Crotch room in 30's and 40's style trousers?

[BruceTracy]

Edit:
This may seem an odd question, but how much room in the crotch and or rise did trousers from the golden era have? I know the rise was much longer than on today's trousers, but did this mean more room or just an excuse to pull the trousers up as high on the waist as possible? I don't mean I think these trousers sagged in the crotch but that the fit and rise might be similar to that of some sweat pants. I guess what I also mean to ask is whether these trousers, when worn high were worn so high as the have an uncomfortably small amaount of crotch room. This brings me to my most relevant concern: how much crotch room is too much or too little in a good pair of trousers?

 

[repeatclicks]

Edit:
This may seem an odd question, but how much room in the crotch and or rise did trousers from the golden era have? I know the rise was much longer than on today's trousers, but did this mean more room or just an excuse to pull the trousers up as high on the waist as possible? I don't mean I think these trousers sagged in the crotch but that the fit and rise might be similar to that of some sweat pants. I guess what I also mean to ask is whether these trousers, when worn high were worn so high as the have an uncomfortably small amaount of crotch room. This brings me to my most relevant concern: how much crotch room is too much or too little in a good pair of trousers?

Not too sure about what you are asking here, but to be honest, the rise of trousers in the golden era varied greatly. Some were higher than others. While its true that most gents wore their trousers either at the waist or a bit higher, it definitely varied. I wear trousers worn from a pattern made in 1950, hollywood-style with drop loops etc, and the cut of them is generous, about a 19" cuff and a 12-13" rise in the crotch. If you look at Oxford Bags, those were extremely wide in the leg with a similar rise in the crotch. You just need to find what works best for you.

 

[skyvue]

I don't think they were roomier in the crotch -- the longer rise was used to wear the trousers higher, not the crotch lower.

 

[scotrace]

Well, 80% of the posts here were off topic and went off on a testicular tangent. Let's stay on topic, if there is one.

 

[Feraud]

There is a difference between rise and roominess of cut in pants. The increase or lack of rise does not strictly dictate the fit in the seat and crotch of pants.

This brings me to my most relevant concern: how much crotch room is too much or too little in a good pair of trousers?

This is a subjective call. Some people wear more fitted pants and others less.
No one can tell you how much or little you find comfortable in pants.

 

[Tomasso]

There is a difference between rise and roominess of cut in pants. The increase or lack of rise does not strictly dictate the fit in the seat and crotch of pants.

That's called the Stride.And you're correct, they're two different animals.