Top Stitching

[GaReb52nd]

I have searched the entire site for top stitching but didn't find an answer to my question. What is the proper way top stitch a garment with machine stitching already in place. I want to go over my button holes and the stitching on my collar and the front of my coat. My question is; once I go over it with hand sewn thread, do I take out the machine sewn stitching or leave it in? Thanks in advance.

[markmason]

I would remove the machined stitching prior to your top-stitch. As for your button hole concerns. First, if they are machined buttonholes, simplify the process by removing the stitches first. If its merely a lock stitch outlining the buttonhole, leave it in( see step 1) When you work a buttonhole in by hand try these steps.

Hand-worked buttonhole:

1. work a running stitch the length of your buttonhole in a rectangle fashion outlining the hole itself. you will want this to be a very narrow rectangle, 1/16 -1/8 in width example: ======

2. slit the cloth very carefully between these running stitches thus made.

3. work a binding stitch (whip stitch) around the edges of the button hole you just cut, this will keep your buttonhole from fraying on you, additionally holding your outer cloth and facing together.

4. using buttonhole twist preferably silk, work your buttonhole stitch ( refer to sewing techniques/instructions elsewhere on the web) keeping the spacing between stitches close together and strive to make them equally spaces and neat as possible.

Keeping in mind if your buttonhole already exist, and you want to replace the stitching, use a new razor blade or seam ripper ( I prefer the razor) be very careful and remove all stitching, follow immediately with a binding stitch (basic whip stitch or blanket stitch) around the raw edges of your hole.

Do one hole at a time.


I hope I did not confuse you further, and I hope this will help.

[Clark Badgett]

I misread the above post, please disregard if you read my posting.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

If you are planning on resewing a sutler row uniform by hand, you may want to reconsider. Most sutler row uniforms have allot more troubles than just machine sewing. They use cut and construction ment more for speed and cheepness of construction rather than authenticity. You may just want to save up and buy a new uniform from an approved vendor.

[GaReb52nd]

Robert,
Actually the jacket was made for me by a lady and isn't of sutler row quality. She hand stitched the cuffs, but machined the rest. So would I be safe in removing part of the stitching at a time and immediately replacing it with my own hand stitches? And yes my button holes already exist.

[Yellowhammer]

What pattern is the jacket? There are plenty of examples of machine-sewn CS garments so the machine-sewing may be acceptable provided the materials and pattern are correct.

However, I tend to agree with Robert on this one. Not to reopen a contentious debate, but "defarbing" a garment is difficult if not impossible. Even if you can replace the stitching, are the materials and pattern used correct? Generally, if a garment is incorrectly assembled, the pattern is probably incorrect as well.

That said, if you jacket is made of correct materials using a good pattern, I'd pull the stitching, press the crap out of it, and re-topstitch using a backstitch.

[Yellowhammer]

Mark,

Regarding your post on buttonholes, here's a tip for you.

Instead of cutting the buttonholes with a razor blade or scissors (you used the word "slit") try punching the hole with a chisel.

Mark your buttonhole with tailor's chalk or pins, lay the garment on a wooden board or block making sure only the layer to be punched is over the wood and then punch the hole with a chisel of a size which corresponds to your button.

If you line the blade of the chisel up with the grain of the fabric and keep it vertical, you punch an exceptionally clean hole and get a much neater result. Using this method, I've never had to hand overcast a buttonhole before applying my buttonhole stitch.

Last, punch your buttonholes one at a time and sew them immediately afterwards. This prevents fraying of the other buttonholes as you shift the garment around in the working on the buttonhole.

Hope that helps.

[GaReb52nd]

What pattern is the jacket? There are plenty of examples of machine-sewn CS garments so the machine-sewing may be acceptable provided the materials and pattern are correct.

It is a Columbus Depot Type I. As far as I know I think she got the fabric from FHW.


That said, if you jacket is made of correct materials using a good pattern, I'd pull the stitching, press the crap out of it, and re-topstitch using a backstitch.

Not to sound ignorant, but how do you make a backstitch? I have looked over several websites but I can't find one for some reason.

[Holy Joe]

Try this;

http://www.nwta.com/couriers/5-97/sewing.html

[RyanBWeddle]

Not trying to be flip here, but I think you should reconsider your end goal...

Why don't you consider having someone else who is experienced try and re-fit your jacket, OR get a new more authentic jacket ( and sell this one )...

