Bespoke Cutter And Tailor

This is the earliest book I know of that outlines the cut of Pantaloons, from 1822.

https://archive.org/details/rulesdirectionsf00jone

The sizes are ridiculously small and would only fit a child in our modern world. That aside, you can see where Levi's were coming from with the straight edge approach. It was nothing new and the utilitarian fit of these pants was good enough for the utilitarian work clothes the company was making at the time.

Nothing much differs from cut-to-cut with this design. The side seam is kept die-straight. A quarter of the waist is used at the waistline. A quarter of the seat is used at the crotch line (though the 1822 draft uses the waist measurement). Half the required knee is taken out at the knee position. Half the required hem is taken out at that line for the bottoms. The crotch line is extended and a curve drawn in. The only difference with the back pattern is that additional rise is created at the CB seam.

If drafting conventional trousers, some additional ease would be added to the seat and taken out from the side seam at seat level. Then the centre back line would be drawn in to connect the dots and a crotch curve drawn for the backs. In this early draft, however, a line is simply drawn from the waist at CB to the fork tip, which is almost identical to a 'modern' jeans cut. I say almost identical because the ratio of widths between the forks is 1:1 in the pantaloons draft. Whereas in a modern jeans draft, it's going to be roughly 1:2 from front to back. Though it would be nice to have that confirmed, anyone? (I no longer own any 501s, or similar jeans, to analyse).

I've seen one or two youtube vids by Nigerian tailors who still cut pants like this. Very old-school tailoring that has somehow continued in their neck of the woods. The majority of Nigerians now incorporate curves at their side seams, but even then many still cut with a side-in approach for the backs, if not the whole trouser.

I cut the back of my own trouser patterns along similar lines: the side seam is a facsimile of the front's (which has some curvature), and everything is drafted inwards from therein. I came to this method independently from our Nigerian brothers, though, through trial and error. It works well for a narrow-leg fit (relatively speaking, I don't wear drainpipes).

If you've done something similar to the above, then chasing the golden draft isn't going to help you. Work with what you've got IMO. The obvious downside to the selvedge edge approach is that any shaping/adjustment is mostly limited to the CB seam and inseams.

This site has a little bit about the history of flares and bells.
https://www.zevadenim.com/bell-bottom-jeans-the-iconic-70s-jean-style-and-heritage/?origin=serp_auto

In that book I linked to, I wonder if the "cutting men's clothes, by the square rule" tag means that the drafts are scaled down?? It would account for the tiny measurements ... which clearly aren't intended for a child because it's a men's cutting book (and although people were smaller two hundred years ago, they can't have been that short, surely?).

Incidentally, when I said this is the earliest Pantaloon draft I'm aware of, that's not true. It's the first that isn't partially cut like britches though, i.e. it has a totally straight side seam.

Quote from: Greger on October 29, 2024, 08:23:20 AMThis site has a little bit about the history of flares and bells.
https://www.zevadenim.com/bell-bottom-jeans-the-iconic-70s-jean-style-and-heritage/?origin=serp_auto

I always think of the balance between the top and bottom of a pair of trousers as being like a vase.

If the top of the vase is wider than its base, all the attention is drawn to the top.

If the bottom of the vase is wider, all of the attention is drawn to its base.

If the vase is straight-up-straight-down, we perceive it as a whole. Likewise if there's a pinch in the middle of the vase, resulting in an hour glass shape.

There's no right or wrong, it's a matter of choosing the right balance for the individual in question. To my mind, flares tend to look better on women because their hips tend to be wider, so balance is achieved. And they can make wide hips look smaller - there's nothing worse than wide-hipped people with tiny, peg bottoms because it draws attention to the hips.

If people have skinny hips then it's better to have the flare towards the bottom of the leg, no wider than the hips. That maintains balance.

Just my rule of thumb. And of course these guidelines are broken all the time, and the end result can still look good.

Quote from: Gerry on October 29, 2024, 02:28:07 AMThis is the earliest book I know of that outlines the cut of Pantaloons, from 1822.

https://archive.org/details/rulesdirectionsf00jone

The sizes are ridiculously small and would only fit a child in our modern world. That aside, you can see where Levi's were coming from with the straight edge approach. It was nothing new and the utilitarian fit of these pants was good enough for the utilitarian work clothes the company was making at the time.

