Suits and suit pants.

[Wild Root]

Ok, it has been talked about here and there and it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a topic that has many sides to debate.

When we find a nice suit coat with missing pants we tend to ask this question: What happened to the pants? Did they simply wear out or did some one just want the pants and bought them and separated the two? Why would any one want to do that???

Also, we find pants that were part of a suit and we often think why in the world the coat isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t with it since the pants are in good shape.

There are many ideas and theories to this but, is there a way to tell if a pare of pants really had a suit coat to start with?

As I have been collecting over the years, it has been brought to my attention that there were pants made just to be worn as pants. Sport pants if you will! Pants that had no intentions to being part of a suit in the beginning. We some times find pants that are from the 30?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s that have a tall waist band, wide legged pant legs, deep cuffs and every thing we want but, no suit coat. Now, I see these types of pants in Sears catalogs as being sport pants or casual wear. Something that is worn with out a suit coat if you will. Yes, there were some great suits that had pants that had the same style but, most of the ones I have found weren?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t part of a suit.

I have a pair of linen ivory trousers that are wide legged, tall waist band and all the bells and whistles. They have a tailor?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s tag in the back pocket. Dated 1938 and this points out to me that they were custom made and not to be part of a suit. When we find pants some times that have labels in them, the some times say ?¢‚Ǩ?ìSport Slack?¢‚Ǩ? or some thing to that effect. Also, sport trousers usually don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have brace buttons, however I have some and have seen some that do.

Here are some catalog clippings to illustrate my point.

For me, I have no problem with buying a separate pair of trousers. I feel that finding a stray pair of pants that may have been part of a suit is just fine with me. Yes, some times I wish I had the coat but, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m mostly happy I have the pants to begin with. Wearing a nice pair of pants with a nice crisp shirt and tie I feel is a nice look. Suits are great and I love them very much but, the coatless look shouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be over looked. It was worn quite a bit in those days as you can see as casual, sport or activity wear.

I now open it up for discussion.

WR.

PS. As a side note, men did wear these pants with contrasting colored suit coats! Dark blue, gray, black, brown and green!

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Hey Root, have you ever actually seen any of those young-man's style wide-legged pants with the flair at the bottom? Are they as crazy looking as they seem in the illustration? 22 inch cuffs are just crazy huge.

Btw, could you also send me your email address via PM? I am trying to send you those soundtrack files but I can't find your email address anywhere.

 

[Wild Root]

Boy, have I ever!

Yes, I have seen pants like these. Not sure if they were true Sears models but, they looked much the same! They also resemble what is depicted in the illustrations in catalogs. In fact, I have a suit made in Europe from the late 30's that have 23" hems on the pants! You know, that look is fantastic! I love how they just about cover one's shoes and they look so smart and swanky. Having a some what large foot size helps to have baggy wide legged pants to help with a more proportioned look. I love walking around with these things swinging!

The original Oxford-Bags worn in the late 20's and early 30's were some times in to the 30" and 40" hem width! So, a 22"-23" hem isn't something too extreme in my opinion.

WR.

 

[IndianaGuybrush]

I used to wear Jeans with 22" circumference when I was in Jr High School (I was a skateboarder back then and that's what was cool). it's just bizarre to see them on dress pants. I don't know how it would look on me but in the drawings it just seems off somehow. Of course, I would have to see them in person to have any kind of real opinion on them.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I am not sure if there is any consistancy with the pictures. The pants on the guy holding the "Style hits of 1936" sign look like they have a narrower cuff than the "thru and thru woven stripe" pants even though it says they both have a 20" cuff.

After measuring some of my pants, a 20" cuff doesn't seem to be a big deal at all. I have one pair which is 19" and another which is 18.5" and neither seem overly large to me. An extra inch would make little difference.

Dammit this thread has just reminded me of the fact that I have virtually no fall or winter pants at all. And considering the sad state of style in modern pants I am unlikely to find any suitable ones anytime soon...

 

[Wild Root]

Well, I wore wide legged jeans when I was a teen as well. I loved the fit and the feel of them! When I found out that you could find dress pants that were baggy, I was so happy!
I have seen original examples of these wide legged pants first hand! I own a pair of some to a suit. They look so cool! They feel so nice and I wish all my pants had that cut.

The illustrations in the catalogs are not 100% accurate but, they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re not too far off. I know a guy who has a few pairs of these and they fit just like the ones pictured. They look just like that! And the reason is because, he?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a 31-32 waist, has a size 8 shoe. So, when you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re what some may consider a normal size, they look just as they do in the catalog. Not all the pants made in these years were like this! This was more of a youth style worn by kids who were just getting their first long trousers. A graduation from Knickers to Trousers if you will and also collage aged youth. This trend lasted from the early 30?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s to about 1940 or so.

I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll post a photo to help you all get a image of someone real wearing this style. This is my good friend Jose who some of you may know.

