Pattern Dissection. Example 1 (continued).

This problem is not particular to the design we are discussing. This problem is present in 99.99% of designs for hand knitters.  This is The Problem. 

The Problem.

The front and back of the sweater are planned to be the same width. 

Why is it such a huge problem?

Because people are not air balloons.  An air balloon expands evenly in all directions as the air is blown in. When people get larger in size, it is different.

I prefer to explain with pictures. Let's take a look at woman's silhouette, say, size 34, front and side:

And take a look  at the silhouette of a woman of the same height, but, say, size 42:

Here it is: usually we look at ourselves, at the pictures of the models from the front, sometimes from the back, but we usually don't take a look from the side. But the side look is very important for correct fit of the garment. If a designer doesn't pay attention to the side view of a human body, the fit is going to be badly off.

As people gain weight, the bulk of it goes to the front of the body. The back,  though it gets some additional padding, doesn't accumulate as much as front.

The side seam of a garment is going to go from the center of an armpit and down. But the arm doesn't move away from the back as one gets larger in size, it stays at the same place plus a little padding. All the additional weight we proudly carry in front of us. Let's take a look at the position of the side seam and the position of the line equidistant between the front and back:

The solid red line goes through the center of the armpit; the dashed red line is at the same distance from front and back of the figure. See the difference?

In real life it means that the side seam is not going to stay strictly vertical if we don't make front wider than the back. It is going to be like this: 

Yes, if we divide the necessary fabric evenly between the front and the back, the side seam is going to to start in the armpit, then bend toward the front. And it is going to torque the whole garment. 

It doesn't matter, if you do your sweater in parts and seam it later, or if it's done in the round without seams. If there is no seams, vertical columns of stitches are going to bend and they will torque the whole sweater the same way as if there are seams. No difference. 

The result will be the excess fabric on the back, across the shoulder blades; too little fabric on the front and it's going to pull; the whole thing is going to ride up in front and the neckline will choke you; the hemline is not going to be horizontal.

All these ills are more pronounced in garments made of woven fabric. Knits are much more forgiving. For smaller sizes hand-knit fabric is forgiving enough to be able to divide stitches evenly between front and back. But as we go closer to the size 40" bust, or a slender woman wears a bra with a cup size C or larger, the width for the front and back of a sweater have to be different.

Of course, it presents the problem for a designer. It makes it impossible just to plug in the same numbers for front and back. It requires actually to redesign a whole sweater, and the area of armhole and above armholes presents a challenge. 

The lower part of the armhole itself for a hand-knit sweater might be successfully designed the same for the front and the back. Initial armhole bind-off and shaping decreases up to the vertical part of the armhole we can plan the same. But then there are additional stitches on the front that have to be decreased, since we need to arrive to the same stitch count for the shoulders. How and where to decrease these stitches? 

These extra stitches may be divided and decreased in several places.

• Some of these stitches may be decreased along the vertical part of the armhole. It'll make this part of the armhole  not exactly vertical, but there is no harm in it if these decreases are planned carefully and thoughtfully.  What is not a good idea is to get rid of these stitches all at once, or over a short distance. But if you spread decreases over the whole height of the armhole, it is going to work.
• You can transfer some, not all of these decreases to the neck opening.
• You can plan and design a vertical bust dart. Women will be very grateful.

Yes, it is additional work for a designer, tech editor, test knitter, etc. But since when did we became so afraid of a little of additional work that we are so ready to sacrifice the quality of  the design? It takes one sweater to design and knit to figure out how to do big sizes and develop a template for designer, or for yourself. The you can follow this template. After all, your hand-knit sweater is the most expensive piece of clothes you own, considering the price of yarn and the amount of work involved. Why not to do it well?

Pattern Dissection. Example 1.

This is my first post on pattern dissection, but unfortunately, I believe, not the last one.

Last week my friend asked me for help with a cardigan she is knitting. Something is definitely off with the patter and I decided to take a closer look at it.

The pattern is "Leaf and Picot Cardigan" by Laura Grutzeck, originally published in Interweave Knits, Spring 2011 and now available on-line from Interweave Knits, it's the one on the cover, you can see it here.

The pattern says:

Finished Size 33 (36, 393⁄4, 441⁄2, 463⁄4, 533⁄4)" bust circumference, with 1⁄2"
front edgings meeting in center. Cardigan shown measures 393⁄4", modeled
with about 7" ease.