Since you are inexperienced at sewing, "how do you make a backstitch?"...,
Why not take the next step beyond a 'quick fix' and getting something better, made correctly from good quaility patterns and materials, by a known entity that can construct a garment properly... you will only have to 'buy up' later on when you want a more authentic garment...save yourself time now & in the future...

Too many times people who are new to the 'authentic' side of things jump in and try to do everything themselves (when they don't have the knowledge base/talent) and end up taking a step back rather than a leap forward...

[Clark Badgett]

Jason, this could be the prime oportunity to learn a lot about period construction. Since you have it, and it is posibly of a good patern and material, go for it. Hand sewing is not hard, just can be time consuming.

[Jonah Barleycorn]

Not to sound ignorant, but how do you make a backstitch? I have looked over several websites but I can't find one for some reason.

Sir,

Perhaps you may find this helpful. I recommend that you look up the classicstitches.com website. They have a nice little "stitch glossary" with short directions as well as illustrative diagrams as well.

http://www.classicstitches.com/know_how/index.cfm?cat=Stitch%20Glossary&let=A


Bully,

[GaReb52nd]

Not trying to be flip here, but I think you should reconsider your end goal...

Why don't you consider having someone else who is experienced try and re-fit your jacket, OR get a new more authentic jacket ( and sell this one )...

Since you are inexperienced at sewing, "how do you make a backstitch?"...,
Why not take the next step beyond a 'quick fix' and getting something better, made correctly from good quaility patterns and materials, by a known entity that can construct a garment properly... you will only have to 'buy up' later on when you want a more authentic garment...save yourself time now & in the future...

Too many times people who are new to the 'authentic' side of things jump in and try to do everything themselves (when they don't have the knowledge base/talent) and end up taking a step back rather than a leap forward...

Well I look at it like this...not EVERY soldier knew how to properly sew and they had to make do with the limited sewing skills they had. I had rather do it myself rather than always have someone else do it. I think I would take more pride in it if I knew it was done by myself. One can always learn how to do something even if they are not skilled at it. Practicing on a scrap piece before attempting it on the actual material will save headaches and will hone your skills. Just my opinion.

[RyanBWeddle]

Well I look at it like this...not EVERY soldier knew how to properly sew and they had to make do with the limited sewing skills they had.
Well, soldiers did not sew their own uniforms (except for field repairs/alterations). What you are undertaking isn't a typical project for a soldier in the field.

Read:

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

from Jensen:
"Other manufactories were eventually established in Nash*ville, Tennessee; Athens, Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia; Montgomery, Tuscaloosa and Marion, Alabama; Jackson and Enterprise, Mississippi; Shreveport, Louisiana and else*where. Not all of the manufactories operated throughout the war, and by the latter half of the conflict the major centers were in Richmond, Athens, Atlanta and Columbus. 30

These Clothing Bureaus operated in much the same way as the U.S. Army's Schuylkill Arsenal. A limited number of tailors in each manufactory cut out the pieces of each uniform. The pieces were bundled, and with the necessary trim, buttons and thread, were issued to seamstresses who sewed them together and were paid by the completed piece. "

I had rather do it myself rather than always have someone else do it. I think I would take more pride in it if I knew it was done by myself.
That's fine & dandy... I myself make many of my own uniforms. Bully for you.

One can always learn how to do something even if they are not skilled at it. Practicing on a scrap piece before attempting it on the actual material will save headaches and will hone your skills. Just my opinion.
Practicing on a scrap is one thing, making dozens of pieces weeks at a time is another (as in the case of these sewing circles referred to above), and a much better way to hone ;)

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Well I look at it like this...not EVERY soldier knew how to properly sew and they had to make do with the limited sewing skills they had. I had rather do it myself rather than always have someone else do it. I think I would take more pride in it if I knew it was done by myself. One can always learn how to do something even if they are not skilled at it. Practicing on a scrap piece before attempting it on the actual material will save headaches and will hone your skills. Just my opinion.

Jason

If you really want to start sewing and making some of your own stuff. I highly recomend making a Federal issue shirt. I found it to be a great learning tool as it is all squares and rectangles, and it has several variations of easy stitches. Then you will be ready to move onto French Hussars uniforms :tounge_sm

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Actually the jacket was made for me by a lady and isn't of sutler row quallity.

Right off the bat, I raise suspicion on whether the garment was made properly at all. Doesn't sound like it.

Robert,

Sounds like a classic case of defarbazation :wink_smil

Just giving you some friendly advice here.......I've seen uniforms in the past where individuals tried to redo (defarb) the stitching, and each time the results turned out crappy. Especially redone button holes :eek:

I agree with Ryan...... You may want to buy a new one.

