Clothing patterns based on rectangles

Jay said, "However, the example Ms Haywood used involves a lovely integral tied bow at the neck - I *don't* consider that safe farm clothes. I don't even put my hat tie under my chin unless the wind demands it, as it's just not safe around moving equipment or large animals. Safety first - always - we need every permie we can get!"

I agree. Also, I'm just really NOT a fan of bows, in general. However, looking at the pattern, I could see making it collarless & using that piece as a belt, piecing a pocket or two from it, or something else - or simply eliminating it, and getting away with an even smaller piece of fabric. I think one of the things to keep in mind in our hand made items (even when they're based in a purchased pattern), is that they're truly OURS, to do with as we please. I think this is one of my main struggles in using purchased patterns - it feels like I simply must do it their way, or why would I have bought it, in the first place. The reality is that those pieces are often adjusted for size and fit, on our cutting tables - so, why not for style and fabric usage, too? Yup. That's me: rebel with too many causes to keep count!

Saftey first for sure

I wonder if it could be detachable so one could put on the bow for grocery shopping or whatever?

r ranson wrote:I wonder if it could be detachable so one could put on the bow for grocery shopping or whatever?

Hard to tell without knowing more about how the pattern is built, but a series of buttons on the neck edge and a matching series of button holes on the sash, would be the first thing I'd consider. Done with a little foresight, the buttons could be a creative highlight when the sash isn't being used. Good idea, R!

r ranson wrote:Saftey first for sure

I wonder if it could be detachable so one could put on the bow for grocery shopping or whatever?

The bow is formed from the dangly ends of the collar of the top so in this case, no, not really. You could, however, simply cut off the ends that form the bow and simply have a collar instead.

The diagram in the blog post shows the cutting layout for the top - the tie comes from the middle of the square. If you want a longer top, you make the “tie” strip narrower. I suppose you could eliminate the tie altogether and have an even longer top with more crossover in the sleeves, but then you’d need to figure out a different neck finish (bias tape would work well) and likely reduce the size of the neck hole.

My point in sharing that blog was less about the specific top - I certainly don’t wear bows on things, and the kid I made it for thought it was a nice design, but ultimately not their style - and more about the concept being illustrated via said top.

I think the post does an admirable job of showing the difference in fabric requirements and waste between rectangular designs and modern pattern-making practices. It may not seem like much in a single garment, but my scrap pile can tell you just how fast that “not that much” adds up, even for a casual home sewist.

As someone who spins and weaves their own cloth, that small difference can really add up in terms of time and effort spent producing materials. Needing an extra square foot of cloth might mean another twenty hours of work, at least.

(I should note that I’m not a farmer - I’m happy here in the suburbs with my garden and my chickens. Thus my focus when it comes to clothes is just as much in flipping mindsets towards more sustainable practices, as it is with getting clothes I, personally, want to wear.)

Perhaps this shirt pattern of Liz’s would have been a better demonstration for the farm-minded out there: "Sandie" shirt

A size 14 (40” chest) calls for a minimum of 182.4 cm x 106.4 cm of fabric. A McCall’s pattern I have for a similar style of shirt demands 190cm x 115 cm for the same chest size. The McCall’s one is cut straight, Liz’s pattern is on the bias - which I often find more comfortable to wear, but most commercial patterns are prohibitively extravagant in their fabric requirements.

The post - and blog is a good one, and I'm glad you shared it - thank you! I'm just one of those who is always looking for ways to modify & make a thing my own, whether for comfort or style. It's kind of a common thing, around here, really. Many of us will look at a thing, pick it apart, reverse engineer it, and put it back together in a whole new way. It's not meant as an offense, at all. In fact, if that's what happens, it's kind of a compliment, because it means we really like it - we just might want to tweak it. We're kind of an odd lot - hopefully a loveable one.  

When you start with a square of fabric and the pattern pieces leave a triangular piece of leftover ... maybe that's the reason for making such a bow-tie collar. Anyway such triangular pieces can be cut into bias tape, f.e. for the neckline.

