Club Obi Wan

Received my wested pants size 32 yesterday.
By comparing them with some close enough pants found the following.

Both pants total length 105cm (my height is 178 cm)
Wested distance from hem to crotch = 75cm
Close enough pants distance from hem to crotch = 82.5 cm

The above means that the Wested pants are too baggy around the area of the pelvis/thighs/bottom. This is a very unpleasant feeling. I understand that it was a little baggy in the film, but no that baggy.

I know that the Magnoli pants are on the opposite side being too narrow there. Magnoli will come saying that his pants are bespoken and that I can specify this in my order, but there are two major disadvantages. 1st I don't kno if he makes them with cavalry twill, 2nd there is 30 days waiting time.

Finally, I NEED to ask.
Anybody who has NH pants size 32 and he is approximately my height can measure the afforementioned distance and let me know PLEASE?

THat is the first bit of really usefull information I have received even though it was derogatory.
What it means is that I made the mistake of copying 1940's pinks that were high waisted and often worn with braces.
The modern cut is more a hipster style fitting below the waistline.
If Platon had pulled the trousers to his waist they would be OK but wearing them in the usual modern style they are baggy bum.
Of course that does not apply to everyone as waist to crutch differs on folk.
I have checked with the manufacturer and they come up with a difference of 5CM of NH and Wested and I though it was the same pattern.
I can change that no problem, maybe even double the price?
Send them back Platon and spec me what you want including pocket flap shape.
Cheers
Peter

PLATON wrote:I don't kno if he makes them with cavalry twill

From Indy Magnoli's website:

Medium Weight Blend Wool Cashmere [10 oz fabric]
100% Pure Cavalry Twill Cotton [10 oz fabric]
100% Pure Cotton [12 oz fabric]
100% English Wool (11 oz fabric)

Peter,

Thanks for doing this...

Additionally, I feel the Hem is too flimsy, it creases in half, and folds over my belt, because it really doesn't have any inards. Perhaps more material to make it more solid would help.

Also the metal clasp that holds your waist together is flimsy and pulls the hem out of shape. I'd have thought this would have been a button fastening, talking of which the bottom most button on the fly is hard to fasten as it is so close to the bottom of the fly. Your old manaufacturers didn't space out the buttons properly I think.

If you need a picture I can provide.

Regards,

PLATON wrote: Finally, I NEED to ask.
Anybody who has NH pants size 32 and he is approximately my height can measure the afforementioned distance and let me know PLEASE?

I'm 1.76 and I wear 32" trousers. I have both Wested and Noel Howard. I have to admit the Noel Howard have a much better fit but still a bit baggy for someone like me with chicken legs. What kind of measure do you need Platon? All around under the crotch?

Send them back Platon and spec me what you want including pocket flap shape.
Cheers
Peter

WOW!!! Thanks Peter

I just want to say that I didn't mean to be derogatory.
What we're all trying to do here is to improve the product so that we can buy some more.

One thing I 'd like to add here is that the goal should not be to create a modern style pants, but baggy pants that won't be "too baggy".

Speaking as an over 50 year old male, PLATON's trousers sound perfect! They STILL need a watch pocket added.

No, I'm serious.

Guess you need to make another pattern, Peter. Don't get rid of the one PLATON's trousers are made from!

Regards! Michaelson

Peter, thanks again for listening to the customers!

I have a pair of Air Force trousers from 1950. Essentially, they are pretty much the same trousers made in WWII. These pants are baggy in the leg and meant to be worn higher up. I like that. Oh, and Michaelson, they have the watch pocket. If the Westeds come out anything like these trousers, then I think I'll have to add that to my list of things to save up for!

I like Harrison_Davies' suggestions, too.

bink

binkmeisterRick wrote:Oh, and Michaelson, they have the watch pocket. bink

See? SEE?!!! Told ya so!

Regards! Michaelson

Platon, my pants are a 32" waist but I'm 5' 2" as apposed to 6' 3"

I was going to suggested you take them to a tailor have them taken up in the inside leg as that is what I did with my ToD NH pants.

id have to use braces to wear them high, which i wont do.

before i got a pot belly i used to wear my pants high, but my pot belly prevents tnat now, my pants actually rest on my waist line now.

