Hello everyone, i have been working on some trousers, and a few questions have came up. Looking at various drafting systems, the amount added to the backs above the waist line (how far the center back seam is extended over the waist line) seems to be somewhat random, or at least there may be room for improvement on some methods. I have seen instructions to take the waist, seams and dart measure, and square from the center back to the waist line. I have also seen just a given measure for the extension such as 1" for a lower back, or 2.5" for a higher one. I have also seen some such as in the rundschau where they sweep to find the measure there. In my mind, wouldn't a proportionate measure to be added there make more sense? Such as 1/12th scale, or maybe 1/8th? I havent been able to use the rundschau since I use imperial measurements, but maybe that method is very good?
The seat angle is something I have been thinking about. Most methods I have seen for finding this just use a proportional method. Often I have seen they rule a line from 1/2 the distance of the front fork extension (1/12 scale from the center front) to a point 1/6 scale + 1 inch or so up the center front line from the crotch line. I have read that taking a direct measure is a better method, and I was wondering how one would take that and apply it. How would this measure be applied to these points? Do we use the point 1/6 scale + 1" up, and pivot there, or pivot from the point 1/12 scale from the CF? Or do we use completely different points for this?
Finding the knee measure is also something I have had trouble with. Ideally the knee measure would be found by ruling from the inseams and outseams to the hem, as this would give the most natural taper, right? There are a few issues with this method though. If ruling from both seams to the hem, the distance on ether side of the knee will not be the same. They will vary maybe 1/2" at most, meaning the center line wouldnt actually be in the center. So to solve this, Taking one of these measures, and then using it for both sides would work. For example, rule from the hip line to the hem, find the distance from CF at knee to outseam, then apply to the inseam knee. Does this suffice? Or maybe using the inseam is better for this method?
One final question I have regards construction. I have looked at a few guides such as poulin, cabrera, rineheart, on constructing wasitbands. When making a trouser with slant pockets, they all say to bring down the pocketing when sewing the waistband on, it wont be caught by the stitches, and can be layed over the pressed open waistband seam. This seems impossible to me, as with the seam of the slanted portion of the pocket, all layers are connected. You cannot just fold down the seam allowance of the slant pocket. I believe you could do this with inseam pockets, but not slant pockets. Am I missing something though? Or is the solution to this to simply not press the seam allowance open, but let both go upwards into the waistband area, as it cannot be done with these types of pockets? This is how I have seen it done with my ralph lauren pants that I took apart, but maybe that is just a cheaper, simpler way of doing things.
I know I have written a lot here, and I thank anyone that has read this, and anyone that gives any help. Let me know If I need to clarify anything. Thanks so much!
I only can speak about the rundschau system:
For me it´s quite logical to sweep the center back point of the waistline when you´r supposed to create a level waistline. (besides I never got the advantages of the "scale"method in imperial systems. seems quite complicated and intransparent to me).
Wich seat angle you install on an individual pattern depends on several things: slimmer trousers, "Sitting trousers"and voluminous bubble bums need a more slanted seat, "standing trousers" , wider trousers or flat bums need a straighter seat. You get to develope a feeling for the average seat angle in your pattern system so you can adapt it for the individual. For me the rundschau pattern provides a simple and effectiv method to influence the seat angle. I can not imagine how a seat angle could be measured directly and I never heard of it, I would be highly interested in how this works.
The knee width of a trouser is also mostly a matter of style and as you wrote yourself, it should be distributed evenly on both sides of the center line. So you ´ve to establish the foot width, the knee width and then you create the seam lines by connecting. When you aim for an evenly tapered leg, you connect the crotch line/ outseam point with the hem point . The crossing point with the knee line gives you half the knee amount you have to apply to the other sides of the centerline. Hollowing this lines in knee height for 1-1,5cm will give a more pleasant look.
Concerning the constuction question I can´t help you. Maybe the books were referring to slanted piped pockets? The slashes wouldn´t reach the waistband line and the pocketing could be folded out of the way. I also don´t see a way (or even purpose) to do this in a cut out slanted pocket.
Regarding the height of the cb point above the horizontal construction line, there are many methods. I find some methods give too short a line, and the cb intersection is often not at 90 degrees which produces a dip at the cb waist. I think it becomes a matter of getting used to a draft and how it performs on the body.
Seat angle again is one of thise things that changes with the body as Peterle mentions. Most drafts have a controlling factor to developing the seat angle and you can make changes once you know what the average angle is and what it produces consistently on the body.
As for slant pockets, No, it is impossible to just plain irritating to read about that type of construction. You would have to make a slash in order to do that or only sew the facing and pocketing on up to the waistline, not into it, and even then it would be awkward at best to sew the waistband on without catching the top of the slant pocket facing and pocketing.
Sometimes those instructions ask you to open the waist seam allowance. Again, it is a technique that I have seen done, but with a slant pocket even more complicated/ not worth it.
A side seam pocket might be easier to not catch in the waistline seaming as long as you plan ahead, but complicated to separate the pocketing/facing when sewing the side seams together, so you can then sew the waistband without involving the pocket elements.
Sewing techniques evolve, fabrics evolve and needs change, so there is not one way only to sew, and the older methodologies are interesting but dont need to be followed slavishly.
I'm only a neophyte when it comes to garment construction, but I've spent a lot of time learning how to cut trousers. Anyway, buyer beware (in terms of my input).
Re rise at back. As a rule of thumb, the lower the garment's waistline sits towards the hips, the more rise you need.
When learning, I went through my wardrobe and measured everything I had, then used my findings as a guide. All my off-the-peg trousers sit on my high-hip, or just above it. They all have a rise of between 2 - 2.5 inches. I like the cut of low-rise trousers, and for my needs I require a couple of inches, otherwise the top of my backside is in danger of being exposed (builder's bum).
When a waistband is around waist height (which is more traditional with tailormade stuff) then the rise isn't as critical in terms of exposure of the behind. It's more about balance between back and front. Hence the lower rise used by many tailors.
If you take a rise measurement from the small of the back to the waistline at the front, this can be used to check your draft to see if you have the correct/enough rise. After drafting, turn your tape measure on its edge and inch along each crotch curve, front and back, measuring up to the waistband in both both cases. If you used a French curve, use its measurements to determine the lengths. Add the two results together together plus two widths of the waistband (minus any seam allowance). Hopefully the two lengths tally, or at the very least the rise will be slightly higher at the back (which can then be cut down after fitting, if necessary).
I don't use a pivot method anymore for underside/back, so can't help you there.
I also don't understand your comments about the knee. You measure a quarter of your chosen knee circumference each side of the crease line of the leg, at knee level. Usually, there's no allowance on the top so everything is symmetrical. Or do you mean something else?
Have you checked out Rory Duffy's trouser making course?
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/thehtatrousermaking
Dog salt, I've reread your comments about 'knee placement' and I think I understand what you're trying to say.
In most cases, if you took a straight-line taper from crotch-line to hem (trouser bottoms), you'd most likely end up with a ridiculous amount of ease/material around the top of the leg. It would look anything other than 'natural'.
Aside from unwanted, additional material, this approach would also result in a straight line to/from the fork on the inside leg. There's a bridge between the legs, and the forks are pulled a little into the centre of this bridge. Unless you have some curvature there, the trousers will be v-shaped in that gap. If someone has spindly legs in particular, and therefore a wide bridge, it will look ill-fitting.
