Pleats vs flat

[AlanC]

Here's a picture from Turnbull & Asser's website that shows pleats in a very positive manner: Pleats are a quite acceptable feature in classic men's clothing. One should certainly appreciate the benefits of the flat front as well, and probably should avoid being an ideologue about it either way. PS I prefer punctuation outside of quotation marks as it makes much more sense. I side with LA Guy.

 

[MilanoStyle]

Thats a nice blazer.

I also own classic 3 button Hugo Boss Navy Blazer. I always wear it with flat fronted pants with very sleek shoes (italian). The reason being, I do not stuck in "classic" image. I want to achieve elegant look but still modern sleekness.

 

[LA Guy]

PS I prefer punctuation outside of quotation marks as it makes much more sense. I side with LA Guy.

I hate to infer motive, but I suspect that youngteam was writing in reaction to my suggestion to the original poster to use proper grammar and diction.

 

[SFclassic]

I've been a member of this forum for just a few weeks, and I've been impressed by the respect that members have shown one another.

This thread is the first where I've seen anyone being put down.

It's very disappointing to read, and I hope it doesn't continue.

 

[Leo Jay]

I say just wear whichever suits YOUR own style.  I wear only pleated pants, because they look best on me and suit my taste.  I'm not going to ignore my own good judgement just because there might be those who would find my pleated khakis 'inappropriate'.

 

[jester]

Though I think a flat-fronted look can be OK on some suits (e.g. a more stylish, slimmer cut), I can't really wear them. Some of us have butt-and-thigh issues requiring some more room down there; pleats are a must for me. Even on khakis, sadly--otherwise I couldn't get my hand in the pocket.

 

[fopkid]

Our friend JD Erickson has some thoughts on the subject which may be of interest to forum readers: http://www.jderickson.com/clothing/blog.html

 

[j]

What he says is exactly what I was about to say. I hate seeing people with their pleated pants hitched under their belly and cinched tight with a belt. It looks hideous, and when they sit and the pleats expand it makes the whole front of the pants balloon out and just.. ugh. Nevermind. Don't do this, please, people. If you have a belly, put your pants over it. Your belt is not a weight-control device. In fact at this point you are a prime candidate for suspenders (UK. "braces&quot that would keep you from having to find a point on your body that a belt can be cinched around so as not to fall down. Believe me, you may think it's old-mannish to wear your trousers up around your actual waist (or where it would be if you had one) but you will look so much better and be more comfortable, and that's ostensibly why you wear them so low in the first place, right?

I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but there it is. No offense meant to people who don't have a waist.

 

[LA Guy]

That jd erickson is no dummy.

 

[LA Guy]

Another thing that J.D. Erickson states in his blog is also correct. Louis Boston has actually *very* modest markups compared to their peer stores in LA, NYC, and even other, more modest metropoli. I don't know about tailored clothing, but their sportswear collections are priced about 10-15% lower than say, Maxfield LA. Of course, they are not as "current". For example, there is a Cloak NYC jacket selling at Maxfield Bleu now for under $200, that is still selling for $425 at Louis, although the original price at Maxfield was $480 or so.

And they do not put "everything" out for their sale in the same way that Maxfield and Fred Segal Ron Herman do (RH even includes all but the most newly arrived jeans - staples like the standard Paper Denim washes, for example.) Louis does not do this.

 

[shqiptar]

| Dress pants for business I think pleats are a must for suit pants. The suit pants should have high waist and two pleats. The contemporary fashion suits we see in catalogs or upscale stores with unpleated/narrow pants and slim jackets look ridiculous, especially for work/business. Those kind of suits are worn by some high-profile designers, some naive men, and of course ****. These suits don't excude power and seriousness. Even on casual Fridays, if the suits are not an option, the dress pants should be pleated. I would trust more a man with pleated pants than unpleated ones. As for khakis, they could be both. The relaxed unpleated khakis/chinos look as presentable as the pleated ones. On an athletic man they add more clout. And the older men look younger on unpleated khakis/chinos. Pants for leisure time Pants for leisure time, or other after work activities look sexier when unpleated. Wool unpleated slacks look sexy on men that have no weight problems. For men with weight problems the pleated ones are the better option. It would cover the physical problems to an extent. Khakis/chinos or other pants look sexier unpleated. At leisure times or recreational activities you want to convey the message of being sexy, friendly, not uptight, and sporty. Hight waist pants are sexy Women find men with thin waist sexier than the other ones, and I try to keep this in mind. Also, high waist pants create the ilusion of long legs and women prefer men with long legs and generally taller ones. This goes against the contemporary casual fashion, where a lot of jeans and other pants have a low waist. They might look Ok on young men, but on not so young and mature men they give the impression of trying too hard. These are my thoughts.

 

[youngteam]

Am I the only one who saw that?


Your post "excudes" a lot of "power and seriousness." Keep up the excuding.

 

[water]

Even on casual Fridays, if the suits are not an option, the dress pants should be pleated. I would trust more a man with pleated pants than unpleated ones.

Is this a joke? Your trust in someone is developed via the pleats (or lack threreof) in their pants? Yikes.

Those kind of suits are worn by some high-profile designers, some naive men, and of course ****.

I agree with mack11211 that this statement is pretty offensive. Not to mention it "outs" over half of the men in Europe who wear suits. If only they knew.

 

[imageWIS]

If I may 'excude' for a moment in print, I think your language is offensive even to the 90% of the people on this forum who aren't gay or bi. Grow up.

Quite.

Clothes have nothing to do with sexual preference, especially suits and dress trousers. I recall reading that ***********ers more often than not are straight and not the other way around as is cognizant in most people's thoughts.

People whom think that clothes are gay or straight are obviously ignorant Neanderthals that need to spend a little more time traveling and meeting people from different walks of life and less time bashing people that they know nothing about based on prejudiced assumptions; on the internet no less.

Jon.

 

[LA Guy]

So, if I'm to understand shqiptar correctly, I am either a fashion designer, a naive man, or a ***.

I'm neither the first nor the last, so I must simply be naive. I think the gist of shqiptar's comments was that fashion forward suits are not suitable for the boardroom. This may be a valid statement in North America - I'm never in the boardroom, what do I know, I'm naive - but flat front are the default style outside of North America. Does this mean that the boardrooms of Europe are full of naive men and ****? (I assume that there are not too many high end fashion designers in those boardrooms. And the majority of them are **** too, so it works). What an interesting observation that would be.

All I can say is to shqiptar is that if you told me, to my face, what you just posted, I could definitely not take you seriously, whether you are a ***, or not.