Good Luck!

[65thgainf]

Jason, I had the same problem. I went to the library and found a couple of nice books that had illustrations and directions on types of stitches and sewing in general.

I just don't have the patience that I did when I was younger (now 40). I found out my cousin was a great sewer and she went over my jacket with handstitching.

Now, someone that REALLY knows and has the experience makes handstitching look almost like machine stitching - look at some of the originals. Some would swear that it was done by machine.

I would LOVE to be able to make my own uniforms - but just don't have the time, patience and experience at it.

Jerry (Ghost)Holmes
28th Ga. Inf, Co -G
123 N.Y. Co D

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Jason

I strongly recomend that you get familiar with original uniforms and their constrution. Since you are in GA I recomend you hit the Atlanta History Center and pay close attention to the small details of the sewing and materials. Once you see allot of originals with the eye to construction, you will see what we are talking about.


Good luck and keep on with the good work :wink_smil

[markmason]

Mark,

Regarding your post on buttonholes, here's a tip for you.

Instead of cutting the buttonholes with a razor blade or scissors (you used the word "slit") try punching the hole with a chisel.



It's funny you mention this, that is exactly how I prepare my "slits". I was refering to removing the existing thread, I may have not clarified myself. I was trying to be brief on the assumption the slits are already cut. :wink_smil

I definatley agree with others and buy one from a reputable sutler/tailor.

[GaReb52nd]

Right off the bat, I raise suspicion on whether the garment was made properly at all. Doesn't sound like it.
I agree with Ryan...... You may want to buy and new one.

Good Luck!

I'm just wondering how yall come to the conclusion that it wasn't made right just by me telling you that the stitching wasn't done by hand? You haven't even seen the jacket...so just wondering what info that I typed in would lead you to believe it is crappy made..What I meant by "it isn't sutler row quality" is that it is not a mainstream jacket. This lady has been making uniforms for years so she has a lot of experience under her belt. Maybe this was a misunderstanding on what I meant to type and what I actually typed. :wink_smil

Don't get me wrong guys, I apprecaite all the info that everyone has given me, but it seems that reading some of the other messages in other threads on the forum that some people on the AC board give info in a condesending manor. It's not real reassuring for those of us wanting to improve our impression to feel like we are being belittled. Maybe I am taking it the wrong way.

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

I'm just wondering how yall come to the conclusion that it wasn't made right......

Here's why:
I want to go over my button holes and the stitching on my collar and the front of my coat.

Your button holes were machine sewn and you're asking us how to redo (defarb) them? So, after reading this, I've come to the conclusion that this product isn't too authentic.

Actually the jacket was made for me by a lady and isn't of sutler row quality.
I've heard horror stories usually of old lady's trying to sew up Charlie Childs kits and screwing them all up. In order to have an authentic period jacket you must have the right pattern, materials and CONSTRUCTION. Since the button holes are screwed up, you're lacking the construction part of this 3 step method. Everything else is just speculation since no one in this thread has seen your jacket.

Your statements are why I made my conclusions on why the coat is not authentic.

This lady has been making uniforms for years so she has a lot of experience under her belt.
Does she have experience in making authentic civil war uniforms out of kits from places such as Charlie Childs, etc, etc? Why did she do the button holes with a machine? Do you know any other reenactors who would recommend this lady for future kit projects?

You need to ask yourself these questions next time you consider having the said "lady" make your products.

I'm just trying to help improve your impression.

[Jasper]

Jason

I say bully you will never learn to sow until you try. I would start small and then move on to bigger things. In my opion starting small would be going over somthing that is already there ( going over face stiching ) it's just like traceing.

take a good needle with a large enough eye so that you can pass two pieces of thread threw it ( you have it right when you tie the not with 4 loose ends )

Follow the in and out pattern of the machined thread ( this will seem odd because you will find yourself weaving in and out right on top of each other don't worry )

Keep the thread tight as tight as you can without breaking it this will give you a pucker effect which can be found in garments made by hand.

use a good quality reproduction or 100% cotton hand quilting thread the thickness of the thread will help aid in covering the thinner machine thread.

