|
Sewing Textiles - Sewing: clothes, furnishings, costumes, etc.
|
|
|
|
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Jack Schmidling on March 28, 2006, 4:08 pm
I thought I understood what "crossgrain" meant until I saw cutting
instructions in a tayloring book; "Classic Tailoring Techniques", for
the record.
They show a long vertical piece like a coat front with the straight
grain running up and down. Next to this is a long skinny belt sort of
thing, oriented exactly the same and with the straight running up and down.
They claim that because the belt thing is used horizontally, it is
called cross grain. Nevermind that it is cut along the warp just like
the other piece.
I was under the impression that cross grain meant it was cut on the weft
as opposed to the warp and has nothing to do with the way the piece is used.
Thoughts?
js
--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com
|
|
Posted by Kate Dicey on March 28, 2006, 4:51 pm
Jack Schmidling wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> I thought I understood what "crossgrain" meant until I saw cutting
> instructions in a tayloring book; "Classic Tailoring Techniques", for
> the record.
>
> They show a long vertical piece like a coat front with the straight
> grain running up and down. Next to this is a long skinny belt sort of
> thing, oriented exactly the same and with the straight running up and down.
>
> They claim that because the belt thing is used horizontally, it is
> called cross grain. Nevermind that it is cut along the warp just like
> the other piece.
>
> I was under the impression that cross grain meant it was cut on the weft
> as opposed to the warp and has nothing to do with the way the piece is
> used.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> js
>
I have always understood the same as you. It has it that way in my books.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
|
|
Posted by on March 28, 2006, 6:30 pm
Dear Friends,
"Cross grain" in ancient books (nineteenth century and before) meant
cut on the bias. Your tailoring book isn't that old; it's just
incorrect.
Teri
|
|
Posted by on March 28, 2006, 6:32 pm
I probably should add to my previous post. The expression was always
written, "on the cross."
Teri
|
|
Posted by Kate Dicey on March 29, 2006, 2:42 am
gjones2938@yahoo.com wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> I probably should add to my previous post. The expression was always
> written, "on the cross."
>
> Teri
>
I have always understood from my reading that 'cut on the cross' was
bias, and 'cross grain' was short for 'across the grain', and the two
were different.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
|
Page 1 of 2 1 2 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | is there a newsgroup for cross stitching ? | November 20, 2005, 12:55 pm |
| Need Fabric (cross posted to alt.sewing) | June 14, 2006, 9:53 am |
| Free cross stitch patterns | October 20, 2007, 9:12 am |
| Apropos Cartoon [Cross Posted] | February 21, 2007, 3:00 pm |
| New free design on aHey cross stitch | May 22, 2006, 8:07 am |
| New pictures of my wedding sewing (cross-posted) | April 8, 2005, 4:08 pm |
| Highland Dance"Heather" pattern [cross posted] | February 16, 2007, 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
> instructions in a tayloring book; "Classic Tailoring Techniques", for
> the record.
>
> They show a long vertical piece like a coat front with the straight
> grain running up and down. Next to this is a long skinny belt sort of
> thing, oriented exactly the same and with the straight running up and down.
>
> They claim that because the belt thing is used horizontally, it is
> called cross grain. Nevermind that it is cut along the warp just like
> the other piece.
>
> I was under the impression that cross grain meant it was cut on the weft
> as opposed to the warp and has nothing to do with the way the piece is
> used.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> js
>