 I'm Rebecca, welcome back to my channel for another video about stitches in the 18th century where we'd demonstrate and clarify how certain stitches were done. Today we're looking at two stitches that I see commonly confused with each other whenever one or the other comes up in conversation, especially on social media. When taught in person it's pretty easy to tell one from the other, so in this video we're going to get them side by side. First off it is really easy to see how and why they get confused when you're just dealing with words and not looking at actual examples. One is actually often called the stitch without a name. So mysterious and hardly helpful right? The other does seem to have a name but it's not in English, so when someone tries to ask about the nameless stitch the name of the other stitch comes up as a possible answer. But on social media answers range all over the place contradicting each other and leaving the uninitiated none the wiser. Quick top tip if anyone in a conversation about these stitches links to a Burnley and Trowbridge stitch tutorial on YouTube follow that lead. But even the good folks at B&T are constantly learning and updating and revising the information that they publish. In fact one of the stitches we're talking about in this video just got a name tweak recently on their website too. But back to the question, a stitch without a name huh? Amongst all the answers to that question one you'll invariably see pop up is this one. I'm not going to try to pronounce it because my French is really awful. And then someone may link to a lovely diagram showing how this is done in costume close-up. And when you read the text well you can see why people seize on this French name stitch as proof that the stitch with no name did in fact have a name. Except we're talking about two different things apples and oranges. These aren't so much stitches but construction techniques both without its own name in English written down in the period. The fact is one got recorded by Dittaro in French in the period the other did also get recorded but in the early 19th century and in Swedish. This is probably due in part to the fact that everyday clothing construction techniques in Nordic countries had tended to follow Germanic traditions not French ones. However both of these techniques are well represented in 18th century extents made in England. Both are construction techniques that join together separate pieces of fabric. Both neatly and quickly enclose all raw edges. Both were used continuously both before, during, and after the 18th century in men's tailoring. But for women's wear one fell out of use with the innovation of the Mantua in the late 17th century. So during the golden age of Mantua-based outer garments when gown bodices were folded and pleated but not cut this one technique wasn't really needed or used. However it emerged very dramatically in the third quarter of the 18th century with the arrival of seamed back gowns. Starting more or less with the pollinés and gaining traction and becoming absolutely rampant in quarterback gowns like the Italian gowns, the redding goes and an increasing assortment of curvy shaped gowns of the 1780s the 1790s and beyond. And when you look at how this technique works what it does then the fall and then rise in its usage totally makes sense. Most conveniently gowns constructed this way almost always also contain the other stitch. So we have two period correct and contemporaneous 18th century techniques together in one place. So I think seeing these together in one garment may help you remember how to if not exactly remember their names at least tell them apart and know when to use which. So let's start with the one that truly has no name in the period start with each piece let's call them bodice back pieces and arrange the fashion fabric and the lining line them up wrong sides together turn the seam allowances in towards each other so that the raw edges are tucked inside arrange the other piece that you're going to call about bodice back piece that's going to be joined to it the same way then bring all four pieces together with all the folded edges pointing up and flush with each other make sure the fashion fabric layers are on the inside so these layers for the two pieces are laying right sides together and the linings are on the outside secure your thread by drawing the needle up through the inside of the fold of the lining furthest away from you bring the needle out of that fold slightly to the side towards the fashion fabric of that same bodice piece then direct the needle towards you through the folds of the three layers of fabric coming out on the very outside of the lining layer that's facing you feel away at an angle and stitch back through all the folded layers except the lining layer you've just stitched through this creates a little whip over that folded over lining edge and this completes one stitch stitches are generally counted from one side as you work not full so think of a stitch as one complete cycle you go through the fabric or the fabric layers in one direction and return to the same position but advanced along the stitching line and this is one stitch so once you've carried through stitching like this first away from you at an angle and then back towards you at an angle each time hopping over the first fold folded edge and then coming through the remaining three carry on to the end of your seam now have two pieces of your bodice joined together if you're making a quarterback gown you'll have two more seams just like this to complete you'll start with one down the middle and then one seam to each side of it now bear in mind the side seams that join the back of the bodice to the bodice front is constructed differently those seams are fitting points and they may need to be adjusted or altered over the lifetime of the garment however this seaming stitch that you've just done is super strong it's as strong as any back stitch which you may find if you ever have to unpick one once your bodice is constructed then the other nameless stitch is what we see most typically used for all the outer edges so all around the neckline down the center front edges and around the bottom bodice edges up to the point where the bodice is joined to the skirt so here's that stitch this secures the lining inside the fashion fabric in a way that lets the bodice lie smoothly over the stays without letting the lining sag out and show you're only working one piece not joining it to another so this is a finishing technique not an assembly technique you start in a similar way you turn the seam allowances in for both your fashion fabric and your lining but this time fold the lining in just a little bit more so that the folded edge is offset against the folded edge of the fashion fabric this offset is small but does need to allow for the stitching to do its job so aim for at least an eighth of an inch but no more than quarter of an inch bring the needle up through the folded edge of the lining insert the needle through the fashion fabric through both layers of the fold so right to the outside taking a small stitch say two to three threads just above the folded edge of the lining where you can see it bring the needle back through the fashion fabric at an angle and then straight through the folded edge of the lining all in one smooth stroke at the same angle through all the layers of both folds coming out towards you and having advanced a longer stitching line this is one stitch the spacing for your stitching should be proportional to how far the stitch line is from the very outside edge of the fashion fabric so when viewed from the outside right side up you'll see short lines of stitching marching along at the same approximate interval as the distance they are from the edge let's go back to names obviously if we're trying to use historical names there's a lot of scope for uncertainty and confusion so for anyone starting out today in 18th century historical sewing since we're not trained from the ground up by period mantua makers but most often are relying on printed materials and online tutorials it's helpful if we know how others in our communities today are talking about what they do we see a variety of terms used to identify and clarify while trying not to veer into this tangled linguistic mystery of the past so is a method of putting in a lining in larkin and smith patterns it's called an underhand hem and you can kind of see that makes sense i've also seen historical patterns referred to it as an edge stitch or sometimes even a top stitch but with top stitch especially be aware that that just refers to the appearance of the end result it doesn't actually give you a clue as to how it's been done or what it does we have similar issues with the phrase prick stitch it kind of tells you what it looks like when you're done but not how to do it the other stitch the truly nameless seeming stitch and that is what bernie and trobridge are now calling this is the nameless seeming stitch in the american duchess guide to 18th century dress making they're calling it an english stitch that name is probably derived from abby cox's observations in english gowns that she studied i'll post a link to her blog about that in the description below at the heart of the uncertainties about names is the fact that mantra making in england was not documented into sewing manuals the skill set was taught in a practical setting so does on the job so to speak where an apprentice was given a specific task and taught how to do that one thing possibly with a variety of options that might come into play depending on the textile the end result was a trained skilled tradeswoman who when she needed to hem a skirt knew which stitch would work best and when she needed to hem a bodice front she knew an entirely different stitch that worked best for that and if she happened to do millinery then hem might mean one of a number of different things depending on the item being hemmed and what part of that item was being worked perhaps every technique did have its name that was used between workers in a shop but if that was the case it seems the distinctions and specific instructions or methods were not captured in writing in the period in any way that's meaningful and unambiguous for us today the only consistent record these mantra makers left is the garments they made some of which survive to be studied today and the study of extents reveals just how ingenious and varied some of these techniques were while others were remarkably uniform across time and geography but those are topics for future videos