FRONTISPIECE. Drafting a bodice to measure, from Charles Hecklinger's 1886 text book subtitled 

How to Cut and Make Ladies' Garments. (Library of Congress.) 

"To that great army ofBread-Winners who fashion their own garments, 

as well as those of others, this book is respectfully dedicated." 

— Mallison, 1886. 
SMITHSONIA N STUDIE S IN HISTOR Y AND TECHNOLOG Y • NUMBER 42 

cct(m^ 

DRESSMAKERS' 

DRAFTING SYSTEMS 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES 

Claudia B. Kidwell 

Smithsonian Institution Press 

City of Washington 

1979 
ABSTRAC T 

Kidwell, Claudia B. Cutting a Fashionable Fit: Dressmakers' Drafting Systems in 

the United States. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, number 42, 163 

pages, 70 figures, 4 tables, 1979.—The first dressmakers' drafting system was 

created m the United States before 1838. This innovation provided a tool to draft 

stylish, fitted garments and appealed to women who were forced to make their 

own clothes. The concept behmd the first generation of drafting systems was used 

as the basis for the sizing systems in the paper pattern industry and the women's 

ready-made clothing inciustry. In the last quarter of the 19th century, hundreds of 

drafting systems were invented to help the professional dressmaker cut the 

complex patterns of the fashionable dress of the period. A wide variety of changing economic, social, and technological factors determined the methods that were 

created at specific times, how the systems were sold, and who used them. 

Dressmakers' drafting systems with specialized tools became obsolete in the 20th 

century after simpler, less fitted dress styles became popular. These less complicated fashions encouraged the widespread acceptance of ready-made clothes and 

the use of paper patterns by dressmakers and home sewers. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the 

Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Kidwell, Claudia B. 

Cutting a fashionable fit. 

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology ; no. 42) 

Bibliography: p. 

Includes maex. 

1. Dressmaking—Pattern design—History. I. Title. 11. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in history and technology ; no. 42. 

TT520.K4 646.4'3'04 78-606020 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Stock Number 047-000-00353-9 
Page 

Preface vii 

Introduction 1 

Before Dressmakers' Drafting Systems 3 

Tailors 4 

Tailors' Drafting Systems 7 

Mantua-Makers 11 

A 19th Century Invention 13 

Earliest Evidence of Dressmakers' Drafting Systems 20 

Proportional Systems 25 

Hybrid Systems 31 

Direct-Measure Systems 45 

Squares 50 

Adjustable » 53 

Conforming 68 

Selling the Systems 74 

The Users 80 

Amateur Dressmakers 80 

Paper Pattern Industry 81 

Professional Dressmakers and Cutters 90 

Ladies' Tailors 93 

Ready-made Clothing Industry 94 

Conclusions 98 

Appendix I: Pre-1920 Publications at Library of Congress 

Containing Drafting Systems for Women's Garments 105 

Chronological Index to Authors 127 

Appendix II: Dressmakers' Drafting Tools at Library of 

Congress 129 

Appendix III: Patents for Drafting Systems for Assorted 

Clothing 129 

Index to Patentees 150 

Appendix IV: Tables of Geographic Distribution 155 

Literature Cited 157 

Index 160 
In 1968 I started the research on what I intended to be a small article discussing 

the importance of the late 19th century McDowell Garment Machine. My efforts 

were prompted as much by my interest in the manufacture of clothing as by the 

occasional public inquiries I had received. Typically, these letters said, "I have a 

McDowell Garment Drafting Machine .. . I have written several places to find out 

any information on this and so far no one has any information to send me, and 

found out you have information on about everything . . . ." 

Staggered by the faith some people have in the Smithsonian Institution, I 

hoped to be able at least to answer some of the questions raised about the 

popular, late-19th-century McDowell machines. The scope of my work broadened as I gradually perceived the significance of the number of instruction books 

at the Library of Congress and the hundreds of patents filed in the U.S. Patent 

Office. 

As the project grew I benefitted from the association with and the assistance of 

Charles E. Brush as I gathered the basic data from the pre-1900 publications and 

patents related to drafting systems. This is but one of the many ways he has 

helped the National Museum of History and Technology as a volunteer. My 

study of the earliest patents was facilitated by the gracious assistance given by 

James Paulauskas, archivist in the Industrial and Social Branch of the National 

Archives. Anne W. Murray, curator emeritus, Division of Costume, learned of 

my project during this early stage and encouraged me by her belief in the value 

of this work. 

My research, however, was interrupted several times, as my energies were 

diverted to other major projects. I am grateful to Rodris Roth, then supervisor in 

the Division of Costume and Furnishings, for encouraging me to return again 

and again to this study. In 1972, I thought that my work was nearly completed 

when I stopped again, this time to assist with the museum's bicentennial exhibits 

and in particular to coordinate the preparation of the exhibit "Suiting Everyone" 

and its related publication. 

In the fall of 1976, I was able to return to my data on dressmakers' drafting 

systems. Facing this research after having ignored it for four years was made a 

little easier by the interest expressed at this time by Al Ruffin, managing editor 

of the Smithsonian's series publications. Getting into this material again, however, I realized that the study had to be broadened once more. I needed to 

extend my work another 20 years to 1919 in order to document what had 

happened to these systems. 

To finish this work before something else intervened I relied upon the 

assistance of a number of individuals. I am personally grateful to the staff of the 

Division of Costume: Barbara Dickstein, collaborator; Karyn Harris, museum 

specialist; Shelly Foote, museum technician; and Valerie Goddard, secretary. By 

their energetic and imaginative handling of much of the ongoing as well as the 

unusual collecting, public service, and research activities of our division, I was 

Vll 
viii SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

able to take the time needed to conclude this study. 

As I reconsidered the relationship between tailors' systems and dressmakers' 

drafting techniques, I found the sources provided by Betty Kramer to be of great 

help. Several years earlier she had obtained for our costume library copies of the 

early tailors' instruction booklets at the Library of Congress. Carol Kregloh 

arranged the collected appendix data into the desired format and obtained the 

data needed for the 1900 to 1919 period. Not only did she accomplish this with a 

high degree of accuracy and completeness, but she contributed to this paper in 

many ways with her insightful observations. Dorothy Pouquet assisted with the 

French translations with her usual competency. 

As I worked further on the manuscript, many questions came to mind 

concerning the relationship between innovations in the tailoring and dressmaking trades vis-a-vis other crafts and concerning the social significance associated 

with these technological changes. These concerns highlighted my appreciation 

for being a part of a museum encompassing so many varied fields. I was 

generously helped by Silvio Bedini, then deputy director; Anne Golovin, then 

associate curator of the Division of Pre-Industrial Cultural History; Howard 

Hoffman, museum specialist, Division of Naval History; Peter Marzio, then 

curator, Division of Graphic Arts; Edith Mayo, assistant curator, Division of 

Political History; Uta Merzbach, then mathematician, the Section of Mathematics; and Robert Vogel, curator. Division of Mechanical and Civil Engineering. I 

am especially grateful for the assistance of John Hoffman, curator in charge of 

the Warshaw Collection of Business Americana of the National Museum of 

History and Technology. I also benefitted from the good advice of Bob Post who 

graciously read the manuscript at various stages. 

I am grateful to Sydney Brooks, theatrical costume designer, for loaning for 

study two sets of drafting tools from her collection. I am also most appreciative 

of the opportunities I have had to examine the resources in the Butterick 

Patterns Archives/Library. Illustrated items noted as belonging to the Smithsonian Institution are in the collections of the Division of Costume unless otherwise 

specified. 

In the last months of my work, Nancy Martin, Lynne Conlee, and Priscilla 

Bloom served as volunteer research assistants as they helped me track down the 

answers to some last minute questions. Nearing the end of the project, I was 

gratified by the interest and extra concern for accuracy exercised by Lynne 

Conlee and Valerie Goddard as they typed the final manuscript. Also, I am most 

appreciative of the contributions of Edna Luginbuhl who drew the bar graphs to 

illustrate some of my conclusions. 

Adele Filene, researcher and writer, studied this manuscript closely in its final 

form. It was possible to take into account some of her suggestions even though 

this paper was "in press." I am most grateful to have had this opportunity to 

benefit from her considerable knowledge of couture dressmaking technique and 

mass production drafting procedures acquired from her exceptional experience 

in Germany and England. 

Throughout the final stages, the Smithsonian Press was most helpful. Al 

Ruffin's continued interest was gratifying. Barbara Spann applied her editorial 

skills as well as her particular expertise in the subject matter to make this paper 

more readable and precise. Stephen Kraft in addition to designing the book 

supplied the creative art work for the cover. 
a 

attm^ 

mmmM 

DRESSMAKERS' DRAFTING SYSTEMS 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

Claudia B. Kidwell 

Introduction 

In the 19th century, dressmakers' drafting systems 

were heralded as a solution to the plight of 

downtrodden working women. A writer in 1885 

described them as "the wings which will waft the 

sewing woman from the gloom and despondency 

of an over-wrought and under-paid laborer to the 

dignity and independence always the due of patient, persistent industry" (Cornwell, 1885:20). 

Yet, in less than 90 years since the period of their 

greatest popularity, these drafting systems are all 

but forgotten. Today, 19th century drafting tools 

that were once touted as "magical devices" are 

seldom even recognized for what they are. If they 

are identified, they are generally dismissed as 

merely another of those gadgets of which 19th 

century Americans were so fond. 

Drafting systems were, nevertheless, a significant 

technological and economic breakthrough. They 

reduced the amount of time and skill required to 

cut a fashionable garment that fit well. Amateur 

Claudia B. Kidwell, Department of Cultural History, National 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 20560. 

home sewers could produce better garments for 

themselves and their families. Aspiring dressmakers with little training could make salable clothing. 

And experienced professional dressmakers could 

improve their business by reducing cutting errors 

and fitting time. Nineteenth century drafting systems with specialized tools enabled every maker of 

dresses to cut a fashionable fit. 

The creators of these devices contributed to the 

democratization of clothing.* The final result was 

not, however, what they intended. Drafting systems became the basis for the sizing systems of the 

paper pattern industry and the ready-to-wear industry. The success of these industries gave the 

majority of Americans the opportunity to be fashionably dressed in clothes that fit. It also diminished the importance of the custom dressmaking trade. 

This paper is not an exhaustive treatise on 

dressmakers' drafting systems. The evidence is not 

'See Kidwell and Christman (1974) for a general discussion of 

the many factors that contributed to the democratization of 

clothing in America. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

sufficient for that kind of study. Dressmaking was 

usually an anonymous occupation carried on by 

individuals working in a limited area. Rarely was 

the work of these women recorded in print. Their 

trade depended for the most part upon word of 

mouth recommendations. Unlike popular women's 

magazines such as Godey's Lady's Book, which can be 

found in many libraries, the more specialized 

American periodicals for dressmakers have largely 

disappeared. The fate of S. T. Taylor's L^ Bo7i Ton 

is typical: it was published as early as 1857 and as 

late as 1919, but in spite of its longevity, extant 

issues are rare. This is a common phenomenon 

that inhibits any investigation concerning 19th century dressmaking techniques. 

Instead of attempting to be an exhaustive discussion of drafting tools, this paper is a general 

overview intended to accomplish three purposes. 

First of all, there is exposition of the theme that 

dressmakers' drafting tools were a product of their 

time. A long tradition of tailoring and "mantuamaking' preceded the creation of drafting systems. 

Tailors were first provoked by economic exigencies 

into creating efficient, systematic methods for their 

own use—probably in the late 18th century. 

Roughly 40 years later the conditions existed to 

foster dressmakers' drafting techniques. A wide 

variety of changing economic, social, and 

technological factors determined the methods 

created at specific times, the manner of selling the 

systems, and the composition of the market for 

them. Circumstances as disparate as the economic 

opportunities open to women and the limited 

availability of inch tape measures in the first half of 

the 19th century had an impact. (I was surprised to 

discover the major extent to which dress fashions 

affected the growth of clothing related industries.) 

The second purpose is to provide the reader 

with the knowledge necessary for identifying systems other than those discussed here. Nineteenth 

century drafting systems for both tailors and 

dressmakers were based on proportional, hybrid, 

or direct-measure principles. Unlike tailors' methods which often did not require unique drafting 

tools, dressmakers' drafting systems usually depended upon highly specialized devices. This difference is explained by the disparate levels of skill 

and experience on the part of the presumed users. 

Techniques for cutting men's suits were created 

for professional tailors. No suggestion was ever 

made that a man not engaged in this trade could 

use such a system to cut his own clothes. Dressmakers' systems, on the other hand, were initially intended for the amateur's use in making apparel for 

herself and her family. Even in the late 19th century, when these techniques were most frequently 

created for professionals, the users, whether professional or amateur were still women. As a whole, 

women were neither as well educated as men nor 

were they thought capable of assimilating as much 

knowledge. For all of these reasons tools designed 

to simpHfy the drafting process were considered 

essential for the majority of amateur and professional dressmakers, the vast majority of whom in 

the first half of the 19th century were women. 

Dressmakers' drafting tools existed in great variety. They were manufactured in diverse forms, 

out of various materials. They were made of paper, 

cardboard, wood, metal, or some combination of 

these. They were in the form of nearly square 

rectangles, rectangular strips, squares (similar to a 

carpenter's square), irregular curves, or a composite of forms. They could be perforated, adjustable, 

and/or conforming. Some used apportioning 

scales, some distributed circumferential dimensions by other means. The systems discussed in this 

paper were selected to demonstrate how the three 

drafting principles were applied and to suggest the 

variety of tools that were made. 

The third purpose is to encourage research on 

drafting systems and related industries by providing previously unpublished compilation of data 

such as the appendices listing the instruction booklets at the Library of Congress and relevant U.S. 

patents. Instruction booklets for dressmaking systems are the most important resource for information about these techniques. These booklets were 

usually published by the author with a limited 

printing. And, because of the local distribution of 

the majority of these works, many are now rare or 

known only through secondary sources. Probably 

many have disappeared without a trace. It may be 

years before all of the extant examples of these 

obscure publications can be found, examined, and 

evaluated.^ Because of its role in the copyright 

^' Ms. Pat Trautman, assistant professor and curator, Historic 

Costume and Textile Collection, Colorado State University, is 

working on a locator index for dressmakers' drafting tools and 

instruction booklets. She would like to hear from individuals 

who have relevant items. 
NUMBER 42 

process, the Library of Congress holds the largest 

known collection of these booklets. 

Patent drawings and specifications are almost as 

important as the instruction booklets. Patent drawings showing a tool are especially important when 

the device is not extant and when the booklet does 

not illustrate it. The patents provide a fuller history of the development of some systems than is 

revealed in any other source. And when instructions do not accompany an extant tool, the patent 

may provide information concerning the drafting 

process. Of course, many tools that were manufactured were not patented and many that were patented were never manufactured. The numbers of 

individuals who applied for patents and their varied locations do, however, reflect the widespread 

creative effort that was underway. 

The fashion terminology of the era covered by 

this paper is sometimes confusing. "Bodice," 

"waist," "basque," and "polonaise" are but a few of 

the terms that have been used at one time or 

another in the general sense of designating the 

upper part of a dress as opposed to the lower part, 

the skirt. Some of these terms have more specifically indicated a particular style for this portion of 

a dress. For example, the term "basque" was sometimes used in the 1870s and 1880s to refer to a 

bodice or "waist" that extended several inches 

below the waistline to fit smoothly over the hips on 

top of the skirt. Occasionally "basque" denoted 

simply the extension itself. Certainly this appendage added to the difficulties of cutting a bodice of 

the period—making the "basque" a garment to 

remember by name. 

Before Dressmakers' Drafting Systems 

Since the time man first began to wear shaped 

garments made of more than one piece of material, 

he has been faced with two tasks—forming the 

separate pieces of the garment and sewing them 

together. As garments became more elaborate and 

as fashion requirements for a specific line became 

more exacting, greater skill was required for both 

tasks. Of the two, cutting was by far the more 

difficult. "Cutting" the parts of a garment historically refers to the mental process of determining 

the shape of the pieces as well as the physical act of 

cutting.^ In 1807, The Book of Trades observed that 

to be a good cutter, an individual's "hand and head 

must go together " (Johnson, 1807:73). Th e 

craftsman whose work required the greatest cutting skill was called a tailor. The Old French word 

"tailleur" meant literally "one that cuts." In contrast, while sewing the seams of a garment with 

needle and thread might require more time than 

cutting, it demanded much less knowledge and 

training. Thus, those whose principal occupation 

was the relatively unskilled labor of sewing were 

called at various times sempters, seamsters, 

semptresses, or seamstresses. 

This division of labor became institutionalized by 

custom and by trade guilds. Laws governing guilds 

protected the distinctions between the skilled craft 

of the cutter and the labor of the sewer. They gave 

tailors the exclusive right to cut garments fo'^ 

women as well as for men. In France, where the 

laws were more strict than in England, women 

were not permitted to make most feminine garments until 1675 (Garsault, 1769:48). This radical 

departure from medieval precedent occurred 

when Louis XIV agreed to the establishment of a 

separate guild for women who were to be called 

maltresses couturieres. This was the first of several 

laws that allowed women to produce a wider range 

of garments. A similar change in custom occurred 

at about the same time in England. 

By the 18th century English women cut most of 

the more complicated feminine apparel, including 

the mantua,^ from which they took their name, 

^ Throughout this paper the term "cutting" is used in the 

broader sense. 

•* A mantua was the dress that was popular in England for 

most of the 18th century. In the mantua, the back pleats were 

stitched down to the waist to make the gown fit the upper torso. 

In contrast, the back pleats in the sack (Figure 9), also worn at 

the same time, were not stitched down to the waist. English 

women preferred the mantua, which led the French to distinguish between the two styles by calling the mantua a "robe a 

I'Anglaise" and the sack a "robe a I'Frangaise" (Waugh, 

1969:68-69). 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

"mantua-makers." The distincdons between cutting and sewing continued. Seamsters and 

seamstresses were primarily sewers while master 

tailors and mantua-makers were the skilled workers who cut the more complicated garments. 

Tailors 

A \747 Description of All Trades observed that for 

tailors "the most dextrous Part is Cutting-out, on 

which depend the Fitting and Shape, the principal 

Articles that give Ease and Pleasure to the Wearers, 

and obtain Customers; therefore a Man is not 

properly qualified to set up for himself who has 

not got a pretty good Knack at it" (Waller, 

1747:206). The method for "cutting-out" was deceptively simple.^ A tailor measured his customer 

with a long strip of paper or parchment, recording 

the pertinent dimensions by cutting notches in this 

strip (Figure 1). To make a suit coat the tailor 

noted as many as 14 measurements (Figure 2). 

Each cutter had his own particular way of marking 

his "measure," as the notched strip was called, and 

thus one cutter would have found it difficult to 

understand another cutter's measure. 

A tailor usually kept paper patterns in different 

sizes to help him determine the shapes of the 

garment pieces (Figure 3). He developed the dimensions and the outlines of his patterns through 

experimentation—their form was his trade secret. 

These patterns were so important that in England 

tailors sometimes referred to them as "Gods." Indentures sometimes stipulated that the master was 

to give a copy to his apprentice on the condition of 

strict secrecy and patterns were mentioned in wills 

as a significant legacy from father to son (Giles, 

1887:89). 

When preparing to cut a garment for a customer 

the tailor selected a pattern of about the right size. 

He laid it on the fabric and traced around it lightly 

with chalk. Next, using the customer's measure he 

checked the dimensions of the outline, marking 

the necessary corrections in chalk and redrawing 

the draft accordingly. The tailor then cut the 

material. 

Using the measure both to record the dimensions of a customer and to draft a garment may 

date from the time when units of measurement 

were not standardized. This would have been a 

useful technique when few were literate. When he 

had the "measure of a man," a bright apprentice 

did not need to know how to read, write, or use 

numbers in order to learn the art of cutting. He 

learned to think in spatial distances rather than in 

measurements coded into abstract units, such as 

inches. Mastery of the art of cutting was achieved 

after years of training and experience. Cutting was 

an individualized intuitive art that could not be 

quickly communicated to another. 

Only the stubborn force of tradition adequately 

FIGURE 1. Tailor measuring a customer for a coat, 1736 print 

from unidentified source. (New York Public Library.) 

^ This method was first described by the Frenchman M. de 

Garsault for "L'Art du Tailleur" in Descriptions des Arts et Metiers, 

(1769, volume 31). Garsault's work was used by Diderot in his 

Supplement a VEncyclopedie (1776-77). Portions of Garsault's descriptions have been translated or paraphrased in several modern histories, e.g., Arnold (1964) and Waugh (1964, 1969). 
FIGURE 2. Measurements needed to draft the coat, waistcoat, and breeches of a man's suit, 1769, 

from Garsault, "L'Art du tailleur," plate 4. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 3. Parts of the three garments in a man's suit, from Garsault, 

"L'Art du tailleur," plate 5. Coat: A, front; B, back; C, sleeve; D, cuff; E, 

pocket flap; CC, reinforcement for back pleat. Waistcoat: a, front with 

pocket flap; b, back; c, sleeve. Breeches: d, front, e, back, f, waistband. 

(Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 4. Man's suit, 1769, from Garsault, "L'Art du tailleur," plate 4. 

(Smithsonian Institution.) 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

explains why the notched measure was used 

through the end of the 18th century. This is especially remarkable as yardsticks and squares marked 

in inches were in general use, most noticeably by 

carpenters (Hummel, 1968:118, 143). As late as 

1796 in England and 1809 in the United States a 

published drafting method required the use of the 

measure while following a series of directions 

which sometimes involved distances reported in 

inches (Society of Adepts, 1796, and Queen and 

Lapsley, 1809). The 1809 American publication 

even advised tailors to determine the amount of 

material needed for a suit coat by measuring "by 

your yardstick, the length of your coat, as you have 

taken it from your measure, to which add the 

length of your sleeve" (Queen and Lapsley, 

1809:23). Curiously, tailors did not see any merit in 

translating the measure into inches, not even to 

record these vital statistics in their order books. 

Taking the measure of a man was so much a part 

of the art and mystery of tailoring that the mere 

presence of the yardstick was not enough to effect 

a change in practice. More powerful forces were 

needed to break the strength of tradition. 

Throughout the 18th century the fashionable 

cut of men's clothing evolved slowly, mutating 

slightly in one feature then in another. The net 

result was a persistent trend toward a closer and 

closer fit and narrower proportions. In the last 

decades of the 18th century the suit coat became so 

fitted that even the simplest movement of the arm 

caused a wrinkle to appear across the front of the 

shoulder (Kidwell, 1976). By the early 19th century, men's suit coats had become sculptural forms 

created more by their cut than by the drape of the 

textile (Figure 5). Increasingly, a gentleman's figure was the product of his tailor's art rather than 

his parents' genes. The precisely cut, closely fitting 

fashions demanded the best efforts of skilled and 

experienced tailors. Some tailors found that traditional cutting methods were not adequate to meet 

the demands of changing fashions and the changing times. 

The 18th century has been called the "Age of 

Enlightenment" because men regarded experience 

and reason as more important than divine revelation. It was this optimistic belief in the individual's 

ability to observe, experiment, and solve problems 

that fostered the inventive activity that revolutionized the production of textiles. The time was 

right for individuals to set aside traditional pracFiGURE 5. Fashionable full dress costume for gentlemen, from 

the April 1810 issue of the English magazine, Ackermann's 

Repository of Arts. (Courtesy of Karyn Harris.) 

tices and devise new solutions to old problems. 

Change was in the air at the end of the century, the 

industrial revolution with all its ramifications was 

under way. 

New factories drew rural populations to urban 

production centers. Those wanting "respectable" 

city clothes rather than laboring garb were increasing in number, but they could not afford the 

exclusive prices of traditional made-to-order work. 

Tailors were faced by the difficulties of cutting 

more closely fitted garments in line with the changing styles. At the same time, they were subjected to 

consumer pressures to keep their prices down. 

Tailors, especially those wanting to take advantage 
NUMBER 42 

of the new market opportunities, were in a position 

to welcome any new technique that would solve 

their cutting problems. Technological development was essential if clothing manufacture was to 

be shifted from custom tailoring to mass 

production—that is, producing for the masses. 

Tailors' Drafting Systems 

In 1809, Queen and Lapsley described for the 

benefit of other tailors a methodical utilization of 

the traditional measure in the producing of custom 

work. In their preface, however, they refered to a 

system that many tailors had adopted. 

There are many who work by patterns, and this method of 

working, we are afraid, is too much followed by the Trade. 

There is one maxim with us, working by lengths and following 

nature in every existing circumstance. In which case, patterns 

can be of but little use to any but Slop makers, where they may 

have them from the smallest size up to the largest Figure, upon 

proportionable scales. But where Nature has sported a little 

with the formation of a figure, a person would look quite 

awkward in one of those slop made coats (1809:vi). 

Note that the authors matter-of-factly said "proportionable scales" (the technique of projecting all 

the dimensions of a garment in proportion to one 

body measurement). Use of these scales was not 

reported as an innovation but was cited as a common practice to be abhorred by the professional 

custom tailor. Significantly, this citation appeared 

in an 1809 book published in the United States. At 

this time, American tailors relied upon their English counterparts for almost every innovation. 

Thus it is reasonable to assume that "proportionable scales" were used well before 1809 by the 

cheaper trade in England. 

One historian, Norah Waugh, proposes that the 

development of proportional drafting systems was 

the result of the introduction of the inch tape measure. She argues that its use "drew attention to the 

comparative relations that exist between the various 

parts of the body" (Waugh, 1964:130). Singling out 

the tape measure as sole catalyst for this revolutionary departure from traditional methods seems 

to me too limited an explanation. It does not take into 

account the more generalized forces that could have 

affected the tailor's thinking. 

Tailors were not the first to consider the human 

body in proportional terms. In ancient Athens the 

human body was studied as a natural phenomenon 

with a proportional form that could be analyzed 

and codified into geometric laws. The differences 

between one person and the next were overlooked 

by sculptors who concentrated on the representation of "ideal" forms. These were seen to be more 

representative of nature than the irregularities that 

existed in any particular individual. 

Again and again artists turned away from the 

apparent chaos and haphazard appearances of nature to rediscover classical mathematical order. 

Leonardo da Vinci's "Man of Perfect Proportion" 

is representative of this movement in Renaissance 

Italy. In the I7th century the efforts of Louis XIV 

in France to make the classical style official had a 

significant effect on French artists of the period. 

And in England the conservative rules of classicism 

continued to have great appeal in the 18th century. 

There, one school of academic theory, exemplified 

by Sir Joshua Reynolds' Discourses on the Fine Arts 

(1769-1790), delivered before the Royal Academy 

in London, continued to define the essence of 

beauty in terms of the ideal classical forms (Marzio, 

1976:26). 

The discoveries at Pompeii and Herculaneum in 

the 1740s had a profound effect on the decorative 

arts throughout Europe. In the mid-18th-century 

"Roman ruins" initially were used merely as an 

alternative to "Chinese" pagodas in the romantic 

decorations of the period, from the motifs on 

printed fabrics to the reproduction of "scenic" 

embellishments of landscaping projects. In time, 

the order and simplicity of the ancient Greek and 

Roman sources were seen as a welcome relief to the 

involuted complications of the rococo designs 

which had overlaid the classical Renaissance heritage. By 1785, a wave of popular neoclassicism was 

sweeping over France and through Europe. Once 

again the "true" rules of human proportions were 

being set forth as artisdc laws of nature (Marzio, 

1976:38). 

I do not believe that the proportional theories of 

artists were the initial basis of tailors' proportional 

drafting systems. After all, most artistic theories 

dealt with two-dimensional proportions based on 

the length of the human head while tailors' systems 

were concerned with three-dimensional proportions relative to the circumference of the "breast." I 

do propose that the widely discussed "geometric" 

theories that were inherently a part of the neoclassical movement reinforced or made more credible 

the discoveries that tailors were probably making 

on their own. 
8 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

It seems reasonable to expect a tailor, trained to 

think in terms of spatial distances, to notice how 

consistently the notches on his measure were 

aligned in a similar relationship to each other. 

Certainly he might have observed how regularly 

the length from neck to waist was half the man's 

breast measure and the chest width one-third 

(Waugh, 1964:130). He could have used these observations when he modified the patterns that he 

used as a guide to drafting garments cut with his 

customer's measure. The tailor who manufactured 

ready-made coats, however, used only his set patterns. He mass produced garments for unknown 

customers, hoping to fit as many as possible "from 

the smallest size up to the largest Figure." Even 

though the "slop maker's" customers could not 

afford to be very particular about the fit of their 

clothes, the tailor-entrepreneur would have had an 

economic interest in applying proportionate observations to the creation of his master patterns. 

Waugh's reasoning concerning the significance of 

the tape measure may have been influenced by the 

fact that the first outpouring of published drafting 

systems (mostly of a proportional type) occurred in 

the early 19th century at the same time that the inch 

tape measure was coming into use. I n my opinion this 

co-occurrence does not reflect a causal relationship 

between inch tape measures and proportional theories. Instead, I believe both developments reveal an 

increased literacy among tailors and a significant 

break with the code of secrecy inherent to the individualized procedures of the past. While I would 

agree that the ability to think and write in terms of 

inches altered the form in which proportional 

theories were conceived, I do not see the lack of this 

facility as precluding the development of them. It is 

perhaps more significant that this new literacy (in 

both words and numbers) provided for the first time 

a way to communicate propordonal theories easily. If 

a tailor developed a propordonal method before the 

introducdon of the inch tape measure, he based it on 

his direct observations of actual spadal distances 

rather than on dimensions abstractly coded into 

inches. His ability to communicate his method by 

wridng was inhibited. He probably would have had to 

be satisfied with teaching his apprendces—the tradidonal way for a tailor to share his knowledge. He 

would, thus, have left no record of his innovadons. 

It is my opinion that in response to the historical 

changes already presented, tailors began to experiment with proportional methods before the inch 

tape measure was widely used, at least by the last 

decade of the 18th century. The rising literacy of 

the ensuing era brought these innovations to light 

and also sdmulated the udhzadon of the inch tape 

measure. 

The 1809 reference to "propordonable scales" 

suggests that propordonal theories were already 

widely used by the manufacturers of ready-made 

clothes and by some custom tailors as well. Proportional systems were those cutting methods based on 

the assumpdon that all human bodies are formed 

according to common geometric or proportional 

rules. It was assumed that with only one critical 

measurement (usually the circumference of the 

"breast" or chest) it was possible to predict all other 

dimensions. The acceptance of this presupposition 

led to the creation of numerous systems. They 

varied from each other according to the creator's 

opinion as to what the critical measurement was, 

how it should be taken, what measurement tool 

should be used, what the "true" proportions were, 

the drafting tool to be used, the location of critical 

drafting points, and the sequence of drafting procedures. It does not take much imagination to 

realize how many different systems could be 

created, based on the proportional assumption. 

What these first systems all had in common was 

the fallacy of their basic assumption. For while, in 

general, the human form has an established proportional configuration, tailors found that very few 

individual customers were shaped exactly according to any set formula. Purely proportional systems, nevertheless, continued to be used in spite of 

this weakness. The need for technological breakthroughs was so great that even a flawed system 

was better than no system at all. 

The tailors who were concerned for quahty 

exercised considerable personal judgement and 

used many "proof measures to double check their 

work. Some were inchned to add more body measurements as an integral part of "improved" systems. Usually these extra measurements were used 

to draft that pordon of the garment directly affected by the particular measurement. Thus "hybrid" systems'^ developed—methods combining 

«The term "hybrid" was not used by 18th or 19th century 

tailors or dressmakers. 1 have adopted it to describe systems that 

are neither purely proportional nor completely direct-measure 

methods but constitute a blend of the two. 
NUMBER 42 

both proportionally determined dimensions and 

direct measurements. An important step was the 

recognition that the height of a man did not necessarily have anything to do with his breadth. Thus 

the direct measurements were frequently vertical 

dimensions. In 1818 the Englishman Mr. Hearn 

described his system. Even at this early date he 

added a direct measurement for the height of the 

neck (cf. Figure 5) to his proportional system based 

on the "breast" measure (Giles, 1887:93). 

Mr. Hearn's experience reflects the reasoning 

that many later tailors were to follow. By the fifth 

edition of his system, in 1832, he had completely 

rejected proportional theories even when they 

were modified into hybrid forms. He acknowledged that "most modern cutters amongst us have 

divided the breast measure into equal proportions 

for many years." But he was convinced that "the 

proportions of the breast have nothing to do with 

the various points of a coat," and that "there can be 

no certainty in the fit of coats without taking the 

make of the person" (Giles, 1887:100). His answer 

to the problem was a direct-measure system. In 

contrast to previously published instructions, 

Hearn's precise language and more carefully described procedures, leaving much less to individual 

judgement, are what make this a "system." For 

example, the publication of The Society of Adepts, 

1796, reflected in Queen and Lapsley, 1809, constitutes only the vague directions of experienced 

tailors accustomed to solving cutting problems intuitively. To identify a drafting method as a system 

is to say it is a definable, repeatable, systematic procedure. 

Hearn was advanced in his thinking. Others 

were to agree with him, but direct-measure systems 

never completely replaced either proportional or 

hybrid methods. During the period that concerns 

dressmakers' systems, the second quarter of the 

19th century, there were proponents of all three 

kinds of tailors' drafting methods—proportional, 

hybrid, and direct-measure. 

The tools used by tailors also set important precedents for dressmakers to follow. The inch tape 

measure was the first and most significant improvement upon the strip of notched parchment 

used by generations of tailors. The square was 

probably the next to become common. Many systems required no more than these tools. Hearn's 

1818 hybrid method and his 1832 direct-measure 

technique used only the tape measure. 

Some tailors' systems, however, required specialized tools. On 28 February 1827 J. G. Wilson was 

granted a patent (4,687X) for a "Square for Cutting Garments" (Figure 6). This represented an 

improvement to a system first described in an 1820 

Enghsh publication by Edward Minister. As Wilson 

explained in his manual, copyrighted a month 

before his patent was granted, 

the reports of Minister being only in the possession of a few and 

unaccompanied with drafts or rules, I was induced to believe 

that 1 should perform an acceptable service by improving, 

republishing, and combining with them a concise treatise on the 

art of cutting, which I have now the honor of presenting to the 

trade (1827: Preface). 

Wilson's is the earliest restored ^ U.S. patent related to tailoring drafting techniques. Of the seven 

earlier, unrestored patents (see Appendix III), 

Madison's "Ruler for Cutting Out Garments" and 

Starr's "Scale for Draughting Garments" could 

have been issued for devices intended for proportional or hybrid systems. 

Tools for accurately measuring the body were 

patented in significant numbers. These devices 

usually provided particular measurements needed 

by a specific direct-measure system. Less frequently, the measurements obtained were to be used 

with one of the generally known methods. The 

measuring instruments were basically linear in 

form. They ranged from simple to fantastic combinations of the square and tape measure (Figure 

7). Some had a level or plumb line as an important 

feature. Still others were designed to support a 

portion of the body or conform to it. 

By the time dressmakers' drafting systems were 

needed, tailors had given up traditional drafting 

methods. Many had broken the code of secrecy 

and were publishing descriptions of their own systems. The relative merits of proportional versus 

direct-measure techniques were discussed and a 

variety of tools had been created. Tailors set new 

precedents for 19th century dressmakers to follow, 

if it suited them. 

^ In December 1836 a fire destroyed all the records and 

patent models dating from the first patent act of 10 April 

1790. In 1837 the Patent Office embarked upon a program to 

"restore" these lost documents, largely from information and 

drawings supplied by the patentees. 
/ ' APPAHEL. 

"^ - cJlj IWloriag, 

^ / 

6^-^ ^.:- . ) C-' 

Tmp' 771 che Rule let CullJnq Ciarinencs 

3 

0 

ft: 

• f 3 

in 

•'Hi 

^1^=3 ? 

J^L. 

XiliZ 

^.i^^X. <',-..' . ^/,uJ,.,.'f"/Sy' 

/P.r^^^j£k^ 

/s-'-

^rar.MEASURINGINSTmiMENTS: \ \ 

[38J railoTs'Meaaorw. ^^ _r^ 

7" 

X^^dl^ 

JflfBWKBia.B^jpjjjgj 

>i;,,l!JtJi;i,l,J„tj@tJtuE 

'''''''''^''•'^•rmm.mjtj^ ?, _,,| 

gJl^Ajf^jrlituiiJii .Jit,/!b,x?i|i;,i;2,35a„-!,tu:!;ffl;tttrafca,Ea±J 

r' 

! 

_^ 

-

-^_^_^*^ 

•'.'."-C.-C,/^' _ 

. 

^ . * 

J t ^ 

1 

/ / 

/ 

•'•J 

L. / 

' ' ^ LI I I I , ,-' 7 

_iiLu.«l_. 
NUMBER 42 11 

FIGURE 6 (left top). Restored drawing of a tool devised by 

James G. Wilson for his hybrid drafting system for tailors. The 

wood or metal square was made with a recessed channel on the 

outer edges of both arms. Strips or "gauges" were laid into the 

spaces and kept in place by "springs." Each strip was marked 

with the divisions of a specific "breast" measure and could be 

changed according to the size of the customer. Wilson was 

granted a U.S. patent (4,687X) for the form of this tool on 28 

February 1827. (National Archives.) 

FIGURE 7 (left bottom). Drawing for a measuring device 

created by W. J. Lemmond as part of his direct-measure drafting system for tailors. Strips of "spring steel," leather, and 

wood—all marked in inches—were combined with six tape 

measures. This instrument was designed to hook to the customer precisely over the "socket" bone of the neck and to buckle 

around each shoulder and around the "breast" close up under 

the arms. Lemmond received a U.S. patent (1,556) for the form 

and use of this tool on 18 April 1840. (National Archives.) 

FIGURE 8 (below left). Details for cutting and assembling a 

woman's pleated gown or sack (similar to Figure 9), 1769, from 

Garsault, "L'Art du tailleur," plate 15. Cut shape of material: Fig. 

1, back; Fig. 2, hont. Detail of pleating: Fig. 3, back; Fig. 4, front. 

Cut shape of material: Fig. 5, sleeve ruffles; Fig. 6, sleeve and 

"compere" or buttoned front. (Smithsonian Insdtution.) 

FIGURE 9 (below right). Back and front views of a woman's 

pleated gown or sack, 1769, from Garsault, "L'Art du tailleur,' 

plate 3. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

Mantua-Makers 

In 1747 the Description ofAllTrades remarked that for 

the mantua-makers' trade "there is litde else wanting 

than a clever Knack at cutUng out and fitUng, 

handsome Carriage, and a good set of Acquaintences" (Waller, 1747:134). No contemporary English or American description exists to reveal the 

procedure followed by the mantua-maker. A 1769 

French source,^ however, describes the techniques 

followed by a ma'itresse couturiere when she constructed a sack. The mantua-maker probably followed a similar method, although it seems likely that 

the final dimensions and locadon of the back pleats ^ 

in the mantua were determined during a fitting 

when the dress was on the customer. 

Like the tailor, the 18th century maUresse 

couturiere recorded her customers' measurements 

by cutting notches on a strip of parchment or 

paper. As many as 16 measurements were taken 

for one gown. She followed, however, a cutting 

procedure different from that used by tailors. She 

did not use patterns. Instead she used the measure 

to determine the correct length of the pieces of 

fabric needed to make the gown (Figure 8). The 

maltresse couturiere condnued to use the measure 

as a guide as she progressively sewed and cut her 

way to a finished garment (Figure 9). Inches were 

* Garsault (1769, vol. 31) and other derivative sources annotated in footnote 5. 

" See footnote 4. 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

'" 'U(iT!ff((imMmiTniintiimTij(i:" •" 

-^JJ•>'t!g'»S ^ M:: 

FIGURE 10. Fashionable evening dress from the July 1814 issue oi Repository of Arts. 

(Smithsonian Institution.) 

used on the rare occasions when a specific direction was given concerning a dimension. For 

example, the 1769 French source stated that the 

four pieces of the back and the two for the front 

"should be cut a little longer" than the measure "by 

several inches" (Garsault, 1769:49). 

For most of the 18th century, women's fashions 

developed in accord with men's fashions—evolving 

toward a closer and closer fit. By the early 1780s 

the mantua was so fitted that the stitched pleats, 

which had become reduced in depth and moved 

far to the center back, were finally replaced by 

seams. The subtle shaping of the top of the gown 

was achieved through complex cutting as demanding as any required of a tailor. If this style had 

remained fashionable for any length of time 

mantua-makers would have been forced to develop 

their own drafting systems. Instead, the simultane-
NUMBER 42 13 

ous emergence of another, less fitted fashion was 

to postpone the mantua-makers' need for systematic cutting techniques. 

This new style first came to popular attention 

when Vigee Le Brun's portrait of Marie Antoinette, wearing a gown of gathered sheer cotton, 

was exhibited at the Paris Salon in 1783 (Waugh, 

1969:73). The dress—later called "chemise de la 

reine"—created a sensation. It was an extraordinary shock to see the queen of France dressed not 

in the precious jewels, laces, and silks befitting her 

station but in a gown so simple that it reminded the 

viewer of the common feminine undergarment 

called a "chemise."^*^ Because of its informality and 

unassuming character this garb suited the romantic longing for the uncomplicated rustic life that 

was popularly effected by the French nobility just 

before the revolution. The neoclassical movement 

that swept over Europe a few years later reshaped 

this garment into the style now generally known as 

"Empire" (Figure 10). 

These high waisted dresses of the late 18th and 

early 19th centuries were mostly unfitted skirt and 

thus they required more of a draping technique 

than drafting. The patterns for the bodices of this 

garment were cut directly on the customer (Figure 

11). This accurate but time-consuming technique 

was probably first adopted by mantua-makers in 

the 18th century when gowns became precisely 

fitted and subtly curved creations. Those who 

could afford fine gowns had the leisure to spend 

long hours in the fitting room. This "pin-to-theform" technique was then easily adapted for cutting the simple short-waisted "Empire" styles of the 

19th century and it continued to be used long after 

^° A slip is the closest modern equivalent to the 18th century 

chemise. 

FIGURE 11. Cutting a dress according to the pin-to-the-form 

technique, from Tabart & Co., The Book of Trades, London, 

1804. (Library of Congress.) 

fashions changed once again, requiring more 

complex cutting. The amateur dressmaker usually 

followed another time-honored custom, that of 

taking a pattern from an existing dress or lining. 

A 19th Century Invention 

As long as fashions evolved slowly or called for 

simply cut dresses, and as long as the market for 

fashionable clothes was limited to a relatively small 

leisure class of women, traditional cutting methods 

were satisfactory. But coupled with the rise of the 

middle class and the urban society was the fact that 

fashions continued to change and at an increasing 

rate as the 19th century progressed. These new 

fashions called for more fitted garments of more 

complicated cut. To keep informed of the latest 

innovations customers and dressmakers eagerly 

sought European magazines with fashion illustrations. When American magazines such as Godey's 

Lady's Book and Peterson's Magazine were established 

in the second quarter of the 19th century, they 

included fashion plates that were copied from 
14 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FiruRE 12 luly 1834 fashion plate dramatically showing the broad-shouldered, normal-waisted 

styles popular in Europe and the United States, from the English periodical The Lady's Magazine. 

(Smithsonian Institution.) 
NUMBER 42 15 

FIGURE 13. May 1839 fashion plate illustrating the sloping-shouldered, small-waisted styles shown 

in the Philadelphia magazine The Lady's Book, published by Louis A. Godey. (Smithsonian Institution.) 
16 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

European illustrations. These widely distributed 

publications gave women, even in remote areas of 

the United States, the opportunity to learn about 

fashionable styles. 

The fashion plates, however, did not show the 

viewer how to cut a pattern that would produce a 

similar garment. This difficulty was partially alleviated when, in 1853, Godey's Lady's Book started to 

supplement the fashion illustrations with simple 

diagrams.'^ \^henPeterson's Magazine also began to 

include pattern diagrams in 1855, inch measurements were added to clarify the dimensions of the 

pieces. Petersons stated that a tape measure was 

indispensable when using these miniature patterns. "Where it is difficult to buy such a measure, 

one can be made, in half an hour, out of a piece of 

tape, with the assistance of a foot rule borrowed 

from a carpenter, or the aid of a yards-stick" 

(1855:247). When Godey's began to include inch 

measurements on its pattern diagrams the reader 

was told that the pattern would fit "a lady of 

middle height and youthful proportion" (Figure 

14) (Jul 1855:65). 

Full-size "patterns," of one size only, were also 

produced. As early as 1854, Godey's was selling 

these models constructed of paper, which they described as "facsimilies of the originals in color, 

trimming etc. At a distance, they would be taken 

for the garment itself. They could be worn in a 

tableau without being detected" (Feb 1854:467). 

Godey's continually pointed out that these were not 

simply unmarked flat pieces made out of tissue or 

old paper! This was an important distinction as the 

Godey patterns were very expensive, ranging in 

cost from $0.31 for a sleeve pattern to $1.37V2 for a 

full dress pattern (Feb 1855:183). In comparison, a 

dressmaker who stayed with a family until she had 

completed her work earned only $0.75 a day 

{Godey's, Sep 1851:192). Much simpler full-size tissue patterns could be ordered from a number of 

shops and were even included in certain publications such as Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of 

Fashion (Figure 15fl). In this magazine the patterns 

were cut pieces of tissue paper, generally for dress 

accessories or sleeve details. It should be remembered that these full-size patterns were not offered 

in a range of sizes. Fitting sdll had to be done by 

" Fashion plates, diagrams, and unsized patterns were available in England (Arnold, 1964, and Waugh, 1969) before they 

were produced in the United States. 

FIGURE 14. A woman's garment elegantly called "Coraco 

Eugenie,' from July 1855 issue oi Godey's Lady's Book. Above: 

small diagram of pattern. Right: fashion illustration. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

the "pin-to-the-form" method. 

Despite the availability of such patterns, cutting a 

dress that fit well became more difficult as fashions 

called for more closely fitted garments. To be 

successful, a dressmaker had to solve a number of 

problems. Like the modern naval architect who 

designs the covering for a complexly curved 

form—a ship's hull—the dressmaker had to cut the 

sheathing for a complexly curved figure—a fashionable female shape. (As will be described later, 

the drafting curves used by these two trades are 

also similar.) But by comparison, a modern naval 

architect has a less demanding task when he is 

planning the layout of the plating required to 

cover the outside of a ship's hull. A ship's hull, 

particularly below the waterline, may have both 

convex and concave curvature. When the naval 

architect designs the shapes of the metal plates 

needed to cover a hull, his prime concern is the 

most efficient use of the standard sized sheets of 

metal. Efficiency, however, was not the chief de-
NUMBER 42 17 
II SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

terminant of the way the 19th century dress cutter 

used her materials to cover the curved form of her 

customer. To be successful, the dressmaker had to 

follow the dictates of fashion that were beyond her 

control. If she had a thorough understanding of 

anatomy, her tasks might be made easier, but most 

fashions of the 19th century prescribed dress 

shapes that had litde relationship to the natural 

form of a woman's body. 

The naval architect deals with a rigid, stadc form. 

In contrast, the 19th century dressmaker dealt with 

the ever moving human body which could assume a 

variety of postures. Her customer might stoop naturally or lean slightly to one side or the other. Yet, 

many individuals have a tendency to stand more 

erect than usual when being measured, thus making 

the dressmaker's calculations incorrect. 

Once the naval architect designs the most efficient manner of covering a hull there is no need 

for modification each dme an additional ship of 

the same class is built as the hull shapes are the 

same. The dressmaker, however, did not have this 

advantage. Each customer had different proportions and different shapes occasioned by variadons 

of the anatomical structures common to all human 

females. She could not even assume that she was 

dealing with a symmetrical form, as the left half of 

many individuals measures differently from the 

right. And the ultimate frustration for a 

dressmaker was that her customer could change 

size between dresses by losing or, more likely, 

gaining weight. Even worse, the customer might 

change her shape between fitdngs, having violated 

the unspoken rule by wearing a different corset for 

the final fitting than she wore for the first. 

When fashion dictated closely fitted garments of 

a specific form, individual variadons became critical. The fashion plates, diagrams, and single-size 

patterns only helped the dressmaker keep informed as to the latest fashionable silhouettes and 

pattern shapes. They did not help her cut a garment that fit. Only a dressmaker with extensive 

experience could quickly make a fashionable fitting garment by the old "pin-to-the-form' technique. A more efficient method was needed. 

In the 18th century the sparse population in 

America created a labor shortage and a more open 

society than existed in England. A widow could 

respectably continue the work of her husband 

whether it was managing the family plantation, 

newspaper, or tavern. By the 1840s however, inFlGURE \5a,b. Full-size cut patterns included in the Summer 

1864 issue oi Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of Fashion. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 15a (above). Three-piece tissue pattern for a girl's 

apron. 

FIGURE I5b (right). Pictorial and descriptive presentation 

of several sets of patterns (girl's apron shown in upper left). 

creases in population and affluence contributed to 

the reassertion of strictly defined, limited roles for 

women (Lerner, 1973:90). There were impressive 

exceptions, but, on the whole, for a 19th century 

woman to be a wage-earner was for her to lose 

caste. If a spinster or a widow in the 1840s did not 

have family with which to live nor an exceptional 

talent, she had little choice as to how she would 

support herself. Other than becoming a street 

walker, her opportunities were restricted to traditional feminine activities of child care, housekeeping, cooking, and sewing. If a woman had some 

education but no children, she might become a 

governess. Later in the century, teaching in public 

schools was to become an important alternative for 

the educated woman, but neither educating 

women nor recognizing women as educators was 
NUMBER 42 19 

hlK?3I 

^. i^\ 

l^i%iP 

TEAV£LINO CLOAK GIRL 3 APRON. 

The fhort round cloak on Ihc |.rliiclpal <l^•li^.• '" ""'• "' H"' cul pullfrns, 

LINEN CUFF. 

Ilccpnirr. iininli'd in llio b.irk. wlipre u butRVJ; ^ I . I •'.r.vo 11 ii.c lilmraid ri'|.ri->rn:;ic...n of oni' of lio<liru «nd potkcl lid. Suiulili' t„r a ulrl ofjix ,„„, n „ m^j^, „f j.^.^n r-imlu r, double, Iho 

\ "AsSv >.-^ tl.e cal pa cr.-. Ill lli.B number, •nd 1-tlic-i/..' or omii jior«. ' liultnnh..!.'i-dc scoll... ed «nd Hitched, printed 

1 ? 

pr.'rcrrcd nhen m.ide rn ../,,v. Ti.e iriMiin.i :: i- 8LEE7Z. 

lino ruuLiir, ln:d on as lllunlrnlij, and ^tn. IK .1 This pattern coni-IMi of tho body of »le 

dal »lM'b la cut in baT. both Kideii IIMII^ eia 

BOY'S JACKET. alike, and a narrow band wl cuniierla 

This If ,, , 

BODICE, 

Th.a paltern is al-o ; nulid full • 

",".','n"TM ','-' i "'"•"'"' "' "'" ''""'' "'"' " »»'•'• III"I--, "ot ' p„„,,llBboel,andcon-lal.nnhrecplcc...:l.ack, 

.I iiiiii.ru I" I ^ir:i|...ht: two of the.,, alike ur.. put Ob, braided, ' ' ' ' 

' IV'i'r/l'av'j ""' lii'-hed to c.,rr..-|,.,nd Miihlhere.t of the «liiehii) Ibe la;;,"!.; «cc,.nd pnrr-lbird and 

alien, wbleh Ip tbc 

"^!JS;N*-S«-

iSPW^w 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

popular in the 1840s (Melder, 1972:19-32). For the 

many women with little formal education, the main 

choices were limited to being a cook, laundress, 

household servant, or seamstress.^^ 

The flood of European immigrants in the last 

half of the 19th century added great numbers of 

men and women to the labor population. Imbued 

with democratic principles of equality, Americans, 

whether they were first, second, or third generation, had a growing distaste (if not hostility) for 

accepting the subserviant status of domestic work. 

Being a seamstress was not a promising alternative to employment as a household servant. In 

1854 Godey's related that a widow supporting two 

children by sewing garments cut by a tailor was 

paid seven cents for common shirts, twelve cents 

for common trousers, twenty cents for finer ones, 

and thirty cents for cloth jackets. The most she 

could earn doing hand sewing for a full day and 

half a night was twenty-five cents. Yet she paid 

three dollars a month rent for one room (May 

1854:467). The working conditions of this 

seamstress were harmful to her health, and her 

labor did not provide the income to sustain her and 

her two children. This occupation was to be 

avoided if possible. 

A woman with sewing skills saw dressmaking, 

however, as an avenue by which to escape the degrading alternatives. This trade offered the hope of being 

successful enough to have one's own shop. There was 

the potential for a respectable place within the commercial world. But success required considerable 

skill, particularly in cutting, not normally a part of a 

'^ Working in a textile mill was respectable employment for 

some women. This opportunity, however, was only available in 

New England and only for about two decades. By the late 1830s 

the influx of immigrants supplied a strongly competitive work 

force wilHng to work for subsistence wages (Lerner, 1973:97). 

housewife's training and experience. A long apprenticeship, the usual method for acquiring such 

skill, was not possible for the widow with children to 

support. And, with the limited aids available, it was 

unlikely that an untrained woman could learn the 

trade quickly enough to support herself. Drafting 

systems that worked and that also could be learned 

easily became an important key in the efforts of 

women to unlock the doors to dignified economic 

independence. 

The final incentive for the commercial development of workable drafting systems was added by 

the advent of the sewing machine, which became 

available in the early 1850s. By dramatically reducing the sewing time spent on a dress it emphasized the amount of time and skill required to 

cut a dress successfully. Only three years after 

Isaac M. Singer was granted his first patent, Godey's 

wistfully exclaimed, "If some ingenious 'Singer' 

would invent a machine that would cut and fit our 

own . . . dresses . . . the agony of weeks would be 

over in a few days" (Jun 1854:570). By 1868 the 

general adoption of the sewing machine by "private families" created "an absolute and pressing 

demand for .. . a system for cutting garments as 

will enable every family to cut all kinds and sizes, in 

the most perfect and fashionable style" (Powell &: 

Kohler, 1868:1). 

The pressures created by changing fashions, 

more fitted styles, rising middle-class markets, and 

the financial needs of untrained women provoked 

the creation of dressmakers' drafting systems in 

the 19th century. The availability of a workable 

sewing machine when added to the interacdng 

combination of these social pressures, provided an 

impetus that significandy increased the momentum of this creative activity as the century progressed. Technology filled a dramatic role as a 

necessary component of social change. 

Earliest Evidence of Dressmakers' Drafting Systems 

Although my speculadons place the creadon of the 

earliest dressmakers' drafting systems between 

1820 and 1838, it may never be possible to idendfy 

exactly when the first was devised. Nor is it certain 

who created the earliest of these methods. 

Possibly tailors devised the first systematic techniques used for making dresses. After all, some 

tailors cut women's riding habits as a regular part 

of their trade. The heavy materials and tradidonal 

masculine styling of these habits required the 

strength and the specialized cutdng, sewing, and 

pressing skills that were essendal to the tailoring 

craft. Nevertheless, as the 1809 Philadelphia publication pointed out, habit-making was quite differ-
NUMBER 42 21 

ent from the rest of the trade, "as different as that 

of a cabinetmaker and a carpenter" (Queen and 

Lapsley, 1809:53). Thus this feminine apparel was 

only occasionally considered in tailors' manuals. 

Nineteenth century tailors delicately avoided 

saying that the greatest problem with ladies' habits 

was that women were shaped differently from 

men. Already the average tailor was having difficulty covering the variedes of masculine figures 

that stood before him in different postures. When 

faced with the unpredictable size of women's 

breasts, many tailors gave up. James G. Wilson, 

however, was one tailor-inventor who attempted a 

solution to this prominent problem. In 1827 his 

hybrid system used divisions of half the "breast" 

measurement to draft men's coats (Figure 6). For 

ladies' habits and pelisses, however, he advised his 

readers to use half the waist measurement 

(1827:14). Wilson's innovation could be viewed as 

support for the speculation that a tailor devised the 

first dressmakers' drafting system. But I have 

found evidence that has convinced me that another 

type of person created the method that spawned 

generations of these systems. 

The earliest system that I have found that was 

specifically designed for cutting dresses was a proportional method using a perforated tool. This 

drafting device was illustrated (Figure 16a) and 

discussed as background in the application for the 

first U.S. patent granted for a dress cutting system. 

This patent was issued to Aaron A. Tentler of 

Philadelphia, on 23 January 1841. Tender based 

his system on this earlier work by persons unspecified, which he described in order to demonstrate "all that has been attempted in this way prior 

to the invention of my improvements" (U.S. Patent 

1,944). 

The latest date for the creation of the preTentler system can be established by considering 

when Tentler began developing his method. Although Tentler applied for his patent on 18 June 

1840, the internal evidence of the patent application shows that he must have started his work 

significantly prior to this date. His system was 

designed to cut a bodice with a round, slightly 

raised waistline, full leg-o-mutton sleeves, and a 

wide cape collar (Figure I6b,c). Dresses that emphasized a broad shoulderline in this manner 

started becoming popular in the late 1820s. The 

expansive sleeves and cape collar evolved to their 

greatest breadth in the early 1830s (Figure 12) and 

remained popular to 1836. After this date the 

sleeves quickly collapsed and the collar shrunk. 

Publications originating from Tentler's home city 

in 1839 showed dresses cut without the cape collar 

and with sleeves that fitted closely to the upper arm 

(Figure 13). Tentler probably started working out 

his method when dress fashions dictated that a 

woman should have shoulders so broad that they 

would have impressed a 20th century football 

player. At the latest, he must have started his 

modifications by about 1838 when some Philadelphia women were still wearing the older styles. 

This hne of reasoning projects a date prior to 1838 

for the earlier system. 

The next question to be answered is, who 

created this pre-Tentler system? Since all the previously discussed tailoring and dressmaking techniques and aids were used earlier in England, it 

would be reasonable to expect that the pre-Tentler 

system also had a European origin. But I have 

found nothing to support this expectation. To the 

contrary, there are no English or French patents 

for any dressmaking drafting system dating as 

early as the Tentler patent. And, the two individuals who have done research on this subject in 

England conclude that 19th century dressmakers 

either did not use "scientific systems" at all 

(Waugh, 1969:185) or else that they began using 

them very late, in the 1870s (Arnold, 1973:124). 

Thus it seems likely that the pre-Tentler system 

originated in the United States. But can the creator 

be identified? 

I have found several isolated references suggesting an individual named Fowler as an early creator 

of a drafting system for dresses which stimulated 

the development of many others. The earliest reference appears in an 1857 instruction book for a 

dressmaking system published in Cincinnati by a 

physician. Dr. E. P. Minier. In the middle of a 

vitriolic criticism of his rivals, Dr. Minier qualified 

his statements by remarking, "I do not desire to 

detract from the credit due Mr. Fowler and others 

in the benefits they have conferred upon the ladies 

through their models and card plans of cutting. 

They are vastly better than no plans . . . but they 

have now had their day" (Minier, 1857:7). 

A year later in New York City, Samuel T. Taylor 

described in his monthly periodical Le Bon Ton 

how he exposed the flim-flam practices of an alleged creator of a system. "I told her it was nothing 

but a duplicate of Fowler's model . . ." (1858:182). 
z/^ 

' J»lr 

j*-* " 'T''^. 

^Y^M/Tt»^tt^eri4 uuua»ty^f7*rtirm«/it»^!;'' 

I' 

"h 

--•4 

. ^ h 

•3> * 

- •*'T^ 

^ ,J 

i^ft - ^ ^-i r y^ ^•.f1 

jf0 11/ k 

9-

iB ^l^ . 
NUMBER 42 23 

FIGURE I6a-c. Set of three drawings submitted by Aaron A. Tentler as part of his patent application 

for a perforated paper tool for a dressmakers' proportional drafting system (U.S. Patent 1,944, 23 

January 1841). (National Archives.) 