Jay Angler wrote:[

For example, the pattern below isn't based on rectangles, but it does use fabric efficiently and can be drawn to one's own measurements easily, which is another plus. My future goal is that I could weave fabric the width needed based on my measurements and know that hard work would be worth it.  However, since people keep giving me their hand-me-downs, I may never get that far, but by posting these patterns here, others will at least benefit from my explorations.

I wanted to try this pattern but I don't see a pattern piece for the gusset.  Is there a page missing?

Nancy Reading wrote:Hi Jay,
Your post caught my eye.  I've been thinking about work clothing, and your garment is a bit like English agricultural smocks, which were made from rectangles and a few triangles.  They were the original 'wax cotton jackets' being water resistant over garments for agricultural workers, rather than the ladies frocks of latter years.  They fell out of use with increased use of machines I gather.
See Lincs to the past, or Poppys cottage blog
 for example.
The smocking stitches as well as being decorative gave elasticity to the garment: no need for elastic.  I've got too many projects (and enough clothes just now) but quite fancy making a modern take on these.  Particularly the lack of elastic is what appeals to me.

Hi Nancy,
I'm looking for a comfortable work shirt pattern that gives me mobility and hangs from my body (cool) and the smocking idea, to keep the shoulders from falling so low down and give body space looks great.  Is there a tutorial on how to do it? More importantly, how time consuming is doing smocking?

thanks!

Freyda Black wrote:
Hi Nancy,
I'm looking for a comfortable work shirt pattern that gives me mobility and hangs from my body (cool) and the smocking idea, to keep the shoulders from falling so low down and give body space looks great.  Is there a tutorial on how to do it? More importantly, how time consuming is doing smocking?

thanks!

There are lots of online articles on smocking, search for "english smocking stitch" or something similar. It is pretty time consuming, because it is hand sewing. I don't think it can be done by machine, or at least not in the same way. The advantage of smocking over simple gathers is that it makes the material elastic - it gives ease of movement without baggy fabric. You may find that simply adding fullness with gathers will be an easier way to achiefe the same end.

Thanks for your quick reply Nancy.  Yes, the video's I watched on smocking sure look time-consuming! Even though I do love the elasticity, I think your advice on gathers will be more reasonable time-wise.

Nancy Reading wrote:Hi Jay,
Your post caught my eye.  I've been thinking about work clothing, and your garment is a bit like English agricultural smocks, which were made from rectangles and a few triangles.  They were the original 'wax cotton jackets' being water resistant over garments for agricultural workers, rather than the ladies frocks of latter years.  They fell out of use with increased use of machines I gather.
See Lincs to the past, or Poppys cottage blog

The smocking stitches as well as being decorative gave elasticity to the garment: no need for elastic.  I've got too many projects (and enough clothes just now) but quite fancy making a modern take on these.  Particularly the lack of elastic is what appeals to me.

I love smocking for it's comfort primarily, as well as it's beauty.  I followed up on your post with searches for tutorials on how to smock and was overwhelmed by how complicated it seemed.  Most of the complication was with how to fold all those little pleats, Most sewers were using a machine that was too fussy  (and probably expensive as well) or were drawing zillions of little dots on the fabric with exactitude.  It just seems too difficult and time consuming to accomplish, sadly 😔

Freyda Black wrote:, Most sewers were using a machine that was too fussy  (and probably expensive as well) or were drawing zillions of little dots on the fabric with exactitude.  It just seems too difficult and time consuming to accomplish, sadly 😔

When I was much younger I was able to get iron on transfer paper with those dots on it. We're talking 40 years ago and several provinces away, so don't ask me where, but you could try g--gling "smocking transfer paper" and see where it takes you?

