The Importance of Skirt Shape

[AMM]

I've noticed lately that I wear very few of the skirts I have bought, especially bought new. Most of the skirts I have bought, even when I think they look pretty, don't look good on me. On the other hand, the ones I have made tend to look good on me, even when I think I did a poor job on them.

I think the problem is that most women's skirts (and what other can you buy?) these days are tight around the hips, and, if they flare at all, do so at mid-thigh or even at the knees. This seems to emphasize my "spare tire", not to mention giving me a feeling of being restricted in my movements. I recently bought a beautiful skirt on-line, but returned it because even though it was 3X, it clung too closely to the area below my waist. I've noticed that the models in the catalogs I buy all seem to have flat tummies, and the skirts all look good on them. (But then, anything would look good on them!)

I also have a couple of those "Indian" skirts -- made of gauzy cotton, usually tiered, and fairly full, and they also make me look fat: they drop straight from the waistband to the floor, which makes me look like a fire hydrant.

I've noticed that the skirts I like are all at least somewhat flared, but are also gathered at the waist. The ones I've been making lately are usually around 55-60" at the top, gathered to my 46" waist, and have a lining. This makes the skirt stick out some right at the waist and makes it roomy around the "booty" (to use the Utilikilt technical term ) The flaring -- usually at least 2 radians, more often 4 or more -- gives a triangular profile and makes for a nice wavy hemline. I also have a black skirt from Goodwill (thrift shop chain) that is hardly flared at all -- it goes from about 80" around (before gathering) at the top to 90" at the bottom, and I think it looks really good on me. (It also has a wavy hemline.)

I wonder if there are any general principles at work here?

[cessna152towser]

I own mainly kilts and the few skirts which I wear were made as men's garments in men's sizes by Midas Clothing, so I haven't had problems with waist/hip proportions. I have found a problem of buying standard sizes rather than made to meaure is that the garments are designed for young men with handsome figures, whereas I am pot-bellied and aging, with the result that my waist slopes about three inches from front to rear, so a garment which can have its hemline below knee at the front would be above the knees at the back.

[Peter v]

I've noticed lately that I wear very few of the skirts I have bought, especially bought new. Most of the skirts I have bought, even when I think they look pretty, don't look good on me. On the other hand, the ones I have made tend to look good on me, even when I think I did a poor job on them.

I think the problem is that most women's skirts (and what other can you buy?) these days are tight around the hips, and, if they flare at all, do so at mid-thigh or even at the knees. This seems to emphasize my "spare tire", not to mention giving me a feeling of being restricted in my movements. I recently bought a beautiful skirt on-line, but returned it because even though it was 3X, it clung too closely to the area below my waist. I've noticed that the models in the catalogs I buy all seem to have flat tummies, and the skirts all look good on them. (But then, anything would look good on them!)

I also have a couple of those "Indian" skirts -- made of gauzy cotton, usually tiered, and fairly full, and they also make me look fat: they drop straight from the waistband to the floor, which makes me look like a fire hydrant.

I've noticed that the skirts I like are all at least somewhat flared, but are also gathered at the waist. The ones I've been making lately are usually around 55-60" at the top, gathered to my 46" waist, and have a lining. This makes the skirt stick out some right at the waist and makes it roomy around the "booty" (to use the Utilikilt technical term ) The flaring -- usually at least 2 radians, more often 4 or more -- gives a triangular profile and makes for a nice wavy hemline. I also have a black skirt from Goodwill (thrift shop chain) that is hardly flared at all -- it goes from about 80" around (before gathering) at the top to 90" at the bottom, and I think it looks really good on me. (It also has a wavy hemline.)

I wonder if there are any general principles at work here?

Gentlemen, lt seems to me, that professional skirt advice should be readily available concentrated on one site. As there are many skirt wearers who have only recently been able to over win years of hesitence and are now wearing, are above the age of fourty and more, me too, and many have gained weight, which is quite normal but not asked for.

Can there be good looking skirts tailored for them, or will it stay a problem? Besides asking the professional kilt sites, assuming that there is a world of experience with gents of all sizes, Also ask women's fashion shops. As they also have experience clothing women who may also have gained some extra bagage. The principle is the same. There is so much expertise about, bundling it is probably very difficult. I think it would be the worth while to have general tips as to which styles of skirt work for which bodys.


PS this is where dresses for men may make their debut. Seriously. As they hang from the shoulders and drape over the rest of the body. That way it may give the body a more pleasing shape. They are not restrictive in the waist either. It is probably a shock for the real MAN skirt wearer, even to mention that, but who knows, there may be a large market for that. It's still a skirt, only hanging from the shoulders instead of from the waist.


