Talk:Charmeuse

Does anyone know when charmeuse was first produced? I am comparing some of my vintage, satiny items with a contemporary charmeuse blouse and it appears that my old things are satin, rather than charmeuse. It's not easy to distinguish between the two with complete certainty, however. The vintage garments are heavier, though this may be due to the fact that synthetic fibres were still relatively new at the time the garments were made--perhaps it was difficult to make very fine rayon threads? Xanthippe 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the dull side of silk charmeuse used in men's shirts, where I believe it is sometimes called sueded silk. I am not a fashion expert however, so I don't want to edit the categorical `no' presented in the page. -ESA

It is difficult to find a consistant definition of charmeuse. Some very extensive textile definition sites don't list it at all (http://textile.texworld.com, http://www.textilesintelligence.com) but http://www.textilelinks.com defines it as "a satin weave silk with a crepe back sometimes called crepe-backed satin". However I have seen many fabrics called charmeuse that do not have a crepe back. Another source http://www.fibre2fashion.com defines it as "A Soft Lightweight Woven Satin Fabric With Good Drape. It Is Made With High Twist Yarns, Has A Semi-lustrous Face And A Dull Back . Often Used For Blouses, Intimate Apparel."

It seems to me as if it is a relatively new term that has been given to a lightweight satin weave fabric, usually of silk, but possibly also of other man-made fine filament yarns. Juggler53 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warp and Weft
In the lede, it says "the warp threads cross over four or more of the backing (weft) threads."

I don't know what is meant by "backing" in the context of weaving, but this language implies that the weft is somehow 'static', and the warp does the crossing. I've not come across charmeuse before, but weaving is weaving, and it is the warp that is static (as explained in Warp and weft).

That remark in the lede is not taken from some cited remark in the main body, as is normal procedure; and the remark in the lede is itself not cited. I therefore propose to remove it. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I deleted the remark. It seems to be at odds with the description at linked Satin weave, which is slightly more complete, and slightly less confusing. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)