Post pics of KEYHOLE stitching please !!

[hoacha]

Hello folks.

Has there ever been a thread on original and repro keyhole stitching on here? If so, please direct me to the link.

If not, could you guys post pics of original and known fake examples of keyhole stitching with any explanation on how to tell them apart. I think this would be great for reference for myself and others. Thanks for any help.

[Johnny R]

Seek and Ye Shall Find-Praise Jesus! and the WA search tool

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/unif...s/Enlisted.htm

[c.rotte]

AMEN!

The half of the fun is to search and learn an enjoy the nice objects!

Regards, Kees

[vbergman1]

One thing to look for is whether the buttonhole has fabric on the inside of the buttonhole stitching--this would be sewn on a "cut-after" buttonholer--or if the thread on the inside just covers the fabric edge--this would be sewn on a "cut-before" buttonholer. I can post photos later if you want.

I noticed that the vast majority of period buttonholes were sewn on a cut-before machine. Most were also what's called bar-tack finish, rather than fly-bar finish. The "finish" is the end opposite the keyhole (which, BTW, is actually called an "eyelet" in industry terms). Look at the top-most fly buttonhole on your jeans and you will see what a fly-bar finish looks like. Compare this to a typical period tunic buttonhole and you will see what a bar-tack finish looks like.

For the most part, if a TR tunic or trousers has fly-bar finish buttonholes, or was sewn on a cut-after machine, I stay away from it.

Hope this helps!

[vbergman1]

Here is a modern, cut-after type buttonhole with bar-tack finish. Note that you can see fabric between the stitching lines.

[hoacha]

Interesting stuff, Can you post a pic of a fly-bar finish for comparison? Is there a rule in which to follow in what is completely unacceptable? By this I mean is a "cut after" always a no go, or where there exceptions depending on location and year?

[Renaud]

I don't understand : first you say that most of period buttonholes "were also what's called bar-tack finish, rather than fly-bar finish". But after you show "a modern, cut-after type buttonhole with bar-tack finish" !
Anyway, thanks for the lesson !

[vbergman1]

I posted a photo of the "cut-after" type as an example of what that looks like. The only original tunic I can recall having seen with the cut-after type buttonholes was a French-made coastal artillery tunic.

Here is a photo of an original "cut-before" type. Notice how there is no fabric between the stitching lines. This is because the cut-before machine will first cut the buttonhole slit and eyelet, then stitch the buttonhole. The stitching overcasts the raw edges of the cut, preventing them from fraying.

[vbergman1]

This is a drawing from Reece's Eyelet Buttonhole Machines brochure. I'm sure they won't mind me posting this here. Reece invented the buttonholer in the 1880's and the machine is essentially the same today. I own a Reece 101 that was made in the early 1950's and it's still working today! I know the Germans used the Reece machine because there is a picture of one being used in a Reitz factory--see Camouflage Uniforms of the German Wehrmacht by Werner Palinckx, page 11, top right photo.

[vbergman1]

Oops! The factory photo is actually credited to the P&C factories in Hamburg.

Here is a photo of my Reece 101. This is a different angle than the one in the uniforms book, but it is the same type of machine.

[Renaud]

Ok I understand now. This is highly interesting.

Per example, is this button hole cut-before type with fly-bar ?

[hoacha]

Thanks for the info boys! Did wool and HBT jackets use the same methods? I have seen some hbt camo jackets that have fly bar holes.

[werner p.]

A very interesting thread !
Thanks for the info on the Reece machines, I didn't know this. Very interesting information !!

Werner

[vbergman1]

New kid: The photo in post 11 looks to be a cut-after with bartack finish.

From what I've seen, most of the camo and hbt stuff used the cut-after with bartacks.

I have seen flybar finish used on the cuff vents and field dressing pockets that were made of rayon. I think the reason for this is because using a bartack finish on rayon (or other thin fabrics) makes the fabric spread apart too much at the finish end of the buttonhole.

[werner p.]

I have seen flybar finish used on the cuff vents and field dressing pockets that were made of rayon. I think the reason for this is because using a bartack finish on rayon (or other thin fabrics) makes the fabric spread apart too much at the finish end of the buttonhole.

Explanation makes perfect sense.


pw