Gerry, yes I forgot to mention that after finding the knee measure, I would hollow the inseam 3/8" so it would have a nice curve to the knee. With my attempt at doing this, the inseam thigh region became too curved inwards. I have used a 3/8" hollow before, and it hasn't brought that region inwards too much. This was when I used a 20" knee or so. So i believe using just ruling the crotch to the hem and then hollowing may not suffice. It may always bring the crotch-knee curve inwards too much. I was using a very large cuff opening though when trying this, 21", and so maybe it was just that using such a great cuff opening would lead to that, and maybe a shallower curve should be used. I think though that a smaller knee measure may be a better solution. So maybe rule the crotch to knee, find the knee measure, and subtract 1/4" or so, then hollow? Or Maybe just rule the hip to hem, and then use that knee measure on both sides, as when I tried this, I believe it was a smaller measurement ruling the other side and using that measure. I cannot think of a good reason why one would be better than the other though. Maybe the outseam would be best for this, as it would give a long, unbroken line. In poulins book and the rundschau method I have look,ed at, they (basically) rule from crotch and hip to the hem. This means using these methods, the knee does not measure the same on both sides of CF. I will be looking at duffy's series once I get the funds. Im certain it will be really good.
Terri, for the waist I meant that with drafts I have seen they take the 1/4 waist, add allowance for seams and darts, and then square that measure from the CB to the waist line. The point of the top of the CB would be 90 degrees. This would give a large back rise, maybe 3" for my measurements. This would give a dip in the back? Using this method, the back rise would be dependent on the waist measure, which doesn't really make sense to me. If you wanted two 3/4" darts instead of one, your rear rise would be higher. This seems a little arbitrary. Most other measures on the draft are proportionate, so why shouldn't this one be? Maybe I'm reading those drafts wrong, or misunderstood what you wrote, though? With the construction, would it be safe to say that most, if not all trousers made with slant pockets do not press the waistband seam open? It seems that with all the guides I have read, they instruct to press that seam allowance open. I guess this is to say that back in the day, inseam pockets were much more common, so they just failed to mention the instructions for slant pocket waistband construction?
Peterle, the direct measure method for seat angle was mentioned by jcsprowls on the old forum. I dont think he mentioned how he does it. I looked his username up on this forum, and couldnt find it. I wonder if he is still here. So ruling to the hem, and then bringing this measure in at the knee a bit will give a better finished product? Do you mean like what poulin does in his draft? Do you know why this gives a better look? I would think that this wouldnt be as graceful, as the lines arent straight then, but I guess I am wrong?
There must be other ways of finding the seat angle. I saw that duffy uses the drop as a way to calculate. I dont have the actual details of calculation for that though. What if I have a very flat seat, and want walking trousers? I see it mentioned that the seat angle will have to be changed for this, but the amounts are never given. Or what if I have a very large seat, and want sitting or riding trousers? Most drafts fail to give a way to find the seat angle for this. Any resources would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the help so far!
QuoteTerri, for the waist I meant that with drafts I have seen they take the 1/4 waist, add allowance for seams and darts, and then square that measure from the CB to the waist line. The point of the top of the CB would be 90 degrees. This would give a large back rise, maybe 3" for my measurements. This would give a dip in the back? Using this method, the back rise would be dependent on the waist measure, which doesn't really make sense to me. If you wanted two 3/4" darts instead of one, your rear rise would be higher. This seems a little arbitrary.
Darts are determined by how much you need, and if the pattern was for someone with a full seat then you need more darting and it makes sense that you gain in length by using your example. A full seat would also require more of a slant to the cb line so it all works together.
If you square from the back of course that gives tou the correct angle , but some draft dont square from the cb, they have an arbitrary amount above the line and then they join it to the side seam and the angle at cb is not correct as drawn. Maybe they figure you know how to make it correct?
Dog Salt, with respect to the crotch-knee curve, how are you evaluating your findings? Are you making toiles and things are too tight when your line is "too curved inwards". Or is it simply that things don't look right to your eyes?
I just had a look at Poulins book and you're right, he does (initially) rule "from crotch and hip to the hem", then (crucially) measures in each side at the knee-line to create shape. That's a new one on me. Yes, I can see that you're going to get a tiny amount of asymmetry.
Ruling down from the crotch line would avoid this, however he appears to have taken the line from the seat, on the outside seam, in order to come in a little at the crotch line. I do this myself, even though I use a 1/4 seat measurement at the crotch line. I find it results in a straighter/smoother curve into the leg from the hip, which fits me better.
Frankly, I'd just rule out 1/4 of your chosen knee circumference each side of the crease at the knee line. Shape as mentioned above, by cutting into the crotchline if necessary. In reality a 'double thigh'/full-lap circumference is often a tiny bit smaller than the seat circumference, so it doesn't matter. Though it varies with stance, increasing as the legs are widened; which is why 1/4 seat is mostly used for this measurement (one size fits all). At the end of the day, it's not critical: we're talking about a tiny 'transgression' of the line and ease on the underside/back more than compensates for a slither of material 'stolen' from the top.
That aside, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over exact symmetry of the crease line. It's always going to be a bit of a fiction at some point(s) and any deviances are usually minor.
Re rise, it's often easier to draw in a 'rise line' that you've estimated. Then, using a ruler or tape measure, swing up your 1/4 waist + allowances + dart(s) measurement, like a compass, from a pivot point at/near (depending on cutting system) the topside's outer waist point. Then your rise isn't at the mercy of obscure calculations.
I erased the letter - don't want to violate the law.
sorry
Posaune
Im doing my best to learn everything I can about drafts, and I hope asking more questions is not a bother to those in this forum.
Duffy actually put his trouser draft on his website a few days ago, and looking at his draft answers, or at least gives me some good info on the questions I had. He has an interesting way of calculating the seat angle based on the drop. I wonder where that method originated. He finds the knee by adding 1.5" to 2" to the finished hem width.
For his draft, he adds the seam allowances to the inside leg on the backpart. Does this have an advantage over evenly distributing them to both sides of the backpart, like in modern drafts? Another detail I have seen is that the center line of his draft is actually 1/24 scale towards the outseam. His front crotch line measurement (horizontal measurement at crotch line) is 2/3 scale, like in many drafts, but other drafts often use the 1/3 scale as the crease line, which is further inwards than Duffy's draft. Why would Duffy bring this line outwards, when according to many old drafts, a line further inwards will give a cleaner look? Maybe he prefers a little more comfort in his trousers? He also uses 3" of ease at hip, compared to the 2" I have seen on many before, so maybe he really prioritizes comfort? As a note, he uses 3/8" for seam allowances rather than the standard 1/4", so that may change things a small bit.
Here is a link to the drafts on Duffy's website: https://www.handcrafttailor.com/notes-for-video-series
I rented Rory's video series last week and really enjoyed it. Definitely learned lots of new tricks to try.
As with many UK tailors, he uses the divisions of scale method. Which is another word for estimates. Estimates compiled (no doubt through empirical observation) in the late Victorian and Edwardian ages. That's where these methods come from: scale is a convenient yardstick to guess other measurements; and in all fairness, the body is often predictably proportioned. However, men were shorter and slimmer a hundred years ago (that much is evident from the example measurements given in arcane books). Times have moved on, so this over-reliance on divisions of scale is a puzzle to me. Especially when we can measure.