Jay Angler wrote:

Freyda Black wrote:, Most sewers were using a machine that was too fussy  (and probably expensive as well) or were drawing zillions of little dots on the fabric with exactitude.  It just seems too difficult and time consuming to accomplish, sadly 😔

When I was much younger I was able to get iron on transfer paper with those dots on it. We're talking 40 years ago and several provinces away, so don't ask me where, but you could try g--gling "smocking transfer paper" an ord see where it takes you?

I just pulled it up on my duckduckgo, and it offered up quite a few options, including etsy and ebay, but others, too. I'm going to check it out!

Great Idea Carla.  Now, if we could just figure out what the "basic" (ie. not fancy embroidery) smocking stitch is, just to get the functionality without making it a multi-month project, I would be really happy!

Freyda, I found a couple of simple videos that may help (there's certainly a lot of more complex ones!)
Using transfer dots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFgFfl2Oavw
How to do cable stitch:

This I think is the basic backstitch that gives you the stretch. You do the whole panel like this and then take out the gathering stitches to free off the fabric.

An update on the pirate shirt tutorial:

Here's a top with smocking.  She says it's made with three rectangles - two for the sleeves, one for the body.  



watching the rest of the video, elastics factor into the shaping too.  

Here is a play list for making a smocked historical shirt (note, there are more videos in the playlist than I'm putting here - check it out, it's great!)

Getting the pattern


general smocking


smocking the shirt

An apron from rectangles and smocking.  

Very simple 18th century petticoat pattern:

This lady talks very fast - I might slow it down if I wanted to actually write down some instructions, but it's a great overview of a simple skirt based on mostly rectangles.

As always - this thread is *not* about "purism" over "functionality", "zero waste" over "something I'd actually wear". Low waste, efficient use and having most of the "waste" bits useful for other projects, is my goal.



Things to note:
1. Her comment about tying it around you waist before adding the bands, so that if you have "bulgy" bits that affect the hem length, you can accommodate that at the waist line with a little judicious trimming.
2. She's not really explicit about how/where she's adding the pockets. I believe there is info here on permies about the combination of side-opening skirt with an integral pocket (it's not here: https://permies.com/t/151350/fashioned-substitute-lack-women-pockets , but I'll swear it's somewhere) Since I'm not looking for authentic, at the very least, I'd be inclined to put a gusset or flap behind the side opening.
3. You need something *not stretchy* for the waist band. If you're into the PEP program, you could use a number of simple band weaving techniques to make an awesome band: https://permies.com/wiki/151760/pep-textiles/Weave-belt-PEP-BB-textile
It's shown sewn on the inside of the pleats in the video, but I see *no* reason it couldn't be sewn on the outside if you made something unique and beautiful.
4. The downside of a skirt like this, is that it can easily be very bulky at the waist. So this is "simple" and "minimal sewing", but if you don't want it quite so bulky, you can use R Ranson's petticoat version  where you do panels of wider material in 3 tiers either gathered or pleated see here: https://permies.com/t/206751/sewing/Warm-underwear-winter-Petticoats

This is totally not a "new" approach, but I thought the video was worth posting here. Maybe someone needs to sew a skirt for fall?

Cat Knight wrote:

Jay Angler wrote:

First a question: how many inches did you overlap the sleeve panel and each of the front and back panels? Did you use the 2" and 6" that was suggested?
Second question: did you do the 7" or a different size gusset?
Third question: how loose around the neckline do you find the finished chemise?

I find it interesting that this pattern cuts the gussets into triangles, whereas the "Pirate shirt" pattern keeps them as squares. This adds a seam across the hypotenuse of the triangle when you stitch the arms closed, which recreates the "square". It probably makes it easier for a beginner to sew the pattern, but it makes the underarms - already a weak point - possibly a little weaker. This is more likely to be an issue with home-spun fabric than a high thread count industrial cotton and if I were to attempt this with a lower count material, I'd be inclined to use a scrap of cotton bed-sheet as an interfacing on the triangles.

