Fashion-Incubator

So excited to see this topic Kathleen!!! I have been searching for a butt lifting/fitting pair of jeans for years. I have tried everything from mass retailers to those dreaded $200+ boutique jeans. Nothing. (well I did find some at Banana Republic, but I don't think they would fit well on everyone)
Finding the right fit in jeans is more of nightmare to me than finding a swimsuit to flatter my shape..and it's clearly almost that time, too. I can't wait to see the responses!

Rockies do fit great, us cowgirls need to have room for our cheeks to use our seats to help control our horse's performance, Plus the bonus is they look good and feel great! Another good brand was Roper also a western jean but I'm not sure if the Company is still in business.
My vote is the McCalls pattern #6985

I'm voting for the McCall's #6985, too. And I bet the Style #2712 might be the best, at least for me (a large waist-hip differential).

I had terrible luck with the tummy tuck (got as a gift). The pair I got only works on an apple shape or maybe the larger sizes. I'm a size 4 with a little baby belly. It fit in the hips and thighs (nice) but the waist was gaping alot on me. Worse than any pair of jeans I've ever tried on. I can only wear it with certain long shirts but I save it for gardening since they're so loose. I have a kangaroo belly pouch right up front. I can overlap it four inches easy.

My choice is McCalls pattern #6985. There's no room for a real body in that crotch!

Peg

I tried on the tummytuck jeans. They do look pretty good, but are out of my budget and I prefer spandex-less jeans.

I have been noticing the mono-butt too - guess that goes with the uni-boob look. Jeez. Anyway, my vote is for McCall's 6985.

I could rant for hours about jeans. I had a pair of TR jeans that my DDs loved and talked me into getting... well, I ended up giving them to a friend of mine who is like a size 0 (I'm a size 4 and the rear of those jeans looked so bad on me). I've since come to the conclusion that many of the high-end jeans look best on.... pre-teens. Most real women with curves, um, help! We need attractive jeans!

I agree, the mcCall 6985 - cameltoe AND monobutt. Glad to know others are having fit problems too, I only have 2 pairs of pants because shopping for them is so frustrating..

Oh, would I be happy to find commercially available jeans that left room for the butt.
The worst draft is McCalls 6985, now I'm curious what pattern that was.
(BTW, your whole blog post shows up in Bloglines, not just the first few lines - I thought you might want to know to change it)

also -- i thought my roommate just had a really hot butt until just now, when i realized that she only wears used pants from the 80's. hmmm.

I know what you mean about lousy fitting jeans. I'm always on the search for a great fitting pair of jeans. I think a great pair of low rise jeans have the best fit.

I have a big butt/small waist/swayback, most jeans gap in the back for me.
Most pants, for that matter.

My favorite jean for fit is definitely the

Lola Boot cut from Lucky Brand.

True "lift and separate" butt lift technology

I say the McCalls 6985, too. The front, the back; not sure where to begin but I know that I would have to make more alterations if I were using that pattern than the others.

I'd say the McCall's #6985 and the Style #2712 both because there is barely any room for a butt on the back crotch seam. Yeesh!

All my jeans fit me weird. None of them are low rise but none of them go all the way to my natural waistline either. Or are supposed to go that far. They all go up that far in the back and are just below my belly button in the front. I have a fairly "normal" waist/hip difference and am slightly sway backed. Also my butt isn't flat. I definitely have a butt.

Thanks for helping me think, once again, about something that had never bothered me before.

I pick the McCall's 6985 pattern because of the lack of back extension.

I also think 6985.

Rockies are great, and available at low prices on eBay if you don't mind used jeans. You can find great styles and LONG inseams. Also, they rise to the waist.

I am dying to try a pair of NYDJ (Tummy Tuck) because they have stretch, long inseams, and a trouser cut. I was near their booth at a recent show and the rep said they would sell to me as a courtesy at wholesale. He took my information and said they'd call for size & CC number--they never did. NYDJ--are you listening? I want my jeans!! Maybe I'll win a pair here.

Marguerite

I vote for McCalls 6985, for all the reasons already mentioned.

By the way, you are going to tell us which pattern would give the BEST butt fit, too, aren't you? I'm thinking the Burda one....

Great topic.

I'm guessing 6985 because the curves are practically nonexistent--nearly straight lines.

