Are JRB Underquilts flat rectangles?

[Crawldaddy]

I think the Mt Washington Quilt is designed curved, but I was wondering about their other underquilts. thanx, Bill

[Otter1]

Yes - rectangles

[warbonnetguy]

from what i understand, the mt washington is a rectangle as well, except the outer shell is larger than the inner shell (the differential cut.)

[Peter_pan]

The Mt Washington is far from a rectangle.... Some of its pieces are retangular but others are not.... Its overall design and sewing is considerably different....It is a fully body contoured under quilt.... you can see details and pictures here, scroll down for pics.....http://www.jacksrbetter.com/Mt%20Washington.htm

Pan

[warbonnetguy]

pan, there is no pic of it laying spread out flat on the ground to see the actual shape of the shell/quilt, but it sure does look like a differential-cut "rectangular" quilt to me. yet you seem to be saying it's not? maybe crawldaddy can comment, but i think he was referring to the overall shape of the quilt when laid out flat, rather than the shape of the baffles or internal pieces or the shape it takes when installed under a hammock or used as a topquilt. you also seem to be implying that a quilt cannot be "rectangular" shaped unless every piece, including the internal ones, are rectangular in shape as well.

[Coldspring]

Just guessing. I would think that the smaller internal piece is nearly rectangular, but the larger outside (the Kelly Green part) probably tapers off gradually from the centers of each side out to the points. So the points wouldn't be a perfectly squared 90 degree angle. Take two pieces of paper, cut one smaller, and try taping the edges together. You would have a lot of leftover material bunched up in the corners w/o some sort of taper. I think the Jacks have got MILES of that material and can just start cutting angles and shapes till something works out; if it doesn't, just use it for a smaller item.

[warbonnetguy]

maybe, i don't know how they do it, but i would think cutting off angles and such would actually make that perimeter longer rather than shorter (just like the shortest distance between 2 points/corners is a straight line, or edge in this case). the way it appears to be done on the snug fit, and the way i do it, is to just put pleats into the larger shell evenly spaced along the edge until it becomes the same length as the smaller shell. although, from the pics, i can't see any pleats in the outer-shell at all, so maybe pan can clarify. but either way, the first thing you do when you get it, is to lay the thing out flat on the floor. what shape is it if not rectangular?

i'm not trying to pick on pan, but i can definately see how people could be misled into thinking that the edges are curved or specially shaped from his wording, and i don't think they are.

i'm no math whiz, but i do know if a shape has 4 straight sides and 4 90deg. corners then it is not "far from rectangular", but rather "perfectly rectangular"

he admits that some pieces are rectangular. would those be the 2 shell pieces (the pieces that determine the "shape" of the quilt)?

the only way i could see for it not being a rectangle would be if the inner shell piece itself was 3 dimensional, but it certainly doesn't look that way from the pic of it stretched out flat.

[Just Jeff]

When laid out flat, the Mt Washington basically forms a rectangle. But if you pick it up and pull all the corners to hold it out as taut as it will go in all directions, the black inner shell is not flat...it's contoured along both axes (length and width) so it should hug the hammock body much better than a flat quilt. I would guess that before construction, the inner shell is basically shaped like a rectangle with bulging edges, though I suspect it's more complicated than that.

Haven't examined it enough yet to comment on baffle shape.

The outer shell will not compress the down no matter how tightly you stretch it or how much pressure you put on the inner shell when snugging it to the hammock (within normal use parameters, obviously).

The inner shell is smooth with no pleats inside the fabric, unlike the SnugFit which has a complicated system of pleats on the inner shell. This obviously saves weight and construction time (cost) but I can't comment yet on how the fit compares between the two. Haven't tried the Mt Washington on the hammock yet (I'm traveling again) and don't have enough experience with the SnugFit to make an educated opinion.

[warbonnetguy]

i saw cannibals snug fit, and it does appear to have some sort of 3d inner shell due to the lengthwise darts. are there pleats on the outside of the mt wash?

[Just Jeff]

Don't recall offhand...only had a few minutes with it before I hit the road. I'll have pics and such up for my review when I get back home. Until then, maybe someone else can respond (hopefully with a pic).