FIGURE 16a (left top). First sheet, 52.3 x 67.9 cm. Tender's drawing of a tool (for drafdng a 

bodice front and back) predating his own and which he judged to be "all that has been attempted 

in this way prior to the in-ention on my improvements." 

FIGURE I6b (left bottom). Second sheet, 58.4 x 68.0 cm, Tentler's tool for drafting: Figs. 1, 2, 

bodice front and back with variations: Fig. 3, sleeves of two categories of sizes. 

FIGURE 16c (above). Third sheet, 51.4 x 47.8 cm, showing the use of the basic front and back 

bodice pieces (second sheet) in drafting: Fig. 4, cape-collar (cf. Figure 12 this study); Fig. 5, cape 

(probably for outer wear); Fig. 6, collar or yoke; Figs. 7, 8, front and back of corset (this last 

technique not covered by the patent). Date on this sheet, "June23, 1841,"appears to be a copying 

error (cf. second sheet). 
24 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

In 1861, Taylor was bemoaning the money wasted 

on worthless charts and models when he referred 

to Fowler as "the beginner .. . of this great humbug" (1861:247). These references show that 

Fowler's fame (or infamy, in the opinion of those 

who were selling another type of system) extended 

at least from Cincinnati to New York City. Fowler 

was still known years later in New York. An 1885 

instruction booklet extolling the virtues of 

Cornwell's system stated that "the invention of the 

first chart, (Fowler's Theorem, erroneously called 

Fowler 8c Wells') occured some 40 years ago" 

(Cornwell, 1885:8). 

Although Fowler's contributions were widely acknowledged, I have yet to discover anything more 

specific about the identity of this person. Workingon 

the possibility that Fowler was a tailor, I examined 

city directories and census reports for the period 

1820 to 1845 for Cincinnad, New York City, and 

Philadelphia. I discovered too many Fowlers rather 

than too few. Fowler was not an uncommon name. In 

Cincinnati, James Fowler was listed as a tailor in an 

1836-1837 directory and William Fowler in 1842. In 

New York City one John Fowler was cited as a tailor 

until 1822 while another practiced this trade 

throughout the 1820 to 1845 period. Abraham 

Fowler was listed from 1827, Simeon L. Fowler from 

1832, and Henry Fowler from 1835 to 1840. And in 

Philadelphia Mahlon Fowler was listed as a tailor 

from 1840 to 1845 and Rennels Fowler appeared in 

1844 and 1845. Without a first name or initial to 

narrow down the possibilities exposed by this search, 

we are not any closer to identifying the creator of a 

drafting system. An additional problem is that the 

unidentified "Fowler" may not have been a tailor. 

This possibility becomes more plausible once the 

pre-Tentler tool is examined and its use is 

understood. 

The pre-Tentler system required a perforated 

tool, a heavy sheet of paper with a series of holes 

through which the drafting points were marked 

(Figure 16a). Eight series of perforations were 

used for the bodice front and seven were provided 

for the back. The specific perforation in each series 

needed to draft a bodice for an individual was 

idendfied according to half the "girth of the body." 

This measurement was "taken around the body of 

the person to be fitted, immediately under the 

arms and over the breast" (U.S. Patent 1,944:1). 

T h e pre-Tentler system was a proportional 

method based on a measurement similar to the 

dimension required in the many earlier tailors' 

propordonal methods. The drafdng tool, however, 

was not hke any device used by tailors. I have 

found no precedents in the tailor's trade for a 

perforated tool nor any evidence of a device made 

from a flat, rectangular sheet of paper. 

The simplicity of the pre-Tentler procedure also 

makes this system exceptional. Apparently, it was 

assumed that the dressmaker would not have a 

tape measure, as a strip of paper was used for 

measuring. The dressmaker folded the strip in half 

and held it up to the inch scale printed at the 

bottom of the sheet. If the breast measurement was 

36, she marked the fabric through the perforations 

numbered 18. Then she removed the tool and 

drew the appropriate lines between the drafting 

marks. The dressmaker followed five mechanical 

steps, none of which required any "figuring." 

I have discovered no prior garment drafting 

system that used a tool like this. No other method 

was so simple. It was easy enough for an untrained 

person to use. The uniqueness of this pre-1838, 

pre-Tentler system prompts me to speculate that 

this method was not created by a tailor for use in 

the tailor's trade. It seems most likely to have been 

devised by someone who was enough removed 

from the inbred intricacies of the tailor's craft to 

put together a method that would appeal to potential women users. 

It was suggested to me that this individual could 

have been Orson Squire Fowler (1809-1887) who is 

now most admired as a proponent for octagon 

shaped dwellings. In the 19th century, however, 

this Fowler was widely known as an energetic proponent and practitioner of phrenology, the field of 

study which alleged that the character and future 

development of an individual could be determined 

by studying the shape and conformation of the 

skull. Orson Fowler was a prolific writer of magazine articles and books published mostly by his own 

firm. The majority of his work was concerned with 

phrenology, physiology, and subjects related to 

human health. 

With his preoccupation with the human body, 

which led him into specific studies of "female" 

topics, Fowler is most possibly the creator of 

'Towler's Theorem. " He was, however, surrounded by relatives who were also active in the 

same fields: brother Lorenzo Niles Fowler (1811-

1896), sister-in-law Lydia Folger Fowler (1823-
NUMBER 42 25 

1879), sister Charlotte Fowler Wells (1814-?), and 

brother-in-law Samuel Roberts Wells (1820-1875). 

All were active lecturers and writers, individually 

and with Orson Fowler. Most of them were involved at one time or another with Orson's publishing firm. I have not located, however, any writings 

of this proUfic group that could have become 

known as "Fowler's Theorem." The following 

clues, however, suggest that an intensive perusal of 

these many publications would turn up the hard 

evidence that is needed. In the previously cited 

1885 instrucdon book it was stated that "Fowler's 

Theorem" was sometimes, although "erroneously," 

called "Fowler and Wells'." In 1844 the name of 

the publishing firm of O.S. & L.N. Fowler was 

changed to Fowler and Wells. 

Thus, the earliest system that I have found for 

drafting dresses is the pre-Tentler system dating 

before 1838. It was probably created in the United 

States, possibly by a person named Fowler, who 

might have been Orson Squire Fowler or one of his 

related colleagues. 

Setting these speculations aside, it is important to 

recall the two unique characteristics of this preTentler system: fixed drafting points delineating 

one style of dress and the use of perforations in 

marking these points. These features spawned a 

new breed of drafting systems. Of special significance is the fact that these were systems specifically 

for cutting dresses. 

Proportional Systems 

In 1842 Aaron A. Tentler observed that "the learning of the trade [dressmaking] requires a long 

time, and is . . . expensive and difficult.' With his 

system, however, "every lady may learn to make 

any kind of dress herself, in a short time" (1842:3). 

Tentler's system was a modification of the earliest 

dressmakers' drafting system so far discovered. He 

projected it for the woman who was not an experienced dress cutter. Unfortunately, little has been 

learned about him. Tentler's address on his patent 

application was the "S.E. corner of Coats and Budd 

Street, Philadelphia." He was listed in the 1840 

census as living at 13th and Budd Street and he was 

described as being between the ages of 20 and 30 

and engaged in a manufacturing trade. Also in his 

household were a woman of similar age, another 

female between 15 and 20, and a child under five. 

Tentler was not, however, included in any of the 

Philadelphia city directories. Thus no clue has 

been found as to his occupation or what led him to 

create a drafting system intended to help the untrained dressmaker. 

Whatever his background, Tentler was not guilty 

of plagiarism. In his patent specification he stated 

that he did not invent the "principle or plan" of the 

scale by which he made his drafts. Instead he 

"improved and extended" an earlier technique 

(Figure 16a) "so as not only to render it correct in 

its results, but also to make it applicable to a number of purposes .. . to which it could not be 

applied in its original form" (U.S. Patent 1,944:1). 

Tentler was granted a patent on 23 January 

1841, for two claims. The first was for "the applying of the measure of the half girth of the body . . . 

to the drafting of the sleeve, by the aid of the lines 

of punctures, or perforations" (U.S. Patent 

1,944:3). His method for drafting the sleeve was 

actually a hybrid system (Figure 16b). Three drafting points for the sleeve were determined by the 

half girth measure, but the direct measurements of 

the arm length and the wrist circumference were 

also used. Tentler also suggested a form of sleeve 

appropriate for the normally proportioned arm 

and another for the short and fat arm. 

Tentler's second claim concerned a more 

sophisticated application of the tool. He claimed 

recognition for his method of drafting capes, 

yokes, and collars by using the bodice fronts and 

backs after they had been defined by the proportional method (Figure 16c). These deep collars and 

capes, cut to fit over the exaggerated breadth of 

the leg-o-mutton sleeves, were an important element in the atdre of a fashionable Philadelphia 

lady before 1838. Tentler also discussed and illustrated how to cut corsets using the draft of the 

dress as a guide (Figure 16c). But this technique 

was not included as one of the claims for which he 

was granted a patent. 

According to his patent specifications, Tentler's 

procedure for drafting the front and back of a 

dress was the same as the earlier method (Figure 

16a,^) already described; Tentler only altered the 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

placement of the lines of perforations. His instruction booklet, however, directed the dressmaker to 

adjust the proportional draft according to two 

proof measurements. Half the front breast measurement was used. Also, the direct measurement 

of the underarm length "from where the sleeve is 

sewed in . . . down as far as the waist may require" 

(1842:5) was used to adjust this dimension on the 

pattern. Tentler realized that the height of a 

woman had little to do with her breadth. Or as he 

put it, 'one person is tall and thin, and another 

stout and small" (1842:8). Half the actual waist 

circumference was used to determine how much of 

the waist of the pattern would be assigned to the 

"breast plaits" or bust darts. All of the measurements were taken with a strip of paper one and a 

quarter yards long and one and a half inches wide. 

They were recorded on the strip by notches and 

identified by numbers. 

The salient features of propordonal drafdng 

systems with perforated tools were used long after 

Tentler's modificadons. Only fragments remain of 

a perforated proportional system published in 

1859 (Figure 17). Justin Clave, describing himself 

as a "Professor of Mathematics," claimed to be the 

creator of this "New Geometrical Method." Both 

the chart and the instructions were lithographed 

on a single sheet of paper by P. S. Duval and Son of 

Philadelphia. The perforations for marking the 

drafting points were not punched during the 

manufacture of the chart. Instead the holes would 

have been made during its use. Unfortunately, the 

FIGURE 17. The instructions and tool (intended to be perforated) for Justin Clave's 1859 proportional system printed in Philadelphia on a sheet of paper, originally 61x9 1 cm, which was sold for 

$2. (Library of Congress,) 

[Portion of original tool missing] 
NUMBER 42 27 

major portion of the instructions were printed on 

the section that has been lost. After comparing the 

measurements, however, I believe that this system 

was a proportional method with the drafting points 

designated by the circumference of the waist. 

Clave's chart drafted dresses with waists measuring 

from 12 to 30 inches. Considering the stylishly 

tight corseting of the day, this drafting device did 

accommodate most of the ladies who would be 

hkely to own a fashionable dress. The inch scale at 

the bottom of the tool suggests that the waist measurement was taken with an unmarked strip of 

paper or a string. 

"The American Delineator" was the confident 

name given to a system that had a tool of cruder 

appearance than Clave's chart (Figure 18). According to the printing on the tissue paper, Mrs. H. 

McMillen, of Clyde, Ohio, secured a copyright for 

FIGURE 18. Tool printed on tissue paper (intended to be perforated) that was required for the 1864 

proportional system offered by Mrs. H. McMillen of Clyde, Ohio. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian 

Institution.) 
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

c? 

rl?^— 

(1f===" 

this chart in 1864. In this system it was assumed 

that the user owned an inch measure of some type. 

The locations of the drafting points were determined according to the "measurement in inches 

around the chest, close under the arms" (McMillen, 

1864). Patterns could be drafted for women ranging in chest measurement from 24 to 39 inches. 

This type of measurement was very similar to that 

used in the pre-Tentler system. 

Despite the modifications that each creator of a 

perforated proportional system devised, these 

methods had similar advantages and disadvantages. The significant advantage of this type of 

system was that it was easy to use. It required no 

calculations, there were no complicated steps, and 

a garment could be drafted quickly. It was the ease 

with which these systems could be apphed that 

encouraged their continued use. 

The two common weaknesses of these methods, 

however, encouraged the development of other 

techniques. First, the perforated proportional system worked well only for a few women. Because 

they were based on proportional presumptions, 

these methods could draft garments which would 

fit well only the few ladies who conformed to the 

creator's notions regarding proportional figures. 

The obvious remedy for this problem was to incorporate some direct measurements producing hybrid systems using perforated tools. Tender was 

ahead of his dme when he advised correcdng the 

pattern drafted with his tool according to the 

underarm length and half the front "breast" measurements. But these modifications were merely 

added corrections rather than a true integration of 

direct measurements with proportional procedures. 

The second fundamental weakness of the perforated proportional systems is found in the form of 

the tool. The series of perforations provided fixed 

points for drafting one style of dress—only one. 

Thus, when fashions changed and required a 

bodice of a different cut, the system became obsolete. In the preface of his 1842 publication, Tentler 

declared that he had "not the least doubt that this 

little book [would] realize his expectations" 

(1842:3). I suspect that he was sadly disappointed. 

FIGURE I9a,b. Powell & Kohler's proportional system as presented in their 1868 instruction book published in Cincinnati, 

Ohio. (Library of Congress.) 

FIGURE 19a (below). Strip scales printed on a single sheet of 

paper included in the instruction book. 

FIGURE I9b (right). Illustration showing how to use the 

strip tool to place critical drafting points. 

(T---'i,M, - I'l 

u>-:\' . 

j^ /I' if It I) It 

r M'! I I I I i''! r—n I'l ,''. i i ."T-T-. r'; rnrj': 

" '!'- ",:T.^.T. 

»| /j J <i J 1} h IJ k ti 

.,_ . .^_\ .^>:,U . 

! I ' ; ! I I I M I M M I I I ' 

llJll.l , J , l,tt -

i l li/ yyp>:r 

J ' i I 1 1 !' i J''J' ^ I' ' i' ' ' . I • • - "»k''^*'-\ 

'OP^ 

\^. 

I'lMJ.l ^ I ' J ' j M • j ' ' I I I J ' J I r ! '' I ' ' ' I ' I ' I M ' i ' ' I ' ' , •' ' '' I ' '' , • '•—• 1 • - • ' - I : — — ,.' 'T 

1 1 i *! 1 1 11 1 h ti tf tf » ts le ti In h> !,' il il » .•» A.- m .v .v a .* // .^ .« M ji K ji .v ,.-, ,,• // ?• ,j „ >, ,<, ,, ., , , I. .ire. 

l l Jl:ljl| ^ ljl|i.|l | I.JS M ; ' l!. l V|".' | r-fn ^- - ,'i i' ; . : — . - ^ ^—, ,_ J V 

f MM I ' IJ'' I I I II M M I I !' I Ml I' Ij' l I'' I ' I' i|'r-'rr' l I I : I I'|' ' i > t ,•' I '' ;; i i . , ! i ; ! n I I ('';• ! ,' ' , . ; | i ! r I, i I'' > , . - •:'•'-,' '. ' ; ^ ' ' .' .',, I i '' I i '' ^ ^ , , . . , i i i . . -^-^— . ,, - ',, , , , , ^ ^ K—J L ' 

1 1 1 H 1 1 'i 1 r T r r ^i' ' y 'M' 1 1 t f r 1' y * " r f.»: ^^ ^ ^ -^ M jf s, J, » ,. ,i y, ,, „ „ ,„. „ „ „ j , .tLv.,v. 

! ' (i 'ij ' I I r I'M' r I'i I'l |i| I'i I i i h M I - I I 'i ^1 i' i' I'l I'l •! i| , ii|-,-ip^.... l,t r) ) hi' .,^^-rr; 11 '. .1, , ,-,,', : , . , \ 

' '. * i i '' 's \ •', k k >> 1^ >f " >f ti If If. k >i h -J h V If tr M -r ir Jl If t k k it il M it <v » >i il H ^: K 'I >.' r< \ .yir.U 

fl'iT' i ^T'T'- f ' 11 '' ••: I' i'I :'';'' ' r ' i ' :'^ 1 '. p ' . ,' ,' ,; !• 1^ I ; I I I . ^ ' •'.•••I 'M' I '. ,' .. , ., • •' ' 

iri-fl pr.Yrfi;'!!'. ; i" :'i ;" ! 

/; j | t[ j j ^ )( j ; « ^f' ll * * il /( Ijr » / /i » /( h tf If ir II !f b il if H ii /> 

' I'l l' ' •'! ! ' ;h-vr--f . ,1 .^^1 . r • ' , . ,., ,.i . , 

tt' ^ HI fiy » l i 

TCTI I -* » j ' J] 1 >! •« ll -f 'r f '? t 4' f " 'I ' '!• *»' •'•' -^ '!< ••' 1' f " « ^ -V •* T V J» Js » jv /K » (t< /.y « V « "i. i> w bw* ]• .t/.v-J-/: 

* J T iJiyniri'riij'iiriiji.M - I'rn i i i iTtr'Tni'li':''i'T M iTi ' ru ; i', i' ,'i : .i , '.:.: . ^i ,'i.- , •• •';'.^ i.tn,;,,—,•.. , 1 

-> , \ '.'•..\. • V | -^ 'T t t ? t '•' f -•f f » f ^ " >•'/' V '> <' -f V-^' -11 •? » •» « .*/». « JP *•?, « v i!> «.» « w v \ .yi-j/ii 

' i*^-i'Ti'.j i f'-rV[^'"-j^T'••['i nii-ri-ftTtiri •" I'-M'. II !•-Iii, ; r .i , . .,..-, ,'MI' ' ' r • ' i' iiri i M'I ^ 

,->/. ; -l '*i'-' M l l ' tl'^l'f'i'Tf*'*' •''"'•' "'I'"'"'!''''!" ' ••'*•'•'' ' ^^*•'!'*»'^<||•7J'lirl).•i•^^^*.i •VvJ'.i; 

•*jin''''wpr']nT"''^''Ti'^!'^r'''Ln^'''|'V''1''V' :'i ' ' '''V: M:'I'I iM/Mfn •.• >. I'lii'ii'iv '— ^ 

A^i '•'•;|J,'||'|JI!|IM'. :.ri|l||l., |.|'i|l||l||l|l||l|| 'III '||l.l . . '.l l .,fi|i|ri,';..l|,.',-,.r-i.,t.,f.i ,•', .' .^, f , fJ, . . ' T , 

POWELL & KOHLER'S 

PRACTICAL SYSTEM FOR CUTTING. 

' '!M''I | I I'l'! ' i'l'IM I ' • il l M'll'iril' l I'l I 'Ij i '|l ' ' I ''• . M 'MM I'l n ;';il|-,•<,->•,., ,.. p I .-liV. I I'l I'l I', 11 • ' 

/ t ^ , .^ ^. « 4 I v H It 1 •> if It i/ 1.1 If V ll ti :, » N .t ti !•< If J, n 1, n! M js M J, J) „ V » ^ II If il if If if I, I .'HzeSll. 

^jr'"7"''7n"j'!'j'M'MM''lT!i'l'^'l]';'l"^'^n' ' ,:'•'•'" IT''ri;'-^'!]'li'M, I'll': I'liilV i -Vll , I'lr.i'nv',,;!! 1 , 

' ' '' II ;'^i""'', .!.';• '-'- - ' ' ' I • • 

J, I Jl d i 

"^ Vi'T^i'l' 'I I'. I'l 

y, ft if if It A f ll il if .y if .^ f .1 i If i- w f jf i .. i; i 

V\'i\)'\ iif!nii.i'i'ri'ii'irii-it|.|!i;ii,nr|l|jiM , 

A ^ o^iL<.u. 

h tllf IJ ll If i^ il if I, : • -I. ^ .1 /A It II ^ j ^ : 

i 3 !j 7 « i ti ) IB il|njsi)ll31«isail>.t a :|IB »»?!)!»».II lilJ^ISBljjJJBW O HtLUe It It fill JD ,*»(•.'.' j 
NUMBER 42 29 

7. ^ 

J* I ^ 

A 

f 

M 

! 

//if 

jjit 

'T''*r'n n*i 

/>>/ i 

^29i 

50*-

B # // /-/ 

.« 
30 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

His system had become obsolete even before his 

patent was granted or his book copyrighted. 

Changing fashions condnued to affect the longevity of individual drafting systems. 

In 1868 Powell & Kohler published in Cincinnati, Ohio, a proportional method with a different 

type of tool. This system used a series of numbered 

strips, one for each size based on "breast" measurement (22 to 48 inches). These 27 strips, each 

divided into 50 equal parts, were printed on a 

single sheet of paper folded into the back of the 

instruction booklet (Figure 19a). The user was to 

have pasted this paper onto a stiff pasteboard and 

then cut the strip-scales apart. The scale to be used 

was selected according to the breast measurement. 

The drafting process with this strip tool was not as 

simple as using a perforated chart. Nevertheless Powell & Kohler were probably right when they claimed 

that anyone of ordinary intelligence could learn this 

system in 15 to 30 minutes. In the authors' example 

(Figure 19^) the individual had a 34 inch breast measurement. Thus, the scale marked "Size 34" was 

selected. To start, a verdcal base line (A to B) and a 

shorter horizontal line (A to C) were drawn using the 

two arms of a common square as a guide. The strip 

scale was placed next to the vertical base line and dots 

were then made on this line next to specified numbers 

on the scale. In the case of the back of a lady's dress, 

dots were placed at numbers 1, 6, 10, 14V2, 19V2, 23, 

25!/2, 35V2, 45, and 46V2. A horizontal line was drawn 

from each of these dots perpendicular to the vertical 

base line. The scale was then placed on each horizontal 

line and a dot marked on this line next to a specified 

number on the scale. For example, the horizontal line 

at point one was dotted at six on the scale. The next 

horizontal line at point six was dotted at 14y2. The 

third horizontal line at point 10 was dotted at 20V2 

and so on until the outline of the bodice piece was 

formed by a series of dots. The drafter connected 

the dots free hand. The numbers of the dots remained the same vertically and horizontally for 

each pattern piece no matter what the size of the 

individual. The eventual size of the garment depended upon the scale that was used, which in turn 

was determined by the breast measurement. 

Powell 8c Kohler's method had disadvantages 

similar to the perforated proportional systems. 

namely, not being very successful in drafdng garments that fit well and becoming obsolete as fashions changed. The authors attempted to eliminate 

these disadvantages through two strategies. To 

draft a more accurately fitted garment, the Powell 

& Kohler method instructed the dressmaker to 

take two more measurements in addition to the 

breast measurement. These extra measurements 

(waist and underarm length) were not an intrinsic 

part of these systems but were to be used to "proof 

or check the pattern once it was drafted. If there 

was a discrepancy between these direct measurements and the pattern, the pattern was to be altered. Powell 8c Kohler also attempted to prevent 

their method from becoming obsolete due to fashion changes. They intended to publish annual 

supplementary editions which would guide the 

subscriber in the art of cutting the most current 

styles with their system. As they told their readers, 

this will enable all to keep up with, or rather in advance of the 

most popular styles, at a much less expense than by taking costly 

magazines, which after all do not teach you how to cut, but leave 

you to work out the problem for yourselves or to go to a 

professional cutter, at an annual cost of perhaps twice the price 

of our "system" (1868:20). 

Powell &: Kohler's proportional system utilizing 

strips and the proportional methods using perforated charts may have had a common origin. It is 

obvious to me that the concept behind the graduated strips, used to mark points on perpendicular 

base lines in the draft, was derived from the divided strips integral to Wilson's 1827 tailors' system 

(Figure 6). As reported before, this was a modification of the tailors' system published in England 

by Minister in 1822. It has occurred to me that the 

perforated propordonal tools might also have the 

same lineage. For if the Powell 8c Kohler strips 

were used to mark the drafdng points for all the 

possible sizes on the same sheet of paper the 

spread of drafdng points would look very much 

like the perforated tools we have been examining. 

Thus it is my opinion that it was the perforated 

form of this kind of tool that was uniquely an 

American creadon. It was the simplest to use and 

its simplicity ensured its continuance in future 

hybrid systems. 

"^^S^MQJS^P^<-ig>U<iJ ^ ^ 
NUMBER 42 31 

Hybrid Systems 

Both Tentler and Powell &: Kohler recommended 

using several direct measurements to correct the 

patterns drafted by their proportional systems. 

Others felt that the failings of proportional methods were too great to be corrected after the fact. 

These individuals created new systems by hybridizing proportional methods with direct measurements. They wanted to create methods that had 

the best features of both—the simplicity of proportional methods and the greater accuracy of 

direct-measure techniques. Thus the majority of 

dressmakers' drafting systems that purported to be 

proportional were really hybrid methods. 

Hybrid systems could differ from each other in 

all the ways that the proportional systems varied. 

They could also differ as to the number and kinds 

of direct measurements used and how these dimensions were integrated with the proportional 

methods. The forms of the tools also took on 

greater variety as new features were added. 

At first glance, "The American Dress Chart" 

published in 1868 in Danville, Indiana, by Cox 8c 

Minton (Figure 20) might be confused with the 

proportional systems. Like many of the earlier 

systems, the single sheet of paper was a "perforated" tool that required the user to make the holes 

for marking the drafting points. It was, however, 

one of the simplest and most obvious examples of a 

hybrid method. The "breast" measure designated 

the prescribed drafting points determining all 

breadth dimensions including the width of the 

shoulders and the circumference of the neck. The 

underarm length measurement of the woman, 

however, determined the underarm dimension of 

her garment. The drafting point for this measurement, ranging from six to nine inches measured to the nearest quarter inch, was marked 

through the designated circle. The lengths of the 

center front and center back, however, were not 

determined by direct measurements. These dimensions were affected both by proportions determined by the "breast" measurement in the neck 

area and by the underarm measurement which 

dictated the location of the waistline. 

Significandy, none of the previously mentioned 

drafting tools helped with drawing the curves of 

the pattern outline. The absence of curved-edge 

guides was common both to the dressmakers' systems and most of the more numerous tailors' 

methods. Nevertheless, tools to aid the drawing of 

the curved lines had been used earlier in other 

trades, particularly for complex curves or those of 

larger radii than could be conveniently drafted 

with a compass. Probably the earliest examples of 

these specialized aids were the sets of curves made 

of thin wood by a ship designer to fit his individual 

requirements (Chappelle, 1967:20). By about the 

mid-19th century "French" or "irregular" curves, 

continually varying in degree of curvature, were 

being offered in catalogs of mathematical, drawing, and measuring instruments (McAllister 8c 

Brother, 1855:43). 

Like the early ship designers who used homemade curves, some tailors probably devised their 

own curves. In fact, the patterns developed by 

many 18th century tailors fulfilled the purpose of a 

set of curves. Also, Giles reported that some early 

tailors, finding the armscye to be the most difficult 

part to draft, resorted to using various sized horseshoes as drawing aids. Or an even simpler technique was to place the left hand on the cloth with 

the fingers and thumb spread widely and then 

draw the armscye with chalk following the circular 

outline established by the fingertips (Giles, 

1887:89). 

Nevertheless, most of the early 19th century 

instruction booklets ^^ published in the United 

States, commonly directed tailors merely to "cast," 

"sweep," or "strike" a curve. An 1822 booklet said 

this should be done "with a pair of compasses, or 

with a thread" (Jones, 1822:12). Sweeping a curve 

was done in two ways depending upon the drafting 

procedure: either by establishing an external 

"centre" or "pivot" or by specifying the length of 

the radius. An example of the latter is an 1842 

direction to "sweep the side and shoulder seams by 

the length of the waist" (Williams, 1842:4). These 

techniques were included regularly in American 

publications on tailoring as late as the 1860s. 

Tailors who did not use any of the above techniques or curved tools drew the curves freehand. 

They developed a "compass in the eye" as was 

expected of the students of early 19th century 

'^ I have examined about 30 tailors' instruction booklets 

dating from 1809 to 1871. 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

drawing manuals (Marzio, 1976:31). 

Commercially produced curves were probably 

used by some tailors when they were manufactured 

for other trades. In 1849 the New York magazine 

for tailors, the Mirror of Fashion, listed for sale a 

"Curved Ruler" for 50 cents (1849:16). This tool 

stands out among the variety of squares and scales 

that were offered. In 1861 Joseph H. Noland received a copyright for a printed sheet of paper 

which included both diagrams and instructions for 

his hybrid drafdng system for tailors. The directions specified which section of a "Developing Pattern" or curve to use to draw a particular portion 

of a pattern. Two curves were illustrated in miniature, "Developing Pattern no 2" and "Developing 

Pattern no 7." They were shaped very much like 

FIGURE 20. Tool (intended to be perforated) printed on a sheet of paper, 66.2 x 57.0 cm, for the 

1868 hybrid system of Cox and Minton of Danville, Indiana. (Prints and Photographs Division, 

Library of Congress.) 
NUMBER 42 33 

curves sold in large sets for ship designers and 

similar trades. I suspect that the two "developing 

patterns" Noland depicted were from a large, 

manufactured set. 

Dressmakers' systems of the first half of the 19th 

century did not include tools with curved edges to 

help with drawing. Nor were dressmakers commonly directed to sweep a curve.*"* Instead, they 

were instructed to connect the drafting points, 

freehand, using as a visual reference the outline 

printed on the tool or in the directions. 

In the last halt ot the 19th century, however, 

curved edges became an increasingly important 

feature of dressmakers' drafting tools. The earliest 

example I found was James H. Chappell's perforated tool for a hybrid system located in the Prints 

and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress (Appendix II). Chappell received a copyright 

on 28 December 1853 for this dressmakers' tool, 

which was printed on a rectangular piece of paper. 

Previously, Chappell had created drafting systems 

for tailors. He was granted a patent on 18 January 

1834 for a technique he called the "spherical system of drafting and cutting garments" with an 

"elastic square" (U.S. Patent 7,962X). In 1839 he 

published an instruction booklet for The Patent 

Transfer System. In this publication he instructed 

tailors to sweep most of the curves of a man's coat. 

Fourteen years later, however, Chappell did not 

incorporate this common tailors' technique in his 

system for dressmakers. Instead he intended for 

the back, neck, and side pieces to be cut apart and 

used separately and he instructed the dressmaker 

to "mark the curves by the edge of the piece as by 

the edge of a rule, or scribe" (Chappell, 1853). The 

way he explained how to use the curved edges 

suggests that it was a relatively new technique. Or, 

at least, he did not expect all dressmakers to understand readily the purpose of the curved edges. 

C. E. Mosher's 1873 "Bon Ton Dress Chart" 

manufactured in Lawrence, Massachusetts, was a 

hybrid system requiring a tool with specifically 

curved edges to help draw some of the lines for the 

draft of a bodice (Figure 21). The two-piece tool 

'* Zabina Holbrook's 1870 hybrid system with a perforated 

tool was an unusual exception. The dressmaker was directed to 

•'place the right hand at the front of the neck, and with the left 

sweep the point, or lower part of the forepart, from the bottom 

of the side seam. The length of point may be altered according 

to fashion or taste" (Holbrook & Co., 1870). 

was printed on thin cardboard, perforated, and cut 

out when it was manufactured. The "bust" measure proportionally dictated the dimensions of the 

shoulder, neck, and armhole. Direct measurements dictated the distance from the "neck to the 

hollow on the shoulder," the waist, and the "length 

of waist." This last measurement was the length of 

the body to the waist under the arm. The dimensions of the bust darts or "biases" were determined 

by taking the difference between a "loose measure 

around the most prominent part of the bust, close 

up under the arms" and a "tight measure around 

the chest above the bust, below the shoulder 

blades." This difference identified which holes on 

the tool's "bias scales" would be marked to determine the size and location of the bust darts. 

The Mosher tool also incorporated a technique 

that was sometimes used for apportioning a direct 

measurement. Together, the "back waist measure" 

and the "front waist measure," near the bottom 

straight edge marked in inches, formed an apportioning scale. The purpose of an apportioning 

scale was to save the user from having to do any 

figuring. The scales predetermined how much of a 

direct body measurement would be covered by 

which piece of the garment. For example, in the 

Mosher tool the dressmaker marked through the 

hole*^ marked "26" on the "front waist measure" 

scale to designate how much of a 26-inch waist was 

covered by the front. The "back waist measure" 

scale allotted the amount for the back of the dress 

in the same manner. 

The 1890 Markley &: Son system from Topeka, 

Kansas, was similar to Mosher's in certain fundamental ways. It also was a hybrid system for which 

the "bust" measure proportionally determined all 

breadth dimensions except the waist and it used a 

perforated tool with curved edges (Figure 22). 

Although it was also used in a similar manner, 

there were differences. For example, after the 

proportionally determined drafting points were 

marked for the upper part of the dress front, the 

tool was moved again and again so that each of the 

appropriately curved edges were used as a guide 

for drawing the designated curved lines between 

the points. In the Markley & Son tool there were 

specific curves to help draw every line, not just a 

few. Then, following a set series of steps (carefully 

21). 

The holes were not punched in the extant example (Figure 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 21. The two-piece perforated and curved tool printed on cardboard for the hybrid system 

of C. E. Mosher of Lawrence, Massachusetts. (Smithsonian Institudon.) 
NUMBER 42 35 

described in a well written instruction booklet), the 

length dimensions were estabhshed using direct 

measurements. But, in addition to the length of the 

underarm (marked through the perforated grids 

on the front and back pieces), the lengths of the 

center front and center back were prescribed by 

direct measurements, determined on the draft 

using the curved center front and center back 

edges of the tool that were also marked in inches. 

In the Markley 8c Son system the bust darts and 

underarm darts were determined by first finding 

the "taper" or difference between the bust and the 

waist measurement. The "taper scale" yielded a 

number that, when used to mark the drafting 

points, allotted a predetermined portion of the 

taper to each of the six darts (or four if a "halffitting" garment was desired). 

More than anything else, the differences between the Markley 8c Son system and the Mosher 

system were the result of changed fashions. The 

closer fitting fashionable style of the early 1890s 

demanded a greater number and more exact use 

of direct measurements. It also required specific, 

complexly curved outlines for each pattern piece. 

Also the addition of a vertical underarm dart 

helped to achieve a closer fit than was possible in 

the Mosher method. (In one type of bodice design 

of the mid-19th century there was no underarm 

seam: the bodice front extended under the arm to 

a side-back seam.) Although the Markley 8c Son 

system produced a "glove-fitting" garment, the cut 

was not the most stylish. It was more fashionably 

precise to use four pattern pieces for a dress 

bodice—front, underarm, side-back, and back— 

rather than just a front and back. 

The separate Markley &: Son sleeve system (Figure 23) used four direct measurements and did not 

incorporate any proportionally dictated dimensions. In this tool, the perforated grids were apportioning scales that allotted circumference measurements to the two pieces of the sleeve. 

John B. Plant was living in Pawtucket, Rhode 

Island, when he was granted a patent for a "Dress 

Chart " on 27 November 1900 (U.S. Patent 

662,817). At that time his hybrid system used a 

five-piece adjustable and perforated tool for drafting an entire dress. Four pieces were to be drafted 

for the "waist"—front, underarm, side-back, and 

back—and, significantly, one piece for the skirt. 

In the early 1890s skirts of fashionable dresses 

were shorn of drapery and cut to fit smoothly over 

the hips. When this change occurred, drafting 

tools for cutting skirts were created. As fashions in 

the first eight years of the 20th century dictated 

even closer fitting skirts to emphasize an amply 

proportioned derriere, skirt systems appeared 

regularly, either as part of a dress cutting technique or by themselves (see Appendix III). 

John Plant was living in Biddeford, Maine, when 

in about 1904 he produced the tools bearing his 

name that are now in the Smithsonian Institution. 

The "Professor" (as he called himself) hoped to sell 

to customers in both Canada and in the United 

States. The directions on these tools were printed 

in French as well as in English. Plant's "Dress 

Cutting Machine" included the four pieces (Figure 

24<2) for drafting the dress bodice described in his 

patent. The "bust" measurement, ranging from 28 

to 48 inches, proportionally determined the upper 

dimensions around the neck, shoulder, and armhole through numbered perforations. Waist measurements from 20 to 38 inches were apportioned 

by the perforations in the waist area. And the 

vertical measurements of the front, underarm, and 

back dictated to what length the related portions of 

the tool should be adjusted. After the tool was 

adjusted, it was placed on the fabric or pattern 

paper and the drafting dots made. Then the tool 

was moved to use the curved edges to draw the 

lines between the dots. 

Plant's hybrid skirt system (Figure 25) had a 

different form from the instrument covered in the 

1900 patent. There is no reference to any other 

patent on the tool. This one-piece device was used 

to draft a gored skirt with three pieces—front, side, 

and back. The waist measurement was apportioned by the scales printed at the waist edge, while 

the waist measurement proportionally determined 

the width of the front and back pieces. The width 

of the side piece (midway between waist and hem) 

was defined according to "the width of skirt you 

desire." The lengths of all three patterns were 

dictated by the three length measurements. Again 

the various curves on the tool were used for drafting. 

Professor Plant's sleeve system (Figure 26) was a 

direct-measure method using one adjustable tool 

to draft the two sleeve pattern pieces. The tool was 

adjusted directly according to the measurements 

from wrist to elbow and from elbow to armhole. 

The circumference of the wrist, elbow, and armhole were apportioned by adjustable scales at the 
36 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 22a-c. Neatly perforated, precisely curved pieces of the 1890 hybrid system tool printed on 

cardboard for Markley & Son, Topeka, Kansas. (Courtesy of Sydney Brooks.) 

FIGURE 22a (below, left). Bodice front. 

FIGURE 226 (below, right). "Dart Rule,' combining a straight edge with an irregular curve. 
NUMBER 42 37 

FIGURE 23. Perforated tool printed on cardboard used for 

Markley & Son's 1890 direct-measure system for drafting 

sleeves. (Courtesy of Sydney Brooks.) 

FIGURE 22C. Bodice back 
38 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
NUMBER 42 39 

ritOr. J. B. PLANT. Biddeford *4«, 

PRICE, $15.CO (^^ 

r*itenwa }*n. 36, 190 0 Improved D«a. 13, I90ft 

Any Infringements -will be 

Prosecuted Accordinif to Law 

Local TTaTelling Agents Wanted for U. S. & Canada 

FIGURE 24a,^. "Dress Cutting Machine" offered in 1904 by 

Professor J. B. Plant of Biddeford, Maine, for $15. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 24a (left). The four-piece, perforated, adjustable 

cardboard tool for Plant's hybrid system of drafting a dress 

bodice. 

FIGURE 246 (above). Detail of front piece showing Professor 

Plant at work. The bust measurement was one of the most 

important dimensions in a hybrid system. Note the perforations in the tool reinforced by metal rings. 

corresponding sections of the tool. 

In addition to these methods. Professor Plant 

sold a "Children's System" for $2.50, which included a hybrid technique for cutting the bodice 

with a two-piece adjustable perforated tool and a 

direct-measure method for drafting sleeves with a 

two-piece perforated tool. Also, for $2.00, he sold a 

hybrid system with a one-piece perforated tool for 

cutting capes, as well as assorted cardboard 

patterns—some perforated—for a variety of collar 

styles, ranging in price from $0.30 to $0.75. 

Professor John B. Plant's work was probably 

carried on by a relative, Harry N. Plant, also of 

Biddeford, Maine, who was granted patents on 14 

February 1905 and 20 March 1906. They appear 

to have covered improvements on the Professor's 

earlier efforts. The four-piece tool for drafting a 

bodice was made to adjust in width as well as length 

so that a garment could be cut entirely from direct 

measurements (U.S. Patent 782,415). By similarly 

changing the skirt drafting tool this cutting technique was also converted from a hybrid system to a 

direct-measure method (U.S. Patent 815,467). 

In New York City, the Vienna Ladies' Tailoring 

Institute published a hybrid system. Although earlier instruction books bearing the name of the 

Institute exist, the tool illustrated was part of a 

system dating from about 1905. This hybrid 

method had only one proportionally determined 

dimension, the breadth of the shoulders. This was 

prescribed from the "bust" measurement by the 

"Proportionate Shoulder Measure" scale printed 

on the tool. Other dimensions were determined 

directly using seven measurements: "bust," waist, 

front, center back length, center front length, 

underarm length, circumference of neck, and 

"arm's eye."^^ The system used both sides of an 

irregularly curved cardboard tool (Figure 27a) and 

a square, marked in inches. Starting from two 

perpendicular lines a pattern piece was developed 

following a carefully established series of steps 

involving measuring, dotting, and drawing (Figure 

27b). The front and back neck scales printed on the 

tool were apportioning scales. The letters on the 

tool helped the user locate and place the right 

section of a curve for drawing. For example, to 

define the curved neck edge ("line C") on the 

front, letter "C" on the tool was placed on "dot X" 

of the draft. The tool was then pivoted until the 

left edge of the curve hit "dot 3." Then the line was 

drawn. This technique of using letters to designate 

critical points on a curved drafting tool appears in 

other systems. 

No doubt the Vienna Institute technique drafted 

a better fitting garment than the previously described methods, but it also was not as easy. That 

was the critical "trade off." The more direct measurements used in a hybrid system, the more accurate it was, but the more complicated to use. 

The dress cutting method advocated by Samuel T. 

Taylor of New York City was a hybrid system using 

proportional strips. Taylor claimed to have first of-

'® The "arm's eye" measurement was taken around the arm 

just over the point of the shoulder. 
FIGURE 26. Adjustable cardboard tool for Plant's directmeasure system of drafting sleeves, which could be added to the 

dress cutting system for an additional $5, (Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 25, Adjustable cardboard tool for a hybrid skirt drafting system for which Professor 

Plant charged $5 in 1904, (Smithsonian Institution.) 
NUMBER 42 41 

fered his drafting system to the public in 1848 

(Taylor, 1896:23), and a variation of this same system was published as late as 1919 by the S. T. Taylor 

Co. The longevity of this technique was extraordinary, a phenomenon that can be explained only by 

the flexibility of the drafting process, the diversification of the S. T. Taylor Co. enterprises, and the 

forcefulness of Taylor's personality. 

In spite of the remarkably long use of Taylor's 

system, I have not located an extant drafting tool 

for it. I have determined the form of the tool, 

however, from the evidence in several instruction 

booklets (Figures 28, 29). Although the drafting 

process was modified, the tool was not changed. 

The system required proportional strips similar to 

those used by the later Powell 8c Kohler method 

(Figure 19a). One strip was selected according to 

the "breast" measurement and attached to the long 

arm of a square. The second strip was selected 

according to the waist measurement and was attached to the short arm. The 16 divisions on each 

strip were used to determine critical drafting 

points along with certain direct measurements. 

The number and identity of these measurements 

and the way they were incorporated into the drafting process varied from one set of instructions to 

the next. The instructions were modified as fashions changed, as a better way was discovered, or in 

response to complaints. 

Dr. Minier, who was in the middle of a violent 

verbal duel with Taylor, wrote in 1857: 

The thing . . . falsely called S. T. Taylor's System for Dresscutting is not his, and never was; neither is it a system of 

dress-cutting at all; but a system for drafting men's attire; 

adapted to a man's figure, and not a female's .. . it is known as 

the Old Square Scale and Slide System invented about forty or 

fifty years ago . . ." (Minier, 1857:5). 

Minier was not an impartial reporter. Nevertheless, 

most of this statement concerning the origins of 

Taylor's method is credible. Being a "Practical 

Tailor" (Le Bon Ton, Jul 1857: inside front cover) 

Samuel T. Taylor probably modified an existing 

tailors' system to cut dresses. Wilson's 1827 hybrid 

system with proportional strips clamped on the arms 

of a square (Figure 6) was probably the prototype. 

Regardless of Dr. Minier's intended criticism, 

Taylor made the old system work for women's 

garments. By adding direct measurements to the 

drafting process, Taylor made his system more 

effective than the proportional charts or models. 

FIGURE 27a-c. Tool and detailed diagrams and instructions 

that had to be followed closely to draft a basic dress bodice using 

the hybrid system issued about 1905 by the Vienna Ladies' 

Tailoring Institute, New York. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

FIGURE 27a. Obverse and reverse of the curved cardboard 

tool printed on both sides. 
42 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

CENTER BACK. 

I Draft lines A a""^ B ^ inch from the edge and end of cloth, 

a Measure the distance given in the neck table according to size of neck 

under dot 2, down line A from line B ""d place dot 2-

NECK TABLE. 

For long shoulder* draft 

line H ^ inch longer than 

the proportionate shoulder 

measure and place dot I), 

Measure straight down 

from dot M and |^ inch 

in and place dot 12. Use 

letter V to draft line K. 

Bust ____ _ »4. 

"^^'^^c.'.'.v.v/y.v.'''''"'///' 22 

Front , , 

Baclt.""'"",''"'^""";; ,^ 

Underarm, _ "~ g 

Neck...,.:::.:::::::::;:----. , 

Arm's Eye. ,6 

To locate dot i 2. 

ARM'S EVE MEASURE. 

12, 13 and 14—1 ^ inches. 

15 •• 16—2 .' 

>7 " 18- 2 1.; .. 

19 «« 20 2',^ " 

21 " 22 — 2 ^ " 

Dot ^ 

Neck Size 

Dot 3 

A 

7 1 « 

H 1 '/^ r 

X ! ^ 

10 

I'A 

II ' 2 j 13 

y^ 

'54 '34 

H 

16 

' 7 

2 

i S 

2jfl 

3 Measure '.he distance given in the neck tabic under dot 3 on line B ^'om 

line A i>"<l place Hot 3 . 

4. Place the point of curve on dot 2 ""xl draft line C to <^ot 3 . 

J Measure down line A from dot 2 the length of back measure and place 

dot 4 . 

6 Draft line D straight out from dot 4 about $ inches. 

7 Measure one inch from dot 4 on line D ^'^^ place dot 5. 

8 Measure the distance from dot 5 (!>*( ^^ \.i!o\c gives for the width of center back and place dot 6. 

9 Draft line £ beginning 4 inches below line B »1<1 <lraft to dot 5. 

TO Measure $ inches straight down from dot 5 '"d place dot 7. 

11 Measure \^ inch in towards line A from dot 7 *nd place dot 8. 

12 Draft line F 'rom dot 5 to dot 8. 

13 Measure 6 ^ inches on line B f''om dot 3 "ntl place dot 9. 

14 Measure 4 inches straight down from dot 9 >nd place dot 10, 

I 5 Place letter A on dot 3 , the edge of curve on dot 10 and draft line H 

the proportionate length of shoulder and place dot ) 1. See table on curve. 

16 Meas'ire Z inches straight down from dot 11 and place dot 12, 

17 Place the point of curve on dot 11 and draft line J to dot 12. 

18 Place leitiT L on dot 12 and draft line K to dot Q. 

19 Draft lint Q J inches straight down from dot 8. 

For high or low shoulder, change the position of dot 1 0 up or down. 

For very high shoulder dot IQ should be only from 2 to 3 inchet from dot 9. 

SIDE FORM. 

1 Place the long arm of square on line A in the back drafting the (hort arm 

on dot 12 and draft line If straight out from dor 12. 

2 Measure z^^ inches out from dot 12 and place dot 2 on line %, 

3 Measure 2|^ inches from dot 6 on line D 'nd place dot 3 . 

4 Place letter L on dot 2 and draft line A to dot 3 . 

5 Measure tha distance given in the table for the width of side body from 

dot 3 *n<l place dot 4 . 

6 Measure ^ inch from dot 2 on line H >n<l place dot 5. 

7 Place letter H on dot 4 'nd draft line B to dot g. 

8 Measure 1 i4 inches down line B "from dot 5 "nd place dot 8, 

9 Place the point of curve on dot 2 and draft Hne C to dot 8. 

10 Measure ^ inch out from dot 4 and place dot 7. 

I I Measure $ inches straight down from dot 7 and place dot 8> 

1 2 Plaee letter A on dot 4 and draft line £ to dot 8. 

I 3 Measure 1 inch in from dot 3 and place dot 9< 

14 Measure 5 inches straight down from dot 9 and place dot 10. 

I 5 Draft line P from dot 3 to dot 10-

UNDER ARM FORM. 

1 Measure 3 inches from dot 4 (>" s'dc form) and place dot 2. 

2 Measure out from dot 2 the width of the under arm form as given in 

the table and place dot 3' 

3 Measure the distance between dots 4 and 6 «n the side form and then 

measure that distance straight up from dot 2 and place dot 4. 

4 Measure 1 14' inches straight out from dot 4 and place dot 5. 

5 Measure straight out from dot 4 the width of under arm form and 

place dot Q. 

6 Place the corner of square on dot 3, the edge on dot 6 and measure up 

from dot 3 the length oi under arm measure and place dot 7-

7 Place letter Q on dot 5 and draft line A to dot 2. 

8 Place letter M on dot 7 and draft line B to dot 3 . 

9 Place the point of curve on dot 5 and draft line C to dot 7. 

I o Measure I i^ inches in from dot 2 and place dot 8. 

I I Measure 5 inches straight down from dot 8 and place dot 9. 

I 2 Place letter A on dot 2 and draft line £ to dot 9, 

Measure one inch out from dot 3 and place dot IQ. 

Measure 5 inches straight down from dot 1 0 and place dot H , 

Place letter A on dot 3 and draft line P to dot H . 

' 3 

' 4 

FIGURE 21h. Instructions for drafting back, side-back, and underarm pattern pieces. 
NUMBER 42 43 

•5k."%.C Far long ahouU 

dert draft line f 

^ inch more 

than the proportionate shoulder 

mesiure and 

pkce dot 22. 

Meatore i)( 

inchet ia from 

dot 23 and place 

dot 24. 

To Locate Dot lo from D jt 8. 

WAIST MEASVRR. 

»8 to 20 , jnpi, 

ai to 23 ,! • „ 

nto2 7 jiy .. 

»7& ?8 , G „ 

»9&3 a 2 •' 

3 ' & 3*. ; « ^ •. 

Above 32 inches the same proportion. 

To place Dot 12 from Dot 11. 

WAIST MEASDRB 

19, 20 and 2t--J inch MEASURE. 

32. 23 and 24—f " Bust ,. 

25, 26 lad 27^ 1 " Waist "' „ 

28, 39and 30—ij " Front '.'..'.'.'.'. 15 

Bac k •••, , 

Above 30 inches in fame pm- Under Ann.. . '" « 

!»'*«>»• Neck .•.•.•!;;:ii 

Ann'aEye !.,.. . 16 

FRONT. 

I Draft Hne A > H inches from the edge uf good*, 

z Draft line B one inch from the end of goodi. 

3 Measure the distance given in the neck table (accurdiDg to size of neck) 

under dot 2 on line A from line B and place dot 2. 

NECK TABLE. 

Dot 2 

Neck 

Dot 3 

' 

7 

2 

^% 

8 

2>& 

911 0 11 

1% 

12 >3 

2 % 

i3. _4 

'5 

3 

4 ^ 

16 

3>6 

'7 

1% 

^a 18 

3 ^ 

4 Measure the distance given in the neck table under dot 3 on line B irom 

line A ind place dot 3 , 

) Measure ^ inch straight out from dot 2 and place dot X. 

6 Place letter Q on dot X and draft line C to dot 8. 

7 Measure ^ of the arm's eye meaiure down Une A &om line B and 

place dot 4-

8 Measure ^ of the arm's eye meaiure down line A ^"x ^Bt B and 

place dot 5. 

9 Draft f om dot X to dot 5. 

10 Place the corner of square on dot 6 'nd draft line 0 straight out be 

pnning 6 inchet from dot §. 

11 Measure out line D f't^i dot 9 the distance given in the table (ar Butt 

number and place dot 8. 

11 Measure the length of nader arm meaiure ttraight down from dot 8 

and (la<^e dot 7. 

IJ Pl>4< e letter A on dot 7 <u>d draft fine B to dot 8> 

14 Measure the length of front measure down Hue A ^'on dot 8 and puce 

dot 8. 

11 Place letter • on dot 8 and draft tine F to dot 7-

16 Measure a inchet down tine B from dot 8 wd place dot 8-

17 Place the corner of t<)ttare on dot 4 , the edge on dot 8 'o d draft line 

Q out 4 inches beginning z inchea from dot 4< 

18 Measure 1 ^ incliet on line f from dot 8 u d place dot IQ. 

19 Measure ^ the width of the daru Mgiptn in tkt Uilt, from dot 1 0 

and place dot H . 

20 Measure ^ inch from dot H and place dot I8 . 

31 Measure ^ the width of the dam from dot 12 *^ pl*c« dot %%, 

2S Meaiure the dlttance between dot 8 uid tin center of the ftrttdvt, and 

MJJ }i iKch, then measure that dittanee oa ]be 0 fi«m dot 4 ood place dot 14, 

23 Measure the distance between dot 9 Md die center of the aecend dan and 

add ^ inch, then measure that disunce on Hue % from dot 4 and place dot IB, 

24 Place the ^ mark on dot IQ and draft fine B to dot 14. 

Turn the curve over and draft line {^ uung the ^ mark. 

Draft linct J and X in like manner. 

Meature $ inchet straight down from dot 18 and place dot 18. 

Measure ^ inch in from dot 18 and place dot 17. 

Draft line If from dot 10 to dot 17. 

Draft lines M, If and Q parallel with Iin« ||. 

Meature t% inchet ttraight out from dot 7 and place dot 18, 

Meature ; inchet ttndght down from dot | 8 and place dot 19. 

Place letter A on dot 7 and draft line P to dot 18. 

Meature 6yi inchet from dot 8 on line B and place dot 80. 

Measure i ^ inchet straight down from dot 8 0 ai>d place dot 21 . 

Place letter A on dot 8| the edge of curve on dot 8 1 and draft Une Q 

^ inch less than the proportionate length of shoulder and place dot 2 8 [*" f'^ft 

m furvtifor difUnit). 

37 Draft line X straight down from dot 82 to line ]). 

Meature 1 ^ inches up line R from bne Q and place dot 83 . 

Meaiure \^ inch itraight in from dot 28 and place dot 84 . 

Place letter Q on dot 84 and draft line 8 to dot 8. 

Place letter K on dot 2 4 and extend line 8 to dot 82. 

The front can be curved if desired. 

Place letter E on dot X and draft a curved line f to meet line Ki% inchet 

below dot 4 . 

Place tetter H on the end of line f and draft to meet line A 3 inchet below 

dot 8- ^f' dotted linti. 

For a low-cut cortet draft n new line Q i ^ inchet below line 0< ^** 

dotted linei. 

IMPORTANT—The front ihoulder it drafted ^ inch thorter than the back and 

mutt bc ttretched to meet the back. 

25 

26 

a7 

a8 

29 

30 

3« 

3» 

33 

34 

35 

36 

3« 

39 

40 

4' 

FIGURE 27C. Instructions for drafting front pattern piece. 
44 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

And by changing the drafting process as fashions 

changed, Taylor was able to keep his system up to 

date.^^ His technique did not become obsolete as 

did so many other hybrid methods. 

Nevertheless, Taylor's system for cutting dresses 

could not have survived for so long without the 

support of his diversified enterprises. He described his latest drafting techniques in his 

monthly magazines.^^ In 1857 each number of L^ 

'^ In 1868, Powell & Kohler reported that they intended to 

keep their clients up to date with yearly supplements. They may 

have been copying Taylor's example. 

'* Taylor published as many as five magazines at one time; 

apparently he never had fewer than two. 

Bon Ton included a fashion report from Paris, four 

steel engraved fashion plates executed and colored 

in Paris, and two full-size imported patterns. Also 

included was a liberal dose of Taylor's advice, 

observations, and vitriolic criticisms of his competitors. His other publication at the time was Le 

Petit Messager with a similar format. During the 

same period he also had a dressmaking establishment at 407 Broadway, New York. Although he 

warned against their "injurious effect," Taylor also 

sold patterns, trimmed as they were to be made, in 

a set with a plain duplicate. He later explained that 

he must sell them "as long as you are determined to 

have them, for it would be mortifying to see my 

subscribers compelled to get patterns from others 

who never import, but change and fix up their 

Centennial Medal of Highest Merit 

Av\arded overall Competitors to S. T. Taylor's System for Cutting Ladies' Dresses. 

MEDALS AWARDED TO S. T. TAYLOR 

For hiy Sy.^^tein of Cutting Ladies' Dresses, at the Fair of the Maryland Institute 

for the Promotion of the Mct-hanic Arts, held in Baltimore, in 1851, and at the 

World's Fair, hold in New York, in 1853. 

FIGURE 28. Flamboyant promotion for S. T. Taylor's system that appeared in his 1877 instrucdon 

booklet. The system had been given a medal at the 1876 International Exhibidon in Philadelphia for 

individual merit, but not, however, a prize "over all competitors" as stated in this notice. As pictured 

here, a complete S. T. Taylor system consisted of an instruction book, a square, a set of scales, and a 

measure book, each item (according to his 1875 instruction booklet) priced separately: $3.00, $3.00, 

$2.50, and $1.50, respectively. (Library of Congress.) 
NUMBER 42 45 

styles from my importations " {Le Bon Ton, 

1860:182). 

Samuel T. Taylor was a flamboyant entrepreneur and promoter, whose efforts to proselydze 

sometimes strained the truth. This trait continued 

to be reflected by his successors after he ceased 

being active in the company in the 1870s. An 

example of the double talk that was sometimes 

used to sell Taylor's system appeared in an 1896 

instruction booklet. By this time proportional and 

hybrid systems had fallen into disrepute among 

many professional dressmakers who preferred 

direct-measure methods. It was reported: 

S. T. Taylor's System of Dresscutting . . . does not require any 

special and complicated tool for making its shapes and patterns; 

a square and tape measure are sufficient. It .. . is a system of 

actual measurement... to however facilitate matters for the 

dressmaker, and save her a great deal of figuring, diset of scales 

have been added, two of which are attached to the square in 

order to make drafting easy, and relieve the mind of the 

dressmaker from figuring, which sometimes is not much to her 

taste (Taylor, 1896:24). 

The tailors' system that Samuel T. Taylor had 

converted into a hybrid method for dress cutting 

was thus, in 1896, blithely called a direct-measure 

system. 

SHORT ARM. 

FIGURE 29. Detail of tool for Samuel T. Taylor's 

hybrid system showing how two proportional 

paper strips, one for a 32-inch bust and the other 

for a 24-inch waist, were placed on the square, 

from the 1911 instruction booklet. (Library of 

Congress.) 

Direct-Measure Systems 

Dress fashions in the last quarter of the 19th century (Figures 30, 31) created cutting difficulties 

that could best be solved by the most accurate 

techniques. Thus, professional dressmakers preferred direct-measure systems to proportional or 

hybrid methods. In 1884, Mrs. Elizabeth Gartland, 

creator of a direct-measure technique, observed: 

Dressmaking is not what it was ten years ago, for within the last 

few years the tendency of the times has called forth the most 

artistic skill. The close-skin-fitting busts and sleeves of to-day 

require scientific cutting and fitting. A fault at once shows itself, 

and disfigures the wearer; consequently, it is more essential to 

ladies to have perfect-fitting garments now than it has been at 

any previous dme (1884:12). 

The whimsy of fashion not only changed the fit 

of women's dresses, it radically changed the apparent shape of women. To be considered fashionably 

correct, a woman must have compressed and padded herself to the "right" form by the time she had 

finished dressing. In particular, the fashions of the 

moment dictated a sensuous double reverse curve 

starting at the back of the neck, becoming concave 

at the waist, and projecting outward to create that 

astonishing protuberance called a bustle. Since no 

woman was formed that way, dressmakers had to 

create a new shape for their fashion conscious 

customers. Women's torsos became solid, artificial, 

multicurvilinear structures over which the outer 

dress fabric must fit like a second skin. To create 

this extraordinary style, dressmakers had to cut 

subtly curved, complex patterns with many pieces 

(Figure 31). This period, more than any other 

before or since, required professional dressmakers 

to be skilled at drafdng. Thus they preferred the 

most accurate type of system, the direct-measure. 

