Casual Trousers with Side Adjusters Instead of Belt Loops?

[MattyS]

I'm still near the beginning of my classic menswear journey, which may explain why I'm puzzled by something I see at many menswear sites (such as Spier and Mackay, Pini Parma, Natalino, and so forth), namely, trousers that I think of as fairly causal but that feature side adjusters instead of belt loops. I have in mind things such as chinos, corduroys, more causal linen trousers, and the like. Wearing casual trousers like these without a belt seems jarring to me, much as a double-breasted jacket without a tie seems somewhat jarring. With chinos and corduroys especially my eye expects something contrasting at the waist. Is this an unusual (or just untutored) reaction?

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

I'm still near the beginning of my classic menswear journey, which may explain why I'm puzzled by something I see at many menswear sites (such as Spier and Mackay, Pini Parma, Natalino, and so forth), namely, trousers that I think of as fairly causal but that feature side adjusters instead of belt loops. I have in mind things such as chinos, corduroys, more causal linen trousers, and the like. Wearing casual trousers like these without a belt seems jarring to me, much as a double-breasted jacket without a tie seems somewhat jarring. With chinos and corduroys especially my eye expects something contrasting at the waist. Is this an unusual (or just untutored) reaction?

Not sure if any of those places sell chinos with side adjusters. But to your main point, the trousers at a place like Natalino are all in a tailoring cut. They aren't cut or made like chinos or denim, and the details (e.g., seams) are different too. They are meant to be something you can wear with tailoring (or without in some cases). They are meant to be something that you would (or at least can) put a crease into. I think they are all perfectly suitable with side adjusters.

I also think there is a mistake many people on here make. Just because something is more casual, that doesn't mean the lack of that something is more formal. A belt makes things more casual, but the lack of a belt doesn't necessarily make things more formal (though if you were going for something very formal,you wouldn't wear a belt). Same thing with flaps on pockets. Jetted pockets can be fine on more casual jackets. In both of these cases, the idea is the same: more formal clothing has fewer elements (belts, flaps on pockets) that break up lines, but it is not a lack of things that break up lines that makes an outfit formal.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Jarring seems to be a bit of an overreaction. I think it’s perfectly fine. I have several pair with side tabs. I actually like them. Belts are fine but sometimes if wearing a sweater over the shirt I don’t want the bulk of the belt.

 

[MattyS]

Not sure if any of those places sell chinos with side adjusters. But to your main point, the trousers at a place like Natalino are all in a tailoring cut. They aren't cut or made like chinos or denim, and the details (e.g., seams) are different too. They are meant to be something you can wear with tailoring (or without in some cases). They are meant to be something that you would (or at least can) put a crease into. I think they are all perfectly suitable with side adjusters.

Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I understand that many of these terms are not especially precise, which might be part of my problem. For instance, I would have thought that trousers can be chinos even though they're something I would put a crease into and are meant to be worn (or at least compatible) with tailored odd jackets. I have in mind something like the "performance dress khakis" from Berle. To be fair, they don't call them chinos, but I think of them as chinos (albeit on the dressier end of the chino spectrum). The difference (in formality or dressiness) between these Berle khakis in stone and, say, these cotton twill trousers from Natalino is not readily apparent to my relatively untutored eye. And aren't khakis and a navy blazer something of a staple in (preppy) classic menswear?

I imagine that I'm just displaying my own ignorance here, and I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me!

 

[db123456]

Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I understand that many of these terms are not especially precise, which might be part of my problem. For instance, I would have thought that trousers can be chinos even though they're something I would put a crease into and are meant to be worn (or at least compatible) with tailored odd jackets. I have in mind something like the "performance dress khakis" from Berle. To be fair, they don't call them chinos, but I think of them as chinos (albeit on the dressier end of the chino spectrum). The difference (in formality or dressiness) between these Berle khakis in stone and, say, these cotton twill trousers from Natalino is not readily apparent to my relatively untutored eye. And aren't khakis and a navy blazer something of a staple in (preppy) classic menswear?

I imagine that I'm just displaying my own ignorance here, and I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me!

These terms can be a bit imprecise, because sometimes chinos can refer to dressier cotton trousers. But when someone is distinguishing between chinos and tailored (cotton) trousers I think they're generally different on a few dimensions: (1) Chinos will generally use a heavier, more robust fabric. They're likely to be garment washed, and if not they may use an even heavier fabric -- in the nature of raw denim. All of this contributes to a more casual look. (2) The finishing/stitching will be less fine on the chinos; again more casual. (3) The construction can be different -- the trousers will have a more structured, lined waistband, whereas chinos won't have the same structure. The result is that the chinos can be washed. (4) The cut may be different: Chinos may sit lower on the hips, and apparently the leg is shaped differently.