PLATON wrote:Anybody who has NH pants size 32 and he is approximately my height can measure the afforementioned distance and let me know PLEASE?

You talking 32 lenght I asume? My old NH are 85cm but I can't say for sure what size they are now. I'm guessing about 33-34.

PETER: Thank you for posting.

That was a beautiful post, and it hits the nail on its head. Many people have posted pictures here, and have caused me great trepidation when purchasing. They don't look screen-accurate, they just look ill-fitting. The problem is, I'm not so sure too many people here are over six feet with harrison ford's build. And even then, his pants looked baggy (sometimes saggy) on him.

Little wonder when I come across some pictures people post, I think, THOSE PANTS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE SWALLOWING PEOPLE ALIVE. Peter, you're absolutely right about how those pants from WWI and WWII were worn very high on the natural waist, but nobody, I repeat, NOBODY wears pants like that anymore except my grandparents (and w/ suspenders).

Peter, if you decrease the rise in the pants, especially close to the smaller waists like 30, 32, I think many customers will be very satisfied. If I'm not mistaken, short-rise is 10", medium 11", long 12" - correct? Anyways, if Peter makes the following changes, I'm definitely going to get at least one pair, and if he offers plain-front, make that two.

Bottom line, those long-rose pants may be screen-accurate, but very few people here will LOOK screen-accurate in them (until the rise is shortened).

PLATON wrote:Received my wested pants size 32 yesterday.
By comparing them with some close enough pants found the following.

Both pants total length 105cm (my height is 178 cm)
Wested distance from hem to crotch = 75cm
Close enough pants distance from hem to crotch = 82.5 cm

The above means that the Wested pants are too baggy around the area of the pelvis/thighs/bottom. This is a very unpleasant feeling. I understand that it was a little baggy in the film, but no that baggy.

I know that the Magnoli pants are on the opposite side being too narrow there. Magnoli will come saying that his pants are bespoken and that I can specify this in my order, but there are two major disadvantages. 1st I don't kno if he makes them with cavalry twill, 2nd there is 30 days waiting time.

Finally, I NEED to ask.
Anybody who has NH pants size 32 and he is approximately my height can measure the afforementioned distance and let me know PLEASE?

I think you mean

Wested's INSEAM is 75 cm (29.5")
Close enough's INSEAM is 82.5 cm (32.5")

Thus, that means the rise is 3 INCHES longer! Basically your crotch seam hangs 3 inches lower than your other pants. That is a tremendous difference, and no wonder you feel like the pants is too saggy in the seat.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. And I really wonder why nobody else has never mentioned that before.

Anyway, Peter said he will fix it.

Canyon wrote: I was going to suggested you take them to a tailor have them taken up in the inside leg as that is what I did with my ToD NH pants.

Canyon, is this alteration dangerous for the look of the trousers? I was thinking to do the same with mine

PLATON wrote:Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. And I really wonder why nobody else has never mentioned that before.

Actually I think we talked about this a lot... although not recently.

[quote="milesfields]

I think you mean

Wested's INSEAM is 75 cm (29.5")
Close enough's INSEAM is 82.5 cm (32.5")

Thus, that means the rise is 3 INCHES longer! Basically your crotch seam hangs 3 inches lower than your other pants. That is a tremendous difference, and no wonder you feel like the pants is too saggy in the seat.[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head....

Many nails are being hit in this MC Hammer thread.

Nail in the coffin?

erri_wan wrote:Canyon, is this alteration dangerous for the look of the trousers? I was thinking to do the same with mine

Erri, mine came out fine (the tailor took an inch and a half off and now they fit much better).

Hmmm, despite the somewhat malicious title, this has turned into an interesting thread.

I'm a newbie here, but feel qualified to respond since I own two pairs of Wested trousers. One of the main reasons I bought the second was that I liked the classic 40's cut so much, particularly the rise. In my opinion, modern pants ride just too low on the waist, contrary to that period look from the Indy films.

Of course I'm 6' 2" tall, so I benefit from the long rise, whereas others do not. So here's a humble suggestion for Peter: maybe Wested could make 2 models of trousers, one with a "regular" rise for those of average height and one with a "long" rise for those of us with longer legs.