In 1896 the Samuel T. Taylor Co. faced this 

crisis obliquely. Taylor's hybrid system was simply 

called a direct-measure system. Others, such as 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

.^i»ate tsC j*«iCwi^ir /W^v.^^/w 4037 

FIGURE 30. September 1876 fashion plate showing latest Paris costumes with draped skirts and 

carefully cut bodices shaped to fit smoothly over the hips, irom Journal des Demoiselles. (Smithsonian 

Institution.) 
NUMBER 42 47 

Mrs. Louisa L, Jackson of Richmond, Indiana, 

dealt with the problem more directly. When Mrs. 

Jackson was granted a patent, 25 May 1869, her 

method was a hybrid system using six direct measurements. The curved perforated tool was made 

of sheet metal or cardboard (Figure 32). When she 

published the 1876 edition of her instruction booklet, Mrs. Jackson's system had become a directmeasure method. 

Under the new system nine measurements were 

required. The curved, perforated tool used inch 

scales for linear dimensions such as length of center front or width of shoulders and apportioning 

scales for circumferential measurements such as 

waist or "arm size" [armscye] (Figure 33). The 1876 

Jackson system produced a more accurate draft 

than the earlier method but the drafting process 

was not easily learned and remembered. It was not 

that there were any calculations to be made—the 

apportioning scales eliminated that complication—but the many steps that had to be followed in 

a specific order meant that it took a lot of practice 

to use this procedure with any speed. A miniature 

tool, along with the full-size version, was enclosed 

in the instruction booklet for the beginner to use 

for practice. 

Probably the most serious problem for the 1876 

Jackson system was that the tool looked too much 

like the old proportional and hybrid "charts" and 

"models." It was not similar in principle, but the 

curved perforated tool was superficially similar in 

form. Apparently Mrs. Jackson was able to demonstrate the real value of her system as she published at least one later edition of her instruction 

book. But the mood of the current dressmaking 

trade was against anything that appeared to be 

based on proportional dressmaking methods. 

The search for "new scientific" techniques took 

innovators in two different directions. Both were 

efforts to develop the best possible direct-measure 

system. One approach reverted to using the 

simplest of tools while the other developed more 

specialized drafting devices. 

Some dressmakers had become so disillusioned 

with charts and models, finding them useful only 

in giving the shape of a piece but not in giving the 

correct dimensions, that they gave up all specialized tools. Instead, they used just the tape measure 

to take their measurements and to draft their patterns or linings. These most basic of methods differed from the 18th century ways only in that the 

19th century techniques were repeatable, systematic procedures instead of intuitive, individualistic 

processes. 

In 1886 the formidable looking Madame E. W. 

Mallison (Figure 34) published her direct-measure 

system in Washington, D.C. Thirteen measureFicURE 31. The close fitting basque worn in 1886 with a 

draped skirt distended by a large bustle. The precisely defined 

shape of the basque (above) required a subtly curved pattern of 

sophisticated cut (below), from Mme. Mallison, The Eclectic 

Lady-Tailor System of Dress Cutting. (Library of Congress.) 
z.z.y^L 

Zf^^ 'z%^Z^/^. 

yT<'9g363. 

/v. 
NUMBER 42 49 

FIGURE 33. The full-size, six-piece curved, perforated tool for Louisa L. Jackson's direct-measure 

system, which was printed on a single sheet of paper, 76.2 x 86.4 cm, and bound into the back of her 

1876 instruction booklet. The printed paper tool was to have been glued onto a piece of cardboard or 

thin wood and then cut out and the holes punched or drilled. (Library of Congress.) 

ments were required to draft a "basque' (two of 

these measurements were the "height of hip" and 

the circumference of the hip). Another eight meaFIGURE 32. Curved perforated tool for a hybrid drafting system for which Louisa L. Jackson of Richmond, Indiana, obtained a patent in 1869. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

surements were used to draft the sleeves. The only 

tools needed for measuring and drafting were a 

tape measure and a common square. The square, 

however, was not absolutely essential. Mme. Mallison reported that one lady, who did not have a 

square handy, successfully used the Mallison 

method by improvising with a broom handle and a 
50 

FIGURE 34. Madame E. W. Mallison, as she was pictured in the 

booklet she published in Washington, D.C, in 1886, presenting 

her direct-measure system that required no specialized tools. 

Her drafting method could be followed with only a tape measure and a square. (Library of Congress.) 

measuring tape (1886:6). Mallison, however, 

thought of her technique as a modern scientific 

system. She called her instruction booklet. Dress 

Making Reduced to a Science; the Eclectic Lady-Tailor 

System of Dress Cutting. 

While direct-measure systems using the simplest 

of tools may have been accurate, the drafting processes were complicated. A good understanding of 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the endre procedure was necessary before an individual could be successful. This requirement was 

not compatible with the popular demand for an 

easy-to-use method. A creator of a tailors' hybrid 

system, Joseph H. Noland, observed in 1861 that 

"things that are slow to go will soon be no go in the 

great market of the world—this busy, MONEYmaking world, where lightning and steam are harnessed up and driven as the wheel-horses of the 

new creation" (Noland, 1861). 

By the last quarter of the 19th century, social, 

economic, and technological pressure made speed, 

efficiency, and ease of learning a system critical 

characteristics for a drafting method. Thus, the 

majority of systems that were described in print 

during this period required unique tools or devices 

thought to simplify the application of directmeasure principles of drafdng. Each innovator 

struggled with what he hoped would be the solution to the interrelated problems of efficiency and 

reliability. The most important types of these 

direct-measure systems may be divided into three 

groups according to the common characterisdcs of 

the tools—square, adjustable, and conforming. 

Squares 

The first group used the form of the common 

tailor s square. To this were added apportioning 

scales and sometimes curves. James A. Wilson's 

tool, copyrighted in 1880, added a reverse curve to 

a square with apportioning scales (Figure 35). Nine 

measurements including hip circumference were 

needed to draft a "basque." Another two measurements were needed for the sleeve. Although his 

tool was printed on paper and attached to a small 

instruction booklet, Wilson intended that it be 

applied to wood to make it durable enough to last a 

lifetime. 

Mr. B. T. Phelps of Bellows Falls, Vermont, was 

granted a patent on 26 June 1883 for a square-type 

tool he and his wife had been selling for several 

years (Figure 36). Although the long arm was 

curved slightly as an aid to drawing curved lines, 

this device retained the original form of the tailor's 

square. Eleven measurements (including hip circumference) were used with the apportioning 

scales to draft a tight fitting "basque." Four more 

measurements were used to draft the sleeves. 

J. R. Bayne's tool, shown in his 1883 instruction 
NUMBER 42 51 

FIGURE 35. James A. Wilson's square tool with curves, which was printed on paper and attached to 

his 1880 instruction booklet describing a direct-measure system. (Library of Congress.) 
(Ho Model.) 

No. 279,979. 

B. T. PHELPS. 

DRESS SQUARE. 

Patented Jnne 26, 188a. 

F 

Tiy ./. 

IHHrtjaH^WTBTTlTW 

r<Ha^j[rfflaa^,i.!.i...r,i.i,lii,i,i.'ii, xiAU 

^vy .£. 

±11 

• '^q^' 

J_1_L 

a79,07B. OUarNOAU ltoiuaT.Piiw>,UlniNhTi 

I nuiuftim (K.B.M.) 

Ci*im,—TW dRH-.qaw« bnvjiij; . lMi).i:r anil •borm wm, UK 

fctMW kivbig th. oonvel curve a 6 .1 iln und mt th. inner iide for nliout 

WI^MHA at iu Ifiigtli, UM ui 4 .^lura licinK pravitlnl widi tbe urdinvy 

M d . .f fc.1 i W iadiet uid UK vuioui wal.. for meaKUrin^ Uie diftrMt put. of dw (HWflt, U Ml follll. 

HMi»y>« 

FnirerUoi 

la 

Briaham Fkoina^ £helps. 

fy/2jU^ qd^y. 
NUMBER 42 53 

booklet (Figure 37), used more curves than the 

Wilson device. Ten measurements (including hip 

circumference) were needed to draft a basque with 

the apportioning scales. Another six measurements were needed to draft sleeves. 

The Wilson, Phelps, and Bayne systems required 

constant shifting of the respective tools as drafting 

points and lines were established to define the 

pattern pieces. The drafting processes required 

close attention to the step by step instructions. The 

major advantage of this type of method over those 

requiring no specialized tools was that the apportioning scales saved the dressmaker from having to 

make any calculations. But many felt that this was 

not enough to recommend these systems utilizing 

squares. In 1891 it was stated that "the time required to learn [systems with squares], the many 

things to be kept in mind, and their slowness to use 

after they are understood" convinced many 

dressmakers "that something more rapid and 

practical is required for their work" (McDowell 

Garment Drafting Machine Co., 1891 :i). 

Adjustable 

Adjustable drafting tools were a solution that certain inventors proposed. The best known of this 

type was the "McDowell Garment Drafting Machine" produced in New York City. Before inventing his adjustable tool, however, Albert McDowell 

developed a system using a square (Figure 4M) 

that, minus its sliding arm, was very similar to the 

Phelps device (Figure 36). The placement and content of the scales were different, but the form was 

the same. Later the McDowell Company admitted 

that this system based on a square "was about as 

slow as the others and required good judgement to 

use correctly" (1891 :i). To emphasize this point 

further, a McDowell advertising leaflet referred to 

squares as being useful only as an ornament to 

hang on the wall (Figure 38). 

The preferred McDowell system was a directmeasure method requiring an adjustable tool. In 

FIGURE 36. The "Excelsior Square" (U.S. Patent 279,979) with 

apportioning scales, required for Brigham Thomas Phelps' 

direct-measure system. According to the 1883 instruction book 

published in Bellows Falls, Vermont, the complete Phelps 

system—the tool, the instruction book, and a measure book— 

cost $15. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

ii 

^RAHISSCALE"% 

• FlUNCH GLOVK FnTINC ^ 

— TniLoir SrsrrM »^ 

'X]RESSQJTTlNa 

FIGURE 37. Drafting tool illustradon included by J. Reid Bayne 

in the 1883 instruction booklet for his direct-measure system. 

(Library of Congress.) 

this system the prescribed measurements were 

taken from the customer with an inch tape measure or sometimes with the inch scale on the obsolete McDowell square with sliding arm. The plates 

of each piece of this metal "machine" were adjusted in a set sequence so that the gauge at each 

adjustment point was set at the body measurement 

for that portion of the garment. For example, if 

the waist measurement was 24 inches, then the 

waist gauge was eased to the number 24 at each 

adjustment point. It was not necessary for the 

dressmaker to figure out how much of the 24 inch 

waist was to be apportioned to the front, how much 

to the side, and how much to the back. McDowell's 

machine did the apportioning for her. Once all 

adjustments had been made on one of the ma-
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 38. According to the dressmaker pictured in this c.1892 McDowell advertisement, her 

tailor's square hangs on the wall as an ornament since she started using the McDowell Garment 

Machine. (Smithsonian Insdtudon.) 

chine's pieces, a pattern was drawn by following 

the outline established by the tool. 

McDowell proposed or made at least five different forms of his machine. These variations were 

reflected in the drawings that accompanied 

McDowell patent specifications and the illustrations included in McDowell instruction booklets. 

Thre e U.S. patents were granted to Albert 

McDowell: 213,436 on 18 March 1879, 310,297 on 

6 January 1885, and 342,216 on 18 May 1886. 

(The innovations covered by the last U.S. patent 

had been patented earlier in England on 10 August 1885.) I have also examined instruction booklets for the McDowell system with copyright dates 

ranging from 1883 to 1891. There were subde 

differences between McDowell tools such as refinements intended "to remove non-essential and 

extraneous parts which only add to the weight and 

cumbersome character of the pattern" (U.S. Patent 

342,216:1). There were also minor developments 

such as an extension for prescribing the facing with 

a longitudinal slot indicating the location of the 

line of buttons and buttonholes. This was introduced in the 1885 patent (Figure 41a) but was not 

shown in the 1886 patent (Figure 42a). 

The most significant differences between the 

various forms of the machine, however, were 

caused by fashion changes. The 1879 patent specifications submitted on 18 May 1878 showed a 

device for drafting a bodice requiring three different pattern pieces (Figure 39). The front piece of 

the machine was used to draft two darts for fitting 
NUMBER 42 55 

the bodice over the bust to the waist. This piece 

also provided for a third, but optional dart which 

permitted closer fitting of the bodice under the 

arm to the waist. Dress styles of the 1860s and early 

70s had no need for this dart. By the mid-70s 

however, tighter corseting and closer fitting, 

longer waisted dress styles required an underarm 

dart for better fit. Additional fashion changes, 

however, necessitated the modifications in the machine that were covered by the 1885 patent 

(applied for on II December 1883). The front 

piece of this version made the underarm dart, 

which McDowell called a hip dart, much more 

important (Figure 4la). The back piece provided 

for the fashionable curvature of the back by incorporating an offset drafting point on the inner edge 

of the center back plate (Figure 416). And both the 

back and side pieces were designed for drafting a 

closely fitting extension about four inches or more 

over the hips. With these modifications a basque 

could be drafted with a closely fitted waist. 

Despite his efforts, fashions changed before 

McDowell could complete any new version of his 

machine and protect it with a patent. The dress 

that could have been drafted by the tool covered by 

his first patent, 1879, had already become old 

fashioned by that date. Thus McDowell did not 

wait for patent protection before marketing his 

next modification. The machine shown in the instruction booklet with a copyright date of 1883 

(Figure 40) had the "hip dart," which was not 

covered by a patent until 6 January 1885 (Figure 

41). By that date his machine was again obsolete. 

On 30 July 1885, Albert McDowell applied for his 

third and last American patent which was granted 

on 18 May 1886. The McDowell machine for drafting basques had expanded to four pieces (Figure 

42a,b). As McDowell put it, "By separating the 

front-body pattern from the pattern for the 

underarm piece I am better enabled to follow the 

usual division of the waist as now made ... " (U.S. 

Patent 342,216:4). It seems apparent that Albert 

McDowell was tired of pushing to keep the patented form of his machine up to date with the 

latest fashions. In this, the last of his patents, he 

stated, "I do not wish to limit myself to the precise 

construction of the pattern herein described, as 

this may be varied to some extent without departing from my invention . , . "(U.S. Patent 

342,216:4). 

Modish dress styles condnued to change but, 

fortunately for the McDowell enterprises, dame 

fashion concentrated on the sleeves and skirt for 

most of her alterations until the century ended. 

Thus, the two McDowell machines in the Smithsonian Institution's collections, which were purchased by their original owners Lillian Duncan 

(Figure 43a) about 1891 and Emma Eckhart about 

1892, are basically the same type of machine as that 

shown in the 1886 patent. Eleven measurements 

(including hip circumference) were needed to 

draft a basque. Five more measurements were 

needed for sleeves. This two-piece appendage 

could be drafted by another McDowell machine 

(Figure 436) which was also included in McDowell's 

last patent (Figure 42c). The "McDowell Sleeve 

Machine" was not, however, absolutely essential. 

The instruction booklet for the garment machine 

included a section describing how to use the 

McDowell square to draft sleeves. 

In 1883 Albert McDowell stated that his machine 

was far superior to any of the other systems he had 

been experimenting with since about 1871. "It 

requires no guess-work, and almost entirely discards figuring ... " (McDowell Garment Drafting 

Machine Co., 1883:3). It is refreshing to find that, 

for once, the boasts of a drafting system promoter 

were well founded. The "McDowell Garment 

Drafting Machine" was easy to understand and 

simple to use. Its value was acknowledged in its 

own time. And today more examples of the 

McDowell tool are extant than of any other 

dressmakers' drafting device. 

The "Buddington Dress Cutting Machine" (Figure 44) was a contemporary competitor of the 

McDowell machine. Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Buddington probably produced their first system in 

1880 (Buddington, 1887:1). The first of four patents was granted to F. E. Buddington on 13 February 1883 (U.S. Patent 272,204) and the last was 

granted on 31 January 1899 (U.S. Patent 618,319). 

Both the McDowell and the Buddington methods 

were direct-measure systems requiring adjustable 

tools. The Buddington procedure, however, was 

not as easy to follow as the McDowell process. To 

draft the front and underarm pattern pieces of a 

four-pattern-piece bodice four adjustments were 

intitally made to the front piece of the Buddington 

tool in 1887. The dressmaker then carefully followed 36 steps, which included moving the tool 12 
56 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 39a,b. Diagrams of Albert McDowell's first patented adjustable metal tool (U.S. Patent 

213,436) for his direct-measure system. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

FIGURE 39a. Front. 

2 SbeetS'Sheet I. 

A. MCDOWELL. ^ 

Adjustable Pattern-Plates for Drafting Q-arments. 

No. 213.436 Patented Mar. t8, 1879. 

l£'iUi..i. 

titneesrs: Jnbtntor: 

ATTORNEY. 
NUMBER 42 57 

FIGURE 396. Back, side-back. 

2 Sheets—Sheet 2. 

A. MCDOWELL. 

Adjustable Pattern-Plates for Drafting Garments. 

No. 213.436 Patented Mar. 18, 1879. 

OOlttitessf s: Jnbcntor: 

ATTO[\NEY. 
58 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 40 The three-piece adjustable tool shown on this 1883 McDowell instrucdon booklet cover 

closely resembles the tool covered by the second McDowell patent issued about two years later. The 

complete system-including a brass tool, instrucdon book, measure book, square, diagram for setting 

machine, diagram for measuring, tracing wheel, tape line, and box-cost $17.50. The complete 

system with a tool made of nickel instead of brass cost $20.00 (Library of Congress.) 

INSTEUCTION BOOK 

DRAFTING AND CUTTING 

DRESSES, BASQUES, ^ACKS, COATS, E T C . 

—BY THE— 

6;q^PEP D^^FTIP M^CPINE 

AS INVENTED AND PATENTED 

THE MCDOWELL GARMENT mmm MACHINE CO., 

No. 6 W. 14TH STREET, NEW YORK, U. S. A. 

The Garment Drafting Machine being secured by Letters Patent, all parties found infringing 

on our rights will be dealt with aceording to law. 

AGENCIES WILL BE GIVEN TO RELIABLE PARTIES. 
NUMBER 42 59 

FIGURE 4la,6. Diagrams for the second patented form of Albert McDoweirs tool (U.S. Patent 

310,297) for direct-measure drafting, patent applied for on 11 December 1883. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

FIGURE 41a. Front (statement of claims partially obscured in reproduction). 

(No Model.) 

A. MCDOWELL. 

3 Sheets—Sheet L 

ADJUSTABLE PATTERN FOR DRAFTING DRESSES. 

No. 310,297. Patented Jan. 6, 1885. 

,'«*' 

a m 39 7 ADJCffTABLE PATTBM fOt I 

Ai«BMcDowm,MnrT.AII.T. FtW D^ 

C'/aim.—I. All odjuaUble pkliern for drifUni 

whole uf H ^inioii »f ihe ed^. fornied of platet of 

ranged ihnl the iiHirr edge eorre»poodj to lb« t»m 

od|[« lu llie ruuing-liiit, M> ibftt boUl lioM cui tw 

Mil- operaiiofi. »ll •ab«iiuili.ll> a* htfoin .pMifiMl. 

'I. Ill All odjuiuble pau«ni for drafting the fr 

fmiil tHt compound uf iwn or more MpanU pUtM 

uid-firuvidfd with loiijfitudiful IIMJ l.ooiTMpoodi 

tojii and hulloii-hotel, ix\ ed|.'e. 'I, oofTMpondin| 

and an edge. -1, curmputiding lo lb. eattiog-lin«, 0 

•0 ihal all lbre« litie> may be drafUd at a ilngk a 

teni. all sub^taiilially u hereio aDecifiwI. 

3. ID an adjuiuble palUrii for drafting tbe 1 

meiil, iwu or inorv dart-cuai haviuq their lo»«r < 

vuft-gagr al adJHtable dnlanc«« apart, in oMnb 

brace, K, pivuteil RL ndjuilable heighU lu tlie froD 

oiher end i* fpw to wJJQ-t luelf on the bort-gage I 

4. In ail adjosUhle (latbeni f'tr drafling ihe froi 

tbe exienMble platen '" (n. in c«n)hmatioii wilh « 

•uitAblfl frnitt-line gugr nild t^u or mori- rxtcniibl 

Z». ainl j>iv..i-piiif .-'. .-'. r". m-d .-' o*- herein iipwi 

U. Ill HnadJukUtili i.aiujiD fur drafting tlie froi 

ihe horizoiitiil plau- W. in t-mnbinaltoii wilh tbe lira 

}>latf. n^ provtLlc-d «ilh suitable gaiding and adji 

jofliiig-Mrew i", coDnecting tbe armfaoWgage Q' 1 

and tbe bifMlart gages Z^ Z". and aide-Mam ga| 

ion for adjoiiing tbeir pfnitioiii, all a4Aple<l to ten 

6. In ao adjnaUblc pallern for draking gafin 

oonneciioiijt :'* 1" on vbc biul-gage K, whereby tl 

Z*" Z" Z« are adj.i-i^iblu at xariabk di-laocei ipa 

for aki vyaetiiig tlic •iHtancc api 

for shifting' ibe po.iiiaii r.f the pier.p daiively to I 

lutMbanEtaJl^ ai and for the purpoti^ heroia bpecifi 

7. ID an adjiuUbte pattern fur drafting gar 

platoa I u d J. in combination wilh tho hip-dart ga| 

and wilb the property-ilotted gagei 0* and E, arran 

fpet:i5ed. 

H In an adjoalable pittom for drafting tb« b 

upright plato 31', hraoeh or croH pi«e V , and eo 

otcd at nc h end and made in two Mparata parte. 

in r^mbination with tbe adjiatiog nutm ^, adapt 

•pecitied. 

9. In ao adjoatoble pattern for drafting the a» 

independent of tbe back and front, tb« plates U ^ 

joatable, aa tbown, io oombinatkHi with web otbe 

r T* W^. for drafUog lb« tide body. sahatantUUy 
60 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 4\b. Side-back and back. 

(No Model.) 8 Sheets—Sheet 2. 

A. MCDOWELL. 

ADJUSTABLE PATTERN FOE DRAFTING DRESSES. 

No. 310,297. Patented Jan. 6, 1885. 

WITNESSES' T 

\t-Q^t/i,'^ 

c^G. \ i^^y^^^A^ 

JVEJTDH— 
NUMBER 42 61 

FIGURE 42a-c. The third patented form (U.S. Patent 342,216) of McDowell's "Garment Drafting 

Machine" with the innovation of an underarm section separate from the front. Also included for the 

first time were claims concerning an adjustable tool for drafting both the upper and under parts of a 

sleeve pattern. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

FIGURE 42a. Front and underarm. 

(Ho Model.) 4 BheetB—Sheet I. 

A. MCDOWELL. 

ADJUSTABLE PATTERN FOR DRAFTING GARMENTS. 

No. 342,216. Patented May 18, 1886. 

WITNESSES: INVENTOR: 

^ ^ By his .attorneys, _ 
62 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 42^. Side-back and back. 

(No Model.) 4 Sheets—Sheet 2. 

A. MCDOWELL. 

ADJUSTABLE PATTERN FOR DRAFTING GARMENTS. 

No. 342,216. Patented May 18, 1886. 

WITNESSES: ^.^ INVENTOR: 

By lii.s .J(fortify.s, 
NUMBER 42 63 

FIGURE 42C. Sleeve. 

(No Model.) 4 Sheets—Sheet 8. 

A. MCDOWELL. 

ADJUSTABLE PATTERN FOR DRAFTING GARMENTS. 

No. 342,216. Patented May 18, 1886. 

WITNESSES: INVENTOR: 

By Jiis Attorneys, 

(jVi-iv^-i^g oA-ot-.**.^ ^vJo.« . tt.7^ 

NUMBER 42 65 

JtAf-'eOWatPiKsioeMi: W:r»9O0ll/ai.,rn£Aaune/> 

4ft6WeitrSt 

'^._189Z 

^==2-1::^^^^^^:^ 

€^ JS^^^^^^ ^ '' -^ ^ yy^^^^ 

r 

(^i<y^ 6^^<?^,^5^J:^^y 42^^^,^^^ ^<^^ c^^e^^l^ 

<c? ^ ^ 

-^^^^^ -iz^i^zy •-f'-i^ m^c^H 

FIGURE 43a-«i. Components of McDowell's direct-measure 

drafting system purchased by Lillian Duncan about 1891. 

(Smithsonian Institution). 

FIGURE 43a (left). "McDowell Garment Drafting Machine." 

FIGURE 436 (above, left). "McDowell Sleeve Machine." 

FIGURE 43C (above, right). Certificate of Lillian Duncan's 

successful completion of a course in cutting ladies' garments, 

signed by Albert McDowell. 

times and adjusting the tool four more times in 

order to make 20 dots and draw 25 lines. In 

comparison, drafting the front half of a dress by 

the McDowell system was simple. The dressmaker 

made 13 clearly marked adjustments to the front 

piece and four to the underarm piece. Then by 

simply drawing around the outside and the inside 

of each piece, the dressmaker produced accurately 

curved patterns marked with the seam allowance. 

In 1896, the Buddingtons claimed that "the colossal number of One Hundred Thousand" of 

their machines were in use (Buddington, 1896:1). 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 43d. Accessories for the McDowell machines: cardboard box, tracing wheel, instruction 

books for the two machines, measure book, leather belt used as a guide for taking measurements, 

and obsolete "McDowell Garment Drafting Square" with sliding arm or gauge used to take some 

measurements. The majority of individuals listed in the measure book were Duncans living in 

Brooklyn, New York. 

That is hard to believe. Perhaps they had sold that 

many between 1880 and 1896, but it is doubtful 

that they were still being used. To the inexperienced dressmaker the Buddington machine could 

have appeared to be similar to the McDowell machine, which had extensive publicity and wide 

popularity. The Buddington tool, moreover, was 

much less expensive. In 1887 the Buddingtons 

charged $4.10 for an accessorized set comparable 

to what McDowell sold in 1883 for $17.50. The 

similarity in appearance and the dramatically lower 

price of the Buddington tools probably occasioned 

the brisk sale of the less efficient system. I doubt, 

however, that many dressmakers who bought the 

"Buddington Dress Cutting Machine" continued to 

use it for very long. 

FIGURE 44. The improved version of Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

Buddington's direct-measure system as shown in an 1896 instruction booklet. The unique features of the two-piece adjustable metal tool were protected by U.S. Patents granted in 1895 

(541,311) and in 1899 (618,392). The adjustable slides were 

held in place by friction. When adjustments were made, care 

had to be taken to avoid touching (and thus soiling) the orange 

paper measure strips set into the slides. The tool and instruction 

booklet cost $5. (Courtesy of Sydney Brooks.) 

68 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

In 1896, the Buddingtons produced their "Improved Dress Cutting Machine" (Figure 44), but 

insisted: 

We do not intend this improved machine shall supplant the 

other, we shall make and sell the other machine as long as there 

is a person that wants it. But this is an age of rush and hurry. 

Dress Makers want a machine they can lay on a bolt of cloth, 

turn a crank and have the dresses come out finished in assorted 

sizes; we have not quite accomplished this, but think we have 

come as near it as it is possible to get (Buddington, 1896:1). 

Actually, the Buddingtons did not come very near 

at all. For example, their "improved" system only 

reduced the process of drafting the front and the 

underarm pattern pieces from 36 to 33 steps. 

Conforming 

The previously described direct-measure systems 

differed from each other in the form of the tool, 

the procedure for laying out the pattern, and, to 

some extent, the kind of measurements that were 

required. They had, however, one characteristic in 

common—the dressmaker had to take the 

specified measurements very carefully. Thus each 

instruction book described in detail how the 

measuring tape should be placed and how tightly it 

should be drawn. Frequently, explicit drawings 

were included to reinforce the written directions. 

The creators of these systems agreed that the success of their methods depended largely upon the 

accuracy with which the measurements were taken. 

There was another category of direct-measure systems, however, that did not require the dressmaker 

to use a tape measure. These systems used conforming tools or "conformators," made to be 

placed on a person and adjusted to conform to her 

shape. 

Angeline P. Wickersham's "Pattern Marker," 

patented in 1881, had the appearance of a medieval torture machine (Figure 45).^^ It was made 

of thin flexible strips of metal such as brass, tin, or 

copper which corresponded to the seams of the 

dress bodice. Each strip was studded by a series of 

pointed prongs, and the whole contraption was 

strapped to one half the body by means of elastic 

bands. Paper or a lining fabric was pressed upon 

the prongs, effectively marking the outline of each 

''•' The signature (executed by her attorney) on the patent 

application showes her first name as Angelina, but all printed 

versions of it in the patent documents are spelled "Angeline." 

pattern piece. Undoubtedly Miss Wickersham was 

correct when she stated that "in no case, so far as I 

am aware, has a pattern-marker been designed to 

fit the body and prick the pattern out upon the 

paper without any measurements being taken or 

laid out upon the paper" (U.S. Patent 242,240:1). 

William B. Pollock was granted a patent in 1885 

for another type of direct-measure system requiring a conforming tool (Figure 46). The Pollock 

device completely encircled the torso and could be 

adjusted to conform closely to the body. Ingenious 

spring clips held the adjustments so that the device 

could be removed from an individual and separated. It was then laid flat on paper and used as a 

guide for drafting a pattern. Pollock proudly 

stated that he had developed a device for cutting a 

garment that fit "without requiring any skill or 

calculation on the part of the operator or fitter" 

(U.S. Patent 320,496:1). He was so confident as to 

the value of his achievement that he also obtained a 

British patent, number 7652, in 1885. 

Both Wickersham and Pollock devised tools that 

eliminated the need to measure a customer. The 

chance of human error was greatly reduced. No 

indication has been found, however, that either 

tool was produced. The cost of making them probably made the selling price too expensive for the 

average dressmaker. Other conforming tools were 

produced, although they were not as efficient as 

the Wickersham and Pollock inventions. 

In 1904, Jean B. Peyry offered his "Conformateur and Systeme Metrique" to dressmakers on 

two condnents. (Dressmakers in the "Southern or 

Western States or Central America" were directed 

to contact the "Professor" in New Orleans; those 

residing in "Canada or New England States" could 

reach him in Montreal; and inhabitants of "France 

or Europe" were to address him in Paris.) As a 

citizen of France residing in New Orleans, Peyry 

was granted a U.S. patent (626,795) on 13 June 

1899. He claimed also to have received a patent the 

same year in Europe (1904:1). In his specifications 

submitted to the U.S. Patent Office, Peyry described his "garment fitdng device" as a series of 

frames consisting of independently adjustable 

plates, doubly pivoted at each end to other plates. 

Although he said these plates could be made of 

leather, tough cardboard, or celluloid, he recommended sheet metal—steel, brass, or preferably 

aluminum. 
NUMBER 42 69 

(No Model.) 

No. 242.240 

A. P. WICKERSHAM. 

Pattern Marker. 

Patented May 31, 1881, 

-ir±^. 

9f{-uZ^^^ 

^J.at<jU^^ 

FIGURE 45. Angeline P. Wickersham of Philadelphia received a patent (242,240) in 1881 for this 

"Pattern Marker" constructed of flexible bands with projecting pins. This conforming tool represents 

those many inventive aberrations that were never commercially successful. (U.S. Patent Office.) 
5 AppftMi Apparatus:, 

DIV. 2 4 ^ ^ 

P 

5 ^ 

^ 

-P 

6 

C5 

^^"^"•^^'•^ W. B. POLLOCK, 

GARMENT MEASURINa AND FITTING DEVICE. 

No. 320,496. 

4 Sheets—Sheet 1. 

PatentedJune 23, 1885, 

rjj-iran ESSES I ^\ ^ t >INVENTOR 

c^>^a:^^^ ?^>^/^t^ 

^^^^Z<T^ ^ 

Jll.l<.«<. ^^^t/ 

UH a PoLUxx. PkUtddpUft. P& PUad Jw 

C.liwm —I K iwMuriwK >nd fiuioK •Ivricc mnimund t •pnr* . 

I M'parebU- rrtn.M at MCUM*. cu b cunipn^ uf wt>«r»<«ly und marprnH , 

ontJy ti^uiUhto Qevibla ^irnp* pivni^ <H)C lo ibc other In irUnifaUr 

Tomi UiriKi||liM)t tbr vrrtiniu, ttn-l miMtu br MtcunnK ttw itnpi hi ttiotr 

(iHjaiUxi [xwiion. vferrvb) uiJ wclmu. maj U B^jiuu-a ir, Qi IIM flpiru 

of tho iiidividnd iimler iTM»*«rrDi.-nl. uid ihtn l«ij lUl upon ibo jooJ* 

lo IM mt. •uhrtantUJIv u wl firtli. 

2 A omnmi)| ui'l ftutnf I1«PW Mi^prumtt • nonibef of TrADiM 

or MTlknu iciHinbla rmn Moh utb>r, u J compoMd of wpM«L*lj AQ4 

lod«peo4«fitl>-«(yM«bk itnfw. all pivoted ODO wilh UM mHer, UHI b«r. 

Lni otMnlnci UMI •taHb uid bMcniu dflrbii iWefor H utd for tb* 

<SK/^ U^r. 36;/S'^;^-
NUMBER 42 71 

^'g»rc B 

FIGURE 47. "Conformateur and System Metrique," offered to Americans by 

Jean B. Peyry, a Frenchman, in 1904. The drafting tool, as illustrated in his 1904 

instruction book, did not have to be used as a conforming device but could have 

been adjusted flat, as was the McDowell machine. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian Institudon.) 

Peyry's drafting tool was a conforming device, 

although it could be used flat like the McDowell 

machine as well as by placing it on the customer. In 

either case, the first steps were the same. Twelve 

measurements (including the hip circumference) 

were taken with a tape measure to draft a "basque." 

Nine more were required for the sleeve and five 

for the skirt. The plates making up each frame 

were adjusted according to the corresponding 

horizontal or vertical measurements. Then the 

frames could be used to draft the patterns. Peyry 

claimed that using his device this way gave "a 

perfect fit just the same, and thus fully provides for 

persons who will object to have [sic] the Conformateur fitted on their body" (1904:1). Alternatively, the dressmaker could hook the adjusted 

frames together and fit them more closely to her 

customer (Figure 47). After completing these fine 

adjustments, the dressmaker removed the frames, 

unhooked them and laid them flat on the material. 

I doubt that Peyry's invention became popular in 

the United States. Any advantage the Frenchman's 

conforming tool may have had over the McDowell 

FIGURE 46. In 1885 William Bloomer Pollock of Philadelphia 

was granted patents in the United States (320,496) and Britain 

for this conforming device, which could be taken apart and laid 

flat. (U.S. Patent Office.) 

machine was diminished by the tedious procedures 

necessary to adjust the less efficiently designed 

Peyry device. Also, the Peyry "conformateur" was 

calibrated for metric measurements, while 

dressmakers in the United States were more accustomed to working in inches. 

The "Impression System' of garment drafting, 

published by the Zenith Manufacturing Company 

in Rochester, New York, in 1904, used a conforming tool called a "measurer" (Figure 48a,b). This 

device was described in the patent specifications 
72 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Measuring Instruments 

Neck Band and Waist Band 

1 Wl I n u,iil.i.i.ii jj^i..il...i 

iMea.surin g Uand 

2_Fron t of Afm Bar 

;,—Back of Arm Bar 

4 h'ront Sliding Bar 

N o. 2 

3 -Hack Sliding Bar 

r, Dart Bar 

7-Bac k of Neck Pivot Bar 

s- l^'ront Shoulder Pivot Bar 

Q—Back Shoulder Pivot Bar 

lo—Width of Back Pivot Bar 

M~ Under Arm Pivot Bar 

12 and 13—Measuring Slides 

FIGURE 48a-c. The "Impression System" issued by the Zenith Manufacturing Company in Rochester, New York, in 1904, as illustrated in their 1904 instruction book. The neck and waist bands and 

the "Measurer" were adjusted to fit the customer's figure. The "Measurer" was then laid flat on the 

pattern paper and served as a guide to marking 12 critical drafting points. Additional tools were 

provided for completing the draft. (Library of Congress.) 

FIGURE 48a. Measuring instruments. 
FIGURE 48b. Front and side view of measurements being taken by the "Impression System." 

FIGURE 48C. Drafting tools. The "Indicator" helped the dressmaker apportion some circumferential dimensions. The back neck curve of the "Curve Scale" was also marked with an apportioning scale. The other curves on this tool helped the dressmaker draw the curved shoulder and bust 

darts. The markings helped her determine the lengths of these lines. The "Sliding Spring Rule" 

and the "Combination Ratchet and Skirt Rule" were used as drawing aids. The former was used 

for neck curves, armholes, and the tops of sleeves while the latter was suited to drafting the longer 

vertical curves of the pattern. 

Indicator Curve Scale 

Sliding Spring Rule 

M •7ij;i'i'i'i;i'i'[]'MPiiji]T"j;i'i";|;i I'j 'TJU .'I;|;"' MMT'MM |ii ^\w^t |;i'iii 

Combination Ratchet and Skirt Rule 

•iii|iiMiiyii|iii|iii|iii|jMiiii|iiiiiii|iiiiiii|iji]iii|iiijnr|M»ni|Mji^ii|nipiiijiii|»im^ 

"nnjrp'-j^ j fl" j J"l'"|; i|M|Nijii.|niJi.i,in|.lf..|,.,|njM,M|.n|iMpin,n,|np^ 

^j! .!,^ .iirr!mp',,iL]|iii|!ii|in|iii|iii[iii|[i[|iii|iiJ|iii|jii|lli[iiJ|ilimiiMl|lll|lll|lll|ll]|TM^^ 

P '' ' ' •! '»! '•! '•! ''I 'A "I f '!• I 'I' 'I- '!• 'I- '!• •!• 'H 't..'\^'VmMm^- 4' 'I- -!• 'I- +.f_i . •!• '!• >[• 'f- t 
74 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

submitted by Edward P. Follett in 1901 as being 

"adapted to taking measures and locating all the 

cardinal points necessary in laying out waist-fitting 

garments" (U.S. Patent 692,510:1). This was an 

overstatement. The Zenith System also required a 

"neck band" and a "waist band" (Figure 48a) to 

take these two critical body measurements and an 

ordinary tape measure to detennine the fullest 

part of the bust. 

The drafting process for this system used the 

conforming "measurer" to establish the placement 

of 12 critical drafting points on the pattern paper 

as well as one line defining the height and slope of 

the bust darts. Four other tools, however, were 

needed to locate other drafting points or to draw 

the subtly curved lines defining the outlines of the 

pattern pieces. An "indicator" helped to apportion 

waist and bust dimensions (Figure 48c). Follett was 

granted a patent for this tool on 11 August 1903 

(U.S. Patent 735,738). A "curve scale" (Figure 48c) 

was used to draw shoulder and bust dart curves, 

while a "sliding spring rule" (Figure 48c) was an aid 

to drawing the neck and armhole curves and a 

"combination ratchet and skirt rule" (Figure 48c) 

helped to establish the long graceful curves needed 

for the sides of the four pattern pieces—front. 

underarm, side-back, and back. 

The patent granted Edward Follett in 1902 for 

the "measurer" (Figure 48a,b) and another in 1903 

for the "indicator" (Figure 48c) were the last in a 

series of seven patents granted to Follett. (He assigned the last one to the Zenith Manufacturing 

Company.) He had applied for his first two patents 

in 1886. The first was for a perforated tool used in 

a direct-measure system for drafting sleeves (U.S. 

Patent 389,376). The second was for an adjustable, 

perforated tool for a direct-measure method of 

cutting basques (U.S. Patent 389,377). I doubt if 

Follett was aware that the perforations in his tools 

were probably first used by the creator of the 

pre-Tentler proportional dressmakers' drafting 

system (Figure 16a). Nor do I think Follett realized, 

when he abandoned perforated tools in favor of 

his conforming "measurer," that he created a tool 

similar to many early 19th century tailors' measuring apparatus (Figure 7). Follett's inventions illustrate that the basic principles behind drafting systems and the specific characteristics of the tools 

were reapplied independently in new ways as each 

succeeding generation of dressmakers and tailors 

attempted to create the ultimate system for cutting 

a fashionable fit. 

Selling the Systems 

The manufacturers of drafting systems used every 

means available to sell their methods. These efforts 

were directed toward two major objectives—the 

first to establish the credentials of the system and 

the second to recruit agents. If one were to believe 

the rhetoric of the proponents of dressmakers' 

drafting systems, one would think that these innovators were all professors, mathematicians, medical doctors, or highly experienced French 

dressmakers. The condescending tone of some of 

their instruction books implied that the novice 

dressmaker should be gratefully eager to spend 

her money for such expert knowledge. 

Many of these "professional" identities were assumed in order to sell products to untutored 19th 

century Americans who were very much in awe of 

anything scientific or French. The increasing numbers 

of late 19th century instruction booklets that made no 

such claims cast aspersions on the credibility of their 

more presumptuous competitors. 

A McDowell advertising leaflet accurately explained that the French cut dresses by the old 

method of pinning the lining on the customer. 

This source observed, "How few people in the 

country know how the French fit dresses . . . but 

here every old chart is called a French system. 

They use the word Trench' to catch the ignorant" 

(A. McDowell 8c Co., 1892?). One example of this 

practice was "Madame Demorest." Th e successfully diversified "fashion emporium" known as 

Madame Demorest's was, in fact, established by 

Mr. William J. Demorest (as he was always called) 

and his wife, the former Margaret Willamina 

Poole. When she died in 1857 the name "Madame 

Demorest" did not. About 14 months later, Mr. 

Demorest married Ellen Louise Curtis, who then 

gracefully personified the title. Another example is 

Mrs. E. E. Palmer who in 1886 published an instruction booklet in Baraboo, Wisconsin. Five years 

and a move to Chicago transformed this 
NUMBER 42 75 

Barabooian into Madame Ellsworth Palmer 

(Palmer, 1892: cover). 

The McDowell advertising leaflet also observed 

that "the word Professor is just as bad in this line of 

business. It is almost invariably used by frauds, 

cheeky people, both men and women, who place it 

before their own names to make the innocent 

public think they know something" (A. McDowell, 

& Co., 1892?). 

In reality, the majority of inventors of dressmaker's drafting systems were either dressmakers 

or tailors who initially created a cutting method for 

their own use. Then on their own, or with the 

encouragement of someone else, their systems 

were refined and made available to the public. 

The 1885 instruction book for Cornwell's "SelfFitting System" gives a believable if chauvinistic description of how this hybrid system with a curved 

perforated tool was developed. As was true of C. E. 

Mosher's "Bon Ton Dress Chart," the Cornwell drafting procedure involved a series of steps requiring the 

tool to be moved a number of times. The principles 

of this drafting system were first thought of by Miss 

Elmira Harroun when she was 16 years old. Her first 

chart was a rough piece of pasteboard on which the 

method of fitting the shoulder and determining the 

size of the darts was marked with pen and ink. It was 

"a puzzle which no one could figure out until Mr. 

Cornwell, a practical business man full of inventive 

faculties, discerning the great value .. . in his wife's 

cherished pasteboard, undertook to make it so plain 

that 'he who runs may read' " (Cornwell, 1885:4). 

After six months of study a few charts were printed 

from a wood cut and after this version was tested, 

additional improvements were made. Finally in 1870 

the first charts were manufactured using a copperplate obtained in New York. In 1876 the first set 

of improved, colored, nickel engravings of the chart 

were made (Figure 49a). 

Between 1876 and the publication of the 1885 

instruction book, additional changes were made. 

The latest alteration was making the darts smaller 

and allowing for an underarm dart, "thus meeting 

the wants of the prevailing style" (Cornwell, 

1885:4). Also during this period a "New Improved 

Sleeve System" was developed (Figure 49b). Four 

patents and nearly a score of copyrights were 

claimed.2° The 1885 Cornwell publication also 

^•^ I have located only one patent issued to Willett Cornwell, 

this one on 22 October 1878 (U.S. Patent 209,111). 

boasted that, since its modest beginning, over a 

quarter of a million systems had been sold. 

Not every drafting system was the original creation of its proponent; the pirating of systems was a 

chronic problem from the beginning. Nevertheless, the ostentatious way that the inventors discussed this hazard suggests that they were trying to 

use it to their advantage. The descriptions of their 

methods for protecting their creations seemed to 

have been aimed as much at impressing the reader 

concerning the value of the system as they were 

intended to serve as a warning to unscrupulous 

entrepreneurs. Thus, trading on the old adage 

"imitation is the highest form of praise," the seller 

of a system might try to establish the special value 

of his technique by dire warnings directed at supposed or would-be plagiarizers. In 1857 Dr. E. P. 

Minier even went so far as to give the names of 

some individuals who had "stolen" his system. His 

way of helping the buyer be sure she had the real 

"Minier" was by adding his signature to each copy 

of his tool (Minier, 1857:24). Justin Clave in 1859 

(Figure 17) also followed this practice. 

Patenting the tool or, less commonly, the process, increasingly became an accepted practice as 

shown by the list included in Appendix III. Some 

individuals, however, found the protection afforded by a copyright to be an attractive alternative 

because it was less expensive and easier to acquire. 

Also, some inventors whose tools could be printed 

on paper included their devices as part of their 

instruction book which was then copyrighted. This 

was done even when it was felt that the tool would 

be more useful if it were made of durable materials. Published instructions for systems such as those 

of Powell 8c Kohler (Figure 19a), Mrs. Louisa L. 

Jackson (Figure 33), and James A. Wilson (Figure 

35) recommended that the user remove the paper 

tool from the book and apply it to stiff cardboard 

or wood. 

Apparently, Nancy and George Norman found 

their copyright to be effective protection. In 1880 the 

United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana, 

awarded them the gains and profits received by 

several defendants found guilty of unlawful manufacture and sale of copies of their charts and diagrams. A copy of the court's order and decree was 

even included in Mrs. Norman's 1881 instruction 

booklet. No doubt the readers were impressed. 

A more direct way to gain special attention for a 

system was by entering it in a trade exhibition. It 
OUR CHART 

As it appealed before 

|lliiii|iiipDiiiiiiiii 

'\S 

THIS ,s A PHOTO ENGRAVING z^r^iTa".?'""''''^" wide. Send Stam"

p fo*'''"''^''" r circular. ' 

^m 

, OUR NEW TMPROYED SLEEVE SYSTEM ;:iL*if.e?rnTis'ktl^c4\Vtte^-i 

for cuttinq- sleeves of all sizes, without refitting-, and work s perfectly in connection with the Cornwell Chart and Dres-^-

Cutting, Send Stamp for circuhir. 
NUMBER 42 77 

would be seen by the visitors and there was always a 

good chance of its being given an award, usually in 

the form of a medal. This distinction could be 

advantageously reported by including drawings of 

the handsome medal in the instruction booklet 

(Figure 28). Sometimes a facsimile of the award 

statement was included as well (Figure 50). The 

sellers of these systems recognized that it is a part 

of human nature to be impressed by awards. The 

fact that these were usually given in recognition of 

individual merit but not of superiority over another system was never mentioned—or was misrepresented (Figure 28). Twelve dressmakers' 

drafting systems were exhibited at the greatest U.S. 

fair of all, the 1876 International Exhibition at 

Philadelphia. Of those mentioned before, Willett 

Cornwell, Madame Demorest (Figure 51), and 

Samuel T. Taylor were exhibitors. 

Although magazine advertising was not a fully 

developed selling medium, it was still used. The 

earliest ads which appeared in Harper's Bazar during the last quarter of the 19th century consisted of 

a few lines of text and perhaps a small illustration. 

The later advertisements for the McDowell machine (Figure 52) were by far the most effective. 

They not only extolled the virtures of the system 

but they offered special inducements to individuals 

buying directly from them as well as a "come on" 

for potential agents. McDowell's offer of a free trial 

period for mail orders was unusual. It is ample 

proof that the McDowell machine could be easily 

understood and used. Most systems had to be 

actively sold. Most techniques had to be demonstrated and the potential buyer offered special 

cutting lessons before any money changed hands. 

Thus, in addition to establishing a distinctive 

name for itself the manufacturer of each drafting 

system made a major effort to recruit a network of 

agents. Frequently the system's instruction bookFiGURE49a,t. Cornwell's "Self-Fitting System'' as presented in 

his 1885 instruction booklet. (Library of Congress.) 

FIGURE 49a (left, above). An obsolete variadon of Cornwell's perforated, curved, two-piece tool for a hybrid drafting system. Mr. Cornwell's picture is shown on the front 

piece above the tide "W. Cornwell's Chart." Mrs. Cornwell, 

whose picture is shown on the back piece without any 

identification, was the original creator of this system. 

FIGURE 496 (left, below). Advertisement for perforated 

tool for cutdng sleeves by Cornwell's improved hybrid system. 

INTERNATIONAL liXHIBITION. 

PHILADELPHIA , 1876. 

The United Slates Cenltiinial C(>iiiini-.>i()n has cxainincd the 

report of the Judges, and ncceplcd the following reasons, and 

decreed an award in conformity therewitii. 

PJiiladclphia, Dec. 21st, i8j6. 

RHIXJRT ON AWARDS. 

Product, Graduated Chart for Ures.s Cutting. 

Name and address uf Exhibitor, IVUlett Comtve/l, 

No. 153 North Eighth St.^ PhiladelpJiia^ Pa. 

The undersigned, having examined the product herein described, respectfully recommends the same to the United States 

Centennial Commission for Award, for llie following reasons, \i/ : 

lA& purpose' irUondooi^ Oy/ul 

&oo7h07rbioayl i/h cosi. 

^V'. 0. LinthicLcm, 

Signature of the Judge. 

APPBOVAL. O F GROU P JUDGES . 

Dietz Monnin, Modest Kittary, 

M- P. Empey, Kanitz, 

B. F. BrittoTh, Geo. Hewston, 

W- H. Chandler, E. J{. Horsford. 

A true Copy of the record. 

Francis A. Walker, 

Chief of the Bureau of Awards. 

Given liy authority of the United States Centennial Commission. 

H ^ A. T. GOSHORN , 

J. L. CAMPBELL , 

Secretary. 

]. R. HAWLEY . 

/^resident. 

FIGURE 50. Facsimile of award given to Willett Cornwell for 

the drafting system he exhibited in Philadelphia at the 1876 

Centennial Exhibition, from Cornwell's 1885 instruction booklet. (Library of Congress.) 

lets themselves became an important means for 

converting the home sewer and dressmaker into an 

agent. Dr. Minier seemed to suggest a new idea in 

his 1857 publication when he declared that "both 

ladies and gendemen will be privileged with agencies. Ladies shall have the preference and it is 

hoped on the part of the inventor that they will 

claim and maintain the entire monopoly" (1857:2). 

He also reported that Cincinnati would be the 

"Depot" for his sales to the West and New York 

City would serve the East. Mrs. D. A. Inwood did 

not mince words in her 1863 instruction book 

when she announced, "I want 500 smart and 
78 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 51. Mme. Demorest's exhibit in the main building ot 

the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, which displayed items reflecting the diverse enterprises of her "Emporium of Fashions,' including a large assortment of sized 

paper patterns shown in the black walnut octagonal case on the 

left and the perforated drafdng tool, called a "Dress Model," 

mounted on a large easel of walnut and gilt; from June 1876 

issue of Demorest's Monthly Magazine. (Smithsonian Insdtution.) 

energetic ladies to act as local and traveling Agents 

throughout the U.S. They can easily clear 6 

hundred dollars a year, if diligent to business" 

(1863:1). She followed up with trade cards announcing "agents wanted" and with a magazine 

advertisement {Harper's, 1873:126). 

To entice an individual to sign up as an agent 

and to give present agents more motivation, a 

FIGURE 52. McDowell's adverdsement, 5.2 x 7.1 cm, from 19 

January 1884 issue of Harper's Bazar. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

Tlie Greatest Mention of tie Ap. 

THE MCDOWELL 

D Garment Drafting ^ ^ 

MACHINE, .y^ 

6 W. 14th St., N.Y. 

Dressmakers.—This Wo7iderftil Maehine drafts 

perfect garments of every description from Actual 

Mca.sure, tits all shoulders, and prevents /iilw.'iis at 

bottom of front darts. You may send NOW and tc.'it 

Mnchine at your own home free of chavye. Extra indiuements to jir.<it party in each town s(HMiriiiijr a IMacliiiie. A rari; clHince iov A<jenf.<i. TH E M<'l)t>\YE M . G.AHMEN T DISAFTIN G MACHIN E 

CO. , <•» >V('xt llt h St. , N(MV York City. lA)r S.df at 

i:»*.> »asliiii;rt<>ii St. , Uoslon: I'lH'^ t'hostiiut St., 

I'hilu.; and UK) » uUasli Aveiiuo, ChicagOa 
NUMBER 42 79 

^ g MRg*T* E. MEEKER, ^ ^ 

|P2 ^ rHENCH 2vSi""or"DRES2-lIAKIN5„4-

roc E. Water gtrcct, 

<Jver ELMIRA. N 

"W'.Anar f 15131 

^ 

Agents for the French System for cutting ladies and 

children's dresses. Any lady or gentleman can make 

good wages. It gives the most perfect fit that has ever 

been in use. It is good for Sewing Machine Agents to 

sell. Price, with instructions. $5.00. 

ecial Discount to Agents. 

FIGURE 53. Obverse and reverse of a late-19th-century trade card, 10.8 x 6.4 cm, adverdsing for 

agents. (Smithsonian Insdtudon.) 

variety of incentives were devised. Willett Cornwell 

seems to have used virtually every technique 

known. The typical testimonial letters published in 

his 1885 instruction book extolled the virtues of the 

system, but they especially emphasized the success 

the writers were having selling the charts—because 

they worked so well. As a lure, Cornwell offered 

the "Self-Fitting System" to any individual at the 

agent's price of $2.50 if the buyer thought she 

might like to try selling the system. The reader was 

tantalized by the thought that there was no set 

retail cost of the system; the agent could charge 

whatever price he wanted. It was said that agents 

had sold the system for anywhere from $5.00 to 

$12.00. If a woman couldn't buy a set herself, 

however, she need not give up hope. She was given 

one free if she could induce "some smart business 

Woman" to send in an order for $8.00 or more. 

But if none of this was feasible, a woman could still 

send Willett Cornwell the names and addresses of 

all the "Dressmakers, Milliners, School Teachers, 

Agents, Canvassers and Smart Business Women" 

she knew. Cornwell promised to send her a reward 

(Cornwell, 1885). No wonder Cornwell boasted he 

had over 20,000 agents! To encourage them to 

keep selling, this resourceful businessman gave 

premiums such as a gold watch or dress materials 

to those who met specified quotas within a year. 

The ultimate prize, a sewing machine, was given to 

an agent in Fennels, Canada, for selling the greatFiGURE 54. Agent's trade card, 13.0 X 6.0 cm, last quarter 19th century. 

(Smithsonian Institution.) 

* ' « Sulo-At:o,MH K..M,. .,,. 1.., 

. t5. oni^brs }?nlln;iis cV: jSii^Irm nf Drf^s ^\\\\\\\^. 

PERFECT"SATISFACT[ C '. . ' :- ' 

,Jir.,rTr<:Mlis. ,,„ Ur. ~v M,,l,,,., . - I - • • ' - - -i u - i i -, Mll's A.ljusUiblL l'r,~ . I 1.. in.! I,. 1 -i. . 

Roo m 61, ove r 54 St.•'.tc St. . ROCHESTER , N. -y. 
80 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

est number of Cornwell systems in 1884. 

While Cornwell's 20,000 agents probably included any individual who had ever expressed a 

desire to sell his system, the ideal agent was more 

seriously committed to the enterprise. These 

agents were advised to canvass dressmakers and 

ladies everywhere. They demonstrated the system 

to prospective customers by drafting a costume. 

Once the sale was made, the agent taught the 

customer how to use her new drafting tool. Agents 

were also encouraged to form classes in their 

rooms or homes where they could teach groups 

and special private lessons. The more adventuresome were urged to travel through towns and cities 

and advertise to teach dressmaking for short periods at some hotel or central location. 

Agents who were serious about selling had personalized trade cards printed that described their 

particular product (Figure 54). Whenever possible 

the manufacturers helped to make their agents 

better known. For example, S. T. Taylor routinely 

listed the names and addresses of his major agents 

in his various periodicals. But for many, selling 

systems was a side line. Established dressmakers 

might give cutting instructions and sell systems. 

Dry goods stores or departments might carry a 

system or two. Sewing machine salesmen might 

also handle a drafting system or give one free to 

every purchaser of a machine—a major investment. Who did the selling did not greatly concern 

manufacturers of the systems. All that mattered 

was increasing sales. 

The Users 

Drafting systems for cutting dresses were created 

in the 19th century for amateur and professional 

dressmakers. Proportional methods came first, followed by hybrid and then direct-measure techniques. The apparent shifts in the popularity of 

one method over the others occurred as a response 

to changing dress fashions as well as a reaction to 

the appearance of new users of drafting systems. 

Amateur Dressmakers 

Proportional systems with perforated tools were 

created in the second quarter of the 19th century 

to help amateurs cut their own garments. Women 

of limited means could not afford to pay for the 

services of a dressmaker. Ready-made garb was a 

cheaper alternative to made-to-order clothing for 

their husbands' wardrobes, but no comparable alternative existed for women's dresses (Kidwell and 

Christman, 1974:53-63). These women had to cut 

and sew their own clothes to be respectably 

dressed. According to the morality of that age it 

was common to regard an individual's appearance 

as an index of character. In 1844 The Ladies Hand 

Book declared, "The female who is utterly regardless of her appearance may be safely pronounced 

deficient in some of the more important qualities 

which the term 'good character' invariably implies" 

("American Lady," 1844:33). 

Even though her husband might not be able to 

give her adequate funds, a woman of character was 

still expected to clothe herself and her family "respectably." The simplicity of the proportional systems with perforated tools made these devices superbly suited to meet the needs of these women 

who were limited by the meager education offered 

to 19th century "females." The creator of the pre1838 system might have seen this class of women as 

a ready market. Also, providing the means for the 

"less fortunate" to help themselves was a popular 

philanthropy, reflected by The Ladies' Hand Book 

and others of its kind. Typically, Justin Clave described his proportional system with a perforated 

tool (Figure 17) "as susceptible of being understood by families desiring to make their dresses, 

without the expense of a dressmaker or of any 

other teaching" (Clave, 1859). 

The early hybrid systems were more accurate than 

the proportional methods and they were almost as 

easy to use. They were also intended for the amateur 

dressmaker. A poem on the back of a Madame 

Demorest circular extolled the value of a dress cutting system for the home sewer. In June 1854, Godey's 

Lady's Book quoted a poem for the benefit of "all who 

dread fall and spring dressmaking." 

Dressmakers made artists by this magical chart 

All flee from the old tedious and wearisome art; 

A pleasure succeeds to what once was a task. 

As they fashion the jacket, the bodice, and basque. 
NUMBER 42 

Each lady with skill now may cut her own dresses. 

When she once the Excelsior Dress Model possesses . . . 

While sitting content in her snug sewing-chair, 

We see the fond mother the dresses prepare. 

She calls up her children and fits them so neatly 

By the children's dress chart that has charmed her completely. 

Godey's concluded that "even the old lady 'that lived 

in a shoe' would find her way out of the difficulties 

in which she is historically enveloped, by the aid of 

this magic chart, if it effects half that is promised 

for it" (Jun 1854:570). 

Proportional systems and early hybrid methods 

were also aimed at the amateur who wanted to turn 

professional. These were the untrained women 

who had no one to support them and who wanted 

more of a future than was possible for a household 

servant or a seamstress. The systems of the 1850s, 

60s, and early 70s were aimed equally at women 

sewing for themselves and at aspiring dressmakers. 

In the 1870s this balanced appeal began to shift. 

By the last two decades of the 19th century the 

dress cutting systems were aimed mostly at professional dressmakers. Some methods were still designed partly for women who wanted to make their 

own dresses, but the emphasis was on selling to the 

individual wanting to be paid for making garments 

for others. This shift occurred when the latest 

fashions dictated precisely fitted garments of the 

most complex cut and when direct-measure methods (with their greater degree of accuracy and 

difficulty) became popular. By then, women sewing only for themselves or their families had a 

simpler way to obtain their patterns; they could 

buy them from a manufacturer of sized paper 

patterns. 

