Machine stitching vs Hand stitching in period

[Knight Sir James]

Had a conversation and I typed up my thoughts on machine stitching vs hand stitching, and the quality of stitching on period garments. Would especially like some input from Tasha, if she's reading this.

-------------------------------

I don't think machine stitching should be a giveaway something is modern; more of a "common knowledge is to assume nicely done stitching means it is modern". But then, common knowledge is to assume we are clumsy, slow, need a crane to get on horseback, and are completely helpless once off the horse.

It seems to me that hand stitching for garments that people of knightly wealth would not look overly "hand sewn". I think it would look almost machine-like for those high end garments by virtue of having paid for the skilled tailors/seamstresses. The commoners would have the rougher, looser, sloppier, not so skilled hand-sewn stitching indicative of a cheaper product. There's hardly any fabric bits I've seen floating around from period, and none I recall seeing stitching details on, so I'm going to go with some Japanese bits. This is 16th+ century (just says "Edo" period) "coat of plates" rough equivalent. Look at how precise the hexagons of the hand-stitched (blue pattern) is on it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tabira.JPG
(it's a huge image, so you can zoom in a lot)

Samurai were roughly the Japanese equivalent of knights, at least as far as equipment/wealth goes. Granted that's 16th+ century vs 14th century, but at least neither had sewing machines.

I find it hard to believe the Europeans would have low standards on their high-quality tailored items. If we're portraying a repressed peasant or simple merchant, I'd say hand stitching is completely appropriate. As a knight / wealthy person, the less professional stitching would strike me as an abomination; and we know how vain many knights were with how they followed clothing fashions in their own harnesses.

-------------------------------

I'd like to get some feedback on if what I think is wrong, plausible, likely, or utter nonsense.

[James B.]

Hand stitching varies quite considerably in the Middle Ages. Something with the students machine stitching most stitching is quite irregular even on high-quality garments. Having done both for my re-created garments I can tell you the machine stitching and handstitching, even when it's done in small regular stitches, looks completely different. Also quite a variety of stitches used for hand-stitching that can't be accomplished with machine, you will not often find a running stitch closing a hem or the cuff of the sleeve very often for instance.

[Thomas Powers]

Back in the late 1960's I visited the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston on a special tour---just my family, it was led by an astronaut, we had official security badeges with our photos---a great tour!

Well one of the things we saw was a group of "little old ladies" hand stitching the parachutes for the Apollo missions. Machine stitching wasn't considered good enough...

Now when machine spinning was first intoduced there were guild rules about not using it for warp as machine spinning wasn't good enough...

Hand done can be to a very high standard indeed!

[FrauHirsch1]

I agree with James. Lots of different sewing, but little I've seen that would be mistaking for machine sewing in the middle ages and renaissance.

I do have 19th c garments that have tiny backstitches that are easily mistaken for machine stitching, but these are on shirts and underwear lovingly created by the women of the house in the late 19th c, and not normally made by either a dressmaker or a tailor. Many Ladies sewing books of the 19th c show mostly patterns for underwear, babies and small children's clothing, and house linens, but not a lot outerwear. In The Burgermeister's daughter, by Stephen Ozment, he references a number of shirts being made by the main character, a young middle class woman who sometimes worked for the local noblewoman.

I went to a workshop last weekend held by Matthew Gnagy on tailors techniques in the 16th c, which was a weekend of 'speed sewing' by hand.. fun class, but not for the faint of heart... He talked a lot about Tailors, and the difference between dressmakers and tailors guilds. Dressmakers guilds are post 1600.

One of the things he iterated was that a tailor's shop is a business, so you have to work fast. I think there are misconceptions about handstitching. One of the biggest is that it is not sturdy. But in handsewing, it is easier to use heavier threads for thick fabrics and that ends up pretty strong.

[James B.]

One more thought. Living history groups often make standards for handstitching over machine stitching not just because the quality is different or because it's better but because it's historically correct. We are often scrutinized the public and sometimes judged at events on the quality of the materials were presenting and sometimes the under part of our garments or the outside are looked at closely by an educated jury.

[Ian L]

This discussion began on a separate forum between James and I. I asked Jessica Finley of Fuhlen Designs about what she thinks about the differences. She was kind enough to actually sew examples of both to accompany the explanation as well, and with her permission this was her response:

So yes, handsewing *always* looks different.

