Page:The cutters' practical guide to the cutting of ladies' garments.djvu/12

4 To get the circumference of any part, add the width in profile (as given on figure 7 for the male, and figure 9 for the female) and width in front (as illustrated on figure 8, the figures on the left side representing the female, and those on the right the male), together multiply them by $1 1⁄2$, and result will give approximate circumference. Example: male thigh profile, 3 parts 6 minutes, 3 parts = $3⁄4$, 3 minutes = $9⁄16$ =$7 5⁄16$ front, 3 parts 2 minutes, 3 parts = $6 3⁄4$, 2 minutes = $3⁄8$ = $7 1⁄8$,$7 5⁄16$+$7 1⁄8$=$14 7⁄16$, one and a half times $14 7⁄16$=$21 11⁄16$ thigh. Other parts may he treated in the same way. The following list of

As compared with the Venus de Medicis will prove most interesting, and to the tailor who has a difficulty in getting certain measurements, they will prove most useful. Some papers have been printing facts about the " perfect woman " physically considered. An artist supplies the comparative measurements of Mrs. Langtry and the Venus de Medecis, two types of the ancient and modern worlds. The height of these two beautiful women, the one in flesh and blood and the other in marble, happens to be the same, viz., five feet and seven inches. Hence the two may be taken as illustrating the difference of ideal physical proportions between the ancient and the modern. Where and how the measurements of Mrs. Langtry were obtained we do not know, but we have no reason to doubt their correctness:—

Doubtless there are millions of beautiful women who do not come very close to either, but taking Mrs. Langtry as a type, it appears that the modern runs less to shoulders and more to hips than the woman of antiquity. The ancient has also a decided advantage in the length of legs and arms and the size of neck and ankles On the whole, the modern woman appears to be less muscularly and more voluptuously formed than the ancient. It would be very easy to note a series of coincidences in these measures, such as the neck, arm, and calf being the same size, but they would be of little value as one part develops independently of another, so we pass on to deal with

The Principles which Govern the Fitting of Garments, And which must form the foundation on which all systems are built. Putting these briefly, they consist of two, viz., size and form; but inasmuch as that is rather indefinite, we prefer to classify them under seven heads, viz., (1) Length. (2) Width. (3) Height and size of neck. (4) Location and size of scye. (5) Provision for prominence and depressions such as blades, chest, &c. (6) Provision for muscular development. (7) Attitude. We will briefly touch on the principal features to be noted in dealing with these. That length should govern length, and width govern width, seems such a common sense rule, that we can hardly realize any other plan being adopted, and yet many cutters of the present day cling to the relic of a byegone age, fixing every point of the garment by division of width. Of the fixed points in the body two stand out prominently as starting points of great value to the cutter. These are the centre of back and the centre of front, and it will be well for every cutter to realise that at these parts the body is hollow, that is, there are decided depressions; and to fix these points in their proper relation to each other is of great importance in the garment. The only measure necessary to do this is the size or, if you will, the width round body plus an allowance for seams, ease, &c., and which for an ordinary garment made from medium material would run about 2 inches. Of the length, the nape is the starting point, it is the first prominence that shows itself at the back of the neck (the seventh vertebrae), and from which the hollow of waist and full length is obtained. In these two we have all that is contained in size; but in form we have to provide for all the local prominences and depressions. Let us take The Height and Size of Neck. Here we have one of the most puzzling parts of the garment, or at least it is so to a large number. Why? Simply because they try to provide for it either by divisions of the breast or divisions of the length, both being erroneous—we were going to say equally, but this is hardly so, for certainly a division of the length is preferable to the width although it is far from reliable, for we find tall people square shouldered, and vice versa; whilst there is still another feature to be