Nothing much differs from cut-to-cut with this design. The side seam is kept die-straight. A quarter of the waist is used at the waistline. A quarter of the seat is used at the crotch line (though the 1822 draft uses the waist measurement). Half the required knee is taken out at the knee position. Half the required hem is taken out at that line for the bottoms. The crotch line is extended and a curve drawn in. The only difference with the back pattern is that additional rise is created at the CB seam.

If drafting conventional trousers, some additional ease would be added to the seat and taken out from the side seam at seat level. Then the centre back line would be drawn in to connect the dots and a crotch curve drawn for the backs. In this early draft, however, a line is simply drawn from the waist at CB to the fork tip, which is almost identical to a 'modern' jeans cut. I say almost identical because the ratio of widths between the forks is 1:1 in the pantaloons draft. Whereas in a modern jeans draft, it's going to be roughly 1:2 from front to back. Though it would be nice to have that confirmed, anyone? (I no longer own any 501s, or similar jeans, to analyse).

I've seen one or two youtube vids by Nigerian tailors who still cut pants like this. Very old-school tailoring that has somehow continued in their neck of the woods. The majority of Nigerians now incorporate curves at their side seams, but even then many still cut with a side-in approach for the backs, if not the whole trouser.

I cut the back of my own trouser patterns along similar lines: the side seam is a facsimile of the front's (which has some curvature), and everything is drafted inwards from therein. I came to this method independently from our Nigerian brothers, though, through trial and error. It works well for a narrow-leg fit (relatively speaking, I don't wear drainpipes).

If you've done something similar to the above, then chasing the golden draft isn't going to help you. Work with what you've got IMO. The obvious downside to the selvedge edge approach is that any shaping/adjustment is mostly limited to the CB seam and inseams.

I basically like Gregers"approach; work on a single system and learn to manipulate it to perfection; I swear, that's how I built some of the best women's cuts from a mens'draft... And that's just pants; note how Edward Sexton managed to build his womens'cuts from this knowledge and developping womens' fits for the likes of Stella Mccartney. Remember that drafts are just algoritms plotted on a grid but the fabric has to go around a warm body in the end. As for golden rules, there's a single one in the back of my head that I use to verify when patterning, the front diameter of a trouser= 1/16th hip -/- 3/16", the back diameter 2/16th hip + 3/16", it almost never misses. (must be old, imperial approach). The early jeans patterns you refer to were quite rudimental and saving on fabric consumption prevailed over look and fit; it is part of the charm of old dungarees. The position of the inleg seam, therefor depended more on economics then aestetics. The pattern technique of old breeches is similar to the old, horizontal front shoulder part folded to the back.  This time a straight line, from outer kneepoint to outer hip point is extended upward and folded toward the front to form a narrower front part. So actually, the side seam tilts forwards hip to waist. Note that "ironwork", which I know nothing about actually, was different at the time  as were fabrics. Forming garments was done sometimes inversely on a ham, covered with a wet cloth and pressed dry to form, protected by a linnen cloth; try that with todays'fabrics...

Cheerio, Hendrick

It's funny that you mention Edward Sexton, Hendrick. I was thinking of him when posting about flares. IIR, he spent some time in Paris working at a couturier's, which is probably why he was amazing at cutting women's wear.

I think it's in the third part of this documentary where you see some of his designs for women. Annoyingly, you have to scroll down and click on the 'MPEG4' menu to see the other episodes (all of which can be downloaded, incidentally):

https://archive.org/details/BBCSavileRowDocumentaryPart1LoveThyNeighbour

Right at the end, you see a suit he made for former super-model Marie Helvin. She looks absolutely fantastic in it. The suit has quite flared trousers, but she's quite broad in the hips so the balance is just right.

A talented cutter, sadly missed.

55:36 mark onwards (keep watching to see the whole ensemble):

Savile Row Doc Part 3

The flares and bells also went with the wide lapels of the 1970s. And back when I think Mark Twain was a live. Except, his days, some coats were shorter than the 1970s.
If I remember correctly shoulder width was also considered in the balance. The combination included above the waist when designing. I was taught the overall look in the sixties. Grandad understood proportions. He explained rules to people. But I think had his own methods. Because broader and narrower shoulders, thick thin chest,long shorter back, etc. even pressing shape into the garments changes dimensions.
About cloth. Levi probably ordered certain widths. Just wide enough to do the job. I was told thread is expensive. Cloth wider than necessary leaves costly waste. Pattern pieces as close as possible to prevent paying for more lenght.
Hendrick, one way of drawing on paper is laying out certain points- structure. Styles, fashions, whatever are drawn on the cloth.

