Zigzaggers – Singer, Ruby & Greist
22 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
Zigzaggers are potentially one of the most useful attachments to own if you have a vintage, straight-stitch machine and they can also be arguably one of the most frustrating and difficult to use so I thought that I would amass and compare a few different ones and give an honest opinion on their use.
On test were:
1. Generic, basic metal zigzagger with joining plate.
2. Greist Decorative Zigzagger
3. Singer Automatic Zigzagger, Simanco number 161157
4. Ruby Automatic Zigzagger
Not tested were YS Star Automatic Zigzagger, Singer zigzagger number 160620, Singer zigzagger number 121706 nor Singer (Swiss) zigzagger number 160990 as I do not presently own them. The Swiss Zigzagger is also incredibly difficult to find with a full complement of metal cams – which I believe number 10 in all – and the prices for even an incomplete set are presently beyond my budget. When and if I obtain any of these I will review them separately. I am keen to obtain a Singer 160620 as it has a cord guide, present on none of the models I tested today. I would also like to obtain one of the basic Singer zigzaggers 121706 on which the generic test one was based as again it has a cord guide and I am keen to compare the quality against the generic one which seemed a bit ‘clunky’ and imprecise.
Preparation: All zigzaggers were tested on the same fabric; a double thickness of medium-weight cotton twill. I did not use a darning plate nor drop the feed dogs. Where instructed, I adjusted the tension and threading path and in some instances loosened the presser foot pressure.
Generic, basic metal zigzagger with joining plate.
Generic Zigzagger & Joining Plate
Description: There is very little to describe, really. It’s a small, bent metal thing with a detachable joining plate and width adjustment made by means of a screw at the back of the attachment. It has good clearance of the fabric, perhaps too good as at times I felt that the fabric was not being fed as accurately and effortlessly as some of the other attachments although of all the zigzaggers this was the only one able to achieve a really narrow (1.5mm) satin stitch and the feed problems were minimised when the zig zag movement was kept small. Overall I felt that I had to work quite hard to keep the fabric feeding in a straight line, especially when the zig zag was a wide one. Tension-wise, there was tunnelling when the zig zag was wide but with the tension eased off to 0, the sewing speed reduced and the presser foot tension reduced the tunnelling was greatly improved.
Size: Smallest of the zigzaggers tested.
Scope: Just a simple zig zag with no additional stitch patterns but within its scope it is minutely adjustable between wide/narrow and long/short and gave the narrowest satin stitch of any of the attachments tested.
Price: Usually amongst the cheapest.
Pros: Widely available so no need to be patient or pay a lot of money.
Cons: When the zig zag was set to wide it was a little difficult to control the feed of the fabric and keep the row straight. This attachment would probably benefit from the fabric being stabilized prior to stitching. There is no cord guide in the front of the foot.
Conclusion: A good, basic zigzagger but definitely a budget model. Will do the job and do it well enough but I’d describe it as a utility model – fine for neatening seams but for topstitching you might be better to pay more and get one of the alternatives. That said, as this was at its best sewing a tight, narrow satin stitch it would be fine for producing a pronounced row of top stitching or else tiny appliquéd edging.
Greist Decorative Zigzagger.
Greist Decorative Zigzagger
Description: My favourite utility model, this is really sweet. It looks very similar to a blind hemmer. It uses small, steel pattern disks similar to the Swiss Zigzagger. There are four stitch widths marked along the side of the attachment and a sliding gauge which is moved along to correspond with these markings. The unit is easy to attach and the cams can be changed without removing the attachment from the machine. The zigzagger can also be disengaged without removing it – simply flick a tiny lever to disengage the cams and flick it forward again to reengage it.
The zigzagger includes 6 pattern disks and additionally, when used without a cam, produces a normal zig zag. Despite the title, the patterns all give utility stitches rather than decorative ones although the quality is good enough to be used for topstitching if desired:
- Zig zag (no disk)
- 4 stitches each side (disk marked 4,4)
- 3 stitches each side (disk marked 3,3)
- 2 stitches each side (disk marked 2,2)
- 4 stitches zig, 2 stitches zag (disk marked 4,2)
- Blind hemming – 5 straight stitches then 1 zig zag (disk marked 5,1)
In terms of setting up, I found this to be one of the more unfussy attachments: it required no special threading nor loosening off of the tension or foot pressure. It handled the fabric firmly but gently and – above all – consistently, producing a top-quality finish with no tunnelling.
Size: Dinky.
