With my wife's trouser project on hold, I thought I could ask for some advice about my own.
Several months ago I made several pairs of casual trousers using the "Mansie" draft originally posted on the C & T Forum. The only change I made for my figure was a flat seat adjustment (extending the back fork and reducing the height of the seat seam). No iron work was done since the fabrics used would not normally respond well to it.
The best fitting pair is shown below. Material is a lightweight cotton denim. These have been worn and washed several times at this point.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsu3vkbwvn.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpssziezejf.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsa9bdawfi.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpswx1x2eyg.jpg)
I'm not ashamed of them for casual wear, but the back could obviously fit better; and I would appreciate any suggestions for improvement.
The pattern is shown below. Sorry no construction lines since it was drafted a few months ago:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p_zpsddfpq0as.jpg)
Looks to me Jim like you need a tad more width through the fork, at the back. I can see very slight roping at the back running down through the seat which could loosen some tightness over your calfs. Hollow out the seam a little this will also have the effect of straightening the CB slightly, maybe let out the stride out a little; IMHO the seat isn't hollow enough so it is pulling, turn one half around and look at the profile of the basin.
;D
Quote from: tombennett on October 10, 2016, 07:58:39 AM
IMHO the seat isn't hollow enough so it is pulling, turn one half around and look at the profile of the basin.
Oops! Forgot to mention I have an inlay included in the CB of the pattern. It's an extra inch from top of seat seam, then parallel to the seam down into the curve. The seat seam is marked by a line of punched holes, which I expected to show up better in the photo. So you are not getting a true picture.
Could you please elaborate on how to "let out the stride"?
Thanks!
Jim
This is the slight mod to the pattern I would suggest, alter the curve in the area where the arrow is pointing, more so for the back panel than the front and it should take out the bagginess at the inside back of the legs. Generally a good pattern and the general fits looks fine, just a few tweaks here and there.
(https://s18.postimg.org/gj6c9p1j9/jim.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/gj6c9p1j9/)
Here is a closeup of the crotch curve with back and front in closing position. Note the line of holes on the back side, locating the seat seam.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/c_zpsoct8nytu.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/cc_zpsqnpmdewk.jpg)
Oh I see.
Quote from: jruley on October 10, 2016, 09:51:08 AM
Could you please elaborate on how to "let out the stride"?
A bit more fork at the back, let out the inlay at the fork. Technically increasing the stride I suppose.
Thanks Tom. I appreciate you taking time away from your studies for this. Since you started with trousers, the material is no doubt fresh in your mind.
I found a couple of posts on C&T that discuss the effects of "stride room", but neither gives a precise definition.
This thread (post #29) shows the effect seat angle has on stride room:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4085&hl=stride&page=2
This thread (#28 and #31) talks about allowances for "stride room" but the contributors disagree:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4012&hl=stride&page=2
So, is there a common definition, i.e. the "stride measure" is from A to B?
Also found the following discussion of "stride" in this thread on the "Ask Andy Forum". Post #11 by Chris Despos defines it as a diagonal measure from the back fork point up to the junction of the side seams and waistband:
http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showthread.php?50820-Meaning-of-stride
What confuses me is he says a flat seat (like mine) should take a shorter stride, not longer. This doesn't seem consistent with extending the back fork, and reducing the height of CB would not affect "stride" as he defines it. Hmmm...
Of course, at this point I should probably just try Tom's suggestion without getting so wrapped up in theory :)
Hi Jim, the stride is the back part of the fork which sticks out from the top fork when laid on top of each other. The issue you have is not enough fork space, you can see the seam pulling through the 'crack' creating a roping effect down the inside of the buttocks. It wouldn't lower the CB point but straighten it a bit, no, you're right it wouldn't shorten the stride by lowering. I think because you have a sway back you have to redistribute the cloth to get the in-seam running up the centre of the leg, so shortening the front and lengthening the rear gives the same amount of cloth, just in a different place. I would first let out the inlay on the underside to see what the result is.
Thanks Tom. The only inlay is in the seat seam, not the inseam. The 1/2" seam allowances permit a small amount of adjustment, but if more than about 1/4" is needed I'd have to put a gusset in the inseam.
Rather than tear up a finished pair, I think I will cut another out of some cheap wool I have, with some inlay on the upper inseam. Using wool would allow me to explore the effects of ironwork as well.
I always understood "stride" to mean the measurement from the tip of the back fork to the side seam at the waist.
Jim, I would say that your pattern needs to reflect more of a flat seat shape in the transition area from the fork to the cb line. Right now it is too gradual, giving you too much fabric laterally, and too short of a cb line. I would remark the area and baste it, then try it on again. The seam allowance would need to be reduced eventually, but only after the alteration is successful. It may still pull a bit but if you ar emaking a new muslin you can clip or trim to your heart's content.
Not length, as such but width at the top of the inseam and seat seam.
Quote from: jruley on October 12, 2016, 07:55:15 AM
Rather than tear up a finished pair, I think I will cut another out of some cheap wool I have, with some inlay on the upper inseam. Using wool would allow me to explore the effects of ironwork as well.
Trouser ironwork also works in cottons and linnen. The ironwork makes use more of the bias stretchability of the fabric than the molding ability of the fibres.
When doing ironwork before the sewing, the effect can be "locked" in the seams. Doing the ironwork after the sewing only works in woolen fabrics, wich hold the new shape because of their molding ability of the fibre.
Thank you peterle, I had thought this might be possible but been put off a bit by the seeming consensus that it would not work.
Quote
Trouser ironwork also works in cottons and linnen. The ironwork makes use more of the bias stretchability of the fabric than the molding ability of the fibres.
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...
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
Quote from: jruley on October 13, 2016, 07:01:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Schneiderfrei on October 13, 2016, 11:22:19 AM
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?
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.
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
I already posted a corrected (for spelling etc) version of the Ironwork from C&T. It's here on this forum as a pdf.
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.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsvte4pflu.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps76cljo9c.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsvdkbbpeu.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsveza9kum.jpg)
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.
Quote from: tombennett on October 19, 2016, 12:37:48 AM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Here is a flat seat alteration as suggested by Terri. The chalk marks the new seam location:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/a_zpskjkq8t8x.jpg)
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:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsj714apu4.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpse7gcblf3.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsiyzhrb41.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpslz9kex6m.jpg)
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...
Quote from: peterle on October 19, 2016, 03:07:13 AM
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:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps6qro7kgt.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsd237pjwn.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsu4i7knmz.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps5g4vcroy.jpg)
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.
Quote from: posaune on October 19, 2016, 07:50:06 PM
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?
Quote from: posaune on October 19, 2016, 07:50:06 PM
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?
Yes, I would draft with smaller hip value at the back than in the front 1 cm more in front and - 1 cm in back. You shove your body into front.
You can do this if you have enough s.a. in the back crotch seam
That's one of the reasons to have about 4 cm s.a. at back crotch seam at the waist tapper to 1 cm where the curve starts.
lg
posaune
(https://s9.postimg.org/nfky591wr/hinten1.png) (https://postimg.org/image/nfky591wr/)
The new pattern won't be bigger than the ones already cut.
You can also just pin posaune´s wedge to see the effect.
In any case the lower inlay at your back seam will influence the appearence of the back seam, because it will pull. when you look at posaune´s sketch, you can see the wider inlay at the back seam starts at the curve and not below.
Quote from: peterle on October 20, 2016, 08:31:32 PM
You can also just pin posaune´s wedge to see the effect.
Here is the fit with a 3/4" wedge pinned out:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsxgc9swsd.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsfnyojbgb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsz68coavs.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpshkdkeomc.jpg)
For comparison, here is the fit with no wedge and the waistband lowered 3/4" at CB, tapered to nothing at the side seams:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f2_zpsssj3atl0.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b2_zpst0u11mjw.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l2_zps7lglfz65.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r2_zpsuoymft8q.jpg)
Thoughts?
Same as last set, but with some of the surplus material taken out of the crotch seam:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps04eheher.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsakwlpkp6.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsemoyk3an.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsjlwqdbsh.jpg)
I think the version with the pinned wedge hangs more balanced than the other version.(especially to be seen at calf level and the hems don´t cling to the heels)
In the pinned version it is obvious that the undersides are yet too wide. You can remove the superflous width at the crease line by pinning or basting to get an impression.
OK, so let's go with the wedge then.
Here is the pattern change I made to remove the wedge. Blue = old, red = new. I did not attempt to reduce the back width in the same step, because I'm not sure where it needs to come out:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p_zpsuzkudkk3.jpg)
I ripped the trousers apart down to the knees and pressed the upper backs flat. I marked the new edges, put back the darts at the new locations, and reassembled the trousers. Here is the result. Obviously there is still some looseness in the back - should it be removed at the side seam or the crotch?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsnzz7q3wa.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpskrghva1w.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsy1pefcbo.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsstbe8ojk.jpg)
Is there a lot of inlay in the seat seam especially in the curve area? maybe it is pulling?
in my eyes you could move the fork point about 2 cm inwards. then use the paper pattern as a template and redraw the seat line pivoting the pattern at the waist and aiming to the new fork point.
do the same with the inseam pivoting at the hem.
Quote from: peterle on October 30, 2016, 11:36:16 PM
Is there a lot of inlay in the seat seam especially in the curve area? maybe it is pulling?
The pattern picture shows the extent of the inlay (the pink area beyond the marked seat seam).
Quote
in my eyes you could move the fork point about 2 cm inwards. then use the paper pattern as a template and redraw the seat line pivoting the pattern at the waist and aiming to the new fork point.
do the same with the inseam pivoting at the hem.
I will give that a try. Obviously the seat inlay will need to be reduced in the new curve.
Stretching the inlay with your iron will help it sit down nicely, not sure if it is sitting up inside.
Here is peterle's proposed alteration (green lines), if I understand correctly.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p_zpsvg2jryat.jpg)
So here we are with the alteration shown in the last post (#40). I followed Tom's advice and stretched the fork inlay after marking the new seat seam line.
Obviously this is much better in the seat.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsqrbugmdj.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsemffxfz0.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsojvbhzzs.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpschsndhs7.jpg)
I think it´s better now.
In this pics you wear the trousers a bit lower at the left hip, what you didn´t in most of the other posts. Maybe that´s why there are folds at the left leg? You could take some balance measures to identify a high/low hip.
