked-together toile I made to ensure that my regraded pattern fitted, and second because after making the 'proper' dress I decided to remodel this one into a more 1940s style.

Putting narrow ties at the back instead of the wide half-belt was an easy change to make.

The original design and the more period version

The sleeves were altogether trickier. I wanted a smoother sleeve head than the original big puffy 1980s-ness, and originally tried adapting the sleeve from Simplicity 4463/1777.

The sleeve style I wanted

However, I discovered that the armscye of the Butterick pattern was cut far more deeply, so even though the sleeve head fitted into it, moving my arms caused the bodice to pull a lot. Also, my attempt at a darted sleeve head didn't work at all. Unfortunately, I forgot to take pictures of any of this frustration.

In the end, I basted the original sleeves back in, and then pinned out as much fullness as I could remove while retaining arm movement. Then I drafted a new sleeve head based on the reduction, and combined this with the arm part of the Simplicity pattern.

Cutting out the new sleeve from the old

The sleeve head was gathered. Because the shoulder seam is quite short, the shoulder pad extends into the sleeve slightly, and supports the gathers.

The sleeve style I got

It's not perfect, but it's a great deal better than the bigger-than-my-head original!

When your expression says it all

There's no denying that the end result is far more 1980s-does-1940s than true 1940s. The neckline is wider than was common at the time, as are (despite my best efforts) the sleeves, and it has a long centre-back zip. Also, the print isn't remotely forties. But for all that, I do like the finished dress - possibly because of the amount of 1980s-does-1940s stuff I wore 40 years ago!

The finished dress

The main thing is that it will get worn, rather than just put in the offcuts bag to be chopped up for stuffing. I did wonder whether it should be added to the Stashometer, as I don't include fabric bought for toiles in the 'purchases' side. But I do include items made from stash in the 'used' side so, based on this slightly questionable logic, in it went.

What is this strange, non-red, colour?

I can't remember when the Stashometer last showed green!

The ‘fruit salad’ shawl finished

It's got a bit cooler (thank goodness), but it's still not really the weather for standing in the sun wearing something woolly! But I have finished my Dandelion Air shawl, so it must be recorded.

Yes, I was a bit warm!

There's not a lot to say that I haven't said already. The pattern is a simple six-row repeat, and I just kept going until I judged that I should stop.

Yarn Chicken time, had I left enough?

The pattern has an i-cord bind off, but I chose to do picots instead. I did insert a lifeline a couple of rows before the bind off, so I could rip it all back if necessary.

Phew, yes I had

It blocked larger than I was expecting; the overall area is a fair bit more than my Close to You shawl, which is made from the same yarn.

Showing the full size

When I first started knitting, I knew very little about yarn choice beyond weight. It was pure luck that I chose to knit my Dahlia shawl in a yarn with a very subtle colour variation, which allowed the lace design to be the star of the show.

The Dahlia yarn - mostly blue, a little black

This yarn is far more variegated however, and definitely needed quite a plain design to show off the colours. The Dandelion Air pattern was perfect for the job.

Reds and yellows and pinks, oh my!

The pattern lets the colours shine

It must be said that it's not my neatest work. In particular the tension in the centre spine stitches varies hugely.

That's a lot of different stitch sizes

It gets better further down

It's not surprising, really. A lot of this was knitted while I was visiting Mum, either in hospital or the nursing home, so it regularly got put down mid-row as I attended to something. But for all that, I do associate knitting it with the laughter and happy conversations we had over those last months rather than the more fraught times. I'm certainly glad that I chose to use up such a cheery yarn from my stash at that point in our lives.

Family ties

A scurry (yes, that is the collective noun)

Regular readers of this blog (thank you) will know that the choice of animal in the picture above can mean only one thing; I'm considering a new project.

Actually, it's not entirely new. The cylindrical things are lace bobbins, and I used to make bobbin lace.

The bobbins in full

It was a long time ago, well before I started the blog. My lace has only appeared on here once, when I used some pieces which I had made years before to trim my Armistice Blouse.