Scope: The best utility one I tested. It gives a good selection of stitches and whilst essentially utility they are of sufficiently good quality to be used decoratively too.
Price: Varies. Mid-range.
Pros: Petite, easy to use, easy to change the cams, gives a nice finish across all widths and stitch lengths, good tension and good fabric control. Unlike some of the other models the presser foot had a central gap through which to pass the thread.
Cons: Not widely available so depends upon a chance find. Despite its title, no really decorative stitches. Cannot be adjusted to give as narrow a zig zag as the basic Singer-type one. Cams small so easily mislaid. There is no cord guide in the front of the foot and no gap in the front of the foot, meaning that the top thread must first be fished through under the foot if it is not to become caught up in the stitching.
Conclusion: This one is a keeper and I suspect will be the one I usually reach for if needing to do zig zag.
Singer Automatic Zigzagger Simanco part number 161157.
Singer Automatic Zigzagger
Description: This was the largest model tested and subject to different cams gave the widest range of decorative stitches of any tested. I tested it with the following cam sets:
Set 1 (Red, as supplied with attachment):
Cam 1 (Simanco 161000) Zig zag
Cam 2 (Simanco 161001) Scallop of 5 small stitches & 1 larger zig zag
Cam 3 (Simanco 161002) Domino stitch
Cam 4 (Simanco 161003) Arrowheads
Set 2 (Ivory, Simanco part number 161008):
Cam 5 (Simanco 161004) Scallops (all small stitches)
Cam 6 (Simanco 161005) Walls of Troy
Cam 7 (Simanco 161006) Multiple Stitch Zig Zag
Cam 8 (Simanco 161007) Icicle
Set 3 (Blue, Simanco part number 161076):
Cam 9 (Simanco 161067) Key
Cam 10 (Simanco 161068) Ball
Cam 11 (Simanco 161069) Block
Cam 12 (Simanco 161070) Shingle
I found that the attachment worked very well although I did have to lessen the tension to prevent tunnelling on the wider zig zag settings. The cams are easily changed without removing the attachment from the machine – the lid is flipped up and the cam simply lifted out. The attachment can be completely disabled in situ by the flick of a lever, the mechanism being on a much larger scale than the Greist model and of a different design.
Size: Big. This is the largest attachment of those tested and the cams (which are cast aluminium) are also big although this does make them less likely to become lost than the tiny steel disks of a Swiss Zigzagger or Greist Decorative Zigzagger.
Scope: Subject to additional cams, the widest of all tested.
Price: Mid-range but cam sets can be expensive as they are not so commonly seen as the basic attachments with red cam set 1.
Pros: Versatility. Of all the attachments tested this gave the widest scope of patterns both decorative and utility and was also widely adjustable both in the bight width and in the stitch length. Markings on the front of the presser foot make it easier to keep the fabric feeding true.
Cons: For me, the size was a bit of a turn-off and I would have liked a central gap in the presser foot to make threading easier. There is no cord guide in the front of the foot and no central gap in the presser foot.
Conclusion: Despite its size I did feel that of all the zigzaggers tested this one gave the widest scope of decorative and utility patterns but the difficulty of finding cams mean it is not a choice for the impatient! It is, however worth the wait.
I did not test Set 4, (Yellow) as I do not presently have it but for the sake of completeness it comprises the following patterns: Curved Mending (Simanco 161071) which is a multi-stitched wavy line, Open Scallop (Simanco 161072) which is a satin-stitched scallop, Three Step (Simanco 161073) which is a satin-stitched diagonal bar and Solid Scallop (Simanco 161074) which is a satin-stitched semi-circle.
Ruby Automatic Zigzagger.
Ruby Zigzagger
Description: This was a real surprise, being built on a totally different principle to the Greist and the Singer models but working surprisingly well. Rather than have removable cams it works by selecting a starting position on a fixed, lateral cam plate which then acts upon the rest of the mechanism to stitch out the prescribed pattern. The starting point is set by moving a pointer into one of 8 numbered holes on the cam plate. I found that the fabric fed very well and that there was no tunnelling. It was easy to change between patterns mid-way through a row although the pattern width could not be altered. The instructions advise that the tension is slightly lowered and the tension spring ignored when threading and doing so I found that the stitch quality was impressive; very consistent and it was relatively easy to feed the fabric and keep the line straight.
The numbered holes used to select the stitch pattern on the Ruby Zigzagger.
Size: Medium-sized, similar to a basic, non-template buttonholer.
Scope: Surprisingly wide. Offered a good selection of patterns both decorative and utility. 8 decorative patterns, plus basic zig zag.
