Vogue 8497 – Marcy Tilton Curved-Seam Tee

Vogue, oh Vogue, why for hast thou forsaken us? I spent this evening stitching up one of Marcy Tilton’s new shirts, and it’s a wadder. The wadder isn’t my shirt, though, it’s the pattern itself.

The first clue came when I opened the envelope: inexplicably, there were two full sets of parts for the view I was making (B). The second set wasn’t connected to any other pattern pieces; it was just folded up all by itself, almost as if someone had stuck it in later. Maybe to correct something on the original pattern? I don’t know for sure, because I haven’t compared the two sets. I’m just speculating, but I have my reasons.

I’m thinking someone should have stuck in a corrected pattern because there were a couple of problems with View B. First of all, the left front and back side pieces did not match at the hem; I had to trim one piece to make the hem even. I’d cut this pattern very, very carefully — you have to, because of the way the shirt’s made — so I was quite sure this wasn’t my mistake. Sure enough, the paper pattern was the source of the problem.

Second, there’s that neck band. The instructions say “Pin wrong side of neck band to right side of garment neck seam allowance, placing neck band seam off center back, as desired, and long edge along seam line, stretching neck band to fit.” Well, OK, that’s exactly what I did, assuming a 5/8ths inch seam. The front and back of this shirt each have one panel that is attached just like this, though, and in those cases, the overlap was one inch. So maybe the term “seam allowance” is up for interpretation here.

However, I think we can all agree that the result (below) is pretty awful. And my neckband is twice the width of the one shown in Vogue’s photo — and looks at least twice as terrible. Whoever made up this shirt for Vogue didn’t use the pattern I used.

Thirdly, check out the aspect ratio of my shirt compared to the photo on the pattern envelope, or on Marcy’s site. (Aspect ratio is the relationship of height to width.) On the envelope, this shirt is substantially longer than it is wide; the proportions are really attractive. My shirt, in contrast, is almost as wide as it is long. It’s boxy and it’s ugly. Someone didn’t do his or her design homework before this pattern was published. That’s not very nice. If I wanted boxy, I’d shop at KMart.

So this pattern’s fatally flawed. I’m bummed.

Before I knew all this, though, when I first got this pattern home and read it, my heart fell a little bit. I’m no fan of raggedy chic, and that lovely curved edge on the front of the shirt turns out to have an unfinished edge. Oh, the horror! That neck band, which looks so sleek in the photo, is also just a strip of fabric with raw edges. Little did I know that the raw edges were the only things that would turn out well on this project.

I could have finished the overlapped edges (with something like a narrow bias tape facing, you know, something along those lines), but I bit the bullet. I also did something else I almost never do: I followed the directions. I wanted this project to be fast, and to work the first time — because this was supposed to be my dry run for May’s PR Mini-Wardrobe Contest.

Well, it worked all right, in the sense that I made it up in one evening, followed the directions, and ended up with a shirt. Unfortunately, it stinks. Bah. Now I’ve got to find something else for May. I’m thinking it won’t be Vogue — this is the second Vogue pattern in three days with a serious error (or two). (See Vogue 8499.) Is everyone asleep over there at Vogue? Is anybody doing any editing? Any checking at all?

Related: Vogue 8497 Revisited