The Free – Ink, Yarn & Beer

The Free No. 5 or the Singer 66-1? – Part I

Because The Factory Dress is based on 1920s dress designs, I plan to use either my treadle machine or my 1920 hand crank machine. Both would be appropriate for the time period. Even if electrified, they would be fine, unless you didn’t have electricity. I’ll hand sew when necessary.

I think it would be fun to give some background on both machines. The Free No. 5 is not famous, but the Singer 66 is. If you go to eBay and search “The Free Sewing Machine” you will find a lot of them for sale. Anyway, a treadle machine allows you to use both hands as you sew. With a hand crank machine, the right hand provides the power, not your feet. Today, we will explore a bit about the The Free No. 5 treadle machine.

The Free No. 5 Treadle Sewing Machine

The Free No. 5 is a knock-off of a Singer 127 vibrating shuttle machine. It is a full-sized machine, having an 8″ harp and a vibrating shuttle mechanism. ISMACS has a number of brief articles about the No. 5 and other models made by Free.

This video shows you most of the basic functions of The Free No. 5, even though the blurb under the YouTube video says it is NOT a No. 5, for all intents and purposes, it is. The model “No. 5” is not painted on the head, but the decal pattern is the same ans the No. 5, the sewing cabinet is the same, and so on. If you watch the video, listen to the sound of the machine as it sews – I love it!

I bought my No. 5 about 20 years ago from a gentleman in Billings, Montana. He shipped it freight and it arrived on my doorstep in pristine condition. It was beautiful, and still is. Being new to vintage machines, I did not realize it had a long bobbin. In fact, it was the only long bobbin machine I had ever seen. I thought all sewing machine bobbins were round!! Well, eventually they evolved into roundness, but here I was, perplexed and frustrated. Thanks to the internet, and especially YouTube, I finally learned how to use the vibrating shuttle successfully. Interestingly, one of my closest friends told me she had grown up sewing on this same machine, but the Singer 27 version!

The story behind my No. 5 is, to me, so interesting. This man buys and sells household goods as a living, and this household was a prize. The story itself seems rather incredible. He found a household for sale, upstairs, downstairs, and in the basement. The house was ca. 1920 or earlier, but had been seriously remodeled to the point that new flooring was put in, a trap door about 3’x3′ constructed over the former opening to the basement, and forgotten. Only a skinny person could manage the staircase. In he went to find not only my machine, vintage and pristine and barely used, but also antique Stickley furniture in the same condition. How do you get such items out of a 3’x3′ opening? You take it apart and carry it up the stairs. The story, he said, was this machine was bought for the former owner who hated sewing – into the basement it went. And there it stayed until the 1990s.

My machine has proprietary attachments, but it does take a 15×1 sewing needle – at least there I didn’t get a lemon. I have a bunch of attachments, too, and original long bobbins. The original bobbins are longer than the new ones being made and are quite nice to use. Despite the length differences, the new ones work fine with a few tricks.

To be continued . . . .

In Search of the “Perfect” Buttonhole, Part I

I don’t know about you, but sewing a good-looking buttonhole, without a mistake, seems to be a nearly impossible task. There are attachments for machines. Some machines have 4-to-6 step built-in buttonholes. Sew a buttonhole by hand? Hmmm. I’ve been tempted and then reconsider: it’s not worth the stress (even though there are some great YouTube tutorials I have watched!).

In each of these, something can go wrong. A perfect buttonhole can be destroyed with a slip of the seam ripper when making the final slash. Birds nests of thread can collect under what looks like a beauty of a buttonhole. Stitches can be skipped.

I have a small (compared to some people) collection of sewing machines, ranging from a treadle with a long bobbin (The Free #5), two old Singer handcranks (a back-clamping Lotus 66 and a 99), a Featherweight 222K, a Necchi hiding out in the garage in a horrid French Provincial table), some Kenmores (158.1030, 158.1400, 158 904, 158.19802), a Bernina or two (801S and 930), a Janome 6500, and a Pfaff Passport 3.0 (which I may trade in as it seems to have a few too many quirks). I also have a Viking 19e, fixed at long last, which was my mother’s machine, and the one I used throughout my school years. I also have attachments for the treadle, Singers, Kenmores, Berninas, and Janome – anything to make life easier. Or purportedly easier. Buttonhole attachments are included in the mix. And as adjuncts, a coverstitch machine and a serger.

Not all attachments fit all machines. Most are proprietary. For instance, did you know that Singers of yore come with rounded corners and Kenmores are squared? Round pegs – or rounded corners – do not fit in square holes – or squared holes. And in reverse. Thus, Singer attachments are not likely to work on a Kenmore, and Kenmores might not work on a Singer or a Bernina – but they might.

For awhile, Singer made slant-needle machines, and must have slant-needle attachments. Kenmore machines range from low-shank, to high-shank, to super-high-shank. These might require specific buttonhole attachments or shank adapters.

Let’s not talk about Kenmore buttonholers of some variety – many are proprietary to given machine models, and are not clearly identified. Did you ever look at all the models than Kenmore made? Maybe even more models than Singer.

I have 4 Singer buttonholers (gotten cheap off eBay – some for a couple of bucks) and a generic, low-shank one I bought 20 years ago at a local sewing machine store. That last buttonholer is the easiest to use of all of them, but the old Singers are a lot of fun and do a pretty good job.

A good or great buttonhole attachment or machine function is a gift from the gods. Imagine making clothes at home on a straight-stitch machine in a few hours – or several – and then spending the same amount of time (I would think) sewing in 12 buttonholes on a shirt or a blouse or a dress. Even if funky and weird, a buttonholer is up there with a washing machine and a paperclip and a safety pin as far as being this side of miraculous.

Whoever invented the automated buttonholer, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Stay tuned for Part II!

Cause & Effect

The quilt show is to blame for my current focus. Looking at fabrics and looking at the wonderful handcrank machines got me to look at the machines I have strewn around the house. There is a treadle machine in the family / kitchen area. My mom’s old Viking (ca. 1965) – on which I learned to sew – is in the garage, along with a serger which terrifies me. In the bedroom closet are a couple of handcrank machines, a Singer 222K, and a Janome 1000.

The treadle machine and the handcrank machines came to mind quite quickly – they really are fun to use, peaceful and soothing, and not needing to be plugged in. The treadle was the first one to be pulled out. Because of the help I got with the bobbin at the quilt show, it was really easy to set it up and get to sewing.

My treadle is called “The Free,” and it is in remarkably good shape. I bought it on eBay several years ago; in fact, that is where I bought both my handcrank machines.

The treadle machine was rather dusty from a lack of use. I cleaned it up, dusted and oiled everything, popped in a bobbin, and threaded the machine. Off we went!

I have been using a stretchy spinning wheel band to drive it, but found that the band did not have enough width and / or torque to wind the bobbin, which is a long bobbin. I ordered a 3/16″ round band off eBay and installed it when it arrived.

Considering how old it is, this machine is still in beautiful shape. I’ve made clothes on it before, and now the urge to sew is hitting strong. The question is, which machine to use? Each has its advantages . . . but I’ll save that for another time.