How To Measure Trousers?

[Iron Jim Rackham]

How do you determine the appropriate size of trousers? When I see an ad for trousers indicating a waist size of 38" and an inseam of 32", are the diminesions cited modern dimensions, or does the waist size actually indicate a measurement at the navel ? Thanks

[cblodg]

How do you determine the appropriate size of trousers? When I see an ad for trousers indicating a waist size of 38" and an inseam of 32", are the diminesions cited modern dimensions, or does the waist size actually indicate a measurement at the navel ? Thanks

The Jarnigan web site has a great chart in terms of measurements. Your waist is considered to be around your mid-section, at the navel.

Chris

[VaTrooper]

How do you determine the appropriate size of trousers? When I see an ad for trousers indicating a waist size of 38" and an inseam of 32", are the diminesions cited modern dimensions, or does the waist size actually indicate a measurement at the navel ? Thanks

The pants should be worn at the navel which is where your measurement would come from. If your a 38 at the navel then that's the size you want to go with. The bigger guy next to you with his 38's peeling down off his arse crack is wearing his in the modern fashion but the dimensions of his pants are still just like yours. The point being that there isnt two scales of pants sizes. Buy em big enough to fit where you want em too.


Wm Shifflett
I think I confused him more mess

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

It can depend upon one's body "type" (body morphology). Meaning if one is shaped like a "ruler," things may be different than if one is shaped like a pear, etc., etc.

IMHO, as shared, the concept of "waist" seems to have changed. CW Period "high" waisted trousers worn at, above, or around the "navel" line are different than modern "hip huggers" worn down below the hips. (IMHO, for things "Confederate," higher waisted trousers make it possible to wear "shell jackets" without a draft.... ;-)

However, some vendors offer trousers that are cut more along the lines of modern jeans and some lads wear them skin tight down below the hips in the Butt Crack Gusset Zone.

So, IMHO, measure around the "naval."

However, not all makers seem to use the same "sizing." For me personally I can wear one vendor's Size 34 (Size 2) but have to go to a Size 36 (Size 3) from another vendor. Or, another vendor's Size 3 fits snug, while another's Size 3 is loose.
However, when looking at original trousers, there are the Quartermaster specs, and then there are variations in the actual dimensions.

Again, being brief and over-generalizing...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I appreciate the advice from each of you. Thank you.

[tompritchett]

One other comment to make to those made by everyone else - authentic trousers are also made to wear at the navel. On some pants, wearing them too low, as at the waist where modern trousers at worn, can actually cause the trousers to tear in the back and in the seams where the trouser legs join the waist portion. (I speak from personal experience as well as seeing the results of improperly worn trousers worn by some individuals in my former unit.)

[Minieball577]

This is not related to pre-made trousers, but rather for those guys who want to sew their own.

Some vendors of proper patterns use modern sizing as a basis for their pattern size. For instance, one vendor sells a pattern for trousers that is sized as a 38, but measures over 40 inches in actual girth, like modern jeans do. Depsite this issue in sizing, the patterns offered by this vendor do make good proper garments.

Another well known vendor sells his patterns listed by the size of the waste measurment, thus a size 39 is for a person with a 39 inch or so waste.

I usually ask before I buy a pattern from a new supplier.

[1stTexas]

I will add more to what has been written about the two different sizing methods from what I learned from experience.

Sutlers who manufacture civil war military trousers using one sizing method is about 2 sizes (4") larger than a sutler who uses the other method. A perfect example is The Quartemaster Shop compared to C&D Jarnigan. The QM Shop size 34 will fit a size 38 snugly and a 34 waist at C&D Jarnigan will fit a 40 waist snugly.

Be advised: Civilian and military trousers of the 19th century did not fit tightly around the waist and relied on suspenders to hold them up, not a waist belt. If they fit correctly, you should be able to slip your hand easily between your belly (without sucking it up) and the waist band without a belt. If you want to wear a belt instead of suspenders (braces) you will have to sew on belt loops with some extra material you get from hemming the cuffs. If you want to make belt loops of the same material, I suggest that you order the trousers unhemmed with at least 2" longer inseam than what you need. I sewed on 2 utility belt loops on the bottom of my Columbus Depot 2 shell jacket made from the extra material from my trouser cuffs. Confederate soldiers removed the shoulder straps from their Richmond Depot shell jackets and made utility belt loops (not trouser belt loops) from them but Coulmbus Depot 1, 2 and 3 jackets did not have shoulder straps.

