Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

[toccoa42]

To all the handsewers out there --

I'm assembling a Charles Childs RD II jacket kit (very nice by the way) and I'd like to know if anyone knows which of two handsewn topstitches is more historically correct. The jacket represents an early war CSA artillery lieutenant, so a polished look is important:

1. Serpentine -- the finished look is such: - - - - -

2. Double serpentine -- which looks more machine-sewn: __ __ __ __ __

Serpentine means a simple "snake" pattern, running one way down the cloth. Double serpentine means the stitch runs back in the OPPOSITE direction, once the above #1 is complete. At least, this is what I THINK is happening, given what I have seen in close-up photos of the real deal, plus other hand-sewn reproductions. Double serpentine provides a more "polished" appearance.

Note that in the above "examples", the dashes really don't cooperate and don't leave enough space in #1. Example #2 "double serpentine" should look like the top stitch you will find on Levis.

If another technique was used, I'd like to know that as well. Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks,
Lynn Kessler

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Lynn,

I have always used a modified running stitch for topstitching, where the needle is angled back toward the previous stitch on the opposite side of the surface. This forces you to pass the needle through to the other side of the fabric, and thus takes a bit longer, but I find that the result is much closer in appearance to original topstitching than trying to use any technique where you pass the needle through the same side of the fabric (such as backstitching.)

That is my method when I have thick layers to work with. On thinner layers I have seen backstitches used as topstitching to great effect, but when you're dealing with the six layers of a jacket front (front, facing, and interlining doubled back on themselves) I've found my modified running stitch to be the only effective method.

I hope this helps!


Best Regards,

[toccoa42]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

I have always used a modified running stitch for topstitching, where the needle is angled back toward the previous stitch on the opposite side of the surface.

Dan --

For demonstration purposes, this is a single topstitch from the OBVERSE:

—

The left end is the "start" point, the right is the "finish" (where the needle enters the fabric).

If I understand you correctly, you are creating a normal topstitch on the obverse of the jacket, then from the reverse, returning the needle at an angle so that it will exit the obverse almost exactly at the point where the needle originally ENTERED the obverse, resulting in this for three finished topstitches:

———

And resulting in the "machine finish" appearance but handstitched. Yes / no?

Thanks,
Lynn Kessler

[Secesh]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

To all the handsewers out there --

I'm assembling a Charles Childs RD II jacket kit (very nice by the way) and I'd like to know if anyone knows which of two handsewn topstitches is more historically correct. The jacket represents an early war CSA artillery lieutenant, so a polished look is important:

1. Serpentine -- the finished look is such: - - - - -

2. Double serpentine -- which looks more machine-sewn: __ __ __ __ __

Serpentine means a simple "snake" pattern, running one way down the cloth. Double serpentine means the stitch runs back in the OPPOSITE direction, once the above #1 is complete. At least, this is what I THINK is happening, given what I have seen in close-up photos of the real deal, plus other hand-sewn reproductions. Double serpentine provides a more "polished" appearance.

Note that in the above "examples", the dashes really don't cooperate and don't leave enough space in #1. Example #2 "double serpentine" should look like the top stitch you will find on Levis.

If another technique was used, I'd like to know that as well. Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks,
Lynn Kessler

Hello,
I found your statement about a "polished look" interesting...Officers in both the Union and Confederate armies were required to purchase their own uniforms. As a result, many contracted with tailors who were capable of turning out beautifully finished garments; however, the RDII jacket was a government issued tunic, originally for the enlisted ranks, and later (I think 1864) made available to officers at a cost, and once the needs of the enlisted ranks had been met. As a result, the garment drawn by an officer would have exhibited no superiority in construction over the enlistedmen's jackets, and would have been subject to the skills of whatever seamstress happened to work on that particular piece. Perhaps if it's a polished officer's look you are seeking you should go with a frock coat or commutation style jacket, both of which could and did exhibit the style you seek. Just my 2 cents worth of rambling...Best regards.

