Thinning fabric
Problem: After cleaning, the owner of a green jacket and a red jacket, both with a high wool content, reported that the fabric of each garment had noticeably thinned.
Cause: Examination of these fabrics under magnification revealed no trace of hardening of the fabric surfaces. There has been no obvious loss of fibre and no undue pressure in pressing. So the most likely cause is limpness which the owner perceives as thinning. This could have been caused by a loss of stiffening size from the cloth—many manufacturers do not specify the size to be resistant to drycleaning.
Rectification: The cleaner was recommended to repress using plenty of vacuum and to resist any temptation to touch up the garments with free steam whilst on the hanger.
Colourloss
Problem: After drycleaning in perc, in accordance with the care label, the deep mink colour of brushed cotton trousers had changed to a paler, drab shade of its original colour.
Cause: The dyes here have not been designed to withstand perc. Placing a small snippet of uncleaned fabric (from an alteration to the trouser cuff) in perc gave visible dye release after 60 seconds at room temperature.
Responsibility: The garment maker and the original fabric producer is responsible for ensuring adequate dyefastness to the method of cleansing given on the care label.
Polyurethane coating lift-off
Problem: Lifting of the surface of a jacket in polyurethane coated cotton following normal perchloroethylene drycleaning in accordance with the care label.
Cause: The coating has not been designed to withstand the combined action of perchloroethylene and tumbling in the drycleaning machine cage with other garments. So, essentially, it cannot stand normal drycleaning despite the care symbol on the label.
Responsibility: In this instance, the responsibility lies with the garment maker and, ultimately, with the original cloth producer. This garment should have been properly tested first in perchloroethylene—it would have failed this test—and then in a milder fluid such as hydrocarbon, which probably would have given some problem as well. Finally, it should have been tested in a mild wetcleaning process—which stood the best chance of giving a successful result. With a little thought, the manufacturer could have avoided the customer’s distress.
Localised matting
Problem: Matting in a patch around the seat area of a three-quarter length synthetic fur coat tufted to give an extremely realistic animal pelt appearance. The matting was not noticeable prior to cleaning.
Cause: The matting is localised to the seat area and has occurred in use. Body heat and movement are sufficient to cause this. During the cleaning, the soiling and static forces are released, allowing the fibres to become free and, in the finishing cycle, they fluff up and lift back to their original positions. Damaged fibres will remain flat and tangled. Responsibility: This was a problem caused in wear: the cleaner was not responsible.