Will the topsides be a bit too tight at the hips when you close the fly line? That could cause gaping pockets. would be nice to see some pics with bent forearms to see the run of the side seam tops.
Quote from: peterle on October 31, 2016, 09:15:51 PM
In this pics you wear the trousers a bit lower at the left hip, what you didn´t in most of the other posts. Maybe that´s why there are folds at the left leg? You could take some balance measures to identify a high/low hip.
My left hip is probably a little lower/smaller (see posts #1 and #22).
Quote
Will the topsides be a bit too tight at the hips when you close the fly line? That could cause gaping pockets.
Assuming that is the case - is the cure more width in the fronts at the side seams?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/lb_zpsrpq8l3lo.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/rb_zpspg0brgnm.jpg)
The left leg side seam looks ok to me. The right top side side seam could probably need a bit more width at the hip. just open the side seam from the waistline downwards a bit over the fork line keeping the waistband attached, and look how much it is gaping (if any).
Please take balance measurements for the hips. the pics arn´t trustworthy enough, because you wear the trousers differently. In classical trousers the waistline seam should sit on top of your hip bones, the waistband above. measure the distances of both hip bones to the floor, and compare to be sure.
Quote from: peterle on November 01, 2016, 08:57:54 PM
Please take balance measurements for the hips. the pics arn´t trustworthy enough, because you wear the trousers differently. In classical trousers the waistline seam should sit on top of your hip bones, the waistband above. measure the distances of both hip bones to the floor, and compare to be sure.
This may seem a stupid question, but how do I (or a helper) locate my hip bones?
Put your hands on your stomach, palms flat against the abdomen, thumbs curved around your waist to the back. Slide the hands down until the fingers hit bone. That's the top of the hip bone in the front. It's a little trickier in the back but if you bend forward slightly and feel for the bony parts close to the surface in the lower back you will find the top. You aren't corpulent so your bone structure is fairly close to the surface.
Thank you Theresa.
At my workout session this morning my trainer agreed that my left hip is slightly lower than my right, probably 1/4" to 3/8". Rather than trying to measure I pinned about 3/8" out of the top of the left side at the waist seam, graduated to nothing CF and CB. This seems to make the backs look about the same:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsl9xe6mrd.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps3nhdvamh.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsilxohr5l.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps2hnikcas.jpg)
I had my wife pin the fly opening closed, then carefully slit the right side seam open about the depth of a pocket. Looks like gaping may indeed be a problem:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/fp_zpstv0sjqb5.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/rp_zps6baabb2b.jpg)
J, you are taking this fitting much further than I would but that is the nice thing about sewing for oneself; you can be as picky as you want to be. You are making decent progress.
Your workout trainer doesn´t sew your pants. So you better trust your measure tape for exact amounts. When you compare the different back pics, you can see the folds in the leg are caused only by the way you wear the pants( in #36 the left waist is worn high wich results in a fold aiming to the inside of the calf; in #40 it´s worn too low and causes folds aiming to the outside of the calf). Maybe you don´t need any alteration for a low hip at all. Everything else is yoyoing.
Maybe it is easier for you to measure the balance by wearing a waistband only, without attached trousers. You can measure the distance from the lower edge to the floor. Be sure the lower edge of the band is located at the upper edges of your hip bone.
Quote from: peterle on November 03, 2016, 08:58:34 PM
Your workout trainer doesn´t sew your pants.
I didn't know you knew my trainer! (j/k)
Quote
Maybe it is easier for you to measure the balance by wearing a waistband only, without attached trousers. You can measure the distance from the lower edge to the floor. Be sure the lower edge of the band is located at the upper edges of your hip bone.
OK, I put a belt on over my T-shirt (no trousers) and adjusted it to lie on top of the hip bones. I won't make you look at a picture.
Using a four-foot yardstick, my wife measured the length from bottom of belt to floor on both sides. The difference was 1/2" lower on the left. This was consistent for 2 trials.
I assume this means I should lower the waistband on the left side 1/2" at the side seam, graduating to nothing at CF and CB. Correct?
And I assume the gaping pocket area in #47 confirms I need extra width at the hip level in front on the right side. Correct?
for the waist band you better lower it 1/4" at the left side and make it higher 1/4 " on the right side. thus the CF and CB keep its higth and the right is 1/2 an inch higher than the left.
( when you also measure the CF to floor you will notice the amount will most probably be exactly in between the left and right hip balance measure so changing all at only one side is overcompensating and causes new troubles).
for the side seam a bit of extra width would be nice. you can add some on the undersides too.
The latest progress:
First, after reading the translation of the 1938 ABC des Schneiderhandwerk "Ironwork for Long Trousers" so kindly posted by Schneiderfrei, I decided to try a more rigorous application. I printed out the steps, tore the trousers down and followed the procedure as well as I could. The material did not shape easily, I think it either has some synthetic content or a very hard twisted fibers. Here is a photo showing the fronts and backs after shaping but before assembly:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/d_zpszmlggm1y.jpg)
Then I reassembled the trousers and made the changes suggested by peterle in post #51:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsqvutqa4i.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsfz2nfbit.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zps4ynovqaw.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsktgkdsyw.jpg)
I think the trousers are much more balanced now. the folds aren´t one-sides anymore but symmetric.
For my taste the undersides are yet a bit too long between fork line and knee line, that´s why the fabric collapses under the seat. To verify this theory just pin a horizontal fold across the undersides about 4-6" below the fork line. the fold should take away about 1cm at the crease line and fade to 0 at the side seam and inseam.
Well, you seem to be right as usual!
Can this alteration be made in the cut? Or does it mean more intense ironwork?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsxk9oero7.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsybr8glyk.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpstdxgnipz.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsvgau5vco.jpg)
First you should try, wether the trousers get too uncomfiy with undersides that short. The restricted room for moving can be unconfortable especially when walking or climbing stairs.
I think you can take out a bit less than you pinned out. (at the side seam of the right leg a dent starts to form in the topside).
A bit pattern theory: As you can see we created a saddle surface in the undersides below the buttocks by pinning a fish formed dart. A fish formed dart is the third possibility of creating a saddle surface I did´nt mention in post #9 of the tousers ironwork thread. As we don´t want a dart across the undersides nor an inserted wedge to achieve this form, the only possibility to achieve it is by stretching the fabric at the right areas.
Where and how much to stretch can be made visible in the paper pattern, when we know how much is to be removed in the pinned dart.
Quote from: peterle on November 07, 2016, 09:50:26 PM
As we don´t want a dart across the undersides nor an inserted wedge to achieve this form, the only possibility to achieve it is by stretching the fabric at the right areas.
I don't think this material will allow much more stretching or shrinking, especially shrinking.
As you can see in the photos, the knee lines (marked with white thread) are offset by about 3/8" as a result of the ironwork. I could increase this offset (move the backs down relative to the fronts) and then full the fronts on to the backs above the knee, and vice versa below the knee. Would this work?
I decided to go ahead and try it.
Here the left leg is back to #52 (I removed the pinned fold from the back).
On the right leg, the knee notch has been lowered another 3/8", making 3/4" total. This seems to put more of an S shape into the trouser leg and makes the back hang a bit cleaner. OTOH there is some bubbling of the seams above the knee.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsvgkl7zhj.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsydezr5bf.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsefkandah.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsnxr8k4cl.jpg)
I tried climbing stairs, and there is indeed some pressure against the front of the thighs when the knees are raised. So while this is fine for dressy trousers, I will need to relax things a bit for more casual ones.
We can also try to transfer the pinned horizontal dart to the pattern to make the alteration more precise:
(make a copy of your undersides and) draw in the pinned dart (better take out a bit less than pinned) in the paper pattern. from the two center tip points of the dart mark four diagonal (45 degrees) lines, one upwards towards the outseam, one downwards toward the outseam,one downwards towards the inseam and one upwards towards the seat seam curve.
slash the dart keeping two hingpoints at the inseam and at the outseam.
Slash the diagonals keeping hinge points at the center tips.
Pivot the dart close. the diagonals will overlap towards the seam lines.
Arrange the pattern in a way the overlapping is distributed evenly, eventually a bit more at the seat seam and inseam slash. fix the pieces.
This is your new underside pattern.
Now you have the dart transferred to the paper pattern. The overlapping lines indicate where and how much the fabric is to be stretched. That´s why they are diagonal, because in bias direction the fabric is easy to stretch no matter which fibre. the stretching is distributed in four directions to minimize the amount to be stretched in an single area. To anticipate the question: the fabric is to be stretched crosswise to the overlapping lines.
So let's try peterle's new alteration.
Here is a copy of the underside pattern, to a little below the knee line. We are taking out 1/4" of length along the crease line. The slash lines are marked, assuming I understood correctly:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p1_zps7lxkjbyl.jpg)
Here is the pattern fixed in position with the dart taped closed. There is about 1/8" of overlap at the end of each slash line. Note that the crease line remains straight:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p2_zpsjhnrfb78.jpg)
It seems that the main effect of the alteration is just to shorten the underside pattern 1/4" between the fork and knee lines. This lost length has to be made up by stretching the seams as shown. It's interesting that part of the stretching occurs in the fork seam!
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the stretching is in about the same places called for in the "ABC des Schneiderhandwerk" article from 1938 previously referenced.
Now I hope peterle will tell me what I got wrong...
Everything done right jruly.
The main purpose was to help understanding what ironwork is for, and that there is a connectivity between pattern lines and required ironwork. Ironwork is always an integral part of a pattern system (at least in german ones).
Yes, the main effect is a shortened underside (but without elongating the calf area). when you lay the new pattern onto the original one, you will recognize different additional effects. This method allows you to transfer the pin fitting pricisely and cotrolled to the paper pattern. It also shows where the stretching is to be done and you can manipulate where you want the stretching to be done. for example when you manipulate all the overlap to the seat seam diagonal, the hole upper part of the pattern will tilt. After the stretching it will be returned in the right position.
Quote from: peterle on November 09, 2016, 09:27:49 PM
It also shows where the stretching is to be done and you can manipulate where you want the stretching to be done. for example when you manipulate all the overlap to the seat seam diagonal, the hole upper part of the pattern will tilt. After the stretching it will be returned in the right position.
