Spent some time this weekend working on the my fitting shell/sloper. I referenced FFRP and the Threads recent armhole fitting article. The Threads article was limited to armscye fitting; FFRP covers fitting the entire pattern. But I need armscye help, so......
Some differences between the two references:
Regarding what size to choose:
FFRP has you choosing your size based on high bust if your full bust is more than so many inches bigger, which mine is. My high bust is 40" and my full bust is 47". This difference indicates my cup size, which is an outrageous DDD. The reasoning for going by high bust measurement is that the neck and shoulders will be more likely to fit, and a full bust alteration will enlarge the full bust area.
Threads doesn't address differences between high and full bust--says to choose your size based on full bust and make sure the bust fits before fitting the armscye.
I went with the FFRP recommendation because it makes sense to me and because I had the fitting shell pattern in my high bust size, which is an 18W.
Regarding pattern preparation:
FFRP has you trimming and prepping the paper pattern, while Threads has you working with a muslin. I used the paper method.
Regarding order of alterations:
FFRP has you verify the correct size by confirming that the pattern cf meets your cf at the high bustline, then start fitting at the back.
The Threads article has you making sure the bust fits before addressing the armscye.
I started with the back per FFRP, because I was really fitting the back; it's just that my back is so narrow I have to alter the armscye in addition to doing the narrow back alteration.
The resulting back armscye has really changed from the original pattern--much of the back was scooped out, then the bottom raised. It has more of an 'L' shape. The Threads article mentioned this shape change, noting that many people find that the 'L' shaped armhole fits them better that the 'C' shape of most commercial patterns. Now that the armscye shape has changed the sleeve cap shape is gonna have to change. Sh*t. Well, the next month's Thread had a sleeve-fitting article, and I'm sure FFRP addresses it. Then I gotta figure out how to use this sloper on other patterns. Sh*t. I just want a shirt that fits.
I got the right back fitted fairly well after only several hours, and when I turned that pattern inside out to confirm the fit on my left side I realized that I'm going to have to create another sloper for the left side of my body. My hips are much better but I'm still quite asymmetrical.
After the initial try-on to confirm the cf location and general back fitting issues I used Mrs. Dinky for the back fitting.
Speaking of Mrs. Dinky, Mrs. Dinky II didn't turn out as well as me & dd hoped. The first Fanny Dinky is a better representation of my bod, despite the fact that fd's hips are more crooked. I might try and change fd's hips, as well as smooth out the armholes and neckline. Then when this sloper is finished and copied onto oaktag I can use the muslin for a dressform cover. I could glue a bit of batting onto fd first--it wouldn'd add too much padding but I'll bet it would look much smoother and provide a better pinning surface.
Some differences between the two references:
Regarding what size to choose:
FFRP has you choosing your size based on high bust if your full bust is more than so many inches bigger, which mine is. My high bust is 40" and my full bust is 47". This difference indicates my cup size, which is an outrageous DDD. The reasoning for going by high bust measurement is that the neck and shoulders will be more likely to fit, and a full bust alteration will enlarge the full bust area.
Threads doesn't address differences between high and full bust--says to choose your size based on full bust and make sure the bust fits before fitting the armscye.
I went with the FFRP recommendation because it makes sense to me and because I had the fitting shell pattern in my high bust size, which is an 18W.
Regarding pattern preparation:
FFRP has you trimming and prepping the paper pattern, while Threads has you working with a muslin. I used the paper method.
Regarding order of alterations:
FFRP has you verify the correct size by confirming that the pattern cf meets your cf at the high bustline, then start fitting at the back.
The Threads article has you making sure the bust fits before addressing the armscye.
I started with the back per FFRP, because I was really fitting the back; it's just that my back is so narrow I have to alter the armscye in addition to doing the narrow back alteration.
The resulting back armscye has really changed from the original pattern--much of the back was scooped out, then the bottom raised. It has more of an 'L' shape. The Threads article mentioned this shape change, noting that many people find that the 'L' shaped armhole fits them better that the 'C' shape of most commercial patterns. Now that the armscye shape has changed the sleeve cap shape is gonna have to change. Sh*t. Well, the next month's Thread had a sleeve-fitting article, and I'm sure FFRP addresses it. Then I gotta figure out how to use this sloper on other patterns. Sh*t. I just want a shirt that fits.
I got the right back fitted fairly well after only several hours, and when I turned that pattern inside out to confirm the fit on my left side I realized that I'm going to have to create another sloper for the left side of my body. My hips are much better but I'm still quite asymmetrical.
After the initial try-on to confirm the cf location and general back fitting issues I used Mrs. Dinky for the back fitting.
Speaking of Mrs. Dinky, Mrs. Dinky II didn't turn out as well as me & dd hoped. The first Fanny Dinky is a better representation of my bod, despite the fact that fd's hips are more crooked. I might try and change fd's hips, as well as smooth out the armholes and neckline. Then when this sloper is finished and copied onto oaktag I can use the muslin for a dressform cover. I could glue a bit of batting onto fd first--it wouldn'd add too much padding but I'll bet it would look much smoother and provide a better pinning surface.
Comments