Jump to content


Photo

Drafting systems


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#55 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:21 AM

I have tried direct measures for a ladies' draft: a total disaster. I checked the front shoulder and depth of scye measurements over and over with great care. The direct measures were totally useless, as I constantly ran into trouble with a tight armscye. I spent countless hours trying to account for the repeated failure of the direct measures.

The only thing that helped somewhat was the Thornton method of shoulder measures. Thornton claimed that these measures contained inherent information about proportions and because of this, inter observer variation in taking the shoulder measures (ie error) was not relevant. He was highly dismissive of simple direct measures as they were too prone to error and I agree with him totally.

The only real thing that helped in this case was the ability to eyeball the figure and make adjustments to the proportions accordingly. The complex 3D disproportions you encounter in real life are too complex to be accurately measured by simple direct measures.

In any case, this debate about proportionate vs direct measures is an old one and I am surprised it hasn't surfaced earlier. As for me, I tend to side with Thornton, Whife and the 1950s Rundschau authors on this one.

#56 Nishijin

Nishijin

    Master

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,704 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France.
  • Interests:Mainly tailoring it seems, but my friends know better...

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:28 AM

You know what ?

It always makes me laugh when someone explains to me that something is impossible... though I do it everyday.

I have never cut for ladies, so I won't pronounce myself there.


About 3D shapes : proportions are just as simple as direct measures. There is no fundamental change there. Proportions are only a theory of what the direct measure should be. The construction grid is made with the same principles.
With direct measures, there are also some points that can be found with triangulation, which is a pretty good way to approximate complex 3D curves.
http://www.paulgrassart.com

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Mark Twain

#57 jukes

jukes

    Pro

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London Suburbs

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:33 AM

I am with Sator on this one. Direct measure systems are only as good as the measurements taken and applied, which is difficult to get right even if your measurements are within + / - 5mm. Although i do take check measures and adjust a proportionate draft to suit.

#58 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 May 2011 - 02:47 AM

Proportions are only a theory of what the direct measure should be.


That is where proportionate measures are so important: proportion. The measures are relative to a whole series of other measure. It acknowledges the interconnectedness of the individual measures in forming a Whole or a a Gestalt. Direct measures are atomised entities that can exist in themselves without any connected to a greater Whole.

#59 Nishijin

Nishijin

    Master

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,704 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France.
  • Interests:Mainly tailoring it seems, but my friends know better...

Posted 23 May 2011 - 03:08 AM

If you take direct measures without thinking, yes, they are meaningless atomised entities. But nothing prevents you from using your head.
For example, I take several measures on the chest level :
  • chest girth
  • cross-back
  • cross front
  • armhole width

If you don't check that 1 = 2+3+4, then of course, you are screwed.

Difference between x-back and x-front is meaning something about customer's posture. It should be compatible with vertical measures taken in the back and the front.

When taking direct measures, one must always think about what they mean, what kind of information they give. It is not just a number about distance between 2 points.


I have a reserve about direct measures : they must be taken by the same guy who will draft the pattern. If not, the guy taking measures must know how to draft, and must draft the exact same way than the one who will make the pattern. So I don't believe that direct measures can be reliable in big houses where there are salesmen taking measures, and cutters reading a form to draft the pattern.

Maybe that is why proportion systems were prefered to direct measures.
  • zanzare likes this
http://www.paulgrassart.com

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Mark Twain

#60 J. Maclochlainn

J. Maclochlainn

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,127 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2011 - 03:58 AM

All I have to say is "No one is proportionate" case closed :D

Both ways, in the hands of those skilled in these disciplines will produce the same fit. I personally work with direct measures better than proportional systems.
  • tailleuse and Kimberly like this
Silly Cognoscenti, Drape is for windows!

#61 jukes

jukes

    Pro

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London Suburbs

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:01 AM

All I have to say is "No one is proportionate" case closed :D

Both ways, in the hands of those skilled in these disciplines will produce the same fit. I personally work with direct measures better than proportional systems.


True no one is proportionate, but taking a direct measure between two points, you have to know exactly where point A begins and point B ends, is that possible on the human body, can you tell exactly where the centre back neck is or the neck point, or the armhole etc,?
  • tailleuse likes this

#62 J. Maclochlainn

J. Maclochlainn

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,127 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 May 2011 - 06:05 AM

If you take your measures purposely, with intent and not rush it you can get pretty damn close. Like Nishi says, there are check measures you can perform to make sure you are on mark. Not trying to argue, for me direct measures are just as good if not better than a proportionate block.
Silly Cognoscenti, Drape is for windows!

#63 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 May 2011 - 04:18 PM

True no one is proportionate, but taking a direct measure between two points, you have to know exactly where point A begins and point B ends, is that possible on the human body, can you tell exactly where the centre back neck is or the neck point, or the armhole etc,?


The direct measure systems were largely abandoned for this and many other reasons. While it sounds easy just to take direct measures, in reality it doesn't work anywhere near as well as that.

Ostinelli's point was that waist suppression distorted the positions of the construction lines. The end result was that where you are measuring and where you are applying your direct measures often turned out to be in different places. So not only do you not know exactly where point A starts and point B ends on the body, you don't where you are applying the measure to on the draft relative to the body. Add in the fact that there is a significant interobserver variation in measurements of the same figure, and the inaccuracies pile up.

