Відео

Thank you, I did! ua-cam.com/video/2yxylUY4KT4/v-deo.html

Since you stitch what is basically triangles together, the waist will not end up completely straight, it will be curved, but with hard angles between the panels. Once you've stitched them together the easiest is to lay it flat and even the waist. If your seams match you won't need to do much. I don't think I bothered to do this as it wasn't necessary. This is one of the things that are way easier to understand once you have it in front of you. If you want to be certain you understand the pattern, you can cut out a miniature in paper first and tape it together. Hope this helps!

@@NoMoreSilkTwist Ah! Thank you so much, that makes sense!

It's a felted wool.

It's a sewing gauge or seam-O-metre :)

I talk more about the pattern in the breeches video, and I believe someone suggested better pattern makers there as well. Generally this brand is not recommended for beginners, their patterns are historically sourced, but you need to know how to make it yourself, meaning: no instructions. I will hopefully not use a pattern from them again. I didn't like it.

@@NoMoreSilkTwist thank you, I will check it out!

No facing was used

No. To get rid of that I either need more channels or a sturdier fabric. It's difficult to use silk satin in a corset, and this pattern has minimal boning as it is. It could also be that the tention between silk and interfacing is wrong, if they are not basted together correctly.

Det stemmer! Rayon er det gamle navnet, det har med hvem som eier patenten på hvordan stoffet lages.

In the updated tutorial I use linen. The type of fabric doesn't really matter, but you need to surge or fell the seam allowances. With felted wool you don't have to worry about that.

Name of the pattern is in the description. It's from reconstructing history

je ne trouve pas auriez-vous le lien svp ? ou alors il ne se vend pas en France Merciiii

Do you perhaps know the purpose of the vents?