Last make sure you do a complete job you should do all visable stiching anything else would be a waste in a number of ways. Also make sure that the colur of your thread is the same every where ( collar, faceing, cuffs, and button holes. )

Jasper


p.s. button holes: if you have large stiching use a seam ripper to cut it a a pair of tweasers to remove the thread. If its small enough then you should be able to go over with no problems.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I'm just wondering how yall come to the conclusion that it wasn't made right just by me telling you that the stitching wasn't done by hand? You haven't even seen the jacket...so just wondering what info that I typed in would lead you to believe it is crappy made..What I meant by "it isn't sutler row quality" is that it is not a mainstream jacket. This lady has been making uniforms for years so she has a lot of experience under her belt. Maybe this was a misunderstanding on what I meant to type and what I actually typed. :wink_smil

Don't get me wrong guys, I apprecaite all the info that everyone has given me, but it seems that reading some of the other messages in other threads on the forum that some people on the AC board give info in a condesending manor. It's not real reassuring for those of us wanting to improve our impression to feel like we are being belittled. Maybe I am taking it the wrong way.


Well Jason

You are right by asking this question, but keep in mind many of us have been around the block a few times and "been there done that". Without seeing your jacket first hand we will go off the of the asumption that your coat is like every other "handmade by a great lady" jacket that we have seen. Keep in mind this is coming from both coasts from people that do not know one another. Keep grasping for that brass ring brother,and take our advice and get yourself a jacket from Dailey or Childs. :wink_smil

[markmason]

Here's why:


In order to have an authentic period jacket you must have the right pattern, materials and CONSTRUCTION. Since the button holes are screwed up, you're lacking the construction part of this 3 step method. Everything else is just speculation since no one in this thread has seen your jacket.



Sir, to you and others on our fine board. Do you know what constitutes proper construction? Aside from buttonholes or topstitching where and when the pattern calls for it?

This fine gentleman has a very very valid point to make, and he has stated it clearly. He is wanting to ask questions and learn, and those of us who may think we are helping with the answers I have seen on this thread thus far, are left for the birds. What makes Childs kits so difficult to properly put together that a "lady with extensive sewing experience could not do so? This person may not know what the hell a RDII is but, by god, this person could probably out do a lot of us. Let's hope this may be the case with our fine comrade and his jacket.

Bully for you brother. If your jacket is muck, your comrades will see it, and only then provide proper constructive criticism.

GOOD LUCK

[Yellowhammer]

Jason,

To move away from the jacket for a second and into your interest in learning to sew, I recommend making a pair of drawers. I agree with Robert that an issue shirt is a good project, but some novice sewers have difficulty setting the collar and sleeves.

There are several advantages to making drawers:

1) In most patterns, there are only 8-10 pieces (2 legs, 2 fly facings, 4 waistband pieces) so laying out the pattern and cutting are simple.

2) The material, canton flannel, is inexpensive so if you screw something up, you aren't working with expensive jean or kersey.

3) The construction process uses the three main stitches you will use in most construction projects which are: backstitch, felling stitch and buttonhole stitch.

Personally, I started sewing on haversacks and then made some bad choices. If you start slow and work up, you will be making shirts and more complicated garments fairly quickly. Another good early project is a shelter half. Those 23 buttonholes and 8 grommets will certainly give you plenty of practice with your buttonholes.

[Masked Battery]

I've examined quite a number of original garments (CS and civilian) from our period of interest, and...

# I've seen that were topstitched using a backstitch = 0
# I've seen that were sewn with doubled thread = 0

I've noticed that some jackets had exterior stitching using two different types of thread. In some cases, buttonholes, belt loops, and buttons were sewn with a noticably heavier thread than the rest of the exterior stitching, which makes sense, since these areas would be considered "load bearing."
Also, I wouldn't recomend trying to hand-stitch over existing machine-stitching. Pull the old thread out first.

[Hank Trent]

I've examined quite a number of original garments (CS and civilian) from our period of interest, and...

# I've seen that were topstitched using a backstitch = 0
# I've seen that were sewn with doubled thread = 0


I was going to ask about the same thing, based on what I've seen of civilian garments. Stitching over the machine stitching in a backstitch with doubled thread is going to make for a very heavy seam, heavier than I've seen on civilian garments at least, and far more than necessary for function.

Also, pulling the thread as tight as possible to pucker the cloth is not a good thing, quality-wise, if I'm picturing it right. But if that's what was commonly seen on uniforms then it's what should be done, of course.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[GaReb52nd]

Jason,

To move away from the jacket for a second and into your interest in learning to sew, I recommend making a pair of drawers. I agree with Robert that an issue shirt is a good project, but some novice sewers have difficulty setting the collar and sleeves.

