Oh Harriet, I'm not sure about this

I've had a lingerie explosion in my sewing room. And I've been sewing bras for days. Am I closer to that perfect-fitting bra? In one sense, yes. In another, definitely not.

Let me explain. When we last spoke, I had sewn up two Q&D muslins of two different patterns, and decided to go all out and sew up a real version of the Harriet bra pattern.

However, based on my fit test (sewn out of hideous pink duoplex), I refined the pattern pieces for the bridge (and side) and the cup. For the bridge, I kept the narrow top, but angled the bottom more, making it a wider triangle. This was based on my TNT bra pattern. It was kind of dumb to even try a new bra pattern without adjusting the bridge right out of the gate, in retrospect. For the cup, I trimmed the upper cup and inner lower cup (the triangular piece) slightly because I'm flatter towards the centre than some people (for whom Harriet is designed, I have concluded).

At this point, we may usefully ask whether The Sewing Lawyer thoroughly read and understood ALL the instructions for this bra pattern. The answer is "not really".

Now that I read all the instructions, I see that you are supposed to cut the cups and cradle out of "low-stretch knit fabric designed for supportive bras, such as duoplex, simplex or stable tricot". My tester was duoplex. So far, so good.

However, I hate duoplex but I have a bin full of nice stretchy lacey fabric for bras. So I cut my first "real" tester out of a firm but stretchy lace fabric. I lined the bridge and cradle pieces to stabilize them with some random non-stretchy and sort of thick fabric from stash. I lined the cups with some fairly firm but stretchy stuff, which is also sort of thick. I went nuts topstitching, with a two-stitch zig-zag built into my sewing machine. It sort of stretched out the seam lines. I steamed them into submission and got to the point where I could try the bra on (bottom elastic and wire channels installed, wires in, straps and fastenings pinned on).

Bra #1 - outside

Bra #1 - inside

What did I learn?

Well, I might have steamed the cup seam lines into submission, but the combination of aggressive topstitching and stretchy fabric meant the cups were still too big.

Also, the combination of my fabric choices made for a pretty lumpy bra.

And I didn't like the fabric all that much.

On the plus side, the band fit really well, and the wire line was totally in the right place. But those cups!

I decided to cut my losses and salvage what bits I could and move on.

For my second outing, having learned a thing or two, I made some further changes.

First, I used thinner fabric (a stable tricot) to stabilize the frame.

Second, I shaved still more from the cup pieces in the same centre area as before to flatten them some more.

Bra #2

But I cut the bra pieces (all of them) from a thin but firmish stretch lace. Based on previous bra-making experience (but without truly having understood the instructions) I figured that this fabric had enough oomph for the cups without lining.

I again got to the point of being able to try this on, and realized I was wrong on the last point. I should have lined the lower cup pieces with the stable tricot. This wasn't going to work.

On the plus side, the bra looks great. It's pretty, in a non-ostentatious beige lace kind of way. The band totally works. And it does fit in the sense that there isn't excess fabric in the cups.

I could recut and restart with due attention to reducing the stretch factor in the lower cup pieces. However, I have also come to the conclusion that the cup shape on Harriet is just not me. It isn't only the stretchiness of the cups that is bugging me. Based on other bras I have made, this same fabric, unlined, would be fine for my TNT bra. The fabric gives me enough support. What is bothering me is the way that the cup as designed wants the breasts to be distributed. It's not that the cups force them in and up (like a push-up bra). They are, as other reviewers have noted, designed to give quite a round shape. That shape doesn't match mine.

What I should really do is do a further mash-up of the Harriet band and my TNT cups. But first, I need to get the right size rings and sliders...

Grumpy

Fashion trends The Sewing Lawyer cannot understand:

1.  "Cold shoulder" garments. So, it's warm enough not to have your shoulders covered, but not warm enough to make long sleeves uncomfortable? Sorry, that makes no sense.



This is attributed to Donna Karan here but had sold out at $238.

2.  Bell sleeves. There's such a long list of things you cannot really do while wearing them. Like eating, or putting on a coat.


Photo from here.

