2/95th Rifles Forum Forum Index 2/95th Rifles Forum
Forum site for 2nd Battalion 95th Rifles Re-enactment Society
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hypothesis regarding Trousers / Pantaloons
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    2/95th Rifles Forum Forum Index -> General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Richard Warren
Forum Rifleman


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 84



PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:08 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Er, isn't it a feature of pantaloons that the side seam, instead of running straight up the leg into a waistband, is cut to run continuously across the seat and down the other leg? Which is easily visible when they're heavily laced. As in these Hussar pantaloons from the Stothard tailor's book at ASKB:





This is not, I think, limited to cavalry, as I've seen images of the Duke of Cumberland's Sharpshooters in this cut of pantaloon. Unless it was just an officer/posh volunteer thing? Or true of pantaloons at one period but not another ... ?
_________________
https://thisreilluminatedschoolofmars.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Trousers/Trowsers may well serve as an umbrella term for all legwear which is cut at, or in the near vicinity of the ankle. With this also comes the probable stipulation that the cuff of the trouser is closed (the wearer is able to remove the garment without suffering the need to unbutton or untie his cuffs) - making them distinct from breeches or pantaloons. We can lastly conclude that there is not a particular 'cut' that can be attributed to trousers, on the grounds that this term is treated as a supertype, and not any particular species of garment on it's own.


I think you've come up with a useful working approach. Each of your defining terms requires almost immediate exceptions to be made though. For instance, there are pantaloons that extend past the ankle (stirrup pantaloons and footed pantaloons, and trowsers that finish way above it, finishing mid calf and rather wide (gunmouth).
In the same fashion, there are overalls (cavalry or otherwise) that are considered as trowsers which don't have a closed cuff, and the gaiter Trowsers also fall into this bracket. And there are pantaloons that have a closed cuff (the stirrup version or footed version again).
Now, I won't bin a good working hypothesis just because it needs exceptions to be made, but this does leave us with quite a bootful of the exceptions almost instantly.

Regarding Richard's observation, I was hopeful that this would point us clear, but a quick look in The Taylor's Instructor (1809), and The Taylor's Complete Guide (1796), shows us the style he has suggested (called here 'without sideseam' or 'without leg seam' as a burgeoning fashion in 1796 for breeches AND pantaloons. Whereas the 1809 book has a pantaloon pattern without this characteristic, right next to breeches patterns without it.

Sadly neither book sees fit to deal with Trowsers, sticking only to a myriad different forms of breeches and pantaloons. The Taylor's Instructor contains a section on regimentals, that does not deal with legwear, so I assume the construction principals are identical for civilian and military legwear.
_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to muddy the waters further, I was looking through the excellent book on Louis Bazalguette (one of Prinny's tailors from 1780-90s) by his descendent, Charles Bazalguette. Louis ONLY talks of breeches and trowsers. I have found only one mention of pantaloons in the tailor's accounts reproduced in the book, and that is for 'pantaloon-brees' presumably pantaloon breeches. I spoke to the author and his feeling is that this is just Louis's particularity.
_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neibelungen
Forum Rifleman


Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Posts: 164



PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those images of hussar laced pantaloons are the single seam ones usually designed to be cut out of heavy stockinette fabric.

eg; Major General James Kemp
https://collection.nam.ac.uk/deta...&page=1&acc=1959-11-278-1


Or Graham's portrait at Apsley House.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup. The text in the book talks of 'scarlet stockin pantaloons'.

Looking at 1790s, Trowsers seem to have been in vogue in London, the pantaloon comes into its own around 1800, and then bows to Trowsers again c.1812.
_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Warren
Forum Rifleman


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 84



PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, so if we take the single seam pattern as usually in patent stocking or stockinette, for officers, providing a snug fit beneath the Hessian boot or whatever, does it follow that cloth or cassimere pantaloons, whether for officers or men, would be in the double seam pattern? Or is that an assumption too far?
_________________
https://thisreilluminatedschoolofmars.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Richard,

I have delayed replying until I was in the same place as my copies of the two tailoring guides I am leaning on (hopefully not too heavily). They have a lot to say on, 'breeches without the accustomed seams,' but I'm afraid the plot is thickening rather than becoming more opaque. They recommend the 'seamless breeches, to be made from, 'broad or narrow cloth, kerseymere, stocking, or any stuff that has the least elasticity in it'. Just to make it clear, they then suggest that only broadcloth will make the breeches as shown without the seam, as it has the width, and anything else will have to be pieced.
_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Warren
Forum Rifleman


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 84



PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mm. Thanks, Ben. I'm a bit confused, as I'd imagined, from the tailor's drawings, that the seamless type was made in two pieces, one for each leg ...

Google books came up with "The Tailor's Preceptor" (good title) of 1826, which is rather post-period, but shows the relationship between pantaloons (formed to the leg below the knee) and what it calls "pantaloon-trowsers", which I think the rest of us would call trousers [??] and are cut parallel from the calf down:

"Pantaloons are formed from the knee upwards by the same rule just laid down for breeches ... form the remainder of the leg-seam according to the measure; mark the bottom by a straight line; and hollow the underside as in breeches.

Fig 2 also represents pantaloon-trowsers. These are usually cut the same width at the bottom as at the calf, and may be formed by the same measure, from the straight line at the side. The bottom of the fore-part may be cut a little hollow, and the hind-part round."



Does this help? Maybe not.
_________________
https://thisreilluminatedschoolofmars.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose that's why The Tailor's Instructor favours the term, 'breeches without the accustomed seams' to 'seamless breeches'. One term is accurate, and the other has the ring of an advertising slogan. If you look at the two pictures from Rigimentals above, you will see some of the piecing he describes at work. So although the breeches lack the second leg seam, they are pieced in areas off the leg. Now piecing for reasons of economy is a straightforward practice, but it would hardly be necessary to show it on a pattern. When it is shown on a pattern I believe it is to illustrate the use of piecing to utilise particular properties of the stuff.

Nice point from the Preceptor. That's a useful (1820s) definition of the difference between pantaloon and pantaloon-trowser ( the latter a subset of trowser). It does fit my general feeling: that the pantaloon is a pair of breeches to the knee, extended past the knee, and fitted to the leg.
_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Townsend
Forum General


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 3577


Location: Wessex.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Veering back towards the rifle corps specifically for a moment, Rob G of the 5/60th group has kindly brought my attention to the passage in Scloppetaria that relates the legwear, 'usually served out to riflemen'.

"The pantaloons usually served out to riflemen are of two kinds, either of green cloth made to fit very tight and close, or of loose white Russia duck. Now the former of these labour under two objections: one, that they restrain the free use of the limbs and muscles, and therefore the sooner fatigue the wearer; and secondly, that they are more apt to get torn in leaping and running, from there being made so tight. The white duck Trowsers are we think equally inadmissible, for although they certainly are much pleasanter owing to their looseness, yet surely their colour is so glaring an absurdity, that the whole use of a green jacket is done away."
p.245 Scloppetaria, Henry Beaufoy, 1808.

The author then goes on to talk about his suggestions for improvements: in short, a looser green pantaloon finishing, 'mid-leg'.


_________________
                                                           
Rifleman LaLa
I'm part of the problem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    2/95th Rifles Forum Forum Index -> General Forum All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Link back to main web site