Peter v

[AMM]

I own mainly kilts and the few skirts which I wear were made as men's garments in men's sizes by Midas Clothing, so I haven't had problems with waist/hip proportions. I have found a problem of buying standard sizes rather than made to meaure is that the garments are designed for young men with handsome figures, whereas I am pot-bellied and aging, with the result that my waist slopes about three inches from front to rear, so a garment which can have its hemline below knee at the front would be above the knees at the back.

I own a "traditional" Scottish kilt, and just sent back a Utilikilt, and both fit worse, or at least are less comfortable, than any women's skirt I have worn. (I have never purchased a non-kilt skirt intended for men, so I can't speak about them.) Where the women's skirts are only "close" in the hips and upper thighs, the men's kilts actually bind and constrict. Not to mention that "traditional" kilts are intended to be worn around the belly, sort of like wrapping 8 yards of carpet around your middle. (For my comments about the Utilikilt, see my posting in the "Kilts, Kilts" section.)

Conventional wisdom on kilt groups and other MUG groups seems to be that since men's hips are narrower, so should the cut around the hips be in MUGs. I don't know about anyone else, but there's something really wrong with this logic when it comes to my body. When I buy trousers, I always buy the "pleated front" variety because they look better on me than conventional trousers, and I notice that they have this same profile at and above the hips.

I've made a kilt with the 10 inch "gathering" at the waist that I describe in my original posting, and it is much more comfortable than the "traditional" kilt. (It was also designed to be worn at the "belt line.") The pleats don't hang as well as I would like, but that's because pleated skirts of any kind are very finicky about just how you sew them, and the print of the fabric (lots of vertical boundaries) makes even the slightest misalignment glaringly obvious. If I made a dozen of them, I think I would be able to get it right by the last one.

As for the three inches of front vs. back length, I've noticed exactly the same thing, including the number of inches. I now make all my skirts (and the kilt) with this allowance. It makes them hang much better.

[Peter v]

AMM, reading your reply, I ask myself, what type of body figure do you have? WE are talking about the way skirts fit and look, but realising that men vary in figure, just as women do, it is logical that garments made to fit a specific model don't fit other models well.

I don't know if this waist / belly problem is catered for in women's skirts.
I have skirts which are pretty much straight down from the waist to the hem. A normal slender man's fit.

Where as I have a couple of skirts where you can see ( on me) I'm straight figured, lean not slender, that they were made to fit a small waist line, and are tailored uotwards just under the waist line to follow the wider hip hourglass form which women generally have. On me the wider skirt can just be seen, but is visually not a big problem. If I had more belly, as many men do have, then this model of skirt would probably be most suitable, giving the belly more room, as we don't have wider hips as women do.

This is where we come to the point of extra sizing in skirts, which is not on the shelf, for men or women. It should be an option, as many women get more rounded as they progress in years too. They may also want to keep on wearing skirts, so are THEY catered for, and can we proffit from that if we too have figures that are somewhat different to that of the actual fashion.

Tailor made clothing is the only real way te be dressed correctly. but is just not available or more importantly not affordable. Unfortunately.
So i think that searching for labels which tend to make their skirts with a particualar snit, suitable to you is one way to get around the fitting problem.

Success.
Peter v.

[sapphire]

In my experience, the a-line shape is the friendliest for a variety of body types.

Very full skirts tend to make the wearer look dumpy and straight skirts tend to make the wearer look lumpy.

Slender, flat tummied people can wear just about any skirt shape.

Variations on the a-line are tieredskirts and gored skirts..

My observation is that circle skirts work better on slender people and that semi circular skirts work better on bellies and booties.

I've always had booty and wider hips and find that pleated skirts with the pleats stitched down work better than pleats that are not stitched down.

[AMM]

In my experience, the a-line shape is the friendliest for a variety of body types.

I've always thought of A-line and circle skirts as being the same category: they're both cones. What is the usual distinction between them?

My observation is that circle skirts work better on slender people and that semi circular skirts work better on bellies and booties.

Well, my dancing skirts are all pretty close to being full circle skirts, and I think they look pretty cool on me. (But then, nobody ever accused me of having good taste )

The main limitation to making them full circle skirts is that when I spin in most full circle skirts, the hem flaps around like a manta ray having a seizure, so I've tended to use 4.5--5.5 radians instead of a full 2*pi.

[Milfmog]

The main limitation to making them full circle skirts is that when I spin in most full circle skirts, the hem flaps around like a manta ray having a seizure, so I've tended to use 4.5--5.5 radians instead of a full 2*pi.

While we're asking questions can someone explain the use of radians to express the flare of a skirt?

Thanks.


Ian.

[crfriend]

While we're asking questions can someone explain the use of radians to express the flare of a skirt?

AMM touched upon the topic here:

http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9633

It's a way of working with circles and lengths. He describes it vastly better than I can. I had a hard enough time with degrees....

[sapphire]

You are correct. Most skirts can be classified as some form of a-line, as they drape into a conical shape when worn.

