I was very surprised at the lack of notches on the leg. (Also very annoyed by the 3/8" SA.) Didn't notice the difference when sewing, but it could explain some of the issues with the fit. Gonna rip the stitches and resew.
Thanks for your comments, Ruth. I always learn something.
I did not check all the sizes so it is also possible that it is not present throughout the size range. But it's very subtle, I did not notice this until Stacey pointed it out.
Bingo and yes, very observant! Very often people make a garment that is great and use the same pattern to make it in another fabric that turns out not quite as good and this is an example of how that happens.
I might pick option 2? But I would normally put the back and front together to see the shape and then decide.
Sometimes the back inseam is cut 1cm-1.2cm shorter and stretched onto the front, starting at about 25cm-ish below the crotch (usually a notch at this point). It gives a little bit of extra space for one's bottom especially if it's low and flat. I draft mine this way :)
Thank you! Yes, it is much more common to stretch the back to fit the front than the other way around. But does a 'flatter, lower' butt need more space? Would you not expect it to need less space?
I would say yes and no - more like the space changes shape. For low flat bottoms I typically find that the centre back seam needs to be more vertical and the back inseam lower as described above. Sometimes the back fork needs to be shorter.
I'm sure you know, with age, bottoms get flatter and lower and tummys get higher and rounder, more and more pronounced as one becomes elderly, to the stage that the back and front of trouser patterns are almost reversed. I spent my earlier years doing fittings on middle aged to elderly women, and it's a little startling to see my own body now becoming the same shape...
Thanks for sharing these thoughts and this is an interesting conversation. I would say that all of fitting is concerned with differently shaped bodies and yes, there are some characteristics of bodies that may be common with age as with other factors. But if we can ignore body shape and ask about the drafting, then yes this means that the inseam should be shorter because the torso is longer and the vertical division between torso and legs changes. But this does not explain why the back inseam needs to be stretched to fit the front inseam. And if this is indeed something specific to a body type then why do patterns that have this feature include it across the size range?
I confess my trouser fitting experience is mostly confined to young slim sample sized models, and large older ladies, although I've done a lot of it.
I know not why the back inseam stretch thing works but every older woman we fitted needed it, and eventually the alteration was added to the regular size range (37"hips-44"hips) when the trouser blocks were revamped and it looked OK so we left it. So maybe it isn't something specific to a body type, or maybe it was the demographic/typical body shape of the customer, or maybe the fabrics we used (mostly stretch wovens for trousers) were so forgiving that things didn't show up that would have otherwise (the revamped block was made in a stable fabric but I think only ever used for stretch wovens thereafter).
This is very interesting. I feel it is in line with a lot of what I hear from the experience of fashion professionals which is empirical. Once something is found to deliver a desirable outcome then it is adopted. With the insane pace of fashion, people do not have time to consider why a particular pattern manipulation gives that outcome, or whether there are other manipulations that could give an equally acceptable outcome.
That’s what I have always heard from “experts”, and sure enough , most patterns ate drafted with a shorter back inseam from the notch tomthe crotch point.
I’d pick option 2 so the angle was a right angle.
Bingo!
I was very surprised at the lack of notches on the leg. (Also very annoyed by the 3/8" SA.) Didn't notice the difference when sewing, but it could explain some of the issues with the fit. Gonna rip the stitches and resew.
Thanks for your comments, Ruth. I always learn something.
Thanks so much! There really is nothing like learning as we go along and as Vivienne was saying, doing it together is so helpful!
I thought #2 as well. But I did not run into this discrepancy! Which makes me think— did I cut wrong?
I did not check all the sizes so it is also possible that it is not present throughout the size range. But it's very subtle, I did not notice this until Stacey pointed it out.
#2 due to @acorndaisysews good observation! But does 2 increase the horizontal part of the crotch?
Bingo and yes, very observant! Very often people make a garment that is great and use the same pattern to make it in another fabric that turns out not quite as good and this is an example of how that happens.
I might pick option 2? But I would normally put the back and front together to see the shape and then decide.
Sometimes the back inseam is cut 1cm-1.2cm shorter and stretched onto the front, starting at about 25cm-ish below the crotch (usually a notch at this point). It gives a little bit of extra space for one's bottom especially if it's low and flat. I draft mine this way :)
Some great points in this post; thank you!
Thank you! Yes, it is much more common to stretch the back to fit the front than the other way around. But does a 'flatter, lower' butt need more space? Would you not expect it to need less space?
I would say yes and no - more like the space changes shape. For low flat bottoms I typically find that the centre back seam needs to be more vertical and the back inseam lower as described above. Sometimes the back fork needs to be shorter.
I'm sure you know, with age, bottoms get flatter and lower and tummys get higher and rounder, more and more pronounced as one becomes elderly, to the stage that the back and front of trouser patterns are almost reversed. I spent my earlier years doing fittings on middle aged to elderly women, and it's a little startling to see my own body now becoming the same shape...
Thanks for sharing these thoughts and this is an interesting conversation. I would say that all of fitting is concerned with differently shaped bodies and yes, there are some characteristics of bodies that may be common with age as with other factors. But if we can ignore body shape and ask about the drafting, then yes this means that the inseam should be shorter because the torso is longer and the vertical division between torso and legs changes. But this does not explain why the back inseam needs to be stretched to fit the front inseam. And if this is indeed something specific to a body type then why do patterns that have this feature include it across the size range?
I confess my trouser fitting experience is mostly confined to young slim sample sized models, and large older ladies, although I've done a lot of it.
I know not why the back inseam stretch thing works but every older woman we fitted needed it, and eventually the alteration was added to the regular size range (37"hips-44"hips) when the trouser blocks were revamped and it looked OK so we left it. So maybe it isn't something specific to a body type, or maybe it was the demographic/typical body shape of the customer, or maybe the fabrics we used (mostly stretch wovens for trousers) were so forgiving that things didn't show up that would have otherwise (the revamped block was made in a stable fabric but I think only ever used for stretch wovens thereafter).
This is very interesting. I feel it is in line with a lot of what I hear from the experience of fashion professionals which is empirical. Once something is found to deliver a desirable outcome then it is adopted. With the insane pace of fashion, people do not have time to consider why a particular pattern manipulation gives that outcome, or whether there are other manipulations that could give an equally acceptable outcome.
Stretching the shorter back seam helps the fabric cup under the buttocks.
That’s what I have always heard from “experts”, and sure enough , most patterns ate drafted with a shorter back inseam from the notch tomthe crotch point.
whichever makes the smoothest connection to the front side of the crotch line? Great post!
Thank you!