Poodle skirts - and - does anyone recognise this pattern !?

Thank you.

Thanks - I didn't realise the pattern was an old one, but thought I might find another on ebay - which is why I wanted the number. Also I didn't even know they had the same pattern for sale in different sizes! (So I guess that shows why folks should list the number. The same seller has the size I want, but didn't even know, because I couldn't "advance search" for it!)

wiggle room, wearing ease, etc. A waistband that's exactly the size of the waist is uncomfortable.

-- Jenn Ridley : snipped-for-privacy@chartermi.net

Is she saying 6x the radius, because the skirt needs to have "extra" material to create the "wavey" effect? (Sorry for the " marks - I'm a man, ya know.)

Of course, thank you.

I don't think so.

The radius is the distance from the center of the circle to the line defining the circle. The circumference is how long the outside edge of the circle is.

The first line drawn on the pattern is 1/4 of the waist measurement, which is I think what Veloise was getting at. However, the easiest wasy to *get* that is to define the radius of the circle necessary to get the proper sized circle for the waist.

An example, with numbers. waist measurement is 29 inches, skirt length is 32 inches, including hem allowance. Add an inch to the waist measurement for wearing ease (and to make the math easier).

Take a tape measure. Put the zero end at the corner of your paper/fabric. Pin it down, or hold it down so that it can pivot at that corner. Make a mark 4 inches out from the zero point, all the way along the arc defined by pivoting the tape measure around the corner. If you measure that line (by standing a flexible tape measure along it) it should be close to 7.5 inches (which is one quarter of the waist circle.

-- Jenn Ridley : snipped-for-privacy@chartermi.net

Not necessary. ;-) What you really want is a "full circle skirt". If you don't want to do the math, and draft a pattern, you can still use that Simplicity costume pattern, and it's current. Simplicity

Beverly

Well, it's true, some of us are a little quick on the "kill-the-newsgroup-spammer" trigger, but there is ample reason for that. We go through periods of having a great many spams posted to this group, and we fear the death of the newsgroup for *discussion* if we don't kill 'em off right quick! ;-)

You're welcome, and if you can't find that one, Simplicity 4236 has both a full circle and half circle skirt. NAYY (Not Affiliated, Yadda, Yadda) ;-)

Beverly

Thanks! I think my DN passed it on to my DGD, I'll try to get some pictures. I like the idea of the record, too.

Beverly

It's about as historically accurate as canned baked beans in mediaeval Persia! For a start, if claims to cover two different eras: 18th C and Victorian. The cut and construction of corsets was so different in each era as to make this impossible, as the profile wanted for 18th C garments is so very different from that required for Victorian... And fabrics were very different too.

Sewing clothes to fit well for either era requires starting from the skin and working outwards, with the correct chemise, corset, petticoats, crinolines and stockings and shoes! The gowns themselves are cut in many pieces and usually require quite a few fittings. No, they are not difficult: there are no really complex sewing techniques needed for either era. It's no more difficult than making a wedding dress, really. It's just a very long process, requiting patience and a willingness to redo bits several times! I find the only 'difficult' bit of the whole process is the eyelets - which should be stitched rather than metal grommets, for both accurate looks and strength.

That pattern will do fine if you want a quick Halloween costume.

If you really want something historically accurate, I can steer you in the direction of much better patterns. But have a care - making historically accurate clothing is addictive! Simplicity do some good and reasonably accurate Victorian patterns, for both underpinnings and outer garments. Their other eras are dodgy in the extreme! You can see how much work is involved in one Victorian ball gown on my web site. It took me over 55 hours sewing time to make, and I'm a professional!

Sounds like a headache. Looking at that ebay pattern again, the sleeves (on the red one anyway) look very tight. If that's the case it probably wouldn't suit her.

: )

Oh, no... We've bought some recently for her to make everyday clothes, actually.

I found a website that sold already-sewn costume clothing. Much of what I saw really didn't look like costumes at after the modern fabrics were used. So the other day while my wife looked through the usual McCalls, Butterick, etc. pattern books in a store (trying to find something that didn't reveal her breasts to the world, had some sleeves, and no skirt slits showing her underwear)... I just flipped straight to the costume section, said to her to ignore the colours, hats and props and focus on the shape and fit of the clothes instead, and imagine them in materials and colours she would normally buy.

So she bought:

McCalls M4622 - (Little Bo-Peep - leave off the hat, reduce the width of the lace and lower the hem.)

McCalls M4548 - (Dress "A")

Butterick 3992 - (In particular the red/burgundy pic. A little too "flared", but hoping to work out why that is the case and reduce that a little.)

Butterick B4570

Butterick 6816 - (The one in tartan - remove/reduce the neck & wrist lace.)

And Vogue 1753 - (For me!)

So were after long, feminine, modest-type clothing. Pretty School marm type stuff - shirts with balloon sleeves, etc.

(Needless to say, we like Little House On The Prairie, Old Yeller and Anne Of Green Gables.) ; )

Allan

No - it's fun! :D

Heavy arms can be accommodated with a nifty pattern alteration.

Sounds like you need some 'Laura Ashley' type patterns, circa 1973... ;)

If you are using them for modern dress and for general fair wear, the Simplicity will do fine, but for anything where real period accuracy is needed, they are way off the mark!

Also worth looking at: