Click clock click, peplum skirt #4

A calm and considered rant, with a result.

Right, I waited long enough for courtesy.  6 days ago I sent  a message via FaceBook and an email to Reconstructing History, detailing the problems with the skirt, and reminding them of the issues with the Edwardian shirtwaist.  I got an acknowledgement, saying they’d get back to me on Monday, when in their office.

Monday came and went, as did Tuesday.  Then I got a circular message on FaceBook, asking if anyone would write some reviews of their patterns.  I sarcastically replied that I’d be pleased to, but given the trouble I’d had with the latest two, they might not like the outcome.  I got an immediate reply, was told that my message had ended up in their junkmail file [yeah right, you’d already acknowledged it] and that they would act promptly.

Now at this stage, I was communicating with Bob, who is [I think] Kass’s husband.  Not sure, I may be wrong, anyway the point is, there MAY have been a break in communication.  Let’s be fair.  He read my messages, said he had no clue, and would ask Kass immediately.  Shortly after, he replied, pasting in her response.  Here it is.

Let me start off by saying that this pattern was drafted based on an original pattern printed in 1914 by McCall Pattern Company and now off copyright.  I’m going to include a photo of the original pattern cover in hopes that it will help you.  I modified the pattern based on another pattern draft in a book I have that dates to 1919 that attaches each side of the peplum to each side of the center back opening.  The original pattern sewed it to itself as you will see from the photo.  There certainly shouldn’t be a 5″ gap at center back.  However, many things could have contributed to this.  Are you sure you cut the peplum on the grain specified?  You wouldn’t believe how much this matters.  I recently accidentally cut a pair of tap pants on the straight when they were supposed to be on the bias and I simply could not get them on.  They had no stretch at all.  That’s really the only reason I could see that would account for this big a discrepancy.

The original had a 26″ waist and a 43″ hip. As I’m sure you realize, this is a huge difference from even a modern corseted figure. When grading this pattern, I attempted to adjust it to a more modern measurement “spread.” But I admit that doesn’t always work perfectly. I still think a 5″ gap is awfully big. It seems to me that something which *should* be on the bias *isn’t.*  If that’s not the case, I really have no idea. There is always the possibility that I’ve goofed up, but I’m pretty certain I didn’t, because this pattern has been in print since 2011 and this is the first I’ve heard that the peplum didn’t meet where it’s supposed to. The only thing I can advise is piecing and/or cut another peplum; if you piece the under-peplum, the new outer peplum will cover it.

It’s always possible that the original was based on a figure with a very flat posterior and you may be wonderfully curvy. The bottom line – har – is that I’m as struggling to make sense of it as you. 

I’m really sorry that I can’t help you more.

This is very similar to the tone of our communication regarding the aborted shirtwaist [remember?  The sleeve was sideways, the cuff wouldn’t go round a twig…]

Kass included this image-look at the back view.  Then look at the drawing of the back view from the RH pattern.

Bit of a difference, don’t you think?

Meanwhile of course, back here at the ranch, the lovely Birdmommy had hooked me up with the ORIGINAL original, predating the McCall’s version, which is from a very old publication ‘Thornton’s International System’, a pattern drafting handbook where all you get is a diagram, and have to draw up your own pattern.  No idea if any errors were introduced by McCall’s, but it seems unlikely.

Point 1- that McCall’s pattern clearly shows a back view rather different to that drawn in Kass’s version.  The peplum flounces are joined together, overlaying the seam, not being caught in.  They also drop down, as I expected, not curved up, as in her drawing.

Point 2- no matter if drafted from McCalls’s or Thornton’s, the ruddy pattern pieces do not fit together.  Personal size, the shape of my bum, whatever, the jigsaw pieces should bloody well fit!

The Thornton drafting instructions expect you to use your own measurements.  Kass’s sizing is to fit over a corseted figure, and includes her adjustments to ‘modern sizes’.  Women in 1910 were just as stout as me, honest, there are instructions in Thornton’s manual for dealing with the ‘matronly’ figure, lol.

Point 3- I’ve been sewing for nearly 40 years, I understand grain etc, and I’d already told her my measurements are from the paper pattern.

I replied, and made the above points.  I also pointed out that, given her very large catalogue of patterns, I’m really surprised to see very few reviews on Pattern Review.  I related a conversation I’d had with a lady on a historical sewing group, where she said that although Kass is a very nice person, she does not respond well to criticism, and has in fact several times attacked negative reviewers, and pressed them to remove their reviews.  She was so worried about this that at the end of our conversation, she deleted the thread.

I reiterated my question made during the shirtwaist debacle, ‘does she get her patterns tested?’  I had jokingly offered my services in this regard, but now withdraw the offer.

I suggested that she should be prepared to take feedback, and act on it.  [Collette patterns, anyone?]  I asked for a refund for both patterns [I’d been prepared to take the hit, as a one off, but 50% failure is not acceptable]

After another nudge on Facebook, I got a reply.  No angry response, but no major climb down.  I have asked for a refund on the 2 patterns, and, if they think it appropriate, a refund on the one have I not yet made up.  Then I had to hunt down my invoice numbers because they couldn’t find them.  Lordy.

I will be able to salvage the skirt, in fact, it’s almost done.  As you know, I was unable to salvage the blouses.  I’ve wasted a lot of time and energy on these, and my reviews will reflect this.  I think it’s diabolical that there are so few easily visible reviews for these, and yet private conversations are overwhelmingly negative.  I guess that most people blame themselves for the problems they have.

Not this Fairy.