My questions: 
Why only finished sizes are listed? 
What are supposed actual bust measurements?
Is this cardigan supposed to have 7" ease allowance, or is it just because the sample cardigan was made in size L and the model happened to be size XS?
Why there is such a big gap between the two largest sizes?

My friend started on the largest size given in the pattern, aiming for 7" ease.

My first peeve (one of my pets), is a picot edge -- we are advised to cast on stitches with a provisional cast-on, then knit 5 rows in stockinette, work a turning row, knit 5 rows in stockinette, fold and join the picot edge. Pattern says:

folded hem measures about 1⁄2" high. Change to larger needles.

My comment:  this hem is going to look ugly, it's going to flip outward, despite the fact it was done on smaller needles, or amount of blocking the knitter is going to apply. Picot edge is going to look nice in one case only -- if you are going to whip-stitch folded edge to the inside. It'll look decent if it's about 1 1/2" wide, no less.

Then the knitter is supposed to work even in stitch pattern until it's time to shape armholes.
The pattern says:

Shape armholes: BO 6 (6, 6, 8, 8, 12) sts at beg of next 2
rows—74 (83, 92, 99, 106, 116) sts rem. Dec row: (RS) K1, ssk, work
in patt to last 3 sts, k2tog, k1—2 sts dec’d. Cont in patt, rep Dec row
every RS row 2 (5, 7, 8, 9, 11) more times—68 (71, 76, 81, 86, 92) sts
rem. Work even until armholes measure 7 (71⁄2, 8, 83⁄4, 10, 11)", ending
with a WS row.

Let's consider what we have here. The pattern says:

Gauge 21 sts and 30 rows = 4" in leaf lace patt on larger needles.

which means we have stitch gauge of 5.25 stitches in 1". For the largest size in the pattern the knitter is supposed to decrease 24 stitches total -- 12 to bind off at the beginning and then 12 stitches more to be decreased gradually. Considering the gauge, 24 stitches will give us armhole on the back 4.57" wide. Since the armholes are the same for the front and the back in this pattern we have 4.57+4.57=9.14" wide armhole. WOW! I would say it's a black-hole, not an armhole.

It is going to look bad. Really bad. These armholes are just huge, they are going to gap on front and back, and this is exactly what happened to my friend's sweater. When I visited my friend, she had the back fully done, and started on the front. When I put back of the sweater on her back, I could see immediately, that the fit of the sleeves is going to be unsightly, to say the least.

Let's take a look at the armholes for the smaller sizes:

• Size 33": bind off 6 sts; then decrease 3 more sts. Total 9 sts decreased. That gives us an armhole 1.71" wide, or 3.42" for both front and back. It's a good size.
•  
• Size 36": bind off 6 sts; decrease 6 more sts. Total 12 decreased. That gives us an armhole 2.28" wide; or 4.56" for both front and back. It's OK.
•  
• Size 39 3/4": bind off 6 sts; decrease 8 sts more. Total 14 sts decreased. That gives us an armhole 2.66" wide; or 5.32" for both front and back.  It's OK.
•  
• Size 44 1/2: bind off 8 sts; decrease 8 sts more. Total 16 sts decreased. That gives us an armhole 3.23" wide; or 6.46" for both, front and back. It's getting a little too wide.
•  
• Size 46 3⁄4: bind off 8 sts; decrease 9 sts more. Total 17 sts decreased. That gives us an armhole 3.42" wide; or 6.84" for both front and back. May be a bit too wide, but almost identical to the size 44 1/2 in width and it is absolutely possible to design a sleeve that will fit into it. 
•  
• Size 53 3/4: bind off 12 sts; decrease 12 sts more. We discussed this armhole above.

Why the jump to an armhole that is 4.57 (9.14)" wide. Why? I have no answer to this question. 

The pattern says for the armholes:

Work even until armholes measure 7 (71⁄2, 8, 83⁄4, 10, 11)", ending
with a WS row.

The interval in the armhole depth of about 1/2" to 3/4" between sizes seems reasonable to me. But then we have a jump of 1 1/4" between sizes 44 1/2 and 46 3/4. Why?  Doesn't seem reasonable. And then another 1" jump in the depth of the armhole to 11" for the size 53 3/4. Why it is less than between 44 1/2 and 46 3/4? The distance between 46 3/4 and 53 3/4 is greater  than the distance between 44 1/2 and 46 3/4.  Grading patterns is amusing work, isn't it?