Michael

Wested's INSEAM is 75 cm (29.5")
Close enough's INSEAM is 82.5 cm (32.5")

Thus, that means the rise is 3 INCHES longer! Basically your crotch seam hangs 3 inches lower than your other pants. That is a tremendous difference, and no wonder you feel like the pants is too saggy in the seat.

I think a better way to properly measure the inseam would be to take the outseam measurement and subtrac the inseam measurement from that. That will give you exactly what the rise is. Simply taking the inseam may not be accurate because they may sit differently or hit your feet differently.

Being a vintage clothing wearer I felt like I should chime in on this. Pants in the 1930's and 1940's were very wide legged. Some of the styles of the 30's were extreamly wide legged often with big cuffs. In those days men wore pants on the actual waist unlike how pants are worn today. I love the feeling of period pants, the wide legs look better and have a great style to them. The Indy pants were based on the officiers pinks of the period, being Army and Army Air Force. Indy pants should have a wide leg cut and be worn a little higher on the body. The only differencr between the Indy pants and the officers pinks was that: pinks are plain front, Indy pants have the pleated front. My guess is the pleated front was used to add a civilian style to the pants. Ok my two cents...

JOSH! Where have you been, dude? Nice of you to chime in...

I have to agree with Michaelson and Bogie1943, I think the cut of Peter's trousers are fine. I'm 5' 10" with a 36" waist and 32" inseam and the trousers are perfectly proportioned for me.

I think the problem is that the younger crowd are too used to the skimpier cut of modern fashions. I also think that some folks might be confused about the term "waist" and where it's located on the body. The natural waist is about the level of one's navel and is where a waistband is supposed to ride, not lower or higher. Now waistbands generally were slightly higher during the thirties, but the natural waist should be a good compromise. As for the fuller leg, I think it creates a much nicer outline.

Don't throw out that pattern, Peter!

Cheers!

Well actually I used to wear my pants at the navel but as stated I'm bigger now and find it uncomfortable to wear pants over my gut...so the suggestion of two patterns is good.

I love oldies when they say us young ones haven't lived...but it is annoying, I'm 32 not 12. I'm glad the pants fit some fine, but for others its a pain in the rear.

I dont think taller or average people realise how hard it is to find clothes that fit smaller people. I hate being under average.

Would be nice to be catered to for once rather than have to pay over the odds or have to get things altered.

Having 2-3 inches of extra material hanging loose is uncomfortable as it rubs against the thighs and also make
you look alien with smaller legs.

Baggers wrote:I have to agree with Michaelson and Bogie1943, I think the cut of Peter's trousers are fine. I'm 5' 10" with a 36" waist and 32" inseam and the trousers are perfectly proportioned for me.

I think the problem is that the younger crowd are too used to the skimpier cut of modern fashions. I also think that some folks might be confused about the term "waist" and where it's located on the body. The natural waist is about the level of one's navel and is where a waistband is supposed to ride, not lower or higher. Now waistbands generally were slightly higher during the thirties, but the natural waist should be a good compromise. As for the fuller leg, I think it creates a much nicer outline.

Don't throw out that pattern, Peter!

Cheers!

If I can talk as a young man, if someone wears trousers like Wested ones high he can only look stupid or ridiculous. I'm pleased that for some of you the trousers fit well but for many (MANY) others they look too baggy, too low a crotch and the general feeling that you're swimming in them.
About "modern" fashion, it's at least 50 years that no one wears trousers so high so... I don't know what "younger crowd" you're referring to. I don't want to lack respect but let's face it, here we want to look like indy as much as possible and for most of the people Wested trousers are too baggy. I think a slight alteration of the pattern at this point is really needed and thanks Peter for considering the crowd.

Harrison_Davies wrote:Well actually I used to wear my pants at the navel but as stated I'm bigger now and find it uncomfortable to wear pants over my gut...so the suggestion of two patterns is good.

I love oldies when they say us young ones haven't lived...but it is annoying, I'm 32 not 12. I'm glad the pants fit some fine, but for others its a pain in the rear.

