[Masha Richart]

OK – so my tall and skinny 3-year-old measures 19″ around the chest and tummy (6-12 mo size!), but is 39″ tall (so I’ll have to add a little length to the 3T to get it where I want it). I just drafted the front and back panels of the dress in the 12-18 mo with 3T length. I kept the armscyes the 3T length because it made sense to me, but I only drew them to the 12-18 mo width, and then the body/skirt is also 12-18 mo width. I hope this makes sense. Anyway, I am not sure this is the correct approach. I’m making a “wearable muslin” of this dress in corduroy before tackling the lilac velveteen I bought for DD1’s Christmas dress, but if my approach is wrong, I’d love to redraft before even starting the “muslin.”

Also, if my approach is correct, what do I do with the sleeves? I don’t want them to be overly poufy – I love this dress when it is fitted properly but some versions I have seen are a little too voluminous for my taste. It doesn’t quite make sense to me that I would use the straight 3T sleeve – it seems I’d need to narrow it but keep it the 3T length. Any input?

[Nicole]

I am no fitting expert but when I make this for my skinny little girls I cut their size and add length to the bottom.

It means re-drafting the hem facing but that is not a biggy.

~Nicole~

[with love Heidi]

I haven’t mad this pattern but I tend not to muck around with armholes and sleeves. I think you will need to redraft the sleeves using the height of the 3T sleeve cap and the width of the 6-12m. This could seriously change the sleeve if not done right, but have a go. You might be better just trying the 6-12m sleeve with the extra length.

[Masha Richart]

Well Heidi, I should have taken your advice. As it turns out, with all my fiddling I somehow I managed to cut a much deeper armscye than even the 3T pattern would allow. I did not realize this until after I’d attached the yoke, and went to start on the sleeves. Ugh, the thought of trashing the dress (even though it *was* intended to be a “wearable muslin”) is very sad. I’m just not sure whether there is any fix. I thought of redrafting the sleeves to fit but I already didn’t want them to be too poufy and this will surely increase poufage. I suppose maybe I could finish the armholes with bias and call it a jumper? Part of me wants to piece the armscye back to its required height just so that I have something somewhat wearable. I do love the fabrics I used. Any ideas?

[needlewoman]

Hi rthewgirl,

I’m not sure which dress you are making – maybe I missed something in the previous conversation – however, but for it’s worth, I think the idea of binding the armholes and calling it a jumper is a very good idea. Alternatively, what about making frills for the armholes? Could look very sweet in cord over a “skivvy”. Not sure what American ladies call a stretchy pull over top with a high neck, like skiers wear under jackets for the snow. But that’s what they’re called in Australia. I’d also like to say that I love the word “poufage”; much more evocative of what you are talking about than “fullness”

[Masha Richart]

Oh sorry, it’s the Playdate. I always forget to put the name when I’m posting in one of the pattern forums. I like the frills idea. Sort of like a flutter-sleeve toward the top? Or just a ruffle all the way around?

(We call high-neck pullovers “turtlenecks”).

[meleliza]

Intersting, I thought skivvies we under garments. I pictured grandpa style long underwear. Huh. Anyway, I agree y could probably wear this a s acute jumper. Also, I’ve made several of these and I suggest allowing for much more headroom than the pattern calls for,

[Mama_Knowles]

A dress with teh flutter sleeve would be beautiful! I have been thinking about making one as well but have not gotten around to it yet.

[Nicole]

If the arm holes are huge could you add a ribbing band?

[with love Heidi]

I was thinking the same as needlewoman and just sewing in some bias binding and turning it tot he wron side to finish the armholes. Although the flutter sleeve would be great. Skivies are like a long sleeve tee shirt but with a high roll neck collar, in Australia, I always imagined this was what is called a ‘turtleneck’ in the US?

[Masha Richart]

Thanks to all of you for your help. I was able to salvage the dress with some cap sleeves (I was going for flutter but cut the pieces too wide and decided to go with it). I’m surprisingly pleased with how it turned out. I think I will just do a straight 12-18 month next time (6-12 would fit better about the shoulders but I think it would be too narrow in the skirt) with added length. Photo on flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23557464@N03/8070527250/in/pool-oliverands.

[needlewoman]

Way to go, rtwgirl! I think it takes a special kind of gutsiness to make the best of something that hasn’t turned out the way it was planned originally. So tempting to throw it in the cupboard. Glad to know you solved the problem. Yes, flutter sleeve, (frill) was what I had in mind, or as you did, little cap sleeve. So tricky negotiating the terminology of two different languages even tho they’re both English. Thanks for the tip abt “turtleneck”, and just to confuse the issue, in Australia the undergarments worn for extra warmth that Melizza refers to are called “spencers” if for the upper body, and “long johns” if the for the legs/bottom. Whatever!!

[with love Heidi]

Rtwgirl, that is the cutest dress. I like it better with the cap sleeves than the originals!

[with love Heidi]

Just realised that the type of shirt she is wearing under the dress in the bike photo is what we call a skivy.

[meleliza]

I think you’ve salvaged it nicely! Projects don’t always go as planned, I just finished a dress I somehow, despite great care, cut too short, I added a facing to the hem to give it enough length. It wasn’t what I wanted, but it worked better than cutting a new skirt altogether.

We have long johns too, worn under clothing for warmth in the winter. Also called long underwear. But for some reson, i thought skivvies were the one piece kind, you know with the butt flap like in old fashioned stories? I don’t know, but the word conjures images of really old fashioned underwear.