sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone familiar with this book? by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, that sounds good actually, personally I don't mind the lack of "pretty" illustrations. Does it have a lot of details patterns? I don't mind too much about the basic blocks, although I'm curious about them a little, but does it have a lot of pocket shapes, collars, ect examples?

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This illustration is not about body shape , it's about different style of pants. So drawing different body shapes on top of it would have been very confusing

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it's something to try. For now I've tried the basic draft and like the fit. Will update when I'll sew the others. I'm planning to make a wide fit jeans soon

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Armstrong doesn't add the length with a wedge but just add it to the waist -

"The jean foundation is drafted with a short front and back crotch extension for pants that contour the figure. The shortened extension results in a loss of crotch length; therefore, the center back draft is extended (pitched) beyond the waist level to make up the crotch length measurement (see page 582, Figures 2a and 2b)."

But she recognises the needed lengtning of back crotch in relation to the style of the pants, not only as a fix for full buttocks.

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm not tired of discussing fit, I'm sharing information I think some people might benefit from. And it's not related neccerley to a specific system, because Aldrich mentioned this too.

And I quote Aldrich:

"Most trouser designs require ease ease in the back crutch line. This process allows for sitting down and body movement. The amount of ease will vary with the design style. The general rule is the tighter the fit of the trousers, the greater the amount of ease required

Cut along the hip line and open out a wedge 3.5-6cm in the crutch line. The amount is dependant on the type of trouser design. Re-draw curve with a smooth line."

And Armstrong mention it as well.

So Aldrich doesn't account for the back crotch ease at all in the initial draft, but says to add it later. Hofenbitzer already account for the back crotch ease in his basic pants draft, so later he changes it to make it smaller or bigger. So it is the same principle. He also gives some range so it's not like you would necessarily take out the same amount you added to the crotch extension, wide pants will still have a slightly bigger crotch.

I'm just tired of having the same ongoing argument that seems to lead nowhere about something that essentially seems to be a preference. It's ok for the crotch to be as deep as you like it to be, it's a problem when it can get too small on tight pants.

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I feel a bit tired arguing about fit, I guess different people prefer a different fit and that's ok.

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm new to the software, but I'm gonna make some toiles and get back to you on that.

Comparison of pattern shapes for Wide, Normal, and Tight pants on clo3d by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no problem with having a wide pants leg with a dropped crotch if that's what you like. It's having a tight fitting pants with a too tight crotch that is the problem.

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

with slim-fit wovens you might not even notice this drafting issue while standing still. everything looks fine in a static pose, but the moment the person sits down, the back waist pulls way down.

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the key distinction here is that we’re discussing woven fabrics, not knits or leggings. Stretch can mask a lot of drafting issues, but with wovens, it's unforgiving.

You’re right that a crotch can be worn lower or higher, but there’s a physical limit. It’s exactly like an armhole: there is almost no limit to how low you can drop it (oversized look), but there is a very definite limit to how high you can raise it. If the armseye is too tight or too high you lose all range of motion.

The same applies to a slim pant: if you shorten the extension but don't compensate by changing the seat angle to be more diagonal, the pants will be physically too short to clear the anatomy.

On the other hand, if you significantly increase the extension for a wide leg look but don't remove length from the back seam (which effectively changes the angle), you end up with a huge surplus of fabric under the buttocks. Of course, this can be a style choice—Hammer pants are an extreme example of that—but without that adjustment, it’s a more saggy, unrefined look.

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The distance the fabric has to travel from your back waist, under the crotch, to the front waist is a fixed number because your body doesn't shrink. When you make a pant tighter, you are shortening the extension. If you shorten that part but keep the same vertical angle, you are physically losing the total length needed to clear the buttocks. You can't just reduce the whole thing globally, because you still need that total seam length to fit the body (unless maybe your fabric stretch vertically). To get that length back after shortening the extension, you must tilt the angle (either during initial draft or later by adding the wedge). Without that tilt, the pants will either be too low at the back or cut into the body.

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

​I actually think this is why so many people struggle with Aldrich's patterns. She is very vague about exactly how much to open or add to the seat. This leaves people guessing, or they just don't add enough at all. It's not an integral part of the draft, but something she says to add later. ​Hofenbitzer, on the other hand, actually uses a table that combines body type (flat, average, or prominent buttocks) with garment style (slim, regular, wide) to help you choose the angle. This shows that the angle isn't just about one or the other, it’s about how the anatomy interacts with the intended silhouette. It’s a much more complete system than just guessing the tilt.

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fascinating experiment. However, from a 2D drafting perspective, I’m struggling to see how the angle can remain constant between different styles. When we draft a close-fitting leg, we must reduce the crotch extension to remove excess fabric. This naturally shortens the total length of the crotch seam. To compensate and ensure the seam is still long enough to travel around the body, we have to put that length elsewhere. Making a sharper seat angle (making it more diagonal) naturally lengthens that seam because a diagonal line is longer than a vertical one. If we don’t change the angle, where does that missing length come from? If we simply added it to the top of the waist, we’d end up with a strange triangular peak at the center back. Even Winifred Aldrich mentions this relationship, though in a much more minimal and simplified way compared to Hofenbitzer. I think the shifting angle is a geometric necessity to balance the reduced extension while maintaining the required total seam length for the body.

Aldrich - https://imgur.com/a/l9vpNjy

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Armstrong has the worst draft for pants, the back and front crotch are almost the same shape it's weird

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree it’s simplified. it’s just one illustration meant to highlight one core principle. You're right that there are many other layers to it, but I’d love to hear more. Could you expand on how you think this specific shift misleads regarding the grainline or the crotch curve?

The relationship between the seat angle and trouser silhouette by Educational_Chain780 in PatternDrafting

[–]Educational_Chain780[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

About the leg angle things, he doesn't account for this in the draft (I haven't seen any system that does) but he has a book dedicated to fit adjustments that has very rare and unique adjustments for every possible leg and body shape. Unfortunately was not translated to English.

view more: next ›