 |
| We're up to 6.270 stitches |
And this is why I have so much leave on the books.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
4,400 more
And this is why I have so much leave on the books.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Waistcoat and breeches alterations
The breeches and waistcoat have been altered. So has the fingerprint on my needle-pushing finger, I think.
The waistcoat and breeches began looking something like this:
Note the 1750’s cut to the waistcoat, and the, um, baggy fit. Ditto for the baggy breeches.
Now, I understand that it is nigh unto impossible to buy something ready-made that is going to fit in the proper 18th-century manner. Men’s smallclothes (the waistcoat and breeches) were form fitting without being restrictive. Well, except for the seat of the breeches. Breeches were snug from the crotch to the kneeband, with the seat cut full so that one could actually sit in comfort.
Anyhow – the waistcoat was too big for the owner, so the back and sides were pinned to fit, and a new armseye drawn in. the tails in the back of the waistcoat were shortened, and squared off, instead of being flared. The front of the waistcoat was cut away at an angle, and shortened a bit. The cut-off bits of the waistcoat tails were made into new pocket flaps. There was a narrow band of fabric sewn over the neckline which was removed, and the resulting raw edges turned in. This was all done by hand, in part, to keep the cotton lining (hawk, spit!) from drooping as is often found when a garment is bag-lined. (This is basically when a garment and lining are assembled separately, then placed right sides together, edges matched up, and sewn around the outside, leaving a space to turn it all right-side-out again. This kind of lining tends to sag, especially if the outer fabric and lining are made of two different types of fabric. So as I opened up all the seams took them in, and re-sewed the lining to the seam-lines.
The waistcoat and breeches began looking something like this:
Note the 1750’s cut to the waistcoat, and the, um, baggy fit. Ditto for the baggy breeches.
Now, I understand that it is nigh unto impossible to buy something ready-made that is going to fit in the proper 18th-century manner. Men’s smallclothes (the waistcoat and breeches) were form fitting without being restrictive. Well, except for the seat of the breeches. Breeches were snug from the crotch to the kneeband, with the seat cut full so that one could actually sit in comfort.
Anyhow – the waistcoat was too big for the owner, so the back and sides were pinned to fit, and a new armseye drawn in. the tails in the back of the waistcoat were shortened, and squared off, instead of being flared. The front of the waistcoat was cut away at an angle, and shortened a bit. The cut-off bits of the waistcoat tails were made into new pocket flaps. There was a narrow band of fabric sewn over the neckline which was removed, and the resulting raw edges turned in. This was all done by hand, in part, to keep the cotton lining (hawk, spit!) from drooping as is often found when a garment is bag-lined. (This is basically when a garment and lining are assembled separately, then placed right sides together, edges matched up, and sewn around the outside, leaving a space to turn it all right-side-out again. This kind of lining tends to sag, especially if the outer fabric and lining are made of two different types of fabric. So as I opened up all the seams took them in, and re-sewed the lining to the seam-lines.
 |
| Side view - front has been shortened, and angled. Back has been shortened and squared off. |
 |
| Front - enlarged armseyes and altered neckline. |
 |
| Original pocket flap on top, new and improved version on the bottom. |
The breeches … well they’re better than they were, I hope. These were also impossibly large, so I pinned the inseam until they were a bit snugger. I didn’t pin too far up, IYKWIM, but later, when I transferred the marks to the inside of the breeches, I extrapolated my sewing line up through the crotch. I took 98% of the stitching out where the kneebands were attached at the bottom of the leg, leaving the end with the buttonhole still attached. I ripped out the inseam seam, and then re-sewed it using my penciled-in line as a guide. Then I ripped out the stitching “gathers” over the kneecap. I understand that you need some extra ease over the knee area so you can bend your knee. What I don’t understand is why the gathers were over the knee on one leg, and behind the knee on the other. (Shakes head sadly) I tried to iron the wrinkles out of the fabric, and then I ran two rows of gathering stitches around the bottom of each leg opening, about ¼” and 3/4” away from the cut edge. I then drew up the slack in the gathering stitches as far as I could without actually putting gathers into the fabric. This is called “easing”. I effectively had the diameter of the leg opening as small as if it had been gathered without the unsightly wrinkles. I briefly considered hand-sewing the kneebands back on. I looked at the sheer volume of visible machine stitching on those breeches and laughed at myself. I figure that people are more likely to notice the hand stitching on the waistcoat than the breeches anyway, so I shortened the kneebands (since I had the legs were now narrower) and machine-sewed them on.  |
New stitching line drawn in.  Leg opening with the extra fullness eased in. Those are wrinkles you see - not gathers. |
Saturday, November 13, 2010
What 1,870 stitches looks like
Sorry, it's just knitting, nothing gruesome.
Not much, is it?
But this gives me something to work on when my needle-pushing finger is too mangled to push a needle.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Compare and contrast
Another reason I'm glad I don't live in Californina -- asking a kid to remove an American flag from his bike "for his own safety". The idea has me so livid I just sputter when I try to articulate it. It is infurating on countless levels.
Compare with what Sweet Daughter brought home from school yesterday:
I'm sure she wasn't the only kid in her class that got to say that her Daddy and both grandfathers were veterans (although I bet she's the only one with a grandfather who fought in WWII). I don't think telling a kid to take his American flag off his bike would go over very well here.
