Pay attention to detail
An expert wedding dress cleaning service can command a premium and result in a truly satisfied customer but attention to detail is essential.
A careful inspection at the counter allows staff to note any staining and ask about its origin so it can be treated correctly. Examining the garment under UV light in the customer’s presence will reveal many stains that would not be visible otherwise and help to avoid complaints about developed staining.
Hemline soiling is usually water-based and ingrained. Drycleaning is not the best way to remove this. Pre-treat the marks with water and bar soap and allow the garment to dry thoroughly before it is processed in the machine.
Plastic beading can be checked for its ability to withstand drycleaning by immersing a single bead in solvent for thirty minutes, then removing it and pressing or rubbing it between two pieces of white cotton fabric. If removing a bead is not feasible, check that the care-label allows drycleaning in the solvent the business uses or at least does not prohibit that particular solvent.
Bridal gowns may have hundreds of small beads. If there is any doubt that they have been attached securely, place the dress in a duvet cover or similar bag for cleaning as this is far more effective than the button trap in retaining any loose beads. The cover or bag will also limit mechanical damage. Trim assemblies that appear to be delicate or susceptible to damage are best protected by basting fabric over them.
Pressing bridal wear requires time and ingenuity. Suspending the garment from a rotating hook over the press enables every layer to be accessed safely and individually. Fabric roses should be unrolled, ironed flat and then remade. Ruching should be finished by a trained presser – see previous issues of LCN for the correct technique.
CASE STUDIES
Beads melt in perc
Fault: This dress was labelled circle P with a bar beneath and was drycleaned in perc but some of the beads “melted” to form ugly, hard plastic residues on the fabric.
Cause:The beading was made from polystyrene or similar, which softens in perc and creates a molten mass that flows onto the fabric, resulting in ugly residues, as seen here. The fault is not caused by heat.
Responsibility: In this case, the garment maker is responsible because the fault stems directly from the unsuitable care-label. The label implies that the garment can withstand an International Standard two-bath process for sensitive items, which involves a total of 13minutes washing in liquid solvent followed by tumble drying. The standard advises that it may take up to five drycleans for any changes to become apparent. Most beads of this type fail after an exposure time of 4 – 20 minutes so the label does not meet the requirement.
Rectification: None is possible.
Drycleaning will not remove hemline soiling
Fault: On a rainy wedding day, the hemline on the bride’s dress became heavily soiled from the churchyard and pavements. Drycleaning brought little improvement.
Cause: Most hemline soiling is water based and churchyard mud contains plenty of brown tannin from dead leaves. Even perc will not dissolve this dirt and correct pre-treatment is the only solution.
Responsibility: The wearer is responsible for getting the soiling onto the garment – the bridesmaids should also be trying to prevent this. The cleaner is responsible for carrying out the correct professional procedures, which include pre-treating the hemline where needed. The cleaner should therefore be taking responsibility for any soiling and staining which would have been removed had correct procedures been followed.
Rectification: Drycleaning does not set vegetable dye stains so any green and brown staining from grass and leaves could still be removed, as could red-brown stains from wine provided that the sugars are first removed witha steam gun or water flush.
Mud and other particulate dirt will probably have re-deposited locally on the fabric and may not Most hemline soiling is water based and churchyard mud contains plenty of brown tannin from dead leaves. Even perc will not dissolve this dirt and correct pre-treatment is the only solution.
Responsibility: The wearer is responsible for getting the soiling onto the garment – the bridesmaids should also be trying to prevent this. The cleaner is responsible for carrying out the correct professional procedures, which include pre-treating the hemline where needed. The cleaner should therefore be taking responsibility for any soiling and staining which would have been removed had correct procedures been followed.
Rectification: Drycleaning does not set vegetable dye stains so any green and brown staining from grass and leaves could still be removed, as could red-brown stains from wine provided that the sugars are first removed with a steam gun or water flush.Mud and other particulate dirt will probably have re-deposited locally on the fabric and may not now be removable.
Beads were poorly secured
Fault: This gown was labelled “dryclean only” but when it was returned the owner noticed that beads were missing in some places while in others the threads used to attach the beads were loose and the beads were about to come adrift.
Cause: The threads securing the beads to this garment were not properly tied off and the mechanical action involved in drycleaning has loosened the threads, so freeing the beads.
Responsibility: In this case the garment maker is responsible. The gown is clearly labelled for drycleaning and the beads would not have been lost if the threads have been properly tied off.
Rectification: It is often possible to get replacement beading and stitch this on. The cleaner could offer to do this for a charge but should only do so if the owner has agreed that the garment maker is liable and decided not to pursue the matter. The result will not be identical to the original but it should be possible to create a wearable garment.
Flounces and ruffles can’t withstand machine action
Fault: This dress was labelled “dryclean only” but it had an elaborate and delicate structure of flounces and ruffles supported by wire inserts. During drycleaning the fabric became torn with wires protruding from the channels that held them (see picture) and nicks where the wire had caught the fabric Cause: Drycleaning involves tumbling the garment in a heavy liquid solvent, which might be heavier than water, followed by tumble drying in warm air. This puts the garment under considerable mechanical stress. Most cleaners would use a net bag to enclose delicate items, as indeed this cleaner did, but the International Standard test method for sensitive items does not require this. However, some garment constructions cannot even withstand drycleaning in a net bag without sustaining mechanical damage as these pictures show.
Responsibility: In this case the garment maker is responsible as the garment has not been designed for machine cleaning and the “dryclean only” label is not correct.
Rectification: The garment could be professionally repaired but it will not look exactly the same asit did originally.
Cracked ice creasing spoils garment
Fault: The cleaner assumed that a wedding dress was made of polyester, as many dresses are, and as it was heavily stained with drink, food and hemline mud, he washed it on a gentle 40C program and let it drip-dry until slightly damp. Then the presser found that he was unable to remove the fine creasing and all the seams were puckered.
Cause: The dress is made from silk, acetate or viscose, not polyester, so it will crease irreversibly if washed rather than drycleaned. The mechanical action and moisture has cracked the fabric, causing shrinkage and creasing.
Responsibility: If the garment is correctly care-labelled for drycleaning not washing, then the cleaner is responsible because he ignored the label.
Rectification: Unfortunately none is possible. For the future, any silk, acetate or viscose dress that is heavily stained should be given extensive stain and soil pre-treatment and then drycleaned. If the cleaner has a professional wetcleaning machine and the label includes the circle W, which denotes wetcleaning, then this could be used but there is still a risk of residual staining and slight crack-creasing.
