Difference between dress trousers and suit trousers?

[Preparatory]

Can anyone explain it to me? Always been asking myself what the difference is..

 

[Holdfast]

Dress trousers refers to the trousers worn with a dinner jacket (or more specifically, a tailcoat, although I think these days the terminology is broad enough to accept both usages) i.e. black, in a matching fabric to the jacket, and with silk tape (or two, for the tailcoat) covering up the side seam. Typically, they would have a pretty high rise too, so the waistband can hide under the waistcoat or cummerbund.

Suit trousers should need little explanation: they're the trousers made from the matching fabric to a jacket, as part of a suit. I suppose, technically, dress trousers are therefore a subset of suit trousers, but it's rare to see someone actually talk about them in that way.

I should also add that there's an increasing trend to talk about any tailored trouser (whether as part of a suit of any description, or as odd trousers) as being "dress trousers" (or even more confusingly, "formal trousers"). I assume that this bastardisation started with someone/some manufacturer calling them "dressy trousers" to distinguish them from jeans or tracksuit trousers/sweatpants, but who knows what the etymology really is. Anyway, it's a misnomer that serves to obfuscate rather than clarify.

 

[Preparatory]



Dress trousers refers to the trousers worn with a dinner jacket (or more specifically, a tailcoat, although I think these days the terminology is broad enough to accept both usages) i.e. black, in a matching fabric to the jacket, and with silk tape (or two, for the tailcoat) covering up the side seam. Typically, they would have a pretty high rise too, so the waistband can hide under the waistcoat or cummerbund.

Suit trousers should need little explanation: they're the trousers made from the matching fabric to a jacket, as part of a suit. I suppose, technically, dress trousers are therefore a subset of suit trousers, but it's rare to see someone actually talk about them in that way.

I should also add that there's an increasing trend to talk about any tailored trouser (whether as part of a suit of any description, or as odd trousers) as being "dress trousers" (or even more confusingly, "formal trousers"). I assume that this bastardisation started with someone/some manufacturer calling them "dressy trousers" to distinguish them from jeans or tracksuit trousers/sweatpants, but who knows what the etymology really is. Anyway, it's a misnomer that serves to obfuscate rather than clarify.

So the only difference is terms of construction is the silk tape? I've seen dress trousers without that kind of silk tape so that would make it the same thing. For example these "dress trousers":
http://eu.suitsupply.com/en_SE/trousers/grey-trousers/B288.html?start=15&cgid=Trousers

I cannot separate from any suit trouser just by looking at it.

 

[Holdfast]

Those aren't dress trousers unless you accept the confusing, but trending, usage of "dress trouser" to describe any tailored trouser whatsoever.

I would simply call the trousers in the link as "tailored trousers". They're not suit trousers, because they're not part of a suit. Frequently, you'll therefore see such trousers called "odd" trousers, because they're single rather sold with a matching jacket.

(there are other, more subtle ways to distinguish odd trousers from suit trousers. You might get them in a more informal colour or pattern, maybe a lower rise, or with more casual details like different pockets, or perhaps opt for belt rather than braces to hold them up, and so on. But you could still have a pair of odd trousers that are indistinguishable from what you would have as a part of a suit, and all that makes them an odd pair is taht they didn't come with a matching jacket. Typically, or perhaps I should more correctly say traditionally, you'd want most of your pairs of odd trousers to vary in detail to your typical suit trousers, just to create some variety of appearance).

 

[Academic2]

In the U.S., "dress" in this context has come to mean simply "not casual," and given that Brooks Brothers adopted it some time ago the usage is probably not going to go away any time soon, viz.:

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/mens/men,default,sc.html

Amusingly, they use "trousers" to refer to "dress" apparel and "pants" to refer to "casual" apparel. Unlike the "dress" vs. "casual" dichotomy, I think that is BB's corporate affectation.

Cheers,

Ac

 

[Holdfast]

In the U.S., "dress" in this context has come to mean simply "not casual," and given that Brooks Brothers adopted it some time ago the usage is probably not going to go away any time soon, viz.:

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/mens/men,default,sc.html

Amusingly, they use "trousers" to refer to "dress" apparel and "pants" to refer to "casual" apparel. Unlike the "dress" vs. "casual" dichotomy, I think that is BB's corporate affectation.

Both dichotomies strike me as terribly confusing and unnecessary complications to an otherwise fairly self-explanatory nomenclature. I've noticed this usage of "dress" slowly creeping into the UK, but thankfully it's much more the exception than the rule. The day that the UK starts using pants, I'll know we've truly become Airstrip One.

 

[GBR]

The difference exists in American parlance primarily as that benighted country uses it to distinguish the trousers from casual - the same as it does for shirts.

In the UK the sobriquet "Dress" would suggest trousers as part of a dinner suit/Evening dress.

 

[Academic2]

Just to be clear, I was neither approving or disapproving the usage. It is what it is.

SF is international, which is a very good thing, but that diversity can cause confusion from time to time.

Cheers,

Ac

 

[Count de Monet]

"Two countries separated by a common language."

The referenced Brooks Brothers distinction notwithstanding, I will hazard the opinion that most folks on my side of the pond rarely use the term "trousers" in any context. Non-casual pants are frequently referred to as [prepare to cringe] "dress pants," which I imagine some here would consider oxymoronic. For most folks, the term "evening dress" refers to something worn exclusively by women. If someone needs to make a reference to pants worn with a "tuxedo," which for most folks is a rare occurrence once one passes the age of going to high school proms and being in weddings, most would refer to "pants worn with a tuxedo."

I have read here in other threads some suggestion that in America there is a distinction between "trousers" and "pants" based on the gender of the wearer. However, I'd say outside of nicer menswear shops (and their web sites) "trousers" is rarely heard and less often uttered. "Pants" has increasingly become universal in the US with no regard to gender or intended use. Thus, the "pants" vs. "dress pants" distinction.

Even Churchill (who liked to joke - when here - that he was half American) used the term at times: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

In fact, when I saw the thread title, I thought the topic related to how to distinguish between dress pants worn as part of a suit vs. dress pants worn with a sport coat ... er ... "odd jacket" and tie, a topic discussed with some frequency in other threads here.

 

[Holdfast]

Even Churchill (who liked to joke - when here - that he was half American) used the term at times: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

To be fair, the aphorism works with the English meaning of pants too. It's funnier that way too, at least in my puerile mind.

 

[GBR]



To be fair, the aphorism works with the English meaning of pants too. It's funnier that way too, at least in my puerile mind.

Yes, a gentleman's pants go under his trousers.