Paper Pattern Industry 

Unsized patterns, proportional systems, and hybrid methods existed before the first mass production of sized paper patterns in the 1860s. Madame 

Demorest's growing business responded to the 

changing fashions and technology. In May 1854, 

Godey's Lady's Book reported that Mme. Demorest 

had patterns for everything in a "lady's under 

wardrobe" (May 1854:460). A month later Godey's 

also informed its readers of Demorest's drafting 

system, the "Excelsior Dress Model." The fall 1861 

issue of Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of Fashion included advertisements for the dress cutting 

system, a wide range of unsized patterns, and also 

trimmed paper patterns that would "furnish an 

elegant display for a Dress-maker's Show Room" 

(1861: inside front cover). Three years later the 

same magazine advertised the same three 

dressmaking aids plus "waist patterns cut by measure" (cf. Figure 55). This latest offering provided 

"ladies living at a distance" with waist and jacket 

patterns custom cut to fit their figures if they sent 

the cost of the patterns, 20 or 25 cents, with their 

three measurements—bust, waist, and the underarm length (Summer 1864: inside back cover). 

These personalized patterns were probably cut 

with a simple hybrid system. 

The earliest located evidence of Demorest's mass 

producing sized paper patterns appears in an advertisement in the June 1872 issue of Demorest's 

Illustrated Monthly, which leads off with the declaration, "Something New." These patterns for 

ladies' and children's dresses are described as 

"graded in various sizes and put up in illustrated 

FIGURE 55. Obverse and reverse of a trade card, 4.8 X 3.2 cm, used by a Boston branch of Mme. 

Demorest's "Emporium of Fashions" adverdsing both unsized and custom cut paper patterns, dadng 

probably from the 1860s. (Smithsonian Insdtudon.) 

1?^^,^ 

ECONOMY, ANi» ELEGANCE!. 

Vattrrns of the Fnshiona in a(lvanc« 

of t le • Puhhstied M«xl.-s." 

Ii>y«% M,8sej'. aud lufants' Pattern*, 

Ladies' Sacks, Sleeves, Night-Dresses, 

Uii(l»*r-<i;«rmeiit^ 

Maut.iiua, Wrarpers, Basqaea, etc., 

o 

8<-.ientific Dress-Cutting taujht at f'2.50 

Bei.ubla waist patterns, cut by measure, 

Pinkiog, in all it4 varietiM. 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

!ilMatS;§i^^ •&< 

FIGURE 56. Both 1876 costumes were made from the same Demorest sized skirt and polonaise 

patterns; each pattern cost $0.30; from August 1876 issue of Demorest's Monthly Magazine. (Smithsonian Insdtudon.) 
NUMBER 42 83 

envelopes, with full directions for Making, Trimming, etc., and so accurately cut and notched that 

any novice can put them together" (Jun 1872: 

inside front cover). It is not clear whether all these 

features were "Something New" or only one or two 

features. Whatever was the case, this "Something 

New" was new only to Demorest. Five years before 

this advertisement, E. Butterick &: Company 

started producing paper patterns that were sized, 

and notched. Also a label was attached to each 

Butterick pattern printed with an illustration and 

directions. The present evidence suggests that 

Demorest was copying Butterick. 

The Mme. Demorest display at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition included a dress 

cutting system with a perforated tool and hundreds of sized paper patterns (Figure 51). In 1877 

Mme. Demorest's What to Wear reported, "According 

to the system by which all these patterns are cut, 

the usual sizes for ladies' fitted patterns are 36, 38, 

40 and 42 inches in bust measure " (1877-

1878:126). 

It is not certain when Demorest made the transition 

from unsized and custom cut patterns to mass produced sized patterns. Nevertheless the relationship 

between the drafting system and the sized pattern is 

clear. The 1877-1878 issue oiMme. Demorest's What to 

Wear declared, "It is now very generally conceded that 

our system of dress-cutting, by which all the patterns 

are cut, is founded absolutely on scientific principles, is 

easily comprehended, and can be adapted to all the 

changes and caprices of fashion" (1877-1878:126). It 

was reported that this same system had received the 

highest prizes wherever exhibited from the 1851 

World's Fair in London to the recent 1876 Centennial 

Exhibition. In other words, the drafting system which 

Demorest sold to others for cutting their own dress 

patterns was used by Demorest's cutters to draft 

mass-produced sized patterns. 

Thirty-seven-year-old Ebenezer Butterick made 

his first patterns in 1863 in Sterling, Massachusetts. 

Originally trained as a custom tailor, Butterick had 

gained experience as a merchant tailor in Leominster, Massachusetts, selling yard goods and 

ready-made clothing. In 1864 he moved to New 

York and established E. Butterick 8c Company with 

J. W. Wilder and A. W. Pollard. In that year the 

company's first issue oi Boy's Patterns was published 

and a year later the first Semi-Annual Report of 

Gentlemens' Fashions appeared. 

By 1867 Butterick was producing patterns for 

FIGURE 57. Obverse and reverse of trade card, 11.8 x 7.7 cm, 

used by a New Jersey dry goods store handling Mme. Demorest's sized paper patterns, about 1876. (Smithsonian Insdtution.) 

JAMES LINDSAY, 

No. 346 Comiimnipaw Avenue, Jersey City, K, J., 

lirALF.R IS 

DRY & FANCY GOODS 

KOT:O!;S, rosmY, tiD GLOVES, rrxssraiiiKiKGs m EMBEOIDIRIES, 

-V VUZA. I.IXJ'; < !•' CEX'J'S" KXJRXISHI.VO GOODS . 

Ladies'Eeafly-IaileOiilBrwear& Corsets 

A SPI^CIALTY. 

BOOT S A.nsriD SHOES , 

I would call special attenlion to my Extension Soled Shoes. A call is respeciruUy soUciled. 

Agency for Mme. Demorest's Eeliable Patterns. 

feminine garments illustrated in their first Ladies' 

Report of New York Fashions (as reported in The 

Metropolitan, May 1872:333). These patterns 

ranged in cost from ten cents for a sleeve to 75 

cents for dresses (Butterick's, 1867:22-23). They 

were "designed for the use of persons not very 

familiar with making garments, and who desire to 

make them for themselves or their children" 

{Butterick's, 1867:17). In February 1872 The Metropolitan reported that at its beginning E. Butterick 

& Co. had "invented and elaborated a system of 

graduating patterns to fit all sizes. Others had been 

hampered by the idea that these things must be 

done according to correct laws of proportion 

found in antique statues." The Butterick Company, however, had "recognized the fact that these 

true proportions are not often found, and by a 
E. BUTTERICK & Go's PATTERNS, 589 BROADWAY, N . Y. 

962 114 958 

Lady s Pelisse, wiih a Lady's Bress, Gored from the Lady's Pelisse, with a 

Surplice Front. Shoulder. Diagonal Front. 

Bust Measures, 28 to 88 ins. Bust Measures, 2S to 42 ins. Bust Measures, 28 to 42 ins, 

11 sizes: 75 cents each. 15 sizes: 75 cents each. 15 sizes: 75 cents each 

874 828 846 

Lady's Dress. Gored to the Lady's Polonaise Dress. Lady's Toilet Salt. 

Arm Scye. Bust Measures, 28 to 42 Ins. Bust Measures, 28 to 8S ins. 

Bust Measures. 28 to 42 ins. 1.3 sizes: 75 cents each. 11 sizes: 75 cents each. 

13 sizes: 50 cents each. 

800 993 

J^y 8 Walking Suit, with Lady's Dress, M ith Collar and Lady's Circular Wrapper 

Felisse, Apron Front, and Lapels, Gored to Arm Scye. Bust Measures, 28 to 40 int. 

Ti,;^/^ ^"^^^^i^J^a^%- ^"»* Measures, 28 to 8S Ins. 13 sizes: 75 cents each. Bust Measures. 28 to 88 inn 11 ni^^o • -r*; ^.^«*» ^—v ^»v<«. 

Marie Antoinette Cap^. 

Bust Measures, 28 to 88 Ins 

11 sizes: fl each. 

—., Measures,' .^ „^ .^ 

11 sizes: 75 cents each. 
NUMBER 42 85 

FIGURE 58. An assortment of ladies' patterns from the small 

(11.5 X 19.6 cm), 26-page catalog offered by E. Butterick & Co. 

about 1869. Patterns of garments for ladies, misses, boys, and 

little children of both sexes as well as patterns for gentlemen's 

shirts were included. Each folded dssue pattern had attached to 

it a printed label showing the size, amount of cloth and trimming required, instructions for cutting and making, and a 

picture of the finished garment. Any pattern in the catalog 

could be ordered by mail from any part of the United States or 

Canada. (Smithsonian Institution.) 

series of practical experiments best known to 

themselves, perfected a system suitable for all" 

(Feb 1872:124). About 1868, Butterick patterns for 

a lady's dress were sold in as many as 15 sizes 

according to the bust measurement which could 

range from 28 to 42 inches (Figure 58). E. 

Butterick 8c Co. created its proportional system to 

differentiate or "grade" these sizes. 

James McCall, a Scotsman, established the second oldest pattern company in operation today. 

Before he began selling patterns, however, he was 

in the dressmakers' drafting tool business. Giving 

his address as 82 Union Street, Glasgow, he obtained a U.S. copyright in 1867 for the "Royal 

Chart" (Figure 61). This perforated tool for a 

hybrid system was sold, wholesale and retail, at 

addresses in Paris, London, Manchester, Glasgow, 

and New York. For several years, McCall permitted others to handle his business in the United 

States. In 1867 Russell 8c Covert of New York 

advertised the "Royal Chart," describing themselves in Harper's Bazar as "Sole Agents for America" {Harper's, 1867:14). About a year later, however, O. A. Roorbach of New York advertised 

McCall's chart {Harper's, 1868:943). 

James McCall immigrated to New York City 

about a year later. He was listed in the city directory of 1870 as selling machines at 543 Broadway. He also enthusiastically advertised his chart in 

the 7 May 1870 issue of Harper's Bazar, giving the 

same Broadway address (1870:303). In 1871 

McCall used his exuberant writing style in an advertisement for Elliptic Sewing Machines and another for Bazar Cut Paper Patterns ^^ {Harper's, 

^' McCall's choice of the name "Bazar" for his patterns was 

probably influenced by his decision to advertise in Harper's 

Bazar. No doubt many readers mistakenly thought that these 

patterns were associated with the popular magazine. The use of 

status names to give a fashionable cachet to a new product was 

common practice in the 19th century as it is today. 

1871:671). He announced: 

We have carefully prepared a catalogue of 28 pages, containing 

over two hundred figures, showing the leading fashions of the 

day. From this catalogue may be selected patterns of every 

description and of every size, ranging from 30 to 46 inches bust 

measure; also for misses from 10 to 16 years of age, and for 

children of both sexes under 10 (Harper's, 1871:671). 

The Bazar patterns for women were cut by a 

proportional system, using the "bust" measurement. This system was probably not devised by 

McCall. He stated, "Every pattern we issue will be 

the product of the ablest and most experienced 

gentlemen dressmakers in the country, all under 

the supervision of Mr. Moschcowitz, a gentleman 

who stands at the head of his profession, and who 

is unquestionably the ablest dressmaker in the 

United States. What Worth is to Paris, Moschcowitz 

is to New York—the highest authority on all matters pertaining to fashion" {Harper's, 1871:671). 

Although only one Moschcowitz was mentioned, 

the proportional system was probably the collaborative creation of the Moschcowitz brothers, 

Herman and Schamu. Both had several patents to 

their credit. They appear to have taken turns applying for them. Schamu received a patent for an 

"Improvement in Body-Lining for Ladies Dresses" 

on 24 January 1871 (U.S. Patent 111,236). Herman received one for "Goods for Dress-Linings 

Having Pattern Printed Thereon" on 30 August 

1881 (U.S. Patent 246,536). Then Schamu was 

granted a second patent, "Combined Pattern and 

Fabric," on 6 October 1885 (U.S. Patent 327,961), 

and Herman obtained his second, "Pattern for 

Garments,' on 30 November 1886 (U.S. Patent 

350,073). 

McCall's association with Moschcowitz continued 

for a number of years. As late as 1882 McCall 

published the "French System of Cutting and Fitting" (the third section of a larger publication), 

which purported to be the system Messrs. Moschcowitz and their partner Russell used in their 

dressmaking business (McCall, 1882, 3:3). McCall 

described their establishment in New York, as "one 

of the best and most extensive in the world" 

employing 90 male dressmakers (1882, 3:1). 

McCall also declared that "the three greatest artistic dressmakers in the world" were Pingat, Worth, 

and Moschcowitz (1882, 1:3). 

In 1884 the Moschcowitz brothers expanded 

their activities, placing themselves in competition 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 59. "Ladies' Promenade Toilet" made from two 1876 

Butterick patterns: a $0.20 "basque" pattern, in bust measurements 28 to 46 inches and a $0.35 walking skirt pattern, in waist 

measurements from 29 to 36 inches; from E. Butterick ^ Co.'s 

Illustrated Catalogue of Patterns, Spring and Summer 1876. 

(Butterick Patterns Archives/Library.) 

with McCall. They began producing "The Moschcowitz Model Waist Lining' (Moschcowitz, 1884). 

Their Harper's Bazar adverdsement described this 

Silica lining printed with a pattern of a "Lady's" 

bodice and sleeves as an opportunity to avoid "the 

expense and use of a paper pattern" (1884:431). 

This innovadon was to be used both as a pattern 

for cutting out the outer fabric and also as the 

lining for the dress. These pattern-linings were 

sold according to the "bust" measurement. 

By this time McCall's preferred proportional 

system differed from the Moschcowitz method. 

The Moschcowitz customers were advised to take 

their "measure around the bust under the arm, two 

inches tighter than the dress is to fit" {Harper's, 

1884:431). In 1884, however, the McCall customers were directed to measure themselves by passing 

"a tape measure around the breast, just under the 

arms, and above the bust . . . draw it one inch 

tighter than the dress is to fit" {McCall's, 

1884-1885:16). In 1884 the McCall's Bazar patterns for women's dresses were sold in five sizes, 32 

to 40 inches (Figure 62). 

Demorest's, Butterick's, and McCall's patterns 

were all sized by proportional systems of grading. 

To produce a fashionably shaped garment in the 

last quarter of the 19th century most women found 

that these sized (proportionally graded) patterns 

had to be altered to fit. Various ways to simplify 

these alterations were suggested to such customers. 

In 1^1^ Peterson's Magazine described how to draft 

a basic pattern by a direct-measure technique using 

just a tape measure. According to Peterson's, any 

commercial pattern could be easily modified to fit 

with this perfectly fitting home-made pattern as a 

reference (1876:371). A. Burdette Smith offered a 

similar solution to her 1877-78 fall and winter 

pattern catalogue. She recommended that an individual order from her a dress pattern cut for the 

customer's specific "bust" measurement, circumference of the waist, and the center back length of 

waist. These custom made patterns were probably 

drafted by Smith's hybrid system, which used the 

FIGURE 60. Modish 1901 reception gowns made from two 

different "waist" and skirt patterns. The "waist" patterns cost 

$0.20 each in six sizes for the ladies from 30- to 40-inch bust 

measurement. The skirt patterns cost $0.25 each in seven sizes 

from 20- to 32-inch waist measurement. From August 1901 

Butterick magazine The Delineator. (Smithsonian Insdtudon.) 
x-'.-i ;->5i>>Kv:^i7:>?;;>;i^;^-;w'-J-'-': ^;-;^f i: 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 61. "The Royal Chart," a perforated, cardboard tool (47.0 x 62.2 cm) for a hybrid system, 

copyright by James McCall of Glasgow, Scotland. The illustrated medals represented awards given to 

Elias Howe, Jr., inventor and manufacturer of sewing machines. For a short period of time McCall's 

"Royal Chart" was given to every purchaser of a Howe sewing machine. (Prints and Photographs 

Division, Library of Congress.) 

same measurements {The Elite Dressmaker, 

1878:35). Smith advised her readers that after 

obtaining a waist pattern custom cut to fit, they 

could order any other patterns by bust measurement only, "as the pattern that fits can always be 

used to the waistline, no matter what shape is 

desired for the skirt portion of the basque or 

polonaise" (Smith, 1877-1878:2). This was a reasonable solution as the basic fashionable cut of the 

dress bodice was essentially the same. Variations 

between costumes appeared principally in different designs for the basque or polonaise—upper 

torso garments having skirt-like appendages extending below the waistline. Similar alternatives 
NUMBER 42 89 

1833.—r.ndvV Polonaise. 5 -izes, •« to 40 

Ins. 8 yds. Mcts. ea. 

179ft.-I..idy"s l\^^ l«5-t Lii.lv's Pi.lonai.se. 5 sizi'S, ."32 tn 40 

Ins. 83-i- yds. 35 uts. 

.—T.adv's Polonr)si/.'V, :^;! to 40 

75-4 yds. ~5 cts. 

1»47.-Lady's Polonaise. 5 -iizis. :?^ to 40 

iui. 8 yds. 35ctb.ea. 

mH6.—t,adv's Polonaise. .'•, .-ij/rs, .T,' to 40 

ius. 03^yii-j. SOeeuts. 

170I.—Lady's Coat. 

6sizes.'«to 40 ins. 4>^ 

yda. 3u cents each. 

2023.-Lady's Redinpote. 5 sizes, 32 to 40 

IUS. 9 yds. 20 cts. ea. 

2179 . —Lady's RedIneote. 5 sizes, 32 to 

40 ins. 5?.i yds. 30 cts. 

1978. — Ladv'sRedinC'te .^> si/es. .12 to 40 

ius. 7 Nd.>, 'JO cts. ruch. 

2009.-Ladv'.<i Pedinpotc. 5 sizes. .32 to 40 

ius. CJ-ayds. ;iJ5cts. 

1G12 

KOte. 

—Lady's I?edin5 sizes. 32 to 40 

\iis .i"j (ts ea. 

a 178— Lady's Prin 

cess Prpss. 5 sizes. 3; 

lto40iiis. lej^yds. 30c 

2010 . —Lady's Princess Dress. 5 sizes. 32 

to 40 ius. 13 yds. 20c. 

1920,-Ladv'sPrincess 

Dress. 6-izev. 3Jto 40 

lub. 15 yds. 30 cti. ea. 

1807. — Lady's Costume. T) sizes, 32 to 40 

ins, 10 yds. 35 cts. 

l«09._.r,ad"s Cos'me. 

5 sizes, .32 to" 40 ins. 18 

V(L3. 35oonfcseacli. 

I618.-Lady's Walkins Cos'me. 5sizes,32 

to 40 ins. 14 yds. 35 c. 

aB12.-LadyCes< Iiros 5 sizes, y,-. 

to-loiub. 13>iyd3.30c 

21 G5.-Ladv's Mother 

IJiil.l.ai-d M raiiper. 5 

6i/:es,32to40,11 yds 30c. 

2015. —Lady's WrapI>er .5 sizesj 3',> to iO 

ius. 0>o yds. 25 cts. 

1066.—Lady'.s Shirred 

M'rapper. 5 sizes. 32 to 

2001.—Lady's Wrap- 40 ins. 8>ayds. 25 cts. 

per. 0 sizes, 3'- to 40 

ius. 11 yds. 20 cts. 

1611.-Lady's WalkInfrDress. 5sizos.32to 

40 ins. ll>4yas. 35 cts. 

FIGURE 62. A selection of McCall's patterns for ladies' polonaises, coats, redingotes, dresses, 

costumes, and wrappers, which were usually offered in five sizes from 32- to 40-inch bust measurement. Customers were advised to take this measurement by passing a "tape measure around the 

breast, just unde r the arms, and above the bust. . . draw it one inch tighter than the dress is to fit." 

From the 1884-188 5 Fall and Winter Catalog, McCall's Bazar Glove-Fitting Patterns. (Warshaw 

Collection, Smithsonian Institution.) 
90 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

were offered by some others during the last quarter of the century. Despite the common occurrence 

of fitting problems which such alternatives reflected, the majority of commercially made patterns were mass produced with proportionally determined sizes. 

Even with their limitations, sized paper patterns 

were popular. Butterick boasted that he was 

selling four million patterns in the United States in 

1871 {Metropolitan, May 1872:333). In 1876 Demorest claimed that "one ton of these patterns 

were recently shipped to London to fill a single 

order, and 25,000 is not an unusual number to sell 

at the retail house, 17 East Fourteenth Street, of 

one style alone during the season" {Demorest's 

Monthly, Dec 1876:643). The wide range of styles 

offered in the numerous pattern catalogues provided the amateur sewer with a varied choice. If 

she were clever and if her fitting problems were 

not severe, she could adjust the waist pattern to fit 

her. The shapes and arrangements of fashionably 

trimmed and draped skirts were already calculated 

for her. She still had to sew the garment. She did 

not have to know how to draft it. 

Professional Dressmakers and Cutters 

In the last quarter of the 19th century, drafting 

systems were used most frequently by professional 

dressmakers. In 1886 Mme. Mallison said that 

amateur dressmakers could use her system to cut 

dresses without "bought patterns." She made a 

stronger appeal to "young ladies" to whom the 

Mallison system would be "the royal road to excellence in dressmaking, without having to serve their 

time with a professional dressmaker to learn the 

trade." But she promised professional dressmakers 

that the system would be "what 'they long have 

sought, and mourned because they found it not,' a 

simple method of Dress-cutting that will not require re-fitting or alteration of any kind" (Mallison, 

1886:6-7). 

A woman could be employed as a dressmaker in 

several ways. She could work in her customer's 

home or in her own domicile. She could be the 

head of her own small business employing several 

other women or she could be a cutter in a major 

dressmaking establishment. Emma Eckhart and 

Marie E. Duval exemplified the work of many 

rural dressmakers. 

Emma Eckhart bought a "McDowell Garment 

Drafting Machine" and a "McDowell Sleeve Machine," about 1890, when she was 19. She lived and 

worked in a rural area north of Allentown, Pennsylvania. The villages that are mendoned in her 

measure book and that can be located on a modern 

map—Carbon, Little Gap, Aquaschicola, Bowmanstown, and Lehighton—are clustered in an 

area with a five mile radius. Occasionally she 

traveled about 15 miles to work for relatives in 

Allentown, the closest large town. Customers frequently picked her up, provided her with room 

and board while she worked and took her home 

again when she finished. Emma Eckhart did much 

less dressmaking after 1909 when her sister-in-law 

died. At that time she moved in with her brother to 

help raise his family.^"^ Miss Eckhart's measure 

book contains 213 undated entries (Figure 63). 

Marie E. Duval bought a variety of Professor J. 

B. Plant's specialized systems (Figures 24-26) about 

1902 when she was 26. She lived in Ludlow and 

later in Indian Orchard, Massachusetts. She 

worked in her home making clothes for herself, 

her five daughters, and for her customers. One 

daughter recalls her saying that a well dressed 

woman would have two ensembles made a year, 

one winter and one summer. Each costume consisted of a coat, hat, and dress.^^ Mrs. Duval could 

make the entire ensemble. 

Many women in cities worked independently as 

dressmakers as did Miss Eckhart and Mrs. Duval. 

In densely populated areas, however, there was a 

greater chance of being successful enough to establish a business. In 1894 The Women's Book reported nearly four hundred dressmakers in New 

York City who worked in their own "flats" and 

employed from two to ten assistants. These women 

did not make fortunes, it was said, but "they appear to make a comfortable living" (Hubert, 

1894:62). 

The individual dressmaker working for herself 

performed all the manufacturing tasks. When a 

dressmaker could afford to hire assistants she continued to do the cutting and fitting while relegating 

the more routine tasks of basting, sewing, and 

trimming to her employees. The larger the establishment the greater the degree of specialization. 

" I am grateful to Mrs. Helen O. George for obtaining 

background information on Emma Eckhart. 

^^ I am grateful to Annette J, Gibbs for providing 

background information concerning her mother, Marie E. 

Duval. 
NUMBER 42 

In the largest custom shops there was no one 

called a "dressmaker." Instead the critical tasks of 

dealing with the customer and drafdng the pattern 

were assigned to two different people. The saleswoman waited on the customer, helping her to 

select the style of garment, the fabric and trimming. This saleswoman also measured the customer and sometimes worked with her during the 

fittings. 

Drafting the pattern from the measurements 

taken by the saleswoman was the work of a specialist, the cutter. Samuel T. Taylor wrote in 1867 that 

"the increasing demand for good cutters by the 

system are without parallel in the history of nations." The demand for them was so great that they 

were being paid from $15 to $20 per week {Le Petit 

Messager, 1867:153). Twenty-nine years later, the 

instruction booklet for Taylor's dress cutting system included 67 testimonial letters from 

dressmakers, cutters, and employers of cutters. 

Annie C. Zaun, a cutter and fitter, thanked S. T. 

Taylor for recommending her to the Washington, 

B.C., department store Woodward and Lothrop: 

"Of all the several posidons I have had, this is by 

far the most excellent. The pay be $35.00 per week 

and the firm don't fail to make everything agreeable and pleasant for me" (1896:50). Mrs. H. L. 

Frazier of Montgomery, Alabama, expressed her 

appreciadon to S. T. Taylor for sending her a good 

cutter: "Have tried her now for quite a few weeks 

and find she used the system perfecdy. I must say 

there is no system gives such entire satisfacdon as 

the S. T. Taylor. Having used it now for twelve 

years, would not exchange for any other, neither 

would I engage any in my workrooms but what use 

it" (1896:51). On 25 November 1891, Albert 

McDowell, president of the McDowell Garment 

Drafting Machine Company, cerdfied that Miss 

Lillian Duncan had completed a course of instruction in cutting ladies' garments in New York City 

(Figure 43^:). He wrote that, with practice, she 

"should be fully competent to do first class work as 

a dressmaker or to take a good position as a cutter." Employment as a cutter was available to 

women with training. 

The cutter did not deal directly with the customer. She worked only with the customer's measurements. This is particularly apparent in mailorder custom work in which most of the department stores were engaged. The catalog frequently 

did not illustrate the style of the garment the store 

91 

FIGURE 63. Two customers' measurements recorded in a 

McDowell measure book by Emma Eckhart. (Smithsonian Institution.) 
92 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEASURING. 

Tak4 the following measures over the dress., rather 

closely. 

I Around the bust, at the largest part, under the 

arms, A A A A. 

3 From sleeve-seam to sleeve-seam across chest, 

being the width between shoulders across 

chest, B B. 

3 From sleeve-seam to sleeve-seam across the back, 

being width between shoulders across back, C C. 

4 From sleeve-seam under arm straight down to 

waist-seam, D D. 

5 Length of s eeve on the lu.sitle seiiiM, E E. 

i length of sleeve outside, viz.: from junction of 

sleeve-seam with .shoulder-seam, at back of 

shoulder, to •point of elbow thence to wrist, 

K F F. 

7 Around waist, G N G G G G. 

8 Around neck at collar-seam, H N H H N. 

9 Around hips at the largest part, R R R R. 

ID Length of shoulder-seam from collar-seam to 

sleeve-seam, H K. 

11 From neck to waist-seam in front, N N . 

12 From neck to waist-seam at the back, N G. 

13 Length of skirt in front, not including the band, 

N P . 

14 Length of skirt at back, not including the band, 

G Q. .. . 

15 Size of arm where sleeve joms waist. 

16 Size of arm just above elbow. 

If the bust measure is taken too high in front and 

too low behind, or otherwise than as directed, an 

error of one or two inches will result. 

If you stoop, when measured for length of skirt, 

the measure will be two inches short. 

A ivaist'lining^ made to fit as you -would like it., 

ivould be pre/erred. 
NUMBER 42 93 

offered to make. Instead detailed desciptions were 

provided and swatches of the materials were sent 

on request, sometimes with illustrations of the 

style. The catalog, however, always gave the customer detailed, illustrated instructions as to how to 

take the measurements she was to send in (Figure 

64). The cutter's draft was only as good as the 

measurements she was given. Since the customer 

provided the measurements in the mail-order 

business rather than a trained saleswoman, the 

client was also frequently asked to send in an old 

lining or "waist" that fit well. 

During most of the last quarter of the 19th 

century, direct-measure systems were popularly 

used by dressmakers and cutters. The extraordinarily close fit of fashionable "waists," "basques," 

and polonaises demanded more precise and complex cutting than in any other period. American 

women would not tolerate either the cost or the 

time required to create a garment by the "pin-tothe-form" technique. And proportional and hybrid 

systems, which, in the form of sized paper patterns, 

met the needs and abilities of home sewers), did 

not work well enough to satisfy the requirements 

of either the dressmaker or her customer. Hybrids, 

however, did not disappear; they were disguised. 

McDowell's 1883 instruction booklet accurately reported that "while most of these systems and charts 

claimed to give actual measures, nine out of ten 

were merely proportional scales, some on pasteboard ... and others on tapes and squares ..." 

(1883:4). 

By the early 1890s the elaborately draped skirts 

of previous decades had evolved into a gored skirt. 

This style was simpler in appearance but more 

difficult to cut. Skirt drafting systems were created 

to solve this cutting problem. Fashions of the early 

20th century called for skirts that were even more 

precisely fitted over the hips to emphasize the 

roundness of the wearer's derriere. Numerous 

drafting systems for skirts were then created. 

FIGURE 64. Detailed instructions to customers for taking the 

measurements they were to send in when they ordered 

custom-made costumes by mail from Lord and Taylor. Because 

of the uncertain accuracy of measurements taken by their 

customers, the store requested to be sent, "a waisdining, made 

to fit as you would like it." From Lord and Taylor Catalog, Spring 

and Summer 1883. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian Institution.) 

Much has been written about shifdng erogenous 

zones. The theory holds that women's clothing 

fashions focus sexual attendon on a specific part of 

the body. When fashions change, this sexual attention shifts to another part of the body. The major 

changes in the late 1890s illustrate this phenomenon. As the hips were delineated by the cut of the 

skirt, the bust became obscured, although still 

prominent, beneath gathered and loosely draped 

light weight materials (Figure 60). 

Appearances are sometimes deceiving. The 

outer fabric of this dress bodice was actually 

draped over a closely fitted lining. Drafting systems were needed to cut the lining and they were 

used for cutting the outer fabric. The tight fitting 

lining, however, did not have to be cut as precisely 

as was required by earlier styles because it was 

covered by the loosely arranged outer fabric. Hybrid drafting systems emerged again. Because of 

the new fashions, hybrid methods as well as 

direct-measure techniques were used by dressmakers and cutters in the early 20th century. 

Ladies' Tailors 

Drafting systems for women's garments were also 

used by a comparatively new professional, the 

ladies' tailor. Charles J. Stone wrote in his instruction booklet of 1901, "This century is opening with 

the outlook for business brighter than ever before, 

and especially is this true in regard to Ladies' 

Tailoring. In these days of progress this department of the trade is making an earnest bid for its 

share of recognition in the sartorial art" (1901 :vii). 

Women's tailored suits appeared in the well 

dressed woman's wardrobe in the 1880s. The early 

history of their use is obscured by the widespread 

application of the term "suit" to refer to other 

types of apparel. The department store catalogues 

showed two-piece garments that were made by 

dressmakers. These garments might be called costumes, ensembles, or dresses, but frequendy they 

were referred to as suits. The term was used to 

mean an outfit consisdng of more than one piece 

but with all parts made of the same material. By the 

1890s tailored suits were disdncdy different from 

dresses. Like the riding habit, they exhibited some 

design elements derived from men's wear and they 

were made using materials and techniques that 

were better known to the tailoring trade than to the 

dressmaking business. Ladies' tailors were usually 
94 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

XiADZSS' DZISSSSS (B.EAt)?-MABS). 

The dresses ilhiBtrated on this page are made in proportionato sizes, and can only accept the following measurements: bust, waist 

and skirt length in front. No samples accepted or sent. Four to six days' time will be required to fill orders. 

Fig. 93. Plain and striped euiting 

In combinatiou, gobelin blue, navy 

blue or green $ltf.60 

Fig. 91. Caslimero, In all colors aud 

black $20.00 

Fig. 95. Gray, brown or blue suiting, 

plain and siripe $21.00 

Fig. 96. Black, brown, blue, green or 

gray serge, trimmed with gilt or Mack 

gimp $22.50 

FIGURE 65. A selection of women's ready-made dresses offered in B. Altman & Co.'s fall and winter 

1888-1889 mail-order catalog. The "basques" of these costumes were cut with a simple hybrid system 

using the bust and waist measurements. A lady had to be properly proportioned in order to have one 

of these ready-made dresses fit. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian Institution.) 

men who were trained in the art of tailoring and 

who chose to specialize in this branch of the trade. 

The tailored suit became so popular as street or 

business attire in the early 20th century that it 

diminished the importance of daytime dresses in a 

woman's wardrobe. 

By the 20th century a number of systems created 

for drafting women's garments were devised as 

much for ladies' tailors as they were intended for 

dressmakers. 

Ready-made Clothing Industry 

Fashions changed, hybrid systems were again 

openly proselytized, and there were shifts in the 

importance of one kind of custom work relative to 

another. These were minor changes in comparison 

to the effect which the "ready-made" industry was 

having on the custom trade. 

By the 1850s a wide choice of ready-made clothing was available to men but not to women (Kidwell 

FIGURE 66a,i. Excerpts from Stem Brother's Catalogue, Spring 

and Summer 1898. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian Insdtution.) 

FIGURE 66a. Four ready-made costumes (Nos. 33, 35, 37, 

39) were offered in five bust sizes from 34 to 42 inches with 

skirts varying in front length from 38 to 43 inches. These 

ready-made outfits ranged in price from $19.75 to $38.50, 

while two made-to-order costumes (styles L, M) cost from 

$65.00 to $90.00. 
Ladies^ CostMnnes, Reaidy Made aod Made to Order, 

.\o 3 9 

Styl e L. Madetoorder. Ladles'Walking Coatume, new blue, tan, navy brown 

gray or black; nuns veiling or canvas cloth, lined throughout with taffet^' 

slllr CO lar. yoke and belt of 8ilk in contrasting color, finished with no^ ^ 

mentene ornamenttj •7.,/u. 

Same, of etanrine, in tan, new blue, navy or gray.' lin^'throughout with 

•"'' 65 00 

No. .33. Bea<ly-Made Walking Costume, waist and sleeves tucked silt ^nllBr 

and b«lt, soft front of tucked white mousseline de soio and lacefcoTors navy 

blue, brown, royal blue or block serge i-omrs, navy 

^"\ •?"; ^?'^K'^^$? Costume of Navy or Black Cheviot Serge, vest of chance^ able taffeta silk, blouse lined with fancy silk est 01 ciiangeNo. .37. Ready-Made Foulard Silk Costume, hands of lace over plain silk m 

contrasling color front of accorrlion plaite<l black chiff,>n over eorwetTsilk 

colorfngg, navy blue, green, brown, heliotrope or black and white 34 sO 

No 39, Stylish Readv-Made Changeable Taffeta Silk Costmrie skirt and 

«le^vc.« trlinmed with narrow black lace, velvet yoke and 1^ I* flnished at 

neck with (Yepe de chine l>ow, all the newest coloring... . .^ . . 38 50 

Styl e M Made to order. Black Fish Net Costume, made over black or 

color..d taffeta silk. trlmiue,l with rows of block iitin i-ibt^n vSke 7t 

spanKle<l m-t, necK and sleeves finished with ruche ••io,H>n. yoke of 

"^"m: yoU^.?f {^•;y'c"n.W:n U^;**.*:""':":'»". •"• •'"^'^ •""• *hit^ flgure^-foulard- "^^^ 
96 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TERN BROTHER: 

PRING AND SUMMER 

TALOGUE, 18 

NO. 

92 

Memtaoin NMimber 

of this 

Catalogye. 

MEASUREMENTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR COSTUMES MADE TO ORDER ONLY. 

-1. Around the. neck. 

1 t<< 2, upck and waist. 

:i t<> 5. bust, to be taken all around under arms. 

.T to 6, len^h of sleeve inside. 

Side <^f neck. 0 to 7. length of shoulder. 

3 to 11. from under arm to waist. 

11. size of waist ail around. 

A.- Arouii'! hips. 

BACK.—12 to 13, length of back to waist. 

8 to 14, across back. 

16 to 9, shoulder to elbow. 

9 to 10, elbow to wrist. 

SKIRT.—Length in front from waist. 

Length in back from waist. 

Length at side from waist. 

By follovvinK above nieasurements. we will iosurfi a perfect fit. We would prefer, however, that our patrons will send a well-fltting waist- as guide 

(thus (loinK away nith any possibility of a misfit^ which can be sent h.v mail at a trifling expense, ufritino your name und adtlremm only OM 

inttsidr of paekaff, to avoid letter poatnt/e, giving nteaaureg and all other eafplanation* by letter (•eparate). See directions, page 109. 

A DEP0S3T REQUIRED ON ALL GARMENTS MADE TO ORDER. 

We will s«'ii<i, upon application, samples and estimates for Ladies* Costumes to order. 

FIGURE 66b. Directions for taking measurements for made-to-order costumes such as styles L and 

M in Figure 660. 

and Christman, 1974:53). It was largely a matter of 

demand and priorities. Available almost 

everywhere were dressmakers proficient in dressing women in individual creations at very litde cost. 

Women with even less money made their own 

dresses and saved their clothing dollars for the 

purchase of ready-made garments for the older 

males in their families. They spent their limited 

resources for the clothing that was the most difficult to make. Some tentative beginnings of 

ready-made for women came in the area of women's wraps as early as the 1830s (Kidwell and 

Christman, 1974:63). There was an existing need 

for these articles. Sometimes they were made of 

heavy, hard-to-sew material and many did not require a close fit. By the last quarter of the 19th 

century ready-made wraps were a major industry. 

FIGURE 67. Simple and looser fitting one-piece fashions, popular by the second decade of the 20th century, that made it 

possible for more women to buy clothes that fit "off the rack.'' 

Mass production achieved dramatically low prices: from left to 

right, these three frocks cost $14.98, $16.98, and $7.98. From 

Bellas Hess ^ Co. Catalogue, Fall and Winter 1912-1913. (Warshaw Collection, Smithsonian Institution.) 
ll'f •'iHirattl<.i- /.' jit yon [•>tj>xtly ij y^u s, nJ irj imaMimUiHls KIIIIJ },>r on m.r uiJ,r bhiitk 

DRESSES OF NEW AND CHARMING STYLE 

(SIZES.—nrennrs ran be fur* 

ttLihvd In two proportions, rrsu -

lar sixes 33 to 44 buKt niid skirt 

l4>nRth 37 to 4.1 Inrhcs. iilso proportioned to (It miH.sos or Nninil 

women, sixeti 'H'i to :(M biiNt and 

skirt length ;i7 to \tt Inrhes. The 

skirts arc nnlshed with dp«p 

baHted hpin and can be riiMily 

altered by customer It nerivtsary. 

Samples of Velvet and Cloth 

dresNes furnl.Hhed on request. 

!»> do not send samples of 

chiffon dress 3AK«I0. 

3AK610. A handsome sown 

Of llncst hnportcil ChlHon, made 

over a fouaUatlon of lustrous Satht 

Messaliue. TUIs sup«rb creation 

is beautifully embroidered as Illustrated with fancy silk cord, combined with embroidery In contni.<itlOK color, worked In silk and 

said thread. The embroidered deslg-n 

also trims tbe back. Yoke and collar 

ore ot shadow lace, the yoke belli? 

outlined by .satin piping and silk 

cord. The short sleeves are of 

chUIon prettily draped over mrssallne and trimmed with a strap of 

satin messallue ending In a chk; 

little bow. Sleeves are edeed with 

ruffle of Chant Illy lace. The messallne underskht Is plain and the 

chiffon ovcrsklrt Is eathered full 

iat the waist line, especially so In 

the back, falling over the underBklrt In pretty, Kraceful rippling 

fiolds. In the front tbe chiffon 

laps over as ptetured and Is caught 

at tbe hem with a large buckle effect 

of chUTon. Waist and skirt are 

Joined by a crushed chiffon gbtlle, 

trimmed at right side with large 

buckle. There Is also a buckle 

In the center of the back. Dresa 

tostens invisibly In back. Comes 

tai black, navy blue or gray chiffon 

over white messallne with contrasting color embroidery; also in black 

over black messallne with black 

embroidery tl^.SS 

. 30X611. A Charmlncly Dressy 

Frock, made of line quality Velvet. 

The material used In tbb dresa 

b very attractive and the style 

b both new and becoming. Dress 

b deslfrned on Dlrectofre lines 

With a becoming Robespierre collar 

Df satin messallne which may be 

worn In standing effect as pictured 

or may be turned down flat as 

(howD in tbe small Ulnstratton. 

The becoming jabot In front b of 

Oriental lace trimmed with handtome pearl buttons and tbe Tilreotolre revers and pointed cuffs aro 

Df fancy basketweave silk In contrasting cok>r. Sleeves are piped 

kt armholes with sattai and the 

niffg are tinished with dainty Loub 

XVI frUls of lace. The set-In vest 

In the front b of satin mrsmllne 

trbnmcd with velvet buttons, 

vest b conthtued down front of 

Jklrt as pfctured. Wabt and skirt 

ire Joined by a cru.ihed girdle of 

itttin inesgaline. Skirt In the hack 

tas two stitched plaits down entire 

wigth fbrmtng an inverted panel 

Jflcct, while m front the stitched 

>laft« admit a V shaped in.iort 

»f satin mt^saltne at the bottom 

*hlcn ta trimmed with velvet 

wttons. Dress fastens Invblbly 

n the ftont. Body of watot b 

ln«l. Colors: bUek. navy blue 

w brown with revers, vest and cuffs 

w cootrasUag color 916.0(1 

SI«K«J«. A Keat and Stvlish 

Bress, made of extra irood quality 

lu-wonued .StTirc. Dress Is de 

ugned in Russian Coat effect and 

Ma larsre Dlrectoirc revi-rs and 

level pointed cullfi made of fanry 

itrlped velvet. Yoke and collar 

»re of Oriental lace, collar »*eWf llnlsbed with satin piping, 

[he panel effect hi front b trbnineil 

*»n mxuHis bavine velvet rims, 

sack of wabt b plain. Skirt b 

hade with a deep ppplum effect J 

nvmg the appearatKc of » coat, 

. KJ5 ^ Jotaing of wabt and skirt 

?rf.^f?J^*'»*'» * rwtcnt leather 

«uXt!r'''K'i ^*n « with ft handsome 

2* ••'"J. »« plain, both back and 

lieLv»i*''^ fft«eo8 invblbly in 

i^iiHaH^ S ^ 'J5K6I0 Vl^si^A^r^^ ^35K6I2 

21 
98 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

All types of underwear as well as nightclothes, 

wrappers, and sports clothes were also available 

and popular. 

In the 1880s ready-made dresses were produced 

and offered to a wide ranging population through 

mail-order catalogs. But the manufacture of such 

dresses did not reach any level comparable to the 

production of other kinds of ready-made garments. Historians have advanced a number of 

theories (none of them adequate in my judgment) 

to account for this lag. My explanation for this slow 

development of the dress industry is the close 

fitdng, intricate styles that were fashionable. 

Upper body garments including wraps and 

underwear such as chemises and corset covers were 

sold satisfactorily simply by bust measurements. 

The patterns used to cut these garments were 

drafted with proportional systems. The extraordinarily close cut of women's dress bodices, however, 

could not be proportionally sized to fit many 

women. Lord 8c Taylor tried in 1881. Their catalog 

advised, however, "The bust measure and skirt 

length only are guaranteed, the other measures are 

in proportion; if other measures are necessary to 

insure a fit, the garment will need to be made to 

order" (1881:30). Apparently, Lord 8c Taylor and 

many other department stores found that with the 

fashions of the 1880s, only a limited percentage of 

women could wear dresses cut by proportionally 

sized patterns. It was not profitable to mass produce dresses sized this way. 

Most ready-made dresses in the 1880s were cut 

from patterns drafted with a simple hybrid system 

which incorporated the waist measurement (Figure 

65). In the fall and winter catalog of 1888-1889, B. 

Altman 8c Co. announced, "The dresses illustrated 

on this page are made in proportionate sizes and 

can only accept the following measurements: bust, 

waist and skirt length in front" (1888-1889:4). If 

Altman's produced one style of dress in the five 

usual bust sizes (34 to 42) they would have had to 

make garments in a variety of waist dimensions for 

each bust size. If only a range of three waist measurements were cut there would have been 15 

different sizes for one style of dress. On the other 

hand, the less fitted kinds of garments could be 

offered successfully in only five sizes. Ready-made 

dresses required a huge inventory and a major 

risk. 

Even providing this extraordinary range of sizes 

cut by a hybrid system did not insure a good fit for 

many women. Professional dressmakers in the 

1880s had already abandoned such simple hybrid 

systems. Advertisements for ready-made dresses 

reflected these difficulties. Special reminders were 

included pointing out that these garments were not 

made to order, but were manufactured in large 

quantities in order to offer them at attractive 

prices. The store could only "vouch for" the bust, 

waist, and front skirt length measurements. Given 

the fashion dictates of the day, a large propordon 

of the female population still needed custom 

cutting. 

With the more draped waist styles of the late 

1890s, ready-made dresses were successfully sold 

by the bust measurement and skirt length only. 

Proportional systems were used to cut the master 

patterns. Stern Brothers in 1898 could offer just 

five sizes for each style (Figure 66a). This was a 

manageable inventory that a number of women 

could wear because of the looser styles. The risk of 

producing these garments was reduced to an acceptable level and the mass production of readymade dresses expanded. The manufacture of 

women's dresses finally achieved a major position 

in the clothing industry in the second decade of the 

20th century when fashions called for one-piece 

loosely fitted dresses (Figure 67). 

Conclusions 

The creation of the first tailors' drafting systems in 

Europe was a technological revolution against the 

individualistic, secretive practices of the past. By 

systematizing the drafting process into specific, 

clearly defined steps, cutting was transformed 

from an intuitive art into a more easily learned 

craft. With the publicadon of drafting systems the 

traditional code of secrecy was broken and the 

trade was opened to aspiring tailors. Drafting systems democratized this trade. 

Dressmakers' drafting systems, however, were to 

have an even broader democratizing effect. The 

earliest I found was created in the United States 

before 1838 (Figure 16fl). Significandy, this was an 
NUMBER 42 99 

American invention and not an imported European innovation. When the pre-Tentler system was 

being devised, an egalitarian spirit was building 

momentum in the United States. It challenged the 

aristocratic domination of American politics with 

the election of Andrew Jackson as president in 

1828. This spirit created pressure for equality in all 

phases of life. The individual demanding political 

and economic rights equal to his "betters" also 

wanted to look equal. In my opinion this American, egalitarian movement encouraged the creation of the pre-Tentler system—an attempt to offer 

the woman, forced to make her own clothes, the 

technique for cutting a better fitting garment. 

The sized paper pattern industry was also established first in the United States rather than in 

Europe. Unsized paper patterns were sold to professional dressmakers in England as early as the 

mid-1820s (Arnold, 1973:121). Thirty years later 

unsized paper patterns were sold in the United 

States {Godey's, Feb 1854:467). In the States, however, proportional systems with perforated tools 

were also available. By the 1860s these proportional systems were used to grade mass-produced, 

sized patterns. E. Butterick 8c Co. and Mme. Demorest's were prospering international businesses by 

1876, supplying women in the United States and 

Europe with the patterns for their home-made 

fashions. In 1919, fifteen companies in New York 

City produced patterns worth almost a million and 

a half dollars (U.S. Census, 1923, 9:1065). 

Dressmakers' proportional drafting systems with 

the resulting sized pattern industry helped to place 

better fitting, more fashionable attire within reach 

of amateur dressmakers who had to make their 

own clothes. 

The old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention" is well illustrated by drafting systems 

created for professional dressmakers. In the mid1870s fashion dictated that the upper part of a 

woman's body be encased by a closely fitting 

basque. Although fashion exhibited some change 

in the 1880s, the basque continued to be a complexly cut challenge to the most experienced 

dressmaker's skill. Inventors responded to their 

need by creating more drafting systems. 

In the Library of Congress collection of 

dressmakers' instruction books there are three 

from the 1860s, 22 from the 1870s, and 106 from 

the 1880s (Figure 68). The numbers of patents 

granted for drafting systems also reflect the inventive responses to the crisis caused by fashion. From 

the 1820s through the 1870s more patents were 

issued for techniques related to cutting men's garments than for women's apparel. But the number 

of patents granted for cutting women's attire 

jumped from 20 in the 70s to 59 in the 1880s— 

almost twice as many as were granted for men's 

garments (Figure 69). 

The relationship between need and creative activity is not as clearly documented for the 1890s 

and 1900s. The Library of Congress holdings decrease from 106 for the 1880s to 57 for the 1890s, 

to 22 for the first decade of the 1900s (Figure 68). 

On the other hand, the number of patents granted 

for women's garments increased from 59 in the 

1880s to 70 in the 1890s and only decreased by 

four in the early 1900s (Figure 69). 

Since the Library of Congress collection is but a 

sampling of all the instruction booklets that were 

printed, there is the possibility that this collection is 

not totally representative of the systems that were 

produced. On the other hand, the data from the 

U.S. Patent Office are a complete record of the 

state of the art represented by patents. Thus it 

could be argued that the number of patents issued 

in each decade is a truer reflection of the use of 

dressmakers' drafting systems than the Library of 

Congress collection. I do not agree. The patent 

data are a complete record, but of what? They 

represent the creative activity of individuals who 

chose to obtain a patent. This activity, spread 

across the country (Appendix IV), reveals that the 

need for drafting systems was a general concern 

and not just limited to the four major cities— 

Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. 

The patents are not, however, a true representation of the systems which were produced and 

used. Anyone could obtain a patent if he could 

prove his claims were unique. He did not need to 

prove that his invention was useful or commercially practical. Many patented innovations were 

never produced or, if they were manufactured, 

they were not financially successful (Figures 45 and 

46). It is not possible to determine how many of the 

patented claims were actually used in the 

dressmaking trade. 

The number of patents granted in the 1890s and 

1900s may be inflated in part by the length of dme 

required to obtain a patent. After developing what 

he thought was a new invention, an individual 
140 

100 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

INSTRUCTION BOOKS 

1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 1900-09 1910-19 

FIGURE 68. Number of Library of Congress instruction books (excluding periodicals) published 

each decade, from Appendix I. 

consulted a patent attorney. The application and 

drawings had to be drawn up to conform with the 

requirements of the U.S. Patent Office. If they 

were not, his application would be sent back. If the 

form of the inventor's application was in order it 

was exposed to the scrutiny of a patent examiner. 

This specialist was charged with the responsibility 

of determining that the claims were truly unique. 

The Patent Office correspondence files reveal frequent lengthy correspondence between examiners 

and the inventors' attorneys as claims were denied, 

modified, resubmitted, and denied again. This process took time. Albert McDowell filed an application on 11 December 1883 but he was not given his 

Letters Patent until 6 January 1885 (U.S. Patent 

310,297). The style of garment cut by the tool 

illustrated in the patent drawing (Figure 41) was no 

longer fashionable. Many otherwise practical inventions may have also been made obsolete by 

changing fashions by the time the patent was 

granted. 

A number of patents granted for drafting systems 

in the 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s were intended to be 

used for drafting and grading patterns for readymade clothing. Unfortunately, the inventions intended for this growing industry cannot be separated with any certainty from those designed for the 

custom trade. The patent data include many inventions that were not produced or that were created 

specifically for cutters of ready-made clothing. Since 

it is not possible to separate these patents from those 

useful to cutters of custom-made garments the pat-
NUMBER 42 101 

140 

PATENTS 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

« 80 

c 

«i 

•Jo 

a. 

•S 70 

E 

= 60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

126 

Total 

Women's garments 

Men's garments 

108 

64 

37 

32 

29 ^ 

26 

21 M 

»» 

3 wi 

30 

18 

15 

'••v. 

^s3s:£ 

12 

20 

59 

33 

1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-^9 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 

FIGURE 69. Number of U.S. Patents related to drafting systems granted each decade, from 

Appendix III. 

1900-09 1910-19 

ent data are not a reliable indication of the use of 

dressmakers' drafting systems. 

The instruction books in the Library of Congress, however, were all printed for systems that 

were offered for sale. Some were not commercially 

successful, others, like the McDowell machine, 

were used widely. The number of books accessioned by the Library does not, however, reflect 

the relative popularity of these systems. There are 

also some obvious gaps in this collection. For 

example, there are four McDowell instruction 

books in the Library dating from the 1880s, but 

none from the 1890s. Nevertheless, of the eight 

extant McDowell systems brought to my attention, 

all have instruction books copyrighted in the early 

1890s. 

Thus with only the heterogeneous patent data 

and the incomplete Library of Congress holdings 

to work from, many of my conclusions are speculations. Certainly the complexly cut fashions, 

coupled with the growing middle class demand for 

fashionable clothing, created a necessity for accurate drafting systems in the last half of the 1870s. 

To meet this continuing need many more systems 

were offered for sale in the 1880s than were produced ten years earlier. I speculate that the number of dressmakers using drafting systems in the 

1890s remained almost as high as in the 1880s. The 

number of different systems that were used, however, declined. I suspect that after ten years of 

trying a wide variety of hybrid and direct-measure 

systems, dressmakers settled on those few that 
102 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TABLE 1.—Numbers of women's clothing factory establishments and the value of their products in 

four cities, arranged by decade (developed from U.S. Bureau of Census reports: 1883; 1895; 1902, 

volume 8; 1913, volume 10; 1923, volume 8) 

Year of 

census 

1879 

1889 

1899 

1909 

1919 

Boston 

Number of 

establishments 

24 

35 

88 

139 

173 

Value of 

products ($) 

1,808,520 

1,506,212 

3,258,483 

8,748,500 

20,655,935 

Chicago 

Number of 

establishments 

19 

71 

151 

204 

374 

Value of 

products ($) 

1,585,990 

6,422,431 

9,208,454 

15,676,925 

64,203,000 

New 

Number of 

establishments 

255 

777 

1,604 

3,058 

5,089 

York 

Value of 

products ($) 

19,641,802 

43,815,553 

102,697,854 

270,646,086 

866,243,561 

Philadelphia 

Number of 

establishments 

49 

74 

191 

355 

537 

Value of 

products ($) 

2,466,410 

3,335,746 

9,452,259 

30,193,475 

69,183,831 

were most effective. 

I believe that by 1900 dressmakers' drafting systems had begun a rapid decline in importance. The 

changing fashions, the growing ready-made clothing industry, and the increasingly cheaper and 

more widely available paper patterns contributed 

to the conversion of the dressmakers' drafting tool 

from a vital piece of equipment to an obsolete 

artifact of the past. 

In the late 1890s fashionable dress became a 

more loosely fitted garment. This trend continued 

with the widespread use of the one-piece dress by 

1910. With easier fitting fashions the ready-made 

clothing industry could successfully sell dresses 

and suits and shirtwaists to more women. This 

success encouraged the rapid increase in the number of manufacturing establishments. This remarkable growth is verified by census statistics 

gathered in four major cities—Boston, Chicago, 

New York, and Philadelphia (Table I). The development of the women's clothing industry becomes 

even more dramatic when viewed in relation to the 

men's wear industry (Table 2). In 1879 almost 11 

times the number of establishments were producing men's apparel as were manufacturing women's 

garb. In each succeeding decade, however, the 

relative size of these two industries changed. By 

1919 the women's clothing industry exceeded the 

men's industry both as to the number of establishments and the value of products. 

Unfortunately no comparable census statistics 

exist to document continuously the decline of the 

custom trade in relation to the growth of the 

ready-made industry from 1879 to 1919. Some 

TABLE 2.—Comparative growth rate of the industries for men's and women's factory-made clothing, 

measured by number of establishments and value of products, arranged by decade (developed from 

U.S. Bureau of Census reports: 1883; 1895; 1902, volume 8; 1913, volume 8; 1923, volume 8) 

Year of 

census 

1879 (based on 100 cities) 

1889 (based on 165 cities) 

1899 (based on 209 cities) 

1909 

1919 

Men's 

Number of 

establishments 

6,166 

4,867 

5,729 

5,584 

5,258 

cloth mg 

Value of 

products ($) 

209,548,460 

251,019,609 

276,717,357 

485,677,493 

1,162,985,633 

Women's 

Number of 

establishments 

562 

1,224 

2,701 

4,558 

7,711 

clothing 

Value of 

products ($) 

32,004,794 

68,164,019 

159,339,539 

384,751,649 

1,208,543,128 
NUMBER 42 103 

scattered evidence does exist, however, to suggest 

the trend of events. The 10th Census, conducted in 

1879, excluded the gathering of data concerning 

all custom work. Nevertheless, the disparity between the well established ready-made men's wear 

industry and the small women's industry provoked 

the following observation in the final census report: "It is significant of the habits of people that 

while the production of men's clothing in distinct 

establishments is reported in 43 states and territories, that of women's clothing is reported for 

only 25, domestic manufacture or custom dressmaking taking the place of the shop or factory in 

supplying the demand in 22 states or territories" 

(U.S. Census, 1883:xviii). 

The llt h and 12th Censuses (conducted in 1889 

and 1899) did consider custom work as well as 

factory production. In 1889 there were 16 times as 

many dressmaking estabhshments as there were 

manufacturers of ready-made clothing. The value 

of the custom-made products, however, was 84% 

of the value of ready-made garb (U.S. Census, 

1902, 9:302). Apparently even the hard to fit 

ready-made dresses of 1889 were being bought by 

women who could not afford custom-made dresses 

but who, for a variety of reasons, chose not to make 

their own clothes. One of the reasons for this 

change may have been the growing number of 

employed women who had need for attractive, 

durable clothing but who had little time to make it 

themselves. 

By 1899, the number of dressmaking establishments had dropped while the number of factories 

had increased. There were only five times as many 

dressmaking establishments as manufacturers of 

ready-made garb. And the value of custom-made 

costume had dropped to only 30% of the value of 

ready-made clothing (U.S. Census, 1902, 9:302). 

In 1899, the looser, fashionable styles increased the 

probability of finding a ready-made garment that 

fit. Thus even women who could occasionally afford dressmaker-made costumes were more often 

choosing to buy less expensive ready-mades (Figure 66 a). Census statistics show that in the last year 

of the 19th century the margin by which women's 

ready-made clothing exceeded custom-made was 

greater than at any previous time. The importance 

of the professional dressmaker was most certainly 

declining. 

Before going further with this line of reasoning 

it is necessary to take a second look at the census 

statistics. No data were gathered in 1889 or 1899 

on dressmakers earning less than $500.00 a year. 

This excluded group would include a majority of 

the small town dressmakers, particularly those who 

received bed and board as part of their payment. 

Thus I must modify my previous statements. The 

dressmaker rapidly declined in importance in 

urban centers where rack after rack of ready-made 

clothing appeared in specialty and department 

stores. In small towns and villages, however, the 

significance of the local dressmaker probably decreased each year but at a slower rate than among 

her urban sisters. The net result was the same. 

Dressmakers became less important. 

The significance of the dressmaker's role declined even faster in the 20th century. The fashions of the first two decades of the 1900s, even less 

fitted than those near the end of the previous 

century, made it possible for "respectable" middle 

class women to buy the cheaper ready-made garments for every-day use. 

Dressmakers' drafting systems, however, diminished in importance at an even faster rate than 

did the custom trade itself. The simpler fashions of 

the 20th century required fewer and less complicated pattern pieces. Sized paper patterns could be 

mass produced at a lower cost with the savings 

passed on to the client. Fewer alterations were 

required to make the commercial pattern fit a 

particular woman. 

A pattern for the radically new, one-piece dress 

fashions of the 1910s (Figure 67) could not be 

drafted, in one step, with a specialized tool for a 

system produced only ten years earlier. A fashionable pattern could be developed from the draft 

made with an obsolete tool, but the dressmaker 

had to know how to proceed with this extra step. 

