Hi Sahi!  For the dress that you're trying to re-create, I would recommend starting with a base structure that looks something like this (but shorter, of course).  It will take a lot of pattern manipulation and planning of the various 'patchwork' pieces, but you always want to start with a foundation that fits well, which the cut of this dress lends itself to easily.  Your 'Dress Pattern Designing' book has really good information on how to manipulate a pattern to create some of the effects of the dress that you want, such as shirring along part of the bust.  And, of course, I'm more than happy to lend advice and insight whenever I can.  But to be honest with you, re-creating this dress is, in my opinion, much more difficult and complicated than the 'gleeman's cloak' you also want to make.

cyan wrote:

Hi Sahi!  For the dress that you're trying to re-create, I would recommend starting with a base structure that looks something like this (but shorter, of course).  It will take a lot of pattern manipulation and planning of the various 'patchwork' pieces, but you always want to start with a foundation that fits well, which the cut of this dress lends itself to easily.  Your 'Dress Pattern Designing' book has really good information on how to manipulate a pattern to create some of the effects of the dress that you want, such as shirring along part of the bust.  And, of course, I'm more than happy to lend advice and insight whenever I can.  But to be honest with you, re-creating this dress is, in my opinion, much more difficult and complicated than the 'gleeman's cloak' you also want to make.

Glad you pointed me to this post yesterday. I guess I totally missed it before.

Oh I know it will be more difficult than the gleeman's cloak. The gleeman's cloak just needs a lot more materials than I have right now. But I really should work on the materials that I do already have. (Spreading out the work, so I won't have to do as much later on.)

And I wasn't so much thinking of manipulating the pattern, as making the pattern pieces out of even smaller pieces. It won't be exactly the same as Libra's dress, but I might get close enough. And if not, I'll just try again. :)

Making a shaped dress fit _me_ properly, now THAT is a challenge! I've tried once with a corset like vest and failed.

I just noticed that the sun had started signing, so I decided to try and snap a picture of my new skirt. it didn't work when I was inside, so I took a tripod and made one on the rooftop terrace.

Here it is. I deliberately cut off my feet in the picture, as I was once again wearing my house slippers. :)

Sahi wrote:

Making a shaped dress fit _me_ properly, now THAT is a challenge! I've tried once with a corset like vest and failed.

You can't fit yourself, any twist of the torso, lift of the arm, it alters the fit of a garment unnaturally because those are not the movements that you would make if you were simply 'wearing' a garment.  (You make allowances for such movement, but that's an entirely different discussion). However, there are standards of good fit and a manner by which that can be achieved given limitations, if you know what to look for.

BUT, since you can't effectively fit yourself, how can you be sure that the person you tasked to fit you actually knows what they're doing.

And also, does your definition of a 'good fit' differ from mine?  It's all so very subjective!

Sahi, I always have time for you.  You can catch me on Skype, on email, or here.

*hugs*

If you're using commercial patterns, choose a size that fits you well from the waist on up.  Below the waist is easily adjustable, because all you're dealing with is a variable width at a fixed level, a horizontal adjustment.   Unless you're doing pants, but that only involves working with a second dimension, the vertical length for the crotch depth which you encountered when you did the culottes.  You get into 3-D when dealing with a bust fit because the front-to-back dimension becomes crucial, as well as rounding around shoulders and accounting for sleeves, that is much more complicated.  If your pattern fits well from the waist up, the waist down part is easy to deal with.

Generally, commercial patterns are drafted to include two things: 1) fit ease*, and 2) style ease.  'Ease' is an American terminology referring to the extra width included in the pattern to allow for movement and comfort (fit) and the overall silhouette (style). 

The American standard for fit ease is 1.5"/3.75cm across the relevant width dimensions: bust, waist, and hips.  What that means is an additional 1.5"/3.75cm is already added to the overall width of the garment to allow for movement and comfort in addition to the actual measurement of the body that said garment is meant to clothe**.  For example, if your actual hip measurement is 36", a close fitting skirt pattern will measure out to be minimum 37.5" total width. 

Style ease is whatever additional is width necessary to achieve the 'look' intended.  In the case of our 'kimono' costumes, the skirt portion of that costume was designed to be very loose and full.  Fit ease was not a consideration because the required style ease made that irrelevant.  However, if you're doing a very close fitting garment in a stretch knit, style considerations may require you to not only set your style ease to zero, but also cut into the fit ease, because stretch knits will do what it does, stretch.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit off point.

To adjust the hip width, either way (more or less), measure all of the pattern pieces across the hip***, determine what your desired measurement should be (actual hip measurement + fit ease +/- style ease), figure the difference between the two (subtract or add), then divide equally amongst the number of pattern pieces you're working with.

In previewing this comment, it even came across to me like an infodump, sorry.  As I said previously, I always have time for you.

* The way I was taught, the rules pertaining to 'fit' ease was based on layers of clothing starting from the body outwards.  A corset would have zero fit or style ease, or maybe even negative dimensions used for certain definitions of style.  But for every layer of clothing from the skin outwards, the standard of 1.5"/3.75cm per layer continues to hold.  Except for vests, they are a sort of weird in-between garment that everyone approaches differently.

** A slightly different rule applies to skirts or pants.  Only 0.5"/1.25cm is added to waistbands for fit ease.  Thereafter, the 1.5"/3.75 rule applies.

***  Determining the hip line is not as easy as it used to be on commercial patterns.  Let me know if you need some guidance.  It's not complicated, just a bit backwards.

So...  our dear Libra arrived safe and sound yesterday evening.  And no, I'm not done with our costumes, still sewing away here...  *panics*

ylvs wrote:

Oh Cyan it will be weird to go to Tad's reading on sunday without you ...

* fondly remember her trip with her blueness to Münster *

I know!  This is one of those instances where I really want the ability to be in two places at once. 

And remember the look on Tad's face when we got up to the signing table and I told him where I'm from?  *That* was worth the trip right there!

In other news....  Libra just tried on her new red & gold dragon silk brocade corset and it fits perfectly.  I fear for the continued well-being of my arm I'm patting myself on the back so much.  ;-)

Last edited by cyan (2011-10-21 13:59:29)

I can't wait for the pics!

*bumps*

Yeah, I decided to do a little self-promoting.

*shameless*

Yeah, it's been a long, long time.

I'm not sure I even posted pic of those last outfits.

I'm hoping for not-freezing-cold weather tomorrow so I can go to Ikea. I need a new medieval dress, and I want some cheap fabric to practise with, first.

Huh?

Oh. You're not referring to the furniture store.