whnay.'s good taste thread

[ellsbebc]

The earlier discussion about braces with odd pants reminded me of another question. There's a famous pic of Vox wearing trousers with braces showing a perfect back seam line. For those of you who are bespoke customers, do the back seams of your trousers hang straight without braces? I've done MTM at this point, and the seam line is cleaner, but not ideal. The only way I can get the backseam to fall cleanly is with braces.

A similar topic was recently addressed in the tailor's thread. Despos provided his diagnosis.

Hi Tailors, would appreacite your help. I have a lot of trouble when it comes to trousers. This are the best I can found around here.

This can be altered if you find a technically skilled tailor who understands pattern manipulation for posture effects. To alter this trouser isn't difficult and you don't require much adjusting but to do so disrupts the look of the back seat area. The side seam on the back part has to be taken in from o at mid thigh to 3/4" at the top of the outseam and then lower the waist band on the back part. The pockets will not be parallel to the waistband after this and look askew. The back pocket will be closer to the side seam as well. That's the negative part of making the alteration.

You would love the way I cut trousers!

D,

On the trousers he has pictured, the alteration isnt severe. My question is what would the effect be if instead of lowering the waistband at the back, the entire back part of each leg was shifted upwards into the waistband along with taking the side seam in at the hips? I did this for a client but the problem was much more extreme.
Other than it being much more labor, would it create a shift in the knee/leg area almost like adjusting for bow legs or knock knees?

Despos and OTC, why if I pull the waistband from the center back with my hand, all the creases are gone? I think that using suspender would fix the creases.

Because lifting the trouser at the center back has the same effect as lowering the waistband.

Even if you get the trouser cut properly and they hang straight from the seat, that area stretches from wearing and sitting and will wrinkle some again. Then you have to shape them up with an iron.

Suspenders will help some by holding them up.

 

[tdude]

Looks like I should follow that thread too. Thanks.

 

[CrimsonSox]

It's blue pants specifically that are in question.

I would never wear blue wool, odd trousers. The puzzle, though, is why it looks so strange to wear them with a sportscoat, while it can be attractive at times to pair a sportscoat with blue jeans.

There are some who think that the combination of jeans and tweed looks too casual, and wouldn't choose it themselves. But it can be worn by people who have what I consider to be beautiful taste, like Vox or Alden: http://www.voxsartoria.com/image/62173886330
http://stulenstil.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/024q0.jpg

So the mystery is to explain why blue jeans can work where blue wool trousers clearly don't when paired with a sportscoat.

Perhaps part of the reason is that blue jeans have a more casual texture, to match the rougher surface and country informality of a tweed sportscoat. But then why don't blue flannel trousers, with their fuzzier, softer, less formal nap, coordinate the way grey wool flannels do? Manton's insightful suggestion was that blue trousers draw too much attention to themselves; they don't fade into the background like grey flannels, which match jackets easily. But if it's a color issue, why would denim jeans potentially work better than the same shade of blue flannel or some other country-appropriate wool fabric?

 

[sprout2]

When you put it that way, I think it has to do with the light refraction of flannel (the lack thereof, that is). This is Manton's "black hole." It is so solid and dense and flat that, as a suit, it enshrouds you, but as pants, it just captures your bottom half. Why not a highly mottled variety, then? Probably too antique to look normal. Jeans are also so standardized these days that the effect is neutral.

 

[E TF]

Navy cotton trousers with a tweed or faux tweed sports coat is the standard weekend look for a whole swath of middle-class englishmen. Check out just about any photo of a tweed jacket on Charles Tyrwhitt's website or similar for example, and I can almost guarantee the model will also be wearing navy chinos and probably some sort of zipped knitwear.

Not that that makes it ok of course, but it does mean the combo does not stand out as unusual in any way over here.

 

[Ivar]



I would never wear blue wool, odd trousers.  The puzzle, though, is why it looks so strange to wear them with a sportscoat, while it can be attractive at times to pair a sportscoat with blue jeans.

I suspect that your eyes, through the influence of an overpowering reference group, have been conditioned into abhoring that specific combination. It's perfectly human, and we're all more or less subjected to such phenomena. The challenge lies in trying to extricate your own, "real" taste from the taste implanted in you by the group, all the while keeping in mind that the group can sometimes be right and you "wrong" (in some loose sense -- we're obviously not talking in absolutes here).

As to whether light-colored bottoms are preferable because they don't deflect attention from the face. I might buy that -- were it not for the fact that the people who stand by this theory happily wear loud sports coats, which is the surefire way of making your face take the backseat.

Oh, and the less said about those pictures of Vox and Alden, the better ...

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I don't know why, but I hate zippers. Is that a thing? I just always think buttons look nicer.

 

[sprout2]

Hating velcro is a thing, but not zippers.
I always ask for zippers when pants are made.

Down with pocket squares!
Down with 39-button pants configurations!
Down with side tabs, down with braces!
Down with Victorian button boots!
Down with jacquard ties!
Down with broguing!
Down with fancy socks!

Ahh... I feel better now.

 

[unbelragazzo]



I don't know why, but I hate zippers. Is that a thing? I just always think buttons look nicer.

I don't like zippers that have to be put together every time you want to zip up, like on jackets. They're ok on pants, but I prefer buttons usually. They extra buttons/fabric that pull over do help the pants fit better IME. I realize this doesn't require buttons on the fly, but they usually go together.

 

[sprout2]

I don't think they are mutually inclusive. You definitely want a three or more point closure, but buttoning the fly is just overkill IME.

 

[sugarbutch]

I hate button flies. What a bunch of fiddly bullshit.

 

[archibaldleach]



I hate button flies. What a bunch of fiddly bullshit.

+1.

 

[in stitches]



I don't know why, but I hate zippers. Is that a thing? I just always think buttons look nicer.

i dont hate zippers, but i do prefer buttons. and i will be 100% honest, its only because zippers feel less fancy to me. same goes for triple button closure vs. the metal hook. they just feel beneath the rest of the fanciness of the other wise fancy pants fancy pants*.




*see what i did there

 

[sugarbutch]

Ain't nothin' wrong with that.

 

[Kaplan]

Zippers on knitwear are evil.