Since the purpose for using a drafting system with 

a specialized tool was to be able to cut a pattern in 

the most direct way with a minimum of "figuring,'' 

it seems likely that the majority of dressmakers 

dependent on these tools discarded them in favor 

of paper patterns. Dressmakers who used systems 

requiring only a tape measure and a square could 

have continued their trade without resorting to 

paper patterns. 

The first generation of drafting systems was 

created, in the first half of the 19th century, to 

appeal to the market composed of women on the 

lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder who 

sought a chance to uplift their appearance. The 
104 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

inventors of these systems succeeded beyond their 

wildest expectations. The first fruit that their efforts bore was the uniquely American version of 

the craft of dressmaking. In addition, their ideas 

were used as the basis of the sizing systems in the 

paper pattern industry and the women's readymade clothing industry. Ironically, these industries 

grew, until, in the 20th century, their employees 

were the only individuals drafting women's garments with specialized tools. 

The creation of 19th century dressmakers' drafting systems was part of a sociological and 

technological revolution against the exclusive, individualistic practices of the past, in this case, in the 

area of fashion. Although the American dressmaker's craft, which flourished in the 19th century 

largely because of such technological developments, has long since waned, the other two fruits 

of that revolution have persisted with contemporary economic and social significance. 
Q^pfimdkl 

Pre-1920 Publications at Library of Congress Containing 

Drafting Systems for Women's Garments 

Pre-1920 publications containing any directions 

for drafting women's garments are included in this 

listing. Texts written for tailors have been added if 

they contained instructions for cutting women's 

garments, such as riding habits. Periodicals that 

regularly described drafting systems are incorporated as well as instruction books for specific systems. The dates given for periodicals designate the 

issues, published before 1920, which are in the 

possession of the Library of Congress. The dates 

do not necessarily indicate the complete run of a 

magazine. Titles that are repeated (in the same or 

different years) represent publications that are 

significantly different. 

Asterisks designate the few publications that 

have not been examined. Bibliographic information for these unlocated volumes has been taken 

from the Library of Congress shelf list. 

The "state of origin" reflects the author's residence if it is known to differ from the place of 

printing (publishing). (Most were privately printed 

in the author's home town.) Where the printing 

press was located is of less importance to this study 

than where the system was developed and used. 

A drafting system that required a specialized tool 

is more easily understood if the device is at hand. If 

it is not available, an illustration of the tool is 

helpful. The fact that the drafting tool was 

"included" in the publication or that it was "illustrated" is indicated in the column under the heading "Drafting tool." The absence of any remark in 

this column, however, does not necessarily mean 

that the systems described required no specialized 

device. 

Each citation is annotated with abbreviations for 

men's, women's, or children's garments (M, W, C) 

to indicate the relative coverage of these kinds of 

apparel in each publication. Lowercase letters indicate that the discussion of the specified kind of 

apparel was of minor importance. 

The number of any U.S. Patent granted to an 

individual associated with a publication is also 

listed. The patentee was the author unless an annotation specifies otherwise. No attempt has been 

made to verify that the patented claim was incorporated into the system described in the publication. The only assured connection between a publication and a patent is the name of the individual 

associated with both. 

This listing of Library of Congress acquisitions 

should be used with discretion. Since the Library's 

holdings on the subject are the largest in the country, the techniques discovered from this source 

should give a good survey of the dressmaking 

practices in the United States before 1920. There 

are, however, copyrighted publications that have 

not been catalogued by this library. And there are 

undoubtedly many which have neither been 

copyrighted nor acquired by this institution. A 

nation-wide search is needed to assemble a truly 

comprehensive listing of extant materials. 

Publication 

Abercrombie, Emma 

1889. Garment Cutting Self-Taught, A Book Containing Instructions and Diagrams, Showing How to Use the Abercrombie Scale .... Coal Centre, Washington Co.: Privately printed. 

The American Fashion Review. See The Sartorial Artfoumal. 

State of 

origin 

Pennsylvania 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

m W C 

105 
106 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

The American Ladies' Tailor (1903 — 1919). New York: Ihejno . J. 

Mitchell Co. [Published monthly except May and 

November. The tool was included in the issues for 

January and February, 1903.] 

The American Modiste: Published in Connection with the American 

Garment Cutter (Jan 1903, 1904-1913). Chicago: 

Jonathan Nelson & Co. [Published quarterly. Patent 

issued to Jonathan Nelson.] 

Barnes, A. L. 

1892. Dress Fitting Made Easy. Philadelphia: Privately 

printed. 

Baughman, Mr. and Mrs. J. S. 

1892. Baughman's Advanced Hints on Dress Cutting .... Burlington: Privately printed. 

Bayne, J. Reid 

1883. Bayne's Self-Instruction Book for Dress Cutting by the 

French Glove-Fitting Tailor System, by Exact Measure: A 

Manual for the Use of Bayne's Paris Scale. New York: 

Privately printed. 

Bearrie, A. E., & Co. 

1890. ... The Perfect Dress Fitter ...Complete Instructions in the 

Art of Cutting All Kinds of Garments. St. Louis: A. E. 

Bearrie &: Co. 

Bell, Mattie M. 

1893. ... Cutting and Fitting Made Simple and Easy. Troy: 

Privately printed. 

Bennett, Ella Alvira 

1914. The Perfect Dressmaking System. Des Moines: Privately 

printed. 

Berkowich, Louis I., editor 

1904? A Complete Grading Manual of All Kinds of Garments 

Worn by Ladies' [sic]. Misses' [sic] and Children. New 

York: Berkowich Designing Academy. 

Bisbee, F. S. 

1895. Instruction Book of Bisbee's American Tailor System of 

Dress Cutting. Boston: American System Co. 

Blackburn, Juditha 

1917. The Textbook for the Use and Application of the Blackburn 

Adjustable Drafting Device. Los Angeles: Th e 

Blackburn Company. 

Blair, Margaret J. 

1897. Margaret Blair System of Garment Drafting, Used in 

School for Girls, Agriculture Department of State University of Minnesota, and fames Industrial Training Institute, 

Minneapolis, Minn. ... Minneapolis: H. L. Collins Co. 

1904. Margaret f. Blair's System of Sewing and Garment Drafting. 3rd edition revised. St. Paul: Webb Publishing 

Co. 

Blakely, Elizabeth, and Frances Patton 

1907. The Practical System for Drafting Ladies and Children's 

Clothing, Designed for Use in the Public Schools. 2 volumes. New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge. 

Blaney. See Carman &c Blaney. 

Briggs, D. B. 

1889. Directions for Using the New York Self-Instructing System 

and Chart for Cutting Ladies' and Misses' Dresses, Basques, and Other Garments. Albany: The Briggs Chart 

Company. 

State of 

origin 

New York 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania 

Iowa 

Drafting 

tool 

mcluded 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

U.S. Patent 

New York illustrated 

Missouri 

Alabama 

Iowa 

New York 

W 

W 

W 

m W C 

W 

Massachusetts illustrated 

California illustrated 

Minnesota 

Minnesota 

New York 

New York illustrated 

717,253 

422,282 

430,059 

675,537 

W C 1,183,845 

W C 

w 

W 985,971 

1,276,316 

W C 

w c 

w c 

w 
NUMBER 42 

Publication 

Brown, Harriet A[delaid] 

1902. Scientific Dress Cutting and Making: "The Harriet A. 

Broxvn System" Simplified and Improved. Boston: Privately printed. 

Buddington, Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

1887. Supplement Studies for Those Using the Buddington Dress 

Cutting Machine. Chicago: Privately printed. 

1896. Instruction Book for Using the Buddington Improved Dress 

Cutting Machine udth Dart Attachment for Cutting French 

Bias Basque, Enlarging Darts, etc. 1st edition. Chicago: 

Privately printed. 

Byrnes, T[homas] W. 

1882. T. W. Byrnes' New and Improved System, with the DressMaker's Model Measure Sheet.. Manitowoc: Privately 

printed. 

Carlstrom, Jno. A. 

1905. Carlstrom's Proportions of the Human Form: A Scientific 

Treatise on Proportions as They Apply to Garment Construction. New York: The Jno. J. Mitchell Co. 

Carman & Blaney 

1884. The American Metrical System for Cutting Ladies' and 

Children's Dresses and All Close Fitting Garments with a 

Table of Calculations for All Sizes ... . Steubenville: 

Privately printed. 

Clave, Justin 

1859. To the Ladies: New Geometrical Method; or. Easy and 

Infallible Manner of Taking the Measure, Drafting and 

Cutting Dresses of Ladies. . . According to a System of 

Proportions Adapted to the Human Body. Philadelphia: 

Privately printed. [This single sheet of paper is a 

perforated tool for a proportional system.] 

Clute, J. Redfield 

1891. Clute's Actual Measurement System and Key to Scientific 

Dress Making. Minneapolis: Privately printed. 

Coleman, M[ary] V[irginia] 

1887. The Science of Gynametry. Atlanta: Byrd & Pattillo. 

Cornwell, Willett 

1883. Cornwell's Improved Self-Fitting System for Dress Cutting: 

Instruction Sheet Chicago: Privately printed. 

1885. Cornwell's New Improved Self-Fitting Chart and Sleeve 

System for Cutting Ladies', Misses', and Children's Dresses, 

Cloaks, Basques, and Postillions. Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

1888. Cornwell's New Instruction Book, for Learning Their New 

Improved Self-Fitting Chart and Sleeve System for Cutting 

Ladies', Misses', and Children's Dresses, Cloaks, Basques, 

Dolmans, Postillions, and Many Other Useful Garments. 

Chicago: Privately printed. 

Custom Cutter (1890-1897). Chicago: The Robert Phillips Co. [A 

monthly publication which occasionally showed 

drafting systems for women's garments.] 

Davis, Myra A. 

1888. Directions for Cutting Garments with the Davis Improved 

Square. Portland: Privately printed. 

Davis, Mrs. M. E. 

1882. Mrs. M. E. Davis' Dress Chart and Self-Instructor. St. 

Joseph: Privately printed. 

State of 

origin 

ssachusetts 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing 

type 

W C 

107 

U.S. Patent 

Illinois 

Illinois illustrated 

W C 

W 

Wisconsin 

New York 

Ohio illustrated 

Pennsylvania included 

W 

M w c 

W 

W 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Maine 

Missouri 

illustrated 

M w 

W 

272,204 

440,692 

541,311 

618,392 

272,204 

440,692 

541,311 

618,392 

282,842 

918,279 

Minnesota 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Illinois 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

illustrated 

W 

m W 

W 

W 

C 

C 

C 

357,762 

209,111 

209,111 

W C 209,111 

365,800 

W c 
108 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

deLamorton, O. H. 

1892. Prof. O. H. deLamorton's Self-Teaching Instruction Book 

for the Parisian Champion Scientific Tailor System. New 

York: Privately printed. [Published bi-monthly.] 

Denieffe, Joseph 

1900. The Geometric: A System of Cutting Garments for Ladies 

and Gentlemen on Geometrical Lines and Principles. 

Chicago: Privately printed. 

Denny, Mrs. L. 

1891. The Perfection Taylor System by Actual Measurement for 

Ladies' and Children's Garments. David City: Privately 

printed. 

Devereaux, C. A. 

1883. Devereaux's Actual Measure System, The Science and 

Geometry of Dress. St. Paul: Privately printed. 

Diamond Garment Cutter Correspondence School 

1903. Instruction Book. Volume 1. Chicago: Diamond Garment Cutter Co. 

1905. Supplement to the Diamond Garment Cutter Instruction 

Book. Volume 2. Chicago: Diamond Garment Cutter 

Co. 

Dilday, E. 

1856. E. Dilday's Plain and Concise Method of Garment Cutting 

so as to Fit All Possible Forms of Persons, with Directions 

for Putting the Work Together, Ready for Sewing. St. 

Louis: Privately printed. 

Dittmar & Sheifer 

1888. The Self-Balancing System, or The Cutters' Guide. New 

York: Dittmar & Sheifer. 

1891. The Self-Balancing System of Cutting Ladies' Garments', 

by Dittmar & Sheifer, Including Scales of the SelfBalancing System for Cutting. New York: Dittmar & 

Sheifer. 

Doolittle, Oliver Taylor 

1901. Straight Shoulder Rules, Systems and Methods of the Present Day: Women's Garment Cutting. Philadelphia: 

Oliver T. Doolittle. 

Doran. See Goldsberry & Doran. 

Doughty & Co. 

1887. Doughty s New Work on Dressmaking, by the New Improved and Perfect Tailor System, of Square Measurement. 

Cincinnati: Doughty 8c Co. 

Eggleston, Lillian A. See Frank O. Tappan. 

EUiss, Amelia B. 

1883. The "London Tailor" System of French Cutting, for Cutting Ladies' and Children's Garments, Dresses, Cloaks, 

Coats, Wraps, Mantles, and Riding Habits, Part First: 

Dresscutting and Dressmaking. Philadelphia: Privately 

printed. 

Elmes, B. S. 

1888. Irutructions and Diagrams for Using the New Complete 

Tailor System of Dress Cutting. New Edition. 

Springfield: Privately printed. 

Engelmann, Gustav 

1904. The American Garment Cutter for Women. New York: 

American Fashion Company. 

1913. The American Garment Cutter for Women's Garments. 

2nd edition. New York: American Fashion Company. 

State of 

origin 

New York 

Illinois 

Nebraska 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W C 

M w 

W 

Minnesota 

Illinois 

Illinois 

illustrated W 

W 

W 

C 

C 

Missouri 

New York 

New York included 

M w 

M w c 

W 

Pennsylvania illustrated 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania 

W 

M W C 

W C 

Massachusetts 

New York 

New York 

W 

W C 

W C 
NUMBER 42 109 

Publication 

Evan, H. P., Co. 

1896. Instruction Book for the Standard Tailor System: A SelfInstructor with Object Lessons in the Ari of Cutting all 

Styles of Garments, for Ladies, Gentlemen, Children, and 

Infants. Chicago: H. P. Evan Co. 

Ewing, Sarah C. 

1869. The Tailor System: Dress Cutting Made Perfect by Mrs. 

Ewing's Delineation of Scales, the Tailor System 

Simplified, the Knowledge of Which Was Gained by Mrs. S. 

C. Ewing, after Fifteen Years' Practical Cutting from the 

Same ... . Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

1871. The Tailor System: Dress-Cutting Made Perfect by Mrs. 

Ewing's Delineation of Scales, the Tailor System 

Simplified, the Knowledge of Which Was Gained by Mrs. S. 

C. Ewing, after Fifteen Years' Practical Cutting from the 

Same ... . Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

1888. The Tailor System: Dress-Cutting Made Perfect by Mrs. 

Ewing's Delineation of Scales, the Tailor System 

Simplified, the Knowledge of Which Was Gained by Mrs. S. 

C. Ewing, after Twenty Years' Practical Cutting from the 

Same ... . Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

The Fashionable Woman's Tailor (1912 — 1918). New York: Newman Fashion Company. [Published monthly.] 

Ferguson, Albert Edwin 

1915. The New Era Pattern Cutting System: Ten Complete Lessons for Cut-To-Measure Foundation Patterns, Embracing 

aThoro [s\c\ and Accurate System of Measuring. Atlanta: 

The Blosser Company. 

Flenner, Lewis. See Kromer & Flenner. 

Fitch, Morris 

1883. M. Fitch's Square, True, Tailor System, for Cutting Ladies' 

and Children's Garments .... Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

Fountain, J. H. 

1883. Instructions for Using Fountain's Tailor System of Dress 

Cutting, Which Makes a Perfect Fit for Ladies and Children without Alteration. St. Louis: J. H. Fountain & Co. 

1883. Instructions for Using Fountain's Tailor System of Dress 

Cutting, Which Makes a Perfect Fit for Ladies and Children without Alteration. 2nd edition. St. Louis: J. H. 

Fountain & Co.. 

1883. Instructions for Using Fountain's Tailor System of Dress 

Cutting, Which Makes a Perfect Fit for Ladies and Children without Alteration. 3rd edition. St. Louis: J. H. 

Fountain & Co. 

1890. Instructions for Using Fountain's Tailor System of Dress 

Cutting, Which Makes a Perfect Fit for Ladies and Children mthout Alteration. 5th edition. St. Louis: J. H. 

Fountain & Co. 

Fourier, P. A. 

1895. The Parisian Tailor Complete Instructor and Practical 

Guide to Ladies' Tailoring. Philadelphia: Privately 

printed. 

The French Dressmaker, Formerly La Couturiere (1894-1895). New 

York: A. McDowell & Co. [Published monthly. Patents issued to Albert McDowell.] 

Ganzhorn, William 

1885. A Geometrical System Revised and Enlarged, for Measuring, Draughting, and Cutting Dresses, Cloaks, Perelines, 

State of 

origin 

Drafting 

tool 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Indiana 

Indiana 

New York 

Georgia 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

m W C 628,083 

W C 112,024 

W C 112,024 

W C 112,024 

W 

w 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Pennsylvania 

New York illustrated 

Massachusetts 

W C 

W C 

W C 

W C 

W C 

W 

W 

w 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 

263,779 
110 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

Wraps, Dolmans, Pelisses, Shoulder Capes, and Riding 

Habits, (sfc. Boston: Privately printed. 

Gartland, Elizabeth 

1884. The American Lady-Tailor Glove-Fitting System of 

Dress-Making, from Experience and Practice. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

1884. The Original American Lady Tailor System. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

Gingles, Mae Milbourne 

1907. Garment Drafting by Simple Rule Method: A Student's 

Manual for Home and School Garment Cutting. Saginaw: 

Seemann &• Peters. 

Glickstein, Philip 

1909. Glickstein s System: Ladies', Misses', and Children's Garments, Practical Methods of Designing According to Proportions. New York: Privately printed. 

*1909. Glickstein's System of Designing and Cutting for Men's, 

Boys', and Children's Garments and Novelties. New York: 

Privately printed. 

Goldsberry 8c Doran. 5^^ W. H. Goldsberry. 

Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. See W. H. Goldsberry 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

1884. The National Garment Cutter. Chicago: Goldsberry, 

Doran 8c Nelson. 

1885. The National Garment Cutter. Chicago: Goldsberry, 

Doran &: Nelson. 

1886. The National Garment Cutter. Chicago: Goldsberry, 

Doran & Nelson. 

1887. The National Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1887. The National Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1888. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1888. The Naticmal Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1889. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1889. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1890. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry, Doran 8c Nelson. 

1890. The National Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry, Doran & Nelson. 

1891. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry, Doran 8c Nelson. 

1891. The National Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry, Doran 8c Nelson. 

1892. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry & Doran. 

1893. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry 8c Doran. 

1895. The Diamond Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry & Doran. 

1895. The Diamond Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry & Doran. 

1895. The National Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: Goldsberry &: Doran. 

State of 

origin 

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania 

Michigan 

New York 

New York 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W C 355,160 

W 355,160 

W 

W C 

M 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

lUinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

247,339 

247,339 

247,339 

247,339 

247,339 

247,339 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 
NUMBER 42 

1895. 

Publication 

The National Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

Goldsberry 8c Doran. 

1896. The Diamond Garment Cutter Book of Diagrams. 

Chicago: W. H. Goldsberry. 

1896. The Diamond Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

W. H. Goldsberry. 

1897. The Diamond Garment Cutter Instruction Book. Chicago: 

W. H. Goldsberry. [For clarity, the series of books 

above has been credited to W. H. Goldsberry. The 

actual "author' was the firm, shown here as the publisher. The patent was issued to W. H. Goldsberry.] 

Goldsberry, W. H. See also Thompson & Goldsberry, and The 

Voice of Fashion. 

Gordon, Seldon Smith 

*1901. The "Standard" Work on Cutting Ladies' Tailor-Made 

Garments: A Complete Treatise on the Art and Science of 

Delineating All Garments for Women Made by Tailors. 

New York: The Jno. J. Mitchell Co. 

1908. The "Standard" Work on Cutting Ladies' Tailor-Made 

Garments: A Complete Treatise on the Art and Science of 

Delineating All Garments for Women Made by Tailors. 

Revised edition. New York: The Jno. J. Mitchell Co. 

Gottschalg, William 

1876. The Art of Measuring, Drawing, and Cutting of Patterns 

for Ladies' and Children's Dresses ... . Brooklyn: Privately printed. 

Le Grand Chic Parisien Fashion Company 

1919. Instruction Book with Diagrams to the Le Grand Chic 

Parisien System of Cutting Ladies [sic] and Misses [sic] 

Tailleurs. Custom edition. New York: Le Grand Chic 

Parisien Fashion Company. 

Greenwood, G. M., &: Co. 

1884. The Improved Fraruo-American Form .. . an Adjustable Instrument and Perfected Method for Draughting, 

Cutting, and Fitting Dresses and All Inside and Outside 

Garments: Instruction in Its Use. Boston: G. M. 

Greenwood & Co. 

Greenwood, George M. 

1890. Points on Dress Cutting and Fitting, Embracing the Latest 

Ideas Carried Out in the Leading Emporiums of Fashion of 

Paris, London, and New York ... . Boston: G. M. 

Greenwood & Co. 

Griffin, Caleb H. 

1879. "The Challenge" Dress Cutting System. Boston: C. H. 

Griffin & L. F. Wise. 

1879. The King of Squares: Caleb H. Griffin's Last and Great 

Improvement in Cutting Ladies' &" Children's Garments. 

Boston: Privately printed. 

1879. Self-Teaching, Perfect Fitting French System for Cutting 

Ladies' and Children's Garments. Boston: Privately 

printed. 

State of 

origin 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing 

type 

m W 

m W 

m W 

m W 

c 

c 

C 

C 

111 

U.S. Patent 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

247,399 

New York 

New York illustrated 

New York 

New York 

Massachusetts illustrated 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

Massachusetts included 

Massachusetts 

W 

W 

Massachusetts W C 

Massachusetts W C 

194,086 

195,925 

195,926 

206,315 

228,527 

234,273 

194,086 

195,925 

195,926 

206,315 

228,527 

234,273 

194,086 

195,925 

195,926 
112 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

1883. Measure and Instruction Book for the United States Standard Dress-Cutting System. Boston: Privately printed. 

Griffin, Caleb H., and David Knox 

1873. The Science and Art of Cutting and Making Ladies' Garments, as Demonstrated by Griffin ^ Knox's Great American Draughting Machine. Lynn: Privately printed. 

[Patents issued to Caleb H. Griffin.] 

Gurney, Edmund 

1917. Efficiency, Simplicity, Economy In Cutting and Making 

Ladies' Garments. Portland: Privately printed. 

Hale, L. B. 

1885. Simplified Directions for Using L. B. Hale's New Tailor 

System of French Dress Cutting. Buffalo: Baker, Jones & 

Co. 

Hamilton, Nellie 

1894. The Scientific System of Dress Cutting Invented by Nellie 

Hamilton ... . Algona: Privately printed. 

Hanover, John C, & Co. 

.1885. TheHanover Dressmaker: A New Work on Drafting, Tracing, Cutting, Basting, Stitching, Draping, and Finishing 

Ladies', Misses', Children's, Boys', and Men's Garments. 

1st edition. Cincinnati: John C. Hanover 8c Co. 

1886. Hanover's Dressmaker: A New Work on Drafting, Tracing, Cutting, Basting, Stitching, Draping, and Finishing 

Ladies', Misses', Children's, Boys', and Men's Garments. 

2nd edition. Cincinnati: John C. Hanover 8c Co. 

1886. Hanover's New and Improved Work on Dressmaking, by 

the Merchant Tailor System. Cincinnati: John C. 

Hanover & Co. 

1888. Hanover's Self-Teaching Garment Cutter, by Merchant 

Tailor System ... . Cincinnati: John C. Hanover. 

Harvey, S. B. 

1885. Measure and Instruction Book for the Ladies' Delight 

Dress-Cutting System. Boston: Privately printed. 

Head, Leola M. 

1888. Instruction on Leola M. Head's Self Teaching System of 

Cutting. Haw Ridge: Privately printed. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

1881. The Dress and Cloak Cutter: A Treatise on the Theory and 

Practice of Cutting Dresses and Overgarments for Ladies, 

Especially Designed and Adapted for Tailors' Use. Burlington: Privately printed. 

1884. Handbook on Dress and Cloak Cutting. New York: Privately printed. 

1886. Hecklinger's Ladies' Garments, a Text Book: How to Cut 

and Make Ladies'Garments ... . New York: Privately 

printed. 

1891. The "Keystone" System: A Text-Book on Cutting and Designing Ladies' Garments. New York: The West Publishing Co. 

State of 

origin 

Massachusetts 

Drafting 

tool 

Massachusetts 

Oregon 

New York 

Iowa 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Massachusetts 

Alabama 

Vermont 

New York 

New York 

New York 

Clothing 

type 

W C 

W 

U.S. Patent 

206,315 

228,527 

234,273 

194,086 

195,925 

195,926 

206,315 

228,527 

234,273 

194,086 

195,925 

195,926 

206,315 

228,527 

234,273 

W 

w 

W 

m W C 

m W C 

m W C 

m W C 

W 

M W C 

W 

W 

w 

w 
NUMBER 42 

1895. 

Publication 

The "Keystone" facket and Dress Cutter: A Treatise on 

fackets, Dresses, and Other Garments for Women, Specially 

Designed for Self-Instruction. New York: The Herald 

of Fashion Co. 

The Herald of Fashion and foumal of Tailoring . . . (1896). New 

York: The Herald of Fashion Co. [Published 

monthly, women's wear included in the semiannual 

supplement.] 

Herbert, Mrs. Charles 

1897. Mrs. Herbert's Scientific System of Dress Cutting for SelfInstruction. New York: The Dressmakers' Trade 

School. 

Holmes, Nelson 

1894. The Holmes Cutter: A Practical System for Garment Cutting That Is Based on Self varying Principles for Block 

Patterns and the Most Complete for Measurement. 

Chicago: Privately printed. 

Hughes & Storey 

1892. The Ladies' Tailor Complete Instructor. St. Louis: Privately printed. [Patents issued to James R. Storey.] 

Hunter, A.J. 

1853. The Garment Cutter and Ladies [sic] Guide: Being a 

Complete System for Cutting Gentlemen's Wear, Coats of 

All Fashions, Vests and Pantaloons, Also a Complete Guide 

for Cutting Ladies [sic] Dressing [sic], with Plain and 

Practical Rules for Varying and Changing the Same, According to the Change in Fashion, with Plain, Easy, and 

Practical Method for Teaching the Same by Familiar Questions and Answers, with Explanation on Measure, Pressing, and Finishing Off Clothing. Glasgow: Privately 

printed. 

Hurwitz, George 

1910. New Teacher of Ladies' Home Tailoring. Mason City: 

Privately printed. 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A. 

1863. Mrs. D. A. Inwood's Book of Instructions for Her Five 

Measure System of Dress Cutting, for Cutting Ladies' and 

Children's Dresses, Basques, Boy's Clothing, and Gentlemen's Shirts. Boston: Privately printed. 

1871. Mrs. D. A. Inwood's Book of Instructions for Her Celebrated Diagram of Dress Cutting, for Cutting Ladies' and 

Children's Dresses, Basques, Boys' Clothing, ^ c, i^ c. 

Boston: Privately printed. 

1875. Livre instructeur de Madame D. A. Inwood, pour expliquer 

la maniere de tailleur les robes a I'aide de son celebre 

diagramme pour tailler robes de dames et d'enfants basques, 

vetements de garfons, etc. Boston: Privately printed. 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

1879. Franco-Prussian Mode. Des Moines: Privately printed. 

1882. Franco-Prussian Mode. Chicago: Privately printed. 

1884. H. Ayers fackson's Scientifically Graduated Waist, Hip 

Rule, and Sleeve Methods for Ladies', Gentlemen's, and 

Children's Tailoring, Mathematically Demonstrated and 

Practically Illustrated. Chicago: Privately printed. 

State of Drafting 

origin tool 

New York 

New York 

New York 

Illinois 

113 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W 

m W 

W 

Missouri illustrated 

Kentucky 

M w c 

m W c 537,132 

552,976 

M W 

Illinois 

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts 

Iowa 

Illinois 

Illinois included 

W 

m W C 

W C 

W C 

W 

W 

M W C 

259,162 

327,172 

361,292 

259,162 

327,172 

361,292 

259,162 

327,172 

361,292 
114 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication State of 

origin 

1884. Scientific Dress Cutting, Practically Illustrated, andMath- Illinois 

ematically Demonstrated. The Franco-Prussian Mode 

"Method" . . . 4th edition. Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

1888. Scientific Dress-Cutting Practically Illustrated, andMath- Illinois 

ematically Demonstrated. The Franco-Prussian Mode 

"Method"... 6th edition. Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

Jackson, Louisa L. 

*1871. Self-Teaching System of Garment Cutting: The Family Indiana 

Dress Guide, or, the Art of Drafting and Measuring 

Simplified and Perfected.... 8th edition, revised 

and enlarged. Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

1876. The Science and Geometry of Dress: Being a Complete Indiana 

Manual of hutruction in the Art of Designing, Drafting, 

and Cutting Ladies' and Children's Wearing 

Apparel. . . . Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

1876. The Science and Geometry of Dress: Being a Complete Indiana 

Manual of Instruction in the Art of Designing, Drafting, 

and Cutting Ladies' and Children's Wearing 

Afyparel.... Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

1889. The Science and Geometry of Dress: Being a Complete Indiana 

Manual of hutruction in the Art of Designing, Drafting, 

and Cutting Ladies' and Children's Wearing 

Apparel.... Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

Jester, R. E., & Co. 

1893. The Merchant Tailor Unabridged Instructor in the Science Illinois 

of Dress Cutting and the Art of Dress Making. Chicago: R. 

E. Jester 8c Co. 

Jones, M. O. 

1891. Instruction Book, Giving Full Information for Using the New York 

Self-Adjusting Tailor System, of Garment Cutting. 4th 

issue. Rochester: Privately printed. 

The fournal of Fashion and Tailoring. . . (1893—1894). New New York 

York: The West Publishing Co. [Published monthly; 

included approximately one draft for a woman's 

garment per issue.] 

Kaphan,M. 

1890. Prof. M. Kaphan's Kid Glove-Fitting System for Ladies', 

Misses', Childreyfs, and Gents' Garments. . . . Washington, D. C: Privately printed. 

Kellogg, Mrs. F.J. 

1880. Mrs. F. J. Kellogg's Tailor System for Cutting Ladies' 

Garments of Every Description. Flint: Privately printed. 

1888. Instruction Book for the Kellogg French Tailor System for 

Cutting Every Description of Ladies' Garments. Battle 

Creek: Privately printed. 

1889. Instruction Book for the Kellogg French Tailor System for Michigan 

Cutting Every Description of Ladies' Garments. Battle 

Creek: Review & Herald Pub. Co. 

1892. Instruction Book for the Kellogg French Tailor System for Michigan 

Cutting Every Description of Ladies' Garments. Battle 

Creek: Privately printed. 

King, E. 

1884. E. King's Scientific Square System of Dress and Cloak New York 

Cutting. New York: Privately printed. 

Kinslow, Mrs. J. G. 

1888. The Improved Diagram System of Ladies' and Children's Massachusetts 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing 

type 

W 

m W C 

U.S. Patent 

259,162 

327,172 

361.292 

259,162 

327,172 

361,292 

included 

included 

illustrated 

Washington, D.C. 

Michigan 

Michigan 

M w 

m W C 

included 

illustrated 

illustrated 

W 

W 

w 

90,363 

W C 90,J 

W C 90,363 

W C 90,363 

w c 

w c 

W C 235,776 

W 235,776 

235,776 

235,776 

W C 
NUMBER 42 115 

Publication 

Dress and Garment Cutting. Lynn: Privately printed. 

Kintzel, A. G. 

1896. The Kintzel Dress Cutting System. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

Knox, David. See Caleb H. Griffin. 

Kohler. See Powell & Kohler. 

Kromer 8c Flenner 

* 1845. Graduating System, for Drafting Coats, Vests, Pantaloons, 

Cloaks, &f Ladies' Habits. 2nd edition. Philadelphia. 

[Patent issued to Lewis Flenner.] 

Lapsley, William. See James Queen. 

Leake, Mrs. H. A. 

1883. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments (Invented by Mrs. 

H. A. Leake), a Complete and Reliable Guide for Dress 

Makers: Instructions for Its Use. Oakland: Privately 

printed. 

Legendre [sic], Madame M. A. 

1889. Madame Legendre's [sic] Perfect Fitting System for Cutting Ladies' Garments. Louisville: Privately printed. 

Levis, D. 1. 

1890. The Parisian Tailor System of Dress Cutting ... . Chicago: Privately printed. 

Lewis, S. T. 

1885. Instructions for Drafting by the Combination Tailor System. Watertown: Privately printed. 

Linthicum, W[illiam] O. 

1876. Divisional and Exact Measurement Systems for Garment 

Cutting ... . New York: Privately printed. 

Livingston, J. W. 

1880. French Combination Instruction Book. New York: Privately printed. 

1884. French Combination of Squares: Instruction Book. New 

York: Privately printed. 

McCall, James 

1881. Instruction Book for the French and English Systems of 

Cutting, Fitting, and Basting. New York. [Final third of 

book devoted to an explanation of one system used 

by Moschcowitz Bros.' dressmaking firm.] 

McClure, N. C. 

1880. Practical Dress Cutting with the Square, McClure's Method: Inch Measurement and Square Drafting by the Old 

Mechanical Rule. Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing 

House. 

McDermott, L. M. 

1896. McDermott's New Tapeline Tailor System. Pittsburg: Privately printed. 

McDowell, Albert. See The French Dressmaker and La Mode de 

Paris. 

McDowell Garment Drafting Machine Co. 

1883. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacks, Coats, etc., by the Garment Drafting Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. New 

York: Privately printed. [Patents issued to Albert 

McDowell.] 

1884. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacks, Coats, &c., by the Garment Drafting Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. New 

York: Privately printed. 

State cf 

ori^n 

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania 

California 

Kentucky 

Illinois 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W 

M w 

W 

illustrated W 

W C 

California 

Pennsylvania illustrated 

m W C 

w c 

New York 

New York 

illustrated 

illustrated 

W 

W 

2,341 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

illustrated 

W 

M w 

W 

w 

w 

c 

c 

c 

321,986 

307,664 

307,664 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 
116 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

1885. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacks, Coats, is'c, by the Garment Drafting Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. 7th 

edition. New York: Privately printed. 

1887. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacks, Coats, i£c., by the Garment Drafting Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. 11th 

edition. New York: Privately printed. 

McDowell, William. See Pictorial Review. 

Madison, J. O. 

1878. Elements of Garment Cutting, Together with Practical 

Hints to Cutters . Hartford: Th e Case, 

Lockwood & Brainard Company. 

Mahan, Francis 

Mahan's Protractor and Proof Systems of Garment Cutting, Published and Taught by Francis Mahan, Practical 

Tailor and Fashioner {18S9-1841, 1843-1844, 1854). 

Philadelphia: Privately printed. [All issues were 

semi-annual except for 1854, which was quarterly.] 

Mallison, Mme. E. W. 

1886. Dress Making Reduced to a Science; the Eclectic LadyTailor System of Dress Cutting. Washington, D.C: Privately printed. 

Martin, G. N. 

1887. Instructions for Using G. N. Martin's New System of 

French Dress Cutting. Boston: Privately printed. 

Martin, James A. 

1888. Martin's Tailor System for Dress and Cloak or Cutting 

Dressmaking Self-Taught . . . Peoria: Privately 

printed. 

Mason, Ida V. 

1897. The Independent Cutter: A Scientific Work on Cutting 

Garments According to a Simple Method. Privately 

printed. 

Miegel, Albert Henry 

1896. Miegel's Manual of Garment Cutting and Double Measure 

Systems. Augusta: Privately printed. 

Mignogna, Antonio 

1896. The Tailor's Vade Mecum; or. The Treasure of Experience 

Converted into Theory on the Art of Cutting Gentlemen's 

and Ladies' Garments. New York: Privately printed. 

Minier, E. P. 

1857. A Self-Teaching Dress Making System: Science Applied to 

Dress Cutting, the Art Perfected, Simplified and Reduced, 

in the Process of Drafting, to Mathematical Precision, 

Accompanied with Copious Illustrations and Examples, 

with Full and Perfect Directions for Self-Instruction. 2nd 

edition. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

Mitchell, Jno. J., Co. See: The American Ladies' Tailor; Jno. A. 

Carlstrom; S. S. Gordon; The Sartorial Art foumal; 

and The Sartorial Art fournal: Ladies' Tailor Edition. 

La Mode de Paris: A fournal of the Latest Fashions for Ladies and 

Dress-Makers (1891-1895). American Edition. New 

York and Paris: A. McDowell 8c Co. [Published 

monthly. Patents were issued to Albert McDowell.] 

La Mode Universelle: A Book of Pattern Designs with Thompson's 

Universal System of Garment Cutting (1910). Hartford: 

Mme. H.J. Hall. [Published semi-annually.] 

State of 

origin 

New York 

New York 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

U.S. Patent 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 

Connecticut 

Pennsylvania 

M w 

M 

Washington, illustrated 

D.C. 

Massachusetts 

W 

W C 

Illinois W 

W 

Georgia 

New York 

Ohio 

M w 

M W 

W C 

New York 

Connecticut 

W 

w 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 
NUMBER 42 117 

Publication 

Molpoer, Louis 

1886. Every Lady Her Own Dressmaker: The Eureka Lady Tailor 

System, for Cutting Ladies' Dresses and Coats, No Fitting to 

Do, Improved and Simplified. Baltimore: Privately 

printed. 

1891. Every Lady Her Own Dressmaker: The Scientific Lady 

Tailor System for Cutting Ladies [sic] Dresses and Coats, 

No Fitting to Do, Improved and Simplified. Washington, 

D.C: Prof. Lewis [sic] Molpoer. 

1895? Every Lady Her Own Dressmaker: The Scientific Lady 

Tailor System for Cutting Ladies' Dresses and Coats; No 

Fitting to Do; Improved and Simplified. 2nd edition. 

Washington, D.C: Privately printed. 

1897. Every Lady Her Own Dressmaker: The Scientific Lady 

Tailor System for Cutting Ladies' Dresses and Coats, No 

Fitting to Do, Improved and Simplified. 3rd edition. 

Washington, D.C: Privately printed. 

Montie, Mme. 

1883. Parisian Method of Cutting without Chart or Scale. Paris: 

Privately printed. 

Moody, D. W. 

1879. New Instructions for Cutting Children's Clothing by D. W. 

Moody's Celebrated Star System of Square Measurement 

New York: Privately printed. 

1885. Prof D. W. Moody's New Book, Giving Complete and 

Elaborate Instructions in All Branches of Dress Cutting, 

Dress Making, Sewing, and Basting. 3rd edition. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

1885. Prof. D. W. Moody's New Book, Giving Complete and 

Elaborate Instructions in All Branches of Dress Cutting, 

Dress Making, Sewing, and Basting. 4th edition. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

Moore, C E. 

1892. The Self-Instructor. Atlanta: The Atlanta Cutting 

School. 

Moschcowitz. See James McCall. 

Moschcowitz Bros. 

1884. Instructions in Dressmaking, Basting, and Fitting, as Set 

Forth by the Moschcowitz Model Waist Lining. New York: 

Privately printed. [Patents were issued to Herman 

and Shamu Moschcowitz.] 

MuUer, Ed. 

1892? A Symposium on Cutting. San Francisco: Privately 

printed. 

Myer, Mary C. 

1884. Instruction Book for the Paragon Chart 

Nelson. See Goldsberry, Doran &: Nelson. 

Nelson, Jonathan. See The American Modiste. 

The New York Fashion Bazar (1979-1889). New York: George 

Munro. [Published weekly, with serial article entitled 

"Cutting-Out and Dressmaking," which gave drafting instructions for one garment per issue.] 

Nickerson, S. A. 

1888. Instruction Book for the Correct Use of Miss S. A. Nickerson's New, Improved, and Scientific Tailor System of 

Sqxmre Measurement for Cutting Ladies' and Children's 

Garments. Providence: Privately printed. 

State of Drafting 

origin tool 

Maryland 

Washington, D.C. 

Washington, D.C. 

Washington, D.C. 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W 

W 

New York 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Georgia 

New York illustrated 

California 

W 

W 

w 

w c 

w c 

w c 

M W 

W 

M w 

246,536 

350,073 

111,236 

327,961 

New York 

Rhode Island illustrated 

W C 

W C 
118 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

1878. Lessoyis on Centennial Patterns No. 2: Norman System 

Improved ... . St. Louis: Privately printed. 

1880. Lessons on Centennial Patterns No. 2: Norman System 

Improved ... . St. Louis: Privately printed. 

1881. Lessons on Centennial Patteriis No. 4: Norman System 

Improved ... . St. Louis: Privately printed. 

1887. Lessons on Normayi Tailor Square by Diagram with Explanation. St. Louis: Privately printed. 

1896. Lessons on Centennial Patterns: Norman Tailor System by 

Diagram with Explanation. St. Louis: Privately printed. 

Olson, Jennie S. 

1887. Self-Instructor in the Olson New Tailorist System for the 

Cutting and Making of Garments. Houston: Mrs. Jennie 

S. Olson. 

Palmer, Mrs. E. E. 

1886. Instructions in Dress Cutting Complete, with Diagrams 

Explaining Every Pattern, to Be Used Expressly for the 

Gem Tailor System ... . Baraboo: Privately printed. 

[Patent was issued to E. Ellsworth Palmer.] 

1892. Instructions in Dress Cutting with Diagrams, etc.. Complete, to Be Used Expressly for the Gem Tailor's System of 

Cutting. Revised edition. Chicago: Privately printed. 

Les Parisiennes (1906—1919). New York: American Fashion 

Company. [Published ten times per year (June and 

July omitted).] 

Pecori, Eugene 

1912. Eugene Pecori's Perfect System of Cutting Ladies [sic] 

Garments. Chicago: Eugene Pecori. 

Penrose, O. E. 

1893. Directions for Using the World's Fair Pattern Chart. 

Springfield: Privately printed. 

Peyry, Jean B. 

* 1896. Prof, fean B. Peyry's Instruction Book with Diagram and 

Measure Book Giving Full and Complete Instructions for 

Using Prof, fean B. Peyry's "Systeme Metrique" Invented 

for Cutting Ladies', Children's, ^ Gentlemen's Garments 

of Every Description-Seam and Seamless: Edition 1896 for 

Ladies' Garments. New Orleans: Privately printed. 

1896. Livre d'instructions avec diagramme et livre de mesure; 

traite complet de la coupe et la maniere de .se servir du 

"Systeme Metrique" du Prof, fean B. Peyry . . . .: Ed. 

1896 pour habillements de dames et d'enfants. 

Nouvelle-Orleans: Privately printed. 

1904. Instructions [sic] Book with Diagrams and Designs for the 

Conformateur and Systeme Metrique for Cutting Ladies', 

Children's, and Gentlemen's Garments: New Edition for 

Ladies' and Children's Garments. New Orleans: Privately printed. 

Phelps, Mr. and Mrs. B. T. 

1883. Instructions for Using the Excelsior Square. A GloveFitting System for Ladies' and Children's Garments. 2nd 

edition. Bellows Falls: Privately printed. [Patent was 

issued to Brigham T. Phelps.] 

1890. Instructions for Using the Excelsior Square, A GloveFitting System for Cutting Ladies' and Children's Garments. 5th edition. Bellows Falls: Privately printed. 

State of 

origin 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Minnesota 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated 

Clothing 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

m 

type 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

U.S. Patent 

325,358 

Wisconsin 

Illinois 

New York 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Louisiana 

illustrated 

W c 

W 

252,507 

252,507 

W 

w 

w 

w 626,795 

Louisiana 

Louisiana illustrated 

626,795 

W C 626,795 

Vermont 

Vermont 

W C 279,979 

W C 279,979 
NUMBER 42 119 

Publication 

Phelps, E. L. 

1904. The Scientific Tailor Based on Geometry: A Method of 

Designing and Drafting Patterns for All Classes of Garments for Men, Women, and Children, to Actual and Composite Measures ... . Volume 1 (Women's Garments). New York?: Privately printed. [The author, 

who stated that he had taught his system in the 

United States and Canada, may have been Ernest 

Leslie Phelps of Toronto, Canada, holder of U.S. 

Patent 812,874.] 

Pictorial Review (1899—1919). New York: American Fashion 

Company, Inc. [Published monthly; edited by William McDowell after Dec 1899; featured advertisements of A. McDowell 8c Co.'s drafting tool. Patents 

were issued to William McDowell.] 

Potter, H. M. 

1881. Directions for Measuring and Drafting by H. M. Potter's 

Practical and Positive Method of Cutting and Designing 

Ladies', Misses', and Children's Garments. Providence: 

Privately printed. 

Powell & Kohler 

1868. Powell y Kohler's Practical System for Cutting All Kinds 

of Garments, Especially Designed for the Use of Dressmakers and Private Families. Cincinnati: Powell & Kohler. 

The Practical Cutter and Tailor (1893-1897). Chicago: The C J. 

Stone Co. [Published monthly.] 

Queen, James, and William Lapsley 

1809. The Taylors' Instructor; or, A Comprehensive Analysis, of 

the Elements of Cutting Garments, of Every Kind ... . 

Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

Ramsay, John 

1888. Ramsay's System of Drafting and Cutting Garments in 

Manual Training Schools. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Ratner, Henry Way 

1908. Ratner's Up-To-Date Method of Designing: School of Designing, Cutting, Grading, and Fitting for Ladies', Gentlemen's, and Children's Garments ... . Chicago: Privately printed. 

Robbins, L. E. 

1875. The Measurement System of Cutting Dresses. Boston: Privately printed. 

Rontey, P. 

1877. The Shoulder and Breast Combination: A New System for 

Drafting Ladies' Waists, Basques, etc., etc. New York: 

Privately printed. 

1879. The Shoulder and Breast Combination: Ffench Graduated 

System for Drafting Ladies' Waists, Basques, etc., etc. 2nd 

edition. New York: Privately printed. 

Rood, Will C 

1878. Instructions for Using the Dressmaker's Magic Scale, for 

Cutting Patterns for Ladie's [sic] and Children's Wearing 

Apparel: A Perfect Fit Without Change of Seam. San 

Francisco: Privately printed. 

1879. Instructions for Using the Dressmakers' Magic Scale, Improved and Simplified, for Cutting Ladies' and Children's 

Wearing Apparel: A Perfect Fit Without Change of Seam. 

St. Louis: Privately printed. 

State of 

origin 

New York 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W 

New York illustrated W C 689,685 

787,533 

803,778 

Rhode Island 

Ohio 

W C 

included 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania 

New York 

Illinois 

Massachusetts 

New York illustrated 

New York illustrated 

California 

Missouri 

M W 

M W 

M w 

m W C 

m W C 

W 

W 

w 

w c 

w c 
120 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication State of 

origin 

1881. Advanced Studies for Those Using the Dressmakers' Magic Illinois 

Scale . . Designed for Those Who Have Already 

Learned to Use the Magic Scale, and Wish to Study Deeper 

in the Science of Garment Cutting. Quincy: Privately 

printed. 

1882. Advanced Studies for Those Using the Dressmakers' Magic Illinois 

Scale . . Designed for Those Who Have Already 

Learned to Use the Magic Scale and Wish to Study Deeper 

in the Science of Garment Cutting. 2nd edition. Quincy: 

Rood 8c Hayden. 

1889. Supplement No. 2 to Advanced Studies of Those Using the Illinois 

Dressmakers' Magic Scale, by Will C. Rood. Quincy: The 

Rood Magic Scale Co. 

1892. Deutsche Anweisungen fiir den Gebrauch der Magic Scale Illinois 

fiir Kleidermacherinnen ... . Chicago: The Rood 

Magic Scale Co. 

Rosenbleet, Joel 

1911. Rosenbleet's Perfect System of Ladies' Garment Cutting California 

Specially Designedfor Self Instruction. Los Angeles: Joel 

Rosenbleet. 

Rosenfeld, Isidor 

1911. The Practical Designer for Women's, Misses', funiors', ^ New York 

Children's Cloaks ^ Suits, Shirt Waist Suits, and Dresses 

with Grading and Special Measurements According to the 

Most Approved is? Up-To-Date Method ... . New 

York: Privately printed. 

1918. The Practical Designer: An Encyclopedia to Designers and New York 

Cutters for Women's, Misses', Juniors', Children's, and 

Infants' Jackets, Coats, Capes, Waists, Skirts, Riding 

Habits, Dresses, and Underwear. 11 volumes. Revised 

edition. New York: The Leading Pattern Co. 

Ross, Mrs. H. A. 

1882. Irutructions for Using Mrs. Ross' Tailor System, for Cut- Michigan 

ting Ladies' and Children's Garments of All Kinds. Battle 

Creek: Privately printed. 

1887. The Ross Tailor System of Garment Cutting by Actual Michigan 

Measurements. 2nd edition. Battle Creek: Privately 

printed. 

Rouwel 8c Co. 

* 1874. Rouwel isf Co. 's Geometrical and Scientific Work on the Art New York 

of Cutting Gentlemen [sic] and Ladies' Garments. New 

York: Rouwel 8c Co. 

Royal Pattern Co. 

1896. Instruction Book of the Royal System for Cutting Ladies' New York 

Garments. New York: The Royal Pattern Co. 

Rude, A. D., 8c Son 

1900. Text Book of the Great Modern System for Designing and New York 

Cutting Ladies' Garments ... . New York: Privately 

printed. 

Russell, Maude W[esterman] 

1917. The Maude Russell System of Garment Cutting: Text Oklahoma 

Book ... . Oklahoma City: Maude Russell Garment 

Cutting Co. 

The Sartorial Art fournal: The American Fashion Review (Jul New York 

1884-Mar 1885, 1889-1919). New York. [Issued 

monthly; 1889-1919 issues published by The Jno J. 

Mitchell Co., New York; originally published as The 

American Fashion Review. ] 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated, 

included 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W C 

w c 

w c 

w c 

illustrated 

W 

W C 

W C 

illustrated, 

W C 

W C 

illustrated 

M W 

W 

illustrated 

W 

W 

M w 

1,149,468 
NUMBER 42 

Publication 

The Sartorial Art Journal: Ladies' Tailor Edition (1900-1903). New 

York: The Jno. J. Mitchell Co. [Published quarterly. 

Tool included in some issues.] 

Schoenfelder, H. 

1879. H. Schoenfelder's New and Improved Method of Cutting 

All Kinds of Ladies [sic] Garments. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Schorr, Saul 

1915. The A merican Designer and Cutter: A Complete, Practical 

and Up-To-Date Work on the Art of Designing, Cutting, 

Grading, Fitting, Sketching, andPracticalTailoringofAll 

Kinds ofWomens' [sic]. Misses',funiors, Childrens' [sic], 

and Infants' Garments. New York: American Pattern 

Co. 

*1917. The Expert Designer: A Practical and Up-To-Date Work 

on the Art of Designing and Pattern-Making of Women's 

Cloaks, Suits, Waists, Dresses, and Skirts ... . New 

York: American Pattern Co. 

Sheifer, N. S. 

1908. A^. S. Sheifer's System of Designing and Grading Ladies', 

Misses' y Children's Garments ... . New York: Privately printed. 

Sheifer, N. S. See also Louis Dittmar. 

Sipe, Mrs. T. E. 

1887. Self-Irutructor to the Independent Tailor System. Privately 

printed. [Patent granted to Thalia E. Sipe, New 

York, New York.] 

Smith, A[lfred] E. 

1885. The Triangular Method for Cutting Ladies', Children's, 

and Men's Garments. Detroit: L. A. Smith & Co. 

Snow, Lester J. 

1912. Instruction Book: Snow's Success System of Garment Cutting, a Tailor System Based upon the Latest Accepted 

Theories of Dress Cutting. 6th edition. Rockford: Privately printed. 

1917. Instruction Book: Snow's Success System of Garment Cutting, a Tailor System Based upon the Latest Accepted 

Theories of Dress Cutting. 8th edition. Rockford: Privately printed. 

Spikman, Frins 

1918. The U.S.A. System of Ladies [sic] (sf Gentlemen's Garments 

[sic] Cutting. Buffalo: Frins Spikman. 

Stearns, Mrs. B. A. 

1892. A System for Cutting Ladies' and Children's Garments by 

Tailor's Method with Steams' Improved Diagram. Boston: Privately printed. 

Steuernagel, C 

1885. The New Practical Cutter: A Treatise on the Science and 

Practice of Cutting Ladies' Garments, Containing New, 

Systematic and Practical Irutructions ... . Cleveland: 

Lauer & Yost. 

Stinemets, William H. 

* 1844. A Complete and Permanent System of Cutting A ll Kinds of 

Garments, to Fit the Human Form, on a New and Scientific 

Principle, with Copious Remarks on the Admeasurements ... . New York: Privately printed. 

Stone, Charles J[ohn] 

1897. Superlative System of Cutting Ladies' Garments Based 

State of 

origin 

New York 

New York 

New York 

Drafting 

tool 

included 

included 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

121 

U.S. Patent 

W C 

New York 

New York 

illustrated 

illustrated 

Michigan 

Illinois 

Illinois 

New York 

Massachusetts illustrated 

W 

W C 

W 

m W C 

W C 

W C 

497,503 

M w 

W 

Ohio 

New York 

Illinois 

illustrated W 

W 
122 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication 

Upon a Scientific, Sure, and Simple Method Giving the 

Correct Proportions for Each Type of Form of Every 

Size ... . Chicago: Chas. J. Stone Co. Cutting 

School. 

1901. New Superlative System of Cutting Ladies' Garments Based 

upon a Scientific, Sure, and Simple Method Giving the 

Correct Proportions for Each Type of Form of Every Size, 

with Variations for All Kinds of Disproportionate Shapes 

and Forms. Chicago: Chas. J. Stone Co. Cutting 

School. 

Storey [James R.]. See Hughes & Storey. 

Studabecker, J. A. 

1881? Dress and Cloak Fitting Made Easy: Instructions for Drafting, by Studabecker's Tailors' Square for Cutting Ladies' 

and Childreru' [sic] Clothing. San Francisco: Privately 

printed. 

Swarz, Maurice 

1889. Maurice's System of Dress Cutting. New York: Privately 

printed. 

The Tailor's Review . . . (1883-1903). London and New York: 

The Butterick Publishing Co. [Published monthly. 

Drafts for women's garments were included in the 

magazine after 1898.] 

Tappan, Frank O., and Lillian A. Eggleston 

1896. Directions for Taking Measures. Toledo: Privately 

printed. 

Taylor, Mary A. 

1893. The Bona Fide A merican Dress Cutting System, Coruisting 

of 65 Illustrations. Passaic: Privately printed. 

Taylor, S. T. 

*1869. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. 

Taylor. 

1871. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New York: S. T. Taylor. 

1873. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New York: S. T. Taylor. 

1875. A System for Cutting Ladies' Dresses, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New York: Sarah E. Taylor. 

1877. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New York: Sarah E. Taylor. 

1879. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . Revised edition. New York: Sarah E. 

Taylor. 

1879. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments Invented by S. T. 

Taylor . . . . New edition. New York: Sarah E. 

Taylor. 

1880. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor.... New edition. New York: Sarah E. 

Taylor. 

1881. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments Invented by S. T. 

Taylor.... New edition. New York: Sarah E. 

Taylor. 

1881. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New edition. New York: S. T. Taylor. 

1883. A System for Cutting Ladies Garments Invented by S. T. 

Taylor.... Revised edition. New York: S. T. 

Taylor. 

1896. 5. T. Taylor's System of Dress Cutting. New York: S. T. 

Taylor Co. 

State of 

origin 

Drafting 

tool 

Clothing 

type 

U.S. Patent 

Illinois 

California 

New York 

New York 

Ohio 

New Jersey 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

included 

included 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

illustrated 

partially 

illustrated 

illustrated 

W 

m W C 

W 

M W 

M W C 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

234,821 
NUMBER 42 123 

Publication 

Taylor, S. T., Co. 

1911. Instruction Book with Diagrams for S. T. Taylor's System of 

Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. Taylor Co. 

1913. Instruction Book with Diagrams for S. T. Taylor's System of 

Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. Taylor Co. 

1915. Instruction Book with Diagramsfor S. T. Taylor's System of 

Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. Taylor Co. 

1919. Instruction Book with Diagramsfor S. T. Taylor's System of 

Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. Taylor Co. 

Teague, Louisa 

1895. Complete Instructions for Mrs. Louisa Teague's SelfTeaching Dress Chart. Goldthwaite: Mrs. Louisa 

Teague. 

Tentler, Aaron A. 

1842. A New System for Measuring and Cutting Ladies' Dresses, 

Cloaks, Collars, Capes, Yokes, i^c, with an Arithmetical 

Table, for Which the Author Received a Patent from the 

United States, January 23, 1841. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

Tessmer, A. 

1889. Das Buch zum Gelbstunterrichten im Schnittmusterzeichnen und Zuschneiden ... . New York: Privately 

printed. 

1890. Das Buch zum Gelbstunterrichten im SchnittmusterBeichnen und Zuschneiden. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Thompson, F. E. 

1881. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Webster City: 

Privately printed. 

1884. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: Privately printed, 

1884. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: Privately printed. 

1884. Thomspon's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: Privately printed. 

1888. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: Privately printed. 

1891. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: 

Hudson-Kimberly Pub. Co. 

Thompson, Mrs. F. E. [Bertha] 

1887. Thompson's New Improved Garment Cutter. Kansas City: 

Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Thompson. 

1892. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: 

Hudson-Kimberly Pub. Co. 

1895. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter. Kansas City: 

Hudson-Kimberly Publishing Co. 

1895. Thompson's Universal Garment Cutter Fashion Magazine. 

Kansas City: Privately printed. 

Thompson & Goldsberry 

1880. Thompson 6f Goldsberry's Self-Fitting Garment Cutters. 

Webster City: Privately printed. [Patent was issued to 

W. H. Goldsberry.] 

Thorp, Theodore 

1882. Thorp's New York System of Dress Cutting: A System for 

Cutting Basques, Ulsters, Jackets, Circular Cloaks, and 

Dolmans .... Rochester: Privately printed. 

1884. Thorp's New York System of Dress Cutting. New York: 

Privately printed. 

State of 

origin 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

illustrated 

Texas 

Pennsylvania 

New York 

New York 

Iowa 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Iowa 

New York 

New York 

illustrated 

included 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

w 

M W C 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

m W c 

M W 

W 

W 

1,944 

247,339 
124 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication State of 

origin 

1886. Thorp's New York System of Dress Cutting. New York: New York 

Privately printed. 

Tobey, Madame 

1889? Directions for Drafting by Madame Tobey's Improved Maine 

Glove-Fitting System for Dress Cutting. Augusta: Privately printed. [Filed at the Library of Congress in 

1889.] 

Treadway, E. P. 

1882. The Franco-American Form: A Variable Diagram for Fitting Dresses and Other Garments ... . Philadelphia: 

Privately printed. 

Turner, Milo M. 

1882. Turner's Improved Self-Ins true ting System for Drafting 

Ladies', Misses', and Children's Clothing. Book I. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

1883. Turner's Improved Tailor System for Drafting Ladies [sic], 

Misses [sic] and Children's Clothing. Book II. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

1883. Turner's Improved Sleeve System for Drafting Ladies [sic], 

Misses [sic], and Children's Coat, Plain, Gathered, and 

Puffed Sleeves. Book III. Cincinnati: Privately 

printed. 

1884. Milo M. Turner's Improved Tailor System, by Mrs. N. f. 

Turner's Form: Wrought Patterns, for Drafting Ladies 

[sic]. Misses [sic], and Children's Clothing. Cincinnati: 

Privately printed. 

1885. Milo M. Turner's Improved System of Drafting, by Inch 

Rule and Tape Measure. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

1889. Milo M. Turner's Improved Tailor System, by Mrs. N. f. 

Turner's Form: Wrought Patterns, for Drafting Ladies 

[sic], Misses [sic], and Children's Clothing. Books I and 

II in one volume. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

Vienna Ladies' Tailoring Institute 

1896? Artistic Ladies' Tailor System. New York: Vienna 

Ladies' Tailoring Institute. 

1898. Artistic Ladies' Tailor System. New York: Vienna 

Ladies' Tailoring Institute. 

1902. Twentieth Century Instruction Book: Artistic Ladies' Tailor 

System. New York: Vienna Ladies' Tailoring Institute. 

Vogel, Franz Otto 

1883. Practical Hand-Bookfor Tailors ^ Seamstresses for Self- Missouri 

Instruction ... . St. Louis: Privately printed. 

The Voice of Fashion (1890-1896, 1901-1905). Chicago. [Pub- Illinois 

lished quarterly by Goldsberry, Doran 8c Nelson 

(1890-1892 ) and by Goldsberr y & Dora n 

(1892-1836); semi-annually by C A. DeGryse 

(1901-1904) and by Voice of Fashion Pub. Co. 

(1904-1905). Tool illustrated 1901-1905. Patent 

issued to W. H. Goldsberry.] 

Walker, Mrs. H. M., and W. A. Work 

1885. Madam Walker's Champion Fitter, a Self-Irutructor in the Illinois 

Science of Cutting and Fitting All the Garments Worn by 

Ladies, Gentlemen, and Children. Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

Walkie, Madame [Jennie] 

1888. Irutruction Book for the Celebrated Worth Tailor System. Illinois 

Chicago: Privately printed. 

Pennsylvania illustrated 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Drafting Clothing U.S. Patent 

tool type 

W 

W C 

W 

W C 

W C 

W C 

W C 

W 

W C 

New York 

New York 

New York 

illustrated 

illustrated 

M 

W 

W 

w 

c 

c 

c 

illustrated 

46,409 

46,409 

46,409 

46,409 

46,409 

46,409 

M w c 

W C 247,339 

M W C 

W C 452,090 
NUMBER 42 125 

Publication 

Wallace, William 

1881. Dress-Fitting without a Teacher. Oakland: Pacific Press 

Publishing House. 

Walsh, James J. 

1915. Fit-U-First Dress-Making & Tailoring Schools, Kansas 

City, Mo. Kansas City: Privately printed. 

Weidel,J[oseph] A[nton] 

1910. Weidel's Instruction Book for Those Using Weidel's Combined Tailor Square and Curves: A Complete Treatise on 

Drafting Ladies' and Children's Garments by the Square 

and Curves Combined. St. Louis: Weidel 8c Webster. 

1914 Weidel's Irutruction Book for Those Using Weidel's Combined Tailor Square and Curves: A Complete Treatise on 

Drafting Ladies' and Children's Garments by the Square 

and Curves Combined. St. Louis: Weidel Ladies' Tailoring College Co. 

Weiler, S. G. 

1915. The Weiler Ladies [sic] Tailor-Dressmaker Designer, Cutter, and Fitter Book. Milwaukee: S. G. Weiler Designer. 

Weinberg, Benjamin 

1900. Weinberg's Cloak, Skirt, and Cape Cutter: A Simple and 

Perfect Method for Self Irutruction on the Art of Cutting 

Ladies' Cloaks, Skirts, and Capes. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Welander, A. W. 

1896. Welander's Perfected Combination System Based upon 

Practical, Sure, and Simple Methods, Giving the Exact 

Balance and Proportions for Each and Every Type and 

Form. Chicago: A. W. Welander. 

1898. Welander's Perfected Tailor System for Dress Cutting: For 

Use of Dressmakers, Ladies [sic] Tailors, and Furriers. 

Chicago: A. W. Welander. 

Wendorf, William 

1913. Wendorf s Practical Cutting Method: A New System Which 

Enables One to Take Correct Measurements and Draft 

Patterns for Ladies' and Men's Garments. Chicago: Privately printed. 

Wetterhall, O. L. 

1890. Devereaux's French System of Actual Measure for Scientific Dress and Sleeve Cutting. Oconomowoc: Privately 

printed. 

Wheeler, E[lla] C 

1885. Instructions for Draughting Garments by the Improved 

Scientific Method. Boston: Privately printed. 

Wheeler 8c Wilson 

1881. The New Science of Dress Cutting by the Wilson Method of 

Inch Measurement San Jose: [E. W.] Wheeler & Q. A.] 

Wilson. [Although the authors, E. W. Wheeler and 

James A. Wilson, possibly hoped to be confused with 

the east-coast sewing machine firm headed by A. B. 

Wilson and Nathaniel Wheeler, there was no apparent connection between the two companies.] 

Whitmore, Thomas H. 

1852. T. H. Whitmore's Systems for Cutting Garments, Containing Directions and Illustrations for Measuring and 

Draughting, to Cut All Kinds of Gentlemen's Garments, 

Including Dress, Frock, Sack, and Over Coats, Pantaloons, 

State of 

origin 

California 

Missouri 

Drafting 

tool 

illustrated 

illustrated 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

U.S. PaterU 

284,783 

Missouri illustrated 

Missouri illustrated 

W C 981,043 

W C 981,043 

Wisconsin illustrated 

New York 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Wisconsin 

Massachusetts 

illustrated, 

included 

W 

W 

M w 

1,163,874 

illustrated 

W 

M W 1,042,063 

California included 

W C 

W 

w c 

Ohio M W 
126 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Publication State of Drafting 

origin tool 

Vests, Cloaks, and Ladies' Dresses. Deerfield: Privately 

printed. 

Williams, W. R. 

1889. W. R. Williams'New Irutruction Book, Giving Full and Kansas illustrated 

Complete Irutructions for Using the Perfection Tailor System of Dress Cutting. Lawrence: Privately printed. 

1893. W. R. Williams'New Instruction Book Giving Full and Kansas illustrated 

Complete Irutructions for Using the New Perfection System 

of Dress Cutting. Lawrence: Privately printed. 

Wilson, J. A. See E. W. Wheeler. 

Wilson, J. A., &Co. 

1883. Instructions for Drafting by Wilson's New Tailor-System of Illinois 

Dress Cutting. Chicago: J. A. Wilson 8c Co. 

Wilson, Mrs. J. A., & Co. 

1885. Wilson's New Tailor-System of Dress Cutting. San Jose: California 

J.A. Wilson 8c Co. 

Wilson, James A. 

1880. The Science of Dress Cutting by the Wilson Method of Inch California included 

Measurement. San Jose: Privately printed. 

Wilson, James G. 

1827. Report of the Present Fashions, with the Square Rules and New York 

Variations to Fit the Human Shape. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Wing, Mona H. 

1895. The Nineteenth Century Cutting System. Chicago: Pri- Illinois 

vately printed. 

Woolman, H[ester] A[nn] S[harp] 

1913. Metoda "Acme" (moda cientifica) para el arte de cortar y New York illustrated 

confeccionar toda close de ropa sin necesidad de maestro 

contiene dibujos de prendas de vestir para serloras, caballeros,yninos. Volume 2. New York: The Clover Press. 

[Patent was issued to Edwin Z. Lesh and Hester A. 

Woolman, who were United States citizens residing 

in Guadalajara, Mexico.] 

Work, W. A. See Mrs. H. M. Walker.. 

Work, W[illiam] A[lbert] 

1914. Work's Ladies' Tailor System: A Self Instructor in the Art Pennsylvania 

of Cutting and Fitting Ladies' Garments. Harrisburg: 

Privately printed. [Published quarterly.] 

Wuerfel, Augusta J. 

1889. Mrs. A. f. Wuerfel's Tailor's Rules and Diagrams, Irutru- Wisconsin 

ments Patented, fune 7th, 1887 ... . Milwaukee: Privately printed. 

1900. Mrs. A. f. Wuerfel's Tailor's Rules and Diagrams, Irutru- Wisconsin 

ments Patented June 7th, 1887 ... . Milwaukee: Privately printed. 

Zeisler, Alexander Z. 

1917. Parisian Ladies'Tailoring System for Designing, Pattern Illinois 

Cutting, Fitting, and Making Waists, Skirts, Dresses, 

Suits, and All Outer Garments. Chicago?: The Excelsior 

Dry Goods Co.? 

Zenith Manufacturing Co. 

1904. Instructioru for Using Zenith Impression System of Gar- New York illustrated 

ment Drafting. Rochester: Zenith Manufacturing Co. 

[Patents issued to Edward P. Follett, the last one 

assigned by him to the Zenith Manufacturing Co.] 

Clothing U.S. Patent 

type 

W C 660,175 

W C 660,175 

W 

W 

W 

M w c 

W C 

W 

w c 

w c 

w 

w 

4,687X 

7,566X 

m W c 825,915 

364,620 

364,620 

389,376 

389,377 

566,158 

583,858 

611,995 

692,510 

735,738 
NUMBER 42 127 

Chronological Index to Authors 

1809. 

1827. 

1839-

1842. 

1843-

1844. 

1845. 

1852. 

1853. 

1854. 

1856. 

1857. 

1859. 

1863. 

1868. 

1869. 

1871. 

1873. 

1874. 

1875. 

1876. 

1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1879-

1880. 

1881. 

Queen, James, and William 

Lapsley 

Wilson, James G. 

1841. Mahan, Francis 

Tentler, Aaron A. 

1844. Mahan, Francis 

Stinements, William H. 

Kromer &: Flenner 

Whitmore, Thomas H. 

Hunter, A.J. 

Mahan, Francis 

Dilday, E. 

Minier, E. P. 

Clave, Justin 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A. 

Powell 8c Kohler 

Ewing, Sarah C 

Taylor, S. T. 

Ewing, Sarah C 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A. 

Jackson, Louisa L. 

Taylor, S. T. 

Griffin, Caleb H., and David 

Knox 

Taylor, S. T. 

Rouwel & Co. 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A. 

Robbins, L. E. 

Taylor, S. T. 

Gottschalg, William 

Jackson, Louisa L. 

Linthicum, W[illiam] O. 

Rontey, P. 

Taylor, S. T. 

Madison, J. O. 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

Rood, Will C 

Griffin, Caleb H. 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

Moody, D. W. 

Rontey, P. 

Rood, Will C 

Schoenfelder, H. 

Taylor, S. T. 

1889. The New York Fashion 

Bazar 

Kellogg, Mrs. F.J. 

Livingston, J. W. 

McClure, N. C 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

Taylor, S. T. 

Thompson, 8c Goldsberry 

Wilson, James A. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

McCall, James 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

Potter, H. M. 

Rood, Will C 

Taylor, S. T. 

Thompson, F. E. 

Wallace, William 

Wheeler & Wilson 

1881? Studabecker, J. A. 

1882. Byrnes, T[homas] W. 

Davis, Mrs. M. E. 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

Rood, Will C 

Ross, Mrs. H. A. 

Thorp, Theodore 

Treadway, E. P. 

Turner, Milo M. 

1883. Bayne, J. Reid 

Cornwell, Willett 

Devereaux, C A. 

EUiss, Amelia B. 

Fitch, Morris 

Fountain, J. H. 

Griffin, Caleb H. 

Leake, Mrs. H. A. 

McDowell Garment Drafting 

Machine Co. 

Montie, Mme. 

Phelps, Mr. and Mrs. B. T. 

Taylor, S. T. 

Turner, Milo M. 

Vogel, Franz Otto 

Wilson,J. A., &:Co. 

1883 -1903. The Tailor's Review 

1884. Carman & Blaney 

Gartland, Elizabeth 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Greenwood, G. M., 8c Co. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

King, E. 

Livingston, J. W. 

McDowell Garment Drafting 

Machine Co. 

Moschcowitz Bros. 

Myer, Mary C 

Thompson, F. E. 

Thorp, Theodore 

Turner, Milo M. 

1884-1885. The Sartorial Artfoumal: 

The American Fashion 

Review 

1885. Cornwell, Willett 

Ganzhorn, William 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hale, L. B. 

Hanover, John C, 8c Co. 

Harvey, S. B. 

Lewis, S. T. 

McDowell Garment Drafting 

Machine Co. 

Moody, D. W. 

Smith, A[lfred] E. 

Steuernagel, C 

Turner, Milo M. 

Walker, Mrs. H. M., and W. A. 

Work 

Wheeler, E[lla] C 

Wilson, Mrs. J. A., & Co. 

1886. Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hanover, John C, 8c Co. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

Mallison, Mme. E. W. 

Molpoer, Louis 

Palmer, Mrs. E. E. 

Thorp, Theodore 

1887. Buddington, Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

Coleman, Mrs. M[ary] V[irginia] 

Doughty & Co. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

McDowell Garment Drafting 

Machine Co. 

Mardn, G. N. 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

Olson, Jennie S. 

Ross, Mrs. H. A. 

Sipe, Mrs. T. E. 

Thompson, Mrs. F. E. [Bertha] 

1888. Cornwell, Willett 

Davis, Myra A. 

Dittmar & Sheifer 

Elmes, B. S. 

Ewing, Sarah C 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hanover, John C, &: Co. 

Head, Leola M. 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

Kellogg, Mrs. F. J. 

Kinslow, Mrs. J. G. 

Martin, James A. 

Nickerson, S. A. 

Ramsay, John 

Thompson, F. E 

Walkie, Madame [Jennie] 

1889. Abercrombie, Emma 

Briggs, D. B. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Jackson, Mrs. Louisa L. 

Kellogg, Mrs. F. J. 

Legendre [sic], Madame M. A. 

Rood, Will C 

Swarz, Maurice 

Tessmer, A. 

Turner, Milo M. 

Williams, W. R. 

Wuerfel, Mrs. Augusta J. 

1889- 1919. The Sartorial Artfoumal: 

The American Fashion 

Review 

n.d. (c. 1889). Tobey, Madame 
128 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

1890. 

1890-

1890-

1891. 

1891-

1892. 

1892? 

1892-

1893. 

1893-

1893-

1894. 

1894-

1895. 

Bearrie, A. E., 8c Co. 

Fountain, J. H. 

Levis, D. I. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Greenwood, George M. 

Kaphan, M. 

Phelps, Mr. and Mrs. B. T. 

Tessmer, A. 

Wetterhall, O. L. 

-1892. The Voice of Fashion 

-1897. Custom Cutter 

Clute, J. Redfield 

Denny, Mrs. L. 

Dittmar 8c Sheifer 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

Jones, M. O. 

Molpoer, Louis 

Thompson, F. E. 

-1895. La Mode de Paris 

Barnes, A. L. 

Baughman, Mr. and Mrs. J. S. 

deLamorton, O. H. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hughes & Storey 

Kellogg, Mrs. F. J. 

Moore, C E. 

Palmer, Mrs. E. E. 

Rood, Will C 

Stearns, Mrs. B. A. 

Thompson, Mrs. F. E. [Bertha] 

Muller, Ed. 

-1896. The Voice of Fashion 

Bell, Mattie M. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Jester, R. E., & Co. 

Penrose, O. E. 

Taylor, Mary A. 

Williams, W. R. 

1894. The Journal of Fashion and 

Tailoring 

1897. The Practical Cutter and 

Tailor 

Hamilton, Nellie 

Holmes, Nelson 

1895. The French Dressmaker 

Bisbee, F. S. 

Fourier, P.A. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Hecklinger, Charles 

Teague, Louisa 

1895? 

1896. 

1896? 

1897. 

1898. 

1899-

1900. 

1900-

1901. 

1901-

1902. 

1903. 

1903-

1904. 

Thompson, Mrs. F. E. [Bertha] 

Wing, Mona H. 

Molpoer, Louis 

Buddington, Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

Evan, H. P., Co. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

The Herald of Fashion and Journal 

of Tailoring 

Kintzel, A. G. 

McDermott, L. M. 

Miegel, Albert Henry 

Mignogna, Antonio 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

Peyry, Jean B. 

Royal Pattern Co. 

Tappan, Frank O., and Lillian 

A. Eggleston 

Taylor, S. T. 

Welander, A. W. 

Vienna Ladies' Tailoring 

Institute 

Blair, Margaret J. 

Goldsberry, W. H. 

Herbert, Mrs. Charles 

Mason, Ida V. 

Molpoer, Louis 

Stone, Charles J[ohn] 

Vienna Ladies' Tailoring 

Institute 

Welander, A. W. 

1919. Pictorial Review 

Denieffe, Joseph 

Rude, A. D., 8c Son 

Weinberg, Benjamin 

Wuerfel, Augusta J. 

1903. The Sartorial Art Journal: 

Ladies' Tailor Edition 

Doolittle, Oliver Taylor 

Gordon, Seldon Smith 

Stone, Charles J[ohn] 

• 1904. The Voice of Fashion 

Brown, Harriet A[delaid] 

Vienna Ladies' Tailoring 

Institute 

The American Modiste 

Diamond Garment Cutter 

Correspondence School 

1919. The American Ladies'Tailor 

Blair, Margaret J. 

Engelmann, Gustav 

Peyry, Jean B. 

Phelps, E. L. 

Zenith Manufacturing Co. 

1904? Berkowich, Louis I., editor 

1904 - 1905. The Voice of Fashion 

1904 -1913 . The A merican Modiste 

1905. Carlstrom, Jno. A. 

Diamond Garment Cutter 

Correspondence School 

1906 -1919. Les Parisiennes 

1907. Blakely, Elizabeth, and Frances 

Patton 

Gingles, Mae Milbourne 

1908. Gordon, Seldon Smith 

Ratner, Henry Way 

Sheifer, N. S. 

1909. Glickstein, Philip 

1910. Hurwitz, George 

La Mode Universelle 

Weidel, J[oseph] A[nton] 

1911. Rosenbleet, Joel 

Rosenfeld, Isidor 

Taylor, S. T., Co. 

1912. Pecori, Eugene 

Snow, Lester J. 

1912-1918. The Fashionable Woman's 

Tailor 

1913. Engelmann, Gustav 

Taylor, S. T., Co. 

Wendorf, William 

Woolman, H[ester] A[nn] 

S[harp] 

1914. Bennett, Ella Alvira 

Weidel, J[oseph] A[nton] 

Work, W[illiam] A[lbert] 

1915. Ferguson, Albert Edwin 

Schorr, Saul 

Taylor, S. T., Co. 

Walsh, James J. 

Weiler, S. G. 

1917. Blackburn, Juditha 

Gurney, Edmund 

Russell, Maude W[esterman] 

Schorr, Saul 

Snow, Lester J. 

Zeisler, Alexander Z. 

1918. Rosenfeld, Isidor 

Spikman, Frins 

1919. Le Grand Chic Parisien Fashion 

Company 

Taylor, S. T., Co. 
NUMBER 42 129 

Q^fi/?mdm:If 

Dressmakers' Drafting Tools at Library of Congress 

(Uncatalogued, in the collection of the Prints and Photographs Division) 

Copyright 

holder 

Chappell, James H. 

Cox 8c Minton 

Holbrook & Co. 

McCall, James 

McKim 8c Noel 

Residence 

Pennsylvania 

Danville, Indiana 

Massachusetts 

New York 

St. Louis, Missouri 

Year of 

copyright 

1853 

1868 

1870 

1867 

1867 

Size 

57.2 X 57.2 cm 

66.2 X 57.0 cm 

78.1 X 63.2 cm 

62.2 X 46.0 cm 

71.8 X 52.7 cm 

(MfifimdmM 

Patents for Drafting Systems for Assorted Clothing 

Patents related to drafting patterns for women's 

garments are included in this listing. Most of these 

were for drafting garments for the upper torso. 

Sometimes methods for cutting sleeves were included; there were a few patents which were specifically for this purpose. Before the 1890s, skirts 

were not drafted. In the first half of the century 

skirts were simply gathered or pleated at the waist; 

in the 1860s they were cut with side gores but were 

still gathered or pleated in back to fit the waist; 

during the last quarter of the century they were 

draped on the» customer, on an assistant, or on ^ 

dress form. In the last decade of the 19th century, 

however, skirts were sometimes included in dress 

cutting systems. Patents were also granted for separate skirt cutting systems. These patents are designated by the word "skirts" in brackets when the 

titles do not clearly identify them. 

Many patents for tailors' systems are also included in this list. As reflected by the patents, 

tailors were responsible for the original development of, and the earliest improvements to, drafting 

systems. Sometimes these systems included techniques for cutting women's apparel such as ladies' 

riding habits. Occasionally it is not obvious whether 

a technique was intended to be used for drafting 

specifically men's or women's garments. This appendix lists, however, only those patented tailors' 

techniques that could be related to the technology 

of drafting women's garments. Therefore, techniques for drafting closely fitting men's upper 

torso garments such as suit coats and vests are 

considered as well as sleeve cutting methods. Drafting systems for shirts (loosely fitting garments requiring no special cutting or fitting skill) and for 

trousers are excluded. 

Several categories of patents related to drafting 

men's and women's garments are also excluded. 

Not considered are methods limited to the cutting 

or applying of trim, collars, cuffs, or lapels. There 

is no inclusion of methods for marking fabric from 

a pattern prior to cutting, if the patentee did not 

claim a technique for making the pattern as well. 

Also outside the scope of this study are methods 
130 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

limited to perforating, notching, printing, or marking seam allowances or instructions on paper 

patterns. 

The patents are listed in chronological order. 

This arrangement also places the patents issued 

after 1836 in numerical order by patent number. 

There are two kinds of exceptions to this post-1836 

chronological-numerical order. A separate numbering system preceded by "Al" was established by 

the Patent Office for "Additional Improvements" 

granted on earlier patents. Another system preceded by "RE" designated "Reissued" patents. 

These two kinds of patent actions are listed within 

the chronological order. The original patent number is shown in brackets below the Al or RE series 

number. 

In December 1836 a fire destroyed most of the 

patent records. Patents "restored" by the patentees 

were numbered on an independent system identified by the suffix "X". No numbers were assigned 

to the unrestored patents. The data for the lost 

patents have been obtained from Edmund Burke's 

1847 index, List of Patents, Inventions and Designs 

Issued by the United States from 1790 to 1847. 

A patentee could assign all or part of his patent 

rights to an individual or firm. Assignees of particular interest are listed beneath the patentees' 

names. These assignees include authors of drafting 

system instruction booklets, patentees or copatentees for other patents, and individuals assigned a patent by other patentees. Firms assigned 

patents are also indicated when the company could 

have had a role in applying or marketing the 

invention. 

The asterisks preceding certain patentees, copatentees, or assignees designate individuals who 

are also listed in Appendix I as the author, coauthor, editor, or publisher of an instruction book 

or trade periodical. 

Each patent for which there are extant specifications is annotated with an abbreviation (M, W, 

C) indicating the kinds of apparel the patented 

invention could draft (men's, women's, or children's). A question mark is used with an abbreviation when the apparel cannot be positively identified. "U" indicates patents that neither specify 

nor contain internal evidence suggesting the kinds 

of garments to be cut. 

U.S. 

4,687X 

5,234X 

5,327X 

6,807X 

7,112X 

7,566X 

Patent 

(16Jun 1821) 

(8 Feb 1822) 

(18 Aug 1823) 

(6 Nov 1823) 

(15 Mar 1826) 

(5 Apr 1826) 

(lOJul 1826) 

(28 Feb 1827) 

(23 Oct 1827) 

(11 Oct 1828) 

(9 Jan 1829) 

(3 Sep 1831) 

(22 Oct 1831) 

(7 Jun 1832) 

(16 Apr 1833) 

(20 Apr 1833) 

(3 May 1833) 

Patentee 

Ward, Allen 

Kenrick, Charles 

Madison, Otis 

Campbell, Ethan 

Severson, Stephen 

Ross, Greenberry 

Starr, N. B. 

*Wilson, James G. 

Allen, William W. 

Ward, Allen 

Lemont, Levi Peterson 

Pudney, John 

Henderson, James, and 

Cooper K. Watson 

Wiswell, Andrew 

Mendenhall, James 

Bacon, G. W. M. 

*Wilson, James G. 

Residence 

Alabama (Huntsville) 

New York 

New York (Troy) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Kentucky (Carlisle) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Maine (Bath) 

New York (Waterford) 

Ohio (Zanesville) 

Title 

Cutting Garments 

Art of Tailoring 

Ruler for Cutting Out 

Garments 

Cutting Garments 

Marking Out and Cutting 

Garments 

Art of Tailoring 

Scale for Draughting 

Garments 

Square for Cutting 

Garments 

Draughting and Cutting 

Garments 

Tailoring 

Tailor's Measure 

Measuring and Cutting 

Garments 

Tailors' Measure 

New Hampshire (Exeter) Square 

Pennsylvania 

(Westchester) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Measuring for Garments 

Measuring for Garments 

Tailors' Measure 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. 

7,591X 

7,817X 

7,962X 

9,1 lOX 

9,219X 

9,860X 

179 

256 

283 

415 

435 

539 

574 

1,113 

1,119 

1,136 

REll 

[7,591X] 

1,406 

AI31 

[1,136] 

1,556 

1,557 

1,584 

1,880 

1,944 

Patent 

(22 May 1833) 

(5 Aug 1833) 

(19 Nov 1833) 

(18 Jan 1834) 

(7 Jan 1835) 

(18 Sep 1835) 

(31 Oct 1835) 

(IJul 1836) 

(26 Apr 1837) 

(11 Jul 1837) 

(17 Jul 1837) 

(28 Sep 1837) 

(23 Oct 1837) 

(26 Dec 1837) 

(20 Jan 1838) 

(30 Mar 1839) 

(10 Apr 1839) 

(26 Apr 1839) 

(31 Aug 1839) 

(12 Nov 1839) 

(18 Feb 1840) 

(18 Apr 1840) 

(18 Apr 1840) 

(8 May 1840) 

(5 Dec 1840) 

(23 Jan 1841) 

Patentee 

Williams, Daniel 

Beard, George, Jr. 

Lewis, Benjamin J. 

Chappell, James H. 

Ward, Allen 

Rockafellow, John S. 

Fairchild, Frederick A. 

Zwisler, James, Jr. 

Bishop, William C 

Wiswell, Andrew 

Sherman, Amos 

Ward, Allen 

Allen, William W. 

Barber, Erastus 

Kahler, William, and 

Charles 

Axford, Edward I. 

Wiswell, William M. 

Williams, Daniel 

Williams, Daniel 

Barnett, John P., and 

Francis Story 

Williams, Daniel 

Lemmond, William J. 

Hendryx, Isaiah J. 

Dame, Richard 

Tilden, Thomas E. 

*Tentler, Aaron A. 

Residence 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania 

(W. Whiteland) 

Ohio (Mount Vernon) 

Ohio (Chillicothe) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New Jersey 

(Flemington) 

Georgia (Columbus) 

Title 

Improvement in the Art 

of Tailoring 

Marking Out and 

Cutting Garments 

Tailoring 

Tailoring 

Measuring and Marking 

Out Coats 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Maryland (Hagerstown) Tailoring 

New York (Ovid) 

New Hampshire 

(Exeter) 

New Jersey (Newark) 

Pennsylvania 

(Moyamensing) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Pennsylvania 

(Bloomsburg) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Maine (Portland) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Catskill) 

New York (New York) 

South Carolina 

(Lancasterville) 

New York (Troy) 

New Hampshire 

(Hanover) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Geometrical Transfer 

Measurer for Measuring 

and Drafting Preparatory to Cutting Coats, 

Vests, & c. 

Tailoring 

System of Tailoring 

Draughting Forepart 

of Coats 

Mode of Measuring, 

Drafting and Cutting 

Out Garments 

Standard Measurer for 

Taking Measure for 

Coats 

Art of Measuring and 

Cutting Garments 

Tailor's Drafting 

Instrument for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailoring 

Instrument for Measuring 

the Human Body 

Preparatory to Cutting 

Garments 

Tailors' Measure 

Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Mode of Measuring and 

Drafting Garments 

Construction of Tailors' 

Measures 

Mode of Measuring the 

Human Body for the 

Drafting and Cutting of 

Coats 

Manner of Taking Measures 

and Drafting for the 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

131 

Cutting Out of Ladies' 

Dresses Including Habits, 
132 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. 

2,106 

2,341 

2,450 

2,590 

2,640 

2,730 

3,024 

3,130 

3,160 

3,161 

3,286 

3,522 

3,603 

3,820 

4,083 

4,294 

4,327 

4,367 

4,477 

4,596 

4,742 

4,831 

4,923 

4,975 

5,635 

6,286 

7,402 

AI95 

[7,402] 

7,641 

8,566 

8,600 

8,895 

10,779 

11,339 

Patent 

(29 May 1841) 

(10 Nov 1841) 

(7 Feb 1842) 

(29 Apr 1842) 

(26 May 1842) 

(20 Jul 1842) 

(30 Mar 1843) 

(14 Jun 1843) 

(8 Jul 1843) 

(8 Jul 1843) 

(28 Sep 1843) 

(4 Apr 1844) 

(30 May 1844) 

(9 Nov 1844) 

(20 Jun 1845) 

(29 Nov 1845) 

(26 Dec 1845) 

(28 Jan 1846) 

(25 Apr 1846) 

(27 Jun 1846) 

(5 Sep 1846) 

(29 Oct 1846) 

(7 Jan 1847) 

(20 Feb 1847) 

(13 Jun 1848) 

(10 Apr 1849) 

(8 May 1850) 

(3 Sep 1850) 

(10 Sep 1850) 

(2 Dec 1851) 

(16 Dec 1851) 

(20 Apr 1852) 

(18 Apr 1854) 

(18 Jul 1854) 

Patentee 

Miller, Lyman B., and 

EUery 

*Flenner, Lewis 

Brundage, Henry C 

Seger, Hiram 

Veret, Peter F. L. 

Knowland, Joseph, and 

Jacob F. 

Oliver, Thomas 

Pendell, David L. 

Sipperly, David N. 

Morey, Cyrus, and 

David Hummer 

Eckler, George, and 

S. X. Ball 

Richardson, Samuel S. 

Isham, Henry 

Combs, John P. 

Stillwell, S. B. 

Bogardus, Abraham A. 

Ward, Allen 

Seger, Hiram 

Donges, Henry 

Kile, Conrad 

Acton, William R. 

Martin, Benjamin G. 

Simril, Miles G. 

Watt, Thomas 

Lucas, Charles 

Carpenter, John 

Stoker, Amos ' 

Stoker, Amos 

Allen, William W. 

Maginnis, James 

Virtue, Edward 

Wells, William T. 

Rowlands, Mosses [sic] 

T. 

Spilman, Peter 

Residence 

New York 

(Middletown) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia Co.) 

New York 

(Middletown) 

Georgia (Macon) 

Georgia (Warrentown) 

Title 

Cloaks, and Other Similar 

Articles 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Instrument and 

the Mode of Measuring 

Garments 

Construction of 

Instruments for 

Measuring Garments 

Tailoring 

Instrument for 

Measuring Garments 

Kentucky (Brownsboro) Instrument for 

New York (New York) 

New York (Gilboa) 

New York (Troy) 

Ohio (McArthurstown) 

New York (Flint Creek) 

Maine (Baldwin) 

Vermont (Montpelier) 

New Jersey (Trenton) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

New York (Newburg) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Georgia (Macon) 

Pennsylvania 

(Newport) 

Ohio (Nashville) 

Virginia (Richmond) 

Virginia (Richmond) 

South Carolina 

(Chesterville) 

Ohio (Hubbard 

Township) 

Virginia 

(Charlottesville) 

Pennsylvania 

(Uniontown) 

New York 

(Ogdensburg) 

New York 

(Ogdensburg) 

New Jersey 

(Bordentown) 

New York (Lockport) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Tennessee (Shelbyville) 

Pennsylvania 

(Pittstown Ferry) 

Virginia (Richmond) 

Measuring Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Measuring and Cutting 

Garments 

Cutting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Fitting Ladies' Dresses 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailoring 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Cutting Ladies' Dresses 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Measures 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Drafting and Measuring 

Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailors' Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailoring 

Tailor's Measure 

Apparatus for Laying 

Off the Scye in 

Cutting Garments 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. 

11,866 

11,868 

15,824 

16,472 

18,958 

19,271 

20,826 

35,226 

38,757 

45,780 

46,409 

48,644 

52,566 

52,950 

56,383 

56,892 

57,254 

57,837 

60,028 

61,349 

67,774 

70,621 

71,192 

71,520 

72,432 

76,128 

77,704 

78,338 

78,726 

79,083 

86,829 

Patent 

(31 Oct 1854) 

(31 Oct 1854) 

(30 Sep 1856) 

(27 Jan 1857) 

(29 Dec 1857) 

(2 Feb 1858) 

(6 Jul 1858) 

(13 May 1862) 

(2 Jun 1863) 

(3 Jan 1865) 

(14 Feb 1865) 

(11 Jul 1865) 

(13 Feb 1866) 

(6 Mar 1866) 

(17 Jul 1866) 

(7 Aug 1866) 

(14 Aug 1866) 

(4 Sep 1866) 

(27 Nov 1866) 

(22 Jan 1867) 

(13 Aug 1867) 

(5 Nov 1867) 

(19 Nov 1867) 

(26 Nov 1867) 

(17 Dec 1867) 

(31 Mar 1868) 

(5 May 1868) 

(26 May 1868) 

(9 Jun 1868) 

(23 Jun 1868) 

(9 Feb 1869) 

Patentee 

Krider, John M. 

Lillibridge, Warren, 

and Charles F. 

Stocker, Amos 

Derby, Lyman 

Corley, Simeon 

Weston, James M. 

Stace, W. R. 

Fowler, Henry A. 

Osier, H. 

West, J. B. 

*Turner, M. M. 

Beard, G. 

Harley, G.W.T. 

Beard, George 

Dittenhafer, Catherine 

Brigham, S. O. 

La Ment, P. A. 

Carpenter, H. M. 

McDonald, Curran E. 

Mengel, Herrmann 

Krider, J. M. 

Roseen, E. 

Malnight, John 

Lemley, Jacob, Jr. 

Vandoren, Theodore, 

Sr. 

Windle, Susan R. 

Mengel, Herman [sic] 

Tierney, D. 

Dolan, Patrick W. 

Sinnott, W., and 

J. McNaughton 

Flores, Alonzo 

Hernandez 

Residence 

Virginia (Newtown 

Stephensburg) 

Ohio (Zanesville) 

New York (Rome) 

New York (New York) 

South Carolina 

(Lexington) 

New York 

(Chesterfield) 

New York (Rochester) 

New York (Afton) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (New York) 

Ohio (North Fairfield) 

Ohio (Salineville) 

Maryland (Frederick) 

Ohio (Salineville) 

Ohio (Canton) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

New York (New York) 

Michigan (Grand 

Rapids) 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Virginia (Madison 

Court-House) 

New York (New York) 

Michigan (Grass Lake) 

Virginia (Newtown) 

Washington, D. C 

Ohio (Chillicothe) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (New York) 

New Jersey (Jersey 

City) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

New York (New York) 

Title 

Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Instrument for 

Drafting Coats 

Improvement in Machines 

for Draughting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Instrument for Drafting 

Ladies' Dresses 

Tailoring 

Tailoring 

Chart for Cutting Dresses 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

System of Cutting Dresses 

Improvement in BodyConformators 

Dress Fitting Apparatus 

Chart for Cutting Dresses 

Tailoring—Improvement 

in Apparatus for 

Obtaining the Measures 

for Ladies' Dresses 

Improvement in Instruments 

for Guiding Tailors 

in Cutting Out Coats 

and Vests 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Measuring Instruments 

Improvement in 

Conformators 

Measuring and Cutting 

Out Dresses 

Improvement in Means 

for Measuring and Laying 

Out Garments 

Improvement in Taking 

the Form and Measure 

of Gentlemen to Cut 

Coats and Vests 

Improvement of Measures 

for Cutting Dresses 

Measuring and Laying 

Out Garments 

Tailor's Square 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Rules 

Improvements in Tailor's 

Measure 

Improvement in the 

Compound Scale for 

Tailors' Use 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

133 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 
134 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent Patentee 

89,091 (20 Apr 1869) Sweezy, George P. 

89,735 (4 May 1869) Burrows, H. M. 

90,363 (25 May 1869) 

91,642 (22 Jun 1869) 

92,873 (20 Jul 1869) 

97,672 (7 Dec 1869) 

98,618 (4 Jan 1870) 

"Jackson, Louisa L. 

Lent, J. M. 

Mueller, Fritz, and 

Hermann Koeller 

Michael, W. M. 

Ordway, Ira J 

101,052 (22 Mar 1870) Shawcross, Samuel 

101,390 (29 Mar 1870) 

102,505 (3 May 1870) 

103,487 (24 May 1870) 

105,355 (12 Jul 1870) 

105,486 (19Jul 1870) 

107,068 (6 Sep 1870) 

109,076 (8 Nov 1870) 

110,097 (13 Dec 1870) 

111,236 (24 Jan 1871) 

112,024 (21 Feb 1871) 

115,180 (23 May 1871) 

121,642 (5 Dec 1871) 

123,170 (30 Jan 1872) 

124.602 (12 Mar 1872) 

126,825 (14 May 1872) 

129.603 (16Jull872) 

130,161 (6 Aug 1872) 

137,967 (15 Apr 1873) 

140,507 (1 Jul 1873) 

Smith, William E. 

Cummins, W. G. 

Moses, Isaac 

Miller, Jonathan J. 

Palmer, Moses, and 

E. Willoughby 

Anderson 

Lette, Ursula L. 

Sweezy, George P. 

Wetmore, Fannie 

* Moschcowitz, Schamu 

*Ewing, Sarah C 

DuBois, Ithamar 

Mayer, William H. 

Harley, George W. T. 

Matheson, Hugh 

Millwee, Sarah A. 

Schreckengaust, Julia A. 

Smith, John 

Smith, Mrs. E. P. 

Johnston, J. R. 

Residence 

New York (Riverhead) 

New York (Norwich) 

Indiana (Richmond) 

New York (Schuyler's 

Lake) 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania (Indiana) 

New York (West 

Edmeston) 

Illinois (Freeport) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Tennessee (District 

No. 10) 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania 

(McAlvey's Fort) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Washington, D. C 

New York (Owego) 

New York (Riverhead) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

New Jersey (Newark) 

Maryland (Frederick) 

Canada (Toronto) 

South Carolina 

(Greenwood) 

Ohio (Chillicothe) 

Ohio (Burton) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Canada (Montreal) 

Title 

Improvement in Patterns 

for Measuring, Laying 

Out, and Cutting Garments 

Cutting and Fitting 

Ladies' Dresses 

Ladies' Dress Guide 

Improvements in Patterns 

for Measuring and 

Cutting-Out DressWaists 

Tailors' Measuring 

Apparatus 

Improvement in Patterns 

for Laying Out Garments 

Improvement in Devices 

for Measuring and 

Laying Out Garments 

Improvement in Adjustable 

Garment-Patterns 

Model for Cutting Dresses 

Tailor's Measure 

Clothing 

type 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Improvement in Tailors' M 

Measures 

Cutting Out Garments M 

Improved Pattern for 

Measuring the Body for 

Garments 

Instrument for Draughting 

Garments 

Improvement in Adjustable 

Coat-Patterns 

Pattern for Measuring 

and Laying Out Garments 

Improvement in BodyLining for Ladies' Dresses 

Pattern for Cutting 

Garments 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Measures 

Improvement in Apparatus 

for Fitting and Laying 

Out Garments 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Measures 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Scales 

Patterns for Cutting 

Garments 

System of Laying Out 

Garments 

Device for Taking Tailors' 

Measurements 

Dress Patterns 

Improvement in Tailor's 

Measures 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. Patent 

135 

143,556 

150,853 

155,073 

155,287 

155,322 

156,086 

158,194 

163,911 

164,343 

164,943 

165,026 

(14 Oct 1873) 

(12 May 1874) 

(15 Sep 1874) 

(22 Sep 1874) 

(22 Sep 1874) 

(20 Oct 1874) 

(29 Dec 1874) 

(1 Jun 1875) 

(8 Jun 1875) 

(29 Jun 1875) 

(29 Jun 1875) 

Patentee 

Beaudry, Joseph 

Falk, Adolph, and 

J. Finkenstein 

Eager, George R. 

Carpenter, Mary F. 

Lemley, Jacob 

Henville, Amanda M. 

Bauer, Zachaeus 

Bauer, Zachaeus 

Tiffany, G. E. 

Smith, F. B. 

Richey, Albert H. 

Residence 

Canada (Montreal) 

Title 

Improvement in Tailors' 

Measures 

New York (New York) Tailor's Measure 

165,383 (6 Jul 1875) Tilney, William DeCaux 

166,257 

167,957 

168,936 

(3 Aug 1875) 

(21 Sep 1875) 

(19 Oct 1875) 

Charch, John S. 

Ullrich, Friedrich H. 

Ten Eyck, M. C 

169,402 (2 Nov 1875) Bellamy, John 

169,468 

169,564 

(2 Nov 1875) 

(2 Nov 1875) 

169,744 (9 Nov 1875) 

170,157 (23 Nov 1875) 

174,443 (7 Mar 1876) 

177,702 (23 May 1876) 

179,046 (20 Jun 1876) 

179,808 (11 Jul 1876) 

182,968 (3 Oct 1876) 

185,352 (12 Dec 1876) 

185,412 (19 Dec 1876) 

185,842 (2 Jan 1877) 

187,587 (20 Feb 1877) 

188,896 (27 Mar 1877) 

190,686 (15 May 1877) 

194,086 (14 Aug 1877) 

195,308 (18 Sep 1877) 

Nichols, James H. 

Melcher, Michael A., 

and Lewis A. 

Ullrich, Friedrich H. 

Charch, John S. 

Rondel, Pierre 

Ender, Richard 

Nichols, J. H. 

McLellan, Robert G. 

Steiner, Carl A. 

Rich, Ellen P. 

Venner, William 

Subera, Harry W. 

Bixby, Lucy J. 

Harrison, Margaret 

Lasar, Godfrey H. 

*Griffin, Caleb Henry 

Reeves, Edward H. 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Minnesota (Northfield) 

Virginia (Newtown) 

Massachusetts (Chelsea) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

Washington, D. C 

Pennsylvania (Lebanon) 

Indiana 

(Crawfordsville) 

Ohio (Dayton) 

New York (New York) 

Minnesota (St. Paul) 

New York (New York) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Michigan (Constantine) 

New York (New York) 

Ohio (Dayton) 

France (Paris) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Canada (Woodstock, 

Ontario) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

New York (Hamburg) 

Iowa (Lyons City) 

New York 

(Binghamton) 

Illinois (Rock Island) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Massachusetts (Lynn) 

Maine (West 

Farmington) 

M 

M 

Apparatus for Drafting M 

Patterns 

Patterns for Garments 

Tailors' Measures M 

Pattern Chart 

Improvement in PatternCharts for Cutting 

Garments 

Improvement in Dress Charts 

Improvement in Tailors' M 

Measures 

Instruments for Drafting 

Patterns 

Pattern Charts for 

Cutting Garments 

Clothing 

type 

Improvement in Tables M 

for Cloth-Cutting 

Improvement in Dress- W 

Pattern Charts 

Improvement in Guides M 

for Cutting Patterns 

Dress-Charts W 

Devices of Laying Out M 

Vests 

Apparatus for Laying M 

Out Coat-Patterns 

Improvement in Tailors' M 

Devices for Laying Out 

Garments 

Tailors' Measures M 

Tailors' Measuring M 

Apparatus 

Tailors' Measures M 

Tailors' Measures M 

Tailors' Measures M 

Tailor's Drafting M 

Apparatus 

Tailor's Apparatus for M 

Drafting Patterns 

Tailor's Patterns M 

Pattern-Charts for M 

Drafting Patterns 

Improvement in M 

Apparatus Drafting 

Tailors' Patterns 

Tailors' Coat-Measurers M 

Tailor's Drafting M 

Apparatus 

Tailors' Measures M 

Method and Apparatus for M 

Laying Out Coat Patterns 

Tailors' Measures M 

W 

W 

W 

W 

U 
136 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent Patentee Residence Title Clothing 

type 

195,332 (18 Sep 1877) Bauer, Zachaeus 

195.925 (9 Oct 1877) 

195.926 (9 Oct 1877) 

196,615 (30 Oct 1877) 

200,234 (12 Feb 1878) 

*Griffin, Caleb H. 

*Griffin, Caleb Henry 

Wuerfel, Mrs. Julia 

Webster, Ursula L. 

200,779 (26 Feb 1878) Thompson, Ethan O. 

204,120 (21 May 1878) 

206,315 (23 Jul 1878) 

207,880 (10 Sep 1878) 

Wingate, Julia P. 

*Griffin, Caleb H. 

Lingen, Hermann 

209,111 (22 Oct 1878) *Cornwell, Willett 

212,587 (25 Feb 1879) 

213,436 (18 Mar 1879) 

215,310 (13 May 1879) 

215,613 (20 May 1879) 

216,257 (lOJun 1879) 

223,543 (13 Jan 1880) 

224,832 (24 Feb 1880) 

225,678 (16 Mar 1880) 

226,605 (20 Apr 1880) 

228,527 (8 Jun 1880) 

229,088 (22 Jun 1880) 

233,441 (19 Oct 1880) 

234,273 (9 Nov 1880) 

234,821 (23 Nov 1880) 

235,776 (21 Dec 1880) 

242,240 (31 May 1881) 

242,542 (7 Jun 1881) 

242,696 (7 Jun 1881) 

245,654 (16 Aug 1881) 

245,717 (16 Aug 1881) 

246,536 (30 Aug 1881) 

247,339 (20 Sep 1881) 

251,963 (3 Jan 1882) 

252,388 (17 Jan 1882) 

Boone, Thomas R. 

*McDowell, Albert 

Adams, Margaret E. 

Heaford, Edwin V. 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Massachusetts (Maiden) 

Massachusetts (Lynn) 

Michigan (Sheboygan) 

Connecticut (New 

Haven) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Massachusetts (Maiden) 

West Virginia 

(Wheeling) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (Rochester) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Indiana (South Bend) 

Kentucky (Covington) 

Apparatus for Drafting 

Patterns for Dresses 

and Coats 

Dress-Makers' Squares 

Improvement of Drafting 

Apparatus for Ladies' 

Dresses 

Dress-Pattern Chart 

Adjustable Patterns for 

Garments 

Tailors' MeasuringTools 

Dress Makers' Square 

Drafting Square for Garments 

Improvement in 

Measuring-Jackets 

Improvement in DressCharts 

Tailors' Measures 

Adjustable PatternPlates for Drafting 

Garments 

Dress-Maker's Chart 

Adjustable PatternPlates for Drafting 

Garments 

M W 

W 

W 

M 

M 

M 

W 

w 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

Brooke, John A. 

Riley, Marsha E. 

Linck, Emil J. 

Woolson, H. H. 

Emery, John A. 

*Griffin, Caleb H. 

Bruce, Mary E. 

Scanlan, John 

*Griffin, Caleb H. 

*Taylor, Mary A. 

*Kellogg, F.J. 

Wickersham, Angeline 

P. 

Kinker, Ellen K. 

Robinson, Lucie 

Peyser, Abraham 

Hartung, C 

*Moschcowitz, Herman 

*Goldsberry, William H. 

Start, May A. 

Linck, E.J. 

Ohio (Cincinnati) 

Oregon (Harrisburg) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Vermont (Montpelier) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

New York (New York) 

Michigan (Flint) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Oregon (Corvallis) 

New York (Oswego) 

Massachusetts 

(Gloucester) 

Pennsylvania (Enon 

Valley) 

New York (New York) 

Iowa (Nevada) 

Iowa (Cherokee) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Pattern for Garments 

Dress-Makers' Chart 

Pattern Chart for 

Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Dress-Maker's Squares 

Dressmaker's Chart 

Pattern Charts for Use 

in Cutting Dresses 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Dress-Maker's Square 

Sleeve Pattern 

Apparatus for Drafting 

Patterns 

Pattern Marker 

Dress-Chart 

Pattern Chart and Square 

for Measuring and 

Drafting Dresses 

Coat 

Tailor's Measure 

Goods for Dress-Linings 

Having Pattern Printed 

Thereon 

Tailor's Square 

Chart for Drafting Ladies' 

and Children's Garments 

Chart for Drafting 

Garments 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. Patent 

252,507 

254,074 

259,162 

263,779 

265,628 

266,137 

266,919 

269,652 

270,933 

272,204 

272,611 

276,032 

277,453 

278,180 

279,979 

281,056 

281,530 

281,666 

282,670 

282,842 

283,638 

284,783 

287,731 

296,426 

297,570 

299,383 

305,501 

305,849 

307,664 

310,297 

310,666 

312,211 

314,526 

(17 Jan 1882) 

(21 Feb 1882) 

(6 Jun 1882) 

(5 Sep 1882) 

(10 Oct 1882) 

(17 Oct 1882) 

(31 Oct 1882) 

(26 Dec 1882) 

(23 Jan 1883) 

(13 Feb 1883) 

(20 Feb 1883) 

(17 Apr 1883) 

(15 May 1883) 

(22 May 1883) 

(26 Jun 1883) 

(lOJul 1883) 

(17 Jul 1883) 

(24 Jul 1883) 

(7 Aug 1883) 

(7 Aug 1883) 

(21 Aug 1883) 

(11 Sep 1883) 

(30 Oct 1883) 

(8 Apr 1884) 

(29 Apr 1884) 

(27 May 1884) 

(23 Sep 1884) 

(30 Sep 1884) 

(4 Nov 1884) 

(6 Jan 1885) 

(13 Jan 1885) 

(10 Feb 1885) 

(24 Mar 1885) 

Patentee 

*Palmer, E. Ellsworth 

Walker, Kate 

*Jackson, H. Ayers 

*Ganzhorn, Willbm 

Parkhill, Joseph H. 

Groves, John Larue 

Taylor, David Jackson 

Ferguson, Mary A. 

Chandler, Mary B. 

*Buddington, Frank E. 

Abrahart, William 

Hamilton, Doria C 

Brolly, Hugh 

Propach, Henry 

*Phelps, Brigham T. 

Griswold, Alice L. B. 

Lennards, Nicholas 

Call, Libbie A. 

Rugland, Samuel C 

*Byrnes, T. W. 

Monjou, Jean 

•Wallace, William 

Schafer, May S. 

McCartin, William J. 

Chenivesse, Jean M. 

Claudius 

Hand, John S. 

Bechtel, John R. 

Rugland, Samuel C 

•Livingston, James W. 

•McDowell, Albert 

Gates, George Shattuck 

Lingen, Hermann 

Frega,G. 

Residence 

Wisconsin (Baraboo) 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

Iowa (Des Moines) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Iowa (Mount Pleasant) 

New Jersey (Elizabeth) 

Iowa (Grinnell) 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

New Hampshire 

(Concord) 

Minnesota (Stillwater) 

Ohio (Cincinnati) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Albany) 

New York (New York) 

Vermont (Bellows Falls) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Illinois (Harvard) 

Wisconsin (Oshkosh) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

Wisconsin (Manitowoc) 

France (Paris) 

California (Oakland) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

France (Bourg St. 

Andeol) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

Pennsylvania (Reading) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Massachusetts (Athol) 

West Virginia 

(Wheeling) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Title 

Dress-Chart 

Dress Cutting and 

Fitting Mold 

Method of and Means for 

Drafting and Cutdng 

Clothing 

Dress-Maker's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Pattern-Draft 

Dress Chart 

Dress Maker's Chart 

Instrument for Drafting 

Patterns 

Dressmakers' Measure for 

Cutting Dresses and 

Other Articles of 

Clothing 

Apparatus for Measuring 

and Cutting Out 

Garments 

Dress Maker's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress Chart 

Dress Square 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Garments 

Measuring Device for 

Tailors' & c. 

Dress Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Apparatus for Drafting 

Garments 

Device for Measuring 

and Fitting Dresses 

Dress Maker's Rule 

Pattern for Cutdng 

Dress Patterns 

Coat-Pattern 

Pattern for Undergarments 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Square 

Method and Apparatus 

for Cutdng Patterns 

for Dresses 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Drafting Dresses 

Apparatus for Drafting 

the Arm-Size of 

Garments 

Measuring-Jacket 

Mode of Cutung and 

Fitting Garments 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

i: 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

w 

w 

W C 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 
138 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S 

317,332 

320,496 

321,986 

322,402 

324,022 

324,472 

325,216 

325,358 

325,409 

327,172 

327,725 

327,961 

332,783 

334,457 

337,016 

341,572 

Patent 

(5 May 

(23 Jun 

(14 Jul 

(14 Jul 

(11 Aug 

(18 Aug 

(25 Aug 

(I Sep 

(ISep 

(29 Sep 

(6 Oct 

(6 Oct 

(22 Dec 

(19Jan 

(2 Mar 

(11 May 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1885) 

1886) 

1886) 

1886) 

Patentee 

Freeman, Ann M. 

Pollock, William Bloomer 

•Lewis, Sophronia T. 

Tierney, Catharine A. 

Hand, John S. 

Jacobsen, Martha 

Northen, Mary E. 

•Olson, Jennie S. 

Hendrick, Susan M. 

•Jackson, H. Ayers 

Schmidt, John J. G. C 

•Moschcowitz, Schamu M. 

Chambers, G. J., & E. 

McCann, James D. 

Penley, Julia 

Hand, J. S. 

342,216 (18 May 

343,859 

347,760 

(15 Jun 

(17 Aug 

347,888 (24 Aug 

349,198 

350,073 

353,508 

355,160 

355,583 

357,762 

358,903 

361,292 

362,378 

362,579 

363,237 

364,620 

365,385 

365,800 

367,455 

369,080 

375,972 

(14 Sep 

(28 Sep 

(30 Nov 

(28 Dec 

(4 Jan 

(15 Feb 

(8 Mar 

(19 Apr 

(3 May 

(10 May 

(17 May 

(7 Jun 

(28 Jun 

(5 Jul 

(2 Aug 

(30 Aug 

(3 Jan 

886) *McDowell, Albert 

886) 

886) 

886) 

886) 

886) 

886) 

886) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

887) 

Schad, Anton 

Frega, Giuseppe 

Pusey, Caroline S. 

Baker, Elvira 

•Moschcowitz, Herman 

Schumacher, Jacob 

•Gartland, Elizabeth 

Brooke, Emily 

•Coleman, Mary V. 

Weir, John 

•Jackson, H. Ayers 

Hawkins, Thomas 

Frega, Guiseppe [sic] 

Hood, Eunice 

•Wuerfel, Augusta J. 

Johnson, Frank G. 

•Davis, Myra A. 

Smith, William 

See, James W. 

Wilson, Josephine 

Sarah 

Residence 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (Watertown) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

Iowa (Lyons) 

Texas (Lanier) 

Minnesota (Houston) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Springfield) 

Nebraska (Falls City) 

Maine (Bangor) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

New York (New York) 

Kentucky (Louisville) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Indiana (Mitchell) 

New York (New York) 

New Jersey (Camden) 

Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

Georgia (Atlanta) 

Ohio (Dayton) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania (Bradford) 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

Maine (Portland) 

Canada (Ontario) 

Ohio (Hamilton) 

California (San Jose) 

Title 

Dress Cutdng Rule 

Garment Measuring and 

Fitdng Device 

Dress Chart 

Guide for Use in 

Cutting Garments 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Drafting Garments 

Dress Chart 

Tailor's Chart for 

Cutting Garments 

System and Device for 

Measuring Garments 

System of Measuring for 

Garments 

Chart for Laying Out 

Patterns 

Combined Pattern and 

Fabric 

Tailor's Measure 

Measure for Drafting 

Garments 

Dress Chart 

Tailor's Outline 

Measuring Device 

Adjustable Pattern 

for Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Curve-Scriber for 

Tailors' Use 

Pattern for Garment 

Clothing 

type 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Dress-Maker's Chart 

Pattern for Garments 

Pattern Sheet M 

Chart for Drafting Garments 

Method of Fitting Garments 

Method of Cutting and 

Fitting Garments 

Measuring-Jacket 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress-Cutting Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Apparatus for Cutting 

Garments 

Tailor's Rule 

Conformator 

Dress Maker's Guide 

Tailor's and Dress 

Maker's Square 

Dress Fitdng Model 

Dress Chart 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

c 

c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

u 

U 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

c 

c 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. 

376,558 

379,384 

381,563 

383,926 

385,637 

385,944 

389,287 

389,327 

389,376 

389,377 

390,291 

392,263 

393,552 

394,524 

395,566 

396,396 

400,504 

403,404 

405,464 

405,614 

406,197 

408,594 

409,184 

410,383 

410,695 

411,686 

419,452 

420,448 

422,067 

422,282 

430,059 

431,781 

432,322 

433,203 

Patent 

(17 Jan 1888) 

(13 Mar 1888) 

(24 Apr 1888) 

(5 Jun 1888) 

(3 Jul 1888) 

(10 Jul 1888) 

(11 Sep 1888) 

(11 Sep 1888) 

(11 Sep 1888) 

(11 Sep 1888) 

(2 Oct 1888) 

(6 Nov 1888) 

(27 Nov 1888) 

(11 Dec 1888) 

(1 Jan 1889) 

(22 Jan 1889) 

(2 Apr 1889) 

(14 May 1889) 

(18 Jun 1889) 

(18 Jun 1889) 

(2 Jul 1889) 

(6 Aug 1889) 

(20 Aug 1889) 

(3 Sep 1889) 

(10 Sep 1889) 

(24 Sep 1889) 

(14 Jan 1890) 

(4 Feb 1890) 

(25 Feb 1890) 

(25 Feb 1890) 

(lOJun 1890) 

(8 Jul 1890) 

(15 Jul 1890) 

(29 Jul 1890) 

Patentee 

Stahl, E. 

Fels, F. 8c Simon D. 

Mandelbaum, Solomon 

Wachter, Anton 

Ledoux, Francis 

Noar, F. C 

Christner, David C 

Sens, Herman A. 

Follett, Edward P. 

Follett, E[dward] P. 

Garnier, Martin J. 

Frega, Giuseppe 

Goldsmith, Edwin M. 

Tripp, Frances A. 

Hurdle, Rebecca 

Faut, P. 

Stockman, Terissa 1. 

Yates, S. W. 

Cook, W. 

Stearns, Elvira 

Couteau, Jules 

de Caracena, Joseph 

O N . 

Fike, Henry P. 

Stahl, Edward 

Penley, Julia 

Schubert, Carl 

Johum, Francis P. 

Gothard, James 

Bernheim, Matthew 

•Baughman, Jacob S., 

and Melvina E. 

•Baughman, J. S., and 

M. E. 

O'Halloran, E. E. 

Moriarty, John H. 

Hout, Emma M. 

Residence 

Arizona Territory 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Germany (Berlin) 

New York (New York) 

England (Lancaster) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Ohio (Cincinnad) 

New York (Rochester) 

New York (Rochester) 

Pennsylvania 

(Sharpsburg) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Washington, D. C 

Illinois (Wilmington) 

Iowa (Council Bluffs) 

Illinois (Wilmington) 

New York (New York) 

Rhode Island 

(Providence) 

France (Beziers, 

Herault) 

New York (New York) 

Indiana (Chili) 

Arizona (Prescott) 

Maine (Portland) 

Germany (Dresden, 

Saxony) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

lUinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Iowa (Burlington) 

Iowa (Burlington) 

Title 

Method of and Device 

for Fitting Garments 

Dress Chart 

Adjustable Pattern Chart 

Adjustable Device for 

Outlining Patterns 

for Garments 

Method of Making Patterns 

for Garments 

Apparatus for Marking 

Out Patterns for 

Garments 

Method of Obtaining 

the Measurement of 

the Human Form 

Tailor's Square 

Chart for Drafting 

Sleeves of Garments 

Chart for Drafting Garments 

Measure for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailor's Square 

Garment-Chart 

Dress Maker's Square 

Dress Cutter's Scale 

Tailor's and Dress 

Maker's Square 

Dress Cutter's Rule 

Tailor's Square 

Scale Measure 

Garment Measuring Device 

and Cutting Guide 

Adjustable GarmentPattern 

Dress Waist 

Chart for Drafting Garments 

Method of Producing 

Garment Patterns and 

Models 

Dress Chart 

System of Laying Out 

Patterns for Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Conformating 

Measure 

Adjustable Pattern 

Plate for Garments 

Chart for Drafting Garments 

New Zealand (Waipawa) Apparatus for Drafting 

Washington, D. C 

Maine (Lewiston) 

Patterns for Garments 

Adjustable Garment Pattern 

Dress Skirt Chart 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

1 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

139 

u 
140 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent Patentee 

433,711 (5 Aug 1890) Berry, Ellen A. 

