Trowser Sizes

[theknapsack]

I recently bought a pair of size "1" trowsers from Chas. A. Cantrell. I am a small person, my waist is about 30", Etc. But when I put these trowsers on, they didn't fit me correctly. I guessed that they would be kind of large, but these seem humungous on me. I am still new to authentic clothing. So here is my question: Am I just used to modern pants, or are these to big for size 1? the width of each leg is what I am thinking of. If pressed flat, they go across about 10". Is this correct? Thanks for any help (I think I'm just used to modern pants).

[JohnTaylorCW]

Re: Trowser Sizes

If you pop over to CJ Daley's website and check the Quartermaster's Specs, you'll see that for all four sizes of Trousers the width of the bottom is 20" It's just one of those army issue size things.

http://www.cjdaley.com/issuesizes.htm

John T

[crneilsen]

Re: Trowser Sizes

Mid 19th cent. trowsers were worn "high-waisted" in that, they were worn up where we would probably think is whay too high - like up around your navel. They often could only be held up with a belt or more often braces/suspenders. Today we wear our pants around our hips, so when we actually wear correctly made trowsers for the period, we feel a bit like "Steve Erkel" from TV...If they fit like a tent, then you may consider taking them in a bit - your call. As the the width of hte legs - dont worry, the army contractors manufactured them at distinctive sizes and each size type had specific dimensions so your odds of actually getting a garment that fit you were slim at best.

CR Neilsen

[theknapsack]

Re: Trowser Sizes

The Waist thing I knew about. Thanks alot for your posts. I'm just goning to get used to it. . .

[Tim Prince]

Re: Trowser Sizes

The "old boys" were smarter than we think. The beauty of the wide legs (and on Federal trousers, the vent on the bottom of the leg cuff) is that you can remove your trousers and put them on while you keep your shoes on. This is in fact handy from time to time......Whether this was an intentional part of the design or an added bonus, I can not say, but it is nice.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Trowser Sizes

Hallo Kameraden!

Indeed...

Another problem with typical "sutlers' row" quality trousers/trowsers lies with the fact the trousers illustrated by the late George Woodbridge for AMERICAN MILITARY EQUIPAGE 1851-1872 were widely used by makers of reproduction goods "way back then," often incorporating modern production short-cuts for ease of manufacture and lower pricing, and then copied by other makers who simply copied the already flawed, modern modified, wares of other makers. (For example, because these repro trousers are not cut to be worn high enough, some makers simply add an oversized, extra wide waistband- 3-4 inches wide- and the trousers "ride" in the wrong place like modern hip huggers worn with a same color cumberbund.)

IMHO, the other problem lies with the "modern tailoring and fit" of some of these that copy modern rather than period styling- particular in the waistband, various yokes, fullness of the seat, and fullness of the legs.
For the Civil War, in the North, there was a difference between the fashionable civilian attire ("peg top trousers," and a different pattern drafting system) and the military which were, in many ways, just an "evolution" of modified and refined details going all the way back to the "broadfalls" of the 1840's- which gives them a distinctive "look" just not found on generic "sutlers' row" offerings.
Not to over generalize, but IMHO, the South had a jump on military trouser "fashion" by basing their system on more current "civilian styling" than the two decade old influence on federal trousers.

Others' mileage may vary.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt