The Tailor's Philosophy, or science complete in the art of cutting, etc

Front matter

THE TAILOR'S PHILOSOPHY, OK &titntt Complrtr IN THE ART OF CUTTING; IN WHICH THE UNERRING PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE ARE FULLY ATTAINED AND LAID DOWN AS A BASIS, FOR THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPORTIONS OF THE HUMAN BODY, HITHERTO UNKNOWN, BUT NOW MADE CLEAR AND EASY TO THE MOST SIMPLE CAPACITY, AS WELL FOR THE USE OF YOUNG BEGINNERS, AS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN CONSTANT PRACTICE ALL THEIR LIFE TIME. BY W. E. WALKER. LONDON : LONGMAN & CO., WHITAKER & Co. AND E. MADDEN, DUBLIN. 1839. TEMikB at Stationer's T^all. Price, £1 7s. 6</. GEORGE FOLDS, Printer, 1, Saint Andrew.Street, (Opuo.ite Trimly -Street.) Dublin. TO THE TRADE. I have but now performed a duty, which has been a subject of due de liberation with me for several years, and, when I consider the conclusions at which I have, after many years' consideration and experience arrived, I confess that I feel some degree of regret, that I neglected the arrangement of this work at an earlier period of my life ; however expe rience has now fitted me better for the task— and " it is better late than never."

I trust this little treatise will be found as satisfactory and useful, as the exigency, which calls for it, is, in ray opinion, great. I have been as plain as possible, and for the purpose of lessening the size, and, consequently, the price of the book, I confined myself solely to matters essentially necessary, and expressed my opinions as concisely, as a clear exposition of the science would permit. As such it is presented with the most profound respect for your approbation, by Your most obedient, Humble servant, W. E. WALKER.

Preface

. In the following work my exertions were directed to what I considered useful, and know to be, correctly speaking, scientific knowledge : I say, correctly speaking, because for these last fifty years, during which the practice of cutting upon geometrical principles has been adopted, the word "scientific" has been as commonly used, as though it signified a pot of paint, and every one that by chance or otherwise could get a daub of the colour considered himself " scientifically" informed in his business. Though geometrical principles were at so remote a period applied to the art of cutting, they were, as far as they were useful in this business, but very indifferently understood, and the little that was c

PREFACE.

. 2 practised was so badly managed, that in nine cases out of ten they were made to act against each other by persons, who had no more knowledge of them than their sign board could answer for ; and who from the confusion caused by their own utter ignorance, or the viciousness of the system, in which they had been instructed, almost came to the conclusion that " Geometry" itself, was not a science : and this was a conclusion, which might naturally be expected, because their systems, being established on theories erroneous in themselves, and erroneously arranged, must inevitably pro duce error. As I intend to interfere with the old notions respecting breast measure proportions, I will here remark, that when I speak of them, as being erroneous, I mean according to the old practice of using them without reference to the height of the person : but when I speak of them as proportionate or, disproportionate, I mean that they are established as such by my own rules, and depending upon the height for their existence in all cases. For you never could have a proportionate breast measure without reference to the height ; neither could

PREFACE.

. 3 you tell the exact disproportions existing be tween the height and the breast measure without a knowledge of the system which I intend to explain. I have given you in the figure of the coat, plate I, all the information that you require in your business, concerning the cutting of a garment for this part of the human body ; for it matters not what you may be about to cut, the principles are precisely the same, whether it be a proportionate size, or, disproportionate sized coat j whether it be Habit, Jacket, Waistcoat, or anything else you please : they will be the same unerring guide to you. The remarks which I intend making on " disproportions," I will defer, till 1 have explained my system ; but I may here remark, that I use the word " disproportion" not in its Geo metrical acceptation, but rather as a technical term, which is familiar to those, for whom this Essay is intended.

The subject of disproportion I know has been a great stumbling block to persons learning to cut, as well as to those who have been cutting all their life time.

PREFACE.

. It would be worse than nonsense for me to fill a book of principles like this with plates representing the minor parts of dress, which are liable to change with every fashion, and, which depend solely upon the exercise of judg ment and taste according to fashion. That this book may be more generally useful to the young beginner, I will subjoin a system of Waistcoats and Trousers : but the latter being so simple, I will say but little upon them, as they come more immediately under the control of the measure than geometrical principles ; and the former as I said be fore (vide page 3,) will on comparison be found to possess the same ground work as the coat. Let no one tell you that the arrangement of this book is not entirely new and correct ; you can soon ascertain the falsity of the assertion that " the arrangement is not new," by conversing with any one, who has not read it, upon the principles which it contains; and its correctness you will learn by your own judg ment. I can, from experience assert with con-

PREFACE.

. 5 fidence, that, if you will but read it, and mind what you are reading, you will, in one day ac quire a greater knowledge of scientific cutting than you would gain in six months, or, per haps all your life, under the instructions of some who are considered first-rate cutters, though they might, perhaps, demand ten pounds for their trouble, for they cannot teach that which they do not know. Do not imagine the task to be difficult ; it is as simple as possible, and when once learned, it is easily remembered ; and you may do your business with confidence. Some persons may think, because so many, who have undertaken to write upon this sub ject, failed in conveying the information which is required, that it would be better to receive instructions from a person, who could at the same time explain the principles by practice.

But let me tell such persons, that in this work they will find principles, which but few of those who profess to teach the science of cutting understand ; and that it contains none, which every man who calls himself a cutter has not

PREFACE.

. (in justice as well to himself, as to the person for whom he may be doing business) a right to know; and as a teacher, I think and hope that out of respect to the trade, no man will presume to instruct unless he be complete in the knowledge of these principles ; and any allusions, that may appear in this work, ex plaining my system, I trust, will not not be taken as directed against persons but against false principles. Some forty or fifty years ago, cutting de pended principally upon practice; and he, who had not a great deal of practical experience and good judgment combined, could not be considered fit to fill a situation in a respectable tailoring establishment. About this time genius began to exert it self, and by observation it was found that the different parts of the coat assumed the appear ance of regular proportions, which seemed to have for their ground work the breast measure ; consequently the breast measure was adopted, as a guide for the proportions ; but it was found to serve as a basis of measure-

PREFACE.

7 ment principally and it might be said exclu sively, for men of one particular size, five feet eight inches high and thirty six inches round the breast. The reason of this standard appearing to have an advantage over others was that the knowledge of deviating proportionately was not yet arrived at, therefore men who were not in proportion with this measure were consider ed disproportionate figures, though these disproportionate figures depended still upon the judgment, their being no rule then laid down for what is termed disproportion ; this I believe, is admitted by all writers on cutting, at least as far as I have seen, but on this point I do not agree with them. That you may have an idea and see the plausibility at least if you will not call it the truth, of my opinion on the progress of cut ting, I will just relate a circumstance that oc curred to me about three years ago. An old man applied to me for employment and to convince me of his superior talents,

PREFACE.

. told me that he formerly filled the situation of foreman in a first-rate establishment in England. To try his abilities I invited him to display some of his geometrical knowledge upon the art of cutting, and, indeed, he was not deficient of confidence ; for without the least hesitation he proceeded to comply with my request. Considering the old adage, "That neither wise men nor fools, can work without tools." I laid before him the requisites for performing his operations, among which was the square ; but this last mentioned article he scorned the use of, adding that he would show me how to cut without so troublesome an article. He commenced by first laying his left hand upon the part of the cloth, where he intended the neck to be, and marking from his wrist round by the ends of his fingers, he produced the neck to the shoulder point, he proceeded through the system marking the shoulder, side seam, and scie, &c. by the dictation of his judgment, some application of the measure, and now and then spanning across the cloth for the different points in which he appeared

Introduction

. 9 astray ; to conclude, this artist when he had finished this extraordinary figure, assured me that it was excellent, a point I did not dispute, but taking some more hints I bid him good morning, promising him at the same time that if I should require such a person, the next time he would be passing I would let him know. Now, this was a very old man, perhaps sixty-five or seventy years of age, and I think it probable, that he had only been showing me the ideas, that had been instilled into his mind in the early part of his life ; and at the present day in several parts of the United Kingdoms, you will find many of this man's school. There is another kind of cutters, and the majority belong to this class, who cut partly by science and partly by judgment. These cutters will generally be known by an expres sion of very frequent use amongst them, which is " About so much." With several of this kind of cutters I have had opportunities of conversing, and to try how far their judgment c

PREFACE.

. corresponded with their professions of scientific knowledge, I have asked them questions, con cerning points of proportion, and the answer I always received was, that in such a case " About so much" would find the point required. Well, in some cases these " About so much" gentlemen might find the point required by " About so much," but in the greater number of cases they might not. And here exists the uncertainty ; therefore this is not scientific cutting. Scientific cutting does not merely go about the thing, it goes directly at it ; there is neither more or less ; and in all cases, it is the same unshaken guide ; and likewise to be science it must be bounded on all sides, and every line stopped in its course at the point of proportion, lest it travel into error. There is related in history a fact, concerning a great philosopher, who could by one motion of the hand make a circle as correctly, as if he had described it by the means of the compasses.

PREFACE.

. 11 Now, the circle which he marked by the hand without the assistance of a centre, was the effect of mere practice and taste, and what, perhaps, not one man in five thousand could perform. But the circle which is made from a centre, is the effect of science, and what every man may perform ; and that great phi losopher himself, I will venture to say, would much rather depend upon the accuracy of a circle, which had been described from a given centre by the unerring rules of science, than upon his own practical ability to produce the same figure. Therefore science herself obliges us to throw overboard the opinions of those persons, who, because they are not masters of the science, tell us to practice a system of admeasurement ; and if we ask them where, under particular disproportionate circumstances, to put the waist or any other point, they tell us there is no exact rule, but that " about so much" will answer ; or that we must use our own judgment ; or, perhaps they will venture to tell us, to use their system of admeasurement, or some other

PREFACE.

. kind of measure, which in my opinion, is neither better nor worse than the system of the old school. Now, one of these disciples of the old school tells us (that is, if I understand him correctly) that science is nothing, unless it be the result of practical experience. This is the first time I ever heard so foolish a conclusion. Science never depends upon practical experience alone. Now I say, that science is every thing ; it is the first and principal means, by which we arrive at certainty. Practice is only a secon dary means, by which we arrive at art in the absence of science. I say, that practical experience however great must be uncertain, unless it be guided and directed by scientific principles. I will now bid farewell to those geniuses of admeasurement, and address myself a little more to you, my reader.

You are now about to commence the study of cutting, and few professions can boast a prettier geometrical lesson ; you have all kinds of angles, obtuse, right, acute — squares present themselves

PREFACE.

. 13 to your imagination all through the system; circles and segments of circles, are scattered in every direction ; and right lines are as common as your judgment will become strong by the use of them. Now the first thing I wish to tell you is, that if you follow my system, which in every case (disproportionate, as well as proportionate) is scientifically correct, it will never mislead you. I have been several years cutting by this system and I never found it to disappoint me. Whenever I had alterations, they proceeded from experiments, which I sometimes used to make, (just as Chemists do when they want to find a cause,) but never from any defect in the system. Every man, who wishes to make an exact fit, should try on the coat, or what ever article he is making. If it be a coat, and it appears too loose at the top of the side seam, it is easy for him to take it in a little, as some men fall lighter in this point than others ; or should it be tight in the scie, to ease it ; these are the only alterations which I ever had occasion to make while cutting upon this system, and these proceed not from any

PREFACE.

. defect in the system itself, but from a defect in the man ; for even these alterations are not required more than once in every fifty coats, and even then in a very trifling degree. And bear in mind, I speak of good fits ; for if you be not more particular than many persons in London are, it would not require any altera tion, and it would be a much better fit than they usually make — so you may now place every confidence in this system depending upon what I have said to be as correct as possible. When a man asserts that he can cut without alteration, doubt the assertion, unless you can make allowance for his inability to alter that which he ought. For no man is infallible, but science is infallible, therefore, if a man fail of being correct in his measure, science will prove the error by showing the fault, and the garment will require alteration, which this man through ignorance could not perform.

INTRODUCTION.

I will now proceed with my instructions, and I think ultimately prove everything which I have said ; and likewise that I am throwing completely a new light upon the science. I know there are many persons, who through an ignorant kind of jealousy will pass their remarks ; some saying, that my principles are borrowed from the systems of others, but arranged in a different order; and some will perhaps say, that they are only a bare repe tition of the old thing; and, perhaps they will make these assertions without even giving themselves the trouble of opening my book. To the first I beg to say, that, as my principles are not a part of theirs, and as they cannot tell of whose they are a part, they have

INTRODUCTION.

