Pattern: Vogue 2532 c. 2001
Pattern Description: Shorts, micro-mini, above mid-knee, below mid-knee or straight-legged pants have waistband, carriers, in-seam pockets and mock-fly zipper. A,B,C,D: side slits and stitched hems. E: cuffs. Purchased top and belt. I made the above mid-knee view.
Pattern Sizing: (12-14-16) I chose a size 16 which actually did match my measurements and the finished garment measurements were just right.
Were the instructions easy to follow? Yes.
What did you particularly like or dislike about the pattern? I wanted a pair of slim walking shorts, the opposite of my almost skirt-like pair. I also learned a new faux fly zipper technique that I will be using again which resulted in my best looking zip ever, exterior and interior. The only thing I didn't like was that they are too long waisted. However, that could have been fixed if I had made a muslin.
Fabric Used: A 44/45" madras cotton print FREE from the VA/DC/MD blogger swap, 7" Robin zipper in Lead Blue, thread, fusible knit interfacing, and a snap closure.
![]() |
| Isn't that a gorgeous inside zipper view? |
For the waistband I decided to forgo the pattern instructions to trim the corner of the seam allowance at an angle and instead followed this great Perfect Corners on Waistbands tutorial from Lisa G. at Notes From a Mad Housewife instead. And yes, they turned out perfect!
Would you sew it again? Would you recommend it to others? Yes and yes.
Conclusion: I adore this fabric, it's a mystery but it has such a soft yet firm hand I would not be surprised if this were my first silk/cotton mix. Luckily, I have enough left to make a top from next summer. Too bad that the front crotch length was too long. If only I had checked more closely. I could possibly take off the waistband and replace it after cutting one inch or so from the top of the shorts if I also shorten the zipper from the top by an inch. I may* do that next summer, this year I'll just pretend I meant to make high-waisted shorts.
Images: My own, McCall Patterns
*knowing me, probably NOT.





















