I’m not done with the Ascona pant, but I am stymied. I waited for your comments (thank you) and began following through on some of the suggestions. One of the things I’ve done is to review the pants fitting videos which Peggy Sagers posted. Now, I like Peggy. I make it a point to watch the broadcasts live or as soon as possible. But I don’t always agree with her. Sometimes, my experience says she is wrong. Sometimes, I don’t always understand what she is saying (my fault probably). Sometimes I think she is making a broad generic statement when she should be referencing a more narrow criteria i.e. this applies to all my (Peggy Sagers) patterns rather than this works on all necklines (all being all inclusive meaning every pattern line, every shape). But I like her and listen carefully albeit critically. During one of her pants broadcasts there is no more than 30 seconds in which she states that once the hip and crotch is fit, you can add any leg. Just take the hip of the fit pattern and place the new leg below. Blend the side and inseam. Done. That gave me a ??Huh?? moment and started me working again.
First off, here’s what I like and want to copy from the Asocna pant: the hem finishes with a 16.5″ circumference. That’s all. The waistband treatment is given by several others including Pamela Patterns and Louise Cutting. I’ve used it several times and with a couple of tweaks. If you haven’t noticed I love Pamela’s Pant PP113 . I use it frequently and plan to keep using it. PP113 as currently fitted to me is wonderful when I want a 22″ hem circumference or lopped off below the knee for shorts. My problem with PP113 is that when I try to slim the leg, my pants develop X wrinkles. I don’t like the X wrinkles. I want my pants to either hug my leg smoothly (more lack slacks than leggings) or drop freely from the hip to a 20″ hem circumference. I don’t give high marks (Ok but not high) to everything in between.
I thought about Peggy’s advice to just put the desired leg onto the hip that fits. But I don’t want the Ascona leg as is. I think those X wrinkles are ugly. I don’t want to attach a badly fitting leg to a nicely fitting hip. Nor do I currently how to fix the wrinkles which go all up and down the inseam. However, I do have a pant pattern that fits closely and like the leg very much: Trudy Jansen’s Designer Jean (TJ906). It however does finish with an 18″ circumference while I’m lusting after that 16.5″ of the Ascona; and it is a 2-piece back-leg pattern while I’m desiring a single-piece leg. Nonetheless, I decided to compare TJ906 with PP113 because I’m using two known patterns which fit rather than one who’s fit I like and one I hate. I’m comparing PP113 with TJ906 similarly to my previous comparison of 1008 (Ascona) with PP113.
The fronts of TJ906 and PP113 are amazingly similar. I didn’t expect this similarity between a jean and a trouser pattern.
I made a bit of effort before and during taking pics so that when shared the pics would be an easier to understand. TJ906 is traced with a dark dark blue, large magic-marker. PP113 is also traced with a large magic-marker but in orange ink.
TJ906 is a jean pattern, as such it is drafted with a separate contour waist band to sit at or just below the natural waist when sewn. PP113 is a trouser drafted with the pants waist to sit at the natural waist. I’ve added another 1.25″ to PP113 so it will have a self-faced waistband like the Ascona. When finished both TJ906 and PP113 will sit about at my waist. I’ve aligned the pattern with crotch tip and straight of grains parallel. Tj906 looks a little longer in the leg, while the PP113 has a little more ease. Crotch curves are slightly different but both sit well on my body. Oh and both legs are the right length on my body.
The backs are a little more difficult to compare
TJ906 is a 2 piece leg. Three if the yoke is counted. I’ve been tweaking the fit for my figure so what started as modest shaping has become very curvy. As noted on I can’t put both leg pieces on top (or beneath) the PP113 to line them up. There are either huge gaps or large overlaps. I did line up the back center leg at the crotch point with SOG’s parallel. When I look at the back crotch, I think the PP113 needs to be scooped but it works with the 22″ hem circumference. From this pic, I can’t tell if the backs have the same amount of ease. TJ906 does looks shorter from crotch to waist (it isn’t; that’s the waistband effect again) while longer in the leg.
I think I can use the front PP113 and work on narrowing the hem to 18″ (although I lust for the 16.5). But I’m not sure what I can do with the back legs. I shift the pattern pieces back and forth. Add the other other half of TJ906’s back leg and shift all again. Suddenly I realize that a really big difference is how the inseam is shaped.
TJ906 inseam comes almost straight down from the crotch point. Said crotch point is another significant difference. It has curved upward into a shape I generally call the “fish hook crotch”. I decide to copy the inseam of TJ906 onto PP113. That adds at most another 1″ ease to the leg, less in most places. I don’t think need more leg ease. In fact I was pleased to add the fish hook crotch because it shortened the width of the thigh. Look close. By poking upward the crotch curve is the same length, but that distance underneath the curve from side seam to inseam is at least 1.5″ less. I don’t need the extra ease further down the leg so I measure in several places and take the same amount away along the side seam as was added to the inseam. It makes for a straighter inseam and a curvier side seam.
Then I need a guinea pig. And another post. Once again I’ve talked way too much for a single blog post.