But that is not what you told me to do. You said:
Quote
Arrange the pattern in a way the overlapping is distributed evenly, eventually a bit more at the seat seam and inseam slash.
So, is putting all the stretching into the seat seam a better choice in practice? Or does it depend on the material?
Specifically: What would you advise for a cotton pair, where the material will shrink very little if at all?
Distributing evenly is meant to fit most fabrics, because you have to stretch each single area only a little bit. Putting it all in one area demands a fabric that can be stretched easily.
As there is no shrinking involved in this process just stretching, it also can be done in cotton, that has some bias stretchability. Densly woven and plain weave cottons linnens and synthetics with hardly any bias shift could be an issue.
Thanks again peterle for all your advice. So, barring unforeseen issues with the waistband or pockets, it looks like my dress trouser pattern is pretty much finished.
Now, I want to think about more casual trousers; something which as a retiree I will get a lot more use from than wool dress ones :). As you suggested in post #55, the pattern we've been working on doesn't have much room for free movement. So what changes are appropriate?
Looking at post #29 of this thread:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4085&hl=stride&page=2
it looks like I should consider a bigger seat angle, i.e. un-do part or all of the wedge from post #36, and accept that the undersides will get a bit messy.
But I'm wondering about another approach. Is the longer seat seam necessary, or just more fork length? I could cut the fork of the undersides as a separate gusset - and I could build in some shape without stretching by cutting the edges hollow. Does this sound reasonable?
Is that actually pulling on the right hip or is it that it has been fulled-in? I admit I have not followed all the thread.
Quote from: Henry Hall on November 10, 2016, 11:34:11 AM
Is that actually pulling on the right hip or is it that it has been fulled-in? I admit I have not followed all the thread.
I didn't rip the seam that high when I moved the backs down relative to the fronts. So maybe it's pulling a little.
I´m not sure the pattern is finished yet.
The front yet seems a bit too tight. The fly is gaping. I think the trousers could profit from front darts/easing in the fronts to the waistband. For this you have to make them a tad wider at the hip to waist in the side seam (about 0,75-1cm) and ease the additional waistline width into the waistband.
You should have ripped the seam at least up to the fork line. The shortness of the undersides has to be distributed from the fork heigth to about 3" above the knee line.
Seat seam length and seat angle are two different things, that shouldn´t be mixed up. A more slanted seat angle is achieved by shifting the whole waistline parallely towards the outseam and smoothing in the seam lines to the shifted end points of this line. The seat seam length keeps the same. To understand analyze how the Seat angle is determinated in the rundschau pattern and how the pattern will change when choosing a different seat angle.
Wedging changes the seat angle and the seat seam length, what is not always wanted.
Quote from: peterle on November 10, 2016, 10:49:29 PM
The front yet seems a bit too tight. The fly is gaping. I think the trousers could profit from front darts/easing in the fronts to the waistband. For this you have to make them a tad wider at the hip to waist in the side seam (about 0,75-1cm) and ease the additional waistline width into the waistband.
Unfortunately this is not an option for this pair. I cut the fronts without inlays, and with the additional width added to the right side in #51, there is no more room for adjustments. That's not to say I can't junk them and start over, this was very cheap fabric.
Quote
Seat seam length and seat angle are two different things, that shouldn´t be mixed up. A more slanted seat angle is achieved by shifting the whole waistline parallely towards the outseam and smoothing in the seam lines to the shifted end points of this line. The seat seam length keeps the same. To understand analyze how the Seat angle is determinated in the rundschau pattern and how the pattern will change when choosing a different seat angle.
You mean this illustration?
As I understand it, the point of the square rests at S6. One arm goes through S5, and the other B5. As S5 is raised or lowered, the seat angle becomes straighter or more crooked. B4 is adjusted so the waist and side seam lengths (to the knee) remain the same. Correct?
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa284/Satorarepo/New/New%202/RundschauTrousers5.jpg)
Yes, that seems correct.
When You take a straighter seat angle(S-S5 is more than 1,5cm), G2 and thus G3 and B4 and B5 will move to the right but the higth will stay the same. the seat seam length will stay pretty much the same as well.
Opposit when you choose a more crooked seat angle.
Before doing anything else, I thought it was time to make a clean pattern incorporating all changes, as well as the proposed front ease or darts.
Here is the result, with the undersides above the fronts. This underside has been shortened between the fork and knee lines, with the areas to be stretched marked with arrows. Differences in waist seam height are marked in red for left, green for right. The edge of the side seam is cut for the larger right side, with a red line marking the smaller left:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p1_zps7hdip9am.jpg)
I also followed the Rundschau method to increase the seat angle. The current version is on the left. The new one has top of the seat seam shifted 3/8", which will result in more stride room:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p2_zpsryzoqswk.jpg)
Since width cannot be added to wool ones without cutting new fronts, I decided to cut out a cotton pair. The material is a 100% cotton marked as "wrinklease", which has a twill weave and some stretchiness. I was able to stretch it with the iron, but am not confident it will hold the shape.
The pattern is the new one from the previous post, with the more slanted seat angle. I tried climbing stairs and there is definitely less pressure on the thighs. The fronts were also widened with the front dart shown in the pattern.
The horizontal seam in the upper back is piecing, which was needed because I was a little short on cloth. I think I can put the back pockets on this line; if not maybe I'll hide most of it under pocket flaps.
I expected some messiness in the back with the slanted seat angle. I'm not sure what happened to the front.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpszuzgs177.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps8witqwef.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsjj0dzmp2.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsnbefxhau.jpg)
Here I made an adjustment to the left leg. I stretched the back in the areas identified in post #59, and lowered the back an additional 1/4" on the front at the knee to account for shortening. I think it helped a bit (compare the unaltered right leg):
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpso8fumwt2.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsfnjgdzo8.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpskglodtf7.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsithyydvo.jpg)
the undersides should not be stretched only at the seam line. you should stretch it like the overlaps show most at the edges fading out to nothing towards the overlap tips.
Here are the trousers with the finished waistband and pockets. Leg seams were sewn like the left leg in #71.
I have two questions for the company:
- Any further adjustments to the leg seams?
- What do you think of the hem length? Short, long, or about right?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsxnnm3xif.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpscmlm7i8g.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpspkvbqg5n.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpschbss0oy.jpg)
Some closeups of the fly and pockets. Nothing fancy, since these are for casual wear I used a simple folded waistband.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/01_zps9h08opma.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/02_zpsdvl3nwk4.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/03_zps4uw4c5rs.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/04_zpsfbyrg511.jpg)
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.
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?
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
Quote from: posaune on November 22, 2016, 07:32:23 PM
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.
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...
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps1nx7qshp.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsvhpmx6zl.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsszqfhsqf.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps2g7ukx8h.jpg)
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.
(https://s18.postimg.org/4qqn3mc6t/cottontrouser.png) (https://pixxxels.org/image/4qqn3mc6t/)
Quote from: posaune on November 23, 2016, 04:01:11 AM
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?
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
Quote from: posaune on November 24, 2016, 12:46:12 AM
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....
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.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps8gesftaw.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsciaciwrr.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsvkobdzop.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsebuug1la.jpg)
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.
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
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.
Quote from: peterle on December 08, 2016, 09:59:07 PM
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.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsdajnopem.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpssiryjnie.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsqxeh4bt7.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps2o2ssdjq.jpg)
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.
Quote from: peterle on December 08, 2016, 09:59:07 PM
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"?
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?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsswzmd0vb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsjjwvxwar.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsa4bdfmm2.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpskfxlkrbs.jpg)
Quote from: jruley on December 09, 2016, 12:59:34 PM
Not sure what you are trying to say here? What do you mean by "harmonic"?
sorry for that germanism. I meant your inseam line doesn´t have a nice form above the knee. the curve is too hard and sudden. It should be a smooth curved line from the knee to the crotch. your´s seem to be two straight lines connected with a small french curve. compare it to a pattern draft from a book and you will know what i mean,
Thanks, I understand you now. The curve should be smoother, with no visible "kink".
In English "harmonic" usually refers to a progression of vibration frequencies, musical notes, or terms in a mathematical expression. If they are multiples of each other they are said to be "harmonic".
I would say Peterle is referring to a visual harmony.
Exactly, yes.
Seems this word is used more widely in German than in English. Here nearly everything can be harmonic, not only in music but also colours, tastes, and even relationships.
I think what you really mean, peterle is harmonious, you are right in the wide ranging use of the word in both German and English. JR if the runs don't look right then they probably are not. The lines should be smooth and flow in a harmonious way, there should be a relationship, a synergy between the top and underside inseams.
Anyhoo, just passing by. 8)
Well, looking at the illustration with Mansie's original draft, I concede that it should be a more smooth flowing curve:
http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=56.0
But does anyone really think this is what's causing the fitting issues?
Maybe that´s not the only cause. But especially in trousers small alterations (a few mm can be nough) can cause huge effects. And sudden direction changes in lines cause folds, that´s for sure.
To analyze the run of a curved line in a given pattern, just place your ruler, running from lets say, point 5 to 14 and observe the room between the ruler and the curved line. So you can see where the peak of the curve is, how far it is from the ruler ecc. Makes it a lot easier to copy.
Sometimes putting your eye right down like an inch above the paper and look down the line you can see if it will work or not. Looking down on a line is different than looking down the length of the line.
OK. I smoothed out the curve in the back inseam from fork to knee, so it better matched the front.
I also lowered the backs 1/4" relative to the fronts. This seems to have helped take some of the bagginess out under the seat.
I'm thinking this is probably about the best I can do without changing the seat angle.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsdyvzvbvz.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpszdg65v8v.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsaqyfg0ph.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsuxq3balp.jpg)
Here they are, as finished as they are going to get. I hemmed the legs on a slant, to minimize the break in the front crease.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsq6qsa4l2.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpslp2ymopb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsy8vkgjuq.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsyjd7dxd1.jpg)
Since the last post, I made two more pairs from the same pattern. Material is a light weight, soft 100% cotton corduroy. The blue pair is newly finished; the tan ones have been folded over a hanger for awhile.