Before I called The QM Shop and asked why a pair of trouser I orderd for my actual measurment ftom one sutler was 2 sizes too large, I thought that they were made that way to allow for shrinkage but that is not so. The cotton waist band will shrink at a different rate than wool trousers. That is the reason why many trousers come un-lined. You should purchase a pair of period correct cotton muslin long-john underwear or wear pajama bottoms if you are sensitive to wool, especially in hot weather. Remember, you cannot wash wool even if someone discharges a musket near your ear!

Send an e-mail to The Quartermaster Shop ( www.quartermastershop.com ) with an inquiry on this subject and their shop manager be glad to explain in detail which method they use. The two methods of trouser sizing have different names and he will gladly tell you what they are. Then you will be knowlegable enough on the subject to ask your favorite sutler which method he uses and if he cannot tell you, find another sutler who knows what he is doing.

[hanktrent]

Be advised: Civilian and military trousers of the 19th century did not fit tightly around the waist and relied on suspenders to hold them up, not a waist belt. If they fit correctly, you should be able to slip your hand easily between your belly (without sucking it up) and the waist band without a belt.

I've read other researchers say, and it's borne out by period images, that period trousers may be cut to stay up without belt or suspenders. When worn with an overshirt tucked in, for example, suspenders aren't practical without modification to the overshirt, and not all images of men wearing overshirts show a belt.

For what it's worth, by tightening the buckle in the back, I've worn period pants without a belt or suspenders, and they will stay up, but of course that doesn't mean they're fitted properly in a period way.

Anyone more knowledgeable about period tailoring wish to comment?

If you want to wear a belt instead of suspenders (braces) you will have to sew on belt loops with some extra material you get from hemming the cuffs.

Unless you mean you "have to" because everyone in the 1860s chose to, there's no reason to add belt loops. I've worn period trousers many times with a belt and no belt loops, including trousers that are way too big (because I'd lost weight and hadn't altered them), and the belt worked just fine.

Belt loops aren't necessary, and in fact, seem to be particularly rare in the period. Firemen, baseball players, and boxers are the only times I've seen belt loops in period images, and they're on pants designed to be worn with overshirts (see the problem above) or with no shirt, in the case of boxers.

Is there evidence that most men added homemade belt loops?

Remember, you cannot wash wool even if someone discharges a musket near your ear!

Wool can be hand-washed today, same as in the period. Period laundry instructions describe how. Period drawers are of course comfortable and practical, but before drawers came in fashion, longer shirttails served the purpose of keeping the inside of trousers cleaner.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[1stTexas]

Wear belts without belt loops if you dare but I ain't.... especailly if the trousers are sized for suspenders like they were in the 19th century. I think people dislike suapenders today because they keep popping buttons off so they "modernize" their attire by wearing belts. Just purchase elasticized suspenders and the buttons will not pop off.

If you don't need belt loops to hold your belt in place why wear a belt in the first place?

"Overshirts" are just that...they are worn "over" everything else and were not tucked in the trousers. Overshirts were sometimes worn in place of a sack coat (or overcoat). Plain cotton shirts (not overshirts) were tucked in the trousers with suspenders over the shirts and then a overshirt may have been worn over that kinda like a windbreaker is worn today.

C & D Jarnagin ( www.jarnaginco.com ) offers good overshirt with a good description of their use.

[VaTrooper]

Jerry,
Let me get this strait...you added beltloops onto your period trousers? I'd be interested in seeing some type of period source for this, other than the rare examples that Hank mentioned. If your belts tight and you've given yourself 3-4" from the top of your trousers then there's not much chance of them falling down. And there are pictures of people wearing overshirts tucked in so it really depends on who's wearing it.

[hanktrent]

Wear belts without belt loops if you dare but I ain't.... especailly if the trousers are sized for suspenders like they were in the 19th century.

Since I've done it many times and know it works, even with ill-fitting pants 2-3" too big in the waist, you can imagine it seems rather strange to be told how unreliable and illogical it is.

It works because the pants are cut to come up at least as high as the natural waist. The belt gets stopped from slipping down by the top of the hip bones, so there's plenty of fabric above the top of the belt. The extra fabric blouses out over the belt and sometimes rolls down over it, so there's no chance of it slipping through the belt. Can't say it would work with every physique, but it was an option occasionally chosen by laborers who needed free upper body movement. Here's an example:

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=40774673816d404a30c43cf954264445&g=imls&med=1&c=lysh&q1=lysh&rgn1=lysh_all&ox=886&oy=1097&lastres=2&res=2&width=362&height=600&maxw=2900&maxh=4802&subview=getsid&lasttype=boolean&view=entry&viewid=LYSH2318.TIF&entryid=x-pss6.b002.i10&cc=lysh&quality=m600&resnum=36&evl=full-image&image.x=201&image.y=313

"Overshirts" are just that...they are worn "over" everything else and were not tucked in the trousers.

