Trouser back pocket (or lack thereof)

[Nick D]

Most of my suit trousers and dress trousers have one back pocket, but my '46 3-piece has no back pocket. I've recently bought an old wallet for the inside jacket pocket, so I don't have to use my modern wallet.

I was wondering how common or uncommon it was in the '30s for suit trousers to forgo the back pocket. I suppose a customer could get a suit tailored any way he wanted, but was it at least a little common?

 

[GBR]

Are you talking of an English made suit? - I would assume so given that you are from West Yorkshire.


Whilst there was no firm rule it would be very common for a suit not to have a back pocket in the trousers at that time. This would equally apply to RTW or MTM/bespoke which was a very common option in those days and proportionately not that expensive given that many men would have but one suit which might be expected to last for years. This would equally apply to a suit say for a factory foreman up to the wealthiest in the land.

Does your suit have a flapped pocket at the front waist band for cash? that too was common especially in the North and from East End tailors in London - again nothing exclusive but a sign of those times.

These days, two back pockets have become common and arguably to have two is rapidly becoming the 'norm'. This really arises out pf much reduced formality, the increase in the use of 'paper money' as a norm and credit cards, all things that are better carried in a wallet. These things simply did not arise on the 1930s/40s. Carrying a cheque book best accommodated in an inside coat pocket has all but come to an end. The onset of air conditioned offices also removes the need to wear a jacket for warmth although a the same time security demands not leaving a wallet hanging on a chair back or wherever.

I actually quite like this feature (or rather lack of) in traditional trousers as it does move you to use the inside pocket properly as you have done. Strangely for modern trousers I would not willingly give wardrobe space to any with other than two back pockets! Strange how times change.

Others may correct me but the change to incorporate a back pocket in RTW came in the late 1940s when the lowest common denominator became the norm although many MTM/bespoke to this day still do not have a back pocket out of the chopice of the person bespeaking the garment. I also recall a time in the 1960s when trousers were appallingly tight fit and they disappeared out of practicality. Oswald Boateng does not have them in certain of his RTW ranges for this reason even now.

 

[Fletch]

US made trou back into the '20s had 2 back pockets (often called hip pockets).

 

[kools]

GBR...you sound quite informed & may well be correct in your assertion. However, Among the 40 or so 1940s suits I've owned over the years, all of them featured back pockets.

 

[GBR]

GBR...you sound quite informed & may well be correct in your assertion. However, Among the 40 or so 1940s suits I've owned over the years, all of them featured back pockets.

I would not argue about 1940s garments at all - RTW from the latter part of the decade especially. Remember that there was the demob suit which was issued to those leaving the army and made to a standard specification and I would suspect that suits sold otherwise would have tended to conform with this pattern although the cut would have varied. It might even be right to say that no back pockets quite rapidly became the preserve of MTM or bespoke by this period.

In some ways this tendency to conformity is mirrored by the fast adoption of two pockets in many modern RTW offerings

 

[Fletch]

Can we assume cross-Atlantic influence, given the influx of Yanks in the 40s?

 

[Nick D]

The suit is indeed English, and I'm leaning more towards no pockets. If I can keep from wearing a wallet in the back I will, and I never use the back pocket for anything else with a suit.

It doesn't have a flapped pocket in the waistband, either, though the trousers I'm working on have an unflapped pocket in the seam of the waistband.

 

[GBR]

The suit is indeed English, and I'm leaning more towards no pockets. If I can keep from wearing a wallet in the back I will, and I never use the back pocket for anything else with a suit.

It doesn't have a flapped pocket in the waistband, either, though the trousers I'm working on have an unflapped pocket in the seam of the waistband.

I agree the front pocket and no back pocket arrangement does work well. I try to stick with it as often as I can - which is not enough really, hence having two normally. Maybe I should try harder as well!

Fletch - "Can we assume cross-Atlantic influence, given the influx of Yanks in the 40s?"

I am sure that this did have some contribution.

 

[just_me]

Besides Release to Web what does RTW stand for?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It stands for "ready to wear."

.

 

[Tomasso]

Or.....

Prêt-à-Porter.

 

[GBR]

Off The Rack

 

[MrBern]

one flapped back pocket

Ive seen some WWII US field trousers with both back pockets, but only ONE is flapped. Has anyone got a reason for that?

Would it be to button in a wallet on one side? Seems an odd thing for army field pants.

 

[Geesie]

I don't know the reason but they're still like that.

 

[JimInSoCalif]

Ive seen some WWII US field trousers with both back pockets, but only ONE is flapped. Has anyone got a reason for that?

Would it be to button in a wallet on one side? Seems an odd thing for army field pants.

Most of the civilian trousers that I have owned have a button on only the left hip pocket except for the few with flaps and all of them have two flaps and buttons although I have seen a very few with just one flap and button as in your picture.

I was in the US Army from 1953 to 1956 and most of the equipment we had was either the same or left over from WW ll including the boots that I was issued and the C-rations that were all date stamped 1944.

Our work clothes were green and called fatigues. I never saw any brown garments as in your picture.

One thing that I thought strange was that in WW ll they had green underwear, but by 1953 we were issued white t-shirts and boxers. The quality was very poor and most of us instead of buying new t-shirts from the quarter master when we needed them for 29 cents opted to buy Hanes or whatever brand was sold at the PX for probably around 75 cents.

The quality of the shoes, which the Army called 'low quarters', the kids from farming communities often called 'slippers', and I called 'shoes' was also very poor. The soles were very thin. For most of us it did not matter because the only time they were worn was with a class A uniform which most of us only wore a very few times the entire time we were in the service.

 

[MrBern]

18 oz serge wool field trousers

I don't know the reason but they're still like that.

Well actually, Ive got some WWII US wool trousers that have no flaps & some with both pockets flapped as well as those with one flap.
I've always assumed that the omitted flats were intended when the trousers were meant to be layered with cotton overpants in the snowy , damp winter.
Im just not clear when theres only one flap.

And yes, the WWII trousers & postwar pants were generally brownish wool, like the ike jackets. Sometime after `51 or so they went army green.

 

[St.Ignatz]

Going to guess here. Left pocket wallet, right pocket handkerchief or racing form.

 

[MrBern]

Going to guess here. Left pocket wallet, right pocket handkerchief or racing form.

I guess... Kinda amusing in trousers that also have a flap to protect th buttonfly from a poison gas attack...