Jeans fitting problem pt.2

In continuation of part one of the jeans fitting problem, Thatcher has sent me some photos of the patterns in question after Christy and others requested these. I will post those photos at the close of this entry. As ever, Carol and JC are in high form, having resurrected the pants fitting theory thread in the forum, dissecting this issue at length, complete with diagrams and photos. Regrettably, you won’t be able to access the forum unless you’re a financial supporter of this site, minimally having purchased the book which you need anyway (I’m still weeding out pre-existing sign-ups who don’t have it). If you have your own ideas, by all means draw something up and post a link in your comments.

Here are the photos of the patterns. These are the front pattern pieces of two different men’s styles:


Get New Posts by Email

8 comments

  1. Carol Kimball says:

    Whoa! No room at all for her bottom (or as J delicately puts it,”Booty”) in that back pattern! No wonder there were pulls all the way to the front! Any chance of getting a photo of the model, weight evenly on both feet, from the back? Same from front wouldn’t hurt, either…

    Thanks so much, Thatcher!

  2. Josh says:

    Carol, this is a men’s pants pattern, not a hers. I think some people are confused. But even so, agreed, there is not room in the butt still. To me it looks like the rise is backwards. No? I’m even more baffled after seeing the patterns.

  3. Kathleen says:

    These are the front pieces of two different men’s styles, no backs at all. I should fix this entry to make that clear. Sorry!

  4. J C Sprowls says:

    LOL! No wonder I had issues scaling the pic of the white pattern up as the trouser underside. I wish I had known before I posted on the forum.

    The crotch curve on both are still too shallow; and, the angled CF on the white pattern is incorrect, IMO. I’ve always been taught (and practiced) to keep the CF on grain. Are there exceptions to the rule I don’t know?

    They originally claimed to have issue with the front inseam; but, I don’t see an issue with these patterns. I stand by my original assessement that the fit issue was the length and depth of the crotch forks (front & back); and, I now add the inseam of the underside as a culprit, too.

  5. Donna Carty says:

    Wait! I just discovered this site and this forum (through thefashionspot.com) (not to mention your book, which I just recommended to someone on Craigslist), but I won’t be able to buy it unless it’s available in the UK. And thus, I guess I won’t be able to access the forum. Is it available in the UK? Or can you have mercy on readers outside the US?

  6. Patricia Smith says:

    This pattern has several things going on:

    1) The folds you see in the front crotch area …( )…indicate that the front crotch depth is too SHORT and the crotch extension is too long…not enough height with too much ‘width’ on that front seam! This curved seam is being forced to ‘straighten’ on the body, resulting in those ( ) folds on each side of the crotch seam.
    2) However, the arrow is indicating the folds in the inseam…..again, because the inseam is too long!
    INSEAM + CROTCH DEPTH = OUTSEAM….so, to shorten the inseam, the crotch depth must be increased…see comment 1.
    There is no mention of whether or not these offending inner thigh folds occur on the back, too….but it is my guess that instead, there are folds under the tush (?).
    3) There appears to be an excess of fabric in the outer thigh areas…like jodphurs. This can be caused by a couple of things….too much hip ease is a biggee…this is possibly a result of a back crotch curve that is too L-shaped, resulting in inadequate pantswidth across the back pattern…so the patternwidth is increased (at the sides) until it is enough to cover the bum. But the pants will still feel tight across the bum in the center back, even with all this extra fabric out on the sides.
    Sometimes this is caused by a ‘misalignment’ of the waist/pant foundation over the legs….which is a result of incorrect crotch extensions, front and back.

    It is possible that the back crotch seam might need to be reshaped to be more of a slant…\…and less of an L-shape…this would increase the pantswidth at the level between hip and crotch and eliminate the need for the excess fullness on the sides.
    Increase the crotch depth, and shorten the crotch extensions (this will recenter the legs). The total crotch length from front waist to back waist might be right, but it is in the wrong proportions and wrong shape.

    Oh, and the slanted CF seam is to control the amount of side/hip curve on the pattern. When there are no front darts, the CF must slant, or the front sideseam curve between waist and hip would be horrendous! When darts are used, the CF slant can be lessened, and with pleats, the CF can be drawn vertical. At least, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

    Sorry, I cannot see or read the discussion forum anymore….I am an outsider!…So you may have already talked about all of this!
    Patricia Smith

  7. Todd says:

    I think Patricia has just about got it. I also wonder if the model in the khakis is knock-kneed?

    I have another comment related to the CF angle. You always see this on blue jeans probably because, like Patricia said, you’ve got no front darts. Another side effect of the CF angle is that you get an increased bulge in the curve of the crotch. This is undesireable for most women unless you’re a drag king. Male rock musicians love this look.

    I think the CF angle increases comfort when wearing tight pants such as increasing the CB angle creates comfort. More angle gives more length to the CF seam at the same crotch depth. Blue jeans were meant for working and riding horses and I can’t imagine riding a horse comfortably in any of my tight dress pants that have the straighter CF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *