Men's Trouser Fit Check

[Schneiderfrei]

We had this issue recently on the CandT. 

It is my understanding that shrinking may not be necessary if you arrange the work adequately, simply stretching will achieve the correct result.

G

[Henry Hall]

I'm sure many cottons and wools will stretch.  But doesn't trouser ironwork also involve shrinking?

Another issue is care of the finished garment.  Other than the amount "locked in" by seams (which presumably means sewing a stretched section to a shrunken one and vice versa), won't any shape infused by the iron be lost the first time the trousers go in the washing machine?  This is not a problem for wools which will be dry-cleaned...

I used ironwork on a pair of cotton trousers (a soft twill) I made a few months back. It does work, but it's not exactly the same. There are other things to do things like fulling-on and adjusting the knee notches to get similar effects and assist (and in some cases obviate) some of the ironwork.

David Coffin mentioned the issue you address in the last bit above, when he'd just brought out his trousers book. I think it's a bit mistaken, because the majority of shaping you do, transferring it to the seams, is sort of fastened into place and falls back into place again when you press the trousers with the seams properly aligned.

Washing wool does not lead to disaster - assuming they're not cooking in boiling water. I've never had a pair of wool trousers dry cleaned, it's unnecessary and something clearly recommended by commercial clothing retailers to avoid customer complaints. Largely from those who, without a 'dry-clean only' label to dissuade them, would regularly dump wool in a washing machine at 60-90 degrees and be unable to iron them afterwards.

[jruley]

We had this issue recently on the CandT. 

It is my understanding that shrinking may not be necessary if you arrange the work adequately, simply stretching will achieve the correct result.

G

Could you please direct me to that recent discussion?

I thought the "definitive" traditional trouser ironwork procedure was the one given in the second post of this thread:

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=435

Is there a more up to date, or simplified one more suitable for Mansie's draft?

[Schneiderfrei]

Goodness, I will have look, soon. 

There are more than one version of traditional ironwork.  The most accessible is the Rundschau translation by Sator (I think) there is also an Italian version, I only have images of the coat ironwork. 

I have spent a good deal of time translating one from 1938, Das ABC des Schneiderhandwerk, which is how I base my view above.  I am sorry I have not made that one available as yet due to the very large effort that went into it.

Some of the English ones are on the CandT but not necessarily collected together.  There are, indeed, more than one Rundschau version.  The process would depend upon the cloth, the weight, the weave and the cut and any disproportion, I expect.

[Schneiderfrei]

I was referring to one of my posts on this page:

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4435&page=3

It was more about matching knee notches than your particular problem.

I wanted to make the point that ironwork is not a static and completely defined process.  It is still very difficult to find printed information about it, as it is to all these tailoring problems in general, sorry.

I have intended to post the ironwork section but life has got in the way.

I will ask peterle once again to go over it and put it up sooner or later.

G

[Henry Hall]

I already posted a corrected (for spelling etc) version of the Ironwork from C&T. It's here on this forum as a pdf.

[jruley]

Here is a wool pair basted together with a temporary canvas fly and waistband.  No pockets yet to make adjustments easier.

The material is a lightweight worsted wool.  I suspect it may have some synthetic content because it is far easier to stretch than shrink.  I did some preliminary ironwork before assembly, which is why the knee lines don't match front and back.  I have not made Tom's recommended changes yet but did leave additional inlay on the back fork.

[Thom Bennett]

Like Terri says Jim, you probably want to scoop out the seat a little but you may have to use a little of that inlay. The knee notches match on your right hand side, sure it wasn't a bit of dodgy construction? You have quite a dropped hip there Jim, the way of getting around this little issue for me was to cut the lower side with a slightly smaller waist and seat/hip measures so that the trousers sat at the same height as the higher side helping them to fall naturally; that should get rid of the diagonal drag on the back leg.  Looking at the bottom of the right hand leg I wonder whether they will end a tad short, once you have made the hem and changes to your lower hip. Be good to see the pattern.

[jruley]

The knee notches match on your right hand side, sure it wasn't a bit of dodgy construction?

If you look closely, the front and back knee lines are at different levels.  The thread tacks nearest the seam fell out, so it's not so obvious.

You have quite a dropped hip there Jim, the way of getting around this little issue for me was to cut the lower side with a slightly smaller waist and seat/hip measures so that the trousers sat at the same height as the higher side helping them to fall naturally; that should get rid of the diagonal drag on the back leg. 

Wouldn't I also need a bit less length on that side?

Looking at the bottom of the right hand leg I wonder whether they will end a tad short, once you have made the hem and changes to your lower hip.

I turned up a 2" hem; the line you are seeing is machine basting holding it up.  I think the trousers are riding a bit lower than the finished pair since I'm not wearing a belt.

Be good to see the pattern.

It has not changed from the first post.  However, if seeing the knee and hem line locations would be helpful I'll be happy to shoot another photo.

[jruley]

Here is a flat seat alteration as suggested by Terri.  The chalk marks the new seam location:



I also let about 3/8" of the inlay out on the back fork.

Here is the result.  They are also pulled up to about the proper level.  I re-marked the knee notches on the right side:

[peterle]

scooping out the back seam AND letting out the fork makes the trouser diameter (the empty space between fly and seat seam where your trunk is when you wear the trousers) a lot larger. Now it is much larger than your body needs it, thus the front is roping.

For the nexts steps: it is easier to see the effect of an alteration when doing just one step at the time...

[jruley]

scooping out the back seam AND letting out the fork makes the trouser diameter (the empty space between fly and seat seam where your trunk is when you wear the trousers) a lot larger. Now it is much larger than your body needs it, thus the front is roping.

Thanks.  Here the alteration to the fork has been removed:

[posaune]

The back trouser is too baggy for you. Take away another 0.5 cm of back crotch tip. Cut the back pattern horziontally at hip line and rotate the pattern over another maybe 1  to 2 cm.
This will take the back pants up (look the sagging at knee). You'll have to correct (take in) then the side seams. They are too wide in the back anyway.
lg
posaune
As we noticed in the coat thread, you need more room in front as in in back. This is the same in trouser draft.

[jruley]

As we noticed in the coat thread, you need more room in front as in in back. This is the same in trouser draft.

So, you mean the backs are too wide, but not the fronts?

[jruley]

Cut the back pattern horziontally at hip line and rotate the pattern over another maybe 1  to 2 cm.
This will take the back pants up (look the sagging at knee). You'll have to correct (take in) then the side seams. They are too wide in the back anyway.

This is easy enough to do with the pattern, but is there a way to achieve the same effect without cutting new back pieces?