PANTS! When They Go Gloriously Right or Horribly Wrong.

[elgreco]

I'm branching the pants debate off from the conservative business dress thread so as not to pollute the thread with my trouser-related curmudgeonry.

I came to the defense of old dog/old trix's trousers here:



However, gdl and I briefly sparred over the trousers issue, and there is a critical part of his point worth quoting:

Originally Posted by gdl203

You seem to imply that trousers fit well only if they fit at the waist/hips. This may be your opinion but it's incorrect. Good fit is also through the leg and in the length.

I also think that old/old could benefit from a less baggy trouser leg. I also think it is within the range of acceptable, but that doesn't mean it's optimal.

First of all, gdl, we're good; didn't mean to bite so hard.

Nevertheless, I don't pretend to know everything about fit (I'm still learning as is everyone else who comes here) and I agree that the fit of trousers extends the length of the leg (no fabric puddles, please). However, I don't agree with the purely subjective stance that a highly tapered pant leg is several echelons above other trouser cuts. I submit the following (probably my favorite non-sartorialist picture in a long, long, long time) as an example of a wider-legged dress trouser that is sharp as tacks:

Have at it, ye vultures.

 

[gdl203]

Second example looks good. Nice clean line all through the leg, even though it's a wider leg. No puddles or large ripples around the crotch and below. Length is spot on. I don't get the sleek shoes with wide leg opening though - but it's OK.

There's an odd contrast on o/o's outfit between a fitted, trim, no-drape top, sleek shoes on one hand and a drapy, loose, baggy bottom with wide openings on the other hand.

 

[TRINI]

Tutee had a good thread on pants fit once upon a time. Found: http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=177616

 

[Kuro]

Originally Posted by TRINI

Tutee had a good thread on pants fit once upon a time.

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=177616

 

[elgreco]

Too bad all of the photo examples are on Imageshack.

 

[Kuro]

oops...hope people printed it (i did).

ps: vox made an appearance

 

[DocHolliday]

Having larger thighs than I'd like, I favor a fuller trou than many here. Leg openings of less than eight inches look ridiculous on me -- I look like an ice cream cone from the waist down. As such, I'm fine with a substantially larger leg opening.

That said, I find many fuller trou are no better than their skinny brethren, because there's just too much cloth through the thigh. The billowing excess creates the same problem I'm trying to avoid.

These days, I do a simple test. When trying on trou, I reach behind my thigh and see how much cloth I can grab. If it's a fistfull, back on the rack they go. I want a little room there, but not much.

For me, there's a sweet spot at which I can sit comfortably and my modesty is preserved and yet I'm not swimming in Oxford bags.

 

[edmorel]

I don't mind o/o's pants, I actually think they work well for him as he seems "hip-py" to me so he needs the space there yet I like that his leg opening is tapered somewhat so that his shoe still shows a decent amount. I think o/o could benefit from some shoulder extension as his wide hips/narrow shoulders (or at least the looks of it) do him no favors. The second gentleman is great but the opening is just too wide. It could be the pic, but it looks like it reaches the perferation of the cap toe so that would mean only a 2 inches or so of shoe show and that is just too little shoe/too much pant opening for my liking.

 

[Redwoood]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the above is one of the closest-cut coats I've seen o/o in.
He generally likes a roomier fit, so it only makes sense for the pants to fit roomier as well, to avoid Doc's ice cream cone effect. They are a bit too long, though, and would look and fall better if shortened.
As for matching leg opening and shoes, I think it's a valid concept, but ultimately very restrictive as you would have to turn your back on many many beautiful shoes, and who wants that?

everything imho only, of course.

 

[Holdfast]

I always come in for stick for my "baggy" trouser leg width, so I guess I should post something in this thread. My opinion is this: - there are a range of different width legs that can be defined as fitting well enough, in terms of line and drape. - Very few of my trousers are perfect in this regard because I only have a small number of bespoke items, but nonetheless, even my wider fitting MTM or RTW trousers aren't all that off in terms of cleanliness of line. - I am prepared for the sake of argument to accept that a somewhat looser cut is perhaps not aesthetically "ideal" for me. I do have some narrower trousers too, so I do see the difference, as well as the feel, of the different varieties. - On balance, I prefer how I feel and look when wearing the looser ones. - I'm prepared to accept it looking less than optimal from an SF (or Platonic Form or general public or whatever) perspective, because I enjoy wearing the slightly looser ones more. That's more important to me. I'd say that if you've tried a range of different widths, you can make an informed choice as to which you prefer wearing. You then have to accept criticism from others, esp. if you actively put your outfits out there on SF. What you do with that criticism is an entirely different matter. PS. Dr Churchwell looks great in that trouser width, and o/o trousers look fine with his SB looks too (though a few of his DB jackets are too loose IMO, but that's another thread).

 

[Bentley]

The rise on o/o's trousers seems awfully high to me. Perhaps it's just a matter of style and preference but I think a lower rise would look better.

 

[mmkn]

There is fit, and there is style.

Perfit fits don't necessarily translate to style. If so, we'd all be walking around in leotards or jeggings and thinking ourselves stylish.

Style is not possible without good fit.

Throw compensation, proportions, colors, patterns, texture, and function in there - and one gets the Gestalt.

Both the gentlemen above have good fit and style.

- M

 

[ShayaEXQT]

why are the first guys pants so high??
he will have to undo his zipper to scratch his nipples!

 

[MBreinin]

Originally Posted by davesmith

why are the first guys pants so high??
he will have to undo his zipper to scratch his nipples!

Because that is a classicly styled suit. This low rise fascination that people have these days is not a classic look, and OldDog prefers a classic look.

Mike

 

[acridsheep]

Originally Posted by MBreinin

Because that is a classicly styled suit. This low rise fascination that people have these days is not a classic look, and OldDog prefers a classic look.

Mike


These aren't just not low rise, they are incredibly high. I think 0/0 could lose another 8" in rise before he would even begin to encroach on low rise territory.

0/0 is a master of quality, colors, and patterns, but most of his fits exaggerate the discrepancy between the width of his hips and the narrowness of his shoulders.

Granted I have a low poast count, poor fits and should not be taken seriously, but there are no sacred cows here.