Bridal wear

A premium service

Wedding dress cleaning commands a significant premium but demands considerably more work and skill to produce a good result. The right techniques and systems will return the dress to a bright stain-free condition but if cleaners do not have the necessary expertise or do not take sufficient care, the results can be disastrous.

Cleaners need to be familiar with the different stain-removal techniques and take straightforward precautions to prevent errors such as greying. The importance of using the correct detergent charge, making sure that the process uses distilled solvent and pre-drying cannot be over-emphasised.

As most wedding day soiling and staining is water-based, many cleaners choose to wash every dress rather than drycleaning the garments.

While washing produces extremely good results on polyester it can damage suitable silk or acetate. Polyester fabric is generally designed for washing and staining generally comes away easily in water. Conversely, silk and acetate fibres crack in washing, creating irremovable cracked-ice or basket-weave creasing and the associated shrinkage.

Wedding dresses usually require different finishing techniques. The dress often needs to be suspended above the press or table to allow access to folds and layers. Ruching presents extra problems but there are techniques for handling layers of soft folds, which will re-create the ruched effect without any clumsy, hard creases that ruin the appearance.

CASE STUDIES

Beads turn soft in perc

Fault: The dress was labelled “dryclean only” but when the dress was cleaned in perc the beading softened and degraded leaving ugly plastic patches.

Cause: The beading was made from polystyrene, which softens in perc, and the outer coating offered little protection as the solvent seeped through the thread holes. Inevitably the beads were damaged throughout the solvent wash and in the first part of the tumble dry stage.

Responsibility: The manufacturer is responsible for the poor care label. This is not only inadequate as it fails to indicate which solvent can be used, it is also sub-standard compared with the International Standard 3758 which specifies the use of the correct informative symbols. The damage stems directly from the poor labelling so the maker should take the blame.

Rectification: The fault cannot be corrected. The owner should return the garment to the retailer but the cleaner can help the customer by providing a clear letter of explanation (or a copy of this article).

Red wine and custard

Fault: This white dress had extensive red wine splashes and a custard stain down the upper front. After being processed four times, the red stains had faded a little but the custard stain had turned brown and the dress looked limp and grey.

Cause: Drycleaning solvents do not dissolve red wine or custard, although the detergent’s moisture might reduce the custard mark a little. The heat in the tumble dry stage caramelises the sugars in the red wine and oxidises the milk proteins in the custard, making both marks darker and more obvious.

Responsibility: The wearer is responsible for staining the dress but the cleaner is to blame for failing to pre-treat the marks.

Rectification: The first step is to use a strong protein remover on the custard stain. It will take time and may need several applications (with tamping) but the mark must be removed in this way. The red wine stains should be treated with a good tannin remover and the area should be flushed and feathered dry. The dress should then be cleaned once more, with a good silk detergent and silk size to restore body and sheen. The greyness cannot be reversed.

Ivory dress goes grey

Fault: A silk gown that had few stains came out uniformly grey and dingy when it was drycleaned by itself in pure perc.

Cause: Soiling from the solvent had redeposited back onto the silk covering the fibres so it looks grey. The layer was only was only a few molecules thick but a tiny amount of soiling goes a long way.

Responsibility: Traditionally the cleaner takes the blame for greying unless it is caused by dye from one of the components of the dress. This was not the case here.

Rectification: If the dress is made from a washable silk, then the best way to correct the fault is to wash the dress in a silk process using a silk detergent and silk fabric conditioner.

Unfortunately, many wedding dress silks are not washable.

For the future, greying can be minimised by airing the dress in a warm dry place for a couple of hours before cleaning. This reduces the humidity in the silk fibres and makes them less likely to attract soiling from the solvent. The detergent dosing unit should be set to the maximum recommended by the detergent supplier. One of the functions of the detergent is to prevent greying by keeping the soiling in suspension.

The dress can then be cleaned on a one bath process using distilled solvent.

Mud sticks to the hem

Fault: The cleaner did not want to risk pre-treating this white silk but after cleaning it in hydrocarbon, the hemline soiling and staining was still visible.

Cause: Hemline soiling usually consists of mud particles with brown (vegetable) tannin staining from the ground. Hydrocarbon solvent might flush out some of the looser particles but will neither remove embedded particles nor decolour the brown tannin stains.

Responsibility: The wearer is responsible for staining and soiling the dress but the cleaner should have been able to produce a better result than this.

Rectification: Some of the embedded particles will have re-deposited during the first clean. They will be held to the fibres by strong electrochemical forces but it should still be possible to improve the result by using water and bar soap. Work over a shower tray, plumbed into the drain, so that treated areas can be sprayed if necessary. The secret is to coat each mud particle with soap so that it comes out quickly and easily in the solvent in the main wash. The brown tannin staining should first be de-coloured with a tannin remover.

With white silk the risk is of causing mechanical abrasion to the cloth surface not of colour damage so the cleaner was probably being overcautious in failing to pre-treat the marks. It is important to allow any wetted areas to dry completely before drycleaning. The wearer is responsible for staining and soiling the dress but the cleaner should have been able to produce a better result than this.

Ruches and roses

Fault: A good cleaning and spotting result was spoiled as the cleaner pressed the ruching and fabric roses, causing random hard creases and wilted forlorn looking flowers.

Causes: Both the ruching and the roses required special finishing techniques.

Responsibility: The cleaner is to blame for the finishing damage and an overall unsatisfactory result.

Rectification: Remove the roses, cut the tacking stitch and unroll. The fabric strips should be pressed carefully, then re-rolled. With a little practice, this will recreate the roses perfectly.

Next, relax the fabric and press out the ruching’s hard creases, using a water spray to damp down the fabric. Using a hand iron over bed of the finishing table is unlikely to be satisfactory. Instead, bring in the air-blow to the table and tackle each layer of ruching over a bed of air, using a narrow dressmaker’s iron.

Alternatively, it may be possible to work on a steam-air former blowing the ruching out with cool air while ironing the dampened fabric. Once the hard creases have been removed, the layers of ruching should be re-assembled/re-laid by hand, using air-blow to give the garment its three-dimensional structure to hold the ruched folds in place.