The only ironwork done was moderate stretching of the back fork. The back inseam was stretched 1/4" from hip to knee (i.e. knee notch of back lowered 1/4") as was done with the previous pair. These are hemmed on an angle (front 3/4" shorter than back) as were the previous pair.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f1_zpsb0eovhuh.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b1_zpsgb8ndt2l.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l1_zpslf999az4.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r1_zpsbf57lrty.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f2_zpsmd85f7z9.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b2_zpswxn4w7bl.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l2_zpsihodkthw.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r2_zpszbpec0yi.jpg)
Maybe this material is better at hiding imperfections than the stretchy cotton used in the last pair, but they seem to fit better in the back, at least to my untrained eye. I think I may know the reason. I stretched the upper backs of the last pair out of shape a bit in making the darts and pockets, which added width at the back waist. Rather than full this on to the waistband I took a deeper crotch seam, adding 1/2" to the seam allowance. This also lengthened the crotch seam, resulting in the messy back. I could try correcting it, but the trousers are comfortable and fit well enough for casual wear IMO.
Any comments on the new ones?
They seem to look fine Jim, for a reasonably loose fit with a fair bit of leg room, I doubt you will get the back of the legs to fit much better. The lighter coloured pair could probably do with pressing if you have something like an Elna or similar press. The test for a pair of trousers of this type is if you can comfortably sit in them and if so then they probably cannot be improved by much.
If you have a look at any of the historical photos of "Ivy League" designs from before WW2, yours are a much better fit.
Hey Jim, the fronts look clean and the length is perfect for your loafers but I still feel there is a little work mainly on the underside pattern for the trousers to get them to hang cleaner, this is just a thought and, maybe backed up by peterle et al: Have your wife pin from the top side seam (zero) to centre back creating a small wedge of about ⅜ - ⅝", you might have to scoop out the curve in the seat seam to accommodate the alteration; in fact I expect you will have to take cloth from this area, remember that the seat is cut on the bias so one can stretch the seam allowance/inlay out so it doesn't 'cut' the wearer in two. I have a very flat seat, my CB is much lower than proportional at ¾" above the actual waistline lifting up the undersides for a cleaner hang.
To get the trousers to look even better at the hem IMHO would drop the hem by some ⅛s". I drop mine by ⅜, Rory by ⅝, if you look at some older drafts you will see that the front and back hem line are angled helping the flow of the silhouette; I drop mine less due to my footwear. Even though your high hip remains the same you seem to shift your legs changing the shape of the seat and the hind legs, study the two rear images (blue & tan) side by side ad you will see what I mean. I would say that one side needs to be treated slightly differently from the other however due to your changing stance you probably need to alter each side by the same amount, this will keep your modification for the high hip.
Tom. :-\
N.B. Bit of editing, hope it makes sense! :-[
I have noticed something else concerning the topside crease line, it deviates from your physical grain line. If you look at the hem of your trousers they have a tendency to sway out so they no longer line up with the centre of your feet which creates a bulge at the out-seam, to remedy this you will need to swing the legs in by ⅜".
Thanks Tom for your comments!
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
I still feel there is a little work mainly on the underside pattern for the trousers to get them to hang cleaner, this is just a thought and, maybe backed up by peterle et al: Have your wife pin from the top side seam (zero) to centre back creating a small wedge of about ⅜ - 5/8", you might have to scoop out the curve in the seat seam to accommodate the alteration; in fact I expect you will have to take cloth from this area, remember that the seat is cut on the bias so one can stretch the seam allowance/inlay out so it doesn't 'cut' the wearer in two. I have a very flat seat and my CB is much lower than proportional, this lifts up the undersides for a cleaner hang.
I am sure the back could be made a little cleaner, but if you go 'way back to post #69 this pattern has a slightly increased seat angle to make the trousers more comfortable when walking or climbing stairs. When I make another wool pair, I plan on starting with a straighter seat.
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
To get the trousers to look even better at the hem IMHO would drop the hem by some ⅛s". I drop mine by ⅜, Rory by ⅝, if you look at some older drafts you will see that the front and back hem line are angled helping the flow of the silhouette; I drop mine less due to my footwear.
Actually these are hemmed on an angle; the fronts are 3/4" shorter than the backs. I also did this with the stretchy pair; compare the break in front crease in #98 and #99.
Yeh I was thinking of removing the hem line part and just saying "have you thought about dropping the hem at the back another ⅛?". As for walking I would have bought one would increase the stride to stop the roping that occurs when this is out of balance. When sitting you would need to widen the seat slightly, I have learned that 1" over the seat measure is ample for the spread of said area when squatting or sitting. What ironwork did you do on the underside, specifically at the inseam/fork area?
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 12:53:55 PM
As for walking I would have bought one would increase the stride to stop the roping that occurs when this is out of balance.
Please see the illustration in #67. When the seat angle is increased, the stride (diagonal distance from B4 to S6) gets longer. So the alteration I made did increase the stride.
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 12:53:55 PM
When sitting you would need to widen the seat slightly, I have learned that 1" over the seat measure is ample for the spread of said area when squatting or sitting.
Well, strictly speaking I didn't make an alteration for sitting; I should have said walking or stair climbing. I'm sure you are right about widening the seat, and I've also read that more shaping at the knees is required for a really good fit with them bent.
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 12:53:55 PM
What ironwork did you do on the underside, specifically at the inseam/fork area?
The only ironwork was to stretch the back fork area. This stretching was "locked in" by serging the raw edges before sewing the crotch seam. The back inseam was stretched onto the fronts above the knee 1/4". Or more properly stated, the fronts were fulled onto the backs above the knee, since I didn't actually stretch the backs with the iron.
I agree with Tom. I see at both trousers the top of the waistband at CB is not showing where at side and front it shows about 1.5 cm plus above the belt. So the CB- seam is not long enough - back crotch could be a bit more scooped out.
it looks to me too if the crease is swinging in front to the outside and at back at the inside. The left leg hem looks a bit shorter in both trousers.
But nevertheless the trousers are looking fine and I'm nick picking.
lg
posaune
Quote from: posaune on January 10, 2017, 08:36:11 PM
I agree with Tom. I see at both trousers the top of the waistband at CB is not showing where at side and front it shows about 1.5 cm plus above the belt. So the CB- seam is not long enough...
But I thought Tom said the CB seam was too long?
Quote from: tombennett on January 10, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
...Have your wife pin from the top side seam (zero) to centre back creating a small wedge of about ⅜ - 5/8"...
The CB isn't to long, the whole back balance is to long. These are different things.
Hi Tom,
when you say the back balance is too long, do you mean that the angle is too acute, away from the vertical?
I am sorry for this question, I have always found the discussion of the state of the balance in trousers difficult to follow because of the terms.
For me it seems that the amount lacking at center back waistband (about 1,5-2cm) is superfluous at the crotch level. That´s why I would scoop out the seat seam for this amount. Thus the back seam area can move upwards when worn.
Just turn the trousers inside out, and put one leg into the other. So you have a nice overview of the seat seam line to reshape it. Just sew it without cutting to proof the theory.
Schneiderfrei, you construct the back patter over the front pattern. You see in the pic the back pattern is about 6 cm higher than the CF point. This is the average balance for a causual trouser. When worn back waist to floor and front waist to floor are level (So you have to measure them!). It has nothing to do with the crotch width or depth which results in the length of the crotch seam). I knew constructions which uses the balance as construction point.
A flatter seat has less, a protruding derriere more.
lg
posaune
(https://s28.postimg.org/7dj245s21/trouser.png) (https://pixxxels.org/image/7dj245s21/)
Hi Graham, thanks for the question. The back is out of balance with the front, this can be effected by either or CB being to long/short, seat angle wrong. As Jim wants a lot of room when walking or climbing stairs he has over crookened the seat angle to allow more length when the legs are bent. With a flat seat the normal course of action would be to straighten and lower CB proportionately whilst scooping out the seat, these changes can get quite severe for those, like Jim and I who have a negative seat. With Jim's trousers they are falling off him at the rear due to excess balance, so the correct alteration (I think I'm right) would be to pass the back up effectively lowering the undersides' hip balance point down. The seat will need to be scooped out to avoid cutting Jim in half, the extra is pinned away at the waistband and passed out at the top. In the draft this would be lowering CB by the amount pinned away, mine is about ¾" lower than proportional. I think the stride issue is a separate matter and has to be a compromise by not straightening the seat to much while slightly increasing the stride to lessen the pulling at the in-seam when walking, climbing stairs etc.
Well that is how I understand it, and how I would put it into practice though being new to this I am ready to be steered in the right way.
Tom
Thanks peterle and Tom for your comments.
Quote from: tombennett on January 12, 2017, 02:45:11 AM
With Jim's trousers they are falling off him at the rear due to excess balance, so the correct alteration (I think I'm right) would be to pass the back up effectively lowering the undersides' hip balance point down. The seat will need to be scooped out to avoid cutting Jim in half, the extra is pinned away at the waistband and passed out at the top. In the draft this would be lowering CB by the amount pinned away, mine is about ¾" lower than proportional.
This confuses me. "Passing the back up" sounds like moving the WHOLE back relative to the front, but in #102 you talk about lowering the CB and graduating back to nothing at the sides. So which is really needed - taking a strip of material off the whole back waist, or a wedge? In either case the crotch will need to be scooped out to recover the length lost by the alteration.
Quote from: peterle on January 11, 2017, 10:38:14 PM
For me it seems that the amount lacking at center back waistband (about 1,5-2cm) is superfluous at the crotch level. That´s why I would scoop out the seat seam for this amount. Thus the back seam area can move upwards when worn.
Just turn the trousers inside out, and put one leg into the other. So you have a nice overview of the seat seam line to reshape it. Just sew it without cutting to proof the theory.
So, you are saying the back is already too short, and we just need to add some length at CB by scooping out the crotch?
So, you are saying the back is already too short, and we just need to add some length at CB by scooping out the crotch?
[/quote]
Not really. I would not say the back is too short, I would call the seat seam not scooped out enough. That´s why the seat seam pulls the center back downwards, the center back disappears under the belt and some fabric accumulates in the curve area of the seat seam . The center back point is high enough by itself but restricted by the seat seam and does not reach it´s proper position.
It´s even possible the center back point is too high by itself like Tom says. The undersides cling to the heels at the hem. (Schneiderfrei do you remember the bell picture for shirt balance?)
But maybe just scooping out the seam will lift the back point enough. We will see. Step by step.
