A handful of problems

Loss of backing

Problem: Loss of rubberised backing on a waterproofed yellow jacket after drycleaning in perchloroethylene.

Cause: Testing the residual rubberised coating to this garment with pure perchloroethylene solvent caused it to soften and detach. It has not been designed to be drycleaned.

Responsibility: This garment was labelled for drycleaning in perc, so the responsibility in this instance lies with the garment maker, not with the owner or the drycleaner.

Rectification: Once a coating has been lost in this way it is not possible to rectify the garment.

Rippling curves

Problem: Dress in a bi-stretch viscose acetate elastomer showed distortion following finishing.

Cause: The rows of ripple seen here followed a curved contour characteristic of the shape of the buck of a free-steam press. Application of free-steam to the bi-stretch material has caused some tightening of the elastomeric yarns resulting in an excess of fabric at the edges which led directly to the rippling.

Responsibility: It is always risky to use free-steam on a crepe or elastomeric cloth. This particular dress carried a one dot iron symbol which also warns about the use of free-steam, so the responsibility really lies with the cleaner in this instance. Even without the one dot iron, a professional cleaner should have been aware of the risk and avoided it.

Rectification: It is very difficult to rectify this type of damage. It is sometimes possible to re-press the fabric from damp under tension using a cool iron and pressing cloth, but even so it is very difficult to get rid of rippling of this type.

White on black

Problem: The pile on a black velvet evening gown has been flattened causing unsightly whitening.

Cause: The cause in the instance was incorrect use of an iron during finishing. most velvets, even cotton velvets require little or no finishing. Acetate velvets are particularly sensitive to steam and wet steam.

Responsibility: The blame here lies with whoever finished the garment incorrectly. It is not possible to work out whether this pre-dated or post-dated cleaning but if it pre-dated cleaning, then it would have been visible at the cleaner’s reception and a disclaimer should have been issued then.

Rectification: There is no sensible means by which this garment can be rectified.

Hidden depths?

Problem: Following drycleaning of a man’s jacket in brown brushed cotton, unsightly darkening became visible at the cuffs and wear edges.

Cause: Examination of the dark areas revealed loss of the brushed surface pile revealing the darker base fabric beneath.

Responsibility: The problem here is the result of normal wear and as such the responsibility should remain with the owner. Drycleaning has flushed away the soiling and broken surface fibres at the wear edges to reveal the fault, but the problem has not been caused by negligence or incompetence on the part of the cleaner.

Rectification: There is no sensible means by which this garment can be rectified.

Limp silk Problem: A black silk blouse was labelled “dry clean only” but the silk fabric became limp and lifeless following drycleaning in perc.

Cause: Many heavy silk cloths are stiffened with a dressing which should have been designed to resist the aftercare instructions given on the label.

Responsibility: The responsibility lies with the garment maker (and ultimately with the original cloth producer). The garment also carried a wash care label and the owner reported that hand washing did not produce the fault. For a garment such as this worn next to the skin it would have been better to have relied on washing or wetcleaning rather than drycleaning.

Rectification: There are some stiffening finishes which would improve the texture and handle of this garment but in the first instance it was recommended that it be returned to the place of purchase so that the manufacturer could see the labelling error.

Kink in the legs

Problem: A pair of cord effect trousers were woven so as to take one yarn to the reverse of the fabric while the other predominated on the face. Following drycleaning there was a distinct kink at the same height in each trouser leg at top of long sock level.

Cause: The problem here has been caused by abrasion between the reverse of the trouser fabric and the top of a long sock, possibly made from nylon or cotton. The floating yarns taken to the reverse of the trouser cloth have pilled with the abrasion, producing a characteristic band of dark bobbles and this pilling has resulted in general tightening of the transverse yarns. It is this which is producing the distortion and kink visible on the face of the fabric Responsibility: This particular fault is a feature of this type of cloth when worn in this manner. It is really a matter for discussion between the wearer and the retailer as to who is more to blame.

The cleaner should not be getting involved in this because the fault has not been caused by cleaner negligence or cleaner error.

Rectification: There is no satisfactory means by which a fault of this type can be rectified. The trousers are essentially ruined.

Out of the blue

Problem: A blue silk dress with dark blue sequin trim was drycleaned in hydrocarbon fluid and following the cleaning, the blue paint on the sequins was lost in many places.

Cause: Testing the remaining blue sequins revealed a very poor bond between paint and sequin which was quite easily overcome, even by a mild drycleaning fluid such as hydrocarbon.

Responsibility: The blame in this instance lies with the garment maker who should have specified sequins well able to resist the aftercare technique given on the care label.

Rectification: The sequin trim needs to be totally replaced.