Top Stitching

[Masked Battery]

Re: Top Stitching

I don't know what it's proper name is; I just call it a topstitch. The needle is pushed through from one side, turned 180 degrees, and pushed back through. It looks somewhat like a running stitch, in that there are equidistant stitches of the same size on each side of the fabric. (Does that make sense?) Think of a dotted line: - - - - - -. It looks like that on both sides of the fabric.
Sorry if this isn't well-explained; I'm surrounded by screaming kids (your NC tax dollars at work).

Neal

[KathyBradford]

Re: Top Stitching

From our time, see the attached photograph of an original men's paletot front seam edge and buttonhole.

The tailor at Colonial Williamsburg said that the term in the 18th Century was "prickstitch". Its purpose was to stabilize the edges of the garment, not to provide decoration. The length of space between stitches visible on the front was to be three times as long as the tiny stitch itself.

The 19th Century paletot appears to be stitched consistently with his advice at a rate of 11-12 stitches per inch. That means 11-12 "pricks" are visible on the top and 11-12 entire stitches are visible on the underside per inch, not 12 times back and forth in one inch. Stitches are barely visible to the naked eye, but there is a distinct straight indentation 3/8" from the edge.

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Re: Top Stitching

Wouldn't that 'prick' stitch be more easily made by a 'stab' stitch type motion rather than a running stitch motion, as described by Neal above? Thanks for the picture, Kathy.

Trish Hasenmueller

[Masked Battery]

Clarification

I didn't mean to imply that these stitches are running stitches; the needle is pulled completely through the fabric, then turned and re-inserted.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

Neal

[Glenn Milner]

Re: Top Stitching

The tailor at Colonial Williamsburg said that the term in the 18th Century was "prickstitch". Its purpose was to stabilize the edges of the garment, not to provide decoration. The length of space between stitches visible on the front was to be three times as long as the tiny stitch itself.

Kathy,
Thanks for this post which reminds us that some 18th century stitching techniques were carried over through the CW period.
I have examined an original, privately-made Western Theatre CS officers jacket that used the 18th century "underhand hem stitch" (its proper name is a long french term I can't recall at the moment) to attach the facings to the jacket fronts. The stitch appears as a running stitch on the face and as a whip stitch on the underside both right at the turned fabric edge. It's very utilitarian in that it combines assembly and an apparent topstitch into one operation. This particular jacket also featured what I would call a "true" running topstitch in addition to the above about 3/8 inch away from the turned edge effectively "containing" the seam allowance.
I can't scientifically support this, but I suspect that many "double top stitch" CS jackets are actually constructed using the above combination of underhand hem stitch first and then a "true" topstitch.
Glenn Milner

[Jasper]

Re: Top Stitching

Hank

Now that I reread my post I see that pucker may not of been the best word to use. When I read pucker I thought pleat myself which is not what I ment. I think now that a better word to use would be dimple. If that makes things clearer ( maybe not )


In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.


Jasper

[Hank Trent]

Re: Top Stitching

Couple of points.

When I said top stitching was usually a running stitch, I didn't mean to implying it was necessarily made without pulling the needle all the way through. I agree that for fine stitches and/or heavy cloth there's no way you can do it without pulling the needle all the way through, and on nicely tailored stuff, I've also seen the stitches per inch in the teens.

Hank
In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.

Well now I'm confused again. I was picturing the pucker to be top-stitching that was pulled too tight, making the front of a coat, for example, hang with a wavy edge rather than straight down.

There's not usually top stitching where the shoulder meets the sleeve, is there, or is that a uniform thing? But isn't it generally considered good tailoring to ease some extra fullness of sleeve into the armscye, particularly at the top of the shoulder? Here's a quick example I found to see if we're talking about the same thing. You can see the fullness at the top of the sleeves where they join the shoulder. http://www.garyhendershott.com/productdetail.cfm?Key=48

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Glenn Milner]

Re: Top Stitching

Okay Folks,
Have references in front of me (Costume Close-Up, Clothing Construction and Pattern, 1750-1790 by Linda Baumgarten & John Watson with Florine Carr, 1999, Quite Specific Media).
The stitch I mentioned earlier is more properly known by its French name: le point a rabattre sous la main. (Diderot, 1777) For context, 18th century tailors were obsessed with fabric conservation as it was, by far, more expensive than labor. For example, 18th century clothing "typically" used no facings at all. The linings were sewn directly to the "face" pieces using the "underhand hem stitch" very near the folded "face" fabric edge. Also, seam allowances were much smaller than the "typical" 3/8 - 1/2 inch CW era seam allowances.
As far as sleeve attachment goes, there is typically no topstitching at this location in a _lined_ jacket or coat. Unlined Federal sack coats are a classic example where there is topstitching in this area in the form of felling stitches which show through to the face as small "topstitches". As far as gathered or "puffed" sleeve heads (extra material in the sleeve head typically gathered at the top), this is a fashion carry-over from earlier in the 19th century. It's very common, IMO. My wife's family has an original documented 1850's-1860's short skirted civilian frock (canvas weave jean cloth, walnut dyed) which displays this feature. It frequently shows up in period images of both frock coats and early CS jackets and Federal jackets throughout the CW period.
BTW, when setting sleeves into a "typical" CS jacket, the jacket body lining should already be in place. First, place the sleeve seam(s) in its(their) correct position (depending on whether it's a 2 piece or 1 piece sleeve). Second, sew the sleeve into the armscye leaving any extra sleeve head material until last and gather it at the top of the shoulder. The body lining should be _included_ into this seam. Finally, the sleeve lining should be pulled through, seam aligned, turned under a seam allowance and then whip stitched to _only_ the body lining.
Once again, free advice worth what you paid for it. IMO, anybody willing to take on a hand-sewing project has shown me something in the authenticity department. Don't worry, the more you do; the better you will get. I started almost 7 years ago and I'm just now starting to get a little comfortable with it. Don't forget those 18th century techniques which carried over.
Happy Stitching!
Glenn Milner

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Top Stitching

So far we have listed backstitch, running stitch, and the prickstitch as methods of topstitching. We know that there was great variation in the skill of those constructing garments in the mid-nineteenth century (both military and civilian). Can anyone expound on the uses of those stitches on various garments?

I have seen prickstitches as the method of top stitching on many of the civilian frock coats which I have been able to view in detail. In viewing orginial C.S. jackets the stitching seems even at about 7-9 stitches per inch and resembles either a backstitch or running stitch. However, these viewings were through the glass only and to get a proper view of the stitch one would have to see both sides.

It seems that different quality garments or garments for different purposes received different topstitching treatments based upon the skill of the manufacturer or other factors. Does anyone have further ideas?

[Matt Caldwell]

Re: Top Stitching

Hank

In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.

Jasper

Jasper,
I will have to disagree with you on this one. There will most certainly be some signs of easing in in nearly all sleeves be it military or civilian. Sleeves of the 1860's were typically cut full and thus sleeve caps required there to be easing from front seam to rear inorder to get a full look. Yes if there are pleats, then the ease was not done correctly and if the garment was custom tailored, the maker would have certainly redone the sleeves until it was correct.

Going back to the topic at hand, I have only encountered one original "sack" style jacket that was unlined in the body and lined in the sleeves. This was a summer laboring sack. There are examples of unlined frocks (one in my collection) and partially lined paletots out there as well, however, military gaments are a whole nother beast. Even if the sleeves were unlined, they would have been felled and not top stitched.

I have included some images of both military and civilian sleeve caps for your perusal to see how there is some signs of easing but no visable pleats.

Hope this helps.