Quote from: peterle on January 12, 2017, 09:17:11 AM
Not really. I would not say the back is too short, I would call the seat seam not scooped out enough. That´s why the seat seam pulls the center back downwards, the center back disappears under the belt and some fabric accumulates in the curve area of the seat seam . The center back point is high enough by itself but restricted by the seat seam and does not reach it´s proper position.
It´s even possible the center back point is too high by itself like Tom says. The undersides cling to the heels at the hem. (Schneiderfrei do you remember the bell picture for shirt balance?)
But maybe just scooping out the seam will lift the back point enough. We will see. Step by step.
OK. Just to be sure I understand, here is the back pattern I used. The dark green line with punch marks is the seat seam:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p1_zpshjpycyad.jpg)
This seam is basically two intersecting straight lines (seat angle line and fork line) joined by a radius.
To scoop out more, do I just use a smaller radius?
Or do I need to change the angle of the fork line (rotate it clockwise) to make the crotch deeper?
Or is it something else?
I would love to see a pic of the finished trousers like I discribed in #110. Or the paper patterns joined at the inseam. The run of the hole seam is easier to judge.
Basically you want more free room for the trunk under the butt. So the hole curve portion should move lower for about 1,5cm. Then reconnect the curve with the lines/endpoint of the lines. The"radius" could be a bit bigger as well, the straight line towards the crotch is a bit too straight in my eyes. Compare it to the used pattern instructions.
The latter Jim, make the crotch a bit deeper. This will allow the trousers seat to move upwards thus raising the backs but, IMHO you will have excess at the waist which will need to be pinned. From here, the fork/stride part of the seam looks as if it is a little bit to angled for my liking. Just as an aside, inlay isn't generally marked on the pattern but added to the cloth after chalking out; it would make it easier to cut out the seat seam.
Thanks for your reply Tom, got to it late, due to stinking hot weather and a very busy day. I love as much discussion of these concepts as I can get.
G
Quote from: tombennett on January 12, 2017, 10:44:54 PM
Just as an aside, inlay isn't generally marked on the pattern but added to the cloth after chalking out; it would make it easier to cut out the seat seam.
I find that if I don't mark the seat inlay, I will forget to add it in cutting :(.
Quote from: peterle on January 12, 2017, 09:19:01 PM
I would love to see a pic of the finished trousers like I discribed in #110. Or the paper patterns joined at the inseam. The run of the hole seam is easier to judge.
Why not both? Here is the blue pair with one leg inside the other:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/a1_zpsx4eqtjar.jpg)
And here is the paper pattern. Red is front, pink is back. Remember you are looking at the cut edges; the fly seam runs 1/2" inside the cut edge on the front.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/a2_zpswdhvnw0y.jpg)
Thanks for making the pics. I persume the paper patterns are shown with overlapping SAs as if they were sewn.
For me it looks the crotch is a bit too "flat" at it´s bottom. the straight line of the undersides is too straight and angles too much upwards. usually the underside crotch tip is not a right angle but more pointy than yours. on the other hand your front crotch line looks quite curvy for me. the curve could be flatter/ shallower for my taste (maybe that´s why your fronts look a bit like pair of culottes(?)).
The finished sewing line of front and back should be a continuos harmonious kinkless line.
Compare the curves and angles to the scetches of your pattern system ( wich one did You use? I have lost track...).
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 04:27:24 AM
Thanks for making the pics. I persume the paper patterns are shown with overlapping SAs as if they were sewn.
Correct.
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 04:27:24 AM
For me it looks the crotch is a bit too "flat" at it´s bottom. the straight line of the undersides is too straight and angles too much upwards. usually the underside crotch tip is not a right angle but more pointy than yours. on the other hand your front crotch line looks quite curvy for me. the curve could be flatter/ shallower for my taste (maybe that´s why your fronts look a bit like pair of culottes(?)).
The finished sewing line of front and back should be a continuos harmonious kinkless line.
Compare the curves and angles to the scetches of your pattern system ( wich one did You use? I have lost track...).
I started with Mansie's draft, which you can find here:
http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=56.0
Ok, I see.
This draft differs a lot from the Rundschau I´m used to. Especially the front and back curve and their relation is completely different. Mansie´s draft also has a right angle at the crotch tip.
For comparison look at the relation of fly and backseam of these systems:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=773 (http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=773)
http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=49.0 (http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=49.0)
In both systems the back seam curve is a lot deeper than in the Mansie draft
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 08:46:48 AM
Ok, I see.
This draft differs a lot from the Rundschau I´m used to. Especially the front and back curve and their relation is completely different. Mansie´s draft also has a right angle at the crotch tip.
For comparison look at the relation of fly and backseam of these systems:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=773 (http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=773)
http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=49.0 (http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=49.0)
In both systems the back seam curve is a lot deeper than in the Mansie draft
It's a pity there isn't one "universal crotch curve", graduated by hip circumference, that all authors could agree on as a starting point.
So, you still think I should try the changes you suggested in #121? Or something different?
A general rule of thumb is to join the knee and tip of fork with a straight line then you can see how much curve you are imparting on your inseam, bring it in about ⅜" about a third of the way down the line should do it; a little more on the underside to help with stride. Mansie's draft is more pointed than Jim's at the fork tips.
Yes I think You should scoop out the back seam. You need it. It´s done in a few minutes.
BTW: in the trousers pic I see you´ve closed the inseam after the crotch seam. My method is the other way round. I´m not sure wether this causes issues.
The other thing I noticed is your back seam inlay. It reaches down very wide into the curved part. This can cause severe tension issues. The curve should only have the SA and the inlay for the center back should start at the end of the curve/ the horizontal hip line. You should crop the inlay in this area. This inlay in a finished pair of trousers is to have a bit of fabric for the case the wearer gains some weight and needs a wider waist. That´s why there is no need for an ilay at the curve.
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 09:40:59 PM
BTW: in the trousers pic I see you´ve closed the inseam after the crotch seam. My method is the other way round. I´m not sure wether this causes issues.
For me it is easier to finish the waistband before closing the inseam, since you are dealing more with a tube than a finished pair of trousers. I've never tried it the other way. Yours is certainly better for crotch alterations :).
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 09:40:59 PM
The other thing I noticed is your back seam inlay. It reaches down very wide into the curved part. This can cause severe tension issues. The curve should only have the SA and the inlay for the center back should start at the end of the curve/ the horizontal hip line. You should crop the inlay in this area. This inlay in a finished pair of trousers is to have a bit of fabric for the case the wearer gains some weight and needs a wider waist. That´s why there is no need for an ilay at the curve.
I'm sure you are right, this was purely for convenience in drafting. It's easy to draw a straight line parallel to the seat line and fair it into the seam allowance. Easiest isn't always best...
Quote from: peterle on January 13, 2017, 09:40:59 PM
Yes I think You should scoop out the back seam. You need it. It´s done in a few minutes.
OK. Here are the trousers with the new seam marked in chalk. Notice I have not trimmed away any inlays yet:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/s_zps57wd8ehh.jpg)
And here's how they fit:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps7dojh5ov.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsso17ir7x.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpshv3n4bps.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpspbidyisb.jpg)
Maybe I scooped out too much, or in the wrong place; or maybe the wide inlay is to blame; but now there's a nasty fold at the bottom of the crotch seam:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/bc_zpsdpizifme.jpg)
Please advise what to do about this. I don't want to cut the inlays too deep and ruin a wearable pair of trousers.
Jim,
I made the suggestion to you some time ago to get rid of the crumpled behind look, instead of having a straight line up the inner leg seam at the top which gives you and inverted V shape, curve the seam up near the top so that you have some thigh gap and it will remove at least some of the extra fabric the is giving you the crumpled behind look. The rest is being addressed by many of the suggestions in this thread, the profile of the back seam needs to be modified.
While older patterns for men's trousers from the Ivy League era tended to have inverted V inner leg seam profiles, much of the later English designs from places like Savile Row have this curve at the top of the inner leg to improve the upper leg, behind area fit.
To experiment with this, you don't need to wreck the trousers, try a number of safety pins to change that upper leg profile and see if it removes some of the problem.
It´s a bit more difficult to see in the blue trousers, but I think it improved a lot. The CB waist could shift upwards, the wrinkles at the crotch nearly dissapeared. Cutting the inlays will smooth things a bit more. They´re obviousely pulling at the moment as you can see left of the seat seam.
The "nasty" fold you are speaking of is on the right side, isn´t it? I think this is mainly a consequence of your different hips. The right one is higher and rounder. That´s also the reason why the left back leg fold reaches further down than the right.
For the back leg folds try the suggested across seat dart. For a first try pin a horizontal fish dart across the seat about 5-7cm down the pockets, taking out 1,5-2cm at the CB. When successful this alteration is easy to install in the paper pattern for the next pair. (For this finished pair it will be difficult to alter convincingly, because the pockets are already installed, and won´t be parallel to the waist seam anymore.)
Quote from: hutch-- on January 14, 2017, 02:30:20 PM
I made the suggestion to you some time ago to get rid of the crumpled behind look, instead of having a straight line up the inner leg seam at the top which gives you and inverted V shape, curve the seam up near the top so that you have some thigh gap and it will remove at least some of the extra fabric the is giving you the crumpled behind look. The rest is being addressed by many of the suggestions in this thread, the profile of the back seam needs to be modified.
Thanks Hutch for your suggestion. If you are referring to the alteration in #3, I believe that's contrary to peterle's advice in #85 (the "harmonic" curve discussion).
Quote from: peterle on January 14, 2017, 09:34:16 PM
For the back leg folds try the suggested across seat dart. For a first try pin a horizontal fish dart across the seat about 5-7cm down the pockets, taking out 1,5-2cm at the CB. When successful this alteration is easy to install in the paper pattern for the next pair. (For this finished pair it will be difficult to alter convincingly, because the pockets are already installed, and won´t be parallel to the waist seam anymore.)
You've lost me - when was this suggested? Also, since I already have one dart in the trouser back, wouldn't it make more sense to manipulate it rather than take a second one?
I decided to investigate a bit more. First, here is a clearer view of the problem area. No changes were made:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/1_zpsezjbhmlr.jpg)
Of course the folds are now in different places!
