Women's trouser drafts

[Futura]

Thanks for your reply! I'm familiar with that fork measurement technique (Don McCunn's method). I actually bought a set of L squares just for this purpose.

With the Müller pants drafts, the fork length is determined by where it intersects with a line connecting a point on the hip line to the knee.

After giving it some thought and overthinking matters, would it not be more accurate to use the same "calliper" method but instead measured from front to back at the actual hip level?

[spookietoo]

I've been reading this thread closely, as trouser fitting my own body is quite challenging.

It might just be the carpet, but I think I'm seeing a significantly lower arch on your right foot. Your right ankle seems to pronate (turn in) more than your left and your left knee seems to be turning in slightly also, which seems as if it is contributing to the twisting of the right side seam. The left seam looks much straighter.

I ask, because I had the same issue with my left foot when I was younger (now both are shot). When I was younger, I always preferred to wear heels, because the elevation of my own heel corrected my pronation immensely when I stood and walked. If this cut of trouser is to be worn with heels, I'm just wondering if doing so will have a noticable effect on how the right side seam hangs.

I could of course be completely off base, but the adjustment of a foot arch affects the leg all the way to the hip.

[Futura]

spookietoo, you are absolutely correct! My right foot most certainly does have a lower arch and is slightly crooked with much less flexibility. I used to be a dancer, but had a very difficult time training in ballet attempting to dance en pointe in part due to this.

And my left hamstring has always been larger than my right, no matter what exercises I do. Odd!

Fortunately, the finished pants are indeed intended to be worn with heels. 

[Futura]

Does Müller have any illustrations available anywhere of a normal proportioned body, depicting how the body is balanced with reference lines?

I do not have the experience to know what is considered a deviation from normal. I'm just used to seeing myself. I would love to train my eye so I can fit other people as well.

[Futura]

Is there a way of calculating the hem width for any particular pants style based on other body measurements?

[Gerry]

Thanks for your reply! I'm familiar with that fork measurement technique (Don McCunn's method). I actually bought a set of L squares just for this purpose.

With the Müller pants drafts, the fork length is determined by where it intersects with a line connecting a point on the hip line to the knee.

After giving it some thought and overthinking matters, would it not be more accurate to use the same "calliper" method but instead measured from front to back at the actual hip level?

It is indeed Don McCunn's method. I simplify it slightly by using a steel ruler instead of a second L square. No, it wouldn't be more accurate performing the same measurement at hip/seat level. The back fork nestles in the crease of the backside. If you do what you're suggesting, you're adding width.

McCunn measures straight across the tops of the crotch curves, with inside seams aligned as much as possible (IIR), making sure that this distance corresponds to the thigh depth measurement. In reality, this measurement is only millimetres larger than simply using the same measurement at crotch level, to determine the total width of the crotch extensions. Which is a lot easier.

[Gerry]

Is there a way of calculating the hem width for any particular pants style based on other body measurements?

In a couple of Regency cutting books, I came across a useful guide for narrow leg trousers. They'd simply measure the knee (standing up) and use that for the hem.

I've found that using anything below my knee size just looks odd. The leg 'triangulates', giving that haunch-of-ham look. So the Georgians were onto something. My knee size is 15 1/2 inches, but I round up to the nearest whole measurement at the cuff (16" in my case).

If you take a knee circumference measurement sitting down and run a finger all the way under the measure, to the point where you're holding it, that's the bare minimum (17" for me) I'd use for a knee circumference. Taking the measurement sitting ensures that there is at least sufficient ease to sit in a chair. In my case, the difference between hem and knee circumferences is 1.5" and I maintain that relationship, using 17.5" at the knee. This adds a little more ease and I note that Rory Duffy uses the same 1.5" difference between hem and knee.

Obviously these measurements give a narrow leg, regardless of size. But at least you know the bare minimum you can get away with, while retaining comfort and proportion. You can use what hem size you like, though obviously anything above the knee circumference creates a flare. For balance, I would keep any flare within the confines of the seat/hips width, when drafting. With round hips, a flare looks good starting from the knee. With straight hips, the flare looks better starting lower down the leg, creating bell-bottoms/sprung hems. Again, I'd keep within the constraints of the seat's outer limits.

These aren't hard-and-fast rules, just my own observations/preferences.

[Gerry]

PS It's always a good idea to check that the calf circumference isn't greater than the knee (which is occasionally the case). If it is, then I'd use that as the minimum hem circumference.