It is because the entire mechanism is different.

So, think of it this way, when you handsew, a single thread moves in a snakelike motion, right?

It moves from one side of both pieces of fabric to the other side of both pieces of fabric.

When you machine sew, two threads work the stitch, so you get two threads "floating" on their side of both pieces of fabric.

Some photos in Wool to be examples:


Picture one shows a machine stitch and a hand stitch at the same stitch length.

Picture two is an example of how to "fake" handsewing using a machine set on a blind hem stitch.

Picture three shows the thread differences, so you can see that the white handsewing thread is MUCH heavier than the machine thread, and yet the machine stitch is more visible on the wool.

Picture four shows me putting pressure on the seam from the side, you see the "snakelike" motion of the tension.

Picture 5 shows when I put pressure on the machine seam, you are only putting pressure on the threads, not on the fabric itself.











Medieval people had great variety in their stitches. When it couldn't be seen, they didn't bother to make it pretty.

But where they thought it mattered, they were incredibly precise.

I measured the wappenrock personally and found that they averaged the same stitch length by hand as a sewing machine set to 4.5. That is, about 1.5mm long. Per stitch. Through 1" of cotton and 4 layers of linen.

And there was *very* little variance through the entire garment.

But then, on the arm holes, ugly uneven whip stitches.

[Steve S.]

I have been known to use a sewing machine on period clothing for hidden seems, but even as shown above that can leave a tell-tale also.

Sewing machines sew in a different manner than a person does with a needle and thread. It's not just that a machine is doing the sewing, it's the mechanical nature of the stitches that is quite different also. Sewing machines sew with two threads. They push the thread through the fabric, hook it with another thread on the opposite side, and then pull the loop back through. It's kind of like saddle stitching with two needles. Hand sewing works with a single needle and a single thread that is pulled through the fabric. It leaves a distinctly different look.

In our modern machine age it can seem strange to people who have not done repetitive manual labor but the truth is if you spend even just a few hours doing a repetitive task you get pretty consistent at it. Practice can, actually, make perfect. Or at least pretty darn good. I suspect that even one week on the job hand sewing and you would find that you can make pretty decent, consistent lines of stitching.

Steve

[Glen K]

I know this isn't medieval, so please forgive the digression, but in terms of what hand stitching is capable of: I've seen a Civil War officer's coat that, if I didn't know better beyond any doubt, I would have sworn the buttonholes were machine done. They were tight, consistent, and perfectly spaced. Fine finishing was certainly as perfect as can be by someone who spent their entire lives doing that sort of work. As the 18th century enactor-type Beth Gilgun has said when asked how to best replicate quality 18th century stitching: "use a sewing machine." As Jessica Finley said above, it depends on where and what your sewing as to what it should probably look like.

[James B.]

Here is a close of of the Charles VI pourpoint and you can see a visible whip stitch, gaps in the button hole stitching, and an irregular running stitch quilting the outside and this is a garment for a prince.

[Steve S.]

Here is a close of of the Charles VI pourpoint and you can see a visible whip stitch, gaps in the button hole stitching, and an irregular running stitch quilting the outside and this is a garment for a prince.

And yet it's still better than I can do with a sewing machine.

Steve

[FrauHirsch1]

The stitching that I've seen that is hard to tell if machine or handsewn has mostly been on fine linens and cottons, which are a hard thin fabric, very unlike the spongy texture of wool.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Here is a close of of the Charles VI pourpoint and you can see a visible whip stitch, gaps in the button hole stitching, and an irregular running stitch quilting the outside and this is a garment for a prince.

It is also a bit old. You could do the buttonholes on a machine, and it would probably be close enough. I'm not sure when we get "modern" buttonholes with both tack&bar.

[James B.]

Here is a close of of the Charles VI pourpoint and you can see a visible whip stitch, gaps in the button hole stitching, and an irregular running stitch quilting the outside and this is a garment for a prince.

It is also a bit old. You could do the buttonholes on a machine, and it would probably be close enough. I'm not sure when we get "modern" buttonholes with both tack&bar.

Yes and no. From and SCA perspective I often just machine a garments button holes and sometimes later I go back over them, but with living history you can see a difference up close. The thread used on the real garments is clearly thinker than the tread on a machine. Also my machine does a zig zag where hand sewn its a button hole stitch. Also the machine creates a long seem on each end were the originals don't normally have that.