I've done some research on the subject, but would like some feedback from some folks who've actually used these machines and hopefully viewed some original garments.
I'll start with lock stitches. From my understanding the two machine manufacturers likely to be commonly encountered in the U.S. during the ACW capable of sewing a lockstich were Singer and Wheeler & Wilson. The rotary hook mechanism used by Wheeler and Wilson appears to be the same basic mechanism used by most sewing machines today (round bobbin). This brings me to my first question:
Is there any visual difference between a seam sewn by most modern machines and seams sewn by 1860's rotary hook Wheeler & Wilson machines?
The Singer Family model machines used a flying shuttle, do lockstitches sewn using this type of mechanism differ (visually or otherwise) from lock stitches sewn with a rotary hook?
Does this help explain Geof Walden's observation of the McDonnell jacket that:
"The most unusual feature of this jacket is the top-stitching, which was done by machine. This top-stitching is a single line, set well back from the edge (as normal). The outer thread is dark blue, with a brown bobbin thread. I wish to emphasize that this original machine top-stitching does not at all resemble modern machine top-stitching on reproductions; in fact, at first glance, it looks like normal hand back-stitching. However, there can be no doubt this particular stitching was done on a machine. " Available at: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...n/cdjacket.htm
From what I understand, this topstitching could not have been sewn on a chainstitch machine, because two threads were used. Chainstitch machines don't use bobbins. Does the Singer flying shuttle lockstitch resemble a hand back stitch, or was this jacket sewn by something else?
As far as chain stitches go, how often do these appear on original military clothing and equipment (particularly Federal)? I know they were used on Knapsacks, but on the other hand the QM specifications for shelter halves reprinted in F. Gaede's book call for lock stitches only.
Any help or insight would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt Wright
I'll start with lock stitches. From my understanding the two machine manufacturers likely to be commonly encountered in the U.S. during the ACW capable of sewing a lockstich were Singer and Wheeler & Wilson. The rotary hook mechanism used by Wheeler and Wilson appears to be the same basic mechanism used by most sewing machines today (round bobbin). This brings me to my first question:
Is there any visual difference between a seam sewn by most modern machines and seams sewn by 1860's rotary hook Wheeler & Wilson machines?
The Singer Family model machines used a flying shuttle, do lockstitches sewn using this type of mechanism differ (visually or otherwise) from lock stitches sewn with a rotary hook?
Does this help explain Geof Walden's observation of the McDonnell jacket that:
"The most unusual feature of this jacket is the top-stitching, which was done by machine. This top-stitching is a single line, set well back from the edge (as normal). The outer thread is dark blue, with a brown bobbin thread. I wish to emphasize that this original machine top-stitching does not at all resemble modern machine top-stitching on reproductions; in fact, at first glance, it looks like normal hand back-stitching. However, there can be no doubt this particular stitching was done on a machine. " Available at: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...n/cdjacket.htm
From what I understand, this topstitching could not have been sewn on a chainstitch machine, because two threads were used. Chainstitch machines don't use bobbins. Does the Singer flying shuttle lockstitch resemble a hand back stitch, or was this jacket sewn by something else?
As far as chain stitches go, how often do these appear on original military clothing and equipment (particularly Federal)? I know they were used on Knapsacks, but on the other hand the QM specifications for shelter halves reprinted in F. Gaede's book call for lock stitches only.
Any help or insight would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt Wright
Comment