IH510 - IH * Take5 (HK) collaboration (IH-634S)
-
in order to not have the seams unravel they had the chain stitch running along the main section of the waistband and did the end sections (fly front/buttons) in a separate operation on standard lock stitch machines.
this was also more efficient in terms of attaching, turning-in the end sections and finishing the waistband. today, this could be executed differently, but then it wouldn't be that "authentic" anymore…
please compare with your standard IH-634S and you should notice the same execution.
(Sometimes this can change between production runs.)
-
just curious because it's different than my 634SR.
like I said - there are many different ways to "do" jeans - what you see here with the IH510 and my IH-634S is considered a very "authentic" execution - not up-to-date considering modern machinery, but who cares…
if you post a picture or direct me to one that shows the execution for your IH-634SR I could comment.
-
wooot… only 5 washes and they're dead meat???
jeez I'm sure there was pics of lifecycle label sewn on pocket about 15sec's ago...
yup - coming up again in a few minutes…
-
just curious because it's different than my 634SR.
if you post a picture or direct me to one that shows the execution for your IH-634SR I could comment.
here's the waist of my SR's
Hi jacoavlu,
actually, there is no big difference in the execution here. they attached the waistband (lower/bottom waist band seam) to the leg/body panels with a chain stitch machine (stitch type class 401).
on your SR's they run the seam into the seam allowance of the waistband ends (fly front area). in a second operation on a standard lock stitch machine (stitch type class 301) they folded the waist band seam allowance, tucked it in and finished the fly front seam, pivoted the corner and then the top waits band seam.
on the IH510 and the IH-634S they stopped the chain stitch 2-3 inches before the fly front end. this allows for cleaner finish because you don't have to tuck-in a chain stitch seam (which can be tricky and result in a bulky and uneven fly front seam).some of the reasons behind that are:
-
use of "authentic" chain stitch seams in jeans production and "traditional" executions
-
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)
-
limitations of chain stitch types and machines - no back tacking/locking the seam other than running into the seam allowance, forming lose thread ends (see chain stitched side seams on most of your IH shirts) or bar tacking/securing the seam end in a separate sewing operations (here: running a lock stitch on top of the chain stitch seam end)
there are probably a few hundred ways to do jeans depending on available machines and technical requirements (thickness of denim comes to mind here in the context of IH). On top of that there is the aspect of "authenticity" and traditional machines and methods used in the jeans industry.
(feels like another thread: worksheets and line layout for denim production - let me know if we should start this…)
-
-
Foxy love your posts.
-
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.)