There are several advantages to making drawers:

1) In most patterns, there are only 8-10 pieces (2 legs, 2 fly facings, 4 waistband pieces) so laying out the pattern and cutting are simple.

2) The material, canton flannel, is inexpensive so if you screw something up, you aren't working with expensive jean or kersey.

3) The construction process uses the three main stitches you will use in most construction projects which are: backstitch, felling stitch and buttonhole stitch.

Personally, I started sewing on haversacks and then made some bad choices. If you start slow and work up, you will be making shirts and more complicated garments fairly quickly. Another good early project is a shelter half. Those 23 buttonholes and 8 grommets will certainly give you plenty of practice with your buttonholes.

Actually I have been practicing basic stitching over the past couple of months. I have made all of my food/ditty bags and enclosed the pull cord in the material and made "button holes" where the cord comes out of the fabric. Of course all this is hand sewn and not machined. I have also made my own sleeping cap. I'm not saying any of it is perfected. But the last couple of bags I made, I had exactly 5 stitches per inch. Now I am not wanting to open up a can of worms on how many per inch and such. Just that my skills are getting a little better.

If you can direct me to where I can get an authentic pattern for the drawers and the Federal contract shirt I would really appreciate it.

[Jefferson Guards]

Neal and Hank,

What kind of stitch have you seen used in topstitching civilian garments?

[Hank Trent]

Neal and Hank,

What kind of stitch have you seen used in topstitching civilian garments?

Running stitch.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Masked Battery]

I don't know what it's proper name is; I just call it a topstitch. The needle is pushed through from one side, turned 180 degrees, and pushed back through. It looks somewhat like a running stitch, in that there are equidistant stitches of the same size on each side of the fabric. (Does that make sense?) Think of a dotted line: - - - - - -. It looks like that on both sides of the fabric.
Sorry if this isn't well-explained; I'm surrounded by screaming kids (your NC tax dollars at work).

Neal

[KathyBradford]

From our time, see the attached photograph of an original men's paletot front seam edge and buttonhole.

The tailor at Colonial Williamsburg said that the term in the 18th Century was "prickstitch". Its purpose was to stabilize the edges of the garment, not to provide decoration. The length of space between stitches visible on the front was to be three times as long as the tiny stitch itself.

The 19th Century paletot appears to be stitched consistently with his advice at a rate of 11-12 stitches per inch. That means 11-12 "pricks" are visible on the top and 11-12 entire stitches are visible on the underside per inch, not 12 times back and forth in one inch. Stitches are barely visible to the naked eye, but there is a distinct straight indentation 3/8" from the edge.

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Wouldn't that 'prick' stitch be more easily made by a 'stab' stitch type motion rather than a running stitch motion, as described by Neal above? Thanks for the picture, Kathy.

Trish Hasenmueller

[Masked Battery]

I didn't mean to imply that these stitches are running stitches; the needle is pulled completely through the fabric, then turned and re-inserted.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

Neal

[Glenn Milner]

The tailor at Colonial Williamsburg said that the term in the 18th Century was "prickstitch". Its purpose was to stabilize the edges of the garment, not to provide decoration. The length of space between stitches visible on the front was to be three times as long as the tiny stitch itself.

Kathy,
Thanks for this post which reminds us that some 18th century stitching techniques were carried over through the CW period.
I have examined an original, privately-made Western Theatre CS officers jacket that used the 18th century "underhand hem stitch" (its proper name is a long french term I can't recall at the moment) to attach the facings to the jacket fronts. The stitch appears as a running stitch on the face and as a whip stitch on the underside both right at the turned fabric edge. It's very utilitarian in that it combines assembly and an apparent topstitch into one operation. This particular jacket also featured what I would call a "true" running topstitch in addition to the above about 3/8 inch away from the turned edge effectively "containing" the seam allowance.
I can't scientifically support this, but I suspect that many "double top stitch" CS jackets are actually constructed using the above combination of underhand hem stitch first and then a "true" topstitch.
Glenn Milner

[Jasper]

Hank

Now that I reread my post I see that pucker may not of been the best word to use. When I read pucker I thought pleat myself which is not what I ment. I think now that a better word to use would be dimple. If that makes things clearer ( maybe not )


In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.


Jasper

[Hank Trent]

Couple of points.

When I said top stitching was usually a running stitch, I didn't mean to implying it was necessarily made without pulling the needle all the way through. I agree that for fine stitches and/or heavy cloth there's no way you can do it without pulling the needle all the way through, and on nicely tailored stuff, I've also seen the stitches per inch in the teens.