3.  Jumpsuits - unless you are an infant or enjoy stripping every time you need to use the bathroom, these are neither cute nor fun to wear.



Both of these available at Nordstrom's. Jumpsuit on left Hervé Léger, "only" $2,285 (CAD); on right, Vince Camuto $140.

You don't have to spend a lot to be really uncomfortable ... but you can.

4. Severely distressed denim (that came that way):



Not to pick on Nordstroms, but these can be purchased there for the princely sum of $1279 CAD. Ripped, or ripped off?


Enough!

Also interesting - bra geometry

I sewed up quick and dirty muslins of both the Maya (L) and the Harriet (R). I am happy to have used up this horrid pink duoplex!



Ignore the obvious fitting problems on this plastic torso...

Things I learned from trying these on:

• The cups on both are OK. Volume is more or less right, although I have provisionally pinned out a bit of volume in the cups of the Harriet so that it will fit me even better. 
• The Maya cups focus volume inward, whereas the Harriet is engineered for a more natural shape for me (YMMV) with more volume at the sides. The Sewing Lawyer, like the plastic torso, has zero cleavage.
• Both bras are the right size. However, the fit is slightly off for me on both of them. I think this is because of the bridge orientation (very upright).
• Maya has less height (in both cups and band) and doesn't feel as secure. The wire line is shorter, especially at the sides. I really like the feel of how the side of the cup on the Harriet is pulled up near the wire line by the cup extension that will attach to the strap. 
• Obviously, the band on the Harriet is wider, but the actual difference on the finished bra would only be about 2mm. They look different here because the Harriet has much wider seam allowances at the bottom band. However, the wide band of fabric on the Harriet sits well on the rib cage and feels pretty darned good. 

Harriet and Maya - direct comparison
(click to enlarge for better detail)

Taking to comparing the pattern for the band, I taped them up on my window (ignore the background scenery). More things I learned:

• Maya is slightly higher at CF but much lower at the side of the cup. The Harriet feels much more secure.
• The bridge as designed on the Maya is almost 2x as wide as that of the Harriet sample I sewed. I narrowed the bridge on the Maya muslin by about 1cm to compensate. If I had sewn the bridge as designed, the cups would have been very far apart - much further apart than the cups on my partial band bra, which fits really well. 
• The orientation of the bridge to the cups is almost identical in both patterns. 
• The cup seamlines are almost exactly the same too.
• So is the orientation of the band - the CB lines on the patterns are parallel to each other when the CF lines are parallel. The CB and CF are not parallel to each other, however. The back of the band points at a downward angle when compared with the front. (A downward pointing back band supposedly provides more support; maybe I don't need much of that.)

So then I compared the Maya to my self-drafted pattern, which I had modified for a full band using the instructions in the Bra Makers' Manual. (Disclaimer - I have never actually made my self-drafted full band pattern.) 

Maya and self-drafted pattern - direct comparison
 (click to enlarge for better detail)

Observations:

• The most obvious point of difference is that when the CFs are matched, along with the outline of the cup, the orientation of the back band on the two patterns is very different. While the Maya points downward, my self-drafted pattern is pretty flat. 
• But the most important point of difference is the bridge. My self-drafted bridge is less upright and more triangular. The cup is as a result pushed slightly away from CF. 

Conclusion:

• If I was truly being scientific I would adjust both the Maya and the Harriet to accommodate my different bridge. 
• However I am more interested in getting quickly to a good result, and the Maya cups felt skimpy whereas the Harriet was immediately far more comfortable. 
• Therefore I will adjust the Harriet and make a real bra. 

Onward!

Well, this is interesting - bra sizing

I have always worn a size 34B in a bra. Maybe many years ago I got measured or calculated my size from measurements, I don't remember. Typically if I was shopping for a bra, I'd go out and try some on. It is a painful process. Making a bra is a different kind of painful process. You have to ascertain your size without having the opportunity to try it on until you are almost finished making it.