The lace was made specifically to fit the blouse pieces

Close-up of the lace in situ

Because it was so long ago, I don't have any pictures of me making lace or work in progress, so I'm using a book cover to show what is involved. A very simple explanation is that thread is wound around the bobbins, which are then passed over and under each other to weave or plait the threads to form the lace.

Lacemaking in progress

Bobbins were traditionally made from wood or bone. They can be plain, but also carved, turned, or painted. The beads at the bottom provide weight to tension the thread, and also stop the bobbins from rolling on the pillow - the working surface. They are usually used in pairs.

A selection of my bobbins, from different makers

Mum also made lace for many years; in fact, I can't remember which one of us started it first. We had a lot of hobbies in common, and regularly swapped supplies and other items as we each needed them. She gave me her bobbins years ago, when arthritis started to make lacemaking too difficult for her, but I must admit that they just sat in the box she stored them in. Then this week, on a whim, I took out both her bobbins and mine. So many memories came back - of swapping notes and patterns, and of going to lace fairs together and buying the bobbins.

From talking to friends after Mum died I've become aware that not all of them have/had good relationships with their mothers, and some have been very strained indeed. I was so lucky that not only did we get on well, but we had so many shared interests which brought us even closer. Which is why, despite not being short of things to do, I'm considering taking up lacemaking again. With my own bobbins and with Mum's.

Comfort at Home

Another Historical Sew Monthly challenge completed! This time it's the March challenge, Comfort at Home, and I chose to make my 1911 corset (something which would only be seen in the home) more comfortable.

This was my very first attempt at historical sewing, way back in 2012. It was made as part of a sewalong to create the 1911 corset from Norah Waugh's Corsets and Crinolines. I remember that Jo, who ran the sewalong, provided lots of information and was very generous with her time and expertise to answer any queries as we went along. But I realise now that there were a lot of beginner's fit issues with my completed corset, mainly because I didn't know what questions I should be asking.

If I were the same shape as this dressform, all would be well - but I'm not

I tackled the problems with the corset top in 2020, and this made it more comfortable to wear - so long as I was standing up. If I sat down though, it wedged itself uncomfortably under my ribs. Through reading this post by The Dreamstress and the associated comments, I discovered that the cause was actually the lacing bones extending too far down the back of the corset: they were pushed up when I sat on something, and took the waist stay with them. The bones either side were also too long, which didn't help. I bought some new flat steels and set about dismantling parts of the corset. Again.

I unpicked the bottom binding, very carefully because it was satin and snagged easily, took out the original bones, replaced them and redid the flossing. I also had to take out an eyelet at the point where I wanted to cut off the excess.

It really was much too long

The original plan was to remove 2½" all round the bottom. But I had seen some teens era corsets where the bottom edge goes up at the centre front, and wondered about trying that. However, I couldn't end up with a raw edge longer than the original binding, as I have no more of the pink satin.

Testing out the intended bottom edge

The coutil I had used for the corset is quite soft and feels oddly loosely-woven for a coutil, and I was concerned about eyelet hole being so close to the new edge of the corset. The coutil I had used for the boning channels is far more rigid, so I used one of the cut-off scraps of it to patch the hole from inside the lacing panel.

I machined over it, and cut off the excess

I had also noticed that because of the length of the corset, the fronts pull apart quite a lot at the bottom of the busk. There was already some damage to the soft coutil, and it seemed inevitable that eventually the busk would tear a hole in it. I had some larger offcuts of the stiffer coutil, so I unpicked the lower stitching both sides, slipped a folded piece around the bottom of the busk, and machined everything back in place.

Reinforcement around the bottom of the busk

Then I reattached the binding and the suspenders. I did worry that the front ones might not be long enough, given the new shape, but fortunately I had allowed plenty extra when I originally made them.

Thank goodness for foresight

Then came the acid test. It passed with flying colours!