The other thing about jeans fitting that bugs me is when the jeans fit in the hips but not in the waist. Once I find a pair of jeans to fit me in the hips, they are too big in the waist. If I try a pair that would fit me in the waist, they'd never fit me in the hips or thighs. I have many other athlete/dancer/skater friends who have the same problem.

I think it depends what the trousers are for - these aren't jeans drafts are they? So tricky to know what Kathleen is going to decide constitutes a poor fit.

Anyway - going with the topic of the post, I think the most droopy-bum draft is the last one, Burda #3752, so that's my vote.

I have reasonable luck with some cuts made by Lands End, Ralph Lauren, Lee and Talbots.

I cannot wear any of the high fashion jeans or even the department store private label jeans in the "modern" or "updated" cuts. I have a 11-12" drop between my full hip and waist. I could never wear the skinny straight jeans, even as a teenager.

I'm guessing that McCall's 6985 would give the worst fit-- that curve looks like it is intended to fit a paper doll.

Oh, and here's the missing URL to the unknown jeans picture:
http://www.vintagedesignerclothing.com/1722146.html (Katharine Hamnett London Jeans).

Jeans do look ugly today, and they don't fit me, that's why I use skirts mostly. A few years ago jeans with wide legs and formed waistbands were in, they fit me great, but aren't modern anymore.

All jeans are cut so tight around the thighs and made for a woman without curves. I can't wear that, but I don't think it looks good either.

I knew I couldn't be the only one annoyed with the jeans, thanks for the post!

I vote for McCall's #6985 because there's almost no difference between front and back crotch curve.

I eliminated Burda and Simplicity patterns. McCalls certainly looks to leave the least amount of room for your body, there is no shaping whatsoever in the legs, I think it would require more alterations. Since everyone seems to agree with the McCalls, I am going to be the contrarian and go with the Vogue pattern. Looking at that back leg, I think it has the worst fit. It is very close to the McCalls' horrible crotch curve. Considering if I were purchasing the patterns and making them up, I am sure the Palmer Pletsch pattern would give a much better direction on fitting/fixing these rather than Vogue's "vague" directions.

Regarding the Diamond Gusset pants, I have purchased them numerous times for my husband as work pants and we have been happy with them. He absolutely refuses any clothing made anywhere but the US. Diamond Gussets provided a great turnaround in order process to delivery and I have not had to mend a pair of their jeans yet--and he works construction. As to their fit... his weight fluctuations aside he tends to wear his pants with a belt, but not at his natural waistline (like most men in his milieu) . I have not ordered them for myself but then, I suffer from flatass so don't have the monobutt issues. My issues are more for the high hip and belly variety and as far as I know, there are no blue jeans manufacturer that address this (except maybe Tummy tucks? but I have not seen them in my local stores--but then again, I don't shop new for me anymore. I am just thanking the fashion gods that the waistlines are going up.

I have tried www.zafu.com, "find the perfect fitting jeans, pants and bras in three minutes", and found their suggestions helpful.

Also, as part of a jeans fit project I worked on, I found that rise shape and maniacal attention to meeting spec within tolerance were key to great and consistent fit. The "U" shape rise fit better than the "V" shape rise (and is trickier to achieve) and a 2-piece waistband corrects the gaping at the back waist. I suspect the "V" shape rise came from off-shore and/or "green" patternmakers.

I have worked on Tailored and Casual lines and find that denim is the trickiest - the variety of fabrics, patterns per color, washes, trim, etc.

I've always had a jeans fitting problem - even way back when - I have a womans bum and a waist and to fit my behind means usually that the waist is too large - OK, a belt helps.
Todays kids don't tend to look that way - many are overweight and the bum and waist of the pants create that large blob of flubber that moves around when they walk - flat assed jeans help push the blob upwards - where else can it go? It is not a flattering look.
The "western" jeans companies tend to fit the better way - full seat and a waist line included! Women with shape! I like 20X by Wrangler- there are different styles to accomodate the rise and all!
Who has time to make jeans anyway???

I forgot to add my 2cents worth - I think the McCall's would be awful followed by the Style.

I vote for the Burda 3752.

I agree with Eric on why we have the mono-butt. It's the current fashionable butt shape. (It may well have started as a patterning error, much like how I think the empire-waist seam across the bust line trend started.) The picture of the Rockies jeans looks strange to me, like they're riding up uncomfortably.