@@NoMoreSilkTwist I am assuming you mean the vents on waistcoats and coats. So depending on the decade, purpose and cut, the answer for that can vary. Some of that is conjecture and personal theory from making and wearing them, so I won´t give a "this is definitely the answer" for everything. Now, as the waistcoat changed, the "funktionality" of the vents and just how ornamental or vestigial they were changed, till they dissapeared fully with the very late 18th/early 19th century waistcoats that cut off at basically the waistline. There isn´t really one true purpose. It´s multiple factors that made them not only fashionable but also practical. With the doublet being kind off the ancestor of the waistcoat, and men transitioning to wearing waistcoats instead, the original lengh of the late doublet was carried over, as well as the vents already featured there if due to the somewhat differnt construction and cut changed. (interesting side note, with 14-15 century doublets you actually see the "skirt" and "vent" placement be suspiciously similar in shape to what later is seen on 18th century stays. The doublets of that time also being padded and sometimes reinfocred clothing with a structural component. Just food for thought. :D) With the early waistcoats it´s pretty much obvious that it´s a funktional elemnt. Either you make the vents into a piece of clothing nearly reaching the knees, our you use a whole lot more fabric. And then you end up with an even earlier medieval garment called a men´s (short) gown. That one has no vent´s and looks a bit like a too short dress when belted, falling in folds/natural pleats because of the exess fabric. But if you want the flat close fitting "skirt" with all the interfacing that comes with that, as well as add pockets into the garment in a very visible location, you need the vents to make that work. Without them you would have a narrow tube around your upper legs and hips and hobble yourself. Severly limiting mobility and making everything look very weird and uncomfortable. It would also make riding impossible. Another important point is, that especially with the long early waistcoats, but also the ever shorter later ones still, you want to be able to get at the side and front as well as the fob pockets of your breeches. Preferably without having to wrestle and bunch up a lot of fabric. The vents allowed to just slide your hand in between the waistcoat and breeches and give easy access. Another practical reason is saving fabric. If you make a waistcoat with vents, it will use up a lot less fabric than for example a medieval men´s gown. It also made it possible to cut the front from just one piece in many cases, or at least avoid piecing in any visible places. (Keep in mind that historically, fabric width was a lot less than today, usually 24-36", in comparasion to usually 50-60" today.) While piecing is period, having clothing that looks like it is cut from whole cloth made you look more wealthy. Basically the 18th century verion of flexing on others. We still do stuff like that today, but nowdays it´s having specific brands, and obviously trying to look better off by buying fakes. Really the more things change, the more they stay the same. (Really, no matter how differnt the past might look, when you break down why things were done in context, it really always boils down to being very much familiar, just with a differnt paintjob on top.) They also were in part ornamental, as the more stylized sharp angles and slants of the edges in the middle of the 18th century show. Especially when they later on became quiet short before the "skirt" completly dissapered. And specifically the back vent is with anything that goes past the waist and fit´s tight a good idea to improve fit and mobility, especially when sitting or bending down, even more so when you have to spend long times spread legged when riding. Modern waistcoats that are on the longer side, and especially sack´s have them for that reason to. In a lot of waistcoats that were more on the ornamental side, only ever really worn with a coat and basically never alone*, you have also back vents that go far up in addition to laces or buckles holding it closed. That was for a really tight and close fit, and to compensate eventual decrease or the more likely growth in circumfrence over time. (*Shirts are underwear in that time, showing of your sleeves in polite company is comparable to ariving in a tank top to a suit and tie event. Standards for covering up during that time for men were actually higher in many cases that for women. Women for example could show their lower arms, a man doing that would basically not just come in a tanktop, but also forgo his pants and just go with his underpants on the scale of social no goes in the context of aforementioned suit and tie event.) And with the coat, it´s much simpler. For one, pretty ornamental except for the back vent, seeing the whole mess of pleating ging on developing from the earlier more loose and wavy cut, to keep up with the tighter and more even silhouette without loosing that "look at all the useless fabric I can afford to have on my clothes!" look. The side vents also didn´t really have much function often being tacked together at the bottom to keep them from flaring, the back vent taking up the mobility and being enough due to the looser fit and coats basically never being fully buttoned closed, especially later on. But some function was still there. If you were wearing a small sword, it would be going through one of the side vents. (And as we are talking civilian, you would either wear a sword or take a walking stick, having both would make you look like a pomous fob and ass. Like wearing two expensive wristwatches, one on each wrist, at the same time. The exeption being military officers on duty, who would at times have an officer´s sword or sabre, and a walking stik as part of their "rank markings" and regalia when not in battle. So if you see a painting of a civilian with both, well, it´s either a carricature, the one who ordered it getting a jab in, or a comment from the artist on his relationship with and/or the behaviour of his customer.) But other than that, the side vent´s on a (frock) coat or Justacorpse were pretty much mostly ornamental and fashion.

@@NoMoreSilkTwist If I misunderstood and you meant something differnt, then could you clarify what else you meant by "vents"? But "vent" in 18th century men´s wear is generally the openings at the back and sides of the upper body clothes.

I meant the slashes in the breeches, or gap/ hole. I don't understand their function, they're too small to get your hands through.

Thank you for taking the time to comment, this is so helpful! It's annoying to find tutorials for this era of men's clothing, hopefully those who need it will find more info than I did. And a better pattern would help too ;)