This made me think tension on the inlays was the problem, so I trimmed away some excess; leaving enough to go back to the original profile if necessary. Here is the result:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/2_zpsmp6kynma.jpg)
This seems even messier, though some of that may be due to taking the trousers on and off repeatedly.
Which way should I jump next?
Thinking that tension from the inlays might have been the original problem with the seat, I decided to test using the tan pair. Here they are with no changes:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/a_zpsrcaniuda.jpg)
And here after trimming the inlays:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsxhmhgo92.jpg)
No big changes IMO. That's not to say the inlays didn't cause the problem with the blue pair, with the deeper crotch seam.
strangely the second pic in 132 doesn´t show, so I can´t say anything...
Tom suggested in #102 to take out a wedge at the waist seam. This approach has in mind to alter the finished pair. the dart I descibed has the same effect, to lift the underside at the bodie´s center, but is meant to alter the paper pattern in the long run. I chose it deeper, because the long folds of the back legs end at this hight. This dart has nothing to do with the vertical dart of the undersides.
For the tan pair: The second pic looks cleaner in the crotch area, but when looking closely, you wear the pair rotated a bit to the left compared to the first. this milds the crotch folds of the right leg but increases the long fold starting at the left hip.
Pin the horizontal dart, it takes just two minutes, and repost.
Quote from: peterle on January 15, 2017, 08:49:02 PM
strangely the second pic in 132 doesn´t show, so I can´t say anything...
It should show now. Please take a look and see if your dart still makes sense.
The folds in the second pic are much more relaxed than in the first and the superfluos length collects under the butt.
I think the dart will make sense.
OK, here we go.
First, since we were photographing the "back end" the shop cat decided he just HAD to pose :):
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/cat_zpslqxvifqz.jpg)
This is a control shot before pinning the dart. As I thought might happen, much of the stuff under the seat disappeared overnight while the trousers were on a hanger.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/1_zpsnzk56gxk.jpg)
And here is the dart pinned out. It does seem to help with the back folds:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/2_zpsimaovwow.jpg)
Does this really just mean that I should start with a straighter seat angle?
I'll ask again: Can this dart be manipulated away in the draft?
It helps a lot, doesn´t it?
It´s hard to see wether the seat seam is deep enough with the installed dart. You should feel it when wearing. It also depends on the underwear.
The dart that I had in mind should go from side seam to side seam. This would make it easy to alter the paper pattern without a dart just by pivoting.
Your shorter dart version could also be incorporated to the paper patter by manipulating the existing vertical dart. The horizontal dart must be enlongated to the short dart´s tip which is the pivot point for the manipulation.
Regarding the seat angle: just using a straighter seat angle just shifts the back waistline towards the CB. It won´t change the overall length of the pairs at CB like the dart does: When you would have started with a straighter angle, wich is a good idea with a flatter butt, the necessary alterations would probably different ones.
I would be interested in a whole back pic with the pinned dart, but your left foot standing on a book wich is about 2-3cm thick, just to see the effect of the shifted hip.
Quote from: peterle on January 16, 2017, 11:26:26 PM
I would be interested in a whole back pic with the pinned dart, but your left foot standing on a book wich is about 2-3cm thick, just to see the effect of the shifted hip.
Here it is:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/ba_zps7ddiqmaz.jpg)
Thank you.
I´t´s what I thought, the left leg fold changes it´s form and nearly disappears.
Quote from: peterle on January 17, 2017, 09:35:45 PM
Thank you.
I´t´s what I thought, the left leg fold changes it´s form and nearly disappears.
Thank YOU!
So, am I good to go with changing the pattern and cutting another pair?
Or is there something else to try first?
I would prefer the horizontal darts to continue to the side seams.
Also profile pics with the dart would be nice so see wether the balance changed positively.
OK. So the pinned dart has been extended to the side seams. What do you think?
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpst7vg5usd.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps6bnvjz0i.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsvvrxwdjb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsixlpm62w.jpg)
A couple of books say about the back seam being to close that the fork/forks are to long. The newer, which isn't new anymore, says chop the back fork and gouge out and then run the seat and side seams parallel with the old, but out a bit. Also, git better knee movement. This changes the dynamics of the inseam somewhat. The older book, by some association, says that the U shape, between the front and back, with forks touching, is to wide. Therefore, cut off one quarter of excess off the front and the rest off the back. How patterns are made today perhaps these are the wrong directions. The oldest book said the directions are illogical, but work better than the lengthening the forks. Not suggesting this kind of change now. But, thought I'd pass along the information if someone wants to experiment. To experiment just sew the difference, not cut until proven right or wrong.
Nice carpet Jim.
The back balance seems yet a bit too long for me. Does the back seam have enough room to rise or is it restricted by the body or underwear? It looks like the CB seems is pulled down.( when the scooping and the dart are the same amount, the back seam is logically once more too short like it was in the beginning)
Like Posaune wrote in #111 You can measure the balance by measureing from the lower edge of the belt to the floor at CB and CF, and see wether the difference is also in the pattern.
Quote from: peterle on January 19, 2017, 09:45:21 PM
when the scooping and the dart are the same amount, the back seam is logically once more too short like it was in the beginning
So, I scooped out the crotch another 1/2". Here is the result:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpseufks3yb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsotfuiypb.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsg6igcic5.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps1tybgxnd.jpg)
I don't think it changed the leg folds much if at all. Does this mean Tom was right and the whole back needs to be passed up? Not going there with this pair since the pockets are in.
Yes, probably It would be a good idea to take a closer look on the balance of the pattern. Taking all four balance measures (lower edge of belt to floor at CB,CF and on each side) would be helpful for the next pair.
This pair will wear in acceptably I think.
Don't sound so surprised Jim, don't forget to take the pins out though before wearing them in! ;) For the new pattern why not baste up a toile out of your final cloth but without pockets, these can be chalked on or thread marked. Of course you would have to install a proper fly, whether button or zipper.
Quote from: tombennett on January 22, 2017, 12:02:10 AM
For the new pattern why not baste up a toile out of your final cloth but without pockets, these can be chalked on or thread marked. Of course you would have to install a proper fly, whether button or zipper.
I'm going to do that, but first I'll post photos of the pattern alterations to make sure I understand everything correctly.
Quote from: peterle on January 21, 2017, 10:25:19 PM
Taking all four balance measures (lower edge of belt to floor at CB,CF and on each side) would be helpful for the next pair.
I've never had any luck with balance measures, maybe my helper isn't accurate enough with a tape measure.
Anyway, if the balance measures OK but the garment fits funny, what does that prove? That I measured wrong? Or that the balance measure doesn't account for everything?
This is not to say balance measures are worthless; they just haven't been much help in my case.
Well, a pair of trousers is a complicated thing, just five seams to fit every figure.
When the room for the trunk isn´t positioned right, even a balanced trouser won´t fit, because crotch and back seam restricts the proper movement of the garment.
When your taken balance measures don´t correlate to the pattern, you will get a hint, what´s not ok. These measures help to recognise, wether you have a rounder or flatter butt, rounder or flatter hips than (then?) the pattern draft´s "normal" figure. ( and as we know from the jacket, your´s is not the most average one). But the balance measures don´t give information about the right position of the trunk.
Maybe you should give the rundschau pattern a try, it provides a lot of adjustment possibilities. The Mansie trousers are meant for "beginners" (wich probably means less complicated, but also less sophisticated).
Quote from: peterle on January 22, 2017, 03:16:26 AM
Maybe you should give the rundschau pattern a try, it provides a lot of adjustment possibilities. The Mansie trousers are meant for "beginners" (wich probably means less complicated, but also less sophisticated).
I know you are more familiar with Rundschau, which would probably help to recognize what is causing issues.
OTOH, we already know I have several deviations from a proportionate figure. Specifically:
- flat seat
- both hips forward
- high right hip
- larger right hip
So we would have to apply all these changes to the draft. Wouldn't that just lead us back to the same point we are now?
The Mansie draft gives a style I like, so I'm hoping with a little more tuning of the seat area it will be "good enough".
Rundschau is good but also the later T & C drafts which are more simple. I wish you had Rory's draft it's simple while robust, especially around the seat area, alas it cost me. :) I know you like to draw on your seat inlay on the pattern but IMHO it is distracting your eye as to the correct run for seat, just write a note to remind you to add inlay; it really isn't correct practice, just a thought. 8)
One thing about knowing different drafts is that one can start to recognise which points are for style and those which create the structure. Mansie's draft is very basic meant for students, you may find it more precise to use a "professional" system. You like quite loose straight trousers, why not look at the later MTOC trouser systems such as Whife.
Working on your pattern you can cross-check your balance measures and make those alterations, straighten up the seat and scoop out the hollo; the balance measures will also tell you more about where CB should be. Both hips forward, or sway-back one would normally raise CF to give length, sometimes moving it out a little too. This will give you your side run, while CB would be lowered to something like ¾" above your parallel waist line; it generally follows that the centre-back is also moved forward as anatomically the seat flattens as the hips go forward.
Also looking at your feet it might be an idea to close the legs up a bit, ⅜" should do it. This will mean that your inseam will be less curved to make it run into the knee smoothly. Give a bit more curve on the in-seam helps to bring the seat in under the hollow when you stretch it with your iron, giving a hollow to shrink in giving a pleasing silhouette. I think I am right but, I'm still learning myself. :-\
Here are the alterations I propose to make to the seat area. No seat inlays Tom since I haven't cut the pattern out yet :).
Here the black line is a copy of the basic pattern (right side only). The red line is the seat scooping from #128. I "walked" both seams, and this increases the length of the CB seam by 1/2":
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p1_zpsrzuoy0nt.jpg)
Now I take out the horizontal dart peterle first suggested in #130 (more red lines at top of pattern). This takes away 3/4" of length from CB, more than we added by scooping!
I notice this also straightens the seat angle a bit, and makes the side seam a little rounder.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p2_zpswvbo3bso.jpg)
What to do next? My thoughts are to get back the 3/4" length at CB by extending the CB seam along the new seam line. Also, if we pass the back of the trousers up that requires us to shorten the side seam a corresponding amount. Moving the back up 1/4" will bring the knee notches and bottom edges of the leg back into line, so let's try it.