This isn't the first time that a double-mounded body part has been squished into a single mound in the name of fashion. Think of the pigeon-breasted mono-bosom of the 1890's. Silhouettes are constantly changing, and this is the currently fashionable one. I think the smashed-butt look is on its way out though, as the higher-waisted, loose-leg look is becoming more popular. Whether this will mean highlighting both cheeks again remains to be seen.

For 30 years I have done custom jeans and there is no pattern that I have found that is right so I do my own from customer measurements. I sell POSTED brand jeans in my store. They are designed by someone who, years ago, worked for Rocky, I believe. In some ways they are similar to Rockies but without the wedgie (which is slightly noticeable even in the picture above).They are designed to fit a woman's curves.
A good thing is that they are available in TWO CUTS, slim and relaxed, TWO RISES, neither of which is low (the mid-rise is my personal favorite),with BACK POCKETS (that actually do flatter) or without, and in three lengths,and 100%denim or stretch denim. It is a challenge to stock this much variety in sizes 0-20, especially when I get a customer who whants me to ship everything I have in her size.

I agree with Marnie and Eric; jeans have been this way for long enough that anything else looks wrong to me. I actually prefer monobutt! Then again, I was the 4 year old pulling her pants to fit at the hips because it was more comfy to me... I did the sag-bum look for a long time. Of course most jeans still fit horribly, trying to do the low rise without even thinking of the bum and everything. Correct fitting jeans look like cropped baby tees to me now... not current!

Well I don't know pattern drafting but I vote for the Simplicity 8239 mainly because I've had most trouble fitting Simplicity patterns! Looks like too much fabric under the butt. And, I don't see how the front and back side seams will match.

I go with the McCalls because there is no curve room around the butt. But some have more leg room than most will need. I have one pants pattern that I like, wide straight, well draped (The Sewing Workshop, Mimosa pant), but they are not jeans. I have no jeans that fit.

Oh thank God! I thought I was a rare case of having jeans (and most other pants) fitting so poorly. I'm glad I'm not alone, though I don't wish poor fitting pants on anyone :-)

I've pretty much given up on finding commercial pants that didn't gap badly at the waist or have cameltoe. I've even shied away from trying to make any pants because I'm a relative newbie when it comes to pattern making and fitting and don't know enough about how to alter or draft a pattern that fits the big-butt, small waist scenario. All of my off-the-rack pants have a curve in the side seam right at the hip, since there's not enough room in the butt and it pulls rearward.

I actually like the lower rise, since that at least minimizes the huge back waist gap (though it does nothing for the cameltoe or lack of butt room). The monobutt look doesn't bother me much, but it still needs to be big enough to accommodate a real woman's booty without looking like one is wearing clown pants. You might as well buy men's pants, for all the lack of curves in the women's pants out there.

I'm going to have to go with McCalls #6985 for the worst fit.

The McCalls - if the Tummy Tuck jeans are supposed to fit an apple - I might have to track down where to get a pair to try on.......

At the moment I have on pair of blue jeans, two denim skirts, and three pair of black jeans (one faded, one brand new, and one in the middle on the fading issue - why does black have to FADE so fast?). I live in Texas - denim just WORKS for most situations down here.

I can get up in the morning and get dressed without worrying about needing to change clothes if I am going out for pizza at lunch, gowing grocery shopping, to the library, working in the yard, or cleaning house - the jeans will take me almost anywhere I need to go during the day.

And I've seen younger girls in jeans with sequinned tops at the theater..........which I thought was a little casual - a nice black skirt would have been dressier..........but at least the top was sequinned instead of a t-shirt!

I'm going for style #2712

hello,
i could not chose. i hate them all, sorry. just seeing the legs makes we twitch (?) some seem to want to go inside your two parts of a$$. some seem to think that you are built to stand leaning backwards. but definatly all seem to think you're an old woman with no beginning and end to your butt curves.

one pair i would NEVER part with is a ragged (now) pair of silly 7 JR. M made by levi's under silver tab in flare. send me your pair, sell it to me, or give me a link, it is my BIRTHDAY! dammit and i keep trying to find a pair that fits like it!

I vote for the McCall, like everyone else. It's got that square, low-slung crotch that gives Americans a bad name wherever they go. Baggy crotch, plumber's butt, you've got it all in one heinous design, your only choice being the size: potato bag or wedgie. Even the Style, shapeless though it is, tries to differentiate the front and the back some.
There, I feel better, thanks for letting me take it off my chest :-).