[Ted Mueller]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

OK . Here's my 2 cent's worth. This is a top stich I use. I start from the back or bury the knot . then push the needle in from the back and tip the needle slightly in the direction the seam is going , pull through.and return just behind where the needle came out and push through to the back side at the opposite angle, again in the direction the seam is going. this way you see no stich, only the point where the needle came and went. I guess you could call it a serpentine stich as it zig zags it way up the seam . This has no bearing on anything I have seen on an origional CW garment. Just a thought! Ted Muller

[jhuether]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

OK . Here's my 2 cent's worth. This is a top stich I use. I start from the back or bury the knot . then push the needle in from the back and tip the needle slightly in the direction the seam is going , pull through.and return just behind where the needle came out and push through to the back side at the opposite angle, again in the direction the seam is going. this way you see no stich, only the point where the needle came and went. I guess you could call it a serpentine stich as it zig zags it way up the seam . This has no bearing on anything I have seen on an origional CW garment. Just a thought! Ted Muller

It almost sounds like you are describing a prick stitch. This is where on the finished side you end with no visible sign of a stitch exept a very small prick, but on the facing side you can see full, and often long, stitches.

While I haven't seen any original garments with this form of top stitching, I do seem to remember reading a thread a number of months ago mentioning this stitch on at least one original. If this is more than my imagination, maybe the poster will chime in. Of course, I have been known to not have a clue what I was talking about before.

[rbruno]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

I have looked at original jackets with all of the above mentioned styles of topstitching. The type of stitch Dan described was on a couple different jackets, including a Depot III that was worn by an officer. The officer drew the jacket and had it tailored at an extra cost. Some parts you could tell the workmanship was different then other parts. For instance, the lining was replaced and you could see that someone else had worked on the coat. Another officer coat had the "prick stitch" that was describe in another post. Still another jacket had topstitching that was very small and practicaly touching each individual stitch. You could barely see the stitch on the back or the inside of the coat. Almost a reverse to the prick stitch. As I was looking back through my pictures to write this post, I noticed that many of the jackets had no topstitching at all. I guess my point is that a variety of types can be used or not at all.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav

[toccoa42]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Just to add background to my original question --

The jacket I am replicating appears in Echoes of Glory. It is an officer's Richmond Deport artillery jacket that has topstitching that is clearly more involved and "finished" than the simple serpentine topstitch that might be common on the stock or issued jacket that an enlisted man might receive. So yes, it is possible that the original owner had extra tailoring performed on the jacket. Or not. We'll never know. In any event, a "finished" appearance is required for the jacket I have in mind, as the photo depicts.

Lynn Kessler

[Richmond Depot]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Mr. Kessler,

Could you be more specific as to which jacket you are looking at in EOG ?

Best,

[toccoa42]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Could you be more specific as to which jacket you are looking at in EOG ?

Sure. Captain Otey's jacket, bottom page 122. It may or may not be an RD II, given that the epaulets are missing and we can't tell if there are belt loops. But, given that he was killed in October 1862, I'm betting it's either a I or a II with the epaulets removed.

I should say I'm replicating it to a certain degree. I'm building mine as an RD II, with epaulets, no exterior chest pocket flap, with the same red piped trim, but as lieutenant instead of captain, and with 9 buttons, not eight as the photo depicts.

Lynn Kessler

[Secesh]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Otey's jacket is a private purchase, neither an RD1 or RD2. The piping and trimmed pockets are not found on Richmond Depot jackets. Best regards.

[toccoa42]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Otey's jacket is a private purchase, neither an RD1 or RD2.

Yeah, I figured that too. Still, the RD II pattern from CRC works for my intentions.

The piping and trimmed pockets are not found on Richmond Depot jackets.

Well, he WAS and officer, so he could do what he wanted. And it still works for my intentions.

Lynn Kessler

[DougCooper]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Yeah, I figured that too. Still, the RD II pattern from CRC works for my intentions.



Well, he WAS and officer, so he could do what he wanted. And it still works for my intentions.

Lynn Kessler

So Lynn what we aren't getting is the point of this exercise - if you are making a jacket not based on a single surviving example, why the question on top stitching?

[Secesh]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

Exactly my point...an exercise in futility...why are you not using a commutation pattern? It seems you are using an RD pattern to make a non-RD pattern jacket...And why make a copy of Otey's jacket based on an RD pattern when Otey's jacket isn't one???!!!

[jhuether]

Re: Topstitching -- Which is correct / common?

... Another officer coat had the "prick stitch" that was describe in another post. Still another jacket had topstitching that was very small and practicaly touching each individual stitch. You could barely see the stitch on the back or the inside of the coat. Almost a reverse to the prick stitch. As I was looking back through my pictures to write this post, I noticed that many of the jackets had no topstitching at all.

Rob,

Do you think you could post some of these pictures. I would be really interested in seeing the prick stitch and reverse(?) prick stitch.