This combination gives the green line shown at top of pattern:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p3_zpsclq2bxzp.jpg)
Would anyone suggest changes before I cut out the next pair? I do plan to baste them first, and leave inlays at the top for "unforeseen circumstances"...
Suggest mark the darts, but don't cut them. This leaves the top free for adjustments. And maybe you might like to change the dart, anyway.
The run of the side seam can be straightened if required, I think it looks okay from here. That's correct taking out the dart/wedge will straighten up the seat a little and is something one needs to be aware of as it changes the balance but in your case that little bit of straightening could be a positive effect. If you raise the CB to regain the ¾" you will be undoing the purpose of the dart you took out, if your wedge is the same as the dart you pinned then that is where CB should be. To get the waistline right at the back you will need to scoop out the hollow to allow the back to pass up. Imagine the seat notch as a pivot point, doing the alteration the undersides will swing up getting rid of the roping. This pivoting changes the angle of the legs, you also stand with pointing feet so I would swing the legs out in too, ⅜" as I described above.
I'm off for Sunday Lunch.
Quote from: tombennett on January 22, 2017, 11:47:09 PM
To get the waistline right at the back you will need to scoop out the hollow to allow the back to pass up.
When I tried that (see #146) it didn't work.
Quote from: jruley on January 22, 2017, 08:39:08 AM
Also, if we pass the back of the trousers up that requires us to shorten the side seam a corresponding amount. Moving the back up 1/4" will bring the knee notches and bottom edges of the leg back into line, so let's try it.
Why shorten the side seam? We don´t want to pass up the whole back, just the center back.
Regarding the Rundschau pattern there is a reason I wanted you to work it through. It delivers a fair amount of insights into complexity of trousers.
For example the fork tip: It´s not constructed at the crotch line, it is constructed from the hip line. Thinking it over we can learn several important things:
First, the through measure is always located in the in hip highth. When we have to change the through measure, we have to change it at the hip line.(flat terriere and wide hips demand a smaller through measure, a bubble butt needs a larger one.
Second: When we change the knee width of a touser, the fork tip will change also, because it is constructed as the crossing point of the through measure and the knee. So we can learn that a given through measure won´t change, even when fork tip changes because of the knee width. We can also learn that through measure and fork tip are related, but not the same. The fork tip depends highly of the trousers style.
Another thing is the construction of the seat angle. The system shows an easy way how to construct and change the seat angle. Thinking it over we recognise, that a different seat angle doesn´t change the hight of the center back waist. Mostly the left-right position changes and the length of the back seam. but not the hight. We have to be aware of this when we install a horizontal dart. This dart changes the side seam, the left -right position and the hight of CB waist. Not always wanted and not the same as changing the seat angle.
looking for something different I found this, wich reminds me of your trousers. Maybe it´s just that simple.
(https://s24.postimg.org/s81bs8k0h/39e1a899d9bea26725034f9cd5b9c28a.jpg) (https://pixxxels.org/image/s81bs8k0h/)
Quote from: peterle on January 23, 2017, 05:40:38 AM
First: The through measure is always located at the hip height. When we have to change the through measure, we have to change it at the hip line. Flat derriere and wide hips demand a smaller through measure, a bubble butt needs a larger one.
Second: When we change the knee width of a trouser, the fork tip will change also, because it is constructed as the crossing point of the through measure and the knee. So we can learn that a given through measure won´t change, even when fork tip changes because of the knee width. We can also learn that through measure and fork tip are related, but not the same. The fork tip depends highly of the trousers style.
Third: Construction of the seat angle. Thinking it over we recognise, that a different seat angle doesn´t change the height of the center back waist. Mostly the left-right position changes and the length of the back seam. but not the height. We have to be aware of this when we install a horizontal dart. This dart changes the side seam, the left -right position and the height of CB waist. Not always wanted and not the same as changing the seat angle.
Hope you didn't mind a little editing for typos.
These three points (preferably with diagrams showing the ideas) would make a great pinned instructional post in the trousers section!
I suspect these apply to more drafts than the Rundschau. This is the sort of thing serious students need to know, which can't be learned simply by locating points A - Z and then connecting dots with lines and curves.
Is the "through measure" the
Spaltdurchmesser? English language drafts don't seem to use this term, or recognize the importance of it.
Quote from: peterle on January 23, 2017, 06:04:32 AM
looking for something different I found this, wich reminds me of your trousers. Maybe it´s just that simple.
Thanks!
So, referring to the first pic in #153: should I start with the seat scooped out or not?
Quote from: jruley on January 23, 2017, 12:24:36 AM
Quote from: tombennett on January 22, 2017, 11:47:09 PM
To get the waistline right at the back you will need to scoop out the hollow to allow the back to pass up.
When I tried that (see #146) it didn't work.
I should have said swing up. :-[
The alteration peterle proposed in #158 is simple enough I decided to go ahead and try it. The blue trousers have been abused enough, so let's work with the tan pair of same pattern.
Here the new seam lines for the alteration are chalked in light blue:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/p_zpscakczjwm.jpg)
Here is the result:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpscy8km4is.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsdyaoegvy.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zps3sldzhx2.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsn6xwwsju.jpg)
Compare this to the last time we saw these (#100). They feel better in the seat now.
Checking some references, the alteration in #158 is quite similar to one given in Clarence Poulin's 1952 book for a flat seat. Poulin also reduces the height at CB, so I decided to try pinning out some length to see the effect on the horseshoe folds. Here is the result:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsbtz8cwwd.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsdoskjuib.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpshtddzl5z.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps6ww7ftzs.jpg)
Any suggestions where to go from here?
Have you, at some point added to the stride part of the fork? If you look at peterle's post the image shows a reduction in this area, maybe whittle off a bit as shown to see if that will clean them up. The shortened fork will bring the fabric around and up into the 'V', look at the roping and you can see how this could work; the cloth seems to be collapsing down the middle. Dropping the point of the fork ¼" to pick up the cloth and giving a little more shape to the inseam would bring the cloth round more. :-\
It looks like your right leg would need a little more than the left leg, this would bring the r/h hem straight too.
Quote from: tombennett on January 24, 2017, 02:22:42 AM
Have you, at some point added to the stride part of the fork? If you look at peterle's post the image shows a reduction in this area, maybe whittle off a bit as shown to see if that will clean them up.
If you look carefully at the first photo posted in #162, I did shorten the back fork width by about 1/2". The lower RH part of the photo is the fork area.
And before you ask: Yes, this alteration was only made to the back; the front fork was left unchanged.
Okay, wasn't sure quite what lines were what so thanks for clearing that up, I hoped you hadn't done the front. Did you drop the tip any, how straight is the in-seam?
Quote from: tombennett on January 24, 2017, 04:12:56 AM
Did you drop the tip any, how straight is the in-seam?
Did not drop the tip, since the illustration peterle posted implied it should remain on the same horizontal line.
The inseam is now straighter, and therefore shorter, than it used to be. Hard to say how much since I marked this on the cloth and not the pattern.
For clarity's sake I drew up the latest alteration on a copy of the pattern:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/6d2839a5-1194-4cc2-958e-15133e8ed8ea_zpszkz0gub6.jpg)
The solid red lines show the change I made in #162.
The dashed red line shows reducing the height at CB, which I tried to approximate with the pinned wedge in #163.
One of the purposes of the dart is to throw roundness over the seat if it is centered. If it is off towards the sideseam it adds more curvature to the sideseam. If the width is to wide when centered you will have extra length down the back legs, and even more dart width, rubbing on the calfs.
Perhaps instead of changing the fork up or down more length is best added to the top sideseams (the diagonal drag).
First, yesd, the Trough measure is the Spaltdurchmesser. The term was used by an english speaking member of C&T forum. AS a body measuremant it is the trunk diameter measured from CF to CB at hip heigth with a callipher.
The fork alteration did quite a good job. the J formed crease is now a straight line crease from the hip towards the inside knee. So we sorted out the width problem and reduced it to a diagonal drag problem.
(BTW I think you could take out even a bit more at the back fork. There is plenty of width in this area).
Don´t reduce the CB height for the moment. It pulls down the waist seam too much.
The diagonal folds tell us : the pattern is too short in the direction of the folds (inseam/knee to outseam hip), compared to opposite diagonal (from outseam/calfes to CB hip). In other words the pattern is too short at the sideseams relatively to the center of the trousers.
Now we have to sort out wether this is true for the top and underside or only for the undersides:
A closer look at the fronts tells us it is true also for the fronts. There is a slight diagonal pull from fly end to sideseam/waist wich indicates lacking length of the sides seams. There is also a slight diagonal fold in the top sides from sideseam/knee to creaseline/shin. Both tell us, the trousers are pulled up at the side seam due to lacking length.
(till now we have tried to get rid of the imbalance by lifting the center of the undersides alone by scooping out and lifting the CB with darting).
An alternative approach to correct the imbalance of "center Length" and "outside length" is to make the sideseam longer as Greger said. Due to lack of inlays this of course can´t be done in the finished trousers, but in the new one. But you can proof the theory by ripping the waistseam of the finished trousers, let´s say 6-7inches on each side of the side seam and see wether and how much the waistseam gapes when wearing.
Quote from: peterle on January 24, 2017, 11:38:11 PM
An alternative approach to correct the imbalance of "center Length" and "outside length" is to make the sideseam longer as Greger said. Due to lack of inlays this of course can´t be done in the finished trousers, but in the new one. But you can proof the theory by ripping the waistseam of the finished trousers, let´s say 6-7inches on each side of the side seam and see wether and how much the waistseam gapes when wearing.
Thank you for your usual thorough review. I don't want to try more changes on the finished trousers since this is rather delicate fabric.
I would like to proceed in two directions:
1) The best simple alteration to make the finished trousers look better. I think it's the fork alteration in #162; I can accept the diagonal drags in the back for casual wear. But if you have a different opinion I'd like to know.
2) The best pattern changes (other than simply leaving inlays and basting the darts as Greger said) for cutting the next pair.
Again, thanks everyone for your help!
Sorry Jim, I was looking at the folds back to front. I knew it was out of balance between the out-seam and centre of the pattern. Very useful information there from perterle.
Jim, have you looked at the MTOC? Believe in the trousers fitting chapter #4 might be useful.