The classic a-line flares down the sides with darts front and back to accomodate bellies and booty. A-lines skirts (let's omit waistband and pockets for this discussion) are generally made from 2 or 3 pieces of fabric that have a roughly triangular shape.

I think for gored skirts as a collection of triangles that when sewn together make a cone.

The pieces of a circle style skirt are based on a semi-circular form, with the front being a 180 degree semi-circle and the back being two quarter circles.

So what's the difference between semi-circular skirts and gored skirts? Errrr.. Semantics? Marketing??

I suppose that you could argue that both style are based on circles and that the amount for flare is a question of degree.

[Milfmog]

While we're asking questions can someone explain the use of radians to express the flare of a skirt?

AMM touched upon the topic here:

http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9633

It's a way of working with circles and lengths. He describes it vastly better than I can. I had a hard enough time with degrees....

Thanks Carl,

I read that post before but could not quite get my head around it.

Now I've drawn it (pinched my son's geometry set!) it has become clear. I guess I'm just too visual to make sense of words sometimes.

Have fun,


Ian.

[AMM]

While we're asking questions can someone explain the use of radians to express the flare of a skirt?

It makes perfect sense -- if you're a mathematician

If you remember your mathematics, "radians" is a way to measure an angle -- it's the angle in degrees times pi / 180. You'll see where the angle comes in, but first you have to know how I make skirts.

Since I'm a mathematician, and not a dress designer, I make my skirts (in principle) this way:

Let's say I want my skirt to be 26" long and to "flare" 4 radians. I then draw two concentric circles on my fabric. Through secret methods that I can't reveal (it would violate National Security!), I figure out that the inner circle should have radius 14", and the outer circle 40".

Next I draw a line from the middle of the circle out to the outer circle (this is line #1.) I then measure 160 inches (4*40) along the outer circle, and 56" (4*14) along the inner circle, starting at the line. I then draw a second line (this is line #2), which (magic!) points at the center of the circle, just like the first one. This gives me a curved strip. I cut the curved strip out, sew the straight pieces together, and I have -- a (very floppy) lampshade! Or, a cone with the top cut off.

The two straight edges point to the middle of the circles, so you could look at the angle between them. If you use a protracter, you will get something like 230 degrees. Or you could notice that in each case, the length along the curve is 4 times the radius. That means that the angle is 4 radians.

I could have talked about degrees, but then I would have to do some fancy multiplication to get how long to measure along the circles. This way, I just multiply the 4 times the radius.

Anyway, you can see that a 4 radian skirt is going to be pretty flared, with a 160-inch hem. It turns out that a 2 radian skirt that was otherwise exactly the same would have had different radii, but would have ended up with a 108-inch hem. The logical extreme is a zero-radian skirt -- you cut out a straight strip of cloth, which gives you a "pencil" skirt.

P.S.:

The People Who Know About Sewing will know that you can't do it exactly this way in practice -- you can't get cloth that big, and you can't get tables that big. I usually make the strip in pieces, and I use some fancy mathematics so I don't have to actually draw the whole 40" radius circle. But I do end up with a curved strip of cloth just like I said.

[Milfmog]

Thanks AMM,

Yes, although it is a long time since I left formal education, I do remember the definition and use of radians as an angular measure. The confusion for me was two fold;

I was thinking in three dimensions and trying to measure the flare of the finished garment. By that approach a four radian skirt could not exist! If you visualise the measured angle between the central axis of a standing person and any radial line on the skirt, pi radians would be a pencil skirt going from the waist upwards! Angles greater than pi radians would simply not make sense.

Once I got past that and started thinking about the angles in the two dimensional net of the frustrum that would be sewn into a skirt, the concept of angles greater than pi radians made sense, however from your previous description it was not immediately obvious to me that you were including the distance from the centre of your body to the waistline of the skirt in your calculation of radius. You had included it, I'd just missed it.

So now I understand your description of a four radian skirt. What I still haven't figured out is how you got from a 4 radian pattern to

...a 4 radian skirt, which means that when fully extended (by spinning, say), it sticks out at roughly a 40-degree angle.*

I'm assuming this 40 degree angle is measured from the central axis of the wearer to a radius of the fully flared, finished garment, as I'd originally pictured the four radian definition that did not make sense to me.

My head hurts from trying to explain that; what I need is pictures

Thanks for the explanation, I'll try harder to work it out for myself next time

Have fun,


Ian.

* PS nice mix of measuring units by the way, I've never mixed radians and degrees even though I regularly shift between imperial and metric linear measures depending on the size of the measurement I considering;
- Spark plug gaps: "thou" 0.001 inches
- Drill holes for rawl plugs: millimetres
- Fence post sizes: inches
- Water depth: metres
- Journey lengths: miles
I guess I'm a product of an education system that did not know whether we would be metric or imperial by the time I left school. Result; I'm both, or maybe neither.