Overshirts were worn both tucked and untucked, but tucked was very common.

Here's a mystery. What's holding up the pants of the man in the first image on this page? No belt, with a tucked-in overshirt. I think it works because his pants just fit right.

http://www.lazyjacks.org.uk/shirts.htm

Lest one say that's an anomaly, here it is again from a Currier and Ives print of a snipe shooter on the beach. http://www.simplicity.com/index.cfm?page=section/civilWar/shirts4.html (top image). In a better hard-copy repro, you can see his back suspenders buttons with nothing attached to them, and no belt. That's why I believe it wasn't necessary to have any looseness in the waistband, because some men could wear their pants with neither belt nor suspenders.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[1stTexas]

Please excuse me. I have a difficult time communicating with people.

I did not say I added belt loops to my trousers I only suggested that if you wanted to wear a waist belt instead of the correct period suspenders. Personally, I would never add belt loops to period trousers, that is modern stuff and that is why the reenactor suppliers don't do it. I wrote that I added belt loops to my Columbus Depot 2 shell jacket just like the soldiers in the field did in 1862 only support the heavy utility belt. Some of the Richmond Depot shell jackets had two belt loops.

Again, if your period high-cut period trousers will not come down to your knees without a belt, why wear a trouser belt? You must wear a "utility" belt to support the cap box, cartirdge box, pistol, NCO saber and suspenders to support your trousers at the correct elevation where they were supposed to be worn. That is what the suspenders were for. Modern fabrics replaced wool and wool-jean and were cut at a lower rise in the early 20th century and those trousers used a waist belt and belt loops for support and eliminated the need for suspenders. I think some people may be confusing the purpose of a utility belt with a waist belt. During the civil war, the only belt that was issued to the troops was a untility belt. How you held up you trousers was your problem but the trousers were made with buttons for suspender attachment but were NOT made with belt loops..

If the period high-rise trousers will come down to your hips and stop, without a belt, how long should your inseams be to allow for that? The inseams of your trousers would have to be about 6" shorter than normal. If you did not have suspenders and wore you trousers at the hip, and the inseams of your trousers were sized with the "waist" band at your navel as it should be for period trousers, you would not need brogans because you would be marching on your trouser legs within a mile.

BTW, in 1820, esliaticized cloth was invented by Thomas Hancock in England and elasticized suspenders were in use for the more expensive suspenders by 1844 and were in common use by the 1850s. The suspenders were not all elastic but the elasticized material was used only on the back straps lower six inches. Suspenders were not issue items and were supplied by the soldiers families at home or sutlers and were made of cotton pillow ticking or were converted web rifle slings by the soldiers and NCO's in the field. Junior officers and above could afford to buy the more expensive elasticized suspenders.

[NC5thcav]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that overshirts were never tucked in, but to back Hank up, if you scroll down the page in this link you will see at least 7 men with their overshirts tucked in. And I might add that they are clearly NOT regular shirt being worn without a jacket. A little research goes a long way.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11347

[Morris Clothiers]

Well let the research continue:

First off allow me to refer to some very common tailor's drafting manuals from the period. These works are readily available on line or have been reproduced by R.L. Shep.

"The Handbook of Practical Cutting" by Louis DeVere, 1866
"Tailors Guide" by Charles Compaing, 1856
"Salisbury System of Actual Measurement and drafting for all Styles of Coats upon Geometrical Prinicples" by W.S. Salisbury, 1865

These were common works available to the trade during the period and answer very well some of the questions posted and clarify exactly how a period pair of trowsers should fit. (Yes, I use the earlier spelling of TROWSER)


If you want to wear a belt instead of suspenders (braces) you will have to sew on belt loops with some extra material you get from hemming the cuffs

I would like to see any images that you may have or any other primary sources that would refer to these loops. The recitation of the availability of elasticized materials is correct, so I was wondering you had anything on these "LOOPS"

What has me confused is this:

Personally, I would never add belt loops to period trousers, that is modern stuff and that is why the reenactor suppliers don't do it.