@@NoMoreSilkTwist Yeah, as I said, I really should start making some tutorials and collect stuff I write and post somewhere. The information is all put there, but it’s fragmented and disjointed over many sites, different media and worse, often pretty hard to find because the really interesting stuff is sequestered in forums, groups or not search engine optimised and getting drowned out by advertisements and generic very unhelpful stuff like „10 18th century clothing ideas“ or „the truth about historical „whatever“ will shock you!“ articles thats often also wrong but posted in a way to land high in the listings. I am often in the double or even triple digits of google results till I find anything worthwhile that I have not seen repeated 20 times or is generic and wrong BS and Ads. Or I just find nothing, then stumble across something featuring exactly what I searched for, but that Google never showed to me. It’s really annoying. In regards to the patterns. I recommend making your own. It’s a bit overwhelming at first, probably not going to work well the first few times, but quickly gets better with repetition. Really, if you work with making muslins first, an understanding on what shapes fit in what way comes subconsciously over time. By now I am not even really using drafting systems anymore outside the most basic block pattern. Everything else i just draft up, doesn’t always work the first time, but thats what fittings are for. The main hurdle is that drafting and pattern making is a „hard entry, delayed results“ thing. Meaning that you don’t see a lot of growth at first, and results only happen after the first few times. But in my experience there usually is a point where it „clicks“ and what previously took a lot of effort, calculation and trial and error suddenly turns into an eyballed „the line should go about there“. I also recommend to take a page from bespoke tailors today and not just do one fit with the muslin, but two or three fits. First one with the muslin to work out the pattern, second one with the actual fabric and things like lining and interfacing basted in place. That is a good idea to do, because the actual fabric is going to act somewhat different to the one used in the muslin, which can change the fit a bit and require correction. That second fit is also great to check is the placement of the pockets and other additional parts is good. Really, I actually don’t bother with predetermining the placement of these and do it „freehand“ during that fitting. Even completely changing up or outright making the pattern for the flaps up at that point as it gives a much better idea on how they should sit and what size and shape will be right. After mostly finishing, but before the final assembly (with the waistcoat as an example, before i sew the three parts together) I tack them together with basting and do a last fit, to iron out any issues that might have propped up during sewing, as all the stitching and interfacing can have an impact of it, or to just do a bit of finagling to really get a good fit. By the way, if you are interested, I got a old translation of Diderot’s Encyclopaedia into english (Which was a find, because that supposedly does not exist and it’s only around in French. But the scan is passed around in costuming and theatre circles, even if you won’t find it anywhere on the net.). This also includes some notes and best of all some drafting instructions to make basic block patterns for breeches, waistcoats and coats, one can base 18th century clothing on. If you have a way for me to send it to you, I can share it. And as a general recommendation for „instructions“. Mostly ignore them. Look at historical extant clothing (the FB group I recommend is great there, but digital museum collections are also great there), think about how what you see there could have been made (with some more exercise and research in 18th century tailoring an understanding for that just kind of develops, certain stuff was just done in certain ways, and that repeats all over the different areas and clothing. If its similar in construction to another area, it’s likely it was done the same or very similar even if in a different area.) and then write up your own construction procedure. Basically going through how you would make the piece in theory. It’s what I do to troubleshoot my stuff. And don’t be afraid to just diverge from what was planned if you have a problem. If you look at actual 18th century work, you can see the traces of tailors doing just that all over. An further point to that is to let go of the thought of „how this was done back then“. Our modern mindset and expectations really makes some troubles for us there. We always think of things being done in a pretty standardised and generally unified way. But thats a modern thing. With some exceptions, parts that had to be made a certain way to last, but even there is always some variation, 18th century clothing construction is a hot mess and can be summed up with „Whatever works, works.“. Really, I am pretty sure thats also why a lot of stuff is very inconsistent and contrarian, instructions and tutorials constantly disagreeing and why if you ask 10 historical costumers how something was done you will get 12 different answers. 18th century clothing construction is only really consistent in it‘s inconsistency. There is always 3-5 different completely historical correct ways to do something, adding up the millions of ways a single piece of clothing could (and most likely has) been made. (case in point, I got photos of the knees from dozens of historical breeches, and not a single one is done the same way with the exception of some very general points depending on material and quality, those still differing in the exact execution) Which, once we get over the modern bias, is actually a god sent because it allows for a lot of leeway when not outright making an exact copy of a specific piece. I have a motto when I cannot find how a certain detail was made: „If I can think of a good way to do it on the top of my head, it was most likely done that way by someone.“ And so far that has proven pretty on point, as I often later on discover a extant example featuring just what I made. So long as one goes about it using historical methods, it’s a pretty good bet.