I always measure the height of seat to floor. Likewise the knee. The methods for 'calculating' (estimating) these positions can vary from book-to-book (though not so much in the case of the knee). This alone should set alarm bells ringing. None of these methods give a correct seat or knee placement in my case. The seat is always too high and the knee too low. Consequently, none of the trousers I constructed using estimates have ever worked. Lesson learned.
His knee measurement is half inside leg plus 2 inches in the direction of the crotch. You can take it the other way too, in the direction of the hem (half inside leg minus 2 inches). It's a standard calculation. One that displaces my knee by 1 inch. Not such a big deal with looser fit trousers, but with a narrow leg the taper to the knee is more prominent and any wrong positioning looks odd. So I measure.
For knee measurement, I find it's easiest to do when seated, with the lower leg at 90 degrees to the upper. Feel the inside joint for the nobly bit (ask someone if they have joint pain before doing this on someone else!). Just above that point is the centre of the knee - you'll see that this is the case when you straighten your leg while remaining seated. Simply measure to floor from the side of the knee.
Four seams on the back leg from knee to hem is fairly common. I've seen many tailors use it; and I do too. The material works its way round to the other side, so it all works out. Take a look at this guy's cutting method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDE5V0KLsZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgwOrZo9vLA
From what I understand, you get a copy of Rory's new book when you sign up to his course. I'm sure that most of the detail will be in there. I inferred from his drafting video (which wasn't explicit in this particular instance) that he uses different leg positionings depending on leg figuration/stance. And he marks the three positions. 1, 1a and 1b, the middle one being for a straight leg. But this is conjecture on my part.
I know from my own experience that with my body type (straight and angular), positioning the leg towards the fork results in a more prominent curve on the outside seam. I end up looking like I'm wearing women's pants. Conversely, positioning the leg slightly towards the side-seam straightens things out. Though I don't need to do that. Moving the waistline over towards the hip straightens things out enough for this problem to disappear (for me).
Regarding ease, I measure, which takes out all/most of the guess work. Take your normal seat measurement standing up in front of a chair. Holding the zero end of the measure firmly in one hand, to the side of the hip, gently lower yourself into the chair allowing the measure to expand as you do so. The 'free' hand keeps the measure taught enough to stop it slipping. Once seated, allow the measure to slacken slightly (don't hold it rigidly taught) and take the measurement.
It can be tricky; and you'll need to do it a few times at first to get the hang of it - to make sure your measurement is correct (best of three sort of thing). For yourself, it's advisable to do it in front of a full length mirror, to check that the measure is correctly positioned at the seat. Better still, get someone else to do it for you. With practice, it's an easy enough measurement to take.
The expanded seat measurement, minus your original seat is the bare amount of ease you need across the back of the trousers. In my case my seat is 38" and it expands to 41" when seated; so a difference of 3" in total. I would use that measurement for 'skinny fit' jeans and reinforce the CB seam. In reality, for trousers, I add another one inch for comfort. So two inches per panel (two inches on the draft). Whether this is necessary depends upon the cutting method, though (some inadvertently add the extra ease you need).
I just can guess the purpose to add all the SA´s to the inner underside. When you lay down the cut out top sides to start the drafting of the undersides in checkerd or striped fabrics, the matching outseam lines of top and undersides will care for a perfect pattern matching at the outseam. The result is a perfect chevron at the outseam from knee downwards.
Quote from: peterle on February 20, 2021, 09:51:50 PM
I just can guess the purpose to add all the SA´s to the inner underside. When you lay down the cut out top sides to start the drafting of the undersides in checkerd or striped fabrics, the matching outseam lines of top and undersides will care for a perfect pattern matching at the outseam. The result is a perfect chevron at the outseam from knee downwards.
That's true.
It also saves the bother of marking out seam allowance on the topside and/or on both sides of the underside.
Having said that, I do add allowance from waist to crotch on the topside and underside. Though not on the legs of the top. This tapers the seams down to the knee, bringing them forward at the knee by the amount of seam allowance used.
Commercial manufacturers typically do this (the waist is equally divided by all four panels). There's a natural bend in the knee, pushing the cap forward into the front of the trousers. If the trousers have a particularly narrow leg, the seams hang on the back of the knee. By bringing them forward slightly, it looks more natural and drapes better.
Historically, the early Victorians continued this seam tapering effect to the foot, flaring the underside legs from knee downwards in order to compensate for the narrowing of the topsides. The only explanation I found for this, was that it stopped the trousers from "flapping around". Early pantaloons were more of a narrow leg fit, so perhaps the extra weight of the backs pulled the leg into the fronts, giving better definition of the leg? Or created the illusion of this? I've never made vintage trousers, so would be interested to hear.
Neither the gentleman I linked to above, nor Rory, add any seam allowance on the topside. So the whole seam is brought forward. His explanation for this was that it makes the pockets easier to access. Though a shallower angle on the pocket does just the same, so I don't know.
What I've found, is that doing this with a larger allowance can have the effect of drawing attention to the backside, even if it's not large. Also, if the seams are too far forward (which can happen with a larger seam allowance, say half an inch) it makes the front pieces look tight, as if they're being pulled into the back.
I think the flaring of Victoran topsides have to do with it´s tightness: A tight hem has to be brought forward on the foot very much by ironwork, otherwise the leg would cling hardly to the shin and the back hem would swing away from the heel. Thus the leg gets a bit of an shallow S shape (or at least J shape) by ironwork. So does the seamline, it would curve forward at the hem. So to compensate and make the seamline look perfectly straight when worn, you have to flare the lower topsides. This would be especially true for trousers with foot straps (stirrup trousers?) to keep them taught.
Someone with costume history background will know better.
Yes Peterle i think you are correct, but, I think it also has to do with the footwear worn. Dress boots were very popular styles, and the trousers were narrow, bur the hems were not shortened as they are worn today.
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 20, 2021, 12:16:02 PM
Im doing my best to learn everything I can about drafts, and I hope asking more questions is not a bother to those in this forum.
Duffy actually put his trouser draft on his website a few days ago, and looking at his draft answers, or at least gives me some good info on the questions I had. He has an interesting way of calculating the seat angle based on the drop. I wonder where that method originated. He finds the knee by adding 1.5" to 2" to the finished hem width.
For his draft, he adds the seam allowances to the inside leg on the backpart. Does this have an advantage over evenly distributing them to both sides of the backpart, like in modern drafts? Another detail I have seen is that the center line of his draft is actually 1/24 scale towards the outseam. His front crotch line measurement (horizontal measurement at crotch line) is 2/3 scale, like in many drafts, but other drafts often use the 1/3 scale as the crease line, which is further inwards than Duffy's draft. Why would Duffy bring this line outwards, when according to many old drafts, a line further inwards will give a cleaner look? Maybe he prefers a little more comfort in his trousers? He also uses 3" of ease at hip, compared to the 2" I have seen on many before, so maybe he really prioritizes comfort? As a note, he uses 3/8" for seam allowances rather than the standard 1/4", so that may change things a small bit.
Here is a link to the drafts on Duffy's website: https://www.handcrafttailor.com/notes-for-video-series
Please feel free to ask all the questions you like!
It was interesting to see his trouser draft. The way the draft is set up is less common nowadays.
I might draft it up along with my own draft to see how they compare.
