It's no secret that while the perennially trend-setting Duke of Windsor loved his Scholte coats, he opted to have his trousers made across the pond in New York City. Word is he favored the lower-rise, sometimes pleat-free American cut over the traditional British style with its double pleats and high natural waist. He wasn't alone, and the twentieth century (with the exception of a small blip in the 1980s) saw men's trousers get lower, slimmer, and flatter.
That's not all bad, but I want to stand up for the high-waisted British trouser. I'm talking about a trouser with two pleats (regular or forward-facing), a wider leg, side-straps instead of belt loops, that sits on the natural waist, and almost always carries a hefty turn-up. The classic.
I'm in my early twenties, and I can't remember a time when the major magazines weren't preaching the gospel of slim trousers with flat fronts. Nothing else will do for the style-conscious man. Or so they have said. But I finally picked up some British-cut brown flannels and might like them better than any other trousers in my closet.
Just like asserting that the one, two, or three button coat must reign supreme, it's a shame to denounce the full, pleated trouser outright. A tailor I spoke with recently told me that in his forty years of suggesting clients try pleated trousers, he's never had a single customer switch back to flat fronts after taking pleats for a spin. I think I'm now one of the converted.
Not only does is a proper British trouser more comfortable, but it wears better and keeps a flattering shape longer. We all know what happens when a pair of wool trousers that are tight in the seat begin to stretch - the wearer gets the dreaded "diaper butt" and end up with cloth flapping about under his posterior. A trouser that drapes straight down off your backside, rather than hugging it, not only creates a cleaner line, but it does not deform the trouser every time the wearer sits down.
The same benefits accrue in front. The pleats give the crease some room to breathe, and creases lasting longer and stay sharper. And the wearer does not have to *ahem* "adjust himself" when he sits down, as the higher rise combined with the pleats keeps everything moving as it should.
So before following the herd and assuming trousers should be flat and low, give the high waisted trouser a try. The Duke was right about most thing sartorials, but I'm going to have to disagree with him on this one. Pull them up, tighten the side-tabs, and let the pleats do the rest.
Posts
16 comments:
I fully agree. The gentlemanly appearance and the comfort of a pleated, high-waisted, and fully-cut trouser are second-to-none.
I agree with everything you've written here, but that's because you've discussed all the matters of practicality and comfort without talking about how they look.
Sadly I really don't like the way pleats, or high waists, look, and that's the end of it.
I like pleats. I normally go for single, outward-facing, with side-adjusters. However, the killer addition is braces. You get to wear your trousers looser, and they never drop a millimetre.
I have always liked the look on others but when I have tried them, they just look awful. I will leave them for the tall lanky person to wear.
I much prefer the balance of function and form with pleated trousers, but the missus begs me to buy only flat-front. She, however, doesn't have to walk around in my clothes, so I wear what I want.
Not sure that the DoW wanted flat front or slim cut trousers -- those he is pictured wearing are easily more generous than anyone wears today, and there are books stating that he wanted wide "Oxford Bags" which Scholte refused to make. He did prefer belts to fishtail-backed braced trousers, but he was definitely not wearing snake-hipped low-riders. I also believe that some of his American trouser purchasing was done to avoid British fabric restrictions/rationing, which lasted for a long time after the end of WWII.
having lived through the brief revival of high-waisted trousers in the 'eighties, I fully agree. they're much more flattering and comfortable.
I must second the position that high-waisted trousers look best on tall, slim men--especially those with pencil mustaches. For those of us who are unfortunately of the obvious-well-fed physique, a high-waisted trouser is best kept behind a vest.
Interesting comments but I disagree with the idea that British trousers look nest on slim men. For one thing they are intended to be worn with a jacket, where the waist is out of sight (unlike the inelegant visible belt buckle of the low rise). For another, you get a straight fall of trouser over the stomach, obscuring the extra weight that might be carried there, whereas with a low rise the weight protrudes above the belt line far too often.
I agree that natural waisted trousers with pleats are much more comfortable and after my trouser waist changed from my hips to my natural waist in my twenties, I've never looked back. On the other hand, my wife says the look carries some "geek", "dated", or "old man" qualities that aren't the best. And while all of this would be solved with keeping the jacket on or wearing a waistcoat if it's removed, the bottom line for me is; I like the comfort, classy look, and smartness of dressing this way and have no problem standing out in today's casual and often sloppy population.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of men that read this blog wear their trousers at their natural waist or on their hips. Of course, this is not counting the "sagging" option of wearing your trousers off your backside.
Correct for all the above reasons, and the fuller hips, pleated crease, and properly tapered cone shape provide a smoother transition from jacket to trousers to shoes thereby enhancing the appearance of overall silhouette more than flat front, low rise trousers can; plus they wrinkle/crease less.
As long as we're on the topic of trousers, I have a question about the proper fit.
Some of my trousers are tight "down there," and others are looser. I am not an exhibitionist, but neither do I want my trousers to look like MC Hammer's.
Where should they fit in that region?
Horatio,
When your trousers are at your waist, the fork of the trousers should be just touching your body and your stride should not be bound in any way. Your genitals are dressed to one side or the other. Wrinkling indicates a fit problem.
One has to strike a balance between the fashionable and the comfortable. In the 60s the low waist drain pipes were so fashionable that it seemed like a sacrilege to go in for high waist, pleated trousers. Through the day, the low waist would slide lower and one would have to pull it up from time to time.
Thank you, Will.
Post a Comment