However you stated previously this:


Wear belts without belt loops if you dare but I ain't

Moving on:

Be advised: Civilian and military trousers of the 19th century did not fit tightly around the waist and relied on suspenders to hold them up, not a waist belt. If they fit correctly, you should be able to slip your hand easily between your belly (without sucking it up) and the waist band without a belt.

That is not correct and I refer to the primary resources that I have listed, especially the "The Tailors Guide".

Compaign and Devere state that "Trowsers are always tight at the waist and all along the fork and inseam". In addition, they state " Trousers no matter what the pattern should always fit close to the inside of the leg from top to bottom". This would seem to imply a very snug fit in these areas. The patterns are drafted so that the rise high into the fork, but allow sufficient material for room for the male anatomy. What about the baggy seat? A properly drafted pair of trowsers will have a baggy seat. This is to allow for stooping, bending and setting, yet allowing the troswers to ride at the proper height, and to maintain their proper position. The bagginess is not to be confused with a poor fit. This is to the contrary, a properly drafted pair of trowsers will sport the elements that Compaing mentions and still have plenty of room in the seat. Compaing speaks of how to properly measure for the all important fit at the hip and waist. For hips he states " Taken very tight on the most prominent part of the hips. The measure is often 1 inch more than the breast measure". For the waist Compaing states " Taken very tight under the waist coat". As we all should know a period waistcoat should fall at the natural waist (navel). I further refer to DeVere's work from 1866, in which he refers to an "American Trouser". This pattern is specifically drafted in an manner to facilitate the proper fit at the waist yet does not require the use of a belt or suspenders. This is achieved through the use of darts along the waist. The only work that even shows the placement of suspender buttons is in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in the trowser section of Salisbury's books. However, if you look at the pattern you will see how the trowsers are shaped through the hip and waist. Taking into affect body form and posture, these patterns clearly show the extra fabric for the seat, and also the proper taper of the pattern from the hip to the waist. This "taper" is what keeps them trowsers from falling down any further than what is necessary.


But yet there is more:


Lets examine the web site for the Lyon Shorb, and Company.


http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=8b6e339954145218b2060b465ba487ad;page=inde x;c=lysh;g=imls


Of the first 60 images I count 18 men that are wearing trowsers without belts or suspenders. These are millwrights, laborers, and carpenters that have been pulled from the shop floor for an image. Notice how their trowsers are not falling down, nor are they walking on yards of material. More than likely their inner thighs are not galleded because of an ill fitting pair of trowsers either. The time prohibits it, an examination of LOC images will even show men wearing "ISSUE TROWSERS" sans suspenders or belts, and they fit properly. Yes, there was shoddy work and poor patterns of issue gear, but there were also skilled craftsmen making issue clothing as well that clearly followed period tailoring practices.


I really like this image. Notice the fit of the pants, over the hip around the mid section. The individual also has a thin leather belt the rides along the button edge of the wasitband. It is cinched (with no belt loops) and keeps the trowser from going past the hip bones.

http://http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=8b6e339954145218b2060b465ba487ad&g=imls&med=1&c=lysh&q1=lysh&rgn1=lysh_all&ox=625&oy=1031&lastres=3&res=2&width=181&height=300&maxw=2906&maxh=4814&subview=getsid&lasttype=boolean&view=entry&viewid=LYSH2311.TIF&entryid=x-pss6.b002.i03&cc=lysh&quality=m600&resnum=29&evl=full-image&image.x=132&image.y=129



There are some other images that I would like to reference, but are currently copyrighted by R.L. Shep. In the Salisbury book there is a nice plate from "Frank Leslie's Illustrated-1865", the plate shows base ball players with no suspenders or belt. In addition, the Gazette of Fashion-1863 has many plates of Men's Fashion but does not even show a single suspender.


OK, well here are some LOC links:

Notice: No suspenders, whish we could see if there were belts are not, but we do get a good idea of fit and how the trowsers ride even during manual labor.

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/cwp/4a40000/4a40200/4a40252r.jpg

Baggy Seats, Suspenders, no suspenders, and tucked in over shirts. (Though it may be an issue wshirt worn over a shirt from home, it is hard to tell)

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/01800/01847v.jpg

[1stTexas]

Why do all suppliers of civil war military trousers install suspender buttons and never install waist belt loops?

I will tell you why, belts were not used on the high rise trousers in the 19th century. If a belt were used it was because it was more convenient to use 'em than it was to use suspenders or the person could not afford suspenders. Money was scarce in those days and most of the clothing was homemade.