Just glancing at it, i find the backs to look rather large, perhaps that is the ease or perhaps
I am more used to making period trousers which come up to the natural waist.
I use proportional formula drafting quite a lot in my practice, as i often have to produce patterns without the luxury of full, or recent or adequate measurements.🤪
Some proportional measurements are better than others. I admit to being a bit of a magpie in that way, using and applying a variety of sources to get to the end result.
Quote from: TTailor on February 21, 2021, 01:58:41 AM
Some proportional measurements are better than others. I admit to being a bit of a magpie in that way, using and applying a variety of sources to get to the end result.
Snap! I've also acquired a handful of formulas, which are really useful as a guide/safeguard, even when I take comprehensive measurements. If things don't tally, chances are I've taken my measurements wrongly.
Some of the formulas in Stone's book on trousers (free download at internet archive) are remarkably accurate, at least in my case. He even has a measurement for inside leg based on height, which is as good as spot on for me! Totally useless in practice (who's going to measure someone for height?!), but amazing nonetheless.
QuoteTake a look at this guy's cutting method
Ok that was painful to watch. Sorry I am feeling very opinionated these days. (maybe even cranky! Don't press my starteur! as we like to say jokingly)
He just uses a random 2 1/2 inch fork extension front and back. He didn't show any allowance for ease when he measures his back hip and with a low rise trouser and a waist to hip 33 1/2 waist to 42 hip he doesn't think that maybe a two dart back is required?
Does he actually have a video of the fitting of these trousers. I'd like to see how they turned out.
QuoteHe even has a measurement for inside leg based on height, which is as good as spot on for me! Totally useless in practice (who's going to measure someone for height?!), but amazing nonetheless.
We take height all the time, and sometimes that is one of the major measurements to work from. Even though I know some people fudge their height.:)
i find using height is surprisingly accurate. Inseam to floor 1/2 height minus 5 cm is almost always correct. Minus another 5cm for a trouser inseam also is a good starting place especially if you have not taken the measurements yourself.
Quote from: TTailor on February 21, 2021, 02:57:22 AM
QuoteHe even has a measurement for inside leg based on height, which is as good as spot on for me! Totally useless in practice (who's going to measure someone for height?!), but amazing nonetheless.
We take height all the time, and sometimes that is one of the major measurements to work from. Even though I know some people fudge their height.:)
i find using height is surprisingly accurate. Inseam to floor 1/2 height minus 5 cm is almost always correct. Minus another 5cm for a trouser inseam also is a good starting place especially if you have not taken the measurements yourself.
I stand corrected! (no pun intended) :P
Quote from: TTailor on February 21, 2021, 02:50:47 AM
QuoteTake a look at this guy's cutting method
Ok that was painful to watch. Sorry I am feeling very opinionated these days. (maybe even cranky! Don't press my starteur! as we like to say jokingly)
He just uses a random 2 1/2 inch fork extension front and back. He didn't show any allowance for ease when he measures his back hip and with a low rise trouser and a waist to hip 33 1/2 waist to 42 hip he doesn't think that maybe a two dart back is required?
Does he actually have a video of the fitting of these trousers. I'd like to see how they turned out.
Yes, when I first watched this there were certain things that I found baffling and that seemed to be needlessly creating problems. I could say that of so many tailor's vids I've watched, though. I suppose they sort everything out in fittings?
I mainly linked to his vids to show the 4 seams method. Which I seem to recall was mentioned in the Poulin book that I ended up looking through the other day. Perhaps this is where the method originates? Loads of Nigerian tailors use it.
QuoteI mainly linked to his vids to show the 4 seams method. Which I seem to recall was mentioned in the Poulin book that I ended up looking through the other day.
Yes, I understood what you were trying to show.
I just watched the whole thing out of curiosity. Sigh.
Just checked Poulin:
"Seam allowances are provided in the back part"
His measurements for knee and hem on the underside are 1" out from the topside, on the inseam. So presumably he used a 1/4" seam allowance ... unless I'm reading too much into his comment/method.
I think you are correct about the poulin 1/4" SA
QuoteI suppose they sort everything out in fittings?
:o ::)
I guess thats why they cost so much!!!!
Thanks for all the info on how you take measurements, Gerry. Really great stuff to know. I also chose to measure my knee depth, as I find it is always a bit off. When the hip measurement is too high, is that using 1/6 scale up from the crotch to find the hip line? I know Stone's method uses 1/8 scale. Maybe stone is more accurate, maybe a direct measure best. When you say you move the waistline towards the hip to give a straighter outseam, are you using 1/4 waist, and moving that outwards, meaning there would be an angle to the center front? Or do you draft the fronts, and add enough towards the right to straighten out the outseam, so the fronts will be greater that 1/4 waist? How much do you usually add there? In this draft from Duffy, he says "I have chosen the 'straight leg' draft. Straight legs are characterised as having a two to three finger spacing between the knees when the legs are closed and the heels touch." I may just use the standard 1/3 scale for the centerline, as my knees are closer than this when standing as described.
Terri, I like what you said about that video. I'm sure there is some good info there, but I don't know if I can trust someone who uses the same measurement for the front fork in all sizes. Maybe womenswear would be a good thing for me to study if I want to avoid people who do things like that... I wanted to ask a clarifying question about the waistband question I had earlier. With slant pockets, does pretty much everyone always press both seams upwards, even bespoke tailors?
So, adding the seams to the inseam of the backside does a few things. Allows better pattern matching, and removes the need to mark allowances. How does it affect the fit though? How would it compare to adding half of that allowance to both sides like in modern drafts? Am I wrong to say this is a modern draft thing? I believe in Aldrich's book, and a few other newer ones, they add the allowance to both sides, not all on the inseam. Really I am asking all these questions to understand how to get the best fit out of a pair of trousers. My thought is that if old bespoke tailors add all the seams to the inseam, maybe it fits better than modern methods? Especially if Duffy uses it, I would think there is something to it. Maybe I'm wrong though, as obviously many old drafts use methods we have greatly improved upon.
Another thing I've been thinking a lot about is darts in the backs of trousers. Most of the time what I've seen in drafts is they square from the waist down, that line being the center of the dart, and then draw the legs in on both sides of this line. When sewn, this dart will distort the waist line. It will make the 180 degree angle now bow inwards. Wouldn't ideally the waist seam be straight, or does this amount not really affect the finished product that much? Thinking in the 3D, wouldn't it make sense to add a bit of length to the legs of the darts above the waist line? This would add length to go over the hip, and would allow the waist line to be more of a straight line when sewn. Am I over thinking this?
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 21, 2021, 06:40:01 AM
When the hip measurement is too high, is that using 1/6 scale up from the crotch to find the hip line? I know Stone's method uses 1/8 scale. Maybe stone is more accurate, maybe a direct measure best.
Yes, that's pretty much it. 1/6 positions it too high. Not by much, but it does make a difference. The estimate of 1/16th seat (1/8th scale) is spot on for me and corresponds with my measurement. Like I said earlier, I use it as a safety check, to make sure I'm in the right ball park.
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 21, 2021, 06:40:01 AM
When you say you move the waistline towards the hip to give a straighter outseam, are you using 1/4 waist, and moving that outwards, meaning there would be an angle to the center front?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Whether you need to do this depends on body shape, of course.
