TRIMS

Trims can often lead to problems in cleaning and in some cases the fault is impossible or difficult to correct. Then the only remedy is to give a clear explanation of what has happened and advise the customer to return the garment to the retailer.

The most serious mistake is still the inclusion of polystyrene beading on garments labelled “dry clean only” without excluding the use of perc. This solvent softens polystyrene so that it leaves a sticky mess on the front of the garment.

Optimistic cleaners sometimes try a very short cycle in very cool perc. Although both precautions will help, this solution is very risky and does not help the consumer in the long-term.

If the garment is labelled for cleaning in perc (or if the label does not specifically exclude perc), then the consumer usually has a cast-iron claim against the supplier.

Beads, buckles and buttons are supposed to withstand the cleaning process described by the care-label, which means they should not shatter or chip. Even international standard test methods for cleaning sensitive items do not call for button protectors or for net bagging. Such protection is best practice but the trim should still be able to survive without them.

The consumer gets a raw deal when trims fail and the problem is often made worse by the difficulty in obtaining matching trims. Imports to the UK rarely come with spare trims so the disappointed consumer has the choice of accepting an unsatisfactory near-match or taking the retailer to the small claims court.

The cleaner is frequently caught up in the middle of these arguments and is in the direct line of fire of the irate customer who is seeking someone to blame.

Disco lights reveal two-tone flowers

Fault: The customer complained that the flower trim suddenly turned two-tone when she wore the dress to a club.

Cause: Night-club disco lighting contains a great deal of ultraviolet and will pick up even slight differences in the way that fabrics fluoresce. These flowers have been made from two off-cuts of material that have different levels of optical brightening agents (OBA). The fabric with the highest OBA level turns much paler under UV light.

Responsibility: The difference revealed here pre-dated drycleaning and went right back to the garment manufacture. It is the maker’s responsibility.

Rectification: The fault cannot be rectified.

The lost jewel

Fault: During cleaning, one of the jewels broke free from the metal claw that held it.

Cause: The closures on some jewel clasps are too soft to withstand the mechanical action of the drycleaning process. When they open, the loose jewel passes through the holes in the cage and is lost with the dirt and lint in the button trap.

Responsibility: The garment maker is responsible for keeping jewelled trims secure and therefore for the lost jewel.

Rectification: Fitting a matching jewel is the only solution but shipments from the Far East rarely include spare trims so finding a match could be extremely difficult.

Beads turn yellow

Fault: This dress was labelled P in a circle without any bar underneath. After cleaning, some beads, which were all of one type, turned a deep yellow-brown.

Cause: One bead was tested by bringing it slowly into the flame of a gas lighter. A “celery-like” after-smell, together with spluttering orange flame and thick black smoke, indicated that it was made from acrylic plastic. If the care label had shown a bar beneath the circled P and the fabric content label had included acrylic, the cleaner would then have known to reduce the thermostat setting to 50C maximum (air off-the-cage).

Responsibility: The garment maker is responsible. Correct labelling might have avoided the fault.

Rectification: None – finding matching beads could be difficult.

This clasp’s structure is too weak

Fault: A designer jacket was fastened with a two-part jewelled clasp that was fitted with a small hook and eye. After drycleaning one of the parts had broken into three.

Cause: The body of each part of the clasp was a soft metal casting or forging that had been designed to resist impact with the machine’s cage so it should not have needed protection during cleaning. Examining the broken ends revealed that the clasp had broken previously and been soldered together. Soldering is inherently weak.

Responsibility: Tests on the unbroken half found that it was likely to bend in use to such an extent that it would have broken very easily in normal wear. The failure was due to the clasp’s weak construction and the fact that the repair broke does not change the garment maker’s responsibility for fitting a weak clasp.

Rectification: A new clasp is needed but finding a perfect match for this one could be difficult, if not impossible.

Beads chip and crack

Fault: This pyramid bead appeared cracked after the dress was drycleaned even though it was labelled with a circled P.

Cause: This damage almost certainly occurred when the bead struck the side of the rotating cage either during the solvent wash or more probably during the tumble-dry stage.

Responsibility: The international standard test method for care-labelling states that the label should refer to the entire garment including trim. Further, the test method for drycleanability does not call for trims to be protected, even on sensitive and very sensitive cycles. The maker should be taking responsibility here.

Rectification: Apart from replacing the broken beads with a close match, none is possible.