I dont think taller or average people realise how hard it is to find clothes that fit smaller people. I hate being under average.

Would be nice to be catered to for once rather than have to pay over the odds or have to get things altered.

LOL HD I have to wholeheartedly agree with you there, It'd be very nice if trousers were available custom sized. Tall people don't realise that most trousers are tapered towards the ankle and "short" fittings are not just the legs cut short but with the tapering started higher up as well.

Westeds cut down are too wide at the ankle for me, as would standard NH's, I'm guessing the custom NH's would be better but I can't justify the price tag. I guess my best option for trousers is Magnoli and I may just try those.

Peter if you are listening, short fittings on trousers too please?!

One of the things that bring me back to Wested again and again is the custom sizing, before I found them I would usually have to make do with small jackets where the sleeves were too short and the chest too small or mediums where the body was too long.

The trousers were the one thing the costumers got wrong. If Indy were alive in the 30s and wearing his pants where Harrison Ford wore them, people would have looked at him like he was crazy. The pants were one place where screen accurate and historically accurate were at odds. Those pants are more of an anachronism than the MK VII.

Still, the Indy look is a modern baggy pant.

You guys forget something.
Wested sells Indiana Jones pants, NOT 30's pants.
Therefore the pants should be worn as Ford wears them in the film.

It's about screen accuracy, not historical accuracy.

yeah, that's the thing. In the films, as far as I can tell, Indy doesn't wear them hiked up to his natural waist. In most of the pictures posted on these forums as well, action or not, harrison ford wears the pants in a modern way, more on his hips.

So it does have a slightly saggy look.

The problem is, Harrison Ford is 6'1" - he can sag those trousers a bit, and it looks a little casual and charming.

Unfortunately, not every indy fan is 6'1". And if I'm not mistaken, it appears the pants offered by vendors have the same rise across the different waist sizes. So, as far as I can tell, the average fan can't even wear the pants like indy did - it would have to be hiked up as far as possible.

That's not screen accurate.

IMHO, assuming that the demographics of indy fans are 'average' in size, Wested would be far better off by offering a 'regular' rise, so that the average fan can wear them like indy - more on the hips than the waist.

If sleeves are sized to fit the average person, and vendors offer the long-sleeve option for the long-limbed, why shouldn't the rise of trousers be the same?

Granted, if I were Harrison Ford's dimensions, I would simply say, "don't change a thing!" But given the dynamics or market analysis, knowing who the consumer base is, I would recognize the fact that the majority of indy fans are males around 5'9" and the fact that the pants are a fundamental utilitarian article of clothing and not just a prop or costume piece.

Nobody would look at a pair of Indy pants and scream 'THOSE ARE FROM RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK!" - the fan who orders the pants will do so because he/she has the intent of wearing them for personal gratification. The jacket is already custom made. The shirts are pretty much standard - can't go wrong too much, especially compared to how ill-fitting your average OTR shirt is.

But pants? Nobody will wear pants with a crotch that hangs to your knees. It doesn't matter if they were an exact molecular copy of Harrison Ford's pants, because they doesn't fit, they don't look right. And thus, the fan has three options:

1) Disappointed, return to vendor
2) Keep it next to mom's pumps and nightgown and wear them when nobody's looking like a dirty little secret, you can pretend you are harrison ford's little brother wearing his clothes
3) Spend some serious cash on altering them - hemming is a given, sunk cost really, even if you ordered the hem finished you probably guessed wrong and have to redo it, but shortening the rise, taking in the seat - how much money are we talking about here?

Anyways, that's my forty cents.

milesfides wrote:yeah, that's the thing. In the films, as far as I can tell, Indy doesn't wear them hiked up to his natural waist. In most of the pictures posted on these forums as well, action or not, harrison ford wears the pants in a modern way, more on his hips.

So it does have a slightly saggy look.

The problem is, Harrison Ford is 6'1" - he can sag those trousers a bit, and it looks a little casual and charming.

Unfortunately, not every indy fan is 6'1". And if I'm not mistaken, it appears the pants offered by vendors have the same rise across the different waist sizes. So, as far as I can tell, the average fan can't even wear the pants like indy did - it would have to be hiked up as far as possible.

