Joan Hinds Sewing Patterns

[DollyMomma]

I really enjoy sewing but I also love looking at pictures of other peoples work. I find that I don't usually stick to the pattern or directions anyway. All one really needs is a basic good fitting body pattern and the rest can be created as you go along.
Flat construction is, (for example), sewing in sleeves before the side seam is sewn up, or sewing on cuffs before side seam. finishing any part possible on a flat piece is a lot easier than trying to fit it into a hole. [img]wink.gif[/img]

[DaWaterRat]

See, that 's the part I don't understand about Nann's compaints about the Joan Hinds books. All of the Joan Hinds books I have are all flat construction, except for attaching the skirt to the bodice. I don't have any of the earlier ones, so maybe that's something that changed due to complaints or something. I just know that I don't get that criticisim of their work.

Okay, I don't get the uneccisarily complex either, but I'd rather line something than try to put in a facing, especially at doll scale. I do get the blocky and relying on trim for variation though. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[schallerwoods]

Flat construction is as Dollymama explained, sewing as many seams flat (ie not set in) as possible. The Hinds patterns I have investigated have nonconventional construction techniques and do not take advantage of flat constuction. I don't know how to be clearer, other than saying often times the outfit is assembled backwards, or not in a way a seamstress would go about making a garment. Usually this is most apparent in necklines, cuffs (if there are even real cuffs) and the back closures of a garment.

As far as over complicating techniques, I do have an example. In one of her patterns, a box pleated skirt for a brownie uniform is made with a silly series of various sized rectangles. Now box pleat folds are not exactly second nature for people, but the quality of a pleated garment, rather than a seamed garment is undeniable. I think it was an attempt to make the garment construction easier for the end user, but the result is cheap looking and actually requires more finishing work.

Professional/commmercial patterns are based on a series of basic garment shapes called slopers. Slopers take a series of measurements into account, not just a few and adjust the shape of a pattern to account for fabric drape, wear ease etc. A garment constructed from a sloper based pattern, rather than a hand drawn pattern, will not have a blocky look as long as you follow the fabric recommendation guidelines. In the doll world, that usually means not using a knit fabric with a pattern designed for a woven fabric.

Lining a bodice, rather than putting in a facing is not only easier, but a nice mark of quality. Hinds doesn't lead the end user wrong when she suggests or instructs to line over face.

So that's my piece. Some people have great enjoyment of Hinds patterns. I find them annoying. I highly recommend simplicity patterns as an alternative to her modern offerings. The same styles are available and often cheaper if you wait for a fabric store sale.

Nann

[American_Mommy]

Christine M- I have made several of those dresses for my Kit. I love them, but a couple have turned out a little short for my tastes. I have started adding 1-2" to the hem if it looks like it will be short. I love the patterns otherwise.

[DaWaterRat]

I'm not trying to be beligerant, I'm trying to understand, so bear with me. [img]smile.gif[/img] I realize that this is a "to each her own" situation, but I'm still confused on the patterns not being "flat construction"

All of the Hinds books I own follow the same basic steps for making a bodice. They are (grossly simplified)

Sew front to back at shoulders
Repeat with lining
Sew bodice to lining up the back opening and around the neckline.
If sleeve is cuffed, gather lower edge of sleeve (if needed) and sew on cuff
Gather shoulder ease on sleeve and sew to shoulder of bodice.
Sew side seams of bodice and under-arm seam on sleeve as single seam.

All of this is falls under my (non-professional) understanding of "flat construction", and appears in all of the books I own (most of which are post 12 Dancing Princesses and her professional separation from Jean Becker.)

As for the brownie outfit, I think I saw that in one of the newsletters, and I was completely baffled by the directions, deciding to do regular pleats instead if I ever made it. I can see how that was needlessly confusing. However, allow me to say that the patterns in the Newsletter are generally not designed by Joan Hinds. They are Guest Designers. At least in every issue I own, they are other people's designs. I'm not saying that there aren't other uneccisarily confusing directions in her books, just that I haven't found them, and when I do find them in the newsletter, they aren't her designs.

The peices are very basic, as the Simplicity ones are. Once I realized that I was basically buying the same pattern over and over, I scaled back on buying patterns and transfered the measurements into my computer, using them to make my own patterns (in a CAD/mapping program).

ETA: I'm only being so insistant about this because I want to improve my own skills, and the best way for me to improve is to ask and to read.

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ January 25, 2006 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Nancy S ]</font>

[schallerwoods]

You are not being beligerant or misunderstanding [img]smile.gif[/img] The directions you list are flat construction.
If you find this the norm among her patterns, I am surprised.

However, most of the examples I have are apparently earlier or as you mention newsletter examples. Especially the brownie one. This could be the reason for the contrast. I am glad you also were baffled by the skirt constructin lol.

I guess that is my point with Hinds. I consult the examples, look at the pieces and directions and find myself saying "now why would I do it that way?".

I highlight flat construction in my arguements because it is the most basic method that I often see missing from created (Hinds and others) patterns I have seen or own. I did look at what I think was the latest book, the modern designs and was still unimpressed. I must be biased though [img]smile.gif[/img]

Drafting your own patterns with CAD is the way to go. You are lucky to have that skill.

Nann