1). Collar Shape/Neckline Shape

Note that the collar actually rises above the natural neckline, and undulates up and down, coming to a point in center back. The dotted line indicates where the natural neckline of the body lays.

2). The Across shoulder too short, causing tightness to the wearer.

This coat was sold as a size 42, but was narrower than a size 38 young man's torso. There are many reasons why this may potentially have happened, but until the original garment is remeasured, an accurate schedule of grading for the across shoulder cannot be made. Nonetheless, it is NARROWER than an original size 2 (size 38) Schuylkyl Arsenal Artillery shell in the author's collection.

3). Pockets are causing the back skirt to pull open

Again, owing to the misfit in the across shoulder, the waist is proportionally too big for the size. Despite this fact, the pockets are incorrectly made, and are actually pulling the back skirts open. the original (right) has a piece added to the top of the pockets which allow the skirts to hang correctly.

4). Collar angle/front neck drop exceptionally steep.

One can see the completely different angle, caused by an excessive front neck drop. The reproduction front neck drop appears to end where the 1st buttonhole appears on the original garment.

Also note that the collar is shorter on the neck than the original. The original ends at about 1/2 fo the length of the buttonhole, allowing the collar to meet when closed. Note that on the mannequin, the Center front is almost two inches below the base of the neck, which will show all the garments below.

5). Sleeve Twist/Imbalance

Note, again, the side view of the collar, clearly showing it coming to a point in the center back. Again, the dotted line indicates the natural neckline. Note, however, the sleeve twisting on itself.

6). Mysterious gathering in skirt

The original garment does not bear this feature.

7). Buttonholes

It is readily apparent that this garment had a buttonhole that one finds on very fine tailored garments, which had a bartack at both ends. Again, the author was able to note this by the same photographs that were sent to the person reproducing the garment.

But who really cares about a small thing like buttonholes, right? (Note that the customer's name and E-mail address have been pixelated to protect his privacy)
Here is who:
The customer's inquiry

What hapened in the field

What does this all mean?

If this was a personal vendetta against one person, there may actually be sympathy. However, through intimidation, and misinformation one can see a trend towards monopoly.

The supposedly open marketplace.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1