I will go with 6985 but I doubt I'm right because it seems to obvious.

I have a pair of House of Dereon ("Beyonce's line") jeans and they definitely show that you have a butt... they fit me very well in the rear and the waist.

http://earsucker.com/2007/12/23/beyonce-shows-bootyliciousness-of-house-of-dereon-jeans/

Personally? First, I blame Darryl K. When she opened her store in the East Village years ago, she developed jeans to fit "herself and her butt-less friends." This fitting mistake is now ruling. Then, in the 90's, Harper's Bazaar shot the "waif look" and Kate Moss into stardom, and that was it. In NYC, where skinny rules, this has become the standard fit, especially for designer jeans. A number of my friends wear skirts, to circumvent this foolishness. But NYC Fashion Week still sets the standard; it's so skewed.

I love low-rise jeans, as I am all leg, with a very short high shoulder to waist length. For my ample butt, I cut my rise higher in the back, so when I sit down, I don't have "panty peek"(which my younger acquaintances think that's what gets the guys––yeesh).

Bebe Noir, has the best fit I've ever come across;
Victoria's Secret is second, in that they avoid "panty peek" and still look sexy;

Herein comes the rub; young girls don't want to look like "women", or they don't attract young men. And fashionable looking women don't want to look like themselves; they think it's complimentary to look like an older sister. Or am I just living in the wrong city?

I wonder what jeans Jaime Lee Curtis wears? She's seems to be the only "woman" celeb who's happy with herself.

This is a really tough question... are they all the same (theoretical) size? Because a "2" is going to have a flatter butt than at "16" any day.

Ok I'm going to say McCalls (good fit for gumby)and Simplicity have the flattest butts, and Vogue is baggy butt ugly. The other 2 aren't bad because the upper portion of the back is slightly rotated lengthening the crotch seam.

And we have a term around here for the jeans you have pictured above: Thass (or thaspiens)

Kathleen, I love this post, and I'm dying to hear your critique.

I have no butt and I am straight up and down, so I love the low rise no-butt jeans, I do have a pair of hudsons that when I fit into them (we won't talk about that), the shape of the butt and the flap pockets made me look like I had a butt. I'm just enjoying this time that a woman with no waist and tiny thighs can find jeans to wear. I loathe 80s jeans with the mom-rise and the huge hips to waist. To fit my straight waist the hips would hang and sag, thighs too. UGH.

Buttless jeans do not look good on 99% of people, big butt, medium or none! They are as bad as Mom jeans.

A slight boot cut, with a medium rise (a little below natural waist) seem to be the best cut for most body types.

Anne Klein boot cut is my vote (I'm a 2P/4P with curves.) I've had luck with Talbots and Ann Taylor Loft in the past.

I though it was just me. I could literally scream when shopping for jeans. I always reasoned that most of the fit models for denim companies were buttless. Therefore, you ended up with jeans made for buttless people.

There is also the difference in having a big wide butt as opposed to a big round butt which, like majority of African American women, I have. This means, depending on your level of taste and, you either have to fit your waist or your butt. If you fit you hips, then you end up with this big gap.

My pattern knowledge is not that extensive so I couldn't really say which one would be worse. I will say that I would rather have the monobutt than that of the Rockies pair of jeans.

I have always had problems finding a proper fitting jean as I have no butt,no hips and I'm a little thicker in the waist. I have to agree with Suzanne that I love the fit of the low rise, no butt jeans with the back flap pockets that enhance my rear view. However something changed as this past summer I must of tried on every brand available in both women's an men's before I could find a comfortable fitting pair. I finally found comfort in Lee Natural Fit Bootcut Jean, which fits just below the waist and also has tummy control.

I also believe McCalls will give the worst fitting jeans if you have any shape at all. Each and everyone has its own drawbacks, but if I had a choice to buy, #1 would be Burda, that would give the best fit, with the least amount of tweeking for me.

What a great topic. I guess I better check out the rear view of my favorite 7 for all mankind jeans. I was happy they fit in the thighs (only because they have lycra however).
Victoria Secret claims to have a "butt lift" jean. I haven't tried them out, so I don't if the jeans really do lift the backside.

