Felling Seams

[James Masson]

Ladies and Gents,

I know how to fell seams with a whip stitch, but my question is: are there are any other stitches that would have been common? A back-stitch perhaps or maybe a herringbone stitch? Is the herringbone stitch of the ACW the same as the herringbone stitch of today? My grandmother uses it in some of her sewing and she recommended it to me, I just wanted to see if it was period or not. Thanks in advance.

James Masson

[Fishermans wife]

Re: Felling Seams

I was prevailaged enough to take a simple sewing class in Sept at Brenau univiersity. According to what I learned:

The back stitch and the herring bone stitch are both period stitches. It is my understanding that the herringbone stitch is common in wool flannel and usually done with silk thread. It is used in a felling method on this particular type fabric.

There is also a seaming method that involves just whipping the seam edges of the fabric to each other like binding. Not actually whipping it back down to the main fabric. I do not know the specific fabrics it is used on but i have seen it on both cotton and linen.

I am not familar with the back stich as a felling/binding stitch at all. It would be used for main stitching.

Lisa Pace

[wildflower]

Finishing Techniques (long)

Dear Mr. Masson and other forum participants,

Let me take a deep breath here, as this is my first posting to these forums...My background is principally as a 18th c. (AWI) reenactor, having only kitted out Victorian style for museum presentations. However, in an attempt to build up a better set of clothing, I have been trying to figure out more about period finishing techniques.

So, I have been looking at a number of clothing articles belonging to friends of mine with clothing collections. I must say, these friends are principally collectors of 18th century items who have incidentally acquired miscellaneous 19th century items. I still have questions--particularly regarding women's undergarments...

First, I have seen a few men's body shirts from the mid century era. All the ones I have seen have been hand sewn, which is consistent with the earlier convention of home sewing underwear (they still considered shirts underwear at this time, I understand) and acquiring outerwear from professional tailors/seamstresses (hence, more likely to be machine stitched). In the items I have seen (3 shirts), while the patterns were transitional, the sewing techniques were almost identical to what was used in 18th c. garments--tighter stitches (@ 13+ per inch) than (handstitched) outerwear. In all representations, all seams were backstitched and felled. Felling was done in one shirt with a tight overcast (whip) stitch, the other two used a stitch rarely done today. I have difficulty describing this stitch--the folks at Williamsburg call it by the french name "le point au rabattre." I learned it from my grandmother (born 1889) as "hemstitch"--it looks on the outside of the garment as a tight running stitch, but in the inside it looks like a whip stitch.

I rather suspect that with the outbreak of war, there may have been a shift to machine sewn shirts with the necessity for outfitting armies--because after this era, home sewn shirts become fewer and fewer. However, I don't have any documentation for this hypothesis. That would certainly account for the disapearance of the point au rabattre/hemstitch. The very tight stitching was done for durability--a necessity for an item that would be more frequently (and vigorously) washed than outerwear.

But when it comes to ladies underpinnings, I am at a real dillema. I have not been able to conclusively study anything from this era. I have seen one chemise that was worn at this time (by a woman that emigrated from Germany)--but I suspect that it may have been somewhat anomolous, since it was made of linen and made from the older "shift" pattern style. However, looking at this garment made me wonder if shifts were still worn and if linen may have still been used for ladies undergarments--especially among older women and poorer types. It's a connundrum, since linen does not give well to mechanized production--today, they cut the fibers to run it through manufacture, making for a wrinkly, less durable cloth. However, the recent article in the magazine Antiques documents that linen was commonly used, at least for household use, through the mid century period. Any thoughts, ladies?

I am really at sea when I consider making other undergarments. I have read somewhere that french seams were never used--but I have seen a single french seam on a pair of drawers (though the other seams were felled)--though the owner of the item wasn't certain of the exact date of manufacture. I really wonder about petticoats, since I have never found a study item. I would love it also, if someone could address how common trims (lace, broiderie anglais) and tucks would be on adult items (earlier garments I have seen have only had tucks on children's items).

The outerwear I have seen from this time all had machine stitches (tight stitch count, but frequently very haphazardly sewn) with loosely overcast finishes. Oddly, one of the "rules" are broken in reality (those silly women )--my girlfriend has two midcentury women's bodices (printed calico) that have wide (@3") "Y" panels in the back. She bought these in a bundle to get a really nice 18th c. garment, so she thinks they may have come from the same family (but not the same person, since they are differently sized). Shame on this ladies--they obviously never read reenactor clothing guides
;-}! The other odd thing I've seen was a fully lined cotton skirt (maybe a work item, lined for durability?). The only place, incidently, that I have seen the herringbone stitch was for a skirt hem (also saw overcast stitch).

