or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › On Pants
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On Pants - Page 2

post #16 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sho'nuff View Post
i guess we can embrace all types of styles here on one forum.
Oh of course not. You do NOT have to embrace all styles at all. That is 100% your decision. You like what you like. That is why I have asked other people to share their pictures of well-fitting dress pants as well, so we can have slim ones also. If you have any pictures of good fitting pants (technically with correct balances as I mentioned above) please do share no matter what the silhouette... all is fair!

Quote:
Originally Posted by srivats View Post
Tutee, can you write a few words as to what is the proper method to press a pair of trousers?

Very Sorry! Can't help you here I have never pressed any pair of trousers with good effect that is worth mentioning. JefferyD or perhaps someone else can help here more. I think Sator may have posted detailed article on this as well.
post #17 of 92
Very interesting. Two comments:

You chose not to discuss how to cut a pattern so that pockets lie flat, (my guess is added fullness at the back on the horizontal line of the hips)

You buried the lede on vox's bow legs - a common complaint among the physically fit
post #18 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post
OP - Nice "holier than thou" post. I don't think some of the probs you point out are "present on 98% plus of the bespoke commissions..." You could have just said "hey guys, read this entire tailoring pamphlet i have."

Personally I would never step foot outside in pants that look anything at all like the ones you were wearing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sho'nuff View Post
sorry dude but doesnt look like all that textbook knowledge produced you any aesthetically nice silhouettes on your pants. they look meh and boring. well, of course they have no puckering pulling or stretching. neither do they have any nice lines, curves or anything else , because theyre just curtains.

Glad to see the more intelligent member's come out of the woodwork.
post #19 of 92
Not necessarily something i'd wear, but i appreciate the effort you put into the right up.

Rock on with your pants on.
post #20 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post
^ Happily. You may appreciate the folksy 1940's (1920's? 1880's?) effeminate look. Those pants would be seen as completely ridiculous by 95% of people that I encounter on any given day. For god's sake look at the strap on the back. WTF?
I don't understand how "folksy" and "effeminate" are compatible. Aren't gay men associated with a strongly urban vibe? I suppose there's the Brokeback Mountain approach, but tutee's trousers are as citified as you can get. In fact, the classic effeminate trousers are tight and low-rise, like this: http://www.layoutlocator.com/graphic...ight-jeans.jpg nothing like tutee's. Also, pants like tutee's aren't made to be worn without a jacket. With one, they look like ordinary, but unusually crisp and long-legged, pants.
post #21 of 92
Wow.

One day I'll read all that.
post #22 of 92
Interesting article. I recall reading in Hardy Amies 'The Englishman's Suit' that one of the royals (Edward VII ?) had his coats tailored by Scholte but inisisted on having his trousers made elsewhere. I don't know how common this sort of thing was.
post #23 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManofKent View Post
Interesting article. I recall reading in Hardy Amies 'The Englishman's Suit' that one of the royals (Edward VII ?) had his coats tailored by Scholte but inisisted on having his trousers made elsewhere. I don't know how common this sort of thing was.

Page 149:




- B
post #24 of 92
Thanks for a very informative post.
post #25 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by alliswell View Post
You buried the lede on vox's bow legs - a common complaint among the physically fit




- B
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
post #26 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplifiedheat View Post
I don't understand how "folksy" and "effeminate" are compatible.

They are orthogonal. Also, effeminate does not equal gay.

Their blatant old-timeyness = folksy.

Their shape/waist/curtainyness = effeminate.
post #27 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post
They are orthogonal. Also, effeminate does not equal gay.

Their blatant old-timeyness = folksy.

Their shape/waist/curtainyness = effeminate.

The "vintage" comment I can understand ... but please do post a picture of what you think is masculine. Seriously.
post #28 of 92
As always, thank you, tutee. And pls ignore the heckling kids.
post #29 of 92
Yawn


I am not really sure that this homespun booklet would assist my cutter/tailor nor be of interest to a salesman trading in RTW trousers.
post #30 of 92
Will there be a follow-up thread titled, "Off Pants?"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › On Pants