This brings up the question, when measuring: where is the hip, where is the waist?iain wrote: In my case I was talking about the hip-knee length, and NOT waist-knee. the stuff I wear, even the kilts, are all hipsters. I like the style better because I hate having anything binding around my waist.
When I wear pants -- or skirts -- there's a point where the belt/waistband settles. In back, it's the small of the back. In front, it's a point 1 -- 3 inches below my navel. If I'm going to do something that moves my abdomen in and out, like singing or exercise, the belt slides down to the 3" point. (I think this is what the Utilikilt folks call the "beer-gut adjustment".)
Now, when I bought a kilt, the kiltmaker insisted that the belt went above the navel, but this never felt comfortable -- it is like having a blanket wrapped tighly around my stomach, and makes it uncomfortable when I breathe deeply.
But when I let the kilt slide down to where my belt naturally wants to be, my hips feel constricted.
Now, my hip measurement (the widest part) is about 48", while my waist is about 45" (spare me the fat jokes.) And the hip reaches this point about 1--3" below where my belt sits.
I've concluded that for me, for clothing purposes, my hips are about 2" below my waist, which is more or less 2" below my navel.
In other words, there's not much distinction between knee to hip and knee to waist, at least not for me. Also, there's not much flaring-out at the hips for clothing to "ride on the hips". Evidently, though, other men are built with more distance between them.
It's not quite as bad as that. 110" / pi is roughly 35". Factoring in my 45" waist size, there's only 75" to "flare out". This works out to a little less than 45 degrees.crfriend wrote:A hundred and ten inches? That's almost ten linear feet! On a garment that's maybe, taken as a full circle, perhaps 56 to 60 inches in diameter? No wonder you feel naked; if you put that into motion, it'll flare out to almost 90 degrees and show the world your "family jewels".AMM wrote: I'd love to try wearing shorter skirts. My waistline--mid knee length is about the same as yours. I made an 18" skirt (about 110" hem circumference), and when I wear it, I feel like naked. I worry that the slightest move will expose "what's under".
But it's still enough, given that I only have about 8" from the hem (when straight down) and said "jewels". And since the skirt is out of plain cotton (quilting weight), it's also susceptible to "Marilyn Monroe"ing.
This was one of the first skirts I ever made, when I was experimenting with full skirts. This degree of fullness (4 radians or more) works well with longer skirts -- 25" and longer -- where there's more distance from hem to the immodest parts, and where there's so much cloth that something will be in the way. Plus, I usually wear a half slip or petticoat underneath which is not so full. For shorter skirts, such as 22" ones, I'm looking at more like 2 radians. For an 18" skirt, this would mean an 80" hem.
I should note that I've only made A-line skirts (by that, I mean a triangular profile, whether with a gored design or tiered.) There's an additional issue with gathered skirts that the hem tends to go way up (due to twisting) when they spin one way and then reverse. This is a move that they often experience when contra dancing -- the infamous "twirl".
Obligatory link: http://www.qccd.org/skirts.html.
-- AMM