Well, over and out. I've rambled enough! Mr. Masson, could I refer you to Kathleen Kannick's series Ladies' Guide to Plain Sewing (vol 1&2)--its a great guide to stitching techniques, though it doesn't show the mysterious point au rabattre/hemstitch. Meanwhile, I would love to hear from folks on women's undergarments. I don't feel ready to take needle to cloth at this point-and I want to get a really good set going! Any informed response is welcome!

YMOS,

Mary Dotson

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Re: Felling Seams

The workshop that Lisa mentioned earlier has been a very valuable resource for me also. Melissa Roberts, who teaches the workshop, has spent years researching the technique of plain sewing. Most of plain sewing was for household use items such as underpinnings and shirts. The most exciting aspect of the workshop was the collection of clothing owned by Brenau University and made accessable to us for study during the workshop. Mrs. Roberts was very patient with us and walked us through making a sample book of stitches very much like a child would have been taught the plain sewing system in the 19th century.

One method of sewing the seams together for under wear and shirts or for making fabric wider that has virtually been lost is 'seaming'. Seaming uses tiny overcast-type stitches to join straight seams so tightly that sometimes they can't even be seen without close scrutiny. The stitches often are as close together as the threads in the fabric. The fabric is folded in at the seam line if it's not on a selvidge edge, then butted up against the other piece of fabric that is also folded in, then sewn on the right side of the fabric. If it's a selvidge edge (they have to be pretty for this to work), the edges are 'seamed' together. Once the seam is sewn, it is pressed flat. It makes a very un-bulky join and is very durable. This is much easier to understand when there's an illustration or example. There were lots of examples of this in Brenau's collection.

I highly reccommend the workshop if they have it again and the book Melissa Roberts researched and wrote, Plain Needlework, a Guide to Nineteenth Century Hand Sewing. You can find the book at: http://www.hollisandbell.com/

Trish Hasenmueller

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Re: Felling Seams

Here is a good example of the herringbone stitch used to finish a seam in a wool garment. It ends up nice and flat and won't ravel out. This is from the Hollis and Bell Publishers website. http://www.hollisandbell.com/herrpage.html

They also have a photo of a seam that is put together with 'seaming': http://www.hollisandbell.com/seampage.html as well as examples of several other plain sewing techniques. These had been added since I saw the website last so it looks like they have plans to add several others also.

Trish Hasenmueller

[Jeffrey Przewozniak]

Re: Felling Seams

Good Afternoon!

Just thought this site might help out those who aren't familiar with some of the terms used here...

http://www.classicstitches.com/know_how/index.cfm?cat=Stitch%20Glossary&let=A

Great discussion!

I am in earnest,

[wildflower]

Seam finishes, Long Again!

Greetings,

I tried looking in your web link, Jeffrey, for the point rabattre/hemstitch stitch, but I don't think it's there. It directly translates from French into "stitch down stitch"--not exactly a good description! So, I called a friend of mine who curates a costume collection here and she says she's believes its called the underhanded hemstitch--but I still couldn't find instructions online. It is, however, in Diderot's Art of the Tailor--portrayed in Plate IX, figures 16-18.

Here's a hands on description...Figure that you roll over the fabric (felling the seam or making the hem)...Make a single running stitch on the back fabric, come up and take a bit of the front fabric, then make a single running stitch on the back. The cumulative result is somewhat like this:

_ / _ /_ /_ /_ /

however, on the outside of the back piece, all you see is this:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

and on the inside, looking at the front piece, all you see is this:

/ / / / / /

It's a bit hard to convey this without a drawing or photo, so please bear with me! However, this stitch is very common in small clothes, especially body shirts and shifts.

Trish, I've seen the "seaming" technique you describe, though my grandma called it "fine drawing." Sewing stitches and techniques seem to spur multiple names, don't they? I have a stack of old sheets, all painstakingly done that way, joining two widths of linen selvedge to selvedge...Grandma said that her mom threatened her that she'd never land a husband unless she sewed 10 sheets for her trousseau--which she never did--but she finally got married at 40 when she convinced her high school rival that bought sheets were better for her (really his) sanity!