That's not screen accurate.

IMHO, assuming that the demographics of indy fans are 'average' in size, Wested would be far better off by offering a 'regular' rise, so that the average fan can wear them like indy - more on the hips than the waist.

If sleeves are sized to fit the average person, and vendors offer the long-sleeve option for the long-limbed, why shouldn't the rise of trousers be the same?

Granted, if I were Harrison Ford's dimensions, I would simply say, "don't change a thing!" But given the dynamics or market analysis, knowing who the consumer base is, I would recognize the fact that the majority of indy fans are males around 5'9" and the fact that the pants are a fundamental utilitarian article of clothing and not just a prop or costume piece.

Nobody would look at a pair of Indy pants and scream 'THOSE ARE FROM RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK!" - the fan who orders the pants will do so because he/she has the intent of wearing them for personal gratification. The jacket is already custom made. The shirts are pretty much standard - can't go wrong too much, especially compared to how ill-fitting your average OTR shirt is.

But pants? Nobody will wear pants with a crotch that hangs to your knees. It doesn't matter if they were an exact molecular copy of Harrison Ford's pants, because they doesn't fit, they don't look right. And thus, the fan has three options:

1) Disappointed, return to vendor
2) Keep it next to mom's pumps and nightgown and wear them when nobody's looking like a dirty little secret, you can pretend you are harrison ford's little brother wearing his clothes
3) Spend some serious cash on altering them - hemming is a given, sunk cost really, even if you ordered the hem finished you probably guessed wrong and have to redo it, but shortening the rise, taking in the seat - how much money are we talking about here?

Anyways, that's my forty cents.

Bravo well said and thank you.

I agree with what milesfides said except of the fact that I tend to believe that the Wested pants is not a copy of what Harrisson Ford was wearing in the film.

In other words, if Harrisson Ford wears the Wested pants, they will look more baggy/saggy on him than the pants on film.

That's simply because as Peter admitted earlier his pants have a 5cm difference that the NH pants (although he thought it was the same). And trust me, these 5cm make a lot of difference.

However, luckily for all, Peter is going to fix that.

Just on yours or on all of them

You know - just a note... you really don't want them too tight in the seat area... My Magnoli pants are kind of tight there and it's not always the most comfortable thing. Granted, the pants themselves are totally awesome - they themselves are comfy, but you don't want them too tight or you'll be "eating" your underwear!

Pax Christi,
Shane

IndyMcFly wrote:but you don't want them too tight or you'll be "eating" your underwear!

Somebody has a rear end of a bus for a bottom methinks haha!

I'm 6'3" and as I have said before, if my Wested pants were any shorter in the rise, I would be singing soprano. I think the only folks having trouble with the cut of the pants are short people.

What he said!

Michael

Typical "apart-height" attitude from the tall guys!

Of course you're the first to complain if the inside leg of unhemmed pants come in less then 33"

Part of the reason this hobby works for me is the custom sizing on the jackets. All we're asking for is a trimmer cut and shorter sizes on the trousers!

Bufflehead, I thought the reason you were singing soprano was because of what the wife did to you after your last purchase!

Harrison_Davies wrote:Somebody has a rear end of a bus for a bottom methinks haha!

I know you're not talking about me... with my 28" waist and 116 lb weight. I'm a small guy. My behind is definitely NOT large. Those are the Magnoli pants I'm wearing. My pants are just a little tight, as you may be able to see. All I'm saying is if you make them too tight, you'll end up with a major wedgie if you're doing a lot of stairs.
Btw - I'm 5'8".

In Christ,
Shane

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Shane, leave it to you to post a link to a picture of your backside!

:tup: Just defending my buns! That's actually a photo from the Magnoli pants review thread I did.

In Christ,
Shane

That's excellent, Shane...the link made that one of the coolest posts ever.

Yeah, you just got the official IS COOL award.

INDYMCFLY IS COOL ®

IndyMcFly wrote::tup: Just defending my buns!

Shane, you made my day. I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while!

IndyMcFly: Defender of buns everywhere!

I used to have buns like that...but now I DO have a bottom like the rear end of a bus...odd tho Westeds are STILL large/baggy.