Price: Mid-range.
Pros: No cams to lose. Compact and easy to use.
Cons: Uncommon, so availability depends upon a chance find. Also, no means to change the width of the patterns although the stitch length could of course be altered. Cannot be disabled in situ. There is no cord guide in the front of the foot and no central gap in the presser foot.
Conclusion: Despite its limitations I love it.
Customizing a Tailors Dummy (Padding Out)
12 May 2011 2 Comments
in Projects
Materials:
Approx 1m 8oz wadding
1m 4oz wadding (optional)
4 large dishcloths or roll of stockinette
1 bag of toy stuffing
Curved needle
3 reels of upholstery thread
Approx 1.5m heavy calico or ticking
Approx 10m narrow, black cotton tape
My dressform has always been a source of deep dissatisfaction to me because it just isn’t possible to get it to represent my shape. I have a narrow back and chest, next to no bum and a full bust. Oh, and the nasty, loopy, plushy nylon fabric gives me hangnails.
Another big annoyance was that all the places I wanted to place a pin were represented by gaps. Centre front, back and side seams all gaps, not tapes. There was no point in buying a Stockman or K&L as I would be paying for something which represented the average form, which I was not.
So I decided to modify my existing dummy. The first step was to cover the existing dummy in stockinette so I had something easy into which to anchor some stitches.
Dummy covered in stockinette
Next I placed one of my bras onto the dummy, secured it firmly and stuffed it out with toy stuffing. A full cup bra is best for this. I then covered the bra area with another layer of stockinette and padded out any gaps. I used some tape to hold down the stockinette close to the body.
The next step is to encase the whole dummy with layers of 8oz wadding, cut in a sort of princess line to mould around the bust. I drew up the pieces tightly and stitched them together to form a tight casing. Using a curved needle I sewed small stitches across the whole surface of the wadding, drawing it in flatter, compressing the fibres and giving a springier, firmer base into which I could pin.
Sewing down the first layer of wadding.
Extra contours were built up with patches sewn on, added to and drawn down with stitching until the correct shape and dimension was reached. It is essential to keep measuring so that you’re sure that the inches are going on the right places. An extra inch may not need to be put on all around. I made a mistake with mine in that it just looked, at one stage, much, much too barrel shaped. I am quite slender from the side and this wasn’t. Realising I had overestimated my ‘mummy tummy’ I took some off there and added the extra to the sides of my waist instead.
I created the mummy tummy by sewing on a circular patch, leaving the top edge open and stuffing with toy stuffing before sewing the pouch shut at the top. This was then stitched down and formed just the right bump.
Once I had the wadding all in place I added a second layer in 4oz wadding, lightly secured in place at the seams. Unlike the first layer it does not need to be compressed by stitching across it. This is because the first layer was intended to give a springy but substantial layer into which I could drive pins but this second layer was to smooth out any unevenness and create a looser, more spongy layer that could easily be compressed by my ‘tight lacing’ the outer shell.
This second layer should leave the dummy an inch or two bigger than the finished size. This is necessary because the cover will be drawn in and stitched very tightly, pulling the form in a little further so if it is not to end up too small, it must reach this stage slightly too large.
This in place, progress ground to a halt while I made some decisions about how best to approach the outer shell. Traditionally the method for this style of dummy is to wrap loads and loads of wadding (kapok,or cotton wool) around the dummy, make the shell as a tight toile fitted to the body and then padded out with more kapok to make it solid.
I have instructions for this method in an old needlework book but the finished item features a flattened mono-bosom rather than the cross-your-heart, lifted and separated silhouette I needed for mine. I make a lot of v-neck and cross-over garments so it is vital for me to be able to see where my sternum lies if I am not to end up with garments gaping at the neck.
I had to find an alternative method and this caused me a lot of headaches. Firstly, I wanted to cover the bust as two independent hemispheres with the sternum drawn down tight. I decided to base the cover on a princess line as I could then shape the panels to cope with the bust issue. I started by drafting a basic bodice block according to my measurements. My bust is large so requires much wider darts going into the waist seam than those which go from waist to hip so I always draft my bodice block to the waist only and do from waist to hip separately, as a skirt block.
Using my own measurements gave me a very odd armhole which I had to override and redraw according to common sense and after the first toile I also moved the bust point and shoulder dart.
Sometimes you just have to use some common sense.
Next, I created a second block based on this but with the armhole dart closed and pivoted into join the waist dart. I chose to swing it here rather than split it between shoulder and waist as because of my bust size my waist is comparatively close to my bust line so an exaggerated dart would be very helpful for gaining the close fitting silhouette I desired.