Proportionate system aren't about predicting perfectly what this or that calculated measure should be based on some principle direct measures, but more about preserving the right relationships of balance and proportion to one another. Cutting is more about balance and proportion than it is about measurements.

In any case, this is on old point of controversy that has been going around and around for over a hundred years. It is also a much more finely weighted argument than supposed since even those who believe in proportionate system still take check measures and vice versa. I have always been surprised that a "war" hasn't erupted over this issue much sooner.

#64 Nishijin

Nishijin

    Master

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,704 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France.
  • Interests:Mainly tailoring it seems, but my friends know better...

Posted 23 May 2011 - 06:33 PM

Well, I won't start a war myself, and I don't say that direct or proportionate are better than the other.
All I say is that it is possible to draft from direct measures, and that in my case, I get better results with them.

About location of point A and B : one must used fixed landmarks. C7 vertebra doesn't move. Navel doesn't move. Neckpoint can be placed on the neck (there is a very convenient tendon there, which doesn't move). For some other points, use of "tools" is required.


It is true that when applying the direct measure on the draft, a horizontal construction line will be distorted by darts, waist suppression, etc. Nothing prevents the cutter to keep in mind that direct measure is body measure, which should be finished garment + ease. This can be taken in while drafting and checking the draft before cutting it.

Since proportionate cutter do take additional, direct measures too, to correct the draft, and still need a fitting later to precision tweaking, I think this "war" is pretty specious. I'm a practical man, my rule is "whatever works".


What I think very interesting in proportionate systems is that their author gave serious thoughts to what happen when one drafts a garment, then make it with all the distortions that it makes. This is gold, and very usefull to know whatever the measures used (proportionate or direct), because even with direct measures we need to anticipate it. And it is very usefull to know too for fitting later (to understand the cause of some problems).

I think proportionate cutting should be today the theoretical basis that a cutter needs to understand. Practical cutting can later be done by "whatever works".
  • zanzare likes this
http://www.paulgrassart.com

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Mark Twain

#65 Der Zuschneider

Der Zuschneider

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TX, Houston
  • Interests:- German Cutting Systems
    - Modern Tailoring by German Semi-Traditional Standards

Posted 24 May 2011 - 12:03 AM

Well, I won't start a war myself, and I don't say that direct or proportionate are better than the other.
All I say is that it is possible to draft from direct measures, and that in my case, I get better results with them.

About location of point A and B : one must used fixed landmarks. C7 vertebra doesn't move. Navel doesn't move. Neckpoint can be placed on the neck (there is a very convenient tendon there, which doesn't move). For some other points, use of "tools" is required.


It is true that when applying the direct measure on the draft, a horizontal construction line will be distorted by darts, waist suppression, etc. Nothing prevents the cutter to keep in mind that direct measure is body measure, which should be finished garment + ease. This can be taken in while drafting and checking the draft before cutting it.

Since proportionate cutter do take additional, direct measures too, to correct the draft, and still need a fitting later to precision tweaking, I think this "war" is pretty specious. I'm a practical man, my rule is "whatever works".


What I think very interesting in proportionate systems is that their author gave serious thoughts to what happen when one drafts a garment, then make it with all the distortions that it makes. This is gold, and very usefull to know whatever the measures used (proportionate or direct), because even with direct measures we need to anticipate it. And it is very usefull to know too for fitting later (to understand the cause of some problems).

I think proportionate cutting should be today the theoretical basis that a cutter needs to understand. Practical cutting can later be done by "whatever works".


Believe me. First proportional draft and then adapting to the measurements by pinching and gaping. Use the Rundschau system and you will be successfull. Since nobody believe me I can nothing do.
www.berlinbespokesuits.com

#66 greger

greger

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington, USA

Posted 25 May 2011 - 07:54 AM

The method you use and devise matters really only to you. Some cutters have more control this way over that way. Minds are wired different. What Nishijin says is nothing new. I believe direct measurements methods are best shown and not written about to teach, as some have said in the past. And then some do better with rock of eye. If I can't do a method well it has nothing to do with the ability of others with it.
  • jukes and tailleuse like this

#67 jukes

jukes

    Pro

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London Suburbs

Posted 25 May 2011 - 04:47 PM

The method you use and devise matters really only to you. Some cutters have more control this way over that way. Minds are wired different. What Nishijin says is nothing new. I believe direct measurements methods are best shown and not written about to teach, as some have said in the past. And then some do better with rock of eye. If I can't do a method well it has nothing to do with the ability of others with it.



+1


  • tailleuse likes this

#68 Lewis Davies

Lewis Davies

    Apprentice

  • Super Pro
  • PipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:27 PM

does anyone still have the images on this at all? 



#69 A TAILOR

A TAILOR

    Apprentice

  • Professional
  • PipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:metro chicago

Posted 08 December 2015 - 04:46 AM

yes Lew, I still have them all.



#70 A TAILOR

A TAILOR

    Apprentice

  • Professional
  • PipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:metro chicago

Posted 09 December 2015 - 01:44 AM

CORRECTION 

 

Lew I replied too quickly I was so sure. Went to check later, and its all gone.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users