#sewnshownseated with a difference!

The small print:
The Challenge: March, Comfort at Home
What the item is: Removed excess length from my 1911 corset
How it fits the challenge: A corset would only have been seen inside the home, and being able to sit down in it definitely makes it more comfortable!
Material: Coutil for the corset, synthetic satin for the bias trim
Pattern: 1911 corset from Norah Waugh’s Corsets and Crinolines, slightly modified
Year: c 1911
Notions: Cotton eyelet lace for trimming, flat steels, steel busk
How historically accurate is it? The pattern is from an actual corset albeit subsequently modified, and the materials are accurate apart from the synthetic satin, so I would say 70%
Hours to complete: About 10, a fair amount of which was unpicking stitching and removing two eyelets. This had to be done carefully to minimise damage to the garment and make sure that the materials could be re-used
First worn: Just for photos
Total cost: £7.20 for the new, shorter, steels, everything else was reused

The corset is now wearable, but it still has some fit issues. I'm not sure how many of these are down to my inexperience when I made it, and how many are due to the passage of time. My body has changed a lot in 14 years, not least through menopause. The lacing gap is now wider than is ideal for any corset. But the waist stay doesn't actually fit to my waist all the way round: there is a definite gap at the sides where the corset goes straight from ribcage to hip while my waist curves in. My original plan was to make this corset wearable so that it could form part of my 1915 ensemble, and it would still work for that. As The Dreamstress pointed out in the post referenced above, historically, plenty of women would have got by in corsets which were a less than perfect fit. But ideally, I think I need a new corset. I have the Rilla pattern from Scroop, and one of the other Historical Sew Monthly challenges is 'Bones' - watch this space!

Across the pond

My collection of Vogue Pattern Book magazines consists entirely of British issues. My understanding was that the pattern pages of the US and UK editions were the same, and it was only the advertisements and some of the articles, such as items for sale and fabric reviews, which differed - and of course I was more interested in what was familiar to me. But I recently found an American issue for sale online without the crippling postage charges which are often more than the magazine itself. What I hadn't realised until it arrived was that the US edition was published six times a year in 1950, and this was the February-March issue, whereas the UK edition was still quarterly, and my issue was for Spring.

Spot the differences

As well as being published more frequently, the US copy is much thicker; 82 pages instead of 52. As a result, the contents pages look very different.

More obviously different

Part of the difference is explained by this announcement in the UK edition.

I hadn't realised that paper rationing lasted for so long

The US edition has a lot more advertisements, and more colour printing. It looks like a different, and far more prosperous, world.

American ads, glossy and colourful

British ads are mostly monochrome

With more pages available, articles can be longer. "Spot news" is a few paragraphs in the British edition, but an eight-page feature with illustrations and photographs in the American one - although the fashion information is much the same in both.

Everything a British reader needs to know, in 15 lines

The first page of the US equivalent

Similarly, the Paris Originals feature in the UK edition is half the length of its American cousin, albeit with more illustrations.

All eight designs in a double-page spread

Larger illustrations . . .

. . . but fewer views shown of some designs

There are some articles in my American copy which aren't in the British one, such as these knitting patterns.

Instructions are provided, but are brief

But surprisingly, the reverse is also true. Possibly this was in either the December-January or the April-May US issue?

I doubt if jersey dresses were a purely UK thing

Even when articles appear in both copies, there are differences. In terminology, unsurprisingly, but also in colours.

Same illustrations, different printing

Some elements appear in both illustrations, others are changed

Occasionally most of a feature will be exactly the same (apart from colours), but then vary significantly.

The previous 14 pages of this 16-page feature use identical illustrations

I'm ending my comparison where I began, with the contents page, and one small but perplexing difference in the description of the cover image.

US suit made from "navy blue serge by Miron"

UK suit made from "George Harrison's blue-navy wool herringbone"

It can't be made from both! I'll be keeping an eye out for other US editions, to see how they compare once both magazines were being published to the same schedule.