It's not cold here by any stretch of the imagination (it's still upper 80s) but I would like to get started on some new pants for autumn/winter. The capris I've lived in all summer long are going to look really silly in January, and it will *be* January before I know it.I ordered some Vogue patterns while they were on sale at the Vogue website and they arrived today. One of them is #2913, Sandra Betzina pants. I just looked to see if there were any reviews for it on Pattern Review and these results are mixed. Two nay and one yay. But ... one of the nays is definitely not my body type and the other has called herself a beginning sewer and there's no photo so it's hard for me to guess my results based on hers. (If you're that reviewer and reading this, in no way do I mean that as an insult. Just that I'm unsure whether it was fitting skills or the pattern or ? that led to your results. I hope that came out right. I do still appreciate the review and your time for writing it.) The only yay seems to be my body type but there's no photo.
Also in today's mail were the Christine Jonson patterns I ordered from a coop (and yes, some fabric was in the box too), which included another pair of pants ... these:
There are also three reviews for these pants. Again two with photos, and the one closest to my body type without. But, all three of these reviews were positive.So readers, which one would you pick??
Sigh. I guess it's time for the tape measure and another muslin dance.
Debbie, I would choose the CJ pattern. But then again I am lazy and they look like they have less details. Have fun!
ReplyDeleteDebbie, if you are thinking about using the stretch bengaline fabric then the CJ pattern would be my choice, from the two you selected.
ReplyDeleteHi Debbie, I'm that reviewer, no offense taken. I cannot edit my profile over at PR for some reason. I'm more acomplished than a true beginner, but not advanced by any means.
ReplyDeleteThe pants were huge, and the leg shape is off. I do really like the waist treatment, although I left that great large overlap off.
I did your beautiful fisheye dart and because of that, the only successful part of these pants was the seat. That fit really nicely.
No photo, but I could not get a decent one of bad black pants. To get an idea of my "size", I measure between an E and an F, with the F being the waist. I cut the smaller size and tokk a couple of inches in all around, even at the waist.
If I were to make them again, I'd redraft the legs, the inseam tapers much too sharply.
I won't sew them again, but I do very much like that contour waist.
At this point, I'm pretty much doing style modifications on my Joyce Murphy JSM Pant1 pattern.
Good luck with the decision, and if it were me, I'd try the CJ pattern.
Debbie, I would also use the CJ, but then I'm a sucker for CJ patterns. Can you share the co-op address where you purchased your pattern?
ReplyDeleteSounds as if the SB pattern has major "vanity sizing" problems, but if you know, you can choose a smaller size. The CJ pattern certainly sounds easier... I think I'd try that first, unless you really want the contour waist. How's that for fence-sitting!
ReplyDeleteAnn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for not taking offense and for your helpful add'l info. I may be venturing off in another direction after some discussion with Belinda about the fabric.
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteI decided to make the SB Vogue pattern (in spite of the warnings on PR) because the C measurements should have fit me perfectly thru the waist and hips -- and it was a Sandra Betzina pattern. They were so huge I threw them in the garbage.
Mary
Have you flat measured this yet? I just did, and the others are right - it is big. Of course, I have the very flat rear dillema, but still, this was ridiculous. I may morph the top waistline and contour waistband onto some TNT pants and use the pattern for design/update purposes.
ReplyDeleteI love a contour waistband, but there are so many out there, why mess with a pattern that so many others have had difficulty with?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to the jeans manufacture - it was fascinating