. just as great a right to allow them to be mine, and not, through a mean spirited jealousy seek to deprive me of my right. The second class, I request, will examine before they pass judgment; and if they do not find my ideas to be original and correct, then they are at liberty to deal with me as they think proper. Do not imagine that, because I said I would proceed with my instructions, that I am im mediately going to show you all the points of the system ; no, this is the common way, but not the right one; it is the practical but not the scientific way. To give you another idea of the difference between science and practice, I will just remark that we are all practical speakers, that is, we all speak some way or another, but we are not all grammarians. And grammarians, you are aware, speak and write from a know ledge of grammatical science ; which a man could never arrive at by practice, unless that practice be guided by the rules of grammar.

INTRODUCTION.

. 17 It is just the same in cutting; a man never could arrive at a knowledge of scientific cut ting by practice, unless his practice be directed by scientific principles. Now that practical ability can never supersede or equal scientific accuracy is certain, and 'tis for you to decide which of the two you ought to practice. You have examples before you ; a professional singer sings by science ; musicians play by science ; lawyers dispute by science ; orators do the same ; doctors prescribe by science ; and apothecaries mix their medicines on chemical principles. Then what is science ? We perhaps have a right to ask ourselves this question that we may the better understand a word which we so commonly use. Truth is the soul of science and the object we search for, and 'tis by science that we find it.

Then truth is demonstrated by a demonstrating power or system, which is called science, and, which in the beauty of its evidence, is a continual yielding of a knowledge of truth, in proportion to our knowledge of science itself. Science is a demonstrating medium to truth, and truth the effect of this \j

INTRODUCTION.

. 18 demonstrating medium, by which it (the truth) is made known to us. Science is not the demonstrated but the demonstrator. Truth is demonstrated, therefore truth is not science. Truth demonstrated is not science, but the result or effect of science which demonstrates it. It may appear to many to be a great stretch of imagination, particularly of a Tailor's, to be so uneasy as to the clear understanding of a word which is of such common use in his sim ple business. But why would it appear a stretch of the imagination ? Because we have been so foolish as not to inquire, or perhaps, because science has humbled herself a little in attaching herself to tailors, it is the simplest thing in life ; it proves, or is that power which convinces you that the crooked is not straight; tthat twice five or any other number in the same way, are neither more nor less than ten ; that a circle is not a square, and by the same rule a square is not a circle. Science is truth sounded upon the openness of our knowledge.

INTRODUCTION.

. 19 Now what is practice more than a repetition of acts, which in course of time by the obser vations of ingenious men reducing them to regular systems produce something near certainty or science — which we call art. Science is the centre, the whole, 'tis unbounded truth having no limits — an eternal certainty, and all that does not come under this law is error. Science is a power by which we see clearly one thing in distinction to another, or that, which is clear to us in distinction to, something else. Why do I say that all these things are in science ? Because they are done or performed by certain rules of truth : that is as near as our know ledge goes, and if ignorance prevents our know ledge sometimes going far enough, or sends it too far, it does not however prevent out laws from being science ; for as laws are the science of the creation, so are they of the crea tures.

Science in tailoring is a law by which you will learn exactly where to put any point of the figure of your coat in comparison to some other point already found : but after all this, alterations will be necessary, unless you be correct in your measurement. For instance,

INTRODUCTION.

. if you make a sleeve too long, you must alter it: but this would be a defect caused by your self and not by the system. If you make your body too wide, or too narrow, your skirt too wide, too narrow or too long, these faults would all be your own ; taste and fashion are your guide in these cases: we cannot find rules for mens' fancies. I shall here take the opportunity of setting aside, as far as science is concerned, all the old notions of being guided by the uncompared breast measure ; if it be scientifically correct, it will be so in every figure of the kind that the imagination could form. It is not so in every case, therefore it is not so at all. Science is that deviation from ignorance by which we arrive at something certain. There is no science in the system of using the breast measure to find the proportionate points of a coat unless it be compared with the height of the man.

Because breast measures vary in comparison to the height ; but the height never varies in comparison to the breast measure. This last conclusion appears to contra-

INTRODUCTION.

. 21 diet itself, but I think I will make myself clear upon this point. For instance, we say in a case of disproportion, that is, where the breast measure is larger or less than what would be proportionate to the height, that it deviates from proportion, or if you like, that it is dis proportionate, which amounts to the same. Now what do we mean by deviate ? But that disagreeing, it has left a something else behind it, and this something is the height of the man. There can be no question which of the two, the height of the man or his width is the aggressor in the deviation ; because according to a man's height he should be a certain width according to the science of proportion, and neither more nor less. Now if he be more or less than the proportionate width, it (the width) proves itself the aggressor ; but the height never can be the aggressor : because it is by the height we arrange the width ; and there fore it is for this reason I said that the height never varies in comparison to the breast measure. Well, men have come to the conclusion of adopting one certain width, which they call

INTRODUCTION.