My TNT bra pattern was cobbled from different bits (cup design from an ancient Burda World of Fashion swimsuit pattern, band and bridge from a Pinup Girls pattern (the Sharon front closing bra). Every element was then tweaked as needed to improve the fit. I literally have no idea what "size" this pattern is. I know the band is too long and when I make it, I cut off the amount needed to get the right fit in the band. This is easy and painless because the band is straight as you can see at right. It's acceptable because I make one at a time and I use different fabric and elastic. A too-long band piece gives me insurance and allows me to fine-tune the fit as I go.

So my planned bra making experiment involves some prior planning, i.e. choosing which size to cut. The two patterns (Maya and Harriet) take completely different approaches to figuring out the right size, and neither uses the standard North American approach of adding an apparently arbitrary number to your underbust measurement to get to your size "number".

The Maya instructions start as usual with an underbust measurement. However, instead of basing size on the difference between the underbust and full bust measurements, you determine a completely different value - the wire size. Which curved shape best corresponds to your "breast root"? Based on experience I thought that a 34 wire would be right for me and I confirmed this by holding a size 34 wire against my anatomy. Then you use the supplied chart to identify the size. Under this system, my size is 34B or 75B (EU sizing). That seemed reassuring.

The Harriet instructions are to take your underbust measurement. That number is your band size (logical, no?). Then measure the full bust. The difference in inches (Harriet is from the US) determines your cup size. Based on this process, my size is 30D! Well, that is a very different number from my usual 34B. It instantly makes me nervous.

So I printed off the 34B Maya and the "sister sizes" for the 30D Harriet. Those sizes are 30D, 32C and my usual 34B, interestingly enough. Then I got all my patterns out and did a flat pattern comparison.

What I learned (you knowledgeable people probably already knew it):

• I had read that sister sizes all have the same cup volume, but always thought that the volume would be distributed differently, i.e. the A cup size would represent a flatter breast that was more spread out on a bigger body (bigger band, wider breast root) than the sister C cup size which would project more. This seems to be wrong. All the sister sizes use the same wire so they have the same shape and size breast root.
• The cup pattern in the Harriet bra is exactly the same for all the sister sizes. Only the frame (bridge, outer cradle and band pieces combined) changes. 
• Since all the bras call for a 34 wire, it is not surprising but nevertheless reassuring that the shape of the cradle (the round opening in the frame where it goes around the cups) is very similar in all three bra patterns.  
• My TNT bra pattern and the 34B Maya are the same length, more or less, from CF to CB. But my TNT bra is actually too long for me (I cut the bra band to fit as I'm making it). So I'd have to do the same with the Maya. I could do this as the back band is straight, although it's a bit more tapered than my TNT bra. 
• The bridge on the Maya is far wider than my TNT bridge. It would be over 3cm wide at the top. I can tell that is too wide so I have taken 6mm off the bridge even before testing.
• The Harriet does not have a straight band. It's wider at the side for more support and scooped between the straps. Therefore it's more important to get the band size right from the get-go. 
• The bridge on the Harriet varies in width with the sister sizes - the 34B bridge is far wider than my TNT bridge. The 30D bridge is about the same. 
• The 30D band is far shorter than my TNT pattern. The 34B band is a bit longer. The 32C band seems pretty good, especially if I combine it with the narrower 30D bridge. 

Based on all this, I *think* I'm actually a 32C. (How typical, most women apparently wear the wrong size bra.) Back in a jiffy after I sew up some rough and ready testers in both patterns.

Flower power bra - put a bow on it

I'll keep this short. I finished the bra. It fits (better on me than on my duct tape double). You get the picture - but this picture only.

The outer fabric is a stretchy nylon lace purchased in a favourite store on Queen Street in Toronto. It's the one with the Russian proprietor. I don't know the name, but if you have been in there, you know him.

The bra is ivory, less pink than it looks in this photo. The stash came through with elastic in two widths, hooks/eyes, sliders/loops and fold-over elastic, all in matching ivory, and little rosebud bows.

The straps are cut from the strap-elastic-roll-that-will-last-forever. It is a firm shiny-faced and plush-backed elastic with a firmly rounded picot edge.

Detail at left.

There is a reason bras have decorative bows.

They cover up the awkward spots where things meet, possibly not perfectly.

