Past Patterns #710 Union Issue Trowsers

[Joseph Stevens]

Has anybody had experience with this pattern?  My company recently invested in copies of it as well as some kersey for retrofitting the guys in better trowsers, and apparently there is some complaints that the pattern runs too small.

Anybody able to shed some light on this?  The Size 1 that was supposedly coming up small measured to be a 32" waist, like the pattern says so I have no idea.  I have a pair cut and ready to be sewn but I won't have time to do them for a while to check.

~Joseph

[Jim_Ruley]

Hi Joseph,

The best thing might be to cut and sew some muslin mockups.  Then try them on some "fit models" (guys who usually wear that size) and check the finished dimensions against the Quartermaster Manual specifications.

I have this pattern and used it to make a Size 4 (36 waist), which fits me pretty well.  I would make a couple of observations:

1)  My "true" waist varies from 38-39, so there is some "ease" in the pattern at this point.
2)  These trousers do not have a baggy seat.  I do not know what system Saundra Altman used to draft them, but suspect it wasn't DeVere's.  If they are going to see heavy use I would encourage putting in more slack in this area.
3)  The construction information and details included with the pattern are excellent.

Hope this helps,

Jim R.

[Joanna Jones]

Joseph, are the guys who are saying the pattern is too small actually measuring themselves before beginning to sew?  Or do they "know" what size they are?  Ladies are not the only ones who can deceive themselves about measurements 

Joanna

[Elizabeth]

Ooooh, so true!  Particularly if said gents remember making a Smaller Size the last go-round.   And the no-extra-seat-room may factor in hugely to the "too small" complaint.  Adding ease there is crucial.

[NoahBriggs]

Joseph, are the guys who are saying the pattern is too small actually measuring themselves before beginning to sew?

Fellas are supposed to measure their waist size at the belly button?  Trowsers rode higher than today's "modern" waistlines.  My civilian ones do, and the military ones I tried on at Daleys were the same way.  Improper measuring (accidental or intentional) may account for the difficulty in comfortable fitting in the groin area.  (Pardon me.  Don't know how else to put it without coming across as vulgar.)

[bevinmacrae]

It's so funny you said that about men also decieving themselves with their actual waist size. In the suit store, often a customer will come up and ask me where the size 32 pants are when he's obviously larger than that. I just point him towards the 36s. Then they act very surprised when the larger size fits so well. Hey, like you always said, "there's no such thing as size, only fit" True today too!
~bevin

[Elizabeth]

Noah, good point on "where to measure."  I know getting women to realize where their waist lives is a major deal--with men's trousers having ridden on the upper hip for so long in modern life, it's got to be a challenge there, too... but I'd think measuring too low would result in trousers that are too big (as the upper hip has a larger circumference than the waist in many men... unless they have a protuberant stomach), and too short in the body depth.

[Brian Baird]

Joseph,
I've used the past pattern federal trouser patterns and they run small. Also I think they need to have about 1 inch added to the top of the pattern pieces so they come up to the proper height. There is excellent drafting instructions with the patterns and measuing and making larger size trouser.
Brian Baird

[Joseph Stevens]

Fellas are supposed to measure their waist size at the belly button?  Trowsers rode higher than today's "modern" waistlines.

Noah,
Thank you for pointing that out, but I had assumed everyone here understood that when I posed my original question.  What I was after was if anyone on the list had completed a pair of trousers made off this pattern, and if so, how the finished garment fit in comparison to their measurements when worn properly.

~Joseph

[Joseph Stevens]

Joseph,
I've used the past pattern federal trouser patterns and they run small. Also I think they need to have about 1 inch added to the top of the pattern pieces so they come up to the proper height. There is excellent drafting instructions with the patterns and measuing and making larger size trouser.
Brian Baird

I'm very nearly finished with a pair made off this pattern and I've noticed similar.  They're a Size 3 (36) and my measured waist is 36".  The waist fits fine, and so does everywhere else, but if I had drafted my own pattern I'd want a little bit more room through the seat, and perhaps a bit more height in the rise.

After some conversations with the members of the company claiming they had been way too small, I figured out the source of the problem:

• Most of the guys were still giving us their jean sizes even after we asked for measurements, not jean sizes
and

• The sewers were NOT following the pattern instructions.

On the whole I think the end result will be fine once they get us proper measurements, even though I know they aren't going to fit everyone perfectly.  But when that occurs, we need to remember the context of this pattern.  I believe that the rank and file of the 1860's, as a whole, did NOT have uniforms that fit them perfectly.  Its a subject that I think was mentioned in Hardtack and Coffee, amongst other accounts.  The uniforms were just that; uniform in appearance, but not tailor made to the individual.  When portraying the Union Army of the 1860's, we need to bear that fact in mind.  A male civilian in most cases would probably have clothes than fit him fairly well, unless he had an extremely unskilled tailor or bought ready-made or secondhand garments.  A private in the 116th Pennsylvania, however, wouldn't have that luxury.  Officers, yes, rank and file, no.

I think on the military side of the hobby we tend to over customize our clothing because in our modern lives its possible to get a decent fit in the clothing that we buy.  But in doing so, in some ways it creates a bit of a false image of how things really were.  I can perfectly understand that its a double edged sword, because while on the one hand some uniforms fit terribly or were poorly made even by 1860's standards and therefore its accurate for us to portray that, nobody wants to pay the money for something that doesn't fit correctly.

~Joseph