Oxford Bags

[swinggal]

Ive always been facibate by the history of Oxford Bags:

In 1924, Oxford (and Cambridge) students, reacting to a ban on knickers in University classrooms, began wearing wide trousers, 25 inches around at the knee and 40 inches around the bottom, slipped over their knickers. Capacious pants became an immediate fad in America, copying the dimensions, but not hiding knickers or cricket pants within.

They really should have a wider waistband (like 2 inches) and side tabs to pull the waste in. My friebd bought 2 pairs from Revamp Vintage and they are very authentic with high waist, tabs ans 34 inch cuffs.

http://www.revampvintage.com/fletcher.html

 

[Powerhouse]

PICS ARE UP....

for real this time.

http://www.geocities.com/oxfordbagz

Ok, to answer a few questions...

- pants have on average a 14" rise, they use a long zipper.
- waist sizes start at 32" - smallest size they make
- inseams come in two sizes - 30" and 32"
- cuff of 1.5" (I have an original pair of linen pants with 1.5" cuffs. And they are definately from the 1930's. I like the taller cuff myself.
- Easy to work with, belt loops can be ommitted, dropped, whatever and smokey joe brand.
- There were many styles of "Oxford Bags". These are wide legged trousers that look just like some of the "Oxford Bags" worn in the 1920-30's. When I am not wearing vintage pants I wear these. They are very affordable, stylish, and I don't have to worry about them falling apart.

The way I see it- Why buy and wear a pair of new pants from wherever the sheep shop when these can be had for such a great price?

Any more questions/concerns please drop me a line. Ciao.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

.

I like em, but need a 34 inseam.

 

[Powerhouse]

I like em, but need a 34 inseam.

Yeah, I know. My friend is rather tall and he has to give them a faux cuff. It is tricky to do but can work sometimes. I wish they made more sizes. Sorry.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

.

How long do they come if you get them unhemmed?

 

[Powerhouse]

Ive always been facibate by the history of Oxford Bags:



They really should have a wider waistband (like 2 inches) and side tabs to pull the waste in. My friebd bought 2 pairs from Revamp Vintage and they are very authentic with high waist, tabs ans 34 inch cuffs.

http://www.revampvintage.com/fletcher.html

REVAMP is great! They make amazing threads.

 

[Powerhouse]

How long do they come if you get them unhemmed?

I will definately check for ya later, but I'm guessing about 3 inches longer. I will also see if I can illustrate how to make a faux cuff. I discovered how to do this when I was checking out a cuff on a pair of palm beach trousers that had been let down.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Thanks for posting the pics! They look pretty good. And yes, it's true that 1920s Oxford bags did not necessarily have high waistbands and long belt loops. Then again, if I were going to be daring enough to make my legs look like an elephant's, I'd want to go the full Monty. I'd want a crazy waistband like the following:

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I'd also want my Oxford bags to be really, really, REALLY baggy. Like these.
Note that in the 1920s photo at left, the cuffs on the trousers are at least 4 inches wide!

 

[Wild Root]

They be no bags...

They look great, but, they look more like a regular pair of late 30's or early
40's pants. BK, I know some had pleats but, they were shallow small pleats that didn't effect the cut of the pant. True oxfords have a three inch waistband and some did have the side straps, some had the belted strap in the back! And for what ever reason some one isn't reproducing them in larger sizes needs to have a talking to!

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

They look great, but, they look more like a regular pair of late 30's or early 40's pants.

Agreed. The new ones at left don't really look like the original ones at right:

 

[Wild Root]

Marc.

Thanks Marc, that’s the image I was trying to find in my archives but, you beat me to it.

ReVamp does ok, the pleats are too deep, it gives the pants more of a curved slightly tapered cut, real oxfords that I’ve seen are fitted around the waist and hips, they start to flare out on the way down… when you lay them on a flat surface, you can see a long bell shape. Like I said before, I’ve seen pleats on them before but, they were very shallow, and close together, they didn’t go down very far and they some times were more of a dart then anything else.

The waist bands on most were 2 ¬?‚Äù tall to 3‚Äù inches tall but, not all of them were that tall. Some did have narrow waistbands but, not many that I‚Äôve seen. I like the taller types with the strap that folds over with two to three buttons. Those look really sharp!

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

You're right about the pleats. I've had several pairs of pants and knickers from the mid-to-late 1920s. They had inverse pleats, yes, but these pleats were quite shallow and didn't provide extra "give" to the thigh.

 

[Matt Deckard]

22 inch opening at the cuff is what i usually get when I've had trousers made. 2 inches more is not a bag.

They are nice wide legges 30's style trousers, though seeing the pics I can't say they are bags... just not enough out-flair.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... though seeing the pics I can't say they are bags... just not enough out-flair.

IMO, "Classic" Oxford bags should look something like these:

 

[Wild Root]

Thank you Marc and this is why I don't buy repro stuff, because no matter how hard they try, things are changed and they don't look correct. Why is this? how hard is it to make a pair of pants with shallow inverse pleats? It's always like some one that makes "Oxfords" just takes a 40's pant pattern and then amps the steroids! So, all you get is a bloated pair of 40's pants trying to pass as Oxford Bags.

Powerhouse, please don't miss understand what Marc and I are saying... I'm sure you can agree to them being a little off in cut to pass as Oxfords. However, I'm sure that they are great pants to dance in... they look good for the late 30's and early 40's style, I'm sure I'd wear a pair had they made them in my size. Say, do you own any original late 20's or early 30's pants? I'm sure you do.

=WR=

 

[Powerhouse]

I agree with ya. I don't like repros! Just so you know I don't make these, I just wear 'em. I thought I would offer them to other people looking for usable vintage style pants. I have some original bags (pants) and they are different from these. These are baggy vintage style pants though.

Who knows? Maybe Old Navy will start making them. Ha ha ha or should I say- Baah Bahh Baah (sheep).

Oh jeez, I hate even mentioning Old Navy, aaah, did it again.

 

[Wild Root]

I had a feeling you did own a pair or two. Those pants are great for those who want a vintage styled pant for dancing or just kicking around town in but, for some one wanting something that's an authentic copy of real oxfords they need some fine tuning.

I moved this thread to General Attire & Accouterments because this is more of a separate then a suit.

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Understand that back in the '20s, Oxford bags were *not* a big fad in America. Only college boys wore them, and there weren't that many boys in college back then!

Below is a pair of British trousers owned by Baron Kurtz. Are they "classic" Oxford bags? Well, they ARE very wide, and you can hardly see his shoes peeping out from underneath them. I'd say without hesitation that they are Oxford bag-inspired. But can you wear a pair of plus-fours (knickers) under them? Probably not.

It wasn't until the turn of the '30s that big-name retailers began to offer modified versions of the Oxford bag. Sears, Montgomery Ward and J.C. Penney's did away with the "elephant leg" and replaced it with a long flare.

Below are some illustrations of these modified versions. Note that the legs taper upward, from a wide cuff bottom to a narrower thigh. There is no way that anyone could wear a pair of plus-fours under those!

 

[Matt Deckard]

I wouldn't call those trousers of Kurts bags. I have seen the catalogs from the 30's when the mass market started wearing the wide wide leg trousers... from jeans to suits, and they are super wide... I just consider those a little bigger than standard.