Vogue Patterns 7301: bootlegs from the year 2000

Don’t mess with these girls. They will go all Charlie’s Angels Reboot on you.

This is Vogue Patterns 7301, printed in 2000

I bought this one, new, on purpose, at a fabric store not in someone’s front yard, in the year 2000. I liked Version B (but without those silly ankle-slits) and hated Version C. So of course here I am sixteen years later in Version C. 

The fabric was a big square of upholstery stuff. My husband bought it, cut it, frayed the edges into a fringe, and we had it as a tablecloth or wall hanging or something for a long long time, and until eventually it was absorbed into the fabric stock. 

It’s orange and textured and definitely 100% polyester. I know because I had a sudden worry that this mystery fabric might burst into flame on my body, so I did a burn test, and happily it did not explode, but melted away into little black beads. So, polyester. 

The circles-and-squares pattern is woven in, and remind me of being in an airplane and looking down at those giant circular fields, you know the ones. They always seemed to me to be an inefficient use of space, until I realized that they are irrigated by a long sprinkler arm anchored to a central pivot point. So they naturally form a circular field. So it actually is pretty efficient. I felt pretty clever when I figured that out.

The pants are meant to have a back zip, but I always move back zippers to the side on pants to avoid the early morning ragefest that would be mistaking these for front zip, putting them on backwards, (hopefully) noticing something was wrong, taking them off, and putting them on again with the zip in back. Ain’t nobody got time for that. 

Speaking of zippers, here above is the envelope from the (possibly 70’s vintage) invisible zipper I used. I’m pretty delighted with it, notice how it says “Unique Invisible Zippers come in these 28 out of sight colors.” 

I’m totally amused by the use of the phrase “out of sight”, especially when paired with the word “invisible”. Like, is there a zipper in there at all? ‘Cause sounds like I won’t be able to see it. Some kind of Emperor’s New Clothes type situation going on in there. 

Fun pallet of colors. But avocado is missing. Maybe I’m wrong about the vintage of this zipper. 

*edit* Looked closer at the zipper envelope just now before throwing it away, it is from 1971 according to its copyright date. Welcome to the 21rst century, zipper, pleased to have you here. 

Ok, so, bootcut though, let’s talk about it. To my mind, bootcut (or bootlegged as the pattern calls these) are fitted through the thigh and then cut straight from the knee to ankle. Neither tapered nor flared. 

This pattern definitely flares out from knee to ankle, however I didn’t have quite enough fabric so I cheated by cutting straight from knee to ankle (a la bootcut) to allow the pattern pieces to nest, but then once the pants were together decided they looked weird and went back in and nipped out the knee, basically recreating a flared leg. 

Is this a bootcut? Seems like flare would best accommodate boots, but then why the name bootcut when flares already existed. Also funny to me: the girls on the envelope are definitely not wearing boots with their bootlegs. 

These pants flew together. I think of pants as being a time consuming project, but not this pair. 

They took 4.25 hours, and that’s including the hook and loop, and going back in and taking in the knee, and my fit alterations which were pretty minimal. They are super basic:  no back pockets, no slash pockets, no topstitching, no belt loops, no buttons, appropriate amount of wearing ease, good length, good depth. Would make a good starting place for creating other styles. 

Sew It.  


18 thoughts on “Vogue Patterns 7301: bootlegs from the year 2000

  1. I am the total opposite of you, I always move side zips to the back. I have uneven hips anyway so adding a zip there is just the worst! But I do enjoy your pant rage comment 😄😄 love the fabric, works well with the design.


  2. Man, that pattern cover reminds me so much of my teen years. Low slung bootleg jeans were the only thing you could find in the shops, at least until skinnies came into fashion. Yours are much more modern and wearable!


    1. It’s funny to me how drab the cover art is! Were the early 2000’s so somber? I mean, I was there, but I don’t remember. Those muted colors, they don’t exactly shout BUY ME. It’s a wonder I noticed and purchased this pattern. Was totally sold on that whole lowslung thing, I guess.


  3. I am with Naomi on the back zip – to me this is the best place for any zip, but I am often doing alterations at the sides so this may be why. I loved your description of putting them on back to front though – hilarious.


    1. In a work type situation, I too would rather the zipper be at the front or back on pants and skirts for exactly your reason. Taking in the sides or flattening the curve of a side seam is such a common alteration, and if there’s a zipper in there: no fun.
      For my own pants, there’s the back to front problem, but also there’s this problem: I still see a side zipper on pants as being a special and vintage detail, even though I am learning through these Sew It or Throw It projects that the overwhelming majority of vintage pants patterns, well up to the 90’s, have back zippers.


    1. My thoughts on zip fragility are that pants (should) have enough ease (either added wearing ease or ease provided by Lycra) to keep an invisible zipper from splitting. Whatever secures the waistline (hook and bar/loop, button, etc) does the job of resisting the pressure when you bend or sit. This keeps the pressure off the zipper, so it shouldn’t bust open. It’s not like a tight fitted bodice, where there’s no ease and there’s constant pressure on the zipper, made all the more acute and split-tastic when you bend.
      That said, some invisible zippers are more powerful than others! Sometimes if I’m worried I go ahead and Hulk Out on a zipper for a couple minutes to test it before I stitch it in.


  4. On the boot-cut question…I have thought for many years that there is a division between the patterns and store-bought pants that mean “flared so your boots fit under them” and the patterns and pants that mean “straight so you can tuck them inside your boots.”


  5. Ha I remember making these when this pattern first came out. Boot cut pants were the s at the time. I remember in the late nineties making a bunch in brocade with a side zip and face waistband and pairing them with Dr Martin’s. Flares (at least in NZ) were popular in the early 90’s so the boot cuts were considerable less flared than that. I still prefer boot cut over anything else.


    1. Sometimes I worry that descriptive terms with slight differences, like bootcut versus flare, have no actual relation to the pattern itself. Like, these may literally flare, but the description says bootcut because bootcut was a fashion word in 2000. But probably I’m just being paranoid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s