Cpl. Shiftlett, you misinterpreted my previous entry. I merely "suggested" the installation of belt loops if you want to wear a waist belt to support your trousers instead of suspenders but I did not mean I would ever do so. I wrote that I installed 2 "utility" belt loops on my Columbus Depot 2 shell jacket, not my trousers.

Some Richmond Depot shell jackets often came with belt loops and sometimes the soldier in the field would remove the shoulder straps on his shell jacket and sew them on as utility belt loops on his shell jacket, using the buttons to hold up the loops on the top end and sew them to the shell jacket on the other end.

If you wear high rise 19th century trousers on your hips with or without a waist belt like was suggested earlier, you had better cut at least 6" from the legs of your trousers or you will be walking on them.

If you are afraid of popping off the rear suspender buttons from you trousers, just purchase suspenders with 6" elastic pieces on the bottom of the rear straps and that will eliminate that problem. Elastic suspenders ARE period correct. Elastic was invented by Thomas Hancock in England about 1820 and were in common use for suspenders by the 1850s. However, most Confederate soldiers could not afford them and wore "po-boy" homemade cotton ticking suspenders that were adjusted by four button holes or wore suspenders made from a Confederate issue cotton webbing or canvas rifle sling. Suspenders were more important than a rifle sling and less troublesome than wearing two belts; that is: one belt to hold up the trousers and one belt as a utility belt.

[hanktrent]

If the period high-rise trousers will come down to your hips and stop, without a belt, how long should your inseams be to allow for that? The inseams of your trousers would have to be about 6" shorter than normal. If you did not have suspenders and wore you trousers at the hip, and the inseams of your trousers were sized with the "waist" band at your navel as it should be for period trousers, you would not need brogans because you would be marching on your trouser legs within a mile.

I hope I didn't confuse things by mentioning that I find my belt slips down to my hip bones, when I wear it without belt loops to hold my pants up.

To clarify, the top of my period trousers, when properly fitted and worn with or without belt or suspenders, stays at my natural waist. I'd guess it's because they've got a little elasticity in them, being fabric.

A narrow leather belt doesn't stay at my natural waist unless I cinch it a little too tight to be comfortable. I think it's because there's no elasticity to it, so every time I move or breath in, it slips a little. However, when I wear it just comfortably snug, the tops of my hip bones are the final stop for it. So the belt naturally rides a little lower than the tops of the trousers, and it all works just fine, since that leaves enough of the trousers sticking above the belt to blouse out and stay in place.

I'm built about like the men pictured in the links to the belted men on the Lyon Shorb website, so I don't know how it would work with other body types.

I would guess that the same arrangement would never work with modern jeans however, because they're not high-waisted enough, and the fabric and belt would both ride in the same place, at the top of the hip bones.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Catherine Kelly]

One other comment to make to those made by everyone else - authentic trousers are also made to wear at the navel. On some pants, wearing them too low, as at the waist where modern trousers at worn, can actually cause the trousers to tear in the back and in the seams where the trouser legs join the waist portion. (I speak from personal experience as well as seeing the results of improperly worn trousers worn by some individuals in my former unit.)


Since I am the one to repair the torn pants in my unit... which I don't mind really.... I tell all new men to the unit that the pants are meant to be worn at your waist.. the one around your belly button. If you choose to wear them around your hip area you will tear the area where the seams meet between your legs and I will be fixing them for you. and unless you have a spare pair of pants you will be sitting in your tent with out pants while I fix them. I have far fewer repairs to pants since I started telling them why they should wear them up higher...LOL

before that there were those guys who were determined to wear their pants low... and I was ALWAYS fixing the same seam area... on the same pair of pant for the same guys!!

Catherine

[NC5thcav]

Some Richmond Depot shell jackets often came with belt loops and sometimes the soldier in the field would remove the shoulder straps on his shell jacket and sew them on as utility belt loops on his shell jacket, using the buttons to hold up the loops on the top end and sew them to the shell jacket on the other end.

Do you have any documentation for this, or is this just your speculation?


I will tell you why, belts were not used on the high rise trousers in the 19th century.

Do you research original pictures before making these statements? Apparently not.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

As a basic primer on Confederate jackets, Les Jensen's three articles can still serve as a basic guide:

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

In brief and to over-generalize...

The Jensen Typology of Richmond Dept "Types I, II, and III" hold that Type I's and Type II's had shoulder "tabs" AND waistbelt "loops." Both of these were omitted for the "1864ish" Type III.
Shoulder and belt loops seem to have not been a feature of "Western Depot" jackets such as "Columbus," or "Alabama" etc., garments.

While in Research one should never say "never," I would be interested in adding to my own knowledge of "loops" being added or moved by soldiers.

Regarding Federal trousers... I am not entirely sure it is valid to compare the Period civilian trouser "pattern" to the "out of date/fashion" one used by Schuykill Arsenal and other arsenals and contractors.
Plus, I would add a small caveat as to the whole concept of "fit" in a supply system that generally ignored a man's true size and issued at random from Size 1-4 percentages in a bundle without regard to size- requiring the men to trade, wear as is, or personally or "company tailor" trousers/trowsers for a "better fit?"

(For me personally, at 5' 10" and 170 pounds, I wear some "authentic" maker's Size 2 and some maker's size 3 trousers/trowsers that are Period Correct "high waisted." I can wear either Size, without suspenders, without them falling down. However, the "standard" length of the Size 3's require a 1 1/2 to 2 inch "fold up" or "roll up" not to step on them due to the length of legs.
However, I do find that flannel Period drawers have a tendency to ride down under the trousers/trowsers even when the trousers/trowsers are worn wit hsuspenders. (A problem later solved on my WWI German drawers by their adding a "loop" to each side for the suspender tab to go under to hold them up...) Of course, height, weight, and body morpholgy varies lad to lad- a "ruler" has a different time of things than a "pear" than does a "spoon" as does a "light bulb."

Here is an image of a Federal having to "do, make do, or do without:"
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/CivilWarTrouserssmall-1.png

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Morris Clothiers]

[However, I do find that flannel Period drawers have a tendency to ride down under the trousers/trowsers even when the trousers/trowsers are worn wit hsuspenders. (A problem later solved on my WWI German drawers by their adding a "loop" to each side for the suspender tab to go under to hold them up...)

Curt,

This is especially true with issue drawers. Now if we want to talk about a pattern that has very little fit, this is the one. Very straight line in design there is very little form to them that matches the human body. Civilian pattern ones, now that is a different matter all together. I have one pair of original knit "mercantile" drawers that do answer that issue that you mention Curt. Along the waist is a mell mounted strap of tape that is sewn in the middle and on both ends. It being meant to have the suspender straps pass through. Of course, now that would be a problem if you don't wear suspenders. However, another option that I have seen on civilian drawers is the use of a tab with a button hole. These tabs were attached to an unused suspender button or corresponded to a button on the inside of the trouser. The first option would seem to be the more comfortable of the two.


I would concur with the fact that "Issue" trousers fit and sizing would be an issue, especially with the way they were produced, graded and bundled, or for that fact even stored. I am not so sure that pattern would have as much impact as would the system that produced them. With contract work being done as piece work, you would run the gamut of workers that would have run from the experienced craftsman to the neophyte. From quality work to shoddy, I would think that this would have had the biggest affect on the fit of an issue garment. I am hoping that some of the contract work that I am currently tracking down for the Steubenville Army Depot will give me some more insight into the piece work and contracting that was done to local seamstresses, and with luck some information as to the quality of the work that was produced.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Quite true...
I sometimes wear "French import drawers" instead of the Army issue drawers with no DD Syndrome ("Droopy Drawer'). :-)

Ah, Steubenville garments. There was a brief flurry hereabouts about 6-8 years or so, concerning Steubenville as well as Columbus' "sewing hall" type garments. Unfortunately, it seemed that the leading advocate/researcher and his company ending up being a fraud and cheated many a lad (including myself) out of money on unfilled orders.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[theknapsack]

1st Texas,

I have yet to see any documentation outside of "sutlers don't do it." Did you ever take the time to think that they all follow the same darn patterns and don't do any research themselves anyways?
Also, I'd love to see your evidence that soldiers often took "webbing or canvas rifle slings" and made them into suspenders (because suspenders were "more important" and seemingly impossible to get). Or for that matter that suspenders were often only made of ticking material from a soldier's family. Or that confederate soldiers often only wore poor boy suspenders.
Anyways, if one wears his waist belt at the proper place, it shouldn't be in the way of his issue belt and accouterments.
It's time to get off the internet and start reading books. Seriously.

Here's another feller, among many on this site, with a belt:
http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=f818637f8427fd12c2698c075bfc26c6;g=imls;me d=1;q1=lysh;rgn1=lysh_all;size=20;c=lysh;lasttype= boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=deta il;cc=lysh;entryid=x-pss6.b001.i24;viewid=LYSH2306.TIF;start=21;resnum= 24