Saturday, April 2, 2011

Saddlebag thighs--the old-fashioned breech

Does anyone know why breeches used to be designed this way? Wss it just that fabric back then had limited stretch?


12 comments:

  1. BarbaraApril 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

    Fabric had NO stretch. They were made out of a lightweight cotton duck sort of material. After you washed them in lye soap enough times they didn't act like sand paper.
    OTOH, they did hide a lot of flaws. lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousApril 2, 2011 at 3:46 PM

    That and the fact that it was the fashion of the era. Most people back then were not wearing tight pants, skirts, dresses... or even bathing suits for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JeanApril 2, 2011 at 3:55 PM

    My little bit of research suggests that yes, it was to give freedom of movement before stretch fabrics became the norm. Still tight around the leg, but even then they were open and most often buttoned closed.

    As a matter of fact, in the hunter appointments classes of the 1970's rider's breeches were required to have buttons at the knee the the garter of the boot was supposed to rest between two of them. So tall boots had a strap at the top too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM

    I think it was a combination of ease of movement (no stretch fabric) and cooling, as they originated in India. Modesty may have played a part as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JaniceApril 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM

    Stretch limitations was a big part of it. If you've ever sewn with 60s-70s era stretch fabric, you know the limitations of the material and don't want to push it. Elsewise? Rrrrrrip! The puffiness of the jodhpur style really is a great solution to the problem.

    Shirts that both men and women wore in the 19th and early 20th centuries also had more volume and length than modern shirts. You try tucking that much material in without some room and you'll regret it. So the style had some ideology and some practical aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ArethusaApril 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM

    Those look rather comfy...

    ReplyDelete
  7. AllieApril 2, 2011 at 8:30 PM

    More a matter of modesty, I think - my mom learned to ride in breeches like that, and passed hers on to me as a teen - I used them for dress up but never had the nerve to wear them for real! The fabric does NOT stretch and is sort of a canary twill.

    I think it would have been shocking to wear skin tight anything in the 40s, when even slacks were seen as scandalous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Calm, Forward, StraightApril 2, 2011 at 8:34 PM

    Actually, I've cliniced with an old school classical trainer who told us that tight elasticky breeches - he called them sausage casings - impede your seat, and that loose cotton breeches were the best.

    ReplyDelete
  9. East BoundApril 2, 2011 at 8:58 PM

    I have no idea but would LOVE to get my hands on a pair and do a photo shoot!

    ReplyDelete
  10. billieApril 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM

    My first pair of breeches were like that and I loved them. The fabric looked and felt expensive and made a lovely sound when I put them on. On a slender girl, they looked quite good - not sure how that style would translate to the here and now, though... :) I like/need the forgiving stretch of today's fabrics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AllieApril 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM

    It occurred to me that I could just look it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodhpurs

    ReplyDelete
  12. panavia999April 3, 2011 at 8:39 PM

    That's a Jean Harlow Hollywood glamour shot probably for "Saratoga". I never heard that Harlow could ride. How about this as a point of comparison?
    http://www.wallflowerdispatches.com/?p=473
    Here is a sewing pattern for riding breeches which you can see is designed for freedom and comfort:
    http://www.unsungsewingpatterns.net/2010/01/pictorial-review-1438-ladies-riding.html

    It's ALL about practicality. The old style riding pants are extremely durable, cool, roomy and very comfortable. The rider's thighs, rear and waist are free of encumbrance or binding. There is reinforcement where needed and emphasis on freedom of movement. Except for the modesty factor, the intent is no different than today's breeches and jodphurs. The fact this old style lasted so long says something about it's practicality. And modest! No camel toes back then! I don't understand why people shake their heads over it now. 60 years from nowpeople will say "can you believe they wore that?" about today's riding clothes.
    Unlike most of the current tight riding pants, the old style is not unflattering. It doesn't show lumpy butts and thighs. It's an equalizer. Anyway, what does fashion have to do with horsemanship? Riding clothes should only serve horsemanship, not vanity. Once a person is on horseback, only poor seat and poor hands really show.
    Instead of looking at one feature that seems odd today because one is not used to it or has not experienced it, look at what is so practical about that style back in a day without the modern miracle of synthetic fabrics and cheap drycleaning.

    ReplyDelete

Hi Guys, Your comments are valued and appreciated -- until recently I never rejected a post. Please note that I reserve the right to reject an anonymous post.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)