Hank
In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.


Well now I'm confused again. I was picturing the pucker to be top-stitching that was pulled too tight, making the front of a coat, for example, hang with a wavy edge rather than straight down.

There's not usually top stitching where the shoulder meets the sleeve, is there, or is that a uniform thing? But isn't it generally considered good tailoring to ease some extra fullness of sleeve into the armscye, particularly at the top of the shoulder? Here's a quick example I found to see if we're talking about the same thing. You can see the fullness at the top of the sleeves where they join the shoulder. http://www.garyhendershott.com/productdetail.cfm?Key=48

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Glenn Milner]

Okay Folks,
Have references in front of me (Costume Close-Up, Clothing Construction and Pattern, 1750-1790 by Linda Baumgarten & John Watson with Florine Carr, 1999, Quite Specific Media).
The stitch I mentioned earlier is more properly known by its French name: le point a rabattre sous la main. (Diderot, 1777) For context, 18th century tailors were obsessed with fabric conservation as it was, by far, more expensive than labor. For example, 18th century clothing "typically" used no facings at all. The linings were sewn directly to the "face" pieces using the "underhand hem stitch" very near the folded "face" fabric edge. Also, seam allowances were much smaller than the "typical" 3/8 - 1/2 inch CW era seam allowances.
As far as sleeve attachment goes, there is typically no topstitching at this location in a _lined_ jacket or coat. Unlined Federal sack coats are a classic example where there is topstitching in this area in the form of felling stitches which show through to the face as small "topstitches". As far as gathered or "puffed" sleeve heads (extra material in the sleeve head typically gathered at the top), this is a fashion carry-over from earlier in the 19th century. It's very common, IMO. My wife's family has an original documented 1850's-1860's short skirted civilian frock (canvas weave jean cloth, walnut dyed) which displays this feature. It frequently shows up in period images of both frock coats and early CS jackets and Federal jackets throughout the CW period.
BTW, when setting sleeves into a "typical" CS jacket, the jacket body lining should already be in place. First, place the sleeve seam(s) in its(their) correct position (depending on whether it's a 2 piece or 1 piece sleeve). Second, sew the sleeve into the armscye leaving any extra sleeve head material until last and gather it at the top of the shoulder. The body lining should be _included_ into this seam. Finally, the sleeve lining should be pulled through, seam aligned, turned under a seam allowance and then whip stitched to _only_ the body lining.
Once again, free advice worth what you paid for it. IMO, anybody willing to take on a hand-sewing project has shown me something in the authenticity department. Don't worry, the more you do; the better you will get. I started almost 7 years ago and I'm just now starting to get a little comfortable with it. Don't forget those 18th century techniques which carried over.
Happy Stitching!
Glenn Milner

[Jefferson Guards]

So far we have listed backstitch, running stitch, and the prickstitch as methods of topstitching. We know that there was great variation in the skill of those constructing garments in the mid-nineteenth century (both military and civilian). Can anyone expound on the uses of those stitches on various garments?

I have seen prickstitches as the method of top stitching on many of the civilian frock coats which I have been able to view in detail. In viewing orginial C.S. jackets the stitching seems even at about 7-9 stitches per inch and resembles either a backstitch or running stitch. However, these viewings were through the glass only and to get a proper view of the stitch one would have to see both sides.

It seems that different quality garments or garments for different purposes received different topstitching treatments based upon the skill of the manufacturer or other factors. Does anyone have further ideas?

[Matt Caldwell]

Hank

In any case you are right a pucker or a pleat which can be seen on many origonal uniform jackets normaly where the shoulder meets the sleave. Is an indication of poor quality or in this case poor fitted sleaves.

Jasper

Jasper,
I will have to disagree with you on this one. There will most certainly be some signs of easing in in nearly all sleeves be it military or civilian. Sleeves of the 1860's were typically cut full and thus sleeve caps required there to be easing from front seam to rear inorder to get a full look. Yes if there are pleats, then the ease was not done correctly and if the garment was custom tailored, the maker would have certainly redone the sleeves until it was correct.

Going back to the topic at hand, I have only encountered one original "sack" style jacket that was unlined in the body and lined in the sleeves. This was a summer laboring sack. There are examples of unlined frocks (one in my collection) and partially lined paletots out there as well, however, military gaments are a whole nother beast. Even if the sleeves were unlined, they would have been felled and not top stitched.

I have included some images of both military and civilian sleeve caps for your perusal to see how there is some signs of easing but no visable pleats.

Hope this helps.