Quilting Foot Question

Old 11-19-2019, 03:55 AM
  #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Default Quilting Foot Question

Newbie Post: I have just started free motion quilting and ruler foot quilting. I collect vintage machines, so have a few I'd like to try. So far I have not been too successful with my Singer 15-125. I have had more success with my Singer 201-2, but would also like to try my Singer 15-91. There is a foot made specifically for the Singer 15-91, so does it matter which foot I use? I am finding that the ruler foot, which fits my modern machine, does not leave enough space underneath for easy movement of the quilt on a vintage machine. I have seen that there are feet made especially for particular models, so my question is this: other than looking for the shank height, high, medium, low, or slant, does it matter if you don't get the specific foot for that machine? I would love to hear what others use and why one foot is better than another.
ebell is offline  
Old 11-19-2019, 05:03 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 379
Default

Both the 201 and the 15 (and the 66) are standard low shank machines. The specialty foot for the 15 should work fine on any low shank machine.
The 15-125 is the 15-91 in a different coat. Not that there aren't differences between machines of the same model, there definitely are. It would be interesting to know if those differences are primarily due to one having been a well used and maintained vsm.
For advancing that quilt sandwich under the foot, try a Davis Vertical Feed treadle. It has a high/low lever for thickness of material under the foot.
WIChix is offline  
Old 11-19-2019, 05:30 AM
  #3  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Default

I am wondering the same thing about the 15-125 and 15-91 as I was aware, too, that they have the same inner workings. The top thread on the 15-125 ravels at the needle after a few minutes, so it could be something wrong with it. I did check the tension before starting, and it makes a lovely stitch when in regular sewing mode. Could be user error. I haven't heard of the Davis Vertical Feed treadle. I will look into it. Thank you.
ebell is offline  
Old 11-19-2019, 06:56 AM
  #4  
Super Member
 
leonf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: near Topeka kansas
Posts: 3,850
Default

Welcome ebell Have you replaced the needle? One burr can tear stuff up.

Bad pic, but it is a Davis VF. Note the absence of feed dogs.
leonf-u169597-albums19653-580568.jpg
leonf is online now  
Old 11-19-2019, 04:40 PM
  #5  
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,466
Default

Hi Ebell,

I've just taught a ruler work class this morning. We had a few different machines in the class. And some of the students bought ruler feet off ebay, and we couldn't get them to work. They were supposed to be "low shank," but when we compared them with the Westalee "low shank," they were definitely taller, and squoze the fabric, too tight.

In another class, we had a student with a ruler foot that was chromed plastic. It, too was too high. So we went to grind it down a bit, which is when we discovered that it was plastic. Yikes!

It really is worth getting the Westalee foot. They're $48 and come with the 12" arc ruler. But you get a good quality foot, and it will work like you want.

I've found that polyester thread behaves better than cotton thread when doing free-motion or ruler work. Probably because it has some stretch, and cotton doesn't.
quiltedsunshine is offline  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:38 AM
  #6  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Default

Thank you so much. I have looked into the Westalee foot. It is good to hear that it does function well. I haven't seen too many reviews out there on it. I was concerned about spending that amount if it was going to be like some of the others that I already have, that don't work well. I will need to decide which machine is going to be my main FMQ machine before I make the purchase. I am deciding between my 301, 201-2, and 15-91. If I choose the 301, then I will need the slant shank. I am still learning about FMQ, so I am trying to make the best choice. Your information about the thread is also noteworthy. I have a lot to think about and a lot of practicing to do. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.
ebell is offline  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:39 AM
  #7  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Default

Thank you for sharing.
ebell is offline  
Old 11-22-2019, 07:06 PM
  #8  
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,466
Default

One more thought. It makes a big difference which non-slip pad you stick onto the back of the rulers. I put Handi-Grip on mine, and there is 99% no slippage.
quiltedsunshine is offline  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:45 AM
  #9  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Default

Thank you.
ebell is offline  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:26 PM
  #10  
Member
 
PatriciaPf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 71
Default

For what it's worth, I have read many times that the 15-91 is preferred for FMQ because it has an oscillating hook and the thread flows beautifully from the bobbin without obstruction. This is not the case with the 201-2 in which the thread must make a 90 degree turn from the bobbin to form a stitch. The 301 requires a special darning-type foot and, if I am not mistaken, it must be used after one of the thread guides is removed as it will interfere with the foot otherwise.
PatriciaPf is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trrmite
Main
21
10-20-2011 05:11 PM
quiltwhisperer
Main
15
11-22-2010 10:29 AM
MommaDorian
Main
12
09-20-2010 04:47 AM
stefanib123
Main
8
08-13-2010 05:07 PM
StitchnFind
Main
11
07-12-2010 07:59 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


FREE Quilting Newsletter


SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.