I want some of these made so bad!

WR.

 

[Daniel Riser]

Great thread Rob. Glad you started it. It's funny how people think everything had a match when it was made. It just isn't true!

Jose was telling me about those trousers. I need a charcoal or black pair to go with my collegiate ensamble I'm building.

Dan

P.S. I am so glad I followed your, Jose's and Lauren's advice and got that yellow and green fleck belt back. That thing is awesome!

 

[Sefton]

That's a real sharp look that your friend Jose has in that photo. He really captures the essence of 1930s. I've seen those catalog images many times but never before the actual pants. Too bad no one makes anything like that style now (I've seen something similar in a woman's pant though).

 

[Wild Root]

Hey Dan, if you're going for a campus look, you should go with white or ivory pants! A dark gray would work but, the ivory looks the best! Very "Ivy League" in appearance. Well, that's what I would wear and that's what I have seen most of.

WR.

 

[Daniel Riser]

Oh man a pair of cream baggy trousers would be just the ticket. I agree wholeheartedly... now where ON EARTH do I find em?*

Dan

*That wasn't meant as harsh to you Root, it's only a cry of desparation

 

[Wild Root]

Oh, no offence taken brother!

Once upon a time, there was a vintage store that I walked into. I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t find a whole lot but, a cream pair of 1930?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s pants. This pair of pants was just amazing! It was a thick ivory wool herringbone with a dark red stripe! 3?¢‚Ǩ? waist band and three top button closure with a 6 button fly. It had the adjusting straps on each side with flap pockets in the back! Drool, drool, drool! They were long enough for me and were just about my size. But, the waist was about a 34 and at that time I was a 36. Way too tight! So, the price was also steep for what I thought they were worth. But, this was 1998 and I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have as sophisticated taste as I do now. I passed on them and wish to this day that I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t!!! I kick my self every day on the top of every hour for not buying them. LoL.

They were wide legged and perfect like the ones you see pictured!!! Excellent condition as well! Why didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t I buy them I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know!

But Dan, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll keep my eyes out for you brother. I will tell you that ebay may prove to be profitable in that search. You never know what you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll find.

All the best,
Rob.

 

[Veronica Parra]

I need a charcoal or black pair to go with my collegiate ensamble I'm building.

Dan, I'll see if those black trousers I told you about are still available. They're a 31" waist, with a 31" inseam (I'm guessing here, based on how they looked when I tried them on.) If they're still available where I saw them, I can purchase them and you can pay me back. The price was $47.00 plus tax. Condition is excellent. Interested? Let me know pronto.

 

[Mr. Rover]

I have a pair of modern linen pants that I bought a size big and had it taken it. It has that sort of baggy-legged look. I think you can see it in the last "show us your suits" thread I posted.
I think this style was called "Oxford baggies". It's derived from, as Root said, kids moving up from knickerbockers to trousers. Oxford (the university) had banned knickerbockers, and as a result they wore baggy pants to get the same freedom.

Ray

 

[BellyTank]

I never would have guessed that folks thought Mens' seperates were never available?

I have a few pairs of vintage trousers that I would never have thought to be part of a suit. I prefer seperates to suits. Sometimes it seems like suits are for those with no dress sense... (sometimes)

B
T

 

[Daniel Riser]

Interested? Marc... what time do you want me at your front door?

And BellyTank...

I've seen some strange trousers that I'm glad are separates!

Regards,

Dan

P.S. Marc P.M. sent :cheers1:

 

[Matt Deckard]

Looks like more of a suit section thread to me.

Since I have lost a bit of weight I am sold on the idea of flat front pants... very clean look.

As for pleats. It is very hard to get the inside pleats to lay right. They are my favorite style of pleat though they are done wrong by so many companies, and unless you have the right tailor you will look awful.

 

[Wild Root]

I never would have guessed that folks thought Mens' seperates were never available?

I have a few pairs of vintage trousers that I would never have thought to be part of a suit. I prefer seperates to suits. Sometimes it seems like suits are for those with no dress sense... (sometimes)

B
T

Very interesting. I started this thread because some I have met will pass on pants because there is no coat to it. Fact is that most people that watch old movies feel that sport out fits didn't exist for some reason. I wear a sport outfit many times and people come up to me and say: They didn't wear combos like that; they all wore three piece suits.

Well, I wouldn't say that suits are for those with no dress sense, even sometimes. A suit is a dressier polished look. A sport outfit is appropriate for daytime activates and less dressy events.

Matt, I didn't put this under suits because the meat of the subject is pants! Suits are mentioned here but, it always comes to pants.

WR.

 

[Daniel Riser]

don't you mean slacks? BWHAHAHHAHA

 

[Wild Root]

Funny man.

WR.

 

[BellyTank]

...more Oxford Bags...

...for the record...

B
T