I am a wide and busty lady, generally called a plus size. I did 7"? and 3" for the front, because my fabric was wider.
I did an 8" gusset, it was still too small for my "wings." Someone with particularly muscular arms will have the same problem, although I doubt I cut my sleeves the same size...I didn't measure lol
I'm going to alter them. In fact, if I was doing it again I'd use rectangles. Or if I was weaving them myself on a loom.
I pleated my neckline, using the technique from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ORcHRlq_Q  it is not particularly loose nor tight. It is Just right <3

I didn't have linen, so I made mine from cotton. I want to note that all the seams will either need to be surged or overstitched because it is fraying like mad already.

Now, one thing to note is that this underdress should be made from linen and it has no real shape itself and no bust support. In the middle ages another dress would be worn over the top, and that dress would be made from wool. the over dress would be sewn to have a very fitted bodice that acted as bust support. Also of note is that if you shorten it a lot, it is a shirt. Finally, I just wanted to say I see a striking resemblance to alter boy robes in the one I made with a pleated top. I cant help but think that somewhere back in the middle ages every woman thought this was pretty funny and the priests were largely clueless.

One thing that I like to do it make no math patterns (also for quilts and cooking), my philosophy behind that is that very few were school educated prior to about 1900 or so in the history of the human race. I just can't see the average middle ages housewife measuring things out with a acrylic quilting ruler. There is always some "easier" way, such as weaving panels the right size from the get go ;)

I would love it if you could post a picture of the garment you made from this pattern.  I am the opposite of you in that I am a very small person with no bust. I work outside and can't bear the heat and I was just coming here to post a request for a SIMPLE pattern based on squares for a shirt that could be made of muslin or light cotton and be either short or long sleeved. Tee shirts are too hot! I want to make both work and leisure time shirts that I can wear that leave me lots of room for movement and don't cling to my body.   I am not an experienced sewer.

A picture, or even a line drawing, of the garment, and a little explanation of how to put it together, would be a gift!!!  Thanks!

Aurora House wrote:I do a lot of historical recreation and fantasy/sci-fi conventions. I can quickly whip up a shirt for someone just using remnants. These are the end of bolt usually less than a yard pieces or a flaw in the weave/print that the store cut out and then sells at a discount. I started making these for my son when he was a toddler by taking 2 reminents overlapping them to form a cross ❌ stitching down the edge of the overlap cutting out a head hole and stitching up the sides to form a shirt shape. I quickly found out that if the arm piece wasn't 9 inches i couldn't fit my hand in to grab his hand and help him get his arm in the sleeves. To have a baggie enough shirt for freedom of movement but not having sleeves start at the elbow instead of the shoulder I started pleats down the body panel and put a piece of trim across at the bottom of where the sleeves attached, and the head hole scraps as gussets at the armpits. I'd take out the stitches holding the pleats in place below the trim. Creating an effect similar to the smocked shirt posted earlier in this thread. Then came the day that the sleeves were to short, I'd pleat the sleeve like I did the body cut it in half and attach to the middle of the body panel. Started cutting out square neck holes so I would have at least one gusset the weird diamond shape when you took all the pleats out of the head hole scrap.

Aurora,
Until you get into the descriptions of how you did it, I feel what you are explaining is consonant with my philosophy. However, I am not an experienced sewer and so explanations of a process just escape my understanding. Your pictures of the garments are extremely helpful, but I would need diagrams of each step of the process, which I would not expect you to laboriously  produce.

That said, the last picture with the flannel body looks like it almost supplies most of what I want in a work shirt. These are my thoughts and perhaps you could help me figure out how to pattern my "wish shirt".
--Lots of room for arm movement and air.  The armhole gussets already do that in most patterns.
--fabric loose in the chest.  I think you accomplish that with the flannel body top by putting in some pleats? For Summer lightweight fabrics I like to have the fabric hang away from my body for air circulation.  Can I gather the fabric a little with a running stitch? What do you do with the edges of the fabric where they attach to the piece that goes over the shoulders?
--Neck opening. Did you do a T cut and shape for the back of the neck? Ideally, I would like a collar like the one on the middle Eastern garment, the narrow band. Even though I am trying to stay cool I don't like big neck openings; I want protection from the sun and insects.