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 21, 2021, 06:40:01 AM
Maybe womenswear would be a good thing for me to study if I want to avoid people who do things like that
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I actually started with a book angled more towards women's wear (though it covers men's too)."How to make sewing patterns" by Donald H. McCunn. The approach is very intuitive and has enabled me to understand other methods, despite many of these being cloaked in alchemic fractions which cutters seem to delight in. The downside of the book is that: it misses many of the tricks that tailors use; ridiculous amounts of ease are added here, there and everywhere; the pivot method doesn't create a great cut for me; plus the leg placement (with my measurements) is not centred, and creates the 'women's pants' look that I mentioned earlier. Despite all this, it's definitely worth glancing at.
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 21, 2021, 06:40:01 AM
So, adding the seams to the inseam of the backside does a few things. Allows better pattern matching, and removes the need to mark allowances. How does it affect the fit though?
That's something that you'll have to evaluate yourself, really. In my case, it works out fine. Plus it depends on what method you use in general. When it comes to the underside, it's like the Wild West out there. Everyone has their own way of doing it. Which is very confusing when starting out (that's certainly what I experienced).
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 21, 2021, 06:40:01 AM
Another thing I've been thinking a lot about is darts in the backs of trousers. Most of the time what I've seen in drafts is they square from the waist down, that line being the center of the dart.
Ideally, the dart(s) would be pinned and shaped in a fitting, like they do in women's couture (that's the approach in the book I mentioned). Most tailors seem to go ahead and sew them in, regardless.
You have to think about what the dart is doing. If there's no shaping at the outside seam of the underside, then a dart/darts should be used to create some. In my case, I do incorporate shaping, so I only need a single dart to shape over the backside. This is placed in the middle of the waist (on the quarter) and angled towards the mid-point between the underside fork's tip and the outside seam at crotch level - which should be where the fullest part of the buttock is. It's a trick I picked up from an old 1950s pattern. It works really well ... at least for me (there are no hard-and-fast rules, it seems).
BTW, you're not overthinking it. Without questioning, there's no progress. And every cutting method I've come across (including the one I use) is a compromise. We're all working towards a better cut ... at least I hope that's the case!
QuoteSo, adding the seams to the inseam of the backside does a few things. Allows better pattern matching, and removes the need to mark allowances. How does it affect the fit though?
It is merely an alternative drafting process.
If you followed that protocol then shifted the back panel laterally so that it is similar to a draft that applies measurements equally on either side of the front panel, you can compare the shapes, and they are probably quite similar.
Adding all the seam allowance values for both the back and front onto just the back panel results in a more narrow front panel.
that may be desirable or not, depends on what you like.
Regarding marking allowances, there is seam allowance on the fronts, and you would cut on the drawn line and sew 1 cm in from the line. On the backs, it is usual to leave inlays so you would mark the chalked pattern outline with tailor tacks. When you sew the seams, you lay the front panel on the back matching the cut edge of the front with the chalked line of the back and sew 1cm seam allowance ( or 1/4" old school) if you don't leave inlays then you would just match the cut edge of the fronts and backs and sew at your specified seam allowance.
Back darts- yes, you can and should fold them out in the pattern and correct the run of the line. standard operating procedure. If you don't do that you will correct it while sewing. After the darts are sewn, you will mark a better waistline. Either way, you need a nice line to follow.
Quote from: DOG SALT on February 16, 2021, 03:55:52 PM
The seat angle is something I have been thinking about. Most methods I have seen for finding this just use a proportional method. Often I have seen they rule a line from 1/2 the distance of the front fork extension (1/12 scale from the center front) to a point 1/6 scale + 1 inch or so up the center front line from the crotch line. I have read that taking a direct measure is a better method, and I was wondering how one would take that and apply it. How would this measure be applied to these points? Do we use the point 1/6 scale + 1" up, and pivot there, or pivot from the point 1/12 scale from the CF? Or do we use completely different points for this?
I recently discovered a clever way of measuring the rise (and therefore seat angle) needed at the back of trousers. Basically, thread some string/a boot lace/ some bias tape through the hole in the end of a tape measure, and tie it round the top of the thigh. At the back of the body, measure up to the waist line you desire for the garment and, keeping the measure in place, gradually sit, allowing the measure to lengthen as the backside muscles expand.
Whatever the difference is between the two measurements is the amount of rise needed at the back. You would then measure this amount above the seat line (at the centre back line), in order to pivot your pattern accordingly. Or pivot up from the waistline's side seam to a 'rise line' that corresponds to the measurement taken. Basically, adjust it to whatever cutting method you end up using.
In my case, the difference is exactly 2", which is what I've been using for my drafts through trial and error.
If you scroll down to the heading "How to Make a Pants Sloper" and click on it in the link below, it will take you to the "An Introduction" video. It's around the 2:45 mark in the vid (a rough-and-ready intro to his cutting method, which isn't as ramshackle as this in reality):
https://patternmaking-classes.com (https://patternmaking-classes.com)
That is definitely an interesting way of finding that measure, Gerry. I think I saw that guy's videos a few years ago but his method seemed a little too strange for me to want to try. Now that I revisit it, there's probably a lot I could learn from it.
Another Pivot method is found in Rhinehart's book, "How to Make Men's Clothes.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sargeoqv5myfuou/jane_rhinehart_How_to_make_mens_clothes.pdf?dl=0
The real trick is to get the Spaltdurchmesser, as per Rundschau.
The use of aluminium foil to get the exact shape has been done.
G
G
Quote from: DOG SALT on March 24, 2021, 01:47:30 PM
That is definitely an interesting way of finding that measure, Gerry. I think I saw that guy's videos a few years ago but his method seemed a little too strange for me to want to try. Now that I revisit it, there's probably a lot I could learn from it.
The body sloper is the most interesting thing about his method. He takes more of a couturiers approach when fitting, draping everything and looking for balance of lines. Though it's all intuitively drafted in the first place.
Not a method I would use by its self, but a great supplement to more 'traditional' (tailor based) knowledge.
Quote from: Schneiderfrei on March 24, 2021, 04:09:17 PM
The real trick is to get the Spaltdurchmesser, as per Rundschau.
The use of aluminium foil to get the exact shape has been done.
I'm guessing that's the German for 'crotch curve'? Flexible rulers and coat hangers have also been used.
Good info. I hope I can get my hands on his book soon. I will look at Rinehart's draft. I haven't tried swinging for the back rise, and if the Rundschau does it, its probably a good method. Going back to other details of trouser drafts, I'm wondering some things about the center line. In many drafts, the center line is placed at 1/3 scale from the side seam. Others place it 3/4" from this measure towards the sideseam (Chaudhry), and ive seen some other measures used. I have read on cutting open or closed trousers, but its hard to find any very clear info on specific measures to apply to more casual trousers, or more formal. I have questions like "if I wanted to draft a pair of jeans or other workwear, how much would I bring the centerline outwards?" or "for the cleanest hanging trousers, not prioritizing comfort, how much inwards should I bring the centerline inwards?". The same with seat angle, what degree of variation should I use? I would like to make a few muslins of different drafts to try out open/closed cut, and try different seat angles. I will probably start with Duffy's trouser draft, and then try some variations of centerline and seat angle. Where would be a good place to start? Would 2.5 degrees of seat angle be good, or 5 degrees maybe? And for the center line, 1/4" or 1/2"? Any resources would be greatly appreciated!