H/T to Alan and my Blogfather.
Compare with what Sweet Daughter brought home from school yesterday:
I'm sure she wasn't the only kid in her class that got to say that her Daddy and both grandfathers were veterans (although I bet she's the only one with a grandfather who fought in WWII). I don't think telling a kid to take his American flag off his bike would go over very well here.
H/T to Alan and my Blogfather.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Petition to allow students and faculty with CHPs to carry at ODU
From a VCDL VA-Alert:
The students at Old Dominion University have grown tired of being disarmed by the University while crime is rampant around them. A group of students dedicated to changing the University's ban on self-defense have put together an on-line petition that urges the University to allow students, faculty, and staff with CHPs to carry on campus.
The organizers want signatures of ODU students, faculty, staff AND concerned citizens from around the state:
You can go here to sign the petition.
You can go to WAVY (it's a NBC, what can I say?) to see more.
I signed it and ask Joe Huffman's Just one question.
The students at Old Dominion University have grown tired of being disarmed by the University while crime is rampant around them. A group of students dedicated to changing the University's ban on self-defense have put together an on-line petition that urges the University to allow students, faculty, and staff with CHPs to carry on campus.
The organizers want signatures of ODU students, faculty, staff AND concerned citizens from around the state:
You can go here to sign the petition.
You can go to WAVY (it's a NBC, what can I say?) to see more.
I signed it and ask Joe Huffman's Just one question.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What do these 3 things have in common?
The United States Marines
The Edmund Fitzgerald
The Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910
And the answer is ... November 10th!
Today is the 235th anniversary of the founding of the USMC, the Edmund Fitzgerald sank 35 years ago, and 100 years ago, the Ordnance Officers’ Board began testing John M. Browning’s (PBUH) Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910 against the Savage Arms .45 caliber Model H.
In the end, the Colt weapon proved more easily field stripped, more accurate, and more reliable, with 12 malfunctions requiring replacement of 4 components, while the Savage had 43 malfunctions requiring replacement of 13 components.
Go get your gun geek* on and read the whole thing.
* Speaking of gun geek, Shorter Half added:
Wikipedia (in case you haven't already checked it out) is here.
US Army started testing Browning (PBUH) semiauto pistols, starting with this .38ACP (NOT .380ACP!!! – the .380ACP is a later, smaller, cartridge) in 1899. By 1906, the poor performance of the (then brand new) .38 Long Colt revolvers against Muslim fanatics in the Philippines made the Army insist on going back to a .45 caliber pistol. (A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde: "Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine." Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three .38 bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went though the right hand and exited through the forearm. Wikipedia, .38 Long Colt – COL LaGarde is a big name in the .45 world, and this incident is well-attributed, even if I did swipe it from Rumorpedia.)
The 1907 version was the first to do away with the original “parallel rule” operating system (swinging links at both ends of the barrel, vs, the single link at the back of the 1907, 1909, 1910, and 1911). The 1910 version was modified to give the pistol the grip angle 1911 shooters adore.
The 1910 model you illustrated was the beginning of the first really “modern” .45 we all know and love. The real difference between the two is that the 1910 Colt is a developmental version, and the Army officially adopted it in 1911, with some VERY minor suggested changes.
Trial History is here.
THREE DAYS after the 1910 test reports were written up, the Colt Special Army Model 1910 pistol was adopted by the US Army as the Model 1911 pistol.
The Edmund Fitzgerald
The Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910
And the answer is ... November 10th!
Today is the 235th anniversary of the founding of the USMC, the Edmund Fitzgerald sank 35 years ago, and 100 years ago, the Ordnance Officers’ Board began testing John M. Browning’s (PBUH) Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910 against the Savage Arms .45 caliber Model H.
In the end, the Colt weapon proved more easily field stripped, more accurate, and more reliable, with 12 malfunctions requiring replacement of 4 components, while the Savage had 43 malfunctions requiring replacement of 13 components.
Go get your gun geek* on and read the whole thing.
* Speaking of gun geek, Shorter Half added:
Wikipedia (in case you haven't already checked it out) is here.
US Army started testing Browning (PBUH) semiauto pistols, starting with this .38ACP (NOT .380ACP!!! – the .380ACP is a later, smaller, cartridge) in 1899. By 1906, the poor performance of the (then brand new) .38 Long Colt revolvers against Muslim fanatics in the Philippines made the Army insist on going back to a .45 caliber pistol. (A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde: "Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine." Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three .38 bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went though the right hand and exited through the forearm. Wikipedia, .38 Long Colt – COL LaGarde is a big name in the .45 world, and this incident is well-attributed, even if I did swipe it from Rumorpedia.)
The 1907 version was the first to do away with the original “parallel rule” operating system (swinging links at both ends of the barrel, vs, the single link at the back of the 1907, 1909, 1910, and 1911). The 1910 version was modified to give the pistol the grip angle 1911 shooters adore.
The 1910 model you illustrated was the beginning of the first really “modern” .45 we all know and love. The real difference between the two is that the 1910 Colt is a developmental version, and the Army officially adopted it in 1911, with some VERY minor suggested changes.
Trial History is here.
THREE DAYS after the 1910 test reports were written up, the Colt Special Army Model 1910 pistol was adopted by the US Army as the Model 1911 pistol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)