. proportionate, and you know the standard is thirty-six on the chest, for a man of the height of five feet eight inches : this size was adopted because it was the most common. To strengthen your ideas I will here give you another view of the same thing. We say thirty-six is a proportionate width or breast measure, what do we mean ? We do not mean that it is proportionate to its proportions, for no one could question such a position ; no, we mean that thirty-six is proportionate to something else, which is itself relatively proportionate to thirty-six. Now what is this something else ? it is the height of the man, that is proportionate to his breast measure or width. Now when we speak of thirty-six as being proportionate what do we leave to be under stood ? The answer is that other measures not corresponding to the proportions of thirty six are disproportionate breast measures : disproportionate to what ? Why to the height certainly, by the same rule that thirty-six is proportionate to the height.

INTRODUCTION.

. We cannot mean that thirty-six is proportionate to every height, or that it is proportionate to no height ; therefore we must mean that it is proportionate to a particular height, and that is understood to be five feet eight inches. You may now ask me, why it is that cutters in general adopt the size of a thirty-six inch breast measure ; I will tell you. It is because they do not properly understand any other ; for if they did, they could just as soon adopt a fifteen inch, a fourteen, ten or fifty, if you like, or any other you could think of, by the same proportions as thirty-six. Well, eighteen or thirty-six, then I, will say is the understood breast measure for the man of five feet eight inches high. If then thirty six inches be proportionate to five feet eight, five feet eight must be relatively proportionate to eighteen inches or thirty-six breast measure ; and the reason of this standard being adopted so much, is, because it squares with the height. Now what difference is there between a thirty-

INTRODUCTION.

. six inch breast measure, and the height of the man proportionate to it ? Five feet eight is sixty-eight inches, and if you double thirty six it becomes seventy-two inches ; one eight eenth part of seventy-two is four inches, which deducted from seventy-two, leave behind sixty eight, which is the proportionate height of the man ; consequently if you take from any pro portionate size, whether of man or boy, one eighteenth of double the breast measure, the remainder will be the proportionate height. One seventeenth part of sixty-eight inches is four, which if you add to the five feet eight, or sixty eight inches, will make seventy-two ; the half of which is a proportionate breast measure produced by calculation. Consequently if you add a portion equal to one seventeenth of the height, in the most extreme case you may please to imagine, to the height itself, you will always obtain a proportionate breast measure, by dividing the whole by two, just as you did above with seventy-two ; (which seventy two is obtained by adding one seventeenth of the height five feet eight inches to itself,) and the half of the seventy-two gained in this

INTRODUCTION.

. 25 manner (that is by the height of the man and one seventeenth added to it,) is the proportionate breast measure, thirty-six inches wide. I think I have been pretty plain upon this subject, and if you do not understand me, it is not my fault, it is the not understanding of these things, that has kept cutters blundering for so many years in the dark, and I am per fectly aware it will not agree with some of them to be told this truth. But as I am here writing upon a scientific subject, which has for its basis unbounded truth, I am obliged to sacrifice even the ability and ingenuity of my brethren in trade upon the altar of justice. I indeed have often felt grieved and sorry, in reading the works of some authors on cutting, to find such a dearth or lack of information, and so great a waste of paper, time, and trouble, with scarcely any benefit to man ; nor certainly half so much information, as could be gleaned from the common intercourse, or con versation with the regular run of journeymen tailors. E

INTRODUCTION.

. 26 When a man sits down to write upon a sub ject like this, that requires at least some thought, he should examine himself, and see if he is fit for the task, and not go running into the subject, ad captandum, or by a hop, step and jump. I will now speak of disproportions, and it will be here necessary for me just to mention what the present idea of systematic cutting is. Tailors have used themselves to the finding of the proportions of the human body in a square, and this square is regulated by the width of the chest ; that is, they take one half of whatever a man measures round the chest, and form a four-sided figure, each of whose sides is equal to this half of the chest measure. This four-sided figure is termed a square, and from the lines of this figure they find the pro portions within it, which are equal to the shape and size of the human body; just in the same way as a sculptor would find a figure of the human body in a square block of wood or mar ble, having first cleared away the superfluous quantity of matter.