Beltlessness, or the state of being suited without a belt, is to me a superior state. Belts are after all little more than an accommodation to sloppy tailoring and even sloppier weight management. Belted trousers do not need to fit with precision and so they do not.
Trousers without belt loops on the other hand have a cleaner waistband and lack that abominable belt buckle bulge under a vest.
Now the liklihood that these remarks will do anything to change the belted state of North America is miniscule. Indeed, most of the comments I would hear had I not made this prediction would be of the "this is how I do it hence it must be right" variety (nothing wrong with that of course as my own stance is the same coming from the opposite direction). But a man has to try.
Beltlessness is better.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Beltlessness is Better
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I wore a pair of Panta trousers last week with side tabs and no belt loops. I got a few questions around the office. I was wearing an odd jacket and tie, but it was quite noticeable for those accustomed to seeing a belt buckle.
I found I like it better. It's a cleaner look and doesn't divide the body as harshly.
Did not the Duke of Windsor himself prefer belts, having his trousers made in New York after Scholte refused to accommodate belts?
Why did he prefer belted trousers?
Will,
I agree with your point that a belt often makes up for sloppy tailoring, but wouldn't you say that it also provides a nice visual break from one's shirt to the trousers. Something about going beltless seems rather odd to me.
Belts are a compromise, albeit in a more casual outfit with odd jackets sometimes an attractive one, but never acceptable with w proper three-piece suit. They indeed tend to wreak havoc with the waist coat.
Levi, the Duke disliked braces (suspenders). I have seen at least one photo of him wearing a belt, but most of his trousers were beltless.
you'd be missing out on a great accessory then. I'd rather wear a gorgeous exotic leather than go beltless and sport the stupid adjusters.
I prefer beltlessness or braces. But if I'm not buying a suit trouser is quite rare to find, unless custom tailored.
Why can't it be either? Sometimes it's fun to wear a nice belt and offset a ring or watch, or play off a pair of shoes' colour or texture. Sometimes you don't need it, and sometimes braces are required... a little variety never hurts. Men get so few choices as it is (compared to women's wear anyway).
I like my belts. I like my braces.
Will - I wholeheartedly agree!
Luckily, in Britain, we have kept the beltless trouser (never pants, dear American friends...) as a more familiar affair than in the US, so it is not so much a shock to observers - and rightly so.
However, there are two problems with less-well made beltless trousers:
1. The waistband in 98% of non-bespoke beltless trousers do not have a strong enough canvas to avoid the unsightly rolled-over / creased / crumpled look that is all too often seen on trousers from the likes of stores such as Hackett. A shame.
2. In many cases, the outside, visible tab at the front of the beltless trouser waistband is finished with a visible button. I believe that this is just wrong - an invisible slide and clean-finished cloth tab is all that should be seen on a beltless waist.
Finally, there is also the issue of side tabs - slide adjusters or Daks button tabs?
I am a button tabs man...
What about belt loops? Being a student, I buy most of my suits second-hand and take them to an alteration tailor. This way I can get cheap, but well-fitting suits, the materials tend to be better than for an average cheapo-off-the-rack suit, and I also prefer really classic men's style (such as 3-pieces) to more modern cuts.
As my suits fit, I usually go beltless. But is there something wrong doing it when the pants do have belt loops? So, should I remove belt loops from those pants that happen to have them?
I enthusiastically agree with your point, Will. I do, however, have a soft spot for the so-called Hollywood-waist with belt and the self-belt; for odd trousers, that is.
What is your opinion on those?
Regards.
Couldn't agree more. Beltlessness has a great simplicity and minimalism.
I also prefer beltless trousers. Where is that picture of Jeremy Irons from, by the way?
That picture of Jeremy Irons is from a DKNY ad campaign.
Beltlessness certainly gives a man a nice clean and minimalistic look! However, belts are more often used out of practical need, rather than vanity or sense of style... So doesn't being beltless also mean you have either/or a perfect figure or perfect tailor?
All the best,
WhatShouldMenWear
Post a Comment