I then created a princess block from this draft and married the skirt block into it so I ended with eight hip-length panels plus a little extra to turn under and take a drawstring for closing it under the bottom edge of the dummy. Then I cut out the pieces and stitched them together, leaving one of the side seams open which would be hand stitched once the cover was in place on the dummy. I would then hand-stitch the other seams again with a curved upholstery needle and strong, upholstery thread, pulling the cover tighter by so doing.
I wasn’t happy with the central, waist section – I had adjusted the shoulder and neck quite a bit so whilst the length was fine at the front it now needed a little extra length at the back. So rather than go out and buy more calico and start again I cut the cover in half at the waist, moved the bottom half down a little and then added a new section around the middle and stitched and shaped it into place. I had to do quite a lot of yanking and dragging and strong stitching and my panel seams were far from the perfectly even ones you see on the professional dummies but I kept the stitches small and closely spaced and eventually my little Frankenstein’s Monster came together.
I have added narrow black cotton tape to the construction lines so that I can pin and drape with confidence. My dummy resembles me in proportions, in dimensions and most important of all, in balance front-to-back. At last I can model garments on the stand which I can personally wear.
The finished dummy.
Front close up.
Back of the dummy.
Side view of dummy.
Copyright HA Lewington 2011
Dragonflies & Embroidered Ric-Rac Toddler Outfit
14 Feb 2011 Leave a Comment
in Projects
I’m afraid that this project was done in a bit of a hurry. That doesn’t mean that the quality was stinted upon but it does mean that I was not able to stop and photograph each stage.
Some of the extra time spent on this was on account of having to travel to get fabric and further time was spent drafting basic blocks for a three year old and from them drafting patterns…all the while dealing with the very eager intervention of a 33-month-old child!
The finished outfit
The outfit was designed for a little girl’s third birthday. She was born eight weeks premature and is quite short and petite so whilst I knew that a standard size 3 clothing would almost certainly swamp her I wanted to design something which would fit her both now and through the forthcoming summer and be versatile enough for all of the seasons in between.
So, with this in mind I decided to make a tunic-style pinafore, slightly flared at the sides. It is sleeveless, is short enough to serve her well as a short pinafore over tights and a long sleeved t-shirt yet when she grows taller can also be worn as a sleeveless tunic over the matching cropped trousers I have made in the same fabric. To add one last piece of versatility to the outfit I made a simple skirt in a contrasting fabric and picked out the colours from the main fabric in rows of embroidered, ric-rac satin stitch sewn in parallel bands around the hem.
The three pieces can be worn together (the ric rac embroidery is fully visible below the level of the pinafore hem) or in any combination. It is all very reminiscent of some favourite “mix-and-match” separates which my mother bought for me when I was about four. The colours were shocking pink and white, both as plain fabrics and as a sort of chequered tartan pattern incorporating both. I had a tunic top in the pattern, a pair of white trousers and a pink skirt. Before you question my mother’s sense in putting her tomboy daughter in white trousers I must stress that this was 1970 and the fabric was crimplene!
I ummed and ahhhhed for a long time over fabric. The little girl is half Indian, half white british so has café au lait complexion, huge dark eyes and hair which though very dark brown shows, in sunlight, the most gorgeous auburn highlights. Her mother quite rightly shudders at the preponderance of shocking pink, mid pink, lilac, sugar pink or all shades pallid in girlswear and opts where possible for strong, jewel shades, especially reds and oranges.
The fabric which caught my eye had bright dragonflies in jewel shades and this really seemed to reflect R’s personality but then came the choice of backing shade as it came in several, most of them strong such as orange, yellow, turquoise and ultramarine but the dragonflies seemed dull against these strong shades and I opted instead for the cream background which really showed them off best. I then selected a plain cotton in a contrasting shade with which to line the garments and add accents. I chose a strong, egg-yolk yellow of a shade and intensity only usually seen in free range eggs or Birds Custard Powder when mixed with that first tablespoon of cold milk.
Because the pattern is busy and the little girl small, I elected for as simple a design as possible. Sleeveless, slightly flared and with a “Norman Arch” shaped neck front and back. The back and front were completely plain.
The tunic was fully lined in the plain cotton.
The trousers were cut with the lining extra long, with a whole extra section grown on which would fold up onto the right side and then be hemmed and topstitched in place to form a deep, contrasting cuff. As usual the Singer 201k did me proud with its tiny, evenly tensioned stitches, its superior feed and clear view of the stitch line. I have yet to tire of marvelling at its ability to sew slowly and consistently even though it is teetering on the edge of uneven layers. I also used it to understitch and top stitch the sleeve and neck edges of the tunic – this topstitching was less than 2mm from the edge and was faultless.
The ric-rac embroidered skirt was made from some cream twill. I used my Bernina 830 Record Electronic to do the embroidery and as usual it was perfect. Even so, I went back to the 201k to do the French seam. It seems to treat the fabric with more respect – less punchy.
Incidentally I used the smallest of my back-clamping hemmers to do the hem on the pinafore and its lining. The hems were slightly curved and I wasn’t entirely happy that the rolled hem foot would deal nicely with the thickness of fabric. The back-clamping hemmer was wonderful. Like the rolled hemmer the fabric still needs to be guided or fed into the foot as the hem is being formed but because the hemmer feeds in the fabric much further in advance than the rolled hemmer it was much easier to control this and get it right.
The finished outfit.
The trousers and underskirt.
The lined tunic.
The fully lined trousers.
The underskirt with ric-rac embroidered hem.
The ric-rac hems on the underskirt and pinafore linings and the small hem done with the hemmer.
Close up of ric-rac embroidery.
Close-up of topstitch quality on trouser turn-ups.
Simanco 121094 Singer Darning Foot – the tiny one.
17 Jan 2011 1 Comment
I recently acquired one of these in a box of attachments labelled for a Singer 66k so having located the presumed missing spring from within the folds of the box I put it back together and decided to try it. To begin with, I had a LOT of trouble with it and was profoundly disappointed as I had harboured such high hopes for it but I’m extremely relieved to report that I got there in the end and as is so commonly the case with Singer items it was user error.
I prepared and hooped a sample of cotton fabric and tried the foot on the 201k. No joy. The ring at the bottom of the foot didn’t rest on the fabric but hovered about 4mm above it so there was no obvious purpose for the spring at all and the stitches were mainly skipped. I checked the threading of the upper and lower…all fine.
I came over to my PC and did a little digging on the internet and found out that it was designed for use on a Featherweight. No problem; I took out my 222k and set it up with the foot. Same thing. By now I was really scratching my head so headed back to the internet. Finally, I thought that I had found a clue on the Needlebar website. The foot was shown there with a note stating that it was produced for use on the Featherweight 221, initially to be used with feed dog cover 121309 and latterly with 108002.
This seemed to offer an explanation. Both my 201k and my 222k have droppable feed dogs but the 221 uses a feed dog cover so perhaps it was this feed dog cover which raised the bed by those crucial millimetres.
I was still perplexed though especially as none of the online sales sources stressed the need for a feed plate and furthermore most of them stated that it could be used on any low-shank side clamping machine with equal success.
Taking the foot off the machine I noticed something unusual about the clamp. Most feet slot straight on to the presser bar and don’t have any vertical play but this one was different. It had a slot shaped like a capital ‘T’ which allowed the foot to be mounted higher or lower than the central point, presumably to allow the foot to rest lightly on fabrics of all different thicknesses.
By now it was late, so I decided to leave it and try again in the morning. After breakfast I was careful to mount the foot as low on the presser bar as was possible. The ring now lay lightly on the surface of the fabric as it ought to and the result was perfect! The spring twitched almost imperceptibly and the stitch was gorgeous! Once again I am in awe of a Singer attachment.
A close-up of the tiny darning foot.
See how, with the foot incorrectly fitted, there is a gap below it, even with the presser foot lever lowered. This results in skipped stitches.
With the foot correctly fitted, it lightly skims the fabric and the stitch and control is the best I have experienced with any darning foot.
Note the gap in the foot below the presser foot screw. This is the bottom of the shaped slot allowing for vertical adjustment which I mentioned in the text.
For comparison, this is the foot photographed next to the normal, straight stitch foot. Note how small it is and also the shaped slot allowing for vertical movement when securing the foot in place.
Singer Stocking Darner 35776 used with Simanco 171071 Darning Foot
17 Jan 2011 Leave a Comment
One of the best parts about collecting Singer attachments is that with the odd exception (the Hemstitch & Picot Edger) they are all utterly practical. So, in harmony with the resurgence of interest in make-do-and-mend necessitated by the ongoing financial squeeze my most recent acquisition is a Singer Stocking Darner. Yes, I can do it by hand but unless I take tremendous time and effort (which is above the worth of the article being darned) the result is not as smooth and comfortable as a machine-made darn. I have, up until now, used my Singer Featherweight 222k with its own darning hoop and foot (Simanco 171074 and 171071 respectively) or else a normal, wooden hand-embroidery hoop and foot 171071 on my 201k.
The trouble with a normal hoop is that it is almost impossible to keep the rest of the sock from contracting back over the area one is trying to sew so in addition to trying to lightly move the hoop around the darn area ones fingers must also splay apart and keep the offending fabric at bay…so my attention turned to a Stocking Darner.
What a joy! It is effortless in use.
Before you start, make sure that the bobbin thread is up through the needle plate and then take off the presser foot. You might find it easier to get the hoop into position if you also take the needle out. Drop or cover the feed dogs (although to be honest on my 201k I just turn the stitch length to 0 and leave them up).
Now take the spring off the external rim of the darner, turn all the hooks inwards and with your left hand inside your sock, hole over the palm, grasp the darner through the sock, centralize the hole to be darned and then attach the spring to hold the fabric taut. Once this is done, turn the rest of the sock down off your hand and onto the darner and turn the hoops outwards over the rim so that they pull the rest of the sock upwards and outwards, beyond and well out of the way of the stitching area. If it proves awkward getting the hoop under the needle you may find it easier to turn one or two of them back in again to avoid scratching your machine bed.
Once the hoop is in place on the machine, attach the darning foot and if you took the needle out earlier, put it back in again now.
Place both hands lightly on the darner and move it gently, darning just as you would with a normal hoop. That’s really all there is to it. When you’ve finished, cut the threads and you’re done. You might need to remove the foot and the needle again before removing the hoop but the result is well worth the inconvenience. The benefit over a hand worked one (by which I mean one which largely draws the edges together rather than the longer, weaving method) is that it is perfectly flat and this really is terribly important with socks.
Another triumph from Singer.
The sock, the darner and the darner spring.
The sock in place and ready to darn. This is the side which will be face down against the machine bed.
This is the uppermost side, the one which will be facing upwards when the item is being darned.
This is a close-up of the darning foot in place. It will have to be removed before the hoop is put in position as the hoop is too bulky to pass beneath it.
This is the darner in place, ready to sew. Note how the hooks on the darner are folded back on themselves, holding the rest of the sock clear of the sewing area.
A close-up of the area about to be darned, showing the bobbin thread drawn up through the foot ready to start sewing. This prevents the bobbin thread being oversewn underneath which can be unsightly.
The darn being sewn up on the machine.
The completed darn.
Imitation Hemstitcher Attachment
08 Dec 2010 Leave a Comment
My curiosity into the different methods of producing a hemstitch continues with the Singer Imitation Hemstitcher, Simanco Part Number 120687.
This is a large presser foot which attaches in the normal, low-shank manner to the left hand side of the presser bar, with the bulk of the attachment seated to the right; that is within the harp of the sewing machine. It features a small needle hole through which the needle passes and immediately in front of this a raised metal cushion over which the top layer of fabric is fed and it is the fact that the two layers are then held some 5mm apart from one another when the stitch is formed that forms the ladder stitch.
The first thing which caught my attention was that as the fabric must be fed into place within and around the foot before stitching commences it is not easy to start the hemstitching from the very edge of the fabric and although I may be able to figure this out later it is not immediately obvious how this may be easily accomplished. The Hemstitch Fork by Stoppax is much simpler in this respect.
Stitching with the foot in place was very easy. As is usual with hemstitching I loosened the upper tension right off as the ladder stitch looks much neater without the lockstitch happening half way across the ladder ‘rungs’. It was simple and quick to stitch a long length of hemstitching (simpler than with the Stoppax fork which needs to be moved along periodically) but because it is not so simple to keep the fabric evenly taut as one stitches, I felt that the overall stitch quality was nowhere near as consistent and well-tensioned as that obtained by the hemstitch fork. With the fork, it (the fork) is kept held up taut against the fold in the fabric which makes it very easy to guide the fabric whilst maintaining an even tension but because the imitation hemstitcher parts two layers of fabric the edge of which is open on the right hand side, it is difficult to maintain as even a stitch.
Easy, but I still prefer a hemstitching fork.
The Imitation Hemstitcher attached to the Singer 201k
See how the metal 'cushion' at the front of the attachment parts the fabric layers ahead of the needle. Note also the small gap (just seen at the back of the photo) before the hemstitch seam commences.
- The finished hemstitching, top stitched on either side to keep the seam open.
All content copyright HA Lewington 2010