435,182 (26 Aug 1890 

435,301 (26 Aug 1890 

435,714 (20 Sep 1890 

438,607 (21 Oct 1890 

439,500 (28 Oct 1890 

Kellogg, Martha E. 

Hall, Martha E. 

Scully, Harry Francis 

Curry, Harriet A. 

Garcelon, Jennie Lee 

Residence 

Massachusetts 

(Cambridge) 

Michigan (Battle Creek) 

Indiana 

(Crawfordsville) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

South Dakota 

(Dakota Territory) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

439,747 

440,692 

441,369 

441,675 

441,684 

447,554 

447,932 

451,247 

451,553 

451,979 

452,090 

453,923 

455,159 

455,338 

455,749 

455,811 

456,184 

457,124 

457,591 

458,263 

460,132 

460,282 

465,252 

466,111 

467,045 

470,809 

479,548 

480,036 

480,453 

480,579 

482,748 

483,271 

(4 Nov 1890) 

(18 Nov 1890) 

(25 Nov 1890) 

(2 Dec 1890) 

(2 Dec 1890) 

(3 Mar 1891) 

(10 Mar 1891) 

(28 Apr 1891) 

(5 May 1891) 

(12 May 1891) 

(12 May 1891) 

(9 Jun 1891) 

(30 Jun 1891) 

(7 Jul 1891) 

(14 Jul 1891) 

(14 Jul 1891) 

(21 Jul 1891) 

(4 Aug 1891) 

(11 Aug 1891) 

(25 Aug 1891) 

(29 Sep 1891) 

(29 Sep 1891) 

(15 Dec 1891) 

(29 Dec 1891) 

(12 Jan 1892) 

(15 Mar 1892) 

(26 Jul 1892) 

(2 Aug 1892) 

(9 Aug 1892) 

(28 Apr 1892) 

(20 Sep 1892) 

(27 Sep 1892) 

Hawley, DeWitt 

•Buddington, Frank E. 

Lennart, M. 

Lewis, Richard R. 

Moriarty, John H. 

Berry, Ellen A. 

Bishe, Salvatore, and 

S. Bisceglia 

Kennedy, H. G. 

Drummond, George 

Shane, Carrie 

•Walkie, Jennie 

Stevenson, J. W. 

Broadnax,John T. 

Kelly, Mark L. 

Hood, Eunice 

Bisceglia, Salvatore 

Wolff, Rudolph G. 

Liebl, Andrew 

Schafer, May S. 

Venner, William G. 

Havender, Joseph 

Smith, Prudence A. 

Ericson, Lars G. 

Amelang, Charles A. 

Musse, Bertha 

Long, Flora 

Blizzard, Jennie 

Rensen, John Henry 

Crow, Samuel G. 

Geraci, Ignatius 

Mannebach, Caspar 

Trochu, Athanase 

New York (Rochester) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

Pennsylvania 

(Union City) 

Washington, D. C. 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Canada (Berlin) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Iowa (Vinton) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Ohio (Ravenna) 

Louisiana (New 

Orleans) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (Breslow) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (Buffalo) 

Massachusetts 

(Springfield) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

New York (New York) 

Indiana (Fort Wayne) 

Ohio (Ft. Recovery) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Canada (Toronto) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Michigan (Detroit) 

France (Redon) 

Title 

Apparatus for Marking 

Patterns for Dress 

Waists 

Tailor's Measure 

Device for Fitting and 

Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Adjustable Pattern 

for Drafting Garments 

Dress Maker's Fitting 

Apparatus 

Tailor's Measure 

Adjustable Sleeve 

Drafting Apparatus 

Adjustable Pattern 

for Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Clothing 

type 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Adjustable Sleeve-Pattern M 

Jacket for Making 

Garment Patterns 

Adjustable Pattern M 

for Drafting Garments 

Chart for Drafting Garments M 

Chart for Drafting 

Patterns for Garments 

Dress Fitting Apparatus 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress Chart 

Pattern for Vests and M 

Shirts 

Pattern for Marking Cloth 

Dress Chart 

Sleeve-Pattern M 

Tailor's Measuring Apparatus M 

Tailor's Measure M 

Multiflex Dress Chart 

Garment Measuring Jacket 

Pattern for Cutting 

Conical Skirt Bonds 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measuring M 

Implement 

Method of Cutting M 

Patterns for Garments 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Drafting Garments 

Dress Maker's Square 

and Rule 

Dress Chart 

Tailor's Measuring Apparatus M 

Chart for Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure M 

Measuring and Drafting 

Device for Garments 

Tailor's Measuring M 

Apparatus 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

U 
UMBER 42 

U.S. Patent 

483,521 

484,138 

486,670 

487,237 

487,760 

487,801 

489,793 

490,022 

490,606 

492,670 

497,165 

497,503 

501,337 

503,741 

507,054 

509,080 

510,364 

510,942 

510,994 

514,063 

514,622 

515,511 

516,449 

516,828 

517,079 

518,947 

519,090 

522,800 

524,966 

525,019 

526,378 

526,379 

526,380 

532,613 

534,347 

534,387 

535,378 

(4 Oct 1892) 

(11 Oct 1892) 

(22 Nov 1892) 

(29 Nov 1892) 

(13 Dec 1892) 

(13 Dec 1892) 

(10 Jan 1893) 

(17 Jan 1893) 

(24 Jan 1893) 

(28 Feb 1893) 

(9 May 1893) 

(16 May 1893) 

(11 Jul 1893) 

(22 Aug 1893) 

(17 Oct 1893) 

(21 Nov 1893) 

(5 Dec 1893) 

(19 Dec 1893) 

(19 Dec 1893) 

(6 Feb 1894) 

(13 Feb 1894) 

(27 Feb 1894) 

(13 Mar 1894) 

(20 Mar 1894) 

(27 Mar 1894) 

(I May 1894) 

(I May 1894) 

(lOJul 1894) 

(21 Aug 1894) 

(28 Aug 1894) 

(25 Sep 1894) 

(25 Sep 1894) 

(25 Sep 1894) 

(15 Jan 1895) 

(19 Feb 1895) 

(19 Feb 1895) 

(12 Mar 1895) 

Patentee 

Arvidson, Pier N. 

Choquette, Joseph H. 

Gunkel, Caspar 

Cupler, Jacob C 

Musse, Bertha 

Viau, Benjamin 

Christiansen, S. 

Horn, Henrietta 

Campbell, John R. 

Frenot, Louis Desire, 

and Jules Frangois 

Eyboulet 

Cone, Abraham M. 

Sipe, Thalia E. 

Goodwin, Terence J. 

Faestel, A. L. 

Wiggins, Thomas H. 

Gunkel, Caspar 

Poulin, Hedwidge 

Start, S. S., and 

Mary A. S. Johnson 

Schafer, Theodore 

Call, Libbie A. 

Horn, Henrietta 

Aim, Janos A. 

Ryan, Della 

Lutz, Matthaus 

Veitch, William 

Hawley, DeWitt 

Newcomb, Abner S. 

Osse, Charles 

Lambright, Hamilton 

Horn, Marie 

Chrisdansen, Simon 

Chrisdansen, Simon 

Chrisdansen, Simon 

Tucek, Marie 

Olsen.JohnR. 

Brown, Daniel L. 

Kelley, Mary C 

Residence 

Michigan (Kalamazoo) 

Massachusetts 

(Fall River) 

Iowa (Jefferson) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Newark) 

Massachusetts 

(Arlington) 

New Jersey (Newark) 

Massachusetts (Lee) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Syracuse) 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

Illinois (Pecatonica) 

Iowa (Jefferson) 

Maine (Augusta) 

Minnesota (Luverne) 

Illinois (Maroa) 

Wisconsin (Oshkosh) 

New York (Newark) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Michigan (Owasso) 

Germany (Stuttgart) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

New York (Rochester) 

Massachusetts 

(Worcester) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Ohio (Akron) 

Germany (Berlin) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Delaware (Wilmington) 

Title 

Tailor's MeasuringSquare 

Pattern for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Adjustable Pattern 

for Drafting Garments 

Adjustable Pattern 

Dress Chart 

Garment-Fitting Pattern 

Adjustable Pattern 

for Drafting Garments 

Measuring-Jacket 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Pattern for Drafting Sleeves 

Tailor's Drafting Device 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress Chart 

Garment Pattern 

Extensible MeasuringStick 

Measure for Laying 

Off Dress Charts 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Drafting Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Pattern for Drafting 

Garments 

Pattern for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailor's Adjustable 

Measure 

Tailor's Measuring 

Implement 

Device for Measuring 

Dress Skirts 

Adjustable GarmentPattern 

Adjustable Garment 

Pattern 

Garment Measuring and 

Drafting Apparatus 

Garment Fitting Pattern 

Sleeve-Pattern 

Garment Fitdng Pattern 

Method of Producing 

Garment Patterns 

Tailor's Square 

Measure for Drafting 

Dress Skirts 

Dressmaker's Measure 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

1^ 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 
142 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent Patentee 

535,843 (19 Mar 1895) Marshall, William J. 

537,127 (9 Apr 1895) 

537,132 (9 Apr 1895) 

537,285 (9 Apr 1895) 

540,985 (11 Jun 1895) 

541,311 (18Jun 1895) 

543,253 (23 Jul 1895) 

545,139 (27 Aug 1895) 

546,199 (10 Sep 1895) 

Scott, Herman W. 

•Storey, James R. 

Griffen, Stephen M. 

Hodges, Estell J., and 

Carrie R. Mathews 

•Buddington, Frank E. 

Kantorovitz, Harris 

Start, Sampson S., and 

Mary A. Start Johnson 

Snyder, Charles W. 

Residence 

Minnesota 

(Minneapolis) 

Massachusetts (Lynn) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

New Jersey (Paterson) 

Georgia (Winder) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Washington 

(Walla Walla) 

Minnesota (Luverne) 

Pennsylvania 

(Bloomsburg) 

552,976 

554,710 

556,856 

558,780 

559,045 

560,593 

566,158 

568,263 

570,834 

570,835 

573,408 

579,491 

582,101 

583,858 

584,413 

586,406 

590,495 

593,555 

594,443 

595,239 

599,247 

600,050 

602,117 

602,471 

606,706 

611,995 

613,095 

613,988 

614,703 

616,493 

(14 Jan 1896) 

(18 Feb 1896) 

(24 Mar 1896) 

(21 Apr 1896) 

(28 Apr 1896) 

(19 May 1896) 

(18 Aug 1896) 

(22 Sep 1896) 

(3 Nov 1896) 

(3 Nov 1896) 

(15 Dec 1896) 

(23 Mar 1897) 

(4 May 1897) 

(1 Jun 1897) 

(ISJun 1897) 

(13 Jul 1897) 

(21 Sep 1897) 

(9 Nov 1897) 

(30 Nov 1897) 

(7 Dec 1897) 

(15 Feb 1898) 

(1 Mar 1898) 

(12 Apr 1898) 

(19 Apr 1898) 

(5 Jul 1898) 

(4 Oct 1898) 

(25 Oct 1898) 

(8 Nov 1898) 

(22 Nov 1898) 

(27 Dec 1898) 

•Storey, James R. 

Moon, Edwin L. 

Livingston, Annie 

Crakauer, Felix 

Schindler, Franz 

Mathews, W. A. 

Follett, Edward P. 

Moccia, Raffaele 

Baasel, William 

Baasel, William 

Hall, Martha E. 

Meas, Augustus 

Schell, Natalie 

Follett, Edward P. 

Scott, Charles H. 

Vaughn, Archer 

Hancock, Abram O. 

Van Derworp, Anna M. 

Taylor, Hiram H. 

Leu, Mary D. 

Ormsby, Albertha A. 

Tucek, Marie 

William, I. 

Pinkham, Almeda A. 

Collins, Mary C 

Follett, Edward P. 

Van Dame, J. R. 

Goodhue, Melissa 

Delory.Jean Louis 

Richardson, E. M., 

and J. L. 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Ohio (Columbus) 

New York (New York) 

Germany (Wiesbaden) 

Germany (Prussia) 

Ohio (Gratis) 

Minnesota (Duluth) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Indiana (New Market) 

New York (Niagara 

Falls) 

California (San 

Francisco) 

Minnesota (Duluth) 

Illinois (Bloomington) 

Missouri (Carrollton) 

Louisiana (New 

Orleans) 

Michigan (Detroit) 

New Hampshire 

Ohio (Wauseon) 

Michigan (Detroit) 

New York (New York) 

Kansas (Wichita) 

Massachusetts (North 

Adams) 

Minnesota 

(Minneapolis) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Michigan (Grand 

Rapids) 

New Hampshire 

(Keene) 

France (Blois, Loir 

et Cher) 

Indiana (Hundngton) 

Title 

Dress Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Garment Drafting Pattern 

Apparatus for Drafting 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

w 

w 

w 

Garments 

Device for Measuring M 

Garments 

Garment Measure W 

Adjustable Pattern W 

'Tailor's Drafting-Plate M 

Tailor's Measure M 

Adjustable Garment Pattern W 

Apparatus for Producing M W 

Patterns 

Tailor's Measure M 

Adjustable Pattern W 

Tailor's Measure M 

Tailor's Square M 

Tailor's Cutting Chart M 

Sleeve Chart M 

Pattern or Chart W 

Adjustable Garment- M 

Pattern 

Bust Form W 

Instrument for Drafting 

Garment-Patterns 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Adjustable Garment Pattern 

Dressmaker's Measure 

Pattern Drafting Device 

Dress Chart 

Adjustable Dress Chart 

Garment Drafting Pattern 

Dress Chart 

Adjustable Skirt Pattern 

Skirt Cutting Rule 

Instrument for Laying 

Out Gores for Skirts 

Tailor's Square 

System for Drafting Dresses 

M 

M 

M 

W 

w 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

Combined Square and Curve M 

for Cutting Garments 

W 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. 

618,387 

618,392 

622,092 

622,419 

622,900 

626,258 

626,795 

628,083 

628,296 

628,475 

629,025 

632,361 

633,654 

641,411 

646,498 

648,023 

648,714 

649,988 

651,208 

655,960 

658,038 

660,175 

660,397 

661,537 

662,620 

662,817 

664,700 

667,739 

670,762 

673,579 

674,442 

675,537 

678,515 

688,300 

688,303 

689,361 

Patent 

(24 Jan 1899) 

(31 Jan 1899) 

(28 Mar 1899) 

(4 Apr 1899) 

(11 Apr 1899) 

(6 Jun 1899) 

(13 Jun 1899) 

(4 Jul 1899) 

(4 Jul 1899) 

(11 Jul 1899) 

(18 Jul 1899) 

(5 Sep 1899) 

(26 Sep 1899) 

(16Jan 1900) 

(3 Apr 1900) 

(24 Apr 1900) 

(1 May 1900) 

(22 May 1900) 

(5 Jun 1900) 

(14 Aug 1900) 

(18 Sep 1900) 

(23 Oct 1900) 

(23 Oct 1900) 

(13 Nov 1900) 

(27 Nov 1900) 

(27 Nov 1900) 

(25 Dec 1900) 

(12 Feb 1901) 

(26 Mar 1901) 

(7 May 1901) 

(21 May 1901) 

(4 Jun 1901) 

(I6Jul 1901) 

(10 Dec 1901) 

(10 Dec 1901) 

(17 Dec 1901) 

Patentee 

Van Dame, John R. 

•Buddington, Frank E. 

Tucek, Marie 

Cunningham, Emma E. 

Nicholas, Eliza 

White, J. H. 

•Peyry, J. B. 

•Evan, H. P. 

Atwell, Fred A. 

Kirk, Benjamin H. 

Bluthenthal, Herbert 

Clay 

O'Loughlin, Robert S. 

Melick, James T. 

Shelton, Zelda G. 

Leciejewski, Johann 

Donaldson, George 

MacKay 

Taylor, Anna Bell 

Kohn, Samuel 

Sebastiano, Domenico 

Cunningham, Emma E. 

Frega, Giuseppe 

•Williams, William R. 

Rosenbloom, Abe N. 

Kirk, Harry D., and 

Walter I. 

Goff, Vina Hildebrand 

Plant, John B. 

Wilson, Harry C 

Schierbaum, Clara 

Bowman, Viola 

Kleinberger, Markus 

Hockersmith, Alfred P. 

•Baughman, Jacob 

Schrock 

Rencher, Dora 

Goodwin, Terence J. 

Griffen, Stephen M. 

Moe, Gerhard 

Residence 

Michigan (Grand 

Rapids) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Massachusetts (West 

Newton) 

New Jersey (Plainfield) 

New York (New York) 

Louisiana (New 

Orleans) 

Wisconsin 

(Winneconne) 

Pennsylvania (Potter) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Arkansas (Pine Bluff) 

New York (Glen Falls) 

New Jersey (Rahway) 

Colorado (Rockyford) 

Germany (Posen) 

Canada (Kentville, 

Nova Scotia) 

Indiana (Goshen) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Massachusetts (Newton 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Kansas (Lawrence) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Missouri (El Dorado 

Springs) 

Rhode Island (Pawtucket) [Residence] 

Maine (Biddeford) 

[P. O. Address] 

New York (Manhattan) 

Ohio (Cleveland) 

Pennsylvania (Dubois) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Iowa (Burlington) 

Utah (Salt Lake City) 

New York (Syracuse) 

New Jersey (Summit) 

Wisconsin 

(Rhinelander) 

Title 

Sleeve Pattern 

Adjustable Pattern 

Drafting Apparatus 

Chart for Drafting 

Garment Patterns 

Garment Drafting Apparatus 

Measure for Drafting 

Dress Skirts 

Tailor's Square 

Garment Fitter 

Garment Cutting Scale 

Adjustable Garment 

Drafting Chart 

Tape-Measure 

Tailor's Measure 

Pattern for Garments 

Garment-Fitter 

Dress-Chart 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Adjustable Dress-Chart 

Skirt-Stick 

Garment-Measuring 

Apparatus 

Tailor's Square 

) Skirt-Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measure 

Adjustable Chart [Skirts] 

Tailor's Drafting Implement 

Tailor's Tape-Measure 

Dress-Cutdng Measure 

Dress-Chart 

Adjustable Dress-Chart 

Dressmaker's Rule 

Chart 

Measuring Slide-Ruler 

Tailor's Measurer 

Adjustable Chart [Skirts] 

Garment-Fitter 

Adjustable Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Method of Taking Photographic Measurements 

1^ 

Clothing 

type 

M W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

M 

M 

w 

M 

W C 

M 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

M W C 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

M? W 

w 

w 

w 

M 

M W? 

U 

U 

689,685 (24 Dec 1901) •McDowell, William New York (New York) 

for Tailoring Purposes 

Adjustable Chart W 
144 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent 

690,214 (31 Dec 1901) 

692,510 (4 Feb 1902) 

700,739 (27 May 1902) 

705,194 (22 Jul 1902) 

708,506 (2 Sep 1902) 

Patentee 

Wilson, Harry C 

Follett, Edward P. 

Choquette, Joseph H. 

Avery, Mary Lucinda 

Valentine, Gustaf V. 

708,754 (9 Sep 1902) Chandler, Helen S. 

709,776 (23 Sep 1902) 

710,399 (7 Oct 1902) 

711,479 

711,611 

716,613 

717,253 

717,284 

(21 Oct 1902) 

(21 Oct 1902) 

(23 Dec 1902) 

(30 Dec 1902) 

(30 Dec 1902) 

Kelley, Mary C 

Adamo, Giuseppe 

Curran, Edward James 

Adelberg, Abraham 

Anderson, Charles 

•Nelson, Jonathan 

Ryan, Catherine 

718,320 (13 Jan 1903) Curran, Edward 

719,924 

722,221 

731,115 

734,279 

(3 Feb 1903) 

(10 Mar 1903) 

(16 Jun 1903) 

(21 Jul 1903) 

735,738 (11 Aug 1903) 

736,052 (II Aug 1903) 

739,178 

740,172 

(15 Sep 1903) 

(29 Sep 1903) 

743,436 (10 Nov 1903) 

744,475 

744,826 

745,841 

748,792 

750,975 

753,680 

754,765 

758,826 

(17 Nov 1903) 

(24 Nov 1903) 

(1 Dec 1903) 

(5 Jan 1904) 

(2 Feb 1904) 

(1 Mar 1904) 

(15 Mar 1904) 

(3 May 1904) 

Westcott, Benjamin F. 

Freeman, Sarah Sophia 

Morgan, Lucy W. 

O'Donnell, Mary F., 

and Emma V. 

Follett, Edward P., 

• assigned to Zenith 

Manufacturing 

Company 

Adamson, James M. 

Hillman, Otto 

Parker, George F., and 

Marie E. M. Whiting 

Boone, Thomas R. 

Buckley, John P. 

Wakefield, Ernest 

Hilder, Henry William 

Robbert, Jane 

Home, Rowlan G. 

Davis, Loyola 

Griffen, Stephen M. 

Curran, Edward James 

760,966 (24 May 1904) D'Alessio, Agostino 

761,901 

765,407 

765,691 

765,837 

777,913 

(7 Jun 1904) 

(19 Jul 1904) 

(26 Jul 1904) 

(26 Jul 1904) 

(20 Dec 1904) 

Northen, Mary Eva 

Wakefield, Ernest 

Ulrich, Jean 

Hirsch, Phillip O. 

Obermeier, Ludwig 

Residence 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Massachusetts 

(Fall River) 

California (Oakland) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New Hampshire 

(Dover) 

Delaware (Wilmington) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Australia (Sydney) 

New York (Rochester) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Indiana (Warsaw) 

Canada (Ottawa) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Nebraska (Lincoln) 

Maine (Auburn) 

New York (Syracuse) 

New York (Rochester) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

New York (Rochester) 

Washington, D. C 

Pennsylvania 

(Mount Pleasant) 

England (Brighton) 

California 

(San Francisco) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Nebraska (Omaha) 

New Jersey (Summit) 

Australia (Bathurst) 

New York (Manhattan) 

Texas (Denton) 

Pennsylvania 

(Mount Pleasant) 

New York (New York) 

Nebraska (Norfolk) 

Germany (Munich) 

Title 

Adjustable Sleeve-Chart 

Garment-Fitter 

Adjustable Dress-Chart 

Dress-Chart [Skirts] 

Dress-Cutting Instrument 

for Drafting Garments 

Adjustable Chart 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

w 

W 

w 

w 

Drafting-Rule 

Tailor's Square 

Method of Drafting 

Garment-Patterns 

Measuring and Drafting 

Device for Garments 

Garment-Fitting Device 

Garment-Scale 

Garment Measuring and 

Drafting Device 

Device for Drafting 

Skirt-Patterns 

Measuring Instrument 

Dressmaker's Ruler 

Dressmaker's Guide 

Skirt-Pattern 

Device for Drafting Patterns 

for Garments 

m 

M 

M 

w 

W 

W 

w 

w 

c 

C 

Tailor's Tape Measure 

Garment-Drafting Chart 

Pattern-Chart 

Tailor's MeasuringSquare 

Garment-Drafting Rule 

Tailor's AttitudeMeasure 

Appliances for Taking 

Measurements for Garments 

Appliance for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailor's Measure 

Skirt-Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Method of Drafting 

Garment-Patterns 

Measuring Device for 

Garments 

Pattern-Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress-Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Tape-Measure 

M? 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M? 

M 

M 

W 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w? 

M W 

w 

w 

w 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. 

782,339 

782,415 

787,533 

790,333 

790,568 

794,506 

797,176 

798,223 

803,778 

809,836 

811,770 

812,874 

813,415 

815,467 

819,438 

822,874 

823,738 

824,784 

825,915 

826,651 

830,850 

831,826 

834,762 

843,378 

843,862 

845,319 

847,844 

850,340 

851,279 

851,374 

851,391 

852,151 

852,332 

852,771 

855,272 

860,773 

Patent 

(14 Feb 1905) 

(14 Feb 1905) 

(18 Apr 1905) 

(23 May 1905) 

(23 May 1905) 

(11 Jul 1905) 

(15 Aug 1905) 

(29 Aug 1905) 

(7 Nov 1905) 

(9 Jan 1906) 

(6 Feb 1906) 

(20 Feb 1906) 

(27 Feb 1906) 

(20 Mar 1906) 

(1 May 1906) 

(5 Jun 1906) 

(19 Jun 1906) 

(3 Jul 1906) 

(17 Jul 1906) 

(24 Jul 1906) 

(11 Sep 1906) 

(25 Sep 1906) 

(30 Oct 1906) 

(5 Feb 1907) 

(12 Feb 1907) 

(26 Feb 1907) 

(19 Mar 1907) 

(16 Apr 1907) 

(23 Apr 1907) 

(23 Apr 1907) 

(23 Apr 1907) 

(30 Apr 1907) 

(30 Apr 1907) 

(7 May 1907) 

(28 May 1907) 

(23 Jul 1907) 

Patentee 

Hosford, Frank 

Plant, Harry N. 

•McDowell, William 

Van Dame, John R. 

Freeman, William 

Kaiser, George B. 

Colosimo, Giuseppe 

Sole, Frank D. 

•McDowell, William 

Nordstrom, Fred 

Freeman, William 

•Phelps, Ernest Leslie 

Geraci, Ignatius 

Plant, Harry N. 

Jones, Mrs. Minnie, 

now by remarriage 

Mrs. Minnie Franklin 

Tight, Jennie C 

Parker, George F., and 

Marie E. M. Whidng 

Goff, Vina Hildebrand, 

assigned to Goff 

Designer Company 

Lesh, Edwin Zachariah, 

Residence 

Texas (Paris) 

Maine (Biddeford) 

New York (New York) 

Michigan 

(Grand Rapids) 

New York (New York) 

Ohio (Cincinnad) 

Washington, D. C 

New Jersey (Newark) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Canada (Toronto) 

Washington, D. C 

Maine (Biddeford) 

Colorado (Denver) 

Iowa (St. Anthony) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Kansas (lola) 

Mexico (Guadalajara) 

• and Hester A. Woolman 

D'Elia, Louis 

Roland, Arthur Malaska 

Buccola, Joseph 

Schrader, August F., and 

Ophelia McCuUough 

Waterman, Albert 

Blackburn, Richard H. 

Ricciardi, Bartolomeo 

Stillman, Millicent M. 

Brosnahan, Michael J. 

Dobbs, Edwin Eugene 

Peterson, Erick H. 

Anderman, Goldie L. 

Ahnelt, William P. 

Laub, George M., 

Washington (Seattle) 

Hawaii (Honolulu) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Iowa (Rake) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Minnesota 

(Minneapolis) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

assigned to May Manton 

Pattern Company 

Christoph, Emil A. 

Barnett, Jacob 

Thompson, Reinard 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

Massachusetts 

(Somerville) 

Title 

Tailor's or Dressmaker's 

Measuring Device 

Adjustable Dress-Chart 

Chart 

Tailor's Chart 

Printed Dress-Pattern 

[Skirts] 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measure or Square 

Tape-Measure 

Chart for Drafting 

Women's Skirts 

Tailor's Measure 

Printed Dress-Pattern 

Garment-Designing 

Curve-Rule 

Tailor's Measure 

Dress-Chart 

Drafting Implement 

Skirt Measurer and Pattern 

Pattern-Chart 

Adjustable Skirt-Pattern 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Measuring 

Apparatus 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Dress-Chart 

Skirt-Drafting Chart 

Marker for Bust-Forms 

Chart for Drafting 

Garments [Skirts] 

Tailor's Square 

Garment-Pattern 

Tailor's Appliance 

Dress-Chart [Skirts] 

Adjustable Chart 

Method of Duplicating 

Forms 

Chart for GarmentPatterns 

Paper Pattern 

Tape-Measure 

Tailor's Measuring 

Apparatus 

Tailor's Measure 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

145 
146 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent 

865,761 (10 Sep 1907) 

869,169 (22 Oct 1907) 

Patentee 

865,418 (10 Sep 1907) Moe, Gerhard 

Carrara, Marie Louise 

Fhnt, Charles Ernest 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

u 

869,264 

871,814 

873,266 

874,997 

875,554 

882,111 

885,167 

887,890 

890,472 

890,969 

894,207 

899,802 

900,568 

902,704 

906,524 

909,023 

909,046 

910,203 

911,045 

911,046 

913,408 

915,835 

918,279 

926,322 

927,845 

927,948 

928,691 

(29 Oct 1907) 

(26 Nov 1907) 

(10 Dec 1907) 

(31 Dec 1907) 

(31 Dec 1907) 

(17 Mar 1908) 

(21 Apr 1908) 

(19 May 1908) 

(9 Jun 1908) 

(16Jun 1908) 

(28 Jul 1908) 

(29 Sep 1908) 

(6 Oct 1908) 

(3 Nov 1908) 

(15 Dec 1908) 

(5 Jan 1909) 

(5 Jan 1909) 

(19 Jan 1909) 

(2 Feb 1909) 

(2 Feb 1909) 

(23 Feb 1909) 

(23 Mar 1909) 

(13 Apr 1909) 

(29 Jun 1909) 

(13 Jul 1909) 

(13Jul 1909) 

(20 Jul 1909) 

Ricciardi, Bartolomeo 

Newtown, Charles 

Willard 

Phoebus, Virginia A. 

Schoeppl, Joseph F. 

Pelton, Marie C 

Horeischi, Wenzel 

Maxwell, Alice Audley 

Valentine, Gustaf V. 

Truhan, Michael 

Dufault, John U. 

Jacobson, Hamlet Peter 

Pohle, Jenny 

Miles, Nancie E. 

Anderson, Samuel 

Goerigk, Franz 

•Ratner, Henry W. 

Woolson, Harry H. 

Johnson, Jennie A. 

Johnson, Mary M. 

Johnson, Mary M. 

Ma Loney, Mato 

Fitzmaurice 

Di Domenico, Nicola 

•Carlstrom, John A., 

assigned to the Jno. J. 

Mitchell Company 

Dubinsky, Moses 

Evangelista, Vincenzo 

Ciervo, Michael 

Peterson, Erick H., 

assigned to Sartorial 

New York (New York) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

New York (New York) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Nebraska (Beatrice) 

Switzerland (Zurich) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Massachusetts (Spencer 

New York (Brooklyn) 

Tailor's Tape-Measure 

Measure 

Machine or Device to be 

Used in Measuring 

and Cutting Skirts 

Tailor's Templet for 

Making Patterns 

Garment Measuring and 

Drafting Device 

Adjustable Chart 

Guide-Chart for 

Garment-Patterns 

Instrument for Drafting 

Garment-Patterns 

Adjustable Pattern for 

Coats 

) Adjustable Pattern for 

Garments 

Pattern Draft or Chart 

Pennsylvania (Lansdale) Measuring Devices for 

Indiana (Indianapolis) 

Massachusetts 

(Brockton) 

Germany (Berlin) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Massachusetts 

(Medford) 

South Dakota (Huron) 

Colorado (Denver) 

Colorado (Denver) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Rhode Island 

(Providence) 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York (New York) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Dressmakers and the 

Like 

Skirt-Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Apparatus for Taking 

Tailors' Measurements 

Tailor's Square 

Tailor's Indicator 

Dress-Chart 

Garment-Fitting Device 

Garment-Fitting Device 

Tailor's Cutting-Chart 

Tailor's Measure 

Tailor's Square 

Pattern-Former 

Method of Laying Out 

Patterns 

Tailor's Measure 

Block-Pattern for Garments 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M? 

M 

M? 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w? 

w 

w 

w? 

U 

931,896 (24 Aug 1909) 

932,649 (31 Aug 1909) 

933.523 (7 Sep 1909) 

Pattern Company 

Terry, Reed A. 

Tiffany, George S. 

Bogushefsky, Moses 

Nebraska (Omaha) 

Kansas (Hutchinson) 

New York (New York) 

Adjustable Chart for W 

Dressmaking 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Adjustable Pattern M 

U 

U 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. Patent 

937,214 (19 Oct 1909) 

938,280 (26 Oct 1909) 

941,936 (30 Nov 1909) 

942,338 (7 Dec 1909) 

943,130 (14 Dec 1909) 

943,770 (21 Dec 1909) 

147 

Patentee 

Kellogg, Martha E. 

Sexton, Edith Ray 

Mongelli, Giuseppe A. 

Morrison, Margaret E. 

Webster, Frank D. 

Curran, Edward James, 

assigned one-half 

Residence Title 

Michigan (Battle Creek) Apparel-Cutdng Apparatus 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Nebraska (Bartley) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

Australia (Sydney) 

Form-Gage 

Rule 

Skirt-Measurer 

Adjustable Chart 

Apparatus for Drafting 

Garment-Patterns 

M 

to David H. Ackerman New York (New York) 

945,814 (11 Jan 1910) Schulze, Charles F. 

946,191 (I I Jan 1910) 

947,542 (25 Jan 1910) 

956,370 (26 Apr 1910) 

957,150 (3 May 1910) 

959,972 (31 May 1910) 

Augsten, Josef 

De Feo, Frank 

Komura, Sanemon 

Erickson, Anton 

Tomaselli, Antonio 

967,504 (16 Aug 1910) Eden, Edward Samuel 

972,705 (11 Oct 1910) 

977,177 (29 Nov 1910) 

979,866 (27 Dec 1910) 

981,043 (10 Jan 1911) 

985,971 (7 Mar 1911) 

Moritz, Samuel S. 

Fellowes, Harry L. 

Little, James E. 

•Weidel, Joseph A. 

•Blackburn, Juditha 

986,041 (7 Mar 1911) Bond, Ida M. 

988,459 (4 Apr 1911) 

988,683 (4 Apr 1911) 

991,103 (2 May 1911) 

996,281 (27 Jun 1911) 

998,039 

998,258 

999,359 

999,425 

1,000,151 

1,001,142 

1,002,613 

1,003,318 

1,004,593 

(18 Jul 1911) 

(18 Jul 1911) 

(1 Aug 1911) 

(1 Aug 1911) 

(1 Apr 1911) 

(22 Aug 1911) 

(5 Sep 1911) 

(12 Sep 1911) 

(3 Oct 1911) 

Gordon, Henry H. 

Wurtzel, Abraham 

Titchell, Joseph 

Rubin, Constantino 

Guerra 

Rose, Joseph 

Osborne, Gertrude 

Bauernfeind, John 

Zaino, Adolph 

Contenti, Filiberto 

Hanrath, Theodore W. 

Ward, Ada 

Bartlett, Irene Merrill 

Ryan, Catherine 

1,009,427 (21 Nov 1911) Luongo, Aniello 

1,011,628 (12 Dec 1911) 

1,011,915 (19 Dec 1911) 

1,014,542 (9 Jan I9I2) 

1,014,885 (I6Jan 1912) 

1,033,061 (16Jul I9I2) 

Klein, Jacob 

Carbonara, Paolo 

Walquist, Andrew N. 

Lee, Harriet 

Cane, Pietro 

1,037,058 (27 Aug 1912) Schmidt, Frank M. 

Pennsylvania (Pottsville) Method of Laying Out 

Patterns 

Tailor's Fitting Apparatus 

Measuring-Harness 

Connecticut (Rockville) 

Connecticut 

(Waterbury) 

California (San Jose) 

Oregon (Portland) 

Ohio (Cleveland) 

Canada (Eastwood, 

Ontario) 

Washington (Dayton) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Missouri (St. Louis) 

California (Los 

Angeles) 

New Jersey (Forest 

Hill) 

New York 

(Huntington) 

New York (New York) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Mexico (Mexico [City]) 

Ohio (Cleveland) 

Illinois (Neoga) 

Wisconsin (Medford) 

New York (New York) 

New Jersey (Newark) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Oklahoma (Enid) 

New York (Manhattan) 

Canada (Ottawa) 

New York (New York) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

Washington (Seattle) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

New York (Coney 

Island) 

Maryland (Havre de 

Grace) 

Dress Chart and Templet 

Tailor's Level 

Measuring-Rule for 

Tailors 

Skirt-Drafting Quadrant 

M 

M? 

Tailor's Measuring Apparatus M 

Measuring Device M 

Tailor's Measure M 

Drafting-Plate 

Skirt-Pattern 

Garment-Fitter 

Tailor's Measuring Device M 

Measuring Appliance 

[Skirts] 

Tape-Measure Attachment 

Device for Taking 

Garment Measurements 

Pattern-Blank 

Tailoring Instrument 

Tailor's Square 

Measuring-Tool 

Measuring Device 

Tape-Measure Attachment 

Tailoring Device 

Garment-Fitter 

Measuring Device for 

Cutting Garments 

Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Tape-Measure 

Combined Tailor's Drafting 

Chart and Square 

Tailor's Measure 

Garment-Fitter for Waists 

Clip for Measuring 

Appliances 

Tailor's Measuring Apparatus M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

M 

m W 

M W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W? 

w 

w 

w 

w 

U 
148 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent 

1,041,611 (15 Oct 1912 

1,042,063 (22 Oct 1912 

1,045,440 (26 Nov 1912 

1,045,449 (26 Nov 1912 

1,046,674 (10 Dec 1912 

1,047,823 (17 Dec 1912 

1,048,929 (31 Dec 1912 

1,049,536 (7 Jan 1913 

1,053,323 

1,068,143 

1,069,086 

1,072,908 

1,078,087 

1,078,576 

1,079,333 

1,081,649 

1,087,992 

1,090,024 

1,092,737 

1,096,975 

1,098,736 

(18 Feb 1913 

(22 Jul 1913 

(29 Jul 1913 

(9 Sep 1913 

(11 Nov 1913 

(11 Nov 1913 

(25 Nov 1913 

(16 Dec 1913 

(24 Feb 1914 

(10 Mar 1914 

(7 Apr 1914 

(19 May 1914 

(2 Jun 1914 

1,098,737 (2 Jun 1914 

1,101.140 

1,105,439 

1,108,040 

1,113,612 

1,114,658 

1.121.410 

1,123,031 

1,124,836 

1,136,055 

1,142,298 

1,144,071 

1,148,135 

1,149,434 

(23 Jun 1914 

(28 Jul 1914 

(18 Aug 1914 

(13 Oct 1914 

(20 Oct 1914 

(15 Dec 1914 

(29 Dec 1914 

(12Jan 1915 

(20 Apr 1915 

(8 Jun 1915 

(22 Jun 1915 

(27 Jul 1915 

(10 Aug 1915 

Patentee 

Farr, Eugene M. 

•Wendorf, William 

Rogati, Agostino, and 

Leonardo Montilli 

Sobotker. Paul E., and 

David H. Ackerman 

Suzuki, George K. 

Marsden, James 

Baird, Jennie D. 

Rothenberger, George 

W., and William 

Hayden 

Skrell, Joseph 

La Maida, Thomas 

Johnson, Peter 

Buda, Pasquale 

d'Orsogna, Louis S., 

and Pietro Cane 

d'Orsogna, Louis S., 

and Pietro Cane 

Goldberger, Max 

Alfano, Louis 

Smoot, Charles Head 

Carroll, Morris 

Mennis, May, and 

William A. Mead 

Watters, Edward C 

Kramer. Harry J. 

Kramer, Harry J. 

Morrison, Margaret E. 

Jensen, Albert J. 

Watters, Edward C 

Glassman, Rubin 

Watters, Edward C 

Scribante, Joseph 

Spevacek, Vaclav 

Bell, Edward 

De Los Smith, Annesley 

Breirly, Felix 

Semonof, Wolf 

Agnes, Barthel 

Ford, Hannah Maria 

Residence 

New Jersey (Oradell) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

New York (New York) 

New Jersey (Newark) 

California (Oakland) 

England (Wingan, 

Lancaster) 

Missouri (St. Charles) 

Pennsylvania (Reading) Adjustable GarmentPattern 

Title 

Skirt-Measurer 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Dressmaker's Measuring 

Apparatus 

Garment-Fitter 

Tailor's Adjustable Chart 

Process of Marking Cloth 

M 

M 

M? 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

W 

W 

by Perforated Lays or 

Templets 

Skeleton Skirt-Marker 

Washington (Seattle) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Brooklyn) 

New York (Manhattan) 

New York (Coney 

Island) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Connecticut 

(Southington) 

New York (New York) 

New York (Manhattan) 

Colorado (Denver) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Massachusetts 

(Dorchester) 

Nebraska (Bartley) 

Canada (Vancouver) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

Maryland (Baltimore) 

Missouri (Kansas City) 

Pennsylvania 

(Pittsburgh) 

Michigan (Traverse 

City) 

Louisiana (New 

Orleans) 

New York (Mount 

Vernon) 

Massachusetts (New 

Bedford) 

Rhode Island 

(Providence) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

England (Bath) 

Measuring Device 

Chart for Cutting 

Garments [Skirts] 

Tailor's Measure 

Method and Apparatus 

for Making Patterns 

Pattern for Drafting 

and Fitting Garments 

Pattern for Drafting 

Garments 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measure 

Garment-Fitting Device 

Tailor's Rule 

Tailor's Measuring 

Apparatus 

Skirt-Measuring Tape 

Method of Charting 

Dress-Patterns 

Method of Laying Out 

A Skirt-Pattern 

Waist-Measuring Device 

Measure 

Dressmaker's Rule 

Measure for GarmentCutters 

Skirt-Rule 

Trial or Fitting Garment 

Tailor's Square 

Garment-Fitting Device 

Chart for GarmentPatterns 

Skirt-Drafting Instrument 

W 

M 

W 

M 

M W 

W 

M W 

M 

M 

M? W 

M 

W 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

M 

M 

M 

W 

w 

w 

Tailor's Grading System M? W 

and Device Therefor [sic] 

Tailor's Measuring Appliance M 

Device for Measuring, w 

Correcting, and Trimming 

Skirts and the Like 

U 
NUMBER 42 

U.S. Patent 

149 

Patentee Residence Title Clothing 

type 

1,149,468 

1,155,690 

1,157,085 

1,158,425 

1,160,863 

1,163,874 

1,168,431 

1,168,803 

1,171,623 

1,173,226 

1,173,301 

1,175,996 

1,177,901 

1,183,845 

1,183,942 

1,186,552 

1,187,128 

1,198,499 

1,199,591 

1,200.035 

1,201,217 

1.204.900 

1.205.240 

1,214,296 

1,215,193 

1,218.435 

1.218,565 

1,219,234 

1,221,302 

1,222,012 

1,236,272 

1,237,958 

1,248,510 

1,254,197 

(10 Aug 1915) 

(5 Oct 1915) 

(19 Oct 1915) 

(2 Nov 1915) 

(16 Nov 1915) 

(14 Dec 1915) 

(18 Jan 1916) 

(18Jan 1916) 

(15 Feb 1916) 

(29 Feb 1916) 

(29 Feb 1916) 

(21 Mar 1916) 

(4 Apr 1916) 

(23 May 1916) 

(23 May 1916) 

(13 Jun 1916) 

(13 Jun 1916) 

(19 Sep 1916) 

(26 Sep 1916) 

(3 Oct 1916) 

(10 Oct 1916) 

(14 Nov 1916) 

(21 Nov 1916) 

(30 Jan 1917) 

(6 Feb 1917) 

(6 Mar 1917) 

(6 Mar 1917) 

(13 Mar I9I7) 

(3 Apr 1917) 

tlOAp r 1917) 

(7 Aug 1917) 

(21 Aug 1917) 

(4 Dec 1917) 

(22 Jan 1918) 

•Russell, Maude W., 

assigned to Maude W. 

Russell New Method 

Dress Tailoring and 

Garment Cutting 

Company, Inc. 

Taylor, Mary C, 

assigned 

one-half to 

Samuel Taylor 

Cohen. Isaac 

Barnes, Leonora E. 

de Girard. Emma Miot 

•Weiler, Sigmond G. 

Schuman, Julius 

Havrilla. Geza J. 

Monaghan, David J. 

Taylor, Hiram H. 

Murphy, Mary Caroline, 

and Mary Caroline, Jr. 

Rothenberger, 

George W., and 

William Hayden 

Schuman, Julius 

•Bennett, Ella A. 

Yunkers. Edward H. 

Cohen, David, and 

Forest W. Weesner 

Bernhardt, Josiah D. 

Widland, Theodore 

Melara, Lorenzo 

Schmit, Cellestine 

Leontine 

Miyamoto, Aki 

Picken. Mary B. 

May, Jacob 

Gorton, Josephine S. 

Reed, Charles E. 

McLaren, Kate C 

Kaeser, Robert 

Brainerd, Lura S. 

Fischer, Joseph W. 

Meas, Augustus 

Costley, Emery E. 

Reed. Charles E. 

Levi, Ernst 

Berriman, Edward C 

Missouri (Carterville) 

Missouri (Joplin) 

New Jersey 

(Perth Amboy) 

New Jersey 

(Jersey City) 

Massachusetts 

(Gloucester) 

Nebraska (Lincoln) 

California (Los Angeles 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

California 

(San Francisco) 

Pennsylvania (Erie) 

New York (Rochester) 

Massachusetts 

(Worcester) 

Massachusetts 

(Haverhill) 

Pennsylvania 

(Reading) 

Garment-Templet 

Skirt-Measuring Device 

Garment-Fitter 

Tailor's Rule 

) Dress-Cutdng Square 

Cutting-Chart 

Measuring Instruments 

Tailor's Drafting-Chart 

Garment-Pattern 

Pattern-Drafting Device 

Chart for Use in Cutting 

Garments 

Adjustable GarmentPattern 

California (Los Angeles) Measuring Instrument 

Iowa (Dexter) 

Illinois (Wilmette) 

Indiana (Wabash) 

Pennsylvania (Reading) 

New Jersey (Arlington) 

New York (Orlean) 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

California 

(San Francisco) 

Pennsylvania (Scranton) 

New York 

(Richmond Hill) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Missouri (Warrensburg) 

Washington, D. C 

Wisconsin (Milwaukee) 

Connecdcut (Meriden) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

New York 

(Niagara Falls) 

Dressmaking System 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Shoulder-Measuring Device 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Tailor's Adjustable Measure 

Tailor's Square 

Drafting Instrument 

Tailor's Measure 

1 Garment-Maker's Square 

Skirt-Measure 

Instrument for Drafting 

Patterns for Garments 

< Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Chart or Master-Pattern 

Tailor's Measuring Device 

Dress-Waist Pattern 

Tailor's Measuring 

or Fitting Coat 

Garment-Balancing Device 

Maryland (Walkersville) Measuring Device 

Missouri (Warrensburg) 

Germany (Stuttgart) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Tailor's Measurmg 

Instrument 

Measuring-Jacket for 

Ready-Made Clothing 

Measuring Instrument 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M? 

M 

M 

M? 

M 

M? 

M 

M 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w c 

w 

w? 
150 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. Patent 

1,2.55.734 

1,260,849 

1,261,452 

1.262.376 

1,267,054 

1,268,084 

1,271.486 

1,272.729 

1,276.316 

1.278.107 

1,278.683 

1,283.076 

1,288,279 

1,292,056 

1,307.232 

(5 Feb 1918) 

(26 Mar 1918) 

(2 Apr 1918) 

(9 Apr 1918) 

(21 May 1918) 

(4 Jun 1918) 

(2 Jul 1918) 

(16Jul 1918) 

(20 Aug 1918) 

(10 Sep 1918) 

(10 Sep 1918) 

(29 Oct 1918) 

(17 Dec 1918) 

(21 Jan 1919) 

(I7jun 1919) 

Patentee 

Galowitz. Joseph 

Zech. Dorothy 

Sorenson, Rasmus A. 

Moyer, Anna E. 

Carboni, Augusto 

Berriman. Edward C 

Orvold, OlufL. 

Towsley, Kathryn, 

and Irving S. 

•Blackburn, Juditha 

Cherrie, Etta, and 

Fannie Porter 

Kramer, Harry J. 

Clemens, Mattie M. L. 

Takahashi, Tsutomu 

Remy, Jeanne 

Barody,Jean 

Residence 

New York (Manhattan) 

Title 

Method of Making Special 

Patterns for Garments 

Indiana (Lawrenceburg) Garment-Templet 

Pennsylvania 

(Pittsburgh) 

Pennsylvania 

(Schwenkville) 

California 

(San Francisco) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

Minnesota (St. Paul) 

Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia) 

California (Los Angeles 

Oklahoma (Enid) 

Massachusetts (Boston) 

Illinois (Chicago) 

California 

(San Francisco) 

Louisiana 

(New Orleans) 

Algeria (Constantine) 

Apparatus for Measurmg 

Garments 

Dressmaking Appliance 

Measuring Device 

Shoulder-Yoke 

Measuring Device 

Profile-Recorder 

) Dress-Pattern 

Measuring Device 

Garment-Making-Pattern 

Guide 

Marking Device for 

Dressmakers 

Tailor's Measuring 

Instrument 

Skirt-Measure 

Guiding and Controlling 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M? 

M? 

M 

M 

Clothing 

type 

W 

W 

w 

w c 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

Instrument for Cutting 

Clothes 

Index to Patentees 

(In the absence of a patent number, reference is by date) 

Abrahart, William 

Ackerman. David H. 

See Edward James 

Curran; Paul E. 

Sobotker. 

Acton, William R. 

Adamo, Giuseppe 

Adams, Margaret E. 

Adamson. James M. 

Adelberg. Abraham 

Agnes, Barthel 

Ahneh. William P. 

Alfano. Louis 

Allen. William W. 

Allen. William W. 

Allen. William W. 

Aim, Janos A. 

Amelang, Charles A. 

Anderman. Goldie L. 

Anderson. Charles 

Anderson. E. 

Willoughby. See 

Moses Palmer. 

Anderson, Samuel 

Arvidson, Pier N. 

272,611 

4,742 

710,399 

215,310 

736,052 

711,611 

1,148,135 

852,151 

1,081,649 

(23 Oct 1827) 

435 

7,641 

515.511 

466.111 

851,391 

716,613 

902,704 

483.521 

Atwell, Fred A. 

Augsten, Josef 

Avery, Mary Lucinda 

Axford, Edward I. 

Baasel, William 

Bacon, G.W.M. 

Baird, Jennie D. 

Baker, Elvira 

Ball, S. X. See 

George Eckler. 

Barber, Erastus 

Barnes. Leonora E. 

Barnett, Jacob 

Barnett, John P., 

and Francis Story 

Barody, Jean 

Bartlett, Irene Merrill 

Bauer, Zachaeus 

Bauernfeind, John 

Baughman, J. S., 

and M. E. 

628,296 

946,191 

705,194 

1,113 

570,834 

570,835 

(20 Apr 1833) 

1,048.929 

349,198 

539 

1,158,425 

855,272 

1,406 

1,307,232 

1,003,318 

158,194 

163.911 

195,332 

999,359 

430,059 

Baughman, Jacob S., 

and Melvina E. 

Baughman, Jacob 

Schrock 

Beard, G. 

Beard, George 

Beard, George, Jr. 

Beaudry. Joseph 

Bechtel. John R. 

Bell, Edward 

Bellamy. John 

Bennett, Ella A. 

Bernhardt, Josiah D. 

Bernheim, Matthew 

Berriman. Edward C 

Berry, Ellen A. 

Bisceglia, S. See 

Salvatore Bishe. 

Bisceglia, Salvatore 

Bishe, Salvatore, 

and S. Bisceglia 

Bishop, William C 

Bixby, Lucy J. 

422,282 

675,537 

48,644 

52,950 

(5 Aug 1833) 

143.556 

305,501 

1.124,836 

169.402 

1,183,845 

1.187,128 

422,067 

1,254,197 

1,268,084 

433,711 

447,554 

455,811 

447,932 

179 

187,587 
NUMBER 42 

Blackburn, Juditha 

Blackburn, Richard H. 

Blizzard, Jennie 

Bluthenthal, Herbert Clay 

Bogardus, Abraham A. 

Bogushefsky, Moses 

Bond,Ida M. 

Boone, Thomas R. 

Bowman, Viola 

Brainerd, Lura S. 

Breirly, Felix 

Brigham, S. O. 

Broadnax. John T. 

Brolly, Hugh 

Brooke. Emily 

Brooke, John A. 

Brosnahan, Michael J. 

Brown, Daniel L. 

Bruce, Mary E. 

Brundage, Henry C 

Buccola, Joseph 

Buckley, John P. 

Buda, Pasquale 

Buddington, Frank E. 

Burrows, H. M. 

Byrnes, T. W. 

Call, Libbie A. 

Campbell, Ethan 

Campbell, John R. 

Cane, Pietro 

Cane, Pietro. See also 

Louis S. d'Orsogna. 

Carbonara, Paolo 

Carboni, Augusto 

Carlstrom. John A., 

assigned to the Jno. 

J. Mitchell Company 

Carpenter, H. M. 

Carpenter, John 

Carpenter, Mary F. 

Carrara, Marie Louise 

Carroll, Morris 

Chambers, G. J., & E. 

Chandler, Helen S. 

Chandler, Mary B. 

Chappell, James H. 

Charch, John S. 

Chenivesse, Jean M. 

Claudius 

Cherrie, Etta, and 

Fannie Porter 

Chrisdansen, S. 

Christiansen, Simon 

985,971 

1,276,316 

843,862 

479,548 

629,025 

4.294 

933.523 

986,041 

212,587 

743,436 

670,762 

1,219,234 

1,142,298 

56,892 

455,159 

277.453 

355,583 

216,257 

850,340 

534,387 

229,088 

2,450 

831,826 

744.475 

1,072,908 

272,204 

440,692 

541,311 

618,392 

89,735 

282,842 

281,666 

514.063 

(6 Nov 1823) 

490,606 

1,033,061 

1,011,915 

1,267,054 

918,279 

57,837 

6.286 

155.287 

865,761 

1,090,024 

332,783 

708,754 

270,933 

7,962X 

166,257 

170.157 

297,570 

1,278,107 

489,793 

526.378 

526,379 

526,380 

Christner, David C 

Christoph, Emil A. 

Choquette, Joseph H. 

Ciervo, Michael 

Clemens, Mattie M. L. 

Cohen, David, and 

Forest W. Weesner 

Cohen, Isaac 

Coleman. Mary V. 

Collins, Mary C 

Colosimo, Giuseppe 

Combs, John P. 

Cone, Abraham M. 

Contenti, Filiberto 

Cook, W. 

Corley, Simeon 

Cornwell, Willett 

Costley, Emery E. 

Couteau, Jules 

Crakauer. Felix 

Crow, Samuel G. 

Cummins, W. G. 

Cunningham, Emma E. 

Cupler, Jacob C 

Curran. Edward 

Curran, Edward James 

Curran, Edward James. 

assigned one-half to 

David H. Ackerman 

Curry, Harriet A. 

D'Alessio, Agostino 

Dame, Richard 

Davis, Loyola 

Davis, Myra A. 

de Caracena, Joseph O'N. 

De Feo, Frank 

de Girard, Emma Miot 

D'Elia, Louis 

Delory, Jean Louis 

De Los Smith. Annesley 

Derby, Lyman 

Di Domenico, Nicola 

Dittenhafer, Catherine 

Dobbs, Edwin Eugene 

Dolan, Patrick W. 

Donaldson. George 

MacKay 

Donges, Henry 

d'Orsogna, Louis S., 

and Pietro Cane 

Drummond, George 

Dubinsky, Moses 

DuBois, Ithamar 

Dufault, John U. 

Eager, George R. 

Eckler, George, and 

S. X. Ball 

Eden, Edward Samuel 

389.287 

852.771 

484,138 

700,739 

927,948 

1,283,076 

1,186,552 

1,157.085 

357,762 

606,706 

797,176 

3,820 

497.165 

1,000,151 

405,464 

18,958 

209,111 

1,236.272 

406.197 

558.780 

480,453 

102,505 

622,419 

655,960 

487,237 

718,320 

711,479 

758,826 

943,770 

438,607 

760,966 

1.584 

753,680 

365,800 

408,594 

947,542 

1,160,863 

826.651 

614,703 

1,136,055 

16,472 

915,835 

56,383 

851,279 

78,726 

648,023 

4,477 

1,078,087 

1,078.576 

451.553 

926.322 

115.180 

890,969 

155,073 

3.286 

967.504 

Emery, John A. 

Ender, Richard 

Erickson, Anton 

Ericson, Lars G. 

Evan, H. P. 

Evangelista, Vincenzo 

Ewing, Sarah C 

Eyboulet, Jules 

Francois. See Louis 

Desire Frenot. 

Faestel, A. L. 

Fairchild, Frederick A. 

Falk, Adolph. and 

J. Finkenstein 

Farr, Eugene M. 

Faut, P. 

Fellowes, Harry L. 

Fels, F., and Simon D. 

Ferguson, Mary A. 

Fike, Henry P. 

Finkenstein, J. See 

Adolph Falk. 

Fischer, Joseph W. 

Flenner, Lewis 

Flint, Charles Ernest 

Flores, Alonzo 

Hernandez 

Follett, Edward P. 

Follett, Edward P., 

assigned to Zenith 

Manufacturing 

Company 

Ford, Hannah Maria 

Fowler. Henry A. 

Franklin, Mrs. Minnie. 

See Mrs. Minnie Jones. 

Freeman, Ann M. 

Freeman, Sarah Sophia 

Freeman. William 

Frega, G. 

Frega, Giuseppe 

Frenot, Louis Desire. 

and Jules Franf ois 

Eyboulet 

Galowitz, Joseph 

Ganzhorn, William 

Garcelon, Jennie Lee 

Garnier, Mardn J. 

Gardand. Elizabeth 

Gates, George 

Shattuck 

Geraci, Ignatius 

15 

226,605 

177.702 

957.150 

465,262 

628,083 

927,845 

112,024 

503,741 

9,219X 

150,853 

1,041,611 

396,396 

977,177 

379,384 

269,652 

409,184 

1,221,302 

2,341 

869,169 

86,829 

389.376 

389,377 

566,158 

583,858 

611,995 

692,510 

735,738 

1.149,434 

35,226 

317,332 

722.221 

790,568 

811,770 

314,526 

347,760 

362.579 

392,263 

658,038 

492.670 

1,255,734 

263,779 

439,500 

390,291 

355,160 

310.666 

480,579 

813,415 
152 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Glassman, Rubin 

Goerigk, Franz 

Goff Designer Company. 

See Vina Hildebrand 

Goff. 

Goff, Vina Hildebrand 

Goff, Vina Hildebrand, 

assigned to Goff 

Designer Company 

Goldberger, Max 

Goldsberry, William H. 

Goldsmith, Edwin M. 

Goodhue. Melissa 

Goodwin, Terence J. 

Gordon, Henry H. 

Gorton, Josephine S. 

Gothard, James 

Griffen. Stephen M. 

Griffin. Caleb H. 

Griffin, Caleb Henry 

Griswold, Alice L. B. 

Groves, John Larue 

Gunkel, Caspar 

Hall, Martha E. 

Hamilton, Doria C 

Hancock, Abram O. 

Hand. J. S. 

Hand. John S. 

Hanrath. Theodore W. 

Harley, G.W.T. 

Harley, George W. T. 

Harrison, Margaret 

Hartung, C 

Havender, Joseph 

Havrilla. Geza J. 

Hawkins, Thomas 

Hawley, DeWitt 

Hayden, William. See 

George W. 

Rothenberger. 

Heaford, Edwin V. 

Henderson, James, and 

Cooper K. Watson 

Hendrick. Susan M. 

Hendryx, Isaiah J. 

Henville, Amanda M. 

Hilder, Henry William 

Hillman, Otto 

Hirsch, Phillip O. 

Hockersmith, Alfred P. 

