 Pattern with more than 5 reviews!
<< Previous Review Next Review >> | Reader Comments | | Shirley | 8/23/02 | Lori,
Thanks especially for warning that the front and back are different lengths. The length difference is a popular style for polos intended to be tucked in, but I agree it's a not-quite-chic look untucked.
I've had an eye on this pattern for just the reason you cite--under a yard of fabric to make a top holds appeal when there's just about that much leftover.
I am inferring that the armholes/neckline are not faced, can you confirm that?
Thanks again for the review!  | | * * * | | Elona Masson | 8/23/02 | I've made the tank from this pattern, and found that although the front and back are the same length at the side seams (I just checked the shell pattern in the same envelope, and the side seams are the same length on my pattern), there is a tendency for the back to hang lower. In my case, it might be a slightly generous bosom, but I notice that in a number of the pattern photos at the website, the garments seem to hang the same way on the model, and she doesn't look extremely chesty to me. Maybe we need a forward-shoulder adjustment? | | * * * | | Lori Bator | 8/23/02 | Yes, the armholes and neckline are not faced, just turned under and stitched. | | * * * | | mudcat | 8/23/02 | I made this some time ago and the neck was too small to get over my head. I also noticed there was an error with the notches but didn't get an addendum so I had to wing it. I made mine from a light weight cotton woven. I think it would be better in a slightly stretchy knit. | | * * * | | Nancy 2 Terrific | 6/2/03 | I just bought a very sheer, hand-dyed silk reminant and thought this pattern would be great for it (only 1 1/8 yds) - but am going to have to line it - any suggestions? | | * * * | | sprKathleen | 6/18/05 | Thanks, Lori, for sharing your experiences with this pattern. Now I will know what to look out for. | | * * * |
|
|
|Login|Help]
