Wool trouser without front crease?

[Caustic Man]

Trousers should have good creases - they look (and by inference the wearer) slovenly without.

 

[super1flavor]

Thanks again ArnoBuyens for adding to the topic.

And wouldn't you know, I just opened up the RE section of the NY Times online and there was an image of a fellow in a sweater and grey wool pants with no crease and the guy doesn't look slovenly at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/r...on&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

 

[Caustic Man]

See? That's the proper way to express a differing opinion. By offering a reasonable counter argument, not by being pouty.

 

[emidyl]

sounds more like linen is more up your alley.
And BTW if you look a little closer there does appear to be a crease on his pants, just that it is less pronounced higher up.

 

[Camilo]

Another suggestion is to look at more SWD type brands if you're looking for pants that aren't so formal. Some examples are Lemaire, helmut Lang, zam b, etc. I do like those in comparison to most dress pants here in CM.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Not true. I have some great other conversations elsewhere and I get along fine with newer people like myself. I just know, from past topics over a year ago, that once the "senior members" get roaring everything goes down hill. The people I look to most for the best and most thoughtful responses generally provide no value whatsoever.

I was wondering about this same topic (wearing slim lightweight wool trousers casually w/o crease) and I think it's doable assuming the cut is right, the fabric relatively matte, and some of the other productive suggestions people have made. That said, I'm not responding simply because I agree that it's possible (assuming said variables tuned properly); I found this thread researching said topic and was immediately struck by the same kind of thing I've gotten in some of my posts by (some, certainly not all) very well-established (at least in post count terms) members who simply dismiss anything they disagree with (often without explanation, context, or for instance, how conservative they dress if that factors in, not to mention age), often with snark (and not of the enjoyable and much missed Vox variety) and hostility. It's a shame. StyleForum's most useful feature is the search function and careful attention paid to how long ago the thread was started; I'm not even sure what a lot of these people are on here for anymore (especially ones who, years ago, actively engaged in discussion politely).

Nice to see I'm not the only 'newer' member (I've been lurking for many years before I joined, but by the time I got around to posting, it seemed to be like this now) experiencing this, at least.

Another note: sometimes the 'ask a quick question' thread brings (unfortunately very few, but nonetheless valuable) more useful responses than starting your own thread these days. People act like starting a thread and 'clogging up the main page' is some kind of ethical lapse; it's fairly ridiculous. C'est la vie; there's always the archives, as it were.

 

[crinklecut]

Oh well, since you resurrected this thread, I might as well put my two cents in: I find a good casual alternative to khakis is slim cotton trousers with some kind of subtle pattern. I have a pair of light grey Glen Plaid trousers that see a lot of use, as do a pair of brushed brown herringbone pants. I don't press a crease on either.

 

[comrade]

A little historical perspective: Trousers were originally worn without creases.
Side creases were also common and popularized by Queen Victoria's Prince Consort
Albert in the mid 19th century. Here is an example of well-dressed gentlemen wearing
uncreased trousers in 1872, about a decade after Prince Albert's death:

http://mistercrew.com/files/2010/09/victorian_mens_fashion_01.jpg

 

[Sam H]

I was thinking about buying some 5 pocket cut flannels next winter. I agree, I don't like wearing shirt + pants alone although sometimes I do. I would keep my nicer pants pressed and have some casual alternatives. I don't see a problem with wool cut and worn casually. I also don't care if it breaks a rule because I would be doing this for the SWD side of things not the CM side.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I was thinking about buying some 5 pocket cut flannels next winter. I agree, I don't like wearing shirt + pants alone although sometimes I do. I would keep my nicer pants pressed and have some casual alternatives. I don't see a problem with wool cut and worn casually. I also don't care if it breaks a rule because I would be doing this for the SWD side of things not the CM side.

+1

I think the key is to have any pair of trousers you're going to wear w/o crease and casually be cut like chinos/cords/moleskines should be (whatever that means to you; I use a totally different set of measurements for my MTM casual trousers vs. dress trousers). Simply taking a wool dress pant (regardless of how slim or whatever) and ironing out the crease / giving it a side crease / whatever is not going look right, at least in most cases, by my estimation, as the cut would be all off.

Keeping separate trousers, dress and casual, pressed and unpressed, is the way to go of course; I don't think any pair can really do double duty except for in perhaps some particular situations or in a pinch, as it were. But yeah - nothing inherently wrong with wool done this way, and quite interesting that there's some historical perspective as well...

 

[Mr Knightley]

+1

But yeah - nothing inherently wrong with wool done this way, and quite interesting that there's some historical perspective as well...

I found some pics of Bertie when he was Prince of Wales sporting trousers with no front crease. It seems they were considered formal enough then to be worn at the wedding of the future George V in July 1893.