or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Pictures of "Fishtail back" trousers or "beltless"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pictures of "Fishtail back" trousers or "beltless"

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
There's often mention of "fishtail back" trousers meant for wearing with suspenders/braces. I work with a Korean tailor that responds a lot better to pictures or drawings than description.

Does anyone have a photograph or diagram of an actual fishtail back? I'd like to incorporate it into my next suit, rather than just a high waist & suspender buttons.

On the same note-does anyone have something similar for what's often described here as "beltless" trousers?

Thanks!
post #2 of 17
Fish tail back

post #3 of 17
Fishtail



post #4 of 17
I know this pant style is popular with some, but it is so incredibly unflattering and, quite frankly, clown looking when not wearing a jacket that I could never see myself wearing them. I am sure that they drape beautifully and that with a jacket on you look smashing but the picture of that guy's (Thomas Mahon?) backside in those pants is absolutely brutal. I prefer the side tab adjusters or the side button.
post #5 of 17
They are very traditional in the non-American context.
post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel
I know this pant style is popular with some, but it is so incredibly unflattering and, quite frankly, clown looking when not wearing a jacket that I could never see myself wearing them. I am sure that they drape beautifully and that with a jacket on you look smashing but the picture of that guy's (Thomas Mahon?) backside in those pants is absolutely brutal. I prefer the side tab adjusters or the side button.

Yes, one would have to either keep their jacket on or wear a waistcoat because such an exaggerated fishtail should not be exposed. That said, trousers hang infinitely better with fishtail and braces.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel
I know this pant style is popular with some, but it is so incredibly unflattering and, quite frankly, clown looking when not wearing a jacket that I could never see myself wearing them. I am sure that they drape beautifully and that with a jacket on you look smashing but the picture of that guy's (Thomas Mahon?) backside in those pants is absolutely brutal. I prefer the side tab adjusters or the side button.
Yeah, these look much too high. Lower ones would look a lot better. I think someone (Mistahlee?) posted a pic of a pair he had that looked pretty good.
post #8 of 17
For the more traditional suits, trousers all seem to be very high-waisted. For example with belted trousers they would be the so called "Hollywood Waist."

Usually the waistline is set at about the navel.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
For the more traditional suits, trousers all seem to be very high-waisted. For example with belted trousers they would be the so called "Hollywood Waist."

Usually the waistline is set at about the navel.

I have many Oxxford trousers with a "Hollywood Waist", many with "dropped loops".
post #10 of 17
I disagree, edmorel. But you are free to have your own taste.
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoopee
I disagree, edmorel. But you are free to have your own taste.
It doesn't help that those have no rear pockets, which I think help to break up the line of the man-butt we don't really need to be flaunting. I have a suit with only one rear pocket and I don't even like the look of those pants on that side - too much exposure for me.
post #12 of 17
There is an uncomfortable resemblence to that water melon smashing comedian Gallagher.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
For the more traditional suits, trousers all seem to be very high-waisted. For example with belted trousers they would be the so called "Hollywood Waist."

Actually, Hollywood waisted trousers are only a specific subset of high-waisted trousers. In reality, they lack a waist band and the vertical seams reach all the way to the top of the trouser. Typically, Hollywood waist trousers have dropped belt loops, enabling the belt to fit at the natural waist and the top part of the trouser to stop just below the rib cage. For men, they reached the zenth of their popularity in the 1950s.
post #14 of 17
I have a few fishtail trousers which are very high (like the stripes in the pic above) and have no back pockets. I generally wear them with waistcoats (which are quite short), but when they are worn without, they often get compliments. Especially from women . (Those who love tailoring go ape.)

Like most things, braceback trousers look best on the slim. I'm a lawyer in NY, and no one has ever said anything untoward about them to me; however, I have a British background that seems to give me undeserved licence in these things. An American friend in a more corporate environment has been kidded about his "farmer pants".
post #15 of 17

http://www.berlin-bespoke-suits.com/highrise.html 

 

Check this out, I have made them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Pictures of "Fishtail back" trousers or "beltless"