You'll sometimes see different combinations of these features -- for instance, chinos that are made from a finer cotton and aren't garment-washed, but lack the construction of a true tailored trouser. That may be what people are referring to with the "dress chino" label. I can't tell how the example you linked is made up.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply. I understand that many of these terms are not especially precise, which might be part of my problem. For instance, I would have thought that trousers can be chinos even though they're something I would put a crease into and are meant to be worn (or at least compatible) with tailored odd jackets. I have in mind something like the "performance dress khakis" from Berle. To be fair, they don't call them chinos, but I think of them as chinos (albeit on the dressier end of the chino spectrum). The difference (in formality or dressiness) between these Berle khakis in stone and, say, these cotton twill trousers from Natalino is not readily apparent to my relatively untutored eye. And aren't khakis and a navy blazer something of a staple in (preppy) classic menswear?

I imagine that I'm just displaying my own ignorance here, and I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me!

I think the post I quoted below hits the main points. One additional thing: I don't think of khakis and chinos as the same thing. I also don't really think khakis are dress trousers. They are sort of their own thing: machine-washable, single stitching, you can put a crease into them but you can also not, etc.

These terms can be a bit imprecise, because sometimes chinos can refer to dressier cotton trousers. But when someone is distinguishing between chinos and tailored (cotton) trousers I think they're generally different on a few dimensions: (1) Chinos will generally use a heavier, more robust fabric. They're likely to be garment washed, and if not they may use an even heavier fabric -- in the nature of raw denim. All of this contributes to a more casual look. (2) The finishing/stitching will be less fine on the chinos; again more casual. (3) The construction can be different -- the trousers will have a more structured, lined waistband, whereas chinos won't have the same structure. The result is that the chinos can be washed. (4) The cut may be different: Chinos may sit lower on the hips, and apparently the leg is shaped differently.

You'll sometimes see different combinations of these features -- for instance, chinos that are made from a finer cotton and aren't garment-washed, but lack the construction of a true tailored trouser. That may be what people are referring to with the "dress chino" label. I can't tell how the example you linked is made up.

 

[FlyingHorker]

Not sure if any of those places sell chinos with side adjusters. But to your main point, the trousers at a place like Natalino are all in a tailoring cut. They aren't cut or made like chinos or denim, and the details (e.g., seams) are different too. They are meant to be something you can wear with tailoring (or without in some cases). They are meant to be something that you would (or at least can) put a crease into. I think they are all perfectly suitable with side adjusters.

I also think there is a mistake many people on here make. Just because something is more casual, that doesn't mean the lack of that something is more formal. A belt makes things more casual, but the lack of a belt doesn't necessarily make things more formal (though if you were going for something very formal,you wouldn't wear a belt). Same thing with flaps on pockets. Jetted pockets can be fine on more casual jackets. In both of these cases, the idea is the same: more formal clothing has fewer elements (belts, flaps on pockets) that break up lines, but it is not a lack of things that break up lines that makes an outfit formal.

I don't agree with the second paragraph. The lack of things often adds to a sleekness and relative formality to my eye.

I do agree with the cotton trousers being in a tailoring cut mattering for side tabs vs. belt loops for formality though.

 

[dieworkwear]

I agree casual trousers look better with a belt. I've also switched to belt loops for all my odd trousers, and some of my less-than-formal suits.

Another dimension is the rise. The higher the rise, the better the trousers look with some kind of non-belted system, such as suspenders or side tabs. The lower the trouser, the more the pants cry out for belt loops. Few men today wear trousers so high, even in the #menswear world, where a belt would look off, however. Most of the time, those are bespoke suit trousers. For nearly all RTW trousers bought by people on this forum, it's mostly a matter of taste.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

I don't agree with the second paragraph. The lack of things often adds to a sleekness and relative formality to my eye.

I do agree with the cotton trousers being in a tailoring cut mattering for side tabs vs. belt loops for formality though.

That's fair. They may add some formality. I guess what I should have said is that they are not inherently formal elements. They may make the outfit slightly more formal, but there won't be a mismatch imo. Going beltless is a very different sort of thing that putting on captoe oxfords.

 

[db123456]

Going beltless is a very different sort of thing that putting on captoe oxfords.

Here we go . . .

 

[MattyS]

I agree casual trousers look better with a belt. I've also switched to belt loops for all my odd trousers, and some of my less-than-formal suits.

I'm not ready to go that far. I like to wear some of my wool odd trousers with odd vests/waistcoats, and I definitely don't like wearing belts under a waistcoat. (It bothers me less under a knitted waistcoat.) I suppose one could have buttons for suspenders alongside beltloops. After all, if I'm wearing a waistcoat, the unused belt loops wont' be visible.