1,113,612 

906,524 

662,620 

824,784 

1,079,333 

247.339 

393,552 

613.988 

501,337 

688,300 

988,459 

1,214,296 

420,448 

537,285 

688,303 

754.765 

195,925 

206,315 

228,527 

234.273 

194,086 

195,926 

281,056 

266,137 

486,670 

509,080 

435,301 

573,408 

276,032 

590,495 

341,572 

299,383 

324.022 

1,001.142 

52,566 

123,170 

188,896 

245,717 

460,132 

1.168,803 

362.378 

439.747 

518.947 

215,613 

6,807X 

325,409 

1,557 

156,086 

745,841 

739,178 

765,837 

674.442 

Hodges, Estell J., 

and Carrie R. Mathews 

Hood, Eunice 

Horeischi, Wenzel 

Horn, Henrietta 

Horn, Marie 

Home. Rowlan G. 

Hosford, Frank 

Hout, Emma M. 

Hummer, David. 5^^ 

Cyrus Morey. 

Hurdle, Rebecca 

Isham, Henry 

Jackson, H. Ayers 

Jackson. Louisa L. 

Jacobsen, Martha 

Jacobson. Hamlet Peter 

Jensen, Albert J. 

Johnson, Frank G. 

Johnson, Jennie A. 

Johnson, Mary A. Start. 

See Sampson S. Start. 

Johnson. Mary M. 

Johnson. Peter 

Johnston, J. R. 

Johum. Francis P. 

Jones, Mrs. Minnie, 

now by remarriage 

Mrs. Minnie Franklin 

Kaeser. Robert 

Kahler. William, and 

Charles 

Kaiser, George B. 

Kantorovitz. Harris 

Kelley, Mary C 

Kellogg. F.J. 

Kellogg, Martha E. 

Kelly, Mark L. 

Kennedy, H. G. 

Kenrick, Charles 

Kile, Conrad 

Kinker, Ellen K. 

Kirk. Benjamin H. 

Kirk. Harry D., 

and Walter I. 

Klein, Jacob 

Kleinberger, Markus 

Knowland, Joseph, 

and Jacob F. 

Koeller. Hermann. See 

Fritz Mueller. 

Kohn, Samuel 

Komura, Sanemon 

Kramer, Harry J. 

540,985 

363,237 

455,749 

882.111 

490.022 

514,622 

525.019 

750.975 

782,339 

433,203 

395,566 

3,603 

259,162 

327,172 

361,292 

90,363 

324.472 

894.207 

1.105,439 

365,385 

910,203 

911.045 

911,046 

1,069.086 

140.507 

419,452 

819.438 

1,218.565 

574 

794,506 

543,253 

535.378 

709.776 

235,776 

435.182 

937,214 

455,338 

451,247 

(8 Feb 1822) 

4,596 

242,542 

628.475 

661,537 

1,011,628 

673,579 

2,730 

649,988 

956.370 

1,098,736 

Krider, J. M. 

Krider, John M. 

La Maida. Thomas 

Lambright, Hamilton 

La Ment, P. A. 

Lasar, Godfrey H. 

Laub, George M., 

assigned to May Manton 

Pattern Company 

Leciejewski, Johann 

Ledoux, Francis 

Lee, Harriet 

Lemley, Jacob 

Lemley. Jacob, Jr. 

Lemmond. William J. 

Lemont, Levi Peterson 

Lennards. Nicholas 

Lennart. M. 

Lent, J. M. 

Lesh. Edwin Zachariah, 

and Hester 

A. Woolman 

Lette. Ursula L. 

Leu, Mary D. 

Levi, Ernst 

Lewis, Benjamin J. 

Lewis, Richard R. 

Lewis, Sophronia T. 

Liebl, Andrew 

Lillibridge, Warren 

and Charles F. 

Linck. E.J. 

Linck. Emil J. 

Lingen, Hermann 

Little. James E. 

Livingston, Annie 

Livingston. James W. 

Long, Flora 

Lucas, Charles 

Luongo. Aniello 

Lutz, Matthaus 

McCann, James D. 

McCardn, William J. 

McCullough, Ophelia. 

See August F. Schrader. 

McDonald, Curran E. 

McDowell. Albert 

McDowell, William 

McLaren, Kate C 

McLellan. Robert G. 

McNaughton, J. See 

A. Sinnott. 

1,098,737 

1,278,683 

67,774 

11,866 

1,068,143 

524,966 

57,254 

190,686 

825.332 

646,498 

385,637 

1.014.885 

.155.322 

71.520 

1,556 

5,327X 

281,530 

441,369 

91,642 

825,915 

107,068 

595,239 

1,248,510 

7,817X 

441,675 

321,986 

457,124 

11.868 

252,388 

224,832 

207,880 

312,211 

979,866 

556,856 

307,664 

470,809 

5,635 

1.009,427 

516,828 

334,457 

296,426 

60,028 

213,436 

310,297 

342,216 

689,685 

787,533 

803,778 

1,218,435 

179,808 

Madison, Ods (18 Aug 1823) 

Malnight. John 71,192 
NUMBER 42 

Maginnis, James 

Ma Loney, Mato 

Fitzmaurice 

Mandelbaum. Solomon 

Mannebach, Caspar 

Manton, May, Pattern 

Co. See George M. 

Laub. 

Marsden, James 

Marshall, William J 

Martin, Benjamin G. 

Matheson, Hugh 

Mathews, Carrie R. See 

Estell J. Hodges. 

Mathews, W. A. 

Maxwell, Alice Audley 

May, Jacob 

Mayer, William H. 

Mead, William A. See 

May Mennis. 

Meas, Agustus 

Melara, Lorenzo 

Melcher, Michael A., 

and Lewis A. 

Melick, James T. 

Mendenhall, James 

Mengel, Herman [sic] 

Mengel, Herrmann 

Mennis, May, and 

William A. Mead 

Michael, W. M. 

Miles, Nancie E. 

Miller, Jonathan J. 

Miller, Lyman B., 

and Ellery 

Millwee, Sarah A. 

Mitchell, Jno. J. 

Company. See John 

A. Carlstrom. 

Miyamoto, Aki 

Moccia, Raffaele 

Moe, Gerhard 

Monaghan, David J. 

Mongelli, Giuseppe A. 

Monjou, Jean 

Montilli, Leonardo. 

See Agostino Rogati. 

Moon, Edwin L. 

Morey, Cyrus, and 

David Hummer 

Morgan, Lucy W. 

Moriarty, John H. 

Moritz, Samuel S. 

Morrison, Margaret E. 

Moschcowitz, Herman 

Moschcowitz, Schamu 

8,566 

913,408 

381,563 

482,748 

1,047,823 

535,843 

4,831 

124,602 

560,593 

885.167 

1,205,240 

121.642 

579,491 

1,222,012 

1.199.591 

169,564 

633,654 

(16 Apr 1833) 

77,704 

61,349 

1,092,737 

97,672 

900,568 

105,355 

2,106 

126,825 

1,201,217 

568,263 

689,361 

865,418 

1,171,623 

941,936 

283,638 

554,710 

3,161 

731,115 

432,322 

441,684 

972,705 

942,338 

1,101,140 

246,536 

350,073 

111,236 

Moschcowitz, Schamu M. 

Moses, Isaac 

Moyer, Anna E. 

Mueller, Fritz, and 

Hermann Koeller 

Murphy, Mary Caroline, 

and Mary Caroline, Jr. 

Musse. Bertha 

Nelson, Jonathan 

Newcomb, Abner S. 

Newtown, Charles 

Willard 

Nicholas, Eliza 

Nichols, J. H. 

Nichols, James H. 

Noar, F. C 

Nordstrom, Fred 

Northen, Mary E. 

Northen, Mary Eva 

Obermeier, Ludwig 

O'Donnell, Mary F., 

and Emma V. 

O'Halloran, E. E. 

Oliver, Thomas 

O'Loughlin, Robert S. 

Olsen, John R. 

Olson, Jennie S. 

Ordway, Ira J. 

Ormsby, Albertha A. 

Orvold. OlufL. 

Osborne, Gertrude 

Osier, H. 

Osse, Charles 

Palmer, E. Ellsworth 

Palmer, Moses, and E. 

Willoughby Anderson 

Parker, George F., and 

Marie E. M. Whiting 

Parkhill, Joseph H. 

Pelton, Marie C 

Pendell, David L. 

Penley. Julia 

Peterson, Erick H. 

Peterson, Erick H., 

assigned to Sartorial 

Pattern Company 

Peyry, J. B. 

Peyser, Abraham 

Phelps. Brigham T. 

Phelps. Ernest Leslie 

Phoebus. Virginia A. 

Picken, Mary B. 

Pinkham. Almeda A. 

Plant, Harry N. 

Plant, John B. 

Pohle, Jenny 

Pollock, William Bloomer 

327,961 

103.487 

1,262.376 

92.873 

1,173,301 

467,045 

487,760 

717.253 

519.090 

871,814 

622,900 

179,046 

169,468 

385,944 

809,836 

325,216 

761,901 

777,913 

734,279 

431,781 

3,024 

632,361 

534,347 

325,358 

98,618 

599,247 

1,271.486 

998.258 

38,757 

522,800 

252,507 

105,486 

740,172 

823,738 

265,628 

875,554 

3,130 

337.016 

410,695 

851.374 

928.691 

626.795 

245.654 

279.979 

812.874 

873,266 

1.204,900 

602,471 

782,415 

815,467 

662.817 

899.802 

320,496 

Porter, Fannie. See 

Etta Cherrie. 

Poulin, Hedwidge 

Propach, Henry 

Pudney. John 

Pusey, Caroline S. 

Ratner, Henry W. 

Reed, Charles E. 

Reeves. Edward H. 

Remy, Jeanne 

Rencher, Dora 

Rensen, John Henry 

Ricciardi, Bartolomeo 

Rich. Ellen P. 

Richardson. E.. M., 

and J. L. 

Richardson. Samuel S. 

Richey, Albert H. 

Riley, Marsha E. 

Robbert, Jane 

Robinson. Lucie 

Rockafellow. John S. 

Rogati. Agostino. and 

Leonardo Montilli 

Roland, Arthur Malaska 

Rondel, Pierre 

Rose, Joseph 

Roseen. E. 

Rosenbloom. Abe N. 

Ross. Greenberry 

Rothenberger, George W., 

and William Hayden 

Rowlands, Mosses [sic] T. 

152 

510.364 

278.180 

(3 Sep 1831) 

347,888 

909,023 

1.215,193 

1.237,958 

195,308 

1.292,056 

678,515 

480,036 

845,319 

869.264 

185,352 

616,493 

3,522 

165,026 

223,543 

748,792 

242.696 

9,1 lOX 

1,045,440 

830,850 

174,443 

998,039 

70,621 

660,397 

(5 Apr 1826) 

1,049,536 

1,175,996 

10.779 

Rubin. Constantino Guerra 996,281 

Rugland, Samuel C 

Russell, Maude W., 

assigned to Maude 

W. Russell New 

Method Dress 

Tailoring and Garment 

Cutting Company, Inc. 

Ryan, Catherine 

Ryan, Della 

Sartorial Pattern 

Company. See Erick H. 

Peterson. 

Scanlan, John 

Schad, Anton 

Schafer. May S. 

Schafer. Theodore 

Schell, Natalie 

Schierbaum, Clara 

Schindler, Franz 

Schmidt, Frank M. 

Schmidt, John J.G.C 

282.670 

305,849 

1,149,468 

717.284 

1,004,593 

516,449 

233.441 

343,859 

287.731 

457,591 

510,994 

582,101 

667,739 

559,045 

1,037,058 

327,725 
154 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Schmit, Celesdne 

Leontine 

Schoeppl. Joseph F. 

Schrader, August F., 

and Ophelia 

McCullough 

Schreckengaust, Julia A. 

Schubert. Carl 

Schulze. Charles F. 

Schumacher, Jacob 

Schuman, Julius 

Scott, Charles H. 

Scott. Herman W. 

Scribante, Joseph 

Scully, Harry Francis 

Sebastiano, Domenico 

See, James W. 

Seger, Hiram 

Semonof, Wolf 

Sens. Herman A. 

Severson, Stephen 

Sexton, Edith Ray 

Shane. Carrie 

Shawcross, Samuel 

Shelton, Zelda G. 

Sherman, Amos 

Simril, Miles G. 

Sinnott, W., and 

J. McNaughton 

Sipe, Thalia E. 

Sipperly, David N. 

Skrell. Joseph 

Smith, Mrs. E. P. 

Smith, F. B. 

Smith, John 

Smith, Prudence A. 

Smith, William 

Smith. William E. 

Smoot, Charles Head 

Snyder. Charles W. 

Sobotker, Paul E., and 

David H. Ackerman 

Sole, Frank D. 

Sorenson, Rasmus A. 

Spevacek, Vaclav 

Spilman. Peter 

Stace. W. R. 

Stahl, E. 

Stahl, Edward 

Starr, N. B. 

Start, May A. 

Start, S. S., and Mary 

A. S.Johnson 

Start. Sampson S., and 

Mary A. Start Johnson 

Stearns, Elvira 

Steiner, Carl A. 

Stevenson, J. W. 

Stillman. Millicent M. 

1,200,035 

874,997 

834,762 

129,603 

411,686 

945,814 

353,508 

1,168,431 

1,177,901 

584,413 

537,127 

1,121,410 

435,714 

651,208 

369.080 

2,590 

4,367 

1,144.071 

389,327 

(15 Mar 1826) 

938,280 

451,979 

101,052 

641,411 

283 

4,923 

79,083 

497,503 

3,160 

1,053,323 

137,967 

164,943 

130,161 

460.282 

367.455 

101,390 

1,087,992 

546,199 

1,045,449 

798,223 

1,261,452 

1,123,031 

11,339 

20.826 

376,558 

410.383 

(10 July 1826) 

251,963 

510.942 

545,139 

405,614 

182,968 

453,923 

847,844 

Stillwell, S. B. 

Stocker. Amos 

Stockman, Terissa I. 

Stoker, Amos 

Storey, James R. 

Story, Francis. See 

John P. Barnett. 

Subera, Harry W. 

Suzuki, George K. 

Sweezy, George P. 

Takahashi. Tsutomu 

Taylor, Anna Bell 

Taylor. David Jackson 

Taylor, Hiram H. 

Taylor, Mary A. 

Taylor, Mary C, assigned 

one-half to Samuel 

Taylor 

Taylor, Samuel. See 

Mary C Taylor. 

Ten Eyck, M. C 

Tentler, Aaron A. 

Terry. Reed A. 

Thompson, Ethan O. 

Thompson. Reinard 

Tierney, Catharine A. 

Tierney.D. 

Tiffany. G. E. 

Tiffany. George S. 

Tight, Jennie C 

Tilden, Thomas E. 

Tilney, William DeCaux 

Titchell, Joseph 

Tomaselli, Antonio 

Towsley, Kathryn, and 

Irving S. 

Tripp, Frances A. 

Trochu. Athanase 

Truhan, Michael 

Tucek, Marie 

Turner, M. M. 

Ullrich, Friedrich H. 

Ulrich, Jean 

Valentine, Gustaf V. 

Van Dame, J. R. 

Van Dame, John R. 

Van Derworp. Anna M. 

Vandoren, Theodore, Sr. 

Vaughn, Archer 

Veitch, William 

Venner, William 

4,083 

15,824 

400.504 

7,402 

AI95 

[7402] 

537.132 

552.976 

185,842 

1,046,674 

89,091 

109,076 

1,288,279 

648.714 

266.919 

594.443 

1,173.226 

234,821 

1,155,690 

168,936 

1,944 

931,896 

200,779 

860,773 

322,402 

78,338 

164,343 

932,649 

822,874 

1,880 

165.383 

991,103 

959,972 

1.272.729 

394.524 

483.271 

890.472 

532.613 

600,050 

622.092 

46,409 

167.957 

169,744 

765,691 

708,506 

887,890 

613.095 

618.387 

790,333 

593,555 

72,432 

586,406 

517,079 

185,412 

Venner, William G. 

Veret, Peter F. L. 

Viau, Benjamin 

Virtue, Edward 

Wachter. Anton 

Wakefield, Ernest 

Walker, Kate 

Walkie, Jennie 

Wallace, William 

Walquist, Andrew N. 

Ward, Ada 

Ward, Allen 

Waterman, Albert 

Watson, Cooper K. See 

James Henderson. 

Watters, Edward C 

Watt, Thomas 

Webster, Frank D. 

Webster, Ursula L. 

Weesner, Forest W. See 

David Cohen. 

Weidel. Joseph A. 

Weiler. Sigmond G. 

Weir. John 

Wells, William T. 

Wendorf, William 

West, J. B. 

Westcott, Benjamin F. 

Weston, James M. 

Wetmore. Fannie 

White. J. H. 

Whiting, Marie E.M. See 

George F. Parker. 

Wickersham, Angeline P. 

Widland, Theodore 

Wiggins, Thomas H. 

William. I. 

Williams, Daniel 

Williams, William R. 

Wilson, Harry C 

Wilson, James G. 

Wilson, Josephine Sarah 

Windle. Susan R. 

Wingate, Julia P. 

Wiswell, Andrew 

Wiswell, William M. 

458,263 

2,640 

487,801 

8,600 

383,926 

744,826 

765,407 

254,074 

452,090 

284,783 

1,014,542 

1,002,613 

(16Jun 1821) 

5,234X 

(7 Jan 1835) 

415 

4,327 

843,378 

1,096,975 

1,108,040 

1,114,658 

4,975 

943.130 

200,234 

981,043 

1,163,874 

358,903 

8,895 

1.042,063 

45,780 

719,924 

19,271 

110,097 

626,258 

242,240 

1,198,499 

507,054 

602,117 

7,591X 

1,136 

REll 

[7,591X] 

AI31 

[1.136] 

660,175 

664,700 

690,214 

4,687X 

7,566X 

375,972 

76,128 

204,120 

7,112X 

256 

1,119 
NUMBER 42 

Wolff, Rudolph G. 

Woolman, Hester A. See 

Edwin Zachariah Lesh. 

Woolson, H. H. 

Woolson, Harry H. 

Wuerfel, Augusta J. 

456,184 

225,678 

909,046 

364,620 

Wuerfel, Julia 

Wurtzel, Abraham 

Yates, S. W. 

Yunkers, Edward H. 

Zaino, Adolph 

196,615 

988,683 

403,404 

1,183,942 

999,425 

Zech. Dorothy 

Zenith Manufacturing 

Company. See Edward 

P. Follett. 

Zwisler, James. Jr. 

155 

1,260.849 

9,860X 

(Mfifimdm^JF 

Tables of Geographic Distribution 

TABLE A.—Distribution by state of instruction books at Library of Congress, arranged by decade (cities 

considered separately are not included in state data; sequence of data shows number of publications 

giving instructions for women's garments followed, in parentheses, by a total that includes booklets 

concerned with, but not predominantly for. women's attire; data derived from Appendix I, periodicals 

excluded) 

State 1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 1900-09 1910-19 

Alabama 

California 

Connecticut 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Chicago 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Boston 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

New Jersey 

New York State 

New York City 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia 

Rhode Island 

Texas 

Vermont 

Washington, D.C. 

Wisconsin 

1(1) 

(1) 

1(1) 

(1) 

(1) 1(2) 

(1) 

1(2) 

1(1) 

(1) 

1(1) 

(1) 

2(2) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

6(6) 

1(2) 

(12) 

(1) 

7(7) 

-

1(1) 

4(4) 

16(18) 

2(2) 

(2) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

-

1(1) 

1(1) 

2(2) 

6(6) 

6(6) 

2(2) 

5(9) 

-

-

4(4) 

20(21) 

12(13) 

-

-

1(1) 

4(4) 

2(2) 

-

2(2) 

1(1) 

3(3) 

1(1) 

(1) 

-

(1) 

1(1) 

15(17) 

-

1(1) 

1(1) 

-

1(1) 

-

-

-

3(3) 

1(1) 

2(2) 

6(7) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

10(11) 

(1) 

-

-

1(1) 

3(3) 

-

1(1) 

1(1) 

4(4) 

1(1) 

-

-

-

-

1(1) 

4(5) 

-

-

-

-

1(1) 

-

-

-

1(1) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

-

-

-

1(1) 

10(13) 

-

-

-

-

1(1) 

-

-

-

-

1(1) 

-

2(2) 

-

1(1) 

2(2) 

2(3) 

-

2(2) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3(3) 

-

-

(1) 

11(11) 

-

1(1) 

1(1) 

1(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

1(1) 
156 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TABLE B.—Distribution by state of U.S. patents that are related to drafdng systems for assorted 

clothing, arranged by decade (cities considered separately are not included in state data; sequence of 

data shows, first, the number of patents related to systems designed for drafdng exclusively men's 

garments, second, the number for women's garments, and finally, in parentheses, a total of these two 

categories plus patents not classified under either of them; data from Appendix III) 

State 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Illinois 

Chicago 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Boston 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New York State 

New York City 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

Washington, D.C. 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 

0,0(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.0(1) 

-

1,0(1) 

0.0(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0(1) 

1,0(2) 

-

-

-

-

1.0(4) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.0(1) 

1,0(1) 

-

1,0(1) 

-

-

-

-

2,0(2) 

2,0(2) 

2,0(3) 

4.0(5) 

3.0(3) 

-

-

3.0(5) 

1,0(2) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1(3) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

-

0.1(1) 

2.0(2) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

1,0(1) 

7,0(7) 

3,0(3) 

3,0(3) 

-

-

2,0(2) 

1.1(2) 

-

2,0(2) 

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

3,0(3) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

5,1(6) 

1,0(1) 

0,0(1) 

-

-

1,0(1) 

1.0(1) 

-

1,0(1) 

-

1,0(1) 

-

-

-

2,0(2) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,1(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2(3) 

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

-

-

0,2(2) 

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

1,3(4) 

6.1(7) 

2,3(5) 

-

-

-

3,0(3) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0(2) 

-

1,0(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,1(1) 

-

-

-

1,0(2) 

0,3(3) 

2,1(4) 

0,0(1) 

-

0,1(1) 

-

0.0(1) 

2,0(2) 

0,5(5) 

4,1(6) 

1,1(2) 

1,1(2) 

4,0(5) 

-

-

1,0(1) 

4,1(6) 

6,1(7) 

4,1(5) 

-

-

2,0(2) 

1.2(3) 

-

0,1(1) 

-

1.0(1) 

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

-

2,0(2) 

1,0(1) 

-

1880-89 

-

0.2(2) 

-

5,3(8) 

-

-

-

0.1(1) 

-

3,0(5) 

3,2(5) 

0,3(4) 

2,3(7) 

-

1,0(1) 

-

0,3(3) 

1,1(2) 

1.0(2) 

1,4(5) 

0,1(1) 

0,2(2) 

1,1(2) 

0,1(1) 

0,1(1) 

2,0(2) 

1.3(6) 

1,13(16) 

3,1(4) 

-

0,2(2) 

2,0(4) 

4,7(12) 

0,1(1) 

-

-

-

0,0(1) 

-

1.1(2) 

-

-

0,1(1) 

1.0(1) 

0,2(4) 

1890-99 

-

-

1,0(1) 

0,1(1) 

-

-

0,1(1) 

0,1(1) 

-

3,0(3) 

10,8(19) 

0,3(4) 

2,3(5) 

0.1(1) 

-

1.2(3) 

0,2(2) 

2,0(3) 

3,6(9) 

0,1(2) 

1,5(8) 

2,3(6) 

3,1(4) 

-

0,2(2) 

3.1(4) 

5,4(9) 

4.14(19) 

1,5(6) 

-

-

1,2(3) 

1,1(2) 

-

-

0.1(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

1,0(1) 

2,0(2) 

-

1.2(4) 

1900-09 1910-19 

-

-

-

0,1(2) 

0,3(4) 

-

0,0(1) 

-

1.0(1) 

-

3,8(15) 

0,2(3) 

0.3(3) 

0,2(3) 

-

-

0,4(4) 

1.1(2) 

4,2(6) 

0,2(3) 

0.2(2) 

0,1(1) 

1,3(5) 

1,5(6) 

0.1(1) 

1,0(3) 

0,4(6) 

6,16(25) 

0,1(2) 

-

-

1,2(4) 

3,2(9) 

0.0(1) 

-

0,0(1) 

-

0.0(2) 

0,1(1) 

-

-

1,0(1) 

2,0(3) 

-

0,0(2) 

-

-

-

1,5(10) 

0,1(1) 

1,1(4) 

-

-

-

1,1(2) 

5.2(10) 

1,1(2) 

0,0(1) 

-

-

1,1(2) 

-

1,0(3) 

0,2(5) 

0,1(2) 

1.0(1) 

1,0(1) 

0,6(9) 

0,1(2) 

-

1,3(6) 

2,1(9) 

4,5(12) 

0,1(2) 

0,0(2) 

1,0(1) 

6,2(9) 

2,0(4) 

0,0(1) 

-

-

-

-

-

— 

-

2,0(3) 

0,0(1) 

2,2(4) 
JjteMtmeiAted 

A. McDowell & Co. See McDowell & Co.. A. 

Ackermann, R. See Repository of Arts ... . 

Altman & Co., B. See B. Altman &: Co. 

"American Lady' 

1844 The Ladies' Hand-book of Millinery and Dressmaking, 

with Plain Instructions for Making the Most Useful Articles of Dress and Attire. New York: J. S. Redfield. 

Arnold, Janet 

1964. Patterns of Fashion: Englishwomen's Dresses and Their 

Construction c.1660—1860. London: Wace and 

Company. 

1973. A Handbook of Costume. London: MacMillan. 

B. Altman & Co Catalogue (Fall and Winter 1888-1889), number 58. 

Bayne, J. Reid 

1883. Bayne's Self-Instruction Book for Dress Cutting by the 

French Glove-fitting Tailor System, by Exact Measure: A 

Manual for the Use of Bayne's Paris Scale. New York: 

Privately printed. 

Bellas Hess 6f Co. Catalogue (Fall and Winter 1912-1913). 

Le Bon Ton (Jul 1857); (Dec 1858); (Nov 1860); (Nov 1861). 

Buddington, Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

1887. Supplement Studies for Those Using the Buddington Dress 

Cutting Machine. Chicago: Privately printed. 

1896. Irutruction Book for Using the Buddington Improved 

Dress Cutting Machine with Dart Attachment for Cutting 

French Bias Basque, Enlarging Darts, etc. 1st edition. 

Chicago: Privately printed. 

Burke, Edmund. See U.S. Patent Office. 

Butterick & Co., E. See E. Butterick & Co. 

Butterick's Quarterly Advertiser (Fall 1867). 

Chappell, James H. 

1839. The Patent Transfer System of Measuring and Delineating Garments, with the Transfer Ellipsis. Philadelphia: 

Privately printed. 

1853. The Graduated Delineator. Pennsylvania: Privately 

printed. [Uncatalogued sheet of paper. 57.2 x 57.2 

cm, in Prints and Photographs Division, Library of 

Congress.] 

Chapelle. Howard I. 

1967. The Search for Speed under Sail 1700-1855. New 

York: W. W. Norton & Company. 

Clave, Jusdn 

1859. To the Ladies: New Geometrical Method; or, Easy and 

Infallible Manner of Taking the Measure, Drafting and 

Cutting Dresses of Ladies . . . According to a System of 

Proportions Adapted to the Human Body. Philadelphia: 

Privately printed. [The Library of Congress 

catalogued this single sheet of paper as a book; it is, 

in fact, a perforated tool for a proportional system.] 

Cornwell, Willett 

1885. Cornwell's New Improved Self Fitting Chart and Sleeve 

System for Cutting Ladies', Misses', and Children's Dresses 

Cloaks, Basques, and Postillions. Chicago: Privately 

printed. 

The Delineator (Aug 1901), volume 58(2). 

Demorest's . . ., Mme. See Mme. Demorest's . . . 

Demorest's Monthly Magazine (Jun 1872), volume 8(6); (Jun 1876), 

volume 12(6); (Dec 1876), volume 12(12); (Aug 

1876), volume 12(8). [Issued under various titles including Demorest's Illustrated Monthly. ] 

Diderot. Denis 

1776—1777. Supplement a I'Encyclopedie, ou Dictionnaire Raisonne 

des Sciences, des Arts et des Metiers ... . Amsterdam: 

M. M. Rey 

E. Butterick Ssf Co. 's Celebrated Patterns of Garments for Ladies, 

Misses, Boys, Little Children of Both Sexes, and for 

Gentlemen's Shirts (1869?). 

E. Butterick & Co. 's Illustrated Catalogue of Patterns (Spring and 

Summer 1876). 

The Elite Dressmaker and Milliner (Mar 1878), volume 2(8). 

Garsault, M. de 

1769. L'Art du tailleur. Descriptions des arts et metiers, 

volume 31. Paris: Academie des Sciences. 

Gartland. Elizabeth 

1884. The Original American Lady Tailor System. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

Giles. Edward B. 

1887. The History of the Ari of Cutting in England, Preceded by 

a Sketch of the History of English Costumes. London: 

F.T. Prewett. Messers. Kent 8c Co., and Jno. J. 

Mitchell & Co. [An important publication used in 

preparing this monograph not only for quotations 

for cited sources (Hearn, 1818 and 1823; Minister. 

1820; and Society of Adepts, 1796) which were not 

available otherwise, but for much general information about the art of tailoring in England in the 

early 19th century.] 

Godey's Lady's Book (Sep 1851), volume 43; (Feb 1854), volume 

48(16); (May 1854), volume 48(19); (Jun 1854), volume 48(20); (Feb 1855), volume 50; (Jul 1855), volume 51. 

Harper's Bazar (2 Nov 1867). volume 1(1); (12 Dec 1868), volume 1(59); (7 May 1870). volume 3(19); (21 Oct 

1871). volume 4(42); (22 Feb 1873), volume 6(8); 

(19 Jan 1884). volume 17(3); (5 Jul 1884). volume 

17(27). 

Hearn. Mr. 

1818. Rudiments of Cutting, with an Easy Guide to the Use of 

the Tape Inch Measure. England. [Reported in Giles, 

1887:92-99.] 

1823. Rudiments of Cutting with an Easy Guide to the Use of the 

Tape Inch Measure. 5th edition. England. [Reported 

in Giles, 1887:100-117.] 

157 
158 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Hecklinger. Charles 

1886. Hecklinger's Ladies' Garments, a Text Book: How to Cut 

and Make Ladies' Garments ... . New York: Privately printed. 

Holbrook 8c Co. 

1870. Zebina Holbrook's Universal Dress Cutting Chart for Cutting Ladies' Dresses tsf Children's Clothes. Massachusetts: 

Privately printed. [Uncatalogued sheet of heavy paper, 78.1 X 63.2 cm, in Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.] 

Hubert, Philip C , Jr. 

1894. Occupations for Women. The Woman's Book, volume 

1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 

Hummel, Charles F. 

1968. With Hammer in Hand: The Dominy Craftsmen of East 

Hampton, New York. Charlottesville: The University 

Press of Virginia. [Published for The Henry Francis 

du Pont Winterthur Museum.] 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A. 

1863. Mrs. D. A. Inwood's Book of Irutructions for Her Five 

Measure System of Dress Cutting, for Cutting Ladies' and 

Children's Dresses, Basques, Boy's Clothing, and Gentlemen's Shirts. Boston: Privately printed. 

Jackson, Louisa L. 

1876. The Science and Geometry of Dress: Being a Complete 

Manual of Irutruction in the Art of Designing, Drafting 

and Cutting Ladies' and Children's Wearing 

Apparel.... Indianapolis: Privately printed. 

Johnson. Jacob 

1807. The Book of Trades or Library of the Useful Arts, First 

American Edition. Volume 3. Philadelphia and 

Richmond: Jacob Johnson. 

Jones, Amanda 

1822. The Taylor's Assistant and Family's Director Comprising 

Rules and Directions for Cutting Men's Clothes by the 

Square Rule. Middlebury: Privately printed. 

fournal des Demoiselles (Sep 1876), volume 44. 

Kidwell, Claudia B. 

1976. Bicentennial Outlook: Riches, Rags, and Inbetween. Historic Preservation, 28(3):28—33. 

Kidwell, Claudia B., and Margaret C Christman 

1974. Suiting Everyone: The Democratization of Clothing in 

America. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

The Lady's Book (May 1839). 

The Lady's Magazine (Jul 1834), series 4, volume 6. 

Lerner, Gerda 

1973. The Lady and die Mill Girl: Changes in the Status of 

Women in the Age of Jackson. Women and Womanhood in America, pages 90-102. Lexington. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. 

Lord & Taylor Catalogue (1881) number 26 [reprinted in 1971 as 

Clothing and Furnishings, Lord & Taylor 1881, 

Princeton: The Pyne Press]; (Spring and Summer 

1883), number 30. 

McAllister & Brother 

1855. Illustrated Catalogue of Optical, Mathematical, and 

Philosophical Instruments, for Sale by McAllister i^ 

Brother, Opticians ... . Philadelphia: Privately 

printed. 

McCall, James 

1882. Irutruction Book for the French and English Systems of 

Cutting, Fitting, and Basting. New York: Privately 

printed. [Three secdons ("Series") with separate 

pagination were issued in one volume.] 

McCall's Bazar Glove Fitting Patterns (Fall and Winter 

1884-1885). 

McDowell & Co., A. 

1892? Madame Dorvaux's Experience: How She Became an Expert in Cutting and Fitting. New York: A. McDowell & 

Co. [Advertising leaflet.] 

McDowell Garment Drafting Machine Co. 

1883. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacks, Coats, etc. by the Garment Drafting Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. New 

York: Privately printed. 

1891. Instruction Book for Drafting and Cutting Dresses, 

Basques, Sacques, Coats, etc., by the Garment Drafting 

Machine, As Invented and Patented by A. McDowell. 

[Revised.] New York: Privately printed. 

McMillen. Mrs. H. 

1864. The American Delineator. Clyde, Ohio: Privately 

printed. [Perforated drafting tool.] 

Mallison, Mme. E. W. 

1886. Dress Making Reduced to a Science: The Eclectic LadyTailor System of Dress Cutting. Washington, D.C: Privately printed. 

Marzio. Peter C 

1976. The Art Crusade: An Analysis of American Drawing 

Manuals, 1820—1860. Smithsonian Studies in History 

and Technology, 34: 94 pages. 

Melder, Keith E. 

1972. Woman's High Calling: The Teaching Profession in 

America, 1830-1860. American Studies, 13:19-32. 

The Metropolitan (Feb 1872); (May 1872). 

Minier. Dr. E. P. 

1857. Self-Teaching Dress Making System: Science Applied to 

Dress Cutting, the Art Perfected, Simplified and Reduced, 

in the Process of Drafting, to Mathematical Precision, 

Accompanied with Copious Illustratioru and Examples, 

with Full and Perfect Directions for Self-Irutruction. 2nd 

edidon. Cincinnati: Privately printed. 

Minister, Edward 

1820. System of the Art of Cutting. [Reported in Giles, 

1887:131-133.] 

Mirror of Fashion (Feb 1849), volume 11. 

Moschcowitz Bros. 

1884. Instructioru in Dressmaking, Basting, and Fitting, as Set 

Forth by the Moschcoudtz Model Waist Lining. New York: 

Privately printed. 

Mme. Demorest's What to Wear (Fall and Winter 1877-78). 

Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of Fashion (Fall 1861); (Summer 

1864). 

Noland, Joseph H. 

1861. The Scye and Anatomical Survey System of Delineating the 

Human Form. Privately printed. [Uncatalogued sheet 

of paper, 95.2 x 63.5 cm, in Prints and Photographs 

Division, Library of Congress.] 

Norman, Mrs. N. R. 

1881. Lessons on Centennial Patterns No. 4: Norman System 

Improved 1881. St. Louis: Privately printed. 

Palmer, Mrs. E. E. 

1886. Irutructions in Dress Cutting Complete, with Diagrams 
NUMBER 42 159 

Explaining Every Pattern, toBe Used Expressly for the Gem 

Tailor System ... . Baraboo, Wisconsin: Privately 

printed. 

1892. Instructioru in Dress Cutting with Diagrams, etc.. Complete, to Be Used Expressly for the Gem Tailor's System of 

Cutting. Revised edition. Chicago: Privately printed. 

Peterson's Magazine (Mar 1855), volume 27(31); (May 1876), volume 69(5). 

Le Petit Messager, Modes de Paris (Feb 1867), volume 2(2). 

Peyry, Jean B. 

1904. Irutructions [sic] Book with Diagrarru and Designs for the 

Conformateur and Systeme Metrique for Cutting Ladies', 

Children's and Gentlemen's Garments, New Edition for 

Ladies' and Children's Garments. New Orleans: Privately printed. 

Phelps, Mr. and Mrs. B. T. 

1883. Instructioru for Using the Excelsior Square, a Glove Fitting 

System for Ladies' and Children's Garments. 2nd edition. 

Bellows Falls, Vermont: Privately printed. 

Powell & Kohler 

1868. Powell & Kohler's Practical System for Cutting A ll Kinds 

of Garments, Especially Designedfor the Use of Dressmakers and Private Families. Cincinnati: Powell & Kohler. 

Queen, James, and William Lapsley 

1809. The Taylors' Instructor, or A Comprehensive Analysis, of 

the Elements of Cutting Garments, of Every 

Kind ... . Philadelphia: Privately printed. [The authors' revision of the 1796 London publication by the 

Society of Adepts.] 

Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and 

Politics (Apr 1810), volume 3(17); (Jul 1814), volume 

12(67). [Published by R. Ackermann.] 

S. T. Taylor Co. See Taylor, S. T., Co. 

Smith, A. Burdette 

1877—1888. Catalogue of A. Burdette Smith's Patterns (Fall 

and Winter). New York: Privately printed. 

Society of Adepts in the Profession 

1796. The Taylor's Complete Guide, or a Comprehensive Analysis 

of Beauty and Elegance in Dress, Containing Rules for 

Cutting All Garments of Every Kind.... London: 

Society of Adepts in the Profession. [Reported in 

Giles (1887:79-87), who felt this was the first work 

on a cutting technique for tailors to be published in 

England. No evidence to refute his opinion has been 

found. Although the unorganized and vague characteristics of the directions disqualify this 1796 method 

from being called a system, the publication serves as 

proof that there was a desire or need for precise 

cutting procedures. This work was used by Queen 

and Lapsley as the basis for their 1809 Philadelphia 

publication.] 

Stem Brothers' Catalogue (Spring and Summer 1898), number 92. 

Stone, Charles J. 

1901. New Superlative System of Cutting Ladies' Garments Based 

upon a Scientific, Sure, and Simple Method. Chicago: 

The Chas. J. Stone Co. Cutting School. 

Tabart & Co. 

1804. The Book of Trades. London: Tabart 8c Co. [First 

American edition published by Jacob Johnson. 

Philadelphia, 1807.] 

Taylor, S. T. 

1875. A System for Cutting Ladies' Dresses, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor.... New York: Sarah E. Taylor. 

1877. A System for Cutting Ladies' Garments, Invented by S. T. 

Taylor ... . New York: Sarah E. Taylor. 

1896. 5. T. Taylor's System of Dress Cutting. New York: S. T. 

Taylor Co. 

Taylor, S. T. Co. 

1911. Irutruction Book with DiagramsJor S. T. Taylor's System of 

Cutting Ladies' Garments. New York: S. T. Taylor Co. 

Tentler, Aaron 

1842. A New System for Measuring and Cutting Ladies' Dresses, 

Cloaks, Collars, Capes, Yokes, ^c, with an Arithmetical 

Table, for Which the Author Received a Patent from the 

United States, fanuary 23, 1841. Philadelphia: Privately printed. 

U.S. Bureau of Census 

1883. Report on the Manufactures of the United States. 

10th Census, 1880, volume 2. 

1895. Report on Manufacturing Industries in the United 

States, llth Census, 1890, volume 6, part 2. 

1902. Manufactures. 12th Census, 1900, volumes 8, 9. 

1913. Manufactures, 1909. Thirteenth Decennial Census: 

1910, volumes 8, 10. 

1923. Manufactures, 1919. Fourteenth Decennial Census: 

1920, volumes 8, 9. 

U.S. Patent Office [All U.S. patents cited herein are listed in 

Appendix III.] 

1847. List of Patents for Inventioru and Designs Issued by the 

United States from 1770 to 1847 . . . Compiled and 

Published under the Direction of Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents. Washington: Printed by J. & G. S. 

Gideon. [Known popularly as "Burke's 1847 Index"; 

microfilm copy in U.S. Archives.] 

Vienna Ladies' Tailoring Institute 

1905? Artistic Ladies' Tailor System. New York: Vienna 

Ladies' Tailoring Institute. 

Waller, T. 

1747. A General Description of A ll Trades Digested in A Iphabetical Order: by Which Parent, Guardians, and Trustees, 

May with Greater Ease and Certainty, Make Choice of 

Trades Agreeable to the Capacity, Education, Inclination, 

Strength, and Fortune of the Youth under Their Care. 

London: T. Waller. 

Waugh, Norah 

1964. The Cut of Men's Clothes 1600-1900. London: Faber 

and Faber. 

1969. The Cut of Women's Clothes 1600-1930. New York: 

Theatre Arts Books. 

Williams, D. 

1842. The Columbian System, for Cutdng Garments, 

Regulated Stricdy by Measurement, &c. The Tailors' 

Magazine, 4:37—57. 

Wilson, James A. 

1880. The Science of Dress Cutting by the Wilson Method of Inch 

Measurement San Jose: Privately printed. 

Wilson, James G. 

1827. Report of the Present Fashions, with the Square Rules and 

Variations to Fit the Human Shape. New York: Privately 

printed. 

Zenith Manufacturing Co. 

1904. Instructioru for Using Zenith Impression System of Garment Drafting. Rochester: Zenith Manufacturing Co. 
(References to figure numbers in italics) 

Ackermann's Repository of Arts. See Repository of Arts 

Adjustable drafting tools for dressmakers, 2, 35, 53-68. 24a, 

25, 26, 39a,b, 40, 44 

Agents for dressmakers' drafdng systems: discussed. 77-80, 

52, 54; mendoned, 74, 85 

"Age of Enlightenment," 6 

Alabama, Montgomery, 91 

Amateur sewer. See Dressmaker, amateur 

"The American Delineator," 27 

"The American Dress Chart," 31 

Antoinette, Marie, 13 

Apportioning. 74 

Appordoning scale: discussed. 33, 35, 39, 47, 50. 53. 36, 48c; 

mentioned, 2 

Apprentice: tailor's, 4, 8; dressmaker's. 20 

"L'Art du tailleur," 2, 4, 8, 9 

B. Altman & Co., 9, 65 

Basques: defined, 3; mentioned, 49. 50. 53. 55, 71. 81. 88. 99, 

31, 55, 59, 65 

Bayne. J. Reid, 50-53 . 37 

Bazar Cut Paper Patterns, 85-86. 62. See also McCall, James 

Bellas Hess is' Co. Catalogue, 67 

Bias scales. 33 

Le Bon Ton, 2, 21, 44. See also Taylor, S. T. 

"Bon Ton Dress Chart," 33 

The Book of Trades, 3. 11 

Buddington, Mr. and Mrs. F. E.. 55-68. 44 

"Buddington Dress Cutting Machine,' 55 

Butterick, Ebenezer, 83. See also E. Butterick & Company 

Canada: country, 35, 68; Montreal. 68; Fennels, 79 

Canvassers, 79 

Carpenter's tools. 2. 6, 16, 21 

Chappell. James H., 33 

"Chemise de la Reine," 13 

Clave, Jusdn, 26, 80, 17 

Compass. 31 

"Conformateur and System Metrique," 47 

Copyright. 2-3 , 75 

"Coraco Eugenie," 14 

Cornwell. Willett, 1, 24. 75, 77. 79-80, 49a,b, 50 

Couturiere, mautresse. 3. 11 - 12, S, 9. See also Measure, used by 

maitresse couturiere 

Covert. 5^^ Russel 8c Covert 

Cox 8c Minton, publishers of "American Dress Chart," 31, 20 

Curtis, Ellen Louise, 74. See also Demorest, Madame 

Curved edged dressmaker's drafdng tools, 2, 31, 33. 35, 39, 47. 

50, 53, 54, 65, 75. 21, 22a,b, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39a,b, 40, 

41a,b, 42a-c, 43a-d, 44, 48c, 49a,b 

Curved ruler, 32 

Curves: aids for drawing, 31-32; French, 31 

Curve scale, 74 

"Curve Scale," 48c 

Cutter, 3, 4. 30, 91-93 , 100, 43c 

Cutdng, 3 

da Vinci. Leonardo. See Vinci. Leonardo da 

Demorest, Madame: person, 74, 51, 55; drafting system, 77. 

80-81 , 83; patterns, 81-83 , 90. 99. 56, 57. See also Demorest's Monthly Magazine; Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of 

Fashion; Mme. Demorest's What to Wear 

Demorest, William J., 74. See Demorest, Madame 

Demorest's Illustrated Monthly. See Demorest's Monthly Magazine 

Demorest's Monthly Magazine, 8\, 51 

Description of All Trades, 4. 11 

"Developing Pattern," 32 

Discourses on the Fine Arts, 7 

"Dress Chart." 35 

"Dress Cutdng Machine," 35. 24a,b. See also Plant, John B. 

Dressmaker: discussed. 74, 77. 79, 80,34, 38, 43c, 52c; male, 85. 

See also Apprentice; Carpenter's tools; Couturiere, maitresse; Dressmaking; Mantua-maker; Seamstress 

Dressmaking. See also Couturiere, maitresse; Dressmaker 

—amateur, 1. 2, 80-81 . 90. 93, 103 

—professional: trade. 1, 2, 16-20. 45, 74, \03, Frontispiece, 11, 

31, 38, 55, see also Dressmaker, Fashion changes. Pin-to-theform; use of drafting system, 1, 20, 25, 45, 80, 81. 90-93 , 

101-102, 103; tools other than specialized drafdng tools, see 

Curves, Patterns, Tape measure, Tracing wheel, Yardstick 

Dress Making Reduced to a Science; The Eclectic Lady-Tailor System of 

Dress Cutting, 50 

"Dress Model," 51 

Duncan. Lillian, 55, 91, 43a—d. See also "McDowell Garment 

Drafdng Machine" 

Duval, Marie E., 90. See also "Dress Cutting Machine'' 

E. Butterick 8c Company, 83-85. 90. 99, 58, 59, 60 

Eckhart. Emma, 55, 90. 63 

The Eclectic Lady-Tailor System of Dress Cutting, 31. See also Mallison, Mme. E. W. 

1876 Internadonal Exhibition, 77, 83, 28, 50, 51 

Elliptic Sewing Machines, 85 

Empire style, 13 

"Emporium of Fashions." 51, 55. See also Demorest, Madame 

England: country, 3, 4, 6. 7. 18, 21, 30; London, 7, 85; Manchester. 85 

"Excelsior Square.' 36. See also Phelps, Brigham Thomas 

Fashion changes: effects on tailor's trade, 6. 41; effects on 

dressmaking trade. 12, 13, 16-18, 45. 93; creadngneed for 

dressmakers' drafdng systems, 20, 35, 99, 101; effects on 

dressmakers' drafdng systems, 28-30, 35, 44, 54, 55, 75, 80, 

81, 100, 102, 103; effects on ready-made industry, 98, 67 

Fashion plates, 13-16, 18, 5, 10, 12, 13, 30 

Fitter, 68 

160 
NUMBER 42 161 

Follett, Edward P., 74. See also Zenith Manufacturing Company 

Fowler, creator of early system. 21 — 24, 25 

Fowler, Abraham, 24 

Fowler, Henry, 24 

Fowler, James, 24 

Fowler, John, 24 

Fowler, Lorenzo Niles. 24 

Fowler, Lydia Folger, 24 

Fowler, Mahlon, 24 

Fowler, O.S. & L.N.. 25 

Fowler, Orson Squire, 24-2 5 

Fowler, Rennels, 24 

Fowler, Simeon L., 24 

Fowler, William, 24 

Fowler and Wells, 24, 25 

Fowler's Theorem. 24, 25 

France: country, 7, 68; Paris, 13. 44, 68. 85, 30 

Frazier, Mrs. H. L., 91 

French curves. 31. See also Curves 

French dressmakers. 74 

Garsault, M. de, 3, 12. 2, 4, 8, 9 

Gardand. Elizabeth, 45 

Giles, Edward B., 31 

Godey, Louis A., 13 

Godey's Lady's Book, 2, 13, 16. 20, 80-81 , 13, 14 

Greece, Athens, 7 

Guilds, 3 

Hand tailor's tool, 31 

Harper's Bazar, 77, 85, 52 

Harroun, Elmira, 75. See also Cornwell. Willett 

Hearn. Mr., creator of early tailors' drafdng systems, 9 

Hecklinger, Charles, Frontispiece 

Herculaneum, 7 

Home sewer. See Dressmaking, amateur 

Horse shoes, 31 

Howe, Elias, Jr., 61. See also Sewing machine 

How to Cut and Make Ladies' Garments, Frontispiece 

Illinois, Chicago, 74, 99, 102 

Immigrants, 20 

"Impression System.' 48a—c 

"Improved Dress Cutting Machine," 68. See also Buddington, 

Mr. and Mrs. F. E. 

Indentures, 4 

Indiana: Danville, 31, 20; Richmond, 47, 32 

Inwood, Mrs. D. A., 77-7 8 

Italy, 7 

Jackson, Andrew, 99 

Jackson, Louisa L., 47, 75, 32, 33 

Kansas, Topeka, 33, 22a,b 

Kohler. See Powell & Kohler 

The Ladies' Hand Book, 80 

Ladies' Report of New York Fashions, 83 

The Lady's Book. See Godey's Lady's Book 

The Lady's Magazine, 12 

Lapsley, William. See Queen, James, and William Lapsley 

Le Brun. Vigee. 13 

Lemmond. William J., 7 

Library of Congress, v, vi. 2-3 , 33, 99, 101, 68 

Lindsay, James, 57 

Lord 8c Taylor, 98, 64 

Louis XIV, 3, 7 

Louisiana. New Orleans, 68 

McCall. James, 85-86, 61, 62 

McDowell. Albert, 53. 54-55, 91, 100,39a,b, 41a,b, 42a-c, 43c. 

See also McDowell 8c Co., A.; "McDowell Garment Drafdng 

Machine"; "McDowell Sleeve Machine' 

McDowell & Co., A., 53, 65, 66. 74, 75, 77, 91, 101,38, 47, 52, 

63. See also McDowell, Albert; "McDowell Garment Drafdng 

Machine"; "McDowell Sleeve Machine" 

"McDowell Garment Drafdng Machine," v, 53-55 . 66, 71, 77, 

90, 101, 38, 42a,b, 43a,d, 52. See also McDowell, Albert; 

McDowell & Co., A. 

McDowell Garment Drafdng Machine Co. See McDowell 8c 

Co.. A. 

"McDowell Sleeve Machine,' 55. 90, 42c, 43b 

McMillen. Mrs. H., 27-28, 18 

Madison, Otis, 9 

Mail order: custom made clothing, 91-93 ; ready-made clothing, 98 

Maine, Biddeford. 35, 39. 24a,b 

Maiitresse couturiere. See couturiere, maitresse 

Mallison, Mme. E. W., 47-49. 90, Frontispiece, 31, 34 

"Man of Perfect Proportion.' 7 

Mantua: defined. 3—4; mentioned. 12 

Mantua-maker. 3-4 , 12, 13. See also Dressmaker; Mantuamaking trade 

Mantua-making trade, 2, 11 — 13. See also Dressmaking, professional; Mantua-maker 

Markley & Son. manufacturer of dressmakers' drafdng system, 

33-35. 22a,b, 23 

Massachusetts: Lawrence, 33. 21; Leominster, 83; Sterling. 83; 

Indian Orchard. 90; Boston, 99, 102, 55 

Measure: used by tailor, 4 — 6, 7. 8; used by maitresse 

couturiere. 11. See also Strips; Tape measure 

Measure book, 90, 28, 36, 40, 63 

"Measurer," 71. 48a 

Measuring tape. See Tape measure 

The Metropolitan, 83. See also E. Butterick & Co. 

Milliners. 79 

Minier. Dr. E. P., 21. 41. 77 

Minister, Edward, 9, 30 

Minton. See Cox 8c Minton 

Mirror of Fashion, 32 

Mme. Demorest's Quarterly Mirror of Fashion, 16, 81,15a,b. See also 

Demorest, Madame 

Mme. Demorest's What to Wear, 83. See also Demorest, Madame 

Moschcowitz, Herman, 85—86 

Moschcowitz, Schamu. 85-86 

Mosher. C E.. 33. 35. 75, 21 

Naval architect, compared to dressmaker, 16-18 

New England states. 68 

"New Geometrical Method," 26 

New Jersey, Jersey City. 57 

New York: New York, 21, 24, 39, 44. 53, 75. 77. 83. 85. 99. 102, 
162 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

27a-c; Rochester, n\,48a-c, 54; Brooklyn,-^irf; Elmira,5i 

Noland, Joseph H., 32. 50 

Norman, Nancy and George, 75 

Ohio: Cincinnad, 21, 30, 77, 19a,b; Clyde, 27, 18 

P. S. Duval &: Son, 26 

Palmer, Mrs. E. E., 74-75 

Patents. See United States Patent Office 

The Patent Transfer System, 33 

Pattern diagrams, 16, 18 

"Pattern Marker." 68, 45 

Patterns: used by tailors, 4, 7. 8, 31; used to cut ready-made 

clothing. 8, 100; not used by Maitresse couturiere, 11; made 

by pin-to-form technique, 13; made from used lining, 13, 

unsized, 16, 18, 44-45 . 81. 99, 15a,b, 54, 55; drafted by 

dressmakers' system, 26, 28, 30, 31. 35, 54, 55, 68. 71. 74. 81, 

86-88,91,57,55; massproduced sized. 81-90, 93, 99, 102, 

103, 104, 51. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 

Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 77. 99. 102, 17, 

45, 46, 51; Allentown, 90, 63; Aquaschicola, 90; Bowmanstown, 90; Carbon, 90; Lehighton, 90; Litde Gap, 90 

Perforated drafdng tools. 2, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31. 33, 35, 39, 47, 

74, 75, 80, 83, 85,16a-c, 17, 18, 20, 22a,b, 23, 24a,b, 32, 33, 

49a,b, 51 

Peterson's Magazine, 13. 16, 86 

Le Petit Messager, 44. See also Taylor, S. T. 

Peyry, Jean B., 68-71 . 47 

Phelps, Brigham Thomas, 50, 53, 36 

Phrenology. 24 

Pin-to-the-form, 13. 16. 18, 93. 11 

Pingat, E., 85 

Plant, Harry N., 39 

Plant, John B., 35-39. 90, 24a,b, 25, 26 

Pollard, A. W., 83. See also E. Butterick 8c Co. 

Pollock, William Bloomer, 68. 46 

Pompeii, 7 

Poole. Margaret Willamina, 74. See also Demorest, Madame 

Powell &: Kohler, creators and manufacturers of dressmakers' 

drafdng systems, 20, 30. 31, 41, 75, 19a,b 

Pre-Tentler system, 21 — 25, 28. See also Tentler. Aaron A. 

Proof measurements, 8, 26, 30 

Proportionable scale. 7, 8 

Proportional theories: used by tailors, 7—9; used in drafdng 

systems for dressmakers, 21, 24, 28. 30. 31; applied to 

ready-made clothing for women, 98 

Queen, James, and William Lapsley, 6, 7, 9 

Ready-made clothing: discussed, 100; men's. 8, 94. 102, 1()3; 

women's. 80, 94-98 . 102- 103, 104,65, 66a, 67; mentioned, 

83, 57 

Repository of Arts, 5, 10 

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 7 

Rhode Island, Pawtucket, 35 

Roorbach, O. A., 85 

Royal Academy, 7 

"The Royal Chart." 85. 61. See also McCall, James 

"Ruler for Cutdng Out Garmets.' 9 

Russell, partner of Moschcowitz brothers, 85 

Russell 8c Covert, seller of McCall's drafdng system, 85 

S. T. Taylor Company, 41, 45. See also Taylor, S. T. 

"S. T. Taylor's System of Dresscutting," 45. See also Taylor, S. T. 

"Scale for Draughting Garments," 9 

School teachers, 79 

Scodand, Glasgow, 85, 61 

Seamstress, 1, 3, 4. 20, 81 

"Self-Fitting System." 75, 49a,b. See also Cornwell. Willett 

Semi-Annual Report of Gentlemens' Fashions, 83. 5^^ also E. 

Butterick &: Co. 

Sewing machine, 20, 79, 80, 85, 31, 53, 61 

Singer, Isaac M., 20. See also Sewing machine 

Sizing systems, I. 104 

Skirt drafdng systems, 35, 71, 93, 25 

Sleeve drafting systems, 25, 35, 49, 50-53 , 55, 71, 75, 23, 26, 

42c 

Slop makers. 7, 8 

Smith, A. Burdette, 86-8 8 

Society of Adepts, 6, 9 

Squares: incorporated into dressmaker's drafting systems, 2, 39, 

41. 49, 50-53 . 103, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43d; 

tailor's, 9, 6, 7. See also Carpenter's tools 

Starr, N. B., 9 

Stern Brother's Catalogue, 66a,b 

Stone, Charles J[ohn], 93 

Strips: used as part of drafting tool, 2. 30, 41,19a,b, 28, 29; used 

for measuring, 24, 27. See also Measure; Tape measure 

Suits, women's, 93 

Tabart 8c Co., 11 

Tailleur, 3 

Tailor: ladies, 93; mentioned, 83. See also Apprentice; Tailoring 

Tailoring: trade, 2, 3, 4-6 , 7-8 , 9, 20-21 , 31, 33, 93,1, 2,3, 4, 

see also Propordonal theories; drafting systems, 2. 7—9, 74, 

98, 6, 7; effect of drafdng systems on dressmaker's drafdng 

systems. 9, 20-21 , 24, 41. 45; tools other than specialized 

drafting tools, see Compass, Curves, Hand tailor's tool. 

Horse shoes. Measure. Patterns, Squares, Tape measure, 

Yardstick 

Tape measure: used by tailor, 2, 7, 8, 9, 7; used by dressmakers 

16, 24, 86. 62; used by dressmaker as part of a drafting 

system, 47-49, 53. 68. 71, 74, 86, 101, 24b, 34 

Taper scale, 35 

Taylor, S. T., 2, 21, 39-45 , 77, 80, 91, 28, 29, 54. See also Le 

Bon Ton; Le Petit Messager; S. T. Taylor Co.; "S. T. Taylor's 

System of Dressmaking" 

Tentler, Aaron A., 21, 25-26, 28, 31, 16a-c. See also PreTender 

Tracing wheel, 43d 

Trade cards, 78, 80, 53, 54, 55, 57 

Trade exhibitions, lb—11 

United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana, 75 

United States Patent Office: patents for drafdng systems, 2, 3, 

75. 99 - 101,6, 7, 16a-c, 32, 36, 39a,b, 41a,b, 42a-c, 45, 46, 

69; mentioned, v 

Vermont, Bellows Falls, 50. 36 

Vienna Ladies Tailoring Institute, 39, 27a-c 

Vinci, Leonardo da, 7 

"W. Cornwell's Chart," 49a. See also Cornwell, Willett 
NUMBER 42 

Washington, D.C, 47, 91, 34 

Wells, Charlotte Fowler, 25 

Wells, Samuel Roberts, 25 

Wickersham, Angeline P., 68, 45 

Wilder, J. W., 83. See also E. Butterick & Co. 

Wilson, James A., 50, 53, 75, 35 

Wilson, James G., 9, 21, 30, 6 

Wisconsin, Baraboo, 74 

Women: education, 2; employment, 18-20, 77-78, 79, 81. See 

also Agents for dressmaker's drafting systems; Dressmaker; 

163 

Couturiere maitresse; Canvasser; Mantua-maker; Milliners; 

School teachers; Seamstress 

The Women's Book, 90 

Woodward and Lothrop, 91 

Worth, Charles Frederick, 85 

Yardstick, 6, 16 

Zaun, Annie C, 91 

Zenith Manufacturing Company, 71-74, 48a-c 

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 O—275-876