Good grief! I must be one of those people who have become accustomed to the "Unibutt" look because I think the girl in the western jeans looks like her crotch is a bit short and digging in.

Wow, talk about a post that generates comments!!!

I will not choose the worst until I make up the examples but remember that the pants with the long crotch extension are not really jeans... they are trousers or slacks. Jeans have very little crotch extension so that the butt is "lifted and separated".

I recommend Helen Joseph Armstrong's drafting rules for jeans and trousers. You take the hip measurement and use a portion of that number to add the extension. Her stuff really works in my opinion. Plus she explains that the length of the crotch extension determines the pant style.

Goddess, please do not let people fall in love with the hideous mono-butt... it is NOT stylish, it is horrible (just my opinion, LOL!!)

Just got in from a long day of fitting and am having to join most everyone else in voting for the McCall's pattern.

Kathleen,I'd love to see you do a post (or series!) on pant and jean drafting and the differences and similarities. Yes, I'd pay!

I just got feedback from my very fashion conscience 13 yo DD. She looked at the pics and informed me that mono-butt is the way jeans are supposed to fit. She and her friends also want them to be low- waisted and to not have any extra fabric under the backside (the first set of pics). Skin tight is "correct" in her mind.

Her reaction to the Rockies jean was a loud "yeeccch! That looks like they have a permanent wedgie!" She calls those "Mom" jeans and says they look uncomfortable.

I asked her opinion cause I suspect this is possibly an age thing, with the younger generation having been raised on mono-butt and believing that this is the way they are supposed to fit.

Additional thought---- Ask any teenager to identify their waist and they'll point to their hip, which is where the tops of their jeans ride. In their minds, that makes it the waist! My own DD does this and she has a tailor for a mother and should know better!

McCall's #6985 would fit the worst because my butt needs to have more of the crotch curve in the rear than in the front.

Here are my guesses: McCalls 6985 would be the worst, with very little back crotch extension. Vogue 2946 is bad too, because although it has ample room--it would be a saggy rear fit. Burda 3752 is my top pick, as it looks like it is long enough in the crotch extension while curving back in the legs for a non-saggy flattering fit.

Did anyone see the segment on sizing on the Today show on 4/23? A woman has developed and is promoting a new sizing. You determine your size and then your (1 of 3) body type. So someone could be a 4.3 (size 4 and hourglass shape.)

It sounds good... in theory.

I think, of all the patterns, I have to go for the McCall's 6985 as the worst -- it more closely approximates a "v" shaped crotch (ouch).

Thank you Kathleen for asking us to take a closer look. I had taken for granted the mono-butt look so prevalent today. Yes, the Rockies fit looks a little dated to my eye, and a leetle bit wedgie, but there is something refreshingly womanly about the look they give. I think it's nice. They look like you could walk more than five paces without the waistband wiggling down to your low hip.

@Morgen. Not only that; but, there's a difference in how the jeans models are used. Rockies are cowgirl pants, so utility and durability are emphasized. The crotch curve needs to be set high enough - like an armsceye - to support range of motion (i.e. throwing a leg over the horse).

RE: Fashion jeans. I have a different opinion about how the curve got to where it is. It's two-parted.

First, there's knocking off of a knock off. Think of it like making a fax of a fax. It requires some forensics skills from the patternmaker to true up a pattern from a ripped down garment - that takes specialization and time. Both are in short supply, these days.

Second, is grading rules. I don't think most junior patternmakers grasp that when you make a size larger, the forks of the crutch also get longer to accommodate the change in crotch girth.

Now, Trish raised a point about calculating the length of the crutch forks. I've never been a fan of this method, mostly because of my custom clothing background. I find direct measures of the fitting model to be much quicker, easier to draft and more comfortable to wear. For me, the issue is getting the "floor" of the curve to cradle the perineal floor.

Whatever happened to Guess jeans? Those were fashion jeans that made everyone's (or, nearly everyone's) butt look good. I think I mentioned, before, that I suspect there was shaping in the yoke seam to help with that.

RE: worst fit. My vote is also for McCall's 6985.

