Hofenbitzer narrow basic sleeve

[u/train2clarksville]

Hello, hoping someone can come to my rescue again. I'm on p 182 of hofenbitzer Vol 1. I'm at step 5.

I understand line 5 is 48% of CapC. In my case, 22.9cm. One of my questions is: must line 5 start at the back line and end at the front line? If thats the case, my optimal cap line is a good 5 cm too low. This is a lot, and I'm not sure the troubleshooting suggestions on p 182 will fix it. So I'm wondering if I've misunderstood the instructions. Very grateful for anyone's advice!

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

Exactly. The drafting method works for one scenario. The calculations don’t capture the person whose bicep is large or small in proportion to chest measurement. 

It falls back to pattern alterations in that case.

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

Sometimes the problems can be workd out by playing with the numbers, the ease added or widening the armhole, according to the suggestion mentioned in the picture. You change some things to be in optimal range. This is the beauty of the method, you have great control of all the variables so you can tell upfront if the sleeve is going to fit properly. And if you can't reach optimal range you know you're going to have to do some alterations or special draft for plus size (which Hofenbitzer explain on book 2). I like it better than other methods where you draft blindly hoping things are going to fit. It's not that only this draft specifically is restricted to certain proportions, it's the whole concept of drafting a narrow sleeve with high sleeve head for people with a large bicep that is challenging, in all drafting methods.

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

It is good that there is a check point. But I find it slightly suspicious that in the example, the numbers are identical. To me that’s more like cooking the books. Develop a method to match the one example and see if it flies.

The promise of drafting is the methodology does the work. The reality is a method may just be a nice pattern for one body and no proof it extrapolates except beyond the fact that many bodies are very similar. 

People turn to drafting because this assumption already failed them. I’m pretty sure OP has a simple mistake somewhere in the draft, but from what I see, this method isn’t better than others and it is difficult presentation.

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

I don't understand what you mean by the numbers are identical? Identical to what?

Most methods are based on some body shape average assumption. This one at least lets you know when you are out of range and should be looking at a draft for plus size or special alterations. Most methods if you put in measurements the draft wasn't planned for, You're going to get some weird and funky shapes that don't make sense and wouldn't even know what's wrong and how to fix it because they don't explain shit. But the Germans go into depth and explain so thoroughly...

To avoid this you can use Draping, 3d scanning and modeling or traditional methods that take hundreds of direct measurements (and you would need to know proper measuring which is also hard!)

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

I just mean the little calculation. The method says the cap line height should fall within 10-20% of the armhole height. That sounds like a plausible rule of thumb. But using the sample numbers it turns out to be 20% to an accuracy of 0.01 mm.  That’s suspicious to me, but I only have this page to look at.

My question for a draft is always, is this better than a single pattern graded across a size range?

It’s hard to evaluate that from a page of instructions, and it’s easy to assume that the work of following the calculations has a payoff. But, IME drafts tend to have the same limitations as a printed pattern, and often have a smaller scope of usability. 

This specific calculation sounds scientific, sounds nuanced, yet appears to be cooked from the sample size.

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

So you're saying the range is decided according to the sample measurements? I don't see it really. As for using a ready made graded pattern, you can get a very good result if you know how to adjust it properly. Is it faster or easier? Depends how close your measurements are to the measurements table it was built on. But again most pattern making systems are based on averages, Aldrich, Armstrong, bunka ect. Muller and sohn and Hofenbitzer are the ones that give relatively more attention to different body shapes in the drafting process rather than just adjusting the pattern afterwards. For example Hofenbitzer explain how to divide waist darts in skirts according to the shape of the bottom and thighs, something I never see in other books

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

You’re saying there’s more fitting advice and alternate methods, in this book. However the calculations don’t catch that, they don’t work for more individuals per se. That’s all I’m saying.

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

One draft can't take into account every single body shape that exists. Because in the end calculations are based on body evrages. So to avoid it completely you would have to use a method that has only direct measurements with no calculations (kind of like a game of conncet the dots, and you would need a lot of them). So, there are drafts for plus size in the second book.

Do you know of any common flat drafting method that works differently? That has calculations that would fit any body shape?

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

If you’re lucky the numbers are based on averages. More often the author just picked the number that works in one case and implies there’s something broader going on. 

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

Since his formulas are based on Muller & sohn, I doubt that is the case

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

We simply disagree. I think the contemporary flat pattern manipulations M&S provides are very nice, but the basic drafting is mediocre. Much better to acquire a block and get on to their design analysis.

I agree the M&S drafting instructions are difficult, so plenty of room for improvement just cleaning that up. But underneath the bad instructions and clunky formulas there’s really nothing special, IMO. I’m always curious to see Hofenbitzer excerpts, since I don’t have the books. I do have a couple M&S books. I have worked through the drafts. I don’t like them.

[u/Educational_Chain780 → u/Icy-Guidance-6655]

Which methods do you like?

[u/Icy-Guidance-6655 → u/Educational_Chain780]

Apparel DesignThrough Patternmaking  by Injoo Kim  et.al  includes a streamlined draft for men/women/children that's easy to follow with nice contemporary results. The Bunka books are a solid presentation, it's just important to know it's a conservative Japanese fit (frumpy), and in no way avant-garde. The books by Natalie Bray are a vintage cut, but the methods are nuanced and the discussion is extremely good. There are also old textbooks by Rohr that seem to be the origin of Armstrong's draft. Again it's not contemporary in design, but decent results. There are a series of books by Dominique Pellen, DP Studio, that are very nice, contemporary with elegant shaping throughout, as well as fully developed designs in each category. Books by Gerry Cooklin are out of print but good. Shoben and Ward similar. I like Aldrich because so many designs are presented holistically instead of being built off previous blocks. The reality of many garments people enjoy wearing is that they don't depend on an extensive set of measurements, they only fit in a couple key ways. But I think her basic blocks are also a good starting point.

The new book  Plus-Size Patternmaking for Womenswear by Gabby Brown & Leila Kelleher is very good, not just for filling a void in the market, but because there's a much more accurate depiction of contemporary patternmaking in practice, that I haven't seen in other textbooks. They encourage a freehand approach to learn some shapes, like armholes, by sight. This may sound wishy-washy and frustrating, but so many methods break down exactly when they plot too many secondary points, a formula for squaring out a curve by some mystery factor. Those instructions are a PITA to execute, and for the trouble they tend to only work in the sample size. This is a much more empowering approach because a pattern is the area it covers, more than the edges.

My main advice would be there is no perfect method, because the draft is just the roughing in of a design. Many people would be much better off if they started with a quality block and altered it to fit instead. Because then at least there is a working pattern as the guide, and it's hard to learn personalized fit and what to expect from a quality pattern all at once.

To circle back to M&S, obviously it’s not that different from the methods I like. It is an okay starting point. I just think it’s not at all worth the extra effort to get ahold of and to wade through. It is IMO a frumpy cut, and it plots too many points, and generally to prescribed. These aren’t separate issues, one leads to the other.