Men's Trouser Fit Check

[theresa in tucson]

J, I noticed the zipper on the fly does not have a lot of overlap.  Most RTW trouser have about a cm plus (3/8"+) of fly facing over the zip.  This helps if you don't have a close color match on the zipper.  You might want to give setting the zipper further in a try.

[jruley]

Thanks.  I used Cabrera's method for inserting the zipper, which recommends a 1/4" overlap at the top.  I agree more would be better for concealing the zipper.  Thanks to my reenactment clothing work I'm actually more used to making flies with buttons.

What do you think of the hem length?  Short, long, or about right?

[posaune]

Hi Jim,
Your trousers are very well done. Congratulations to your clean sewing. For me the length is right. Looks very chic as the trousers do.
Now I'm very sorry to say and I hope you will not mind:  I'm not at all satisfied with the fit. The trousers hang into the knees and  there is a fold going from back thigh through to the front crotch.
What happened? You have had  better results.
lg
posaune

[jruley]

Now I'm very sorry to say and I hope you will not mind:  I'm not at all satisfied with the fit. The trousers hang into the knees and  there is a fold going from back thigh through to the front crotch.
What happened? You have had  better results.
lg
posaune

I think you are right, which is why I posted the pictures.

I think I have asked too much of this fabric.  Peterle's correction applied in #59 is intended for fabrics with more stretchability than this.  I have offset the knee lines too much (especially on the inseams) and the result is the new folds.  I'm going to try adjusting that before setting the final hem.

[jruley]

Here I have made a change to the inseam of the left leg only.  The knee notch of back side is now offset 3/8" below the front, vs. 5/8" for the outseam.  I had assumed these distance must be equal to avoid twisting the legs; but the inseam length above the knee is too short for this much offset without more stretch than I can put in the back. 

Peterle's correction as I applied it in #59 also puts half as much stretch in the inseam as the outseam; the other half goes into the crotch seam, which I did stretch aggressively before assembling these trousers.

Comments will be much appreciated...

[posaune]

Yes, it is better now.
I attach a pic how I iron work cotton pants (for ladies). As with cotton durable shrinking is not possible (in my opinion)  I stretch the inseam from knee to crotch and from crotch tip along the crotch seam. The back inseam is about 0.5 cm cut shorter than the front inseam (knee to crotch). And there is enough bias. The stretching at back crotch gives room and length over the rear. The length from hem to knee is equal in back and front  both seams. Maybe this procedere is not right but it works for me.

[jruley]

I attach a pic how I iron work cotton pants (for ladies)....  The length from hem to knee is equal in back and front  both seams. Maybe this procedere is not right but it works for me.

Thank you.  So let me explain what I did.

The draft I used (refer to this thread:  http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=56.0) has the knee lines on the same level for front and back.  But the ironwork (from the 1938 ABC des Schneiderhandwerk) will change this.  Below the knee, the fronts are stretched at both seams and shrunk along the crease line.  In contrast, the backs are shrunk at the seams and stretched along the crease line.  Because of the changes in seam length, it follows that the knee line of the back must be lowered relative to the front when the seams are sewn.

When I did the ironwork (ref #52) I found that the changes in seam length below the knee required the knee line of the back to be lowered 3/8" for the seams to fit smoothly together.  This offset was used for the initial fit check (#70)

Peterle suggested shortening the back a little above the knee (see #58-59); the appropriate amount seemed to be 1/4".  Applying this, I increased the knee offset to 5/8", also offsetting the hem line 1/4" to keep from crowding too much material into the calf area.  The result is shown in #71 (left leg) and #73 (both legs).

Since this material does not take ironwork well, I'm wondering if I should go back to #70 and accept the messiness in the back?  The fronts look cleaner and that is what most people will be looking at .

Thoughts?

[posaune]

I learned to lay notch on notch and baste from notch up and then down. You did then distribute the fabric equal  to crotch tip and/or hem.  But the difference was not more than 3-5 mm.
But this is from old times and is maybe not done so anymore.
lg
posaune

[jruley]

But this is from old times and is maybe not done so anymore.

I'm not saying what I did is right or wrong, just explaining what I did.

If I have misunderstood how to do ironwork properly, I hope the professionals will correct me....

[jruley]

Finally had a chance to do some work on these.  Here the left leg is the same as in #79, except for some slight adjustments to the widths of the back side.  I pinned away a maximum of 1/4" of width above the knee on both seams, and let out 1/4" below the knee on the outseam.   This was intended to remove some bagginess above the knee and make a bit more room for the calf area.

The puckering in the left side seams is due the pins holding it together.

The right leg is back to the configuration of post #70:  knee notches offset by 3/8" to account for the ironwork, and no special shaping of the seams.

I'd be grateful for any advice on where to go from here.

[peterle]

I think this alteration is not an improvement, I prefer No 79.
You don´t need additional width for the calfs. the width is there, but in the top parts.
Please check the relative width of your topside and undersides in knee higth and below. It seems the knee width is nearly the same. It shouldn´t. the undersides have to be wider Look at #67 and compare with #69.
Alos the run of the underside inseam is not harmonic. compare it to a pattern draft.

concerning the folds of the undersides, another option would be to straighten the seat angle. wide trousers need a straighter seat than narrow ones. let out the seat seam from the waist to point S6 and take in the outseams of the undersides for the same amount. there seems to be enough inlay at the back seam.

[posaune]

I can not understand what you have done right now. But not good. As Peterle said, go back to #79 and then take the back crotch up The trouser is too long at the backside and hangs in your kneeling (word?). You alter like Peterle said and pull up the trouser about 1 to 2 cm at CB.
lg
posaune

[jruley]

Here I have removed the pins, and sewn and pressed the seams of the left leg (also removed the surplus calf width).  Right leg remains the same as the previous post.

I think one problem is the "wrinkle release" nature of the fabric.  I had just pressed these, then stooped down to pick up something the cat had just left on the floor - and they are stretched out of shape as you can see.

concerning the folds of the undersides, another option would be to straighten the seat angle. wide trousers need a straighter seat than narrow ones. let out the seat seam from the waist to point S6 and take in the outseams of the undersides for the same amount. there seems to be enough inlay at the back seam.

The time to change the seat angle was before the pockets went in, it would be major surgery to alter it now.  I deliberately chose an increased seat angle (see #69) compared to the wool pair for a more comfortable stride.  So it looks like I will just have to accept the back folds as the price of comfort.










Thanks everyone for your help.  It looks like I will need a more traditional material, as well as a straighter seat angle, to obtain a more presentable result.

[jruley]

Also the run of the underside inseam is not harmonic. compare it to a pattern draft.

Not sure what you are trying to say here?  What do you mean by "harmonic"?

[jruley]

Just for comparison's sake, I ripped the seams of the left leg, and put it back together without the width adjustments and the knee notches together. 

In theory (as I understand it) this should have removed all the iron shaping from the leg.  I was expecting it to hang straighter, but it looks almost the same as the right -- and also almost the same as it did in the previous post!

Maybe the increased seat angle is masking all other effects?  Or maybe this material is shapeless by nature and there's nothing I can do with it?