The old shuttle looms produced narrow width denim at about 32" wide only. Most denim fabrics were not singed ("hairy") and not sanforised. The jeans were often called "shrinkers" and sellers often advised buyers to take a bath in them... The popularity of flares caused mills to massively invest in wider projectile looms often made by Sulzer from Switzerland and Italy became the biggest denim weaving country in Europe with Legler as the largest plant (we used to call italian jeans "spaghetti denim"). It also marked the demise of beautiful american mills like Westpoint Pepperell, Dan River and Riegel. I believe only Cone Mills still exists today. All said, I still believe american ringspun cotton is the best and not just for denim; there's only one Hanes teeshirt, Russel Athletic sweatshirt and more...

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: Gerry on October 29, 2024, 10:23:54 AMIt's funny that you mention Edward Sexton, Hendrick. I was thinking of him when posting about flares. IIR, he spent some time in Paris working at a couturier's, which is probably why he was amazing at cutting women's wear.

I think it's in the third part of this documentary where you see some of his designs for women. Annoyingly, you have to scroll down and click on the 'MPEG4' menu to see the other episodes (all of which can be downloaded, incidentally):

https://archive.org/details/BBCSavileRowDocumentaryPart1LoveThyNeighbour

Right at the end, you see a suit he made for former super-model Marie Helvin. She looks absolutely fantastic in it. The suit has quite flared trousers, but she's quite broad in the hips so the balance is just right.

A talented cutter, sadly missed.

Quote from: Gerry on October 29, 2024, 10:23:54 AMIt's funny that you mention Edward Sexton, Hendrick. I was thinking of him when posting about flares. IIR, he spent some time in Paris working at a couturier's, which is probably why he was amazing at cutting women's wear.

I think it's in the third part of this documentary where you see some of his designs for women. Annoyingly, you have to scroll down and click on the 'MPEG4' menu to see the other episodes (all of which can be downloaded, incidentally):

https://archive.org/details/BBCSavileRowDocumentaryPart1LoveThyNeighbour

Right at the end, you see a suit he made for former super-model Marie Helvin. She looks absolutely fantastic in it. The suit has quite flared trousers, but she's quite broad in the hips so the balance is just right.

A talented cutter, sadly missed.

Sexton was the reason why I changed my mind from "never going into the garment business". I sort of knew what he was doing and who he was dressing but it was a video clip with Lulu that convinced me, I suppose. There was an attractive androginous touch to it, albeit a little "louche"... Anything may be pushed further accourse but it always stayed with me. Here's a few things I did well over twenty years ago, one based on an aviators jacket, the other I don't know but Gregers'remark comes to mind. Master a method and keep improving it until it goes without thinking...

Cheerio, Hendrick

Quote from: Hendrick on October 30, 2024, 08:13:01 AMand sellers often advised buyers to take a bath in them...

I remember that from my childhood. I was too young to do that sort of thing but I remember think how funny it sounded.

Quote from: Gerry on October 29, 2024, 09:03:12 AMIn that book I linked to, I wonder if the "cutting men's clothes, by the square rule" tag means that the drafts are scaled down?? It would account for the tiny measurements ...

Gerry the scale is defined at the end of the book:

"The drafts which are found in this work are drawn from a scale of four inches to an inch; or in other words, one quarter of an inch is called an inch."

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on October 30, 2024, 09:45:43 AMGerry the scale is defined at the end of the book:

"The drafts which are found in this work are drawn from a scale of four inches to an inch; or in other words, one quarter of an inch is called an inch."

Thank you Schneiderfrei, I didn't see that. I still don't understand though. I think the scale given only applies to the diagrams? (they're drawn quarter scale?). If we multiply the actual measurements in the example by 4, we go from one extreme to the other: they were all giants! 

The waist to ankle measurement given totals 22 inches. Using head units as a rough guide, that would make them about three feet high.

What am I missing folks? My guess is that this person's tape-measure was extremely crap.

Or because of a lack of calibrated tape-measures, people's estimates of length weren't accurate?

https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/393308/georgian-silver-filigree-tape-measure-circa-1820

Edit: No, they had calibrated measures:

https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/502882/a-georgian-mother-of-pearl-tape-measure

Quote from: Gerry on October 30, 2024, 10:25:00 AMWhat am I missing folks? My guess is that this person's tape-measure was extremely crap.

The idea is you practice the drafts in miniature to get a feel for the process and then apply the principles to your real life measurements.