I guess that is a lot of questions and requests. I don't expect you to make a pattern for me, but I would appreciate any advice or directing towards resources I might use.
Thank you. I really admire your sewing skills!

May Lotito wrote:In the original mompei pattern, the triangle is stitched to the back leg along the straight side (b), mine used the longest side (c).

In the first method,
Crotch seam length= 2b+2c-a
Front rise= b+c-a
Fabric length= front rise+inseam+hem.
It is much longer in the rise and the back side also look different.

In the second one:
Crotch seam length =2c+a
Front rise=c
So it requires less length in fabric and the crotch curve resembles more of the shape of contemporary pull on pants.

Or one can change the b:a ratio. Like the one of liz made, 10by 30 it is. Just do some calculation before cutting. It is simple geometry.

Thank you, May, for such a detailed explanation on how the geometry affects the fit. I see that this post is from 3 years ago so I hope you get some notification that a newbie to sewing is looking for some help. Although I was a wiz in geometry back in the day, I can't say the same for sewing experience so please bear with my request for clarification. When you say the first one and the second one, by the first one do you mean the original pattern and the second one is the way you made it or vice versa?

Also, you refer to more explanation in the secret minion area. I tried the link and of course I was not an admitted. I don't know what being a secret minion entails. Could you direct me to some place where I could learn what is needed to become a Secret minion so that I can learn more?

I have been looking for a simple pattern to make pants with a gusset for working Outdoors. I do a great deal of squatting when I work as well as just to stretch out my back and, no matter how many sizes too big a pair of pants are, they never have the ease in the crotch to make this comfortable so pants like these appear to be perfect for my lifestyle.

Christopher Weeks started a thread about upcycling his zoom loom squares, which understandably links to this thread because squares are just another version of rectangles!  https://permies.com/t/270434/Zoom-Loom-transitioning-playing-projects

Jill Dyer than added a link to a very interesting book, and I just had to research it a little...

Cut My Cote by Dorothy K Burnham, published in 1973 by the Royal Ontario Museum, is only 36 pgs but sounds like there's a lot of info in there.

This is an excellent little review of it: https://theperfectnose.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/book-review-cut-my-cote-by-dorothy-k-burnham/

Other references on the web do expand into the concept that these ancient garments were based on simplicity and conservation of materials, but that doesn't mean we have to be purists when we upgrade them to modern standards. This discussion of the book: https://witness2fashion.wordpress.com/tag/cut-my-cote-dorothy-k-burnham/ the writer talks about the evolution of fitting "rectangles" to "human anatomy", which sounds very interesting, but will have to read more thoroughly a second time!

Cut My Cote by Dorothy K Burnham, published in 1973 by the Royal Ontario Museum, is only 36 pgs but sounds like there's a lot of info in there.

Our library had this book years ago and I used to check it out frequently when I was weaving full time.  It eventually 'disappeared' off the shelf, apparently someone liked it even more than myself

So glad to see that Jill mentioned it in Christopher's thread...I would still love to see it again, maybe buy it this time.

Hi Frida, sorry I have got rid of the pictures. It's a conceptual sewing project for me to make a pattern as if solving equations. There are geometry in flat pattern making and topology in sewing which I find fun to play with. You don't have to follow the numbers and do zero waste strictly. Modify the shapes so they will fit your body better.

Here is the comparison to a conventional pull up pants pattern. Noted how grainlines in this type of zero waste pants don't go parallel with the drape line. Also the lack of height in the back rise.

As for pants that won't rip if you squat a lot, depending on the styles you like, it can be very roomy or fitted with the European cut with inseam gusset. I will start a new thread on that.

Hi Jay, this video shows how to cut the churidar salwar. The pant legs are cut on the bias to give a slimmer look and flexible length. I have seen lots of Indian ladies of Tamil origin wearing these as part of the 3-piece suit while I lived in Singapore.  I had no idea there were pieced seams under the tunic though; that's very efficient in fabric use.

Here I made some pant samples for a 22" doll based on the patterns mentioned in this thread. Fabrics are all non stretch woven butbI have to use much thinner materials in proportion to the miniature size. Gusset pieces usually have to be cut bigger to add 3/8" allowance.

If anyone is interested in a particular pattern, chime in and I will see what I can do.

These are great, May! I think I've gotten thin enough for some of these to work for me. I've learned,  finally, if clothing is binding or bunchy, it won't éver make it out of the closet.

Here is the comparison to a conventional pull up pants pattern. Noted how grainlines in this type of zero waste pants don't go parallel with the drape line. Also the lack of height in the back rise.

Î need a high back rise. It would be Indecent without. Even so, à lot less waste then I am a cutomed to.

Joylynn Hardesty wrote:Î need a high back rise. It would be Indecent without. Even so, à lot less waste then I am accustomed to.

I agree Joylynn. There are many different body shapes and I want to feel comfortable in my clothing. "Zero waste" and "Only Rectangles" is the starting point, but many of us will need to compromise in spots.

If you look at some jeans, they have a gusset between the waist band and the main pants at the back. This uses "piecing" to get that extra rise without wasting huge amounts of material, as those gussets can probably be cut from scraps left. I used a version of that when I made some flannel PJ bottoms and it was very effective.

I read a quote from one of the historical sewing/clothing documents and it mentioned how outfits evolved from simple rectangles, to gussets, in an effort to fit human body dimensions. Unfortunately, humans took it to the extent that clothing has become a major source of pollution, so I think it's time to take some steps back into a more efficient time when fabrics and clothing were considered valuable assets!

Historically fabrics were hand woven and narrower. Patterns making most of the selvedge produced strong seams and minimized the needs to deal with fraying edges. It's interesting to see how people from different parts of the world came up with unique ways to turn 2D fabric into 3D structures. This thread has been a valuable learning opportunity for me. The samples I made might be too tight or too loose and some tweaking will better balance the appearance and comfort level.

JAY, I incorporate back yokes in pants quite frequently to reduce bulk and make the most out of one yard (36"/0.9m) fabric remnants.

May Lotito wrote: JAY, I incorporate back yokes in pants quite frequently to reduce bulk and make the most out of one yard (36"/0.9m) fabric remnants.

Right - yolk is the technical term - thanks! (I tend to think eggs when I think yolks with all the chickens we raise!)
That picture will help people understand what I was trying to say, as it really is a good way to economize on fabric!

Also, yes, knowing how to capitalize on narrow fabric and use those salvages to our advantage is exactly the opposite of what my middle school teacher told us to do! Having woven fabric years ago, I would absolutely thread the loom based on the width of fabric I desired and make good use of that strength.

My mom & home ec teacher both were adamant that the selvedges "MUST come off". Their reasoning was that the selvedges would cause the fabric to twist or pucker, when laundered. Neither of them liked my question of, "then why doesn't the fabric do that, when we wash it, to remove the sizing?" On many selvedges, there is print (origin, content, patent, care, etc), that I don't necessarily want showing in a finished product, but simply stitching just inside it takes care of that - without losing that finished edge - particularly on this type of rectangle-based patterns.

Hey! Teacher! Leave that edge alone! ~ Pseudo Phloyd

Carla Burke wrote:On many selvedges, there is print (origin, content, patent, care, etc),

Which can be very helpful when 20 years later I am trying to decide if the material is 100% cotton, or some sort of mix!

I am much happier that clothing content labels are mostly now on a lower inside seam, so I don't have to cut them off because they're irritating my neck. Some of them still wear out by the time I need to refresh my memory, but many of them are still quite readable years later. That makes it very helpful if I want to upcycle good parts of the cloth.

I definitely see much more benefit in leaving them as intact a possible.