I have only seen/heard of the technique used on linen and wool--it requires a really good smooth selvedge--and I fear cotton might shrink and buckle with it. For clothing use, I have personally only seen it used on 18th century clothes--on a bodyshirt and a shift where wider linen was used. However, it is a logical technique for anytime where there's the opportunity to join selvedges. Modern linen just doesn't have that good a selvedge...

I understand that the Smithsonian has a wool garment (fine felted broadcloth) where the technique was used with cut edges--it's held together for more than 200 years, so that must be some awesome broadcloth!

I have used the technique on a pair of cloaks I made for my unit (rev war, remember!) from real handspun/handwoven wool--I figured that special fabric needed a special technique--and why not do it since I documented it! I found that it's also a fairly rapidly sewn stitch--so I can kind of see how those ladies (not Grandma!) made it through the miles of sheets in their trousseaus. Hey, but Granny had it all--a fabulous career life during WWI and the 20s, then life with two kids, a hubby and (perhaps best of all) bought sheets (she also held out for an electric fridge and clothes washer)!

For those interested, this technique boils down to using the overcast stitch as a seam. Whip (overcast) two selvedges together, about 1/16" from the edges. When you are done, pull the joined pieces apart so they butt up...you've got a jointed/fine drawn edge.

But Trish, did you see any of the finishes on the ladies undergarments? What did you see? What about tucks and trims?

YMOS,

Mary Dotson

[Jeffrey Przewozniak]

Re: Seam finishes, Long Again!

Hi Mary,

Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.classicstitches.com/know_how/know_how.cfm?how_to_id=102&how_to_cat=Stitch%20Glossary&let=H

Hope it helps, always does to see a picture, you know... ;)

I am in earnest,

[wildflower]

Re: Felling Seams

No, that's an embroidery stitch used in open work, such as hardanger (used to trim blouses, houselinens). The stitch I am describing includes no backstitch and has a true overhand stitch component.

I just made a jpeg of the stitch in powerpoint, but I can't seem to post it. I'll try emailing it to you privately, but you'll have to send me that address, since it's blocked as well.

YMHOS

Mary Dotson

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Felling Seams

Mary Dotson wrote:
“…made me wonder if shifts were still worn and if linen may have still been used for ladies undergarments – especially among older women and poorer types.”

A shift-style chemise would be a real aberration during the mid-19th century. Chemises made in this style had disappeared from common usage in the early decades of the century. While you might find documentation of a decidedly old-fashioned elderly woman who continued to wear the style into the middle of the century, it would be very, very unusual.

The use of linen in women’s undergarments has pretty much disappeared by the 1840s-early 1850s as the transition is made to the more readily available, less expensive cotton longcloth. While linen continues to be used for household goods – sheets, towels, table linens – throughout the century, by the mid-19th century it is primarily used for shirt fronts, some women’s collars and cuffs, and some linings, it doesn’t really make a comeback as textile for garments until the turn of the century. I have 30+ chemises in my personal collection from 1850-1870, and have examined approximately another 50-60 chemises in other collections covering the years 1820-1890. I have notes on one linen chemise from the late 1820s-early 1830s and two linen-cotton blends from the late 1840s-early 1850s; all of the rest were made from cotton.

“I have read somewhere that French seams were never used – but I have seen a single French seam on a pair of drawers…though the owner wasn’t certain of the date of manufacture.”

In 35 years of studying mid-19th century clothing I’ve found one garment with a French seam: a single undersleeve from the early 1860s. Close examination of some other garments believed to have French seams revealed that they were not; on these garments the seam allowances were folded in toward each other and then hand overcast, a technique that can look like a French seam but uses different construction. I don’t consistently find examples with French seams until much later in the century. An example from the Civil War era would be an aberration.

“I really wonder about petticoats…” and “how common trims (lace, broderie anglaise) and tucks would be on adult items”
Petticoats: cotton, wool, quilted or corded? I have five cotton petticoats in my collection and have examined at least 12 more in other collections. I also have several quilted ones, and have notes on many other quilted, wool and corded petticoats. What are you ‘wondering’ about? :)

Whitework embroidered trims, broderie anglaise, and tucks are quite common on adult chemises, drawers, and petticoats as well as children’s underclothes. The amount and lavishness of the trim varies with the type and use of the garment. Period magazines and museum catalogs show numerous examples and patterns, and extant examples are quite common. Do you have a specific question regarding these trims?

