From Bill
What is your opinion on the most traditional type of vest to have made as part of a conservative 3 piece suit? Previously, I have only had the standard single breasted 6 button vest. However, I have seen recent pictures and commentary on double breasted and vests with lapels.
Every style is rooted in tradition and what's correct depends on the type of suit. For country inspired clothes, like the glen check in the photo, lapels are a traditional vest detail. In the city, the single breasted vest without lapels is the least likely to draw attention on a pinstripe. And the double breasted vest increases the formality of a suit compared to the usual single breasted style. Try one with a solid charcoal or navy blue suiting.
From TJ
As one of your readers who is in 'phase two' of his wardrobe I'd be interested in your opinions, the history of, and options for the following:
-Jacket Vents (one, two, none)
-Pant Cuffs (to cuff or not to cuff)
Briefly, single vented jackets came from riding coats. They don't look very good when a man puts his hands in his pockets, which is why I and most men that follow classic style prefer the double vent. Ventless jackets were the traditional option for formal wear but have the same unattractive-backside-bulge-when-hand-is-in-pocket problem as does a single vented coat. Go ventless only if you keep your hands in sight at all times.
Trousers at the turn of the 20th century were flat fronted and cuffless. Pleats were introduced during the twenties and continue to be the sign of good tailoring IMO. Pleats should be accompanied by cuffs except on formal trousers, which are always uncuffed.
The flat front came back after WWII for uniform trousers and working clothes, and the Italians brought it to dress trousers. Flat fronts are OK for younger men with washboard stomachs but should never be accompanied by cuffs unless the wearer doesn't care about history.
Posts
7 comments:
My ex-girlfriend always preferred flat front, cuffless pants. She said they looked sleaker and better. But I would never wear them. I don't feel dressed unless I have cuffs and pleats.
Last night I watched Love in the Afternoon with Audrey Hepburn and Gary Cooper. Gary Cooper was so elegant in his cuffed pants and pleats.
P.S. She being my ex has nothing to do with the pants as far as I know.
I love cuffs. I have them on all my trousers, flat-front and pleated, save denim and formal. When I was younger, I even had a pair of khaki shorts with cuffs. The cuffless look, IMVHO, somehow looks curtailed or incomplete, like a sentence without a period at the end. Actually I think I have a pair of cuffless moleskins.
I have two pair of flat front no cuff pants. I must agree with Laguna Beach Trad in that I look down at my shoes and it just seems incomplete. I also find a cuff seems to frame my shoes better.
Also, while I am no washboard, I am definitely thin and flat front pants do look good while standing. The problem is most of my day is spent sitting. Lets just say the flat front doesn't make sitting that comfortable. Add to that unsightly wrinkles when you stand up and, I must say, I don't wear them very often. Viva la cuffs and pleats!
I have to agree with both Laguna and Turling here. A case in point is the following link to SF Cable Car Clothiers. The ensemble of black loafers, camel socks and gray cuffed trousers is a great look. But take the cuffs off the trousers,and all of a sudden it does not seem to work even though the colors and clothes are otherwise the same.
http://www.cablecarclothiers.com/french_hosiery_over_calf.html
I must disagree here. Cuffs of course are very traditional. But there is nothing traditional about pleats. They came in to fashion, as was said, in the twenties. The twenties were not a time of conservativeness, they were the time of jazz and flapper girls, and pleats were the influence of the Pr. of Wales, who was hardly a gentleman or a champion of traditional dress. Traditional pants are, and have been for the past hundred years, flat fronted and cuffed. And well cut flat front pants can be just as comfortable as pleated.
Chenrezigdas, reasonable men may disagree, and do in this case. Both cuffs and pleats appeared in the first part of the twentieth and neither is more traditional than the other. I don't believe I wrote that pleats are more comfortable, though on reflection I think they are. I did write that that pleats are better tailoring for the majority of men. Your mileage may vary.
"Flat fronts are OK for younger men with washboard stomachs but should never be accompanied by cuffs unless the wearer doesn't care about history."
Let me ask you Will, what if a man cares about history, but wears flat-front with cuffs because that's the style he likes?
As it happens though Will, you're mistaken about the origin of cuffs. You are correct that trouser cuffs became a universal fashion only in the 1920s, concurrently with pleats, but they had been worn on city suits since the beginning of the century- and with flat-front trousers mind you. Any number of old fashion illustrations will bear witness to this. As early as 1893, a British PM provoked scandal by coming to Parliament in cuffed trousers. It was Edward VII (when he was PoW) who really spearheaded the fashion around the turn of the century, and by the WWI decade, cuffs had become a very common sight while trousers were still being cut flat-fronted.
Feel free to email me for pictorial evidence if you should require it, in the meanwhile I would refer you to pages 117 to 119 of Farid Chenoune's "A History of Men's Fashion" if you have it.
Be assured that I very much enjoy your blog!
E.
Post a Comment