So, I've bought hard into the wide leg trend this past year, and constructing pants in general has become a bit addictive to me. But I can't keep doing the same wide leg silhouette over and over again. I need some variety and some versatility through a straight tapered leg pant. It pairs easier with the other parts of my wardrobe than the wide leg, much how like I used to wear black skinny jeans with everything but we've been there, were there for years and we are not going back there, dammit.
And so! I have two new pairs of pants to show you! I revisited my pants sloper because it's worth analyzing after learning things from using other patterns. And the other pair, I chose Modern Sewing Co.'s Worker Trousers. They have similar styling to a classic pair of jeans, plus I was intrigued by the fit seeing as they don't have back waist darts or a yoke. They seemed like a good way to experiment with the barrel leg look; if I ended up not liking it I could easily take in the side seams. Now having made the trousers I think I can get a lot use from this pattern. The pattern itself, I'm half-and-half on if I'd recommend to others.
I'd seen mixed reviews on the Worker Trousers but I bought the pattern anyway to confirm with my own eyes. I agree with the criticisms about the illustrations being too small and blurry. Yes, you can zoom in on the PDF but the resolution remains pretty bad. They could stand to be more immediately clear merely by being larger. The dotted stitching lines are so small and close together that they're not that noticeable at a normal resolution. At least the thread tails are there as a better indicator. This is just not nice to look at.
Criticisms of the fly front instructions range from 'completely useless' to 'a bit confusing, but achievable after a second glance.' I would put myself closer to, but not entirely in the latter camp. I was able to do it, but I had to go back and forth between the written instructions and the photograph tutorial on MSC's website. I don't believe I would have been able to get by with the regular instructions alone. I found them too wordy while the illustrations couldn't demonstrate important parts of the text. That's where the photographs came in to fill in the blanks. And if I REALLY didn't understand I just kind of made inferences on how to proceed.
I did not construct the zip fly as instructed on the actual pants. But I did do it on scrap fabric, as shown below, to give an honest try to see if I liked this method. And it turns out I don't! Or at least, I don't prefer it to my regular way with the cut-on fly extension. I wouldn't say my next couple of points are criticisms because I don't think MSC's way is bad or wrong (although the instructions might be, which a different complication), I just wouldn't opt for it and these are my reasons.
First, the Threads Magazine/Closet Core method lets me place the zipper as far from or as close to the center as I want. The Worker Trousers have the zipper in one fixed position. It's not as if the zipper is in a place where it's in danger of peeking out, but that's only because you're supposed to manually position the left front so that it overlaps the zipper by at least 0.5 cm (step L). This is enough of an overlap that the zipper never becomes exposed. Which brings me to my second point: in the Threads tutorial Sandra Betzina advises you to "let it do what it wants to do" instead of forcing and pinning the zipper where you think it should be. It's good advice! This method ensures that the zipper is always properly hidden, the front is always neat and flat without any puckering, and most importantly it requires no extra measuring or effort. You let it do what it wants, and it just works.
If you choose to construct the fly like I did, you'll have to change the order of construction. MSC has you sew the left and right legs into separate tubes and then together at the crotch by inserting one leg into the other. Threads differs in that it has you sew the two front pieces and the fly first. You wouldn't be consulting the instructions other than to confirm the seam allowance, perhaps. I don't recommend deviating from the pattern unless you're already familiar with the process of sewing pants. At the same time, if you don't have much experience and you choose to follow these instructions to a T, this would be a difficult place to start. Instructions aside, the actual sewing requires some practice and finesse. It's not very foolproof. I've sewn a few zip flies by now and using this foreign-to-me method for the first time resulted in one that I'm not happy with. But it was just scrap fabric. Imagine how bothered I'd be if I had tried it with the actual garment first.
Onto the pants themselves: they're made from this grey, coarsely woven Art Gallery Fabrics denim. It's thick, but probably not the most durable because of the weave. But because of it they are quite soft and flexible. I cut a size 8 and then graded to a 10 at the waist and waistband. Actually, I attempted Top Down Center Out fitting but I don't believe I executed it correctly, and it came out as if I had just done some typical grading. The fit came out fine, even without back waist darts. In the end I can't be upset about the flubbed attempt. I considered increasing the rise because they're described as "lower on the high waisted spectrum," but even without adjustments they're still pretty high on me. I kept the rise where it was. Finally, I shortened the legs by about four inches through the knee.
Something I will certainly do in the future is make pocket stays because I find it irritating to readjust the pocket bags every single time I put the pants on. My Peppermint pants really solidified them as a necessary feature. See them poking out above as a forgot to shove them back in.
Something I might do is straighten out the barrel leg in the next pair. I'm not sold on the trend, even if the feature is slight and subtle on the Worker Trousers. I think the extra volume hits me at the wrong part of my leg and makes me look short... Which I am in truth, but for some reason people perceive me as taller, and I'd like to maintain that illusion, thank you very much. I won't mess with the pair I just made. One, because I'm lazy. Two, because the balloon effect is even less pronounced here as I lost some volume due to shrinking in the wash. The pants look like they have a more standard straight/tapered leg (ideal for me) and I didn't even have to do anything to achieve it.
By the way, was I the last person to know that you're supposed to prewash denim more than once? Up to three times, even, because it continues to shrink with multiple washes? That explains why all the pants I made this year are now a smidge too short after I hemmed them to the perfect length, and now I can't do anything about it because the hems are too narrow to let out. I promise I only cried a little when I noticed. The prospect of waiting several weeks to accumulate enough laundry to have an excuse to throw my fabric cuts in the wash, every time for THREE times, is very trying for my patience. I could cut my future pants longer and then hem them after a few washes, but it would still require periods of waiting between washes anyway. Ugh.