The lace is very thin/flimsy so the bra is fully lined with a light stretch mesh. That and the elastic seems to be enough support.






Up next? The Maya bra, in this firm lace.

But first, this skirt

It's still pretty cold here so it does not seem at all ridiculous to have just finished this nice warm wool skirt in the first half of May.

It's #104 from the March 2009 issue of Burda Style (which I have made before).

The fabric is from stash (natch). I picked it up at the Fabric Flea Market so I do not know the exact composition, but am guessing there is a good amount of cashmere mixed with the wool. It is a light coating weight and has a napped surface with a bit of a sheen on which every crease and wrinkle stands right out. But oh how lovely it is! My favourite shade of teal. In fact, it coordinates perfectly with the top and cardigan I just finished.

The colour is truer to life in the photo at right.

I love how the lines of the shaped waistband flow into the pocket openings.

Lingerie

I think I'd like to make a bra (or maybe several). I cut one out about (mumble) months ago and the pieces are still lying around. This is a personal pattern that I have made a few times (see here and here for the first two examples). So then I went on Pattern Review because I was wondering about other styles. Much clicking later and I have downloaded the *Free* Maya bra pattern from AFI Atelier and purchased the Harriet bra pattern from Cloth Habit because it is so pretty!

Future bra

In one of my other bra making posts, I mentioned that I have a lifetime's supply of lingerie findings and fabrics. So off I go...

Woo-hoo, even more knitting!!

«--- Mine

                                     Ankestrick's --»

I felt like I was neglecting one of my knitting machines. It's a standard gauge (4.5mm) Japanese machine (Singer 360 if you are interested).

So I decided to use it to knit a top out of some laceweight linen that I bought last year. There was a new and delicious looking pattern on Ravelry (Summer by Ankestrick, photo from the pattern above). So what if it's (a) handknit, (b) knitted top down and seamless and (c) made in DK weight yarn? How hard can it be to figure out the shape and convert it?

That weird drawing at left? That's my mapping of the beginning part of the pattern instructions. The back neck and shoulders are shaped with short rows, and every time you pass one of the four markers you increase at least one stitch. These increases eventually make what look like seams forming saddle shoulders that are very dropped.

Following my usual process, I sketched the shape of the sweater in two dimensions on gauge-specific graph paper and knitted the pieces - laid out prior to construction at right.

I think it took me as long to sew the pieces together with my new (to me) linker (Singer DL1000) as it did to knit them in the first place. The longest part of the whole process was attaching the ribbed bands at the neck and arm edges. I had to do quite a number of repairs, which are now invisible even to me. There is a distinct learning curve for all this!

I was pretty interested to see how I would like the fit of the very sloped shoulders when combined with a boxy shape, which is a new style for The Sewing Lawyer.

At left, you can see how the garment silhouette corresponds (or not) to my anatomy - as well as how airy the knitted linen fabric is. The garment structure puts the arm opening low down but the boxiness allows for movement that would otherwise be inhibited by the shoulder slope. The garment will ride up if I raise my arms too high. So this is not an active-wear style. It should be fine as a casual summer top, which is exactly what this is.

Now if only the weather would warm up!

More knitting!

The huge advantage of a knitting machine is that it enables the knitter to produce large expanses of nice even stockinette stitch in no time. Most knitters (well, yours truly anyway) find knitting large expanses of stockinette a real bore. But it is a really wonderful fabric and I want more of it in my life. So ... on to the machine.

Ends

Start to finish, the cardigan was done within ten days, and that included some time spent swatching to figure out how to knit the edges so they wouldn't roll too much, a day spent learning to use my new linker, and a day of weaving in the MANY ends. Because stripes. (The next time I knit anything striped I will weave those ends in as I knit. Lesson learned.) The actual knitting? Dunno - some smallish number of hours.

After that I was on a roll. The planning, knitting and seaming of the matching top was done within 2 days.

I made the sweaters on my LK-150, a mid-gauge plastic bed machine. I believe these are still being made so can be purchased new, unlike most home knitting machines. While a plastic machine doesn't have the same smooth action as a metal bed machine, it gets the job done. It is very easy to operate and I find it completely unintimidating. The mid-gauge (6.5 mm between needles) means it can handle most hand-knitting yarn weights (from sock yarn to worsted). The disadvantage of this machine is that it doesn't have a ribber, so you must manually reform stitches if you want ribbed bands. This is a little tedious but still a lot faster than knitting them by hand!

The yarn is a DK weight and it's 100% Alpaca. Yummy stuff. My son had given me four skeins of the teal colour and a friend had given me four more of the camel colour and 3 of the curry. One day while stash diving I considered how well these looked together, but they needed a main colour (the off-white is called "putty") to mediate between them and another one (rusty red) for punch.

Sugarcoat

The cardigan is based on a pattern I purchased on Ravelry called Sugarcoat. Other machine knitters had made it and it is a very simple construction. I made it a more complicated task by not using the yarn weight the pattern calls for (sock yarn). I completely redesigned the stripes for my different gauge and my five colours (the pattern calls for four). I attempted to knit the shape that the pattern would have produced, but my dimensions may not be 100% right because I had to make the sleeves longer than the pattern said. This is the complete opposite of my usual experience.

It took me a while to decide how to do the sleeves. As you can see, the pattern says they should be a single colour, but the only colour I had enough of was the camel. I didn't like how a camel sleeve looked.

The photo at left is my trial camel sleeve, pinned in (the purple at the top of it is waste yarn). This trial also revealed the need to shorten and narrow the sleeves.

You see, machine knitting is so fast I could make 3 sleeves and still finish the sweater in 10 days.

The top is completely my own design although I was inspired by some patterns I faved on Ravelry. I based its dimensions on another sweater of similar weight. I wanted it to have positive ease but not to be too sloppy. I got it just right!

Technical stuff:

The back of the cardigan and the shoulders of the top are shaped with short rows. It is unbelievably easy to make short rows by machine!

You can see the slope created by the short rows quite easily within the striped areas.

Edging at CB

I am very proud of the edgings on both sweaters. For the cardigan, I invented a very nice flattish edge by augmenting Diana Sullivan's machine knitted decorative no-roll edge. My addition consists of 3 plain stockinette stitches that are outside the diagonal portion of the edging. These stitches roll like crazy, because that's what stockinette does. Therefore they make a nice ropey rounded edge that I think is even nicer looking than the original edging.

On the top I made a nice self-finishing edge at the arm openings by moving 3 stitches over and leaving an eyelet. The eyelet opening counteracts the roll that these edges would otherwise have.

More of that paisley (and miscellaneous projects)

Oh, did I say I was going to sew something from a stable woven? Honestly I don't know what I was thinking. I used the rest of the slippery knit to make another knit top. I finally got out the coverstitch machine to do the hems.

It's Jalie 2804 which I've owned for a while. I notice that I crossed it over the wrong way. It'll be our little secret.

I traced my size per the chart but then cut with about 1cm extra on all vertical edges because Jalie tends to fit skin tight, and I thought this thin knit would do better if allowed to drape. I basted before deciding, keeping only some of the extra width in the sleeves and side seams.

Given that I was suffering from fabric shortage, I am pretty happy that I was able to centre the print on the body and cut mirror-image sleeves!

Katharine commented on my last project that I should consider a sway back adjustment. I didn't do one on this project. Frankly I'm not sure how it can be truly successful if there is no seaming in the middle of the back and no darts. This top is closer fitting so the pooling is less obvious (and I may have pulled the back hem down for this photo).

I have cut out a skirt but it languishes while I do this and that.

Before

After

"This" was altering a beautiful hand-knit sweater for a friend by ripping back the ruffled hems and re-casting off more conventionally. I decided on the "Icelandic bind off" because it is stretchy and looks pretty good with the twisted knit rib texture.




"That" was replacing the extremely ratty "faux fur" strip on the hood of my (RTW) down winter coat. I bought a winter coat ($5 at Value Village) with a fur-trimmed hood, and promptly donated the coat (sans hood) back to the store. It is definitely not the greatest fur, but about 1000 times nicer looking than the fake stuff. I am satisfied!