Many of you have been following my progress in refining my "Tape Pants" pattern, and my efforts to create a pattern that is stylish, fits well, but still accomodates a little junk in the trunk, shall we say. One of my greatest fitting challenges is my round bottom. I know, that's a little TMI, but this post is about fitting pants, so you'll have to live with it!
Anyway, after extensively redesigning the crotch curve, adding height to the back, folding out tissue from below the butt-cheeks, adding tissue at the hip, and inserting and removing various wedges throughout, I wondered how much I had really changed the pattern from the commercial patterns that I had had difficulty with.
I pulled out a McCall's and a Vogue pattern and tried to align my pattern with the commercial pattern and found something very interesting.
1. My redraft is not drastically different in shape from the commercial patterns and
2. The "back" pattern piece that I drafted fit most closely with a size 22, and the front pattern piece fit most closely with a size 14.
Now to me, THAT was interesting. While I will not hesitate to morph between sizes in tracing off a dress, it had never occurred to me to use a separate size for the front and back of a pair of pants. But, it really does make a kind of sense. My measurements fall within a size 18 on "Big 4" patterns. But, the size 18 bunches up under the butt, and pulls and wrinkles in odd places, so even though it is adequate to go AROUND me, the size 18 is not in the correct proportions. With a 14 in front and a 22 in back, the measurements average to approximately those of an 18, but there is relatively more fabric in the back where I need it, rather than in the front where I do not.
I will be working on another version over the weekend, I will keep everyone posted as to my progress, but just wanted to share this little "a-ha!" moment with those of you that are also struggling with fit.
11 comments:
Very interesting, and that does make a lot of sence! Maybe it's time for me to re-evaluate my own fit with this. Keep us posted.
I'me inspired by your persistence. You will figure out your perfect pant, no doubt about that. Good luck.
I find all this very interesting and look forward to your results. I like the way you think.
Michelle I think that you are really on to something!
That's quite a light bulb moment! It totally makes sense, too, since we need more fabric around the back. I'm keeping this in mind on my next project. Thank you!
Great thinking and looking forward to your results.
I love your blog.
Come and see what's new at my blog at www.sewingwithtrudy.blogspot.com
You can also check my 8 year old daughter's sewing blog at www.sewingsister.blogspot.com
I discovered something similar a few years ago. I'm very flat in the front and rounded in the back. I tend to move my side seam forward an inch which makes the front two inches narrower than the back. Also...
... when I was taking a pant workshop with Pati Palmer last summer, some of the adjustments she recommended were only to the back.
I found that equally interesting.
- Myrna
Myrna, that is really interesting because through all my alterations and tinkering, that is kind of what I have done. I am too relatively flat on the front, but rounded in the back. If I ever get this weight off, it is even more pronounced, so I am sure whatever alterations I make will still be needed even if I am making them on smaller pants!
Hmm, I would never have thought about that--using one size for front; another for back, BUT like you said, it DOES make sense. I'm really enjoying (and learning) your journey with this process!
What a good idea to use two different sizes for the front and the back of a pair of pants. It makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing.
BeccaA
Post a Comment