There is a pattern for these given in Franz Joseph's technical manual, available here if you want one, but it's more of a base than a usable pattern. For starters, the grid sets out a pattern size 12, which is too small even for me -- too shallow in the bust, and way too narrow in the shoulders -- and the grading instructions ("Ratio unit up or down for larger or smaller sizes") are absolute gibberish, as anyone who produced either clothing or patterns professionally would know. Humans do not expand equally in length or width, or even proportionally in all parts of the body. If you want a real-world example of this, ask a busty lady about shopping for button-down shirts. Settle in for a rant.
It's also missing a number of construction details which are necessary for the dress to behave as it does when worn. The collar stands like that, for example, because it is a completely unshaped piece of ribbing stitched into the neck opening. (Collars that are meant to fold down are larger around the outside diameter than the inside diameter, for reasons that will be obvious if you think about it a bit.) Unsupported fabrics tend to fold at the stitching line, however, so to get it to stand evenly all the way around instead of just flapping forward at the deepest part of the front neck, exposing the seam allowance, and creasing at the corners to lay flat, it needs to be attached to an understitched facing on the interior of the garment. It would commonly be done as a front and a back, each a strip 2-3" wide following the shape of the neck opening and seamed together at the shoulders, but the pieces are absent from those given on the grid.
[I will also point out here that the collars on these things behave completely fucking differently in every picture I can find. The tech manual pattern gives a symmetrical opening and fails to point out that the collar is supposed to be taller in the front than in the back, nor does it say where the seam in the ring should fall. In other diagrams and photos, the collars are slightly asymmetrical, slanted towards the insignia in the front, and dipping entirely to a point at the back right shoulder where the panel seam is. I suspect that the originals were cut by eye, and were probably slightly different from batch to batch.]
The "flap" in the skirt, designated (F) on the diagram, is not a slit but a kick pleat, which would require about a 2" extension on the edges of the front left and back right pieces in order to form the overlap. The pattern as given doesn't give correct construction of a slit either, which needs a bigger allowance or a facing at the open edge, and reinforcement at the top. The thing drawn there will just gap awkwardly when worn and slowly pull open the stitching of the seam above it as you move.
I will give them credit for some subtle shaping. The front and back panels are not quite the same -- the front is ever so slightly convex, to account for the bustline. The dress is oddly squat when laid flat, as most of the shaping is in the extreme swerve of the side seams.
There are no finishing instructions given. The originals were probably just pinked on the inside to cut down on fraying and hemmed by machine, as the stitching was unlikely to show on camera. My version is lined, both because I intend to wear the damn thing more than once, and because the hems can be felled flat to just the interior layer, resulting in a garment with no visible topstitching anywhere. I used a historical flatlining technique because I didn't feel like matching up a billion pointed seams a second time, but if you find that sort of thing fun you could bag-line it like a modern garment. Similarly, the insignia and rank braid are attached to the outer layer only, with no stitches coming through to the lining. The zipper is concealed in a side seam. Space clothes, I feel, should be held together by magic. The existence of any stitching at all is implied only by the exterior seams, which are more of a design feature than anything.
All of this is applicable only if you actually care. Only the series regulars (Uhura, Chapel, Rand) and guests featured in the episode consistently wore duty tunics with the asymmetrical pieced panels. Most of the extras wear a much simpler design -- a princess seam, kimono sleeve bodice attached at the waist to a pair of trapezoidal panels that form an A-line micromini skirt with kick pleats. Faster to construct and easier to alter, and most of them never get close enough to the camera for it to matter. Of annoyingly sexist note is that the female extras all seem to be in science blue or support red. The gold uniforms (designated in the tech manual as "tenné", a heraldry term for a saturated tawny yellow) are command track, and for the most part only the male extras filling in at the helm seem to wear them. To hell with that -- I'm the one making the damn thing, and my sleeves say I'm captain.
The TOS uniforms are one of the few examples of cosplay in which I come out looking appropriate, rather than overly sexualized. I look stacked like Lt Uhura because I am stacked like Lt Uhura. The late '60s were really the last time fashion was designed for my figure. Not that 36-24-36 doesn't still go over well IRL, but couture-wise, everything after that has been sketched for an idealized body that's much taller, and usually much less wildly curvaceous, than I am. There are few better examples of the difference than comparing the classic Nichelle Nichols to the new Zoe Saldaña. Nichols is constructed like a classic Hollywood pinup; Saldaña is built like a Balanchine ballerina. The new costumes with the princess seams and cap sleeves would look oddly-proportioned on Nichols, while the old tunics with the pieced panels and kimono sleeves would make Saldaña look twiggy. It's all in the cut.
Comments
Post a Comment