The 2946 pattern will make the most rediculous pair of pants ever. People will assume you are trying to hide the rolls of fat on your inner thigh or are maybe part of the cult of MC Hammer. And why is the crotch point so far to the front? That is wrong. I'm sorry but if anything went up my butt like those Rockies I would file a restraining order. PLease don't wear those unless you are actually sitting on a horse. The Mono butt came about because of the low, low rises that have to squeeze you in order to stay on. If you don't mond some high rises you can shape the waist to keep the pants on you hips. Levi's are always a good bet. I like the 565.

hmmm thought provoking...it's too late for me to look, but I don't know hooey about patternmaking either, just how to adjust them to fit my kids best...

I do know that I am BEYOND frustrated with jeans! For something that so many people wear everyday, you'd THINK we could get some that fit properly! I tried some spendy brands too even, but that was no help...I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is to find some jeans that ALMOST fit, buy them one size too big and have them taken in for me...

Now all I need is a really good tailor...any one? anyone? LOL!!!

My vote goes to Aura jeans - pick your rise, and leg length - more cowgirl jeans, and I order mine in to New Zealand from the US, they are the only decent jeans I can get for a shorty. I think maybe the combination of form and function make cowgirl jeans better (like most good design - the functional constraints stop people going too far with the concept!).
You can get them online from Sheplers, take them seriously about going down AT LEAST one size. I fit a 6 and I'd normally be a ten (I think? anyway, 29-30" waist, 39-40" hips about). Other than that, vintage - jeans I got 20 years ago fit better (but sadly are nearly dead!)
Gotta say, those vogue 2946 pants look absolutely hideous. My pick for worst is McCalls 6985 - unless you happen to be a toothpick with no ass, it is really going to be an awful fit. If you are a toothpick, it is still going to look pretty ugly ... terrible proportions.

BTW - just wandered off to check Sheplers, and noticed, every pair of jeans shows the butt view, so clearly they know what it is about the fit everyone wants to check!

If you want your bum to look like 2 cheeks, get a fitted pair of jeans, and wear a THONG!!! The underwear are usually the problem behind 'mono-bum'! Guaranteed every pair of pants will look better. I think if you want comfortable, baggy pants, JEANS are not the answer. buy a pair of joggers or lululemons. Jeans are a fashion statement now, not comfort clothes, sorry!!

My mom has a retail store where she sells to women age 40-70 and they RAVE about French Dressing Jeans, and 'Not-your-daughter's jeans'. They are fairly high waisted, and offer lots of bum room. they look kind of like the rockies jeans posted here.

P.S. i vote BURDA!

Thanks Kathleen, for the insights.

While I'm a child of the seventies and eighties, so mono-butt just looks ill to me (what's wrong with that poor child? no waist, narrow hips, and stiff!) something looks wrong with those Rockies pictures too. They're a little tight, eighties camel-toe style? Or something. I like something more obviously built for movement:

http://www.bennettsclothing.com/images/levi_jrs_501_rear.jpg

I agree with Angela about the origin of mono-butt in low-rise jeans. Now that waistlines are creeping up again I'm seeing a more pronounced bum. I've seen a couple of women in gauchos lately with a proper cut in the crotch.

I too think McCall's #6985 would have the worst fit. I'm wearing an old pair of Avenue jeans that I took in at the waist when I lost some weight. I find Avenue jeans fit the shall we say ample figure pretty well, but then I'm not talking about tight legs or or backside.

I generally like Burda pants when I'm sewing for myself.

It's pretty hard to imagine a jeans block that would fit from my size and shape (5'8" size 28) down to a size 0, narrow hipped teen.

Think of all the shaping variations: waist to hip ratio, depth, crotch length, front to back depth vs side to side width (I don't know what this is called, I think of it as the cross section shape). A loose pant only has to fit at the waist and be large enough, a jean has to match pretty closely.

McCalls will make for a terrible fit around the inner thigh and will probably cause camel toe as well.

Vogue offers a flappy baggy back upper thigh area which is going to pull into the leg so sharply it will make you look like you have a fat bottom but will be a bit better in the crotch than the McCalls.

However, what's with the sloping CF seam in the Style pattern. Even a woman with the flatest stomach is going to feel paunchy in this.

I don't know that any of these could be considered "worst". It's just that the Burda is better.

We had 28 correct entries selecting McCalls pattern #6985. The lucky winner of the Tummy Tuck jeans is Misty (aka Christy T). I'll make an official announcement later today.

It's the McCalls hands-down! They must be drafting for aliens or something!!

Yay hooray!!!
Thanks for running the contest - I don't have to post a butt shot in the TT Jeans, do I?