By centreline, do you mean crease-line of the leg?
For a straight leg, the method I use is to sort the lower trunk/body first, then do the leg. The crease-line is half the distance between the tip of the topside's fork and the side seam, all along crotch level. Square up/down and continue to mark the leg as normal.
If you think about it, these two points will meet when the trouser leg is pressed; so it's a definite point that the crease-line runs through.
Just because jeans were typically cut with an edge-out approach, doesn't mean to say you have to cut like that. Selvedge stuff is very blocky/rectangular looking. Personally, I wouldn't cut a pair of jeans like that. There are more flattering cuts.
By seatline angle, I assume you mean how much to angle the centre-back seam, (in effect) by creating a pivot at the seat line? (or crotchline/waistline with other systems). If you can measure or estimate the extra rise needed at the back, then the angle is academic. You work to a rise line/measurement. The angle will be whatever it is.
Apologies if I've misunderstood.
PS making toiles is the best way of learning and evaluating various systems.
Yes, I mean the center crease. In drafting though, the knee and hem measures are placed according to this line. Basically im talking about open or closed cut trousers. I'm looking now at some resources for this. Books around 100 years old seem to talk about this stuff much more than modern ones. I hear that casual clothes like jeans are cut more open, meaning the center line is placed closer towards the outseam, as this allows greater ease of movement. This may not be true though, as drafts I have looked at seem to have the center line in the same place as standard trousers. It truly would be great to see something like an old 501 selvedge draft. I wonder if they move the center out to make the outseam straight for the selvedge, or maybe they just place a draft with standard center line placement with the outseam on the selvedge, meaning the grainline would not be technically proper. I guess one way of finding out would be to look at the horizontal grain, and if it is not perfectly horizontal, that would mean they dont place the pattern perfectly straight (properly). I'm also interested in the seat angle they would have used for those drafts. I wonder if there is any info out there on this.
I think it all comes down to 'figuration', Dog Salt: i.e., using the appropriate leg position for your/a client's body. Any deviating from that 'correct' position will at best result in an ill-fitting garment, and at worst twisted seams.
I'd be wary of following Edwardian cutting advice to the letter. It's possible that their concept of good posture was different than now. In at least a couple of books from that time, I've seen drawings where the feet are side-by-side, touching. This was considered normal and leg shapes were adjusted accordingly, coming in slightly at the bottoms. Good posture (which is different from typical posture), by today's standards, has the feet parallel with one another and slightly apart, in line with the hips so as to give support to the body. At least that's what I learned in my early 30s (I spent six months working with an osteopath to correct my crappy posture).
As for garment manufacturers, one cut can't possibly suit all customers. Paul Kruize, who makes selvedge jeans, is at least honest about this. In an interview I heard with him he makes it very clear that his cut is totally straight on the outside seam, bar some shaping at the waist/top hip. He said that it's ill suited for anyone with curves.
Quote from: DOG SALT on March 27, 2021, 03:27:33 AMI wonder if they move the center out to make the outseam straight for the selvedge,
That's exactly why they do it. They make a virtue of showing off the selvedge, by creating a totally straight line on the side seam. This proves that the denim is 'raw'.
One or two regency period patterns books demonstrate this blocky cutting method. Mostly for kids' wear, but it must have been used for adults too at one point. In north west Africa, some tailors still use this 'side-out' approach (though just as many use modern methods, from what I've seen).
If you wish to learn a little about the selvedge approach, Paul Kruize talks about his method towards the middle of this interview:
https://podtail.com/podcast/common-threads-3/paul-kruize-paul-kruize-jeans-common-threads-003/
This video is incredibly rough and ready, but the basic approach is typical. Though for selvedge jeans, the cloth wouldn't be cut on the fold. The outside seams would correspond to, and incorporate, the lined-up selvedge:
https://youtu.be/OZHoUURwfLw
Page 6 onwards:
https://www.cuttersguide.com/pdf/Pattern-Guides-Male/rules_and_direction_for_cutting_mens_clothes_by_the_square_rule.pdf
Going by the measurements in the above publication, either people were minute during the regency period, or these are kids' trousers/were cut to scale for the purpose of demonstration. Who knows?
Those look like some great resources, Gerry. I will definitely check them out. I do wonder where I heard that bringing the center line outwards allows for greater mobility for things like workwear, where one will be sitting, standing, crouching, etc. It does make sense to me though, that if cut in that way, it would allow greater mobility. I believe pants for riding horses are cut in that way, as the legs must be able to come out much further than with walking or whatever. So in theory, with a normal stance on the normal figure, they would fit less clean, but would permit more mobility. If such pants as Levi's 501 are cut in such a way that the hem measure is squared out from the side seam, rather than this measure being centered on the center line, then the fit would depend a lot on the hem measure. A narrow hem would result in a wider stance. A wider hem would bring the legs inwards. I wonder if this is something taken into consideration with garments like this. I know there are many that take jeans seriously, and so I'm sure people have thought about this before. Oh how greatly I want to see an old 501 pattern, or maybe a naked and famous draft. Speaking of naked and famous, a modern denim company, they keep their sideseam straight until the hip (or around there, from what I can tell) and then allow some to be taken in for the waist. So it is not totally necessary that 100% of the sideseam be selvedge, atleast according to naked and famous. I do say all of this before looking at those links you posted, so forgive me if anything I have said was incorrect.
Quote from: DOG SALT on March 27, 2021, 09:26:23 AM
I do wonder where I heard that bringing the center line outwards allows for greater mobility for things like workwear, where one will be sitting, standing, crouching, etc.
Originally jeans were utilitarian, designed, as you say, as workwear; and Levis weren't in the business of creating fashion (not when they started), so their primitive, utilitarian cut was 'good enough' and easy to manufacture, no doubt. I don't think that the cut made the jeans any more comfortable, just that denim has some give over time, which makes them comfortable once 'worn in'. Adding sufficient amounts of ease also makes a garment more comfortable/functional (whilst retaining a better look/balance). An extreme example being jodhpurs, as they were originally cut prior to the invention of stretch fabrics: i.e. ballooning from the hip down to a tight fit at the knee and below. That makes for a comfortable fit when riding horses/invading Poland.
A lot of men, particularly when young, are fairly straight over the hips, so the straight edge approach sort of works. That doesn't make trousers cut that way a good fit, though. If you refresh the page to take a look at the demonstration photo/icon used for that video I linked to (before clicking on it), you can see just how skewed the crease line is. Not exactly a good advert IMO. I only linked to it to demonstrate how this method works in practice (I certainly wouldn't recommend copying it).
Quote from: DOG SALT on March 27, 2021, 09:26:23 AM
Speaking of naked and famous, a modern denim company, they keep their sideseam straight until the hip (or around there, from what I can tell) and then allow some to be taken in for the waist. So it is not totally necessary that 100% of the sideseam be selvedge, atleast according to naked and famous. I do say all of this before looking at those links you posted, so forgive me if anything I have said was incorrect.
Paul Kruize mentions this in his interview; and it's demonstrated in the video.
Incidentally, 'twisted seam' trousers are now the de riguer fashion item. In some cases it's clearly a design decision, as the seams are radically altered. In others, it appears to be a matter of art imitating crap ... or crap sold as art.
