Jump to content


Photo

Drafting for 40s style wide leg trousers


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 catechumen

catechumen

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK, east anglia
  • Interests:Costuming, tailoring, 1940s styles, pattern drafting.

Posted 13 May 2017 - 09:41 PM

I'm currently researching before I start a draft for some 1940s style trousers (the iconic wide leg with turnup). Because I enjoy a challenge and also for a modicum of historical accuracy, the draft instructions I'm using are from "The Modern Tailor Outfitter and Clothier - Vol. I" by A. S. Bridgland, which appears to date from the late forties. The intended results look similar to the example used in the trousers section of the Master Designer sticky in this forum.

 

However, having read Schneidergott's thread about the relationship between knee and crotch width, I find myself wondering. Exactly how wide is wide in 40s fashion terms, and is cutting a straight style of leg purely a matter of picking a number for the hem width and going from there? Or is the ideal hem width relative to body meaurements? David Page Coffin's book on trousers examines a lovely 1932 pair; sadly he doesn't give a measurement of the hem but based on counting the pattern repeats in the fabric(!) I make them about 18", which is a figure I've also heard quoted on websites selling reproduction 40s styles. Then I looked at a couple of pairs of modern dress trousers I own, and found that although they're definitely not cut like what I'm interested in they're still around 18" at the hem. Now I'm rather broad in the beam at the moment, so that again suggests that hem width is relative to the body rather than an arbitrary number. I'm getting steadily more confused - can anyone enlighten me?



#2 fronno

fronno

    Umsie

  • Professional
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Interests:Sewing, designing, sewing, drawing, teaching

Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:32 AM

Hello Catechumen,

About 40's I can not help you. But the formula for the width at the hem (I am talking about the total hem width) is 4/8 of your waist. But.......e.g.  having a waist of round and about 122 centimeters that would look awfull. I never exceeds a total width of 44 centimeters.

But If I would have tot draw such a pair of trousers I should start at the big hip line and working my way down untill I arrive at the hem with probably indeed 18 inch.


Edited by fronno, 14 May 2017 - 02:36 AM.


#3 posaune

posaune

    Pro

  • Super Pro
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 904 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:33 AM

I think the hem width was a fashion dictation as par example skirt length or lapel width
lg posaune

#4 A TAILOR

A TAILOR

    Apprentice

  • Professional
  • PipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:metro chicago

Posted 14 May 2017 - 11:38 AM

1949,Thats when I began my apprenticeship.

 Trouser bottoms averaged 18 inches.  The standard cuffs finished at 1 and 3/4 inches wide.

The knee measure, 2 or 3 inches larger than the bottom.

This worked for seat measures of 40 to 46 inches. 

For larger or smaller sizes use your judgement.                                                                         . 


Edited by A TAILOR, 14 May 2017 - 11:54 AM.

  • jeffrey2117 likes this

#5 Der Zuschneider

Der Zuschneider

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TX, Houston
  • Interests:- German Cutting Systems
    - Modern Tailoring by German Semi-Traditional Standards

Posted 14 May 2017 - 11:43 AM

Just use a new trouser draft with the old hip ease and foot wide. From hip to foot straighten it out and go in 1 cm at the knee.


www.berlinbespokesuits.com

#6 Schneiderfrei

Schneiderfrei

    Pro

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia
  • Interests:learning and imagination

Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:17 PM

You could always just draft them from a contemporary source.

 

http://www.cutterand...?showtopic=2083   look down to pg 406 - 407.

 

After all how different is 1938 from 1940?  

 

Ooops.


Me zo ganet e-kreiz ar mor 
Teir leo er-maez


#7 pfaff260

pfaff260

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Everything about tailoring.

Posted 14 May 2017 - 03:36 PM

I found a Rundschau draft from 1947. It looks a lot like Schneiderfrei's proposal.

But the hem is even wider, for a 122 cm waist they state 54 cm for the trouser bottom,

and for a more fashionable pair of trousers for a waist 88 they tell us to draw the leg a little bit smaller, which still is 50 cm.

Which would be almost 20 inches


  • Schneiderfrei likes this

#8 pfaff260

pfaff260

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Everything about tailoring.

Posted 14 May 2017 - 08:11 PM

Here's the draft i found from 1947 in german only. Hope it helps.



#9 pfaff260

pfaff260

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 72 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Everything about tailoring.

Posted 14 May 2017 - 08:12 PM

Oops. This i forgot:

http://movsd.com/Bes...php?topic=434.0



#10 catechumen

catechumen

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK, east anglia
  • Interests:Costuming, tailoring, 1940s styles, pattern drafting.

Posted 15 May 2017 - 02:58 AM

Thankyou very much everyone, lots to go on. Looks like I'll be spending some quality time with Google Translate in the near future!



#11 Terri

Terri

    Pro

  • Super Pro
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ontario Canada

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:29 AM

For the 1930's to the forties I'd say anywhere between 18-20 inches at the hem, as it is a style decision. I like to keep in mind the hip size and shoe size when making those decisions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users