Interesting.  As I've stated elsewhere, I think too often on the MB's the usefulness of handwork is overstated.  On a different note, I happen to like the aesthetics of much machine work, be it (gasp) on a lapel, or on a piece of metal design (e.g. the decoration on a silver box), or even certain pieces of wood furniture.

I am inclined to disagree. While the thread is a bit heavy on the first sample; the stitches are very well formed and even. There may be some inconsistent tension throughout the stitching; but, that is the result of hand-formed stitches.

Looking at the grain distortion around the buttonhole, itself. I suspect the buttonhole was cut before the finished shirt was laundered. As a result, the tiny imperfections were stitched in. The birdseye looks as if it was laundered first, because the grain surrounding the buttonhole is true.

In other words, the issue is likely the order of operations; not the execution of procedure. Though, to be absolutely certain, I'd need to handle the fabric without sizing and starch to be certain if my statement is accurate.

Last edited by Cruz Diez (2006-08-01 01:53:12)

I thought that hand-made buttonholes appeared wrinkled from the get-go due to the stitching technique and weight of the fabric and not from a change in fabric properties after laundering. If the making of the entire shirt starts only after the fabric is properly treated, the fabric changes only a little bit when the finished shirt is laundered so the effect you describe should be negligible.

I see many RTW shirts with machine made holes that appear mirror- smooth in the thinnest cottons (e.g. medium quality Hugo Boss) and then the high end RTW with hand made versions with the characteristic wrinkles (e.g. Borrelli). I really doubt that the difference is due to the mid-range shirt having a more sound fabric pre-treatment or laundering sequence than the high-end shirt. I believed it is simply due to the more uniform tension of the machine made version. But hey you learn something new every day.

I'm sorry but I don't value handwork on shirts as I do on other garments, though I do like the buttons to be hand shanked.

Last edited by jsprowls9 (2006-08-23 11:49:43)

If anyone has the inclination, an excellent technical resource (i.e. order of operations) is covered in a book by Frederick Kogos, called: How to Make Suits.

I recently borrowed a copy from a friend and found it to be highly informative. I will tell you it is out of print; but, should be available at your local library through inter-library loan. The book is over 40 years old; but, the manufacturing industry hasn't changed so much that the information is out-dated. Sadly, it's written with the manufacturer in mind, not the consumer. But, it discusses the quality grade of suits and the time involved with production.

Trudging through the technical details is necessary to debate/confirm these claims from Flusser's book. While I can agree that a little more than hour separates the difference between quality grades, I disagree that only 150 minutes goes into the construction of a designer fused suit. In fact, several of my friends and colleagues claim that a highly experienced sewing machine operator should be expected to assemble 3 fused jackets, entirely by machine, in about 8 1/2 to 9 hours using the appropriate equipment.

While it is true that established labels take more money for a similar quality garment to that made by a relatively unknown label, the costs for inputs, production, and time are the same.