|
|
Post by giacomo on May 7, 2008 8:52:55 GMT -5
When i made my first period trousers i wanted them to have the straps wich are buttoned to the lower end of the garment and go under the shoe sole. However, once i had them done i found that it was impossible to seat since the braces (which are not elastic) pulled in the opposite direction! therefore i decided not to use the under shoe straps. So i am still wondering if gentlemen from that period just used them to walk and took them off with the help of a servant when they arrived to a place where they were going to sit down. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Goblin, esq. on May 27, 2008 15:03:25 GMT -5
Even without under-shoe straps, pantaloons that are snug at the calf and held up with braces won't let you sit down. I'm not sure if there was more slack in the seat, or if the fabric used was stockinette and thus stretchier. The pantaloons I made won't let me sit down either, which is why I haven't worn them often.  I have been considering piecing some more material into the seat, but I'm not sure how narrow the seat was in period. I know I've seen pictures of hussars with very tight pants, and they were expected to ride in those. Were they cut on the bias, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by Anna on May 28, 2008 19:45:12 GMT -5
I think (but I haven't got a reference right now, very sorry) that during the early part of the period there was a lot of extra material in the seat, and that slowly got trimmed out. If I remember where I read that, I'll note the reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goblin, esq. on May 29, 2008 13:32:53 GMT -5
I think (but I haven't got a reference right now, very sorry) that during the early part of the period there was a lot of extra material in the seat, and that slowly got trimmed out. If I remember where I read that, I'll note the reference. This is true. I'm just wondering how much was trimmed out by the time pantaloons (fitting closely around the calf) became popular. I have seen period prints of hussars in very tight pants; I wonder how they were able to sit in the saddle in those? |
|
|
|
Post by cosmoblue on May 29, 2008 13:46:18 GMT -5
Is this even a problem with fabric cut on the bias, I know I read that they did this quite often? I would also think that it would be quite easy to wear a fitted trouser or pantaloon in an animal skin for riding. You saw bikers in the 80s do it often enough. Skin is stretchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goblin, esq. on May 29, 2008 18:18:01 GMT -5
Is this even a problem with fabric cut on the bias, I know I read that they did this quite often? I would also think that it would be quite easy to wear a fitted trouser or pantaloon in an animal skin for riding. You saw bikers in the 80s do it often enough. Skin is stretchy. Cutting it on the bias would make it work, but I don't recall reading if this was done in the Regency. I shall have to go looking again. (That would explain the hussars!) Animal skin works, too, but it depends on which part of the animal, too as hides apparently have something akin to bias, too. (I only learned this last weekend, talking to a leatherworker acquaintance.) |
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on May 30, 2008 9:21:34 GMT -5
The Cut of Men's Clothes by Norah Waugh will have the proper information it for you. By the way, Cosmo is quite right. The earlier tight legged pantaloons were often made of skins. This was quite fashionable for a time - "Sir! Your forgot your horse!" being the look that was sought after. When this fashion of ‘doeskin’ breeches faded in England, manufacturers and merchants loaded all excess stock onto ships headed for the colonies and America. There was no question that this type of garment was ideal for forested and hardworking situations. A lot of them ended up here in North America, to be worn by the “settlers” as a hardworking everyday garment. Some were so well made that they were willed from father to son and were worn for generations. (Please don’t make me dig for the documentation on this  I have it but I think it’s buried VERY deep. ) |
|