Hello all,
The sideseam of the "original"Levis jeans are near straight. It was not a fitting issue, however; denim was woven on narrow looms (38") and to save fabric the jeans were cut sideseam at selvedge. Hence the name "selvedge jeans". So indeed, they were cut as "open"as possible...
I checked out those resources you posted, Gerry. It's good to know that drafting with a straight side seam is possible, and wont result in a garment that doesn't fit at all. If its good enough for Kruize, then its probably a viable method. Obviously not for dress pants though.
Hendrick, I assume when you say the original 501's were cut with a straight side seam, you are saying the pattern is drafted with the knee and hem measures applied to the side seam inwards, rather than centered on the center line, like in the examples Gerry provided. How can you be certain of this? Not to question your authority on the matter, but I wonder where you draw this conclusion from.
There are tons of historical reference of breeches and trousers being cut with a straight side seam like jeans are. Breeches from the time of their development through the 17th-20th centuries. Trousers from the time of their development up until there became differentiation between work trousers and dress trousers.
Levis were work pants and just following the pattern standards of the time.
Hi,simple check; the red listing in the selvedge of jeans like 501 and "big e" forms the side seam of the trouser... Regarding the "open-ness" of the draft; jeans, breeches, pantaloons and dungarees originate from long before the autombile. The horse was the nr 1 means of personal transport so a little openness was probably more than welcome, especially for larger seats.
"1927 Cone Mills develops the 10 oz. red selvage denim exclusively for the 501® jeans. The denim is woven in 29" wide looms and is known as XX denim"
https://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016_CompanyTimeline_Long_F.pdf (https://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016_CompanyTimeline_Long_F.pdf)
The narrowness of the cloth explains the cutting method.
Yes, I see that it would be a good educated guess that the early 501's were drafted from the sideseam inwards. I question this though, as one should not continue their studies based upon uncertain information. I agree that they probably were done that way though, it does make sense. There is some interesting info about this, jcsprowls from the old forum gives us "You mentioned you want to work with selvedge denim. The patterns for these look different than other 5-pk styles. The side seam is poker-straight, which means the grain is different than what you will find in a pattern book. This also means the crutch and inseam curves need to be different because the grain shift alters the degree of stretch in these areas." I wish he was around still so he could explain further. Maybe he is, idk. I didnt find his name when i looked it up here, though. Here is a link to that thread: https://web.archive.org/web/20150910002011/http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1157
On another note, I have been measuring the seat angles of some of my pants. I first measured by finding the center line (by lining up seams from hem to knee), squaring a line from there to make a horizontal one, and then measuring the seat from that line. Here are those measurements;
Levi's 501 ~1999 34x34: 65 deg
Wool ~1950 bdu pant 28x30: 63 deg
Carhartt double knee 34x30: 67 deg
OG-107 trouser 30x29: 66 deg
white oak 501 (modern) 32x30: 72 deg
Ralph Lauren cord trouser (modern): 78 deg
Some of these really seem off. 72 deg for a pair of jeans? 78 for corduroy trousers? I realized after taking these measurements that using this method has flaws. If the pants were not drafted from the center line, or if alterations had been done to one of the seams, the angles wouldnt be correct. 78 degrees really seems crazy for a pair of trousers, but that one was actually fairly accurately done. I squared from one of the corduroy ridges to find the horizontal line. I am still learning though, so maybe such a steep angle isnt so crazy for a pair of dress pants. Duffy's draft gives me 77 deg, which is pretty close to that.
Realizing the faults of this method of measure, I decided to try another method. This time I found the grain by threading a needle and thread between the threads of the fabric, following one thread in it. These measures were a bit different
Levi's 501 ~1999 34x34: 62 deg
white oak 501 (modern) 32x30: 68 deg
Naked & famous selvedge 30x30: 71 deg
Havent had time to measure the other pants with this method. There is a fault with this method I have found. If the pieces were not cut on the straight grain, these measurements would be off. I believe this may have actually happened with one of these pairs. The ~1999 501 I have was split down the back seam for alterations. using this method, the left panel gave me 71 deg, and the right 61 deg. Also with the selvedge denim, if these were drafted with the center line approach, the angle would be wrong. Maybe that could explain the steep angle of that pair.
I would think that a jean draft would have a seat angle of around 60-65 degrees as leggatt says in his book (the climax system) that 60 deg gives a good measure for riding pants, and 65 for walking pants. Not sure though. Im also not sure if any of this info is useful at all, as both methods I used have definite flaws. Leggatt also says that 78 deg, which is the same angle as the cord trousers, "would not allow for movement of the body in a sitting or stooping position." This doesnt seem to be the case with those trousers though. So either I measured wrong (unlikely with this pair), or leggatt is wrong. I will continue my search for info on this.
Also, if anyone has a full pdf of the climax system by leggatt, that would be greatly appreciated, as I have only seen a few pages of it. Here is a link to what I have seen from it: https://web.archive.org/web/20171226152238/http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=392
I'm glad you linked to the Leggatt scans Salt Dog, because I really had no idea what you were talking about at first. I now see that we have a different idea of what 'seat angle' is.
It appears to be another way of estimating ease. The smaller the angle, the more ease you're adding at the seat (in effect). As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we can measure seat ease. So why would we want to factor in guess work?
Thanks to Don McCunn, we also have a way of measuring additional rise required at the back. Again, bye bye guesswork.
Re selvedge jeans, the curves are obviously going to be different, simply because they travel out from the inseam more than they normally would. I'm guessing that what jcsprowls was getting at, is that this puts more of the material along the inside leg towards the bias. Meaning that it will stretch more over time.
Perhaps modern, bespoke jeans makers account for this with certain shaping. I very much doubt any such thought went into the design of Levi's 501s though. They were utilitarian, work garments. When working, miners had more important things to focus on that the cut of their trousers (the philistines).
As for poker straightness, just look at this photo of a pair of vintage Levi's:
https://federicodecalifornia.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/oldest-pair-501.jpg
Which comes from this site:
https://federicodecalifornia.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/levis-501-xx-california-denim-•-1850-1969/
Also the first photo (and following chart) seen here:
https://www.heddels.com/2016/11/vintage-levis-501-jeans-the-ultimate-collectors-guide/
I have two editions of the Climax system but they are not scanned.
I could scan and send you a few pages, if you know what you want but scanning the complete book is not something i have time to do.
Some more Levi's stuff of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmaqrw6GJPM
Yes, I love looking at old levis. That video you linked I watched years ago and definitely was one that sparked my interest in levis. I see that old jeans are cut quite wide so drafting from the side seam really wouldn't mess the fit up much at all. With the seat angle, my understanding is that you can have whatever amount of ease you want at the seat, and the angle is what is changed for large/flat seats. I have seen many drafts measure from the seat angle-center front intersect to the horizontal seat line with 1/4 seat+4 seams+ease. So you could change that variable.
Terri, I really appreciate it! I think I would continue with the books I have been reading and after those, I may request some scans if I think there are some specific pages I think I might need from that book. I would never expect anyone to scan a whole book for me, hahah.
Jcsprowls was really great. He had said he was going to write a book, from his experience in industry, but he retired rather abruptly. He is missed.
Might look at Trew pattern systems. Pressing them as trews are pressed, before sewing, would probably help.
Maybe I mean Jack Tars
Trews are pants that have no side seam.
Still relatively popular in Scotland.
G
Think Jack Tars are similar.
