IH510 - IH * Take5 (HK) collaboration (IH-634S)
-
in short jacoavlu the construction method is the same except on your anni Haraki must have decided to do something special and keep the chainstich run off and tuck in the seam allowance which is a little more time consuming but shows off the handmade uniqueness of it.
- general use of chain stitch type for their "perceived" advantages - considered to allow for more stretch before the seam breaks (this is actually a misconception and a hot topic for some garment technicians)
just for the record that is not the reason for manufactures using chainstich. Only reason for using chainstich is because you dont need to change bobbins. there is more con then pro when using chainstich but it's these cons that we are after.
chain stitching allows more stretch then lock stitch before seam breaks is a fact. No one that understands both stitches will ever argue that fact.
-
….
@FOXY:- general use of chain stitch type for their "perceived" advantages - considered to allow for more stretch before the seam breaks (this is actually a misconception and a hot topic for some garment technicians)
just for the record that is not the reason for manufactures using chainstich. Only reason for using chainstich is because you dont need to change bobbins. there is more con then pro when using chainstich but it's these cons that we are after.
chain stitching allows more stretch then lock stitch before seam breaks is a fact. No one that understands both stitches will ever argue that fact.
I'm with you on the bobbin change advantage since the there is none for class 401 machines.
regarding the old/ongoing debate regarding chain stitch vs. lock stitch: any scientific evidence or published research that I'm not aware of? (the problem is not that in most cases chain stitch seams provide more thread in order to not break, but the general statement that it always the case. thread/seam breakage for lock stitch seams is mostly due to machine setting and operator handling. depending on the fabric properties lock stitch machines can be set correctly and achieve the same test results. chain stitch machines can be set incorrectly, too…)
hope this discussion is not considered politically and gets censored. -
not really want to get in to too much of a debate here. lockstich is "locked" that means no give only the fabric stretches. chainstich is done on a looper it's can contract and expand.
a very simple test you can do yourself is sew 2 piece of paper together on both machine try pulling the paper at the seam and you will see with lockstich the paper will rip straight away and on the chainstich the stitch is actually going to stretch giving you a good couple of mm before the paper starts ripping.
-
right - let's not get into too much of a debate here.
(just as a note - we are doing these tests here according to international and internal standards/norms for seam strength, seam slippage, etc. and I can not find evidence to support the general statement, nor does the scientific literature. but, I do agree that it is easier/simpler to achieve the required results with chain stitch machines and, on top of that, chain stitch machines do not require bobbin changes and are considered more authentic in the context of authentic jeans.)
-
don't worry - I get into these discussions quite often in my job and especially this topic goes straight to quasi-fundamental within seconds.
I guess it is because it seems to contradict common sense and practical experience. in most cases it is down to badly set-up lock stitch machines and using stronger threads for chain stitch seams.
The research literature was standard reading during my days at the polytechnics long long time ago - if I remember correctly it was one of the Manchester Textile Research journals that did publish the fundamental works and did the comparison in the late 1980's. if I get back to Europe I will try to get hold of the articles and get them your way.I will try to stop. we can also take this topic off line.
-
I hope it does not upset you, but believe me when I tell you that within my 20 years of experience out there in the factories I have seen grown men twice my age and experience disagreeing over this specific topic and all because the statement: chain stitch seams are more elastic/break less than lock stitch seams.
good thing, though - this will not diminish our love and affection for japanese denim and Japan made jeans, specifically Iron Heart. I find the details and differences in execution simply amazing. from a industrial standpoint some of it gets close to commercial suicide… (which is exactly why I buy into it!)
-
I say this again, I suppose I'll say it to everybody who asks this Q.
Get them hemmed 2,5"-3" longer than you normal inseam. That'll give you some extra for shinkage/combing and you'll be able to cuff them nicely (2" cuff) or allows some stacking if you like that.
Then again, it's your choice.
-
I say this again, I suppose I'll say it to everybody who asks this Q.
Get them hemmed 2,5"-3" longer than you normal inseam. That'll give you some extra for shinkage/combing and you'll be able to cuff them nicely (2" cuff) or allows some stacking if you like that.
Then again, it's your choice.
so speaketh the President of the International Cuffing Agency . . .
+1 for me
-
I shortened my DC4's, 36 down to a 32 and they're perfect for both cuffing and stacking.
-
@Geo:
nope . . . IJ has been quite aggressive in promoting this standard
Well, we need standards, don't we? How on earth those hoodlums who want to break every rule can do if they don't have a standard to go against? Those poor SOB's wouldn't know what to do if everything is OK to do.
So let there be a Standard for those who like it and also for those who don't like to be told what to do.
(on a bit more serious note, IMO so called std cuff is the best looking way to cuff, the other way is to exaggerate properly. But then also single. Also bootcuts aren't, again IMO, supposed to be cuffed. Nor black jeans, as there you loose the whole point. Just don't take me too seriouslu or literally
)And BH, Cuff pics needed.
edit: typo
