Showing posts with label Phat Chick Redesign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phat Chick Redesign. Show all posts

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Real Life of the Redesign

If you've been reading my blog for a while, you'll remember my woes regarding this ugly wadder of a project. That little mini dress "concept" though, however, did not totally escape my mind.


When I was working my my redesign of the Newport News tunic, I wanted a long-enough length to wear it as a top or a mini dress. I got what I wanted IMO. It is exactly what I had in mind for the wadder. Bear in mind, my redesign has about 0" of ease from the bust up. Just a smidge at the under bust to the skirt portion where it has front gathering. The ugly wadder project had a WOPPING 10"of ease at the bustline. Can you imagine what it would have looked like on me? It would have fit just "swimmingly"! Now, more than ever, I shake my head and wonder what I was thinking when I bought it.


Anyway, Lindsay inquired about pics wearing it (BTW, check out her Chanel Gem if you haven't already!) the other day so I decided to model all ways I might wear this tunic. Here is the redesign in real life, which IMO is really important because dress forms just don't tell all.


A casual look with jeans:

A contemporary look with boots:



A sporty/dressy look with ankle boots (like a similar look I saw in Lucky *many* months ago--yeah I'm out of fashion--what's new...) :


Just dressy:




I've modeled these outfits (embarrassingly without accessories--to know me is to know I feel naked with pretty earrings) because I've tried really hard to think of ways I can wear this top. Coordinating somewhat fashionable outfits does not come easy to me. In fact, maybe some of these styles are not that fashionable, and if they're not flattering on me, let me know. Putting together these outfits was hard because God gave my older sister a double dose of fashion sense and accidentally skipped me. On a positive note, I think my ability to determine what works and doesn't work for my figure as far as specific styles has definitely improved over the past several years. (Only took me how long???) So I've learned to play up my long arms and legs, good shoulders and full bust. Downplay my rectangular torso and minimize my never-will-be-small AND short waist.

Overall, I really like this tunic top. I chose a purplish/blueish velour knit in my stash (think it was from Spandex House from PR Weekend 2006), and while it doesn't have as much stretch as other knits I've used for my Santa Monica tee, it still works. If a nice sweater knit ever comes my way, a second top of this style will definitely be in the works. There are two other knits in my stash from Spandex House--a red and a purple--that are more for a holiday type of garment that I was thinking about using, but the velour won out.

What I've had to accept about this top:

  1. It's velour. It's drapey. I will see draglines simply due to the fabric. Kind of like panne velvet in that respect.

  2. It tends to cling to pantyhose and/or tights. The skirt portion could have been lined with Bemberg. That would necessitate putting a back horizontal seam in again--the one I removed on the pattern. Every time I stood up in church I had to casually pull down on the tunic hem. (Hence, bland, off-white beige underwear is a necessity with pantyhose and black undies are a must with black tights. Naturally, thongs are out of the question. Occasionally the back will get hung up on my jeans, too, so some type of lining might be under consideration on my second version whenever that will be.
  3. The horizontal bust darts. Truthfully, I hate horizontal bust darts, especially on my figure. Kind of a matronly look. But I needed more shaping below the bust right above the gathers. If there wasn't it, it would be a real preggo look with the bodice fabric falling more from the apex rather than the underbust. I think the pic below shows the underbust shaping rather well. IMO, this is a critical area of shaping on a dress like this. It creates a slimmer profile for a babydoll style AND it highlights a full bust well. Velour minimizes the appearance of the bust dart anyway.

  4. I didn't go as low as I wanted to with the scoopneck. For modesty sake. A short little number like this would look a bit tart-like with cleavage.

I mentioned on the back I used princess seams. Originally, on the muslin, I had back gathering. It didn't work at all. It made my backside look huge and very unflattering. Even tried tucks instead but it didn't work. So I made the switch to princess seams. Here's a pic of the back. Again, you'll see pronounced draglines as I twist around--the nature of the fabric.


So that completes my resdesign. I'll do a review on it over at PR in the next couple of days but there isn't much new to add. Will probably just link to my blog posts on the design and finished product. Also, I recently have seen some PR members lament the return of these fluid, babydoll type of styles in the over-40 group. It really depends on one's figure though (and, of course, a bit of sassy attitude ;) . Gosh, these are my fave styles. They hide a multitude of sins and with careful tweaking, they CAN work. Even my 72-year old mom can pull of a sassy short-skirted business suit and look terrific so it IS do-able. Whether I'm in this style at 60, only time will tell LOL.

