Simplicity Men's Patterns

[vbetts]

Martha McCain, fashion historian for Simplicity, has posted some historical background for her men's Civil War line at:
http://www.simplicity.com/index.cfm?...War/index.html

Excellent information, with illustrations. Take a look! And evidently she will be adding more explanation as time goes on, probably on vests, pants, etc.

Vicki Betts
vbetts@gower.net

[ElizabethClark]

Of course, as soon as "Simplicity" gets mentioned, folks get ansty--and rightly so! It's not been a traditional source for accurate patterns. LOL

The designer actually did some great research for the Fashion Historian line, and it does stand up to scrutiny very well. The men's patterns appear to hold up to that same standard, with decent period shapes, etc.

The downfall of the Simplicity patterns is that certain portions are "dumbed down" for mass consumption, and those flaws have to be recognized and corrected for the items to be true historic clothing, rather than really high grade costumes. But, the issues aren't major... stuff like appropriate seam finishes instead of pinking shears, basting in a collar on a woman's dress instead of using snaps, etc.

They also refuse to publish 20 pages of construction notes and documentation, so the patterns don't function in the same way as, say, Past Patterns, but they make a workable base. The trousers aren't Chris Daley, but they're not Sutler Row or remade Levi's, either... and they're not meant for the military. Vest has good lines, trousers appear to be cut high enough, and the layout diagrams show a shape that is consistent with period shapes. The shirts are very decent--Miles ahead of the "Olde Tyme" shirt with wooden buttons!

I've yet to buy copies of the men's patterns, just perused them at the shop, and so have not done a full review, but I have read the opinions of others who I both respect and trust... general opinion being, the Simplicity versions are going to get a person closer than Period Impressions. (Calling Carolann Schmitt!)

Short answer--yes, Simplicity, with THIS particular style line, has indeed come a long way. The other stuff is still worse than dreck, but this particular designer is doing some interesting work. I'd not recommend them for a newbie who doesn't realize there are gaps between period correct and costume, but for someone who generally knows what to look for, and is willing to ask about other aspects, they may work well... and at least no one has an excuse to be wearing "liberated" military clothing in the civilian world, as these patterns will be cheap.

Like any pattern line, it carries one main flaw: the purchasing public. This pattern *could* be made up to fool a trained eye for period appropriateness, or it could be done in tiger-print polarfleece.

The other downside... the styles are basic and recognizable, and many folks will make them up exactly as shown, same as with the women's dresses... which leads to a VERY cookie cutter look. Additional personal research is needed to make sure style variations are in keeping with established norms.

I'd love to see Chris Daley or another one of the very competent makers review the construction in the patterns.

[vbetts]

So, what did you think of her documentation pages? The original garments, photos, and the diagrams? I thought putting a shirt on a light board was a pretty nifty idea.

Vicki Betts
vbetts@gower.net

[ElizabethClark]

I like it... I hope they'll let her go back and do the same for the women's things. It would be VERY helpful for folks to understand that the 9761 dress is from 1857-58, NOT the actual war years, for instance... and to see the original plates that inspire the ball gown, etc.

I'm actually very tossed on the whole topic of Simplicity getting into the historic pattern game. On the one hand, they're very easily and cheaply available, so folks lose the excuse of budget constraints for dressing well. But, the downside is the fact that Simplicity will drop them the second they stop being profitable, and if people aren't buying Past Patterns, and other quality small publishers, in the meantime, they will fail... and we'll be left with Heidi Marsh, and I may have to shoot myself.

I comfort myself in that folks who are buying Simplicity wouldn't be spending money for Past Patterns, anyhow.

I like the way the info is presented on the Simplicity site... it's more than just a written description, it's real photos of the actual garments, functioning more like a sewing diary than just "info," and that's a neat thing to see.

(I'm a bit of a sewing voyeur, anyhow, so I love sewing diaries of all sorts.)

[Victoria Rumble]

[QUOTE=ElizabethClark]I like it... I hope they'll let her go back and do the same for the women's things. It would be VERY helpful for folks to understand that the 9761 dress is from 1857-58, NOT the actual war years, for instance... and to see the original plates that inspire the ball gown, etc.

I like the way the info is presented on the Simplicity site... it's more than just a written description, it's real photos of the actual garments, functioning more like a sewing diary than just "info," and that's a neat thing to see.
.)[/

Elizabeth: I've been putting together some info. on shirts just for my own use in making them - sorting through info. to help me do a better job in stitching them - and came across the Simplicity documentation pages on the men's clothing. I sent a note and expressed the issues I see brought up here. The reply I received was very cordial and said there were plans for expanding the documentation but the note didn't give any specifics. I guess time will tell.
Best,
Vickie R.

[Drygoods]

Dear Elizabeth,

I can probably give you some insite into the differences in why people buy the various simplicity vs. small pattern companies. For over a decade I stuck to my principles of only selling well documented patterns such as the Past Patterns. I know the PP well and have many of the photos of the original garments the company has published. Thanks to Saundra's excellent work pioneering the process of historic pattern drafting, many new companies are now sprouting up. And I'd also like to point out that these new companies are making an excellent point of documentation and authentic technique.

The difference in the public's view of Simplicity vs the small publishers is that the name is well known to them and has had a history of being easy to produce a finished project. Perhaps their grandmother, or mother used them or simply they may have had to use them in sewing class for their home economics. Despite the fact that less than 3 percent of the population sews their own clothing, the name has quite a familiar reputation for the public buying market.

I finally gave in and started to carry Martha McCain's patterns because the public constantly bombarded me with the request to carry them. Although this board is visited by many seious historians, the truth is that sometimes folks just want a costume that they can wear once a year to the CW ball &c. (those are the folks who buy the majority of the Simplicity patterns, or those who are just starting out and want a basic outfit.)

Last, I hope that those folks who monitor this board understand that I am not trying to put in a shameless plug, instead I am just stating what has been proven by personal experience. Personally, I like the small publishers, there are some great ones out there.

Mfr,
Judith Peebles

[lydee54]

I wote Simplicity customer service, they forward my questions to Martha McCain
( I wanted info on constructing more authentic dresses using period sewing techniques and proper materials, she personally e-mailed me with closeup pictures of the original garments she based her woman's patterns on.) She also sent me some very helpful information on seam and hem finishes. She is a very gracious lady, and I really appreciated the valuable information and assistance she has given me. I also wrote Simplicity requesting they put more information an their website, including closeups of the original garments. I found the pictures really help.



Lydja Urban

aka lydee54

[ElizabethClark]

I'll just add a final comment, then close the thread (keeping it as a reference for the future.) If anyone has a men's pattern review they'd like added to this thread, please send it to me directly by private message on the forum, or by email to elizabethstewartclark@hotmail.com and I'll add it in.

I think it's been well-covered here, by some folks with knowledge of historic construction and sewing techniques: like the other Fashion Historian patterns from Simplicity, the men's things have had modern sewing techniques (at least) added to the designer's research, and one must have a working knowledge of appropriate sewing techniques of the period to retrofit them.

For several of the items, there do exist patterns from other publishers that have the research, accurate construction, etc all in one place, which is very helpful to the novice sewist.

And, one final caveat: though the Martha McCain/Fashion Historian line may be re-workable by someone with specific knowledge, there are no other pattern lines currently produced by the "Big 4" makers (Simplicity, Butterick, McCalls, Vogue, and their subsidiaries) that even approach the minimal re-tweak standard. Your best bet is always to go back to original sources, and to focus on patterns that share that research with you, in order to help you make a very informed choice as to whether or not a particular pattern is right for your particular impression.