So. After ALL that. What's the takeaway, here? I ended up with a pair of trousers that I'm happy with and excited to wear, and I think I'd like to continue using this pattern to make more. But that's because I'm experienced enough to independently follow my own process when using this other person's drafting. I think that's the best way to utilize this pattern; you should use it if you like the design and you already know what you're doing. If you don't yet understand the mechanics of a front fly and general pants construction, skip this one and come back later. As a whole I cannot, on principle, recommend the pattern. But if you are confident that you can make it work on your own, I don't see why you shouldn't go for it.
Notes/Summary:
- Size 8 through hips and leg, graded to 10 at waist
- Shortened 4 inches through the knee
- Cut-on zip fly instead of sewn-on
- Changed order of construction
So, being on the hunt for a "workhorse" basic pattern made me go back to dust off my own pants sloper that I haven't used in a while. There's some sheepish guilt there from having bought so many patterns while knowing I could stand to save some cash by tweaking what I already owned. And now that I have, I'm not sure I want to use it again in the near future. It's just a little off, and going back to correct it minorly would be so boooooring.
The fit is not bad. The pants are just a little roomy in the crotch but it's not egregiously or noticeably baggy. As a fix I could shorten the front crotch and lengthen the back as the butt is cheekier than I'd like. Every so often the outer thigh will pool and bunch up which leads me to suspect that there's some twisting going on from below the knee. I think that means the legs are unbalanced width-wise. The point is, the fit I've gotten from purchased patterns tend to not have those problems. Now, a pattern fitting me out of the envelope is not a confirmation that it was drafted well. That's just a fortunate coincidence. But doesn't it make sense that a professional would have a better sense of fitting the average person than I would, as an enthusiastic hobbyist? Even if I'm trying to fit only one person, and the person is myself.
Don't get me wrong, I still like my pants and I'm not disappointed. I wear them proudly and happily. I did a button fly for the first time, exposed of course, because what would be the point if I couldn't admire my own work? I for one find the buttons quite attractive. I referred to Closet Core's tutorial because it's not dissimilar from their ever-familiar zip fly method. I also sewed the waistband in three curved pieces instead of one straight piece like I originally drafted. A curved waistband is not only more comfortable and secure, it holds the rest of the pants up better to get a truer fit on me than the straight waistband did.
For some visual interest I chose patch pockets over the typical interior jean pockets. The shape of the patch pocket is the same as the one on my two-piece coverall set. Last time I serged the straight raw edges and pressed them inwards and finished the curve with bias tape. This time I lined the pockets with quilting cotton. At some angles you can even see the lavender lining peeking out, admittedly because I was sloppy with my pressing, but I kind of like the way it looks now. It's like discreet contrast piping. For the back pockets, I reused the Worker Trousers' pattern piece because I enjoy how freaking large they are. Some people don't like them because they take up the whole surface area of each butt cheek, but I don't mind if I can fit more things in them.
The fabric is a mid weight, forest green, cotton drill. I've gotten so used to denims above 10 ounces or so that any thinner bottom weight makes me feel kind of naked and unprotected from the elements. This is alright, though. While it's thin, it's finely woven and has some substantial density. One unfortunate thing, however: I didn't notice how dull my needle had gotten and it snagged a few of the fine, individual threads. It's a shame that it only started to happen when I flat felled some seams, sewing from the wrong side, thus the snagging was visible on the outside. I disappointed about quickly the snags aged the pants and made them look poorly made, which I know for a fact they weren't. Because I'm good at this, I swear!
And now for some bonus pants. A while back I used Sew Life Savory's free Lounge Pants pattern to make some sleep shorts out of leftover cotton flannel check. I thought it would be worthwhile to make these pants in their full intended length, and I've found that I really like them! The leg is so wide and the fabric has just enough body that it stands away from my legs on its own, it often feels like I'm wearing no pants at all. I made two pairs from cotton flannel from Joann. The dancing skeleton pair even glows in the dark, which I wasn't aware of when I made the purchase.
 |
| Angled patch pocket instead of an in-seam pocket. |
Earlier this year the pattern got updated with narrower legs and a higher rise in the back, although I haven't re-downloaded it. But if I were to make these pants again I would increase the rise for both the front and the back just an inch or two. The crotch isn't tight but it could be lower. Currently, it pulls the rise downwards, sometimes even below my hips. I think I made that note when I first made my shorts, but I guess I forgot and never bothered to adjust the pattern.
Notes/Summary:
- Size Small
- Patch pockets instead of in-seam pockets
- Will increase rise on front and back next time
About those Worker Pants, I can't imagine why one would skip back darts/yoke on that kind of design! It's one thing if you're making cargo pants, which are supposed to ride a bit low and have a square fit around the hips, but high-waisted pants without darts or a yoke will just make your butt look flat. I like the fit of your green pants better, tbh. As for the glow-in-the-dark skeleton pants (which are such an awesome idea, seriously): you can deepen the crotch after the fact! Easiest fix in the world, just stitch another line below the original crotch seam and trim away the excess seam allowance with a serger. I think you can take away an inch or so on most drafts, but even more on wide-legged pants where the crotch curve location can be varied without affecting pant leg width around the fullest part of the thigh. I've had to do this on a few jumpsuits, where crotch depth is a much more critical issue for wearability. It works like a charm!
ReplyDeleteWell that's nice to know, that my green pants look nicer, so thank you for that. Funny you should mention the crotch-lowering thing, because I ended up doing that exact thing about a month after I made them. It does work in a pinch, doesn't it!
Delete