Press harder to get the creases out
Pressure is what makes wool go shiny, and the shine is a changed fibre surface rather than a mark that can be cleaned off.
What is claimed
That pressing harder with the iron is the way to remove a stubborn crease.
Where this comes from: Traditional household practice.
Does it work?
Does not work
Refuted by the fibre's own trade body, which names pressure as the cause of a permanent change and specifies moisture as the working variable instead.
This is a verdict on whether the technique is effective. Whether it is safe on a particular surface is a separate question, answered below.
Where not to use it
Wool
Safe only in specific conditions
This is only appropriate within specific limits. Outside those limits, CleaningHQ makes no claim.
Ironing is specified at the wool, medium or 2-dot setting with water sprayed first or steam applied, without heavy pressure, and without leaving the iron standing.
Precautions
- Check the manufacturer's instructions
- Test on an inconspicuous area first
The proposed mechanism
The explanation below is what is offered for this technique. CleaningHQ has not found evidence establishing that this is what actually happens, and says so rather than presenting a plausible story as a finding.
Creases are set fibre, so more force appears to be the way to reset them. The wool body's account is that heat plus moisture lets the fibre relax, while pressure flattens and polishes the surface — producing a permanent shine rather than a flatter garment.
Background
A stubborn crease invites more weight on the iron. The wool body's instruction is the reverse, and it names the consequence: do not apply heavy pressure, as this will lead to the surface of the sweater becoming SHINY. That is burnishing — the fibre surface flattened and made reflective — and it is not a deposit, so no cleaning removes it. A second prohibition covers the other instinct: never leave the iron standing on the garment for any length of time, as this can result in scorching. What the body specifies instead is the wool, medium or 2-dot heat setting, with moisture applied deliberately — spray the garment with a little water first, or use the iron's steam function. Moisture rather than force is the working variable, because it lets the fibre relax rather than being crushed flat. The standing rule closes it: do not iron at all if the sew-in care label says not to. Note what this record does NOT claim. The burnishing mechanism is stated for wool by the wool body; CleaningHQ does not extend it to other fibres, though the same visual effect on synthetics has a different cause worth separate evidence.
What it does not do
- Stated by the wool body for wool; not extended to cotton, linen or synthetics
- It names the shine and the scorching without describing whether either is recoverable
- A garment's own care label governs, including a do-not-iron instruction
What to use instead
- Rinsing and drying — The step people skip, and the one that decides whether cleaning protected the surface or damaged it. Residue left behind is exposure that continues after you stop.
Evidence
Does not work
Refuted by the fibre's own trade body, which names pressure as the cause of a permanent change and specifies moisture as the working variable instead.
Sources
The Woolmark Company · Trade or professional body
Relied on for: That the wool, medium or 2-dot setting is used with water sprayed on the garment or steam applied, that heavy pressure must not be applied because it makes the surface shiny, that the iron must never be left standing because it can scorch, and that a do-not-iron care label must be obeyed. (states this directly)
Verification: a person has read the passage relied on.
Read on — The whole page: setting, moisture, pressure and scorching. Supports the claim as stated. Sprint 7 recorded that no ironing guidance could be attributed to the wool body because the page then read gave none. That was correct about that page and is now superseded: a dedicated ironing page exists and has been read.
Last reviewed by a person on .
Last reviewed by a person on .