Let's take a look at the sleeve. Here are the numbers for the sleeve cap height: 4.75(5.25, 5.75, 6, 6.75, 7.5)".  The ratio of the height of the sleeve cap to the depth of the armhole is between 68% and 70% for all sizes, which is good. 

My experience is that for a set-in sleeve the ratio of the sleeve height to the armhole depth is best within 75% to 85% range, outside this range the sleeve cap is either too short, or too high for the armhole. But 70% ratio will work most probably. 

There is one more serious issue with this pattern, but it'll be the subject for the next post, most probably later today.

Basic block for jersey and knit fabrics.

I have drafted the basic easy fitting block for jersey and knitted fabrics since it looks like the closest to hand-knit fabric in the amount of ease required for the standard fit sweater.

The instructions say: A block with 2 cm ease allowance for easy fitting tee shirts, tops and dresses (first bracket). Here it is:

This block is simplified as compared to the basic block for woven fabric. The front and back are the same except for the neckline; no bust darts; no shoulder darts; the armholes are the same for front and back; and the sleeve is symmetrical, so only one half of the sleeve is drafted.

In the table I summarized the measurements for sleeves and armholes:

	Close fitting block (bust measurement+10 cm/4" overall ease)	Jersey basic block (bust measurement+8 cm /3⅛" overall ease)
back armhole height	18 cm (7 ")	19.4 cm (7 ⅝")
armhole depth	11.3 cm (4 ½")	10 cm (4")
sleeve cap height	14 cm (5 ½")	11.5 cm (4 ½")
sleeve width	33.8 cm (13 ½")	37.2 cm (14 ⅝")
bicep measurement	28.4 cm (11 ⅝")	28.4 cm (11 ⅝")
sleeve ease (sleeve width measurement minus bicep  measurement)	5.4 cm (2⅛")	8.8 cm (3 ½")

Here is what we have for jersey basic easy fitting block compared to the fitted block for woven fabric:

•  the overall ease allowance is less;
• armhole is higher;
• sleeve cap is lower; 
• sleeve itself is wider in the bicep area;
• significantly more ease in the sleeve;

So, easy fitting jersey block has less overall ease, but significantly more ease for the sleeve. Let’s do some calculations. 

For the close fitting sleeve we have ease allowance that is 54% of the overall ease; for the jersey we have sleeve ease allowance  that is more than overall ease, 110% to be exact. It is huge amount of ease.  Armhole is also noticeably higher. Sleeve cap is significantly lower. If you make the sleeve cap so much lower than the armhole height, you have to do your sleeve wider to achieve the same sleeve cap perimeter as armhole has.

Then there is one more interesting difference:

Sleeve length for woven fabric block is 58.6 cm (23 ¹/₁₆").

Sleeve length for jersey block is 56.4 cm (22 ⅜").

Do we really need shorter sleeves for jersey garments?  I don’t think so. In the basic block I would expect sleeves to be the same length.

But for the sleeve to reach the same point on the arm the length of the sleeve is not the only factor – we need to consider the total distance from the center of the neck on the back, over the shoulder and down the arm. Let’s see:

·         for the woven fabric basic block we have: 7.2+13.3+58.6=79.1 cm (31 ⅛")

·         for the jersey basic block: 7.6+11.2+56.4=75.2 cm (29 ⅝")

·         the difference is 3.9 cm (1 ⅝")

This is a serious difference in the suggested length of the sleeve. Why?

I feel like I’m 5 years old. I’m asking ‘Why?’ all the time, non-stop.

Flat cutting, easy fitting

The table of contents of the ‘The Metric Pattern Cutting for Women’s Wear’ book says:

“Part two: Flat cutting. (Cutting flat shapes for casual and jersey garments)”

Well, frankly, I thought that all patterns for all garments are cut flat. Just because you have a flat piece of fabric laid on the table to cut. Apparently, the author of the book has something different in mind.

Then there are chapters:

“9   Easy fitting garments (woven fabrics)

10   Basic and easy fitting garments (jersey and knitted fabrics)

11   Close fitting garments (stretch and jersey fabrics)”

I think Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 are exactly what I need. But first – what actually is ‘cutting flat shapes’ and ‘easy fitting garments’?

There is an answer in the introduction to this chapter: “flat cutting without using dart shaping or close fitting waist shaping”. OK, so it’s easy fitting for a designer, not for the customer. Very simple to cut, very cheap to produce, not so nice to wear. 

