Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Some questions regarding pleated trousers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Some questions regarding pleated trousers - Page 2

post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
Actually, I like my trousers a bit on the short side, since they're cut rather slim: I let the trouser bottoms lightly sit on my shoe. Given that I'm 5' 4", waist 30", I think this looks better on me than having the regular, wider trousers, especially for lighter fabrics. I think I'll go back and see how the trousers move with cuffs, then compare them with ones I already have without, as per Carlo's recommendation.
post #17 of 28
Photo looks like Sir Samuel Hoare
post #18 of 28
Thierry, excellent call. Did you see this in a book or possibly see the other post on the Forum in which I previously posted it? The caption reads:
Sir Samuel Hoare, 30 August 1938. The Foreign Office look with black Homburg hat, rolled umbrella and a super smart three-piece lounge suit, as crisply tailored as could be. The striped shirt has appeared with a white collar which 50 years later is still considered smart. The front crease in trousers was well established in 1938, but Sir Samuel scorns turn-ups, although the man behind him has them. The British were still regarded as the best-dressed men in the world, at the top of society. (From de Marly, Fashion For Men, 1985)
For some reason I knew it was in the thirties but looking at the picture without the book I couldn't believe it. 1938 anyway. And yes, it does appear he has buttoned his bottom button up and is looking a bit less than perfect while descending stairs. However I imagine while standing on level ground his jacket would not pull.
post #19 of 28
I just wanted to note that I disagree with the earlier post about the box pleat--I think that pleat makes a pair of pants look too casual for a suit. Much better for odd trousers. One choice you need to make is forward vs. reverse pleating. Typically I think of forward pleating as being a bit more casual. Gordon Gecko was big on the forward pleat. Most of what you find on suits is the reverse pleat these days.
post #20 of 28
All of my suits have a single forward facing pleat and I think that the positioning recommended by your tailor seems sound. If the suit is made from a pin- or chalk-striped material, then I would suggest that you don't get cuffs on the trousers (unless the jacket sleeves are also cuffed).
post #21 of 28
I am a big advocate of the single forward pleat. It sharply defines the leg. And it looks different from the reverse pleat that is worn by the majority of men. As for the picture of the suit worn by, "Sir Samuel", I have such a suit. I love it.
post #22 of 28
Thread Starter 
This picture will be all the excuse I need to get a three-button suit with peaked lapels. MPS: Why do you discourage cuffs on striped trousers?
post #23 of 28
Regarding the photo of Sir Samuel The cut of the armhole and shoulder lead me to think this is a deriviative of the Scholte school or Scholte himself. The arm hole is cut very high, tight and egg shaped. The shoulder slopes from a high collar to raise up a little at the sleevehead (the so called "pagoda" shoulder.) The buttoning point is perfect. The pulling in the forward lower quarters of the jacket, as Samuel descends the stairs, indicates that the jacket is ventless. The use of peaked lapels on an SB was fashionable at the time. though it is not one of my favorites, especially with a ticket pocket. Quite a mish mash of styles. It seems he has the two bottom buttons attached for some reason, so its hard to assess the quality of the lapels that seem to lack dimension, ie sufficient roll and width. They are pretty banale. I'll take the shoulder and arm hole cut and leave the rest. Cheers
post #24 of 28
I'll agree with Spalla on this one, although I really like peaked lapels on a S-B. The jacket seems very well fitted through the shoulder and arms, but it seems to be strangely both too tight (at the waist) and too baggy (at the chest) through the torso. I'm also not a fan of the ticket pocket. It seems like an unnecessary contrivance.
post #25 of 28
Just to add to the Sir Samuel issue. Look at this webpage Pinstriped trousers with a peaked-laped SB. And the two buttons are done up, pulling the fabric tight across his waist. Looks like he ate too much, or liked his coats so tight that he couldn't do up both buttons (not that one is supposed to, but the option is nice). But back to the pleats debate: can a tailor who is an absolute expert in trousers cut a flat-fronted pair which are comfortable to sit in? Not that I think FFs are uncomfortable, but the utilitarian argument for pleats has always been the 'confortable when sitting' argument, which sounds good, but considering that coats can be cut so that they needn't be unbottoned when sitting or whatever, I wonder if a good tailor can cut a confortable FF. But then the question is 'but does it look good when I stand?'
post #26 of 28
Well, based on that photo I'd definitely revoke my nomination for style icon. That looks really bad. And I agree the fit of the suit in the first photo is not perfect either. Mainly I liked the 3-button/SB/peak and the fit of the pants that could slice a tin can and then a tomato. Well... maybe not. But it convinced me about cuffless suit pants.
post #27 of 28
The General asks if FF trousers can be comfortable when sitting. The answer is yes, very comfortable...provided that they contain some variant of "elasticine".
post #28 of 28
Another option is stretch weaves of natural fibers. I saw some wool woven with a super high twist in the "width" direction so that it stretched as much as clothes I have with 3-5% lycra in them. Perhaps some of our fabric experts can chime in on this and explain better than I have but I am sure it would make for a more comfortable suit in every direction and look good too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Some questions regarding pleated trousers