Thursday, December 11, 2008

Sewing for a square peg

My second sewing project was going to be a pair of close-fitting trousers - pocketless, unwaistbanded trousers with a side zip to minimise tummy bumpage. I now know that I was too ambitious, because it's turned out that getting the damned thing to fit properly is a hell of a job. It's a good thing I decided to make a trial pair first, because they were way too tight around the waist and a bit too loose everywhere else.

This should not have been a huge surprise to me, as commercial sewing patterns made by the big brands seem to be based on the hourglass figures of women in the Fifties. I've read that women are getting bigger and more straight up and down - yet this isn't reflected in the fit of sewing patterns. I don't understand how sewers put up with this, unless they are mostly differently-sized versions of Marilyn Monroe.

I'm going to press on, though I'll need the help of some good dressmaking books and websites.

Dresses and skirts must be so much easier to fit. Thinking about the shop-bought trousers I own, really the only ones that fit well are the stretch denim jeans. I can see now why it's a good thing that women have the option to wear dresses.


Nigel Patel said...

I've noticed that women's clothes are really under-pocketted.
Wonder which came first, purses or a paucity of pockets.

Jonathan said...

You should check out my wife's blog ( she's a crafty sewing person - though she focuses more on the kids/babies and at the moment, Christmas decorations (yes, sewn ones!).

Angela said...

It is a good thing you have an imagination. And if you can't come up with any more ideas just ask TLM I am sure she will be able to give you good suggestions like...
candy attached to the pants and lolly pop fringe

Violet said...

nigel: that's a good question, but way off the point. Pockets ruin the silhouette, man.

jonathan: I've come across in the past, and now I'll go have another look at it :-)

angela: She'd want chocolate icing trim or something!