I am a big giant dumb ass with OCD tendencies that run amok.
So I’m working on this 15th century linen kirtle. The bodice is two layers.. and the skirt is a single layer.
A while back I decided that I’d use a binding on the seam between the skirt and the bodice. It seemed like the best way to attach the skirt. I don’t want any raw edges exposed..and the only other thing I could think of was attaching it as a french seam.. and that just seemed awkward.
So I sewed the dress together including hand finishing the second edge of the binding. Then I tried the dress on.. and found out the bodice was a little bit too long in the back.. so I removed the skirt, shortened the bodice and reattached the skirt. Reattached as in I have entirely, 100% finished with the hand finishing on the binding strip.
Then when I started on the sleeves I decided that instead of using a binding strip on the sleeves I’d sew the sleves down on one side.. and then hand finish the other side. I’ve finished one of the sleeves (and I hope to goodness I don’t have to pull it off because the stitching looks lovely) and I’m sitting here.. idly thinking about the dress..and musing to myself how sad it is that the waist seams binding is so bulky.. and is making the waist seam stand out a bit.. and at the same time I happened to stumble on a flickr picture that someone posted about how they attached the skirt on their dress…. and now I’m just kicking myself. They attached the skirt to the front side of the bodice.. and then flipped the other edge of the bodice and hand sewed that down.. it’s much nicer and less bulky than a binding.
So now that I’m thinking about it.. I’m going to have to do it. Stupid OCD.. now that I see how it should be done.. there’s NO WAY I can leave it as is. So yes, I will be removing my skirt for the second time and sewing the damned thing back together.. AGAIN.
BTW: Is there a sewing term for this kind of seam? I want to be able to use a term to describe what is happening and have people able to understand what I’m talking about without having to redefine the process each time I mention it.