Angela – Not Recommended
I knew the moment I opened this pattern and looked at it that there were problems. Serious problems. I know that the SCA highly recommends this company’s patterns for its historical accuracy, and the company itself touts its “uncompromising excellence…”, but as a professional tailor, I beg to differer – at least in the case of this pattern. If you are a novice or beginner sewer, this pattern should not be used – aside from the defects in the drafting (the pattern is computer generated), the directions are not clear, illustrations are scantly used, etc., and for many sewers, clear instructions and illustrations are needed to successfully construct a garment that is relatively difficult.
Granted, theatrical patterns are often taken from real historical garments and certainly these will not (in most cases) fit our more relaxed and fuller modern figures. However, minimal adjustment is usually all that is needed to properly fit the garment, such as expanding the waist or bust a bit – maybe widening the armholes, or lengthening or shortening the waist – nothing drastic (because our bodies are proportionate in structure – and always have been). Unfortunately, the only pieces of pattern RH 830 that were workable were the reavers, cuffs, and pockets (all decorative elements). All the structural pieces (jacket, waist, sleeves, and skirts) were Frankenstein-like in shape and proportion.
The two pictures above illustrate the structural differences between my pattern, and the RH pattern. Look carefully at the neck and armhole placements in relation/proportion to the bust size, waist size, shoulder width and body length. If RH 830 is actually taken from a real garment, this woman would have had a most peculiar shape, despite the figure transforming corsets of the era.
Of course, I did not use any part of this pattern, but created a toile from my client (which is always preferable). However, if you are a person who must use a ready-made pattern as a guideline to construct a garment, bypass this pattern. For the expense ($30+), the time it would take to get through the pattern instructions alone, and finally discovering that the pattern is not reasonably workable, it’s best to consider an alternative pattern to begin with.
For any questions regarding this pattern (or any others that we have reviewed), give us a shout-out here at the Emerald Parlor!
It is very reassuring to read that a professional such as yourself can make no sense of these patterns. My own experience, self-taught and certainly not professional, has been one of dismay and confusion. My toile of the waistcoat from this pattern made me wonder what shape I was supposed to be, as the armscyes were ridiculously tight. I have abandoned my attempt to use this pattern. One of my first forays was into the same company’s Regency Riding Habit and I unfortunately didn’t make a toile first: the back was small enough to fit a child and I had to waste more of my expensive wool fabric to amend it. A tough lesson to learn for an amateur and one that should have warned me not to trust Reconstructing History again.
Hi Jill –
Thank you for your comment!
One of our other readers, Abigail Parr, had this to say regarding another Reconstructing History pattern (unfortunately, her original post was lost when we switched formats, but Tonia did manage to archive her comment):
“I’m so pleased that someone else has had a problem! I’m a pro costumier as well and am having major problems with R831 – the regency riding habit. I’ve emailed the pattern maker and his response was a very shirty, ‘It is inconceivable that there is a problem with this pattern’ and he then proceeded to patronise me and ask if I knew how to measure a bust and waist. I was more than a little upset to say the least and felt like a complete moron! It’s good to know I’m not the only one having problems! (February 4, 2011)”
My response to Ms. Parr (in part):
“Despite the fact that they tout their product as outstanding and historically accurate (and so does the SCA), the overall reviews for their patterns speak differently. Please, do not find fault with yourself, here. What good will their arrogance do them if word travels ’round that their customer service is a shoddy as their product?”
As I explained to Abigail, before I had written my review for pattern RH 830, I had contacted Reconstructing History by email hoping for an honest conversation regarding the pattern’s design – I could not imagine that the pattern had been drafted from an actual garment, let alone it being drafted by a professional tailor – the structural mistakes were too profound. The company never responded to my inquiry.
So, here we ladies are! Lessons learned are good things (sometimes it’s necessary to be shaken and stirred a bit – lol!). But for me, the unfortunate lesson here is that even though a product or company is supported by a large and respected enactment organization, like the SCA, their support seems dubious and does not accurately reflect the quality of the product or company who they back. Surely the SCA would not advocate for a company that offers an inferior product and encourages poor customer relations?