 

Then the introduction says: “They [the easy fitting pattern blocks] are the base for most sportswear and weatherwear garments, but they can also be used as a means to create innovative shapes.”  If I understand it correctly, sportswear is what in American English is usually referred as activewear; and weatherwear is something to wear to protect oneself from rain, wind and snow on a camping trip. I’m totally OK with such garments to be cut without shaping. Besides, the author of the book says that these ‘flat cutting’ blocks are frequently used for production in sizes S-M-L-X-L etc. instead of smaller increments as for sizes 2-4-6-8 etc. So, these simplified, flat cutting, easy fitting blocks are not so good as a base for custom patterns.

What I do not like is that there are so many everyday garments cut flat and ‘easy fitting’.  As any woman with bra cup size over B knows very well, it’s not a good idea to get rid of bust darts. And I do not like the air balloon on the back, since front and back are cut the same width, but front requires more fabric than back to go around bust. And, in addition, such ‘easy fitting’ style requires deep armholes, not my favorite. 

As for innovative shapes – these may be created starting anywhere, be it any of the basic cutting blocks or just a plain piece of fabric. The key is to be innovative, not what to use as a base.

I didn’t do the block for the woven easy fit garment. What I can see on the diagram in the book is that the armhole is noticeably wider and deeper than in close fitting block; and the sleeve is noticeably wider and sleeve cap is much lower than in close fitting block.

Next step – Chapter 10   Basic and easy fitting garments (jersey and knitted fabrics).

Sleeve pattern RTW

To learn more about pattern drafting I bought a book “Metric Pattern Cutting for Women’s Wear” by Winifred Aldrich, Blackwell publishing, 5^th edition, 2008. It’s a textbook used in the UK design schools. I bought the British textbook for one simple reason – I live in metrics. I grew up in Russia, where only metric system is used and I have hard time with American measure units. I constantly translate everything into metrics, inches into centimeters and Fahrenheit into Celsius. It is easier for me to draft in centimeters and then translate the final results than re-calculate everything back and forth. And I believe that the basic principles of pattern drafting are the same for the American and British designers. If there are the differences, they can’t be too big. 

Since this is the book for drafting patterns for the Ready-To-Wear (RTW) garments, the size of the bust dart is given in the table along with the standard measurements. 

So, I set out to draft a pattern according to the standard measurements used by the industry for the size 8 American, or 12 British. The directions for the front and back are very similar to that given in my Russian book and in the “Finally it Fits” book.  But the sleeve is built in a different way.  

First, I have drafted what is called ‘The close fitting bodice block’. It is a very basic pattern block that has only vertical bust dart and back shoulder dart. It doesn’t have side or waist darts. This block is the base for all other tailored patterns. Here is how it looks like:

The next instruction is to measure the armscye with a flexible ruler.  Then the sleeve cap is built based on this measurement and the width of the sleeve is determined by it. Here is what I have as a result:

Then I decided to draft the sleeve for this bodice based on the armhole height, as in my Russian pattern book and in "finally it Fits" book. I measured the average height of the armhole and made a sleeve as directed in the “Finally it Fits” book. Here is a comparison table:

	“Metric Pattern Cutting for Women’s Wear”	“Finally it Fits”
Bust measurement	88 cm (34 ⅝ in)	88 cm (34 ⅝ in)
Bicep 28.5 cm (11 ¼ in)	28.5 cm (11 ¼ in)	28.5 cm (11 ¼ in)
Armhole depth	21cm + 0.5 cm (8 ¼ in + 3/16) for ease	21cm + 0.5 cm (8 ¼ in + 3/16) for ease
Sleeve width	33.8 cm (13 ¼ in)	32 cm (12 ⅝ in)
Sleeve cap height	5.3 cm (2 ⅛ in)	15 cm (5 ⅞ in)
Ease	5.3 cm (2 ⅛ in)	3.5 cm (1 ⅜ in)
Sleeve cap to armhole ratio	0.65	0.69

 

I’m OK with both sleeves. My personal preference would be a little narrower sleeve with higher sleeve cap, but the sleeves are very close in size and both may fit well. Either sleeve will work as a base. The final sleeve pattern will depend on the style of the garment, fabric used, personal preferences, etc.

As we can see the sleeve cap to armhole height ratio is approximately 65 to 70%. We have to remember this range.