Fold the pattern paper in half lengthways and draw the pattern. For straight side seams add the seam allowances (inlay, too) and cut. This can be adapted for jeans. Might want to press a curve in the side before sewing.
Didn't read all of this thread and it has changed course to discuss jeans. Will share what I do regarding 3 questions I read.
Adding all of the outlets on the inseam reduces or hollows the curve on the back part. This makes the back of the thigh cleaner and requires less iron work on the back part from seat to knee. The more curve on the backpart from knee to crotch, the sloppier the back is and harder to press.
Hesitate to isolate how I find the height of the back part at CB or the angle of the seat curve because both work in relation to the rest of my draft. It may not have the same effect if the proportions of your draft are different. My method is super easy and have been doing this for decades without issue.
Place the long arm of the square on knee notch of the back part to the hip point of the seat and the top of the square on the top of the outseam which will be the waistline.
Small arm of the square extended towards the center back seam. Draw your line. That's all. Keep the back outseam and the waist line squared off. The height at center back is determined by and in relation to the angle of the outseam on the back part. If the pattern is open the height will be higher. If the back panel is closed the back height will be lower. The angle of the outseam is the most important element of fitting different seat shapes and postures. The height at the back is always corresponding to the amount the outseam is open or closed. There are a few tiny tweaks used for extreme postures but too esoteric and specific to explain.
I make the waistline convex from out seam to center back so it becomes straight after the darts are sewn. This prevents a dip in the waistline at the darts.
Seat seam angle is just as easy. Lay your ruler on the waist point of the top of the backpart and the other end on the knee notch, draw the seat line. That's it. A straight line from the top of the centerback seat line to the knee notch on the inseam of the back part. It is self correcting because it is determined by the angle of the back outseam. Been doing this for decades without issue.
IMO this works because it keeps an organic balance of lines and angles between the outseam, back height and seat line. It's fail proof if your outseam angle is correct for the body type. It's also backwards of the Duffy video on the first page.
Again a warning, this works with the way I draft the front and back panels.
Thanks Despos.
Interesting too.
I control the seat angle on my draft with pivoting the corner of my square from a point on the cb seat line that I have determined first and an additional measurement placed above the crotch line close to the outseam. I know what number I use for "average, and what I might use for a full or flat seat.
I too draw my outseam with the square from knee through the hip point to the waist, and square off for the waistline.
It really does all needs to work together with how the draft works, and the shape of the particular body!
Very interesting method, Despos. Not sure I fully understand the relationship between the different points in your method, would be very nice if you had time to post some pictures of the draft. By fixing the seat seam angle by way of the knee notch at the inseam, what happens if you have a very wide circumference at the knee? If you always fix the ease in the seat according to the width of the trousers at the knee I guess I agree that your method would work, but say you wanted it full in the seat and very tapered toward the bottom, would that not make the seat seam straighter with a smaller knee and more crooked with a wide knee? I usually make the seat seam more crooked in a slim trouser to get enough ease for sitting and walking, but can make it straighter and more clean fitting in the seat area in a wide trouser without reducing comfort for the wearer. I realize most tailors these days are more interested in getting a very clean and smart fitting seat, but personally I always recommend extra length in the seat seam to my customers if they do not object to the seat not fitting completely clean. Speaking of jeans, that is a part of what makes them so comfortable in wear: The extra length/more crooked seat seam, in addition to the very open legs (more length in the inseam). I also like to full on 1/4" to 1/2" at the back part along the side seam a little above the seat line if the fabric allows it. It makes the seat a bit full and wrinkly but this part will always be a tradeoff between cleanness and comfort in my opinion, especially in slim trousers.
Thank you all...
Despos, I will try this immediatly. I am currently doing a mens' slimfit stretch trouser in a bi-directional heavy stretch technical tricotine (much like jodphur fabric). I am never happy about how the roundness on the side of trousers gives length in stretch materials. I will keep you posted...
Quote from: TSjursen on April 21, 2021, 07:01:38 PM
Very interesting method, Despos. Not sure I fully understand the relationship between the different points in your method, would be very nice if you had time to post some pictures of the draft. By fixing the seat seam angle by way of the knee notch at the inseam, what happens if you have a very wide circumference at the knee? If you always fix the ease in the seat according to the width of the trousers at the knee I guess I agree that your method would work, but say you wanted it full in the seat and very tapered toward the bottom, would that not make the seat seam straighter with a smaller knee and more crooked with a wide knee? I usually make the seat seam more crooked in a slim trouser to get enough ease for sitting and walking, but can make it straighter and more clean fitting in the seat area in a wide trouser
Just placed the ruler on the back pattern and increased at the knee .5", it made the seat 1/8" bigger. Increased 1" at the knee notch and it made the seat 1/4" bigger. Not a significant amount to me. Reduced at the knee the same amounts and the seat changed/reduced by the same amounts.
If you want a base to work from, make the knee 1/2 of the seat measure. 40"" seat would have a 20" knee. 44" seat has a 22" knee. 38" seat has a 19" knee. Use this to draft the seat line then change the knee measure to whatever you like.
If you do this, it still won't make a big change to the seat measure.
There were questions of how to find the angle of the seat seam in this thread and I just wanted to share another way to find it. There are always exceptions or nuance to consider for various body types and proportions. This is not "the" way just "another way".
QuoteThere were questions of how to find the angle of the seat seam in this thread and I just wanted to share another way to find it. There are always exceptions or nuance to consider for various body types and proportions. This is not "the" way just "another way".
Isn't that the truth!
Sometimes people are looking for the only way. Seems like there should be one, especially the way the information in books is presented.
Some of this just comes with practice, repetition, combined with being open to seeing alternatives.
Love your analytical method Despos. What a great way tosee this issue.
Pattern systems in books and elsewhere are for beginners to get started. Experience teaches the eye at the fittings to see what the pattern doesn't produce.
It may not be "the way", it worked fine for me! Thanks again Despos!
Quote from: Despos on April 25, 2021, 05:33:47 AM
There were questions of how to find the angle of the seat seam in this thread and I just wanted to share another way to find it. There are always exceptions or nuance to consider for various body types and proportions. This is not "the" way just "another way".
Absolutely, the more I learn the more I appreciate the fact that there are so many different ways to get to the same result. I think that there is a tendency in some cutting books to overcomplicate things and present one solution as the one correct method. After all, when the difference is only 1/8" in practice it can hardly have a detrimental effect. The real complexity I think lies in really understanding what goes on in different methods and how to translate the lines on a pattern to the desired end result. I'm still far from mastery on that point for sure, and always keen to see how others do things in order to learn more. Again, really appreciate you posting here!
Most everything has been covered here. The one thing I have to add is how to fold the slant pocket back down out of the way of the waistband. In Rory Duffy's course he makes a vertical cut on the inner pocket bag piece (the one closest to the leg panel) 1 or 2 cm in from the fold down to just above the pocket facing. The outside pocket back (visible form the inside) can then be folded down. If you want a more clear explanation, I could recommend checking out his course. You really do get a ton of information for just 15 bucks. This part is shown in video 14 about halfway through.
Since Despos wrote here and I saw this link about him I thought I'd post it. in this post there is another link about his tailoring.
https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/chris-despos-bespoke-tailor-chicago/
Enjoy!
I know I'm late on this, but it seems like the GG has deleted the article with no explanation to exactly why. A bit worrying.