Posts Tagged ‘McCalls 5662’


SWAP 2011: wadder count 2

March 14, 2011

Okay, this one isn’t quite as bad as Butterick 5354 was. I’ve actually worn it a couple of  times, although I think I should avoid the empire waist until I tone up a little around the middle or my board might get a nervous because there’s a hint of maternity about the top.

This pattern was McCalls 5662

I tried view C last summer and was less than impressed with the way it turned out. I wound up modifying it and eventually put it in a drawer and haven’t worn it since. I did like View E better so I thought I’d try it this time around.

In an attempt to avoid past mistakes, I bought a heavier, more structural (more expensive) stretch cotton) to start with. And it’s not that bad. The main issue I have with it could simply be that I don’t own a cover stitch machine and I’m not sure how I feel about the zig zag topstitching I had to do. I don’t think the tension was quite right because the top stitching stretched the neckline out a bit. I wish I’d taken the time to draft an interfaced facing instead – not that I do well with interfacing stretch fabric.

This is the outcome:

It’s not terrible, but I’m not entirely pleased either. And you can see where the hemming won’t stay turned to  the inside and instead flips out to reveal the serged edges.

If  I have time, I might just replace it with something made from one of the fabric pieces I bought a few days ago.

The flame coloured silky polyester looks really nice against the denim I have set aside for the SWAP skirt.


Salvaging a shirt from the wreckage

August 6, 2010

As I indicated in my Wardrobe crisis post, I have been attempting to sew a shirt using my serger (eek) and McCalls 5662. I think it has finally turned out reasonably, although I am personally not quite satisfied with the workmanship.

When I first saw the pattern, I only paid attention to the front of it. I fell in love with the grecian feel to the front and sleeves and I loved the empire waist detail. There is a lesson in this: always look at the technical drawings.

I made C because it was sleeveless and I liked the twisty detail at the waist. I made the assumption, however, that the back of C was more like E. As a result, I was surprised to discover that the back is lower and much more open than I wanted (I need to wear a bra) and the waist detail didn’t go all the way around.

I “fixed” this by leaving the back pieces ungathering and crossing them so that they form a V similar to the one in the front. I also removed the front waist detail and attached two long ties that I can wrap around my waist several times. It gives me much more of the effect I want.

I’m still not sure if I like the top. I think the stretch cotton I picked is more stretch than cotton and I find it clings to places I prefer it not cling. I also found the neckline came out much lower than I’m entirely comfortable with. I cannot wear this to work because I may have to lean over.

I’m going to try the pattern again. I bought a jersey that I think has a bit more structure to it and I plan to make View E since the things I  like most about the pattern are in that version.


Wardrobe crisis

July 12, 2010

Yes, we’re still in the middle of a heatwave and I still have very little to wear to work.

I spent my evening trying to work on a polka dot jersey shirt using McCalls 5662 which I bought back during my no sew week. The results were less than I was hoping for.

My serger fought me every step of the way. I had to re-thread six times and I broke a needle.

I tried to make view C but was disappointed to discover that the waist tie was not a tie after all but just a decorative bit in the front of the shirt. I dislike the way it pulls the back part of the waistline forward so I think I will take it out and basically be left with view D. This may make it wearable.

If I try the shirt again I will want to use a heavier jersey because this one is structureless, and I will skip the waist twist in the pattern and make my own waist ties.

Tomorrow night will be pants.

Hopefully they’ll go better.