“I’ve only see the “seaming” technique used on linen and wool.”
It’s used quite frequently on cotton chemises, petticoats, drawers and men’s shirts during the period, and I've found it on two occasions used for the skirt seams on a sheer dress. None of the garments exhibit any signs of shrinkage, ripples, etc. I’ve occasionally found it on any outergarments during this period, primarily silk mantles, but it's not as common as a plain seam with a narrow seam allowance. I don't recall finding the term “fine drawing” in a sewing manual from this period, although I have found it referred to as an “overhand seam”.

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Re: Felling Seams

Here's an Internet connection to the clothing collection at Brenau University. You might also direct questions to the director there.

http://artsweb.brenau.edu/Wages/default.htm

Trish Hasenmueller

ps, I'd like to think that those girls on there are NOT wearing the real vintage clothes.

[wildflower]

Re: Felling Seams

Dear Carolann,

Thanks, this is just what I wanted! As I looked at the items, I realize I am probably looking at this through the perspective of 18th c...And the warped late Victorian/Depression housewife perspective of my grandmother...but the difficulty is that when you only have access to a few items, there is no way to know what aspects are typical or not. I have gone to the county library and the Lib of Congress and never found any books detailing the stitches used (in what places), the finishes, etc. for women's undergarments. I think there is a really big need for a book (perhaps for the whole century, since you have the collection) showing the evolution of construction details for underclothes. Even corsets--how frequently were they boned through internal or external channels--how frequent were gussetts? Perhaps I can inspire you to this!!! :D

I thought that that shift/chemise was odd--though couldn't say why. The owner has pretty good provenance, but the woman was German--so I don't know what that means...Perhaps just that older German immigrants may have been inclined towards old fashioned underwear! The drawers were equally odd--it was only on one seam, so go figure. One of my first connundrums making men's (18th c) shirts was how to fell the seams so that they didn't lump up at the intersections of seams under the arm. I started calling this error "the dreaded lumpy." Finally a lady at the costume center at Williamsburg showed me how to get it right. Then a few months ago, I looked over a very early 19th c. shirt--one that showed signs that it had been made by two hands--and I found the dreaded lumpy under one sleeve!

Now, I don't want to apply this to a later period off hand, but it does seem that with handsewn items, there is greater variation of technique, probably done by different hand, with different ethnic backgrounds, with different levels of experience, with different perceptions of what it took to attain desired results. Also, then as now there were just some women who had (inately?) a better sense of fashion and higher spatial intelligence for construction technique.

It occurs to me that that shirt I described above may have been the first shirt that a young woman worked on. An older, better sewer showed her how to sew certain parts, then she worked on other areas in her clumsier stitches. Or perhaps she finished work started by someone else. She made a mistake on one sleeve--but she didn't repeat it on the other. She was likely corrected--but despite that error, someone felt it was worthwhile to save a garment that showed that she--at least once--had poor sewing skills. The result was a souvenir not of the typical technique--but it's interesting nevertheless.

BTW--do you know what I mean by underhand hemstitch? Was it used?

Now, I'm gonna take you up on your offer regarding petticoats!!! Watch out, here the questions come:

Quilted Petticoats: Who wore theses? Were they worn for warmth or skirt support? What kinds of fabrics were used? Colors? If cotton, were prints used? If wool--was it calandered or otherwise finished? Were there any with different combinations of fabrics--wool, say inside, cotton outside? Were the insides in louder colors/prints than the outside (or vis versa)? More subdued colors for older folks? Ever purposefully made in mourning colors? Whole cloth, or were they ever pieced? Were they wadded at the top or was it unlined above the tummy to save bulk at the waist? Wool batting or cotton? How often was the quilting utility oriented (eg, just diamonds) versus fancier patterns like feathers, swags, flowers, etc.? Was any added trim applied (ruffles, tucks, broiderie anglais, lace, etc.)? If so, where? Waistband opening--in front or side? Buttoned closure?

Okay, I'm going to let you breath now and stop, since that's a whole lot to cover!!! I have more questions--are you sure you don't want to write a book on this ? If so, I'm happy to crank out my questions for you!

Many thanks!

Mary Dotson