In addition, I just realized I haven't shared with you the matching gold-toned leather that I purchased for my upcoming jacket. It's really lovely and a perfect match, thanks to the helpful staff of Leather Suede Skins in NYC. I'll post that soon.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

We Interrupt the Regular Scheduled Programming...

...for Ducks and Couds??? DD#2 was with me last week at Walmart when I picked up household essentials, and at *HER* request we bought some fabric other than cotton muslin for her Spring semi-formal dress. She's going to a sleepover tonight and wanted some new pajama pants. She's always been a cuddly child (well, maybe not so much now at 14 ;) ) but ducks and clouds? She marches to the beat of her own drum and no one elses. Much like her Momma :) .




She thought these print fabrics were cute so I bought them for her, and she's been on my case to get them done by tonight. Yesterday I cut them out and basted them for fit. These are TNT, but she's really fussy about fit. Every fabric seems to feel (fitwise) slightly different to her. So I have to let out or take in a smidge here and there. The waistband just need to be done and the hem edge is already serged so it's just turn under and topstitch.



The original pattern calls for a homemade-like drawstring method, however, I prefer elastic. DD#2 wanted drawstring though. So I decided to blend both methods and use elastic on the back waist and drawstring on the front. I'm telling you--she is fussy. The waistband can't be too loose. That bothers her. So at least she'll be able to adjust the drawstring in the front to her comfort level.



This is the reason why I exclusively use the casing method for elastic over zigzagging elastic to the raw edge. Even if I cut the elastic to what she likes, the minute she tries on the pants she'll say, "Um, it's still too loose. Can you tighten it a bit more?" This usually happens 2 or 3 times until it's the way she likes it. So I'm hoping to avoid this with a drawstring front. The reason why I'm not doing the drawstring in the back is that I personally don't like something cutting into my back and thinnish drawstrings will do that. The same reason why I don't like halters knotted at my neck or back ties at my mid back. It's just a bad feeling. If I don't like it, she definitely won't like it either. So I have to take my shower, get moving, and go out to the fabric store to get some elastic this morning.



Once I'm finished with this, I will post pics of me in my redesigned top. I'm planning on wearing it today, then will baste the back princess seams permanently. I want to make sure I'm happy with the fit after a day's wear before permanently stitching the seams.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Thoughts on the Redesign

First muslin of my Santa Monica Tee to Fashionable Tunic has been made. It's fairly good. Some tweaking was necessary because of the side view. See below:


The gathering was fine under the bust in the front. What wasn't fine is that it just "hung" under the bust, more like straight down from the apex. From the front it looked fine, from the side not so good. So I decided more shaping was necessary in the upper front bodice piece. I created a vertical dart under the apex then transferred it to the side seam. The horizontal bust dart will be stitched in fabric. This will give the side view a more shapely appearance instead of the dreaded "tent effect". This way, it will hug the body under the bust.

Also, instead of using all gathering, I will use two pleats in the lower piece in the area of the bust apex with gentle gathers right at the center front. The pleats will be stitched down about 1 - 2" below the horizontal seam. This way I still get the look of gathering at the front, but the pleats will help it look not so "preggo" from the side view.

The back side view was horrendous. No matter what I did--gathering or pleat/tucks--it made me look like I had a bubble backside. I eliminated the horizontal seam on the back on the pattern and am just using vertical princess seams all the way down on the back. Much more flattering.

The lower sleeves need a bit more balanced fullness and the horizontal seam on the sleeve needs to be moved down one inch. It was bothering my elbow.

All these changes/alterations were done this afternoon. The pattern is now ready for good fabric. I'm really excited about this top because it can be a hip little dress with boots or a sporty tunic top with jeans or leggings. I'm shooting for a new top by this Friday. Wish me luck!

BTW, a big Thank You to Connie for another Kreativ Bog Award! I've been feeling out of it the past several days and that made me feel much better.

Also, did the groundhog see his shadow today? You would think since I live in groundhog country that I would know, but I don't.