In this book it says that if you take away from one part the same amount needs to be added to another place, unless you are making something smaller. Gouging out part of the seat means adding to the sideseam.
I found some more of the same corduroy, so now we have a new pair to play with!
These are basted together (including darts - thanks Greger) with a dummy waistband. I left an extra inch of inlay at the top.
These are the same configuration as #162, including the seat adjustment shown in #168
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps7ewyhzke.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsudkhqfbs.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsl4ipkyjo.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsvd2o5brg.jpg)
So, where should I go from here?
The CB is pulled down as the small diagonal creases running from waistband to the seat seam indicate. Scoop out the back seam or better lower the whole back seam(like you would lower a scye) a bit and adapt the fly seam run (keep the CB point as it is). When you have enough inlay at the waist seam, you alternatively can draw the front waist seam about 1,5-2cm higher and taper it to 0 at centet back. should have the same effect.
Looking at your latest photo, there is something wrong with the section at the back of the legs as you have this collection of folds and slightly crumpled section. My guess without knowing the details of your pattern that the angle that the legs exit from the main torso is too straight which makes the front look tidy but crumples at the back. I have marked the photo with the problem area.
(http://www.movsd.com/photos/jim/jim.jpg)
Look how the CB dips. It is the same as with all of your pants, your crotch length is too short in back. The whole back pants can not move up - the length for this is there in the legs ( giving folds at back legs) - only not in the crotch seam. You have to scoop out, so that there is no resistance from fabric. And maybe a straighter seat angle
lg
posaune
In such cases I fit the half pattern, I can see more clearly at what place the crotch curve must be altered. Or pin them up into the right place at CB waist and feel where it gives pressure.
Thanks everyone for your comments!
Before doing anything else, I decided just to trim away extra seat inlays and press the seat seam. This took a lot of pressure out of the area:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsdkyzy3yl.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsllqcrbz7.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsrkwx916s.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpssozr14lu.jpg)
Here is a detail of the seat seam copied from the pattern. The CF line is the black line on the left. The new seat seam is the red line (with punched holes) on the right.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/s_zpsnvmny9gd.jpg)
As you can see there is kind of a flat spot at the bottom of the crotch curve. I doubt my body is shaped like this :).
Would it be a good idea to scoop out more here, like the red dashed line?
To be honest it doesn't make to much difference if the line flatten out slightly at the bottom. What you could do is to lay them top on underside and take a picture, from at the knee up. Is the fly-run new or does this include inlay along with the already included seam allowance? IMHO Jim I still feel that there is an issue with the seat seam and CB as I can see some very tight looking drag lines running down the seam. Can you feel the seam pulling up inside the trousers? As peterle suggested you could let the side seam down a bit by adding length at the waist to sort out the problem with the roping and collapsing, looking at the pattern I am not convinced that the side length is the real cause though could be part of the issue. You do need to add a bit more length on the right side due to your high hip, you can't treat each side the same because of this.
I do think that your fronts are ballooning a bit to much, I think that you have drawn the side run a bit rounder than it needs to be. Personally I would cut the left side a little smaller at the waist to compensate allowing the waist to sit level; you might have to change the run slightly.
Quote from: tombennett on February 02, 2017, 06:37:49 AM
Is the fly-run new or does this include inlay along with the already included seam allowance?
The fly-run is not new. The fly seam was drawn with 1/2" seam allowance added, the seat seam was drawn without. The cut edge of the back piece is the old seat seam, the punched line is the new one.
To sort this all out, just follow the black line for the fly seam, then the red punched line for the seat seam.
Yes I agree with Tom, the front fly has two little folds at the side. But this means experience with the curve of the front crotch. The crotch does not hug the body too much fabric here. It happens in my opinion when the customer has a "belly" or a posture which mimick a belly as Jim's.
Jim, you can experience with your crotch curve - this requieres just test 2 seams. One sewed deeper. I would not go deeper I would drive the seat seam like you did but a bit more in direction side seam. But careful 0.5 cm is much in the area.
I decided to try the alteration shown (dashed red line). Slightly flatter seat and more seat length:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/s_zpsypnsrhzy.jpg)
Here's how they look. I think this gave the needed length at CB:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps34gctxfl.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpslysgdtd6.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsr2o9dkab.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsxnwx2vap.jpg)
I prefer the former version, the back looks cleaner.
I would continue with the version 178 and adress the slanted hip. Reattach the waistband, making the right hip higher about 1cm and the left hip lower for about the same amount. Or even better, make the right hip higher for 1,75-2cm tapering to 0 at the left side seam.
Also the top sides changed in the new version. There are diagonal creases from zip end towards the pelvic bone.
no - unrip it - not good. But you can see how a tiny alteration works in this area.
lg
posaune
Quote from: posaune on February 03, 2017, 03:57:03 AM
But you can see how a tiny alteration works in this area.
Very much so!
I would like to solve the problem using the CB seam if possible. This way the alteration can be applied to the other pairs as well. So before raising the waistband, I tried the alteration from #179 (scooping out just the flat spot at bottom of crotch curve):
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps44ricki9.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps5bjdu7ws.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsikcbkdch.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsvufrwkwv.jpg)
I think the two sides hang about the same now. Much of the apparent shortness on the right was probably just careless arrangement of the trousers and belt on my body. Pretty hard to be consistent without belt loops :).
We´r working on a new pattern now. When you want to alter the old ones, alter the old ones.
The belt itself shows Your hip is slanted. So it should be regarded in the pattern. As you can see in the front pic, the waistband protrudes the belt more at the left side due to the lower left hip.
Nearly every picture set shows a shortness in the right side, so I think this is the natural fit. Arranging it "carefully" probably just veils the issues.
The following changes were made:
Waistband raised, 0 at left side seam , 1/4" at CB and CF, 1/2" at right side seam.
Here's how they fit:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsltnctywp.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsa00ghpgt.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpshdctlqms.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsjpljqsr5.jpg)
So, the score is peterle 1, Jim 0 :).
BTW the waistband was already slanted 1/2 in step #51. So the right side is now a full inch higher than the left.
Well, that´s nice, isn´t it? Obviousely you need a full inch slanting. Would habve been easier with balance measures.
By this alteration we also lowerd the whole crotch ''/seat seam for 1/4" wich relaxes the whole area. The conclusion is, your rise measure was too short.
Do You like the silhouette of the trousers? I think the pair could profit from a smaller knee width. A matter of personal taste.
Quote from: peterle on February 04, 2017, 09:00:41 PM
Do You like the silhouette of the trousers? I think the pair could profit from a smaller knee width. A matter of personal taste.
I like the straight leg, especially for casual wear. But I don't mind playing with the knee width at this stage to see what happens.
How much smaller would you suggest? Will this affect the seat area, or just the leg?
looking on your pattern of #69 I think especially your top side knee is quite wide. It´s usually smaller than the underside knee line, your´s seems equal. The top side knee should be smaller for the same amount it is in the hem at least. So take out more at the top sides.
Generally I would take out about 4-6 cm per leg wich is 2-3cm per seam. The new seam line will fade out to the crotch point at the inseam and to the hip line at the out seam. A smaller knee will probably also take some of the superfluous length under the butt.
Quote from: peterle on February 05, 2017, 03:37:47 AM
looking on your pattern of #69 I think especially your top side knee is quite wide. It´s usually smaller than the underside knee line, your´s seems equal. The top side knee should be smaller for the same amount it is in the hem at least. So take out more at the top sides.
This is an optical illusion caused by not having the camera square with the cutting table. The underside is in the background, so the perspective makes it look smaller. In fact the back side has the same extra width at the knee and the hem, as shown in the sketch here:
http://movsd.com/BespokeCutter/index.php?topic=56.0
(and yes, I checked the actual pattern, and didn't manage to screw this up with all the changes! :)) )
Quote from: peterle on February 05, 2017, 03:37:47 AM
Generally I would take out about 4-6 cm per leg wich is 2-3cm per seam. The new seam line will fade out to the crotch point at the inseam and to the hip line at the out seam. A smaller knee will probably also take some of the superfluous length under the butt.
I was thinking about this thread:
http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3587
Do you think this alteration is small enough that the seat will not have to be adjusted?
I'll try pinning some width out and see what happens.
Here a total of 2" (5 cm) has been pinned out of the right leg at the knee. The left leg is unchanged:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsj27dkl49.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsxhue5d5m.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsf5iuogdt.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps9go7cyxi.jpg)
And how do you like it?
An advice: instead of pinning you also could machine baste the seams with a long stitch and looser top thread tension. easy to remove but less puckering.
Quote from: peterle on February 06, 2017, 12:11:04 AM
And how do you like it?
I think I like the straight leg better for casual wear (and my wife definitely does :) ).
However, if I make a pair in a dressier fabric (such as a nice wool), I might try the narrower knee.
Quote from: peterle on February 04, 2017, 09:00:41 PM
By this alteration we also lowerd the whole crotch ''/seat seam for 1/4" wich relaxes the whole area. The conclusion is, your rise measure was too short.
With this in mind I decided to do one more test before altering the pattern. Here the deeper rise is retained but the waistband slant is reduced back to 1/2". So it's the same as #186 but with 1/4" more rise.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zps5ac4jemj.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zpsoie8ibsu.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpsrzx4mlkp.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zpsgdcevg2f.jpg)
I think this confirms the additional slant is needed. If I have it wrong, please correct me.
#188 looks better to me.
Don´t forget, with the higher slant the whole trouser gets pivoted around the lower hip side seam/ waist. so the crotch/seat seam is pivoted as well. Removing the slant means altering the position of the seat seam.
I recommend to mark the lower belt edge to the trouser with a sharpend chalk. This will give you hints for the waist seam run.
Finally got these done, except for the hemming. I kept the 1" slant from #188. Here is the result:
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/f_zpsl0igewfw.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/b_zps6h2xm2pd.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/l_zpss4n9ilhf.jpg)
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w315/ruleyjm/JMR%20Mansie%20Trouser/r_zps1xcfmqpw.jpg)
I'm going to hem these on the straight, and a little longer than shown. That's because the blue and tan pairs have lost almost an inch of length in the wash. I pre-shrunk the fabric before cutting, but evidently not enough. Oh well, they'll make nice shorts...
They look a lot better Jim, sorry to hear the other pair shrank a bit more than you expected.