1920s suits

[herringbonekid]

Damian, i don't buy the 'dirt theory' either i'm afraid. white buckskin wouldn't have been a popular 1920s shoe leather if dirt was such a big issue.
i say trend.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I do, most of the time... but since this suit is a bit on the heavier side, that will have to wait until I see how much the Army builds me up. Sadly, I forsee a huge selling/trading of the wardrobe coming after basic...

Yes, I would advise waiting a bit. Your chest will fill out, and arms will build up a lot. with a rigorous physical exercize regimen you'll probably go up a few chest sizes, bu your waist will remain close to what it is. Thighs and buttocks will develop. As I've found to my cost, vintage suits often don't cater well for abnormally large thighs, either.:eusa_doh: Damn you, high school rugby coach! shakes fist

 

[DamianM]

Damian, i don't buy the 'dirt theory' either i'm afraid. white buckskin wouldn't have been a popular 1920s shoe leather if dirt was such a big issue.
i say trend.

But you would also see lots of people wearing dress boots with the high waters.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

By that rationale, no notion can be disregarded. "Ah, but there's no evidence against it" is not equal to, and certainly does not trump, "There's no evidence for it", I'm afraid. This is basic reasoning. See "raccoons".

The vintage community's jam packed full of interesting notions that for whatever reason gain credence - take a look at the threads on men's short trousers currently trending in Attire and Accoutrements. This muddy highways one goes on the pile with the rest of them, I think.

The theory can't be dismissed since there is no solid evidence either.
Yes that is the function of pants but the function of keeping them high in dirt roads to keep them from getting dirty or frayed make's sense.

In L.A. dirt roads where around until the 30s.

 

[DamianM]

Well I will have to do some research on why some choose the high waters. I simply can't take a fad as an answer

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'm certain you'll be able to find a resource that says some people turned up their trousers to avoid dirt splatter. Just as certain as you'll be able to find a resource that shows some people turned them up to go paddling at the ocean's edge. Not generalisable, though.

It's analogous, slightly, to the mid-30s - and early 70s - trend for multiple buttons at the waistband, and extra wide waistbands. All the better to close the waistband securely, my dear? Nope … just a trend.

 

[Cobden]

The earliest I've seen the sort of trousers that, nowadays, would elicit inquiries regarding the health of ones budgerigar in great quantities was during the First World War, when it seems to have been the norm for British Officers (when behind the lines) to wear slacks of such a length with shoes. The trousers always had a turn up, too - in fact, it looks like all got their trousers made to the traditional height and then turned them up.

This is somewhat longer than the norm for the time, but the best I could find with google image search:

Though I've often found that the best place to ascertain a particular fashion isn't necessarily images, but punch magazine:

If only I had a scanner, I could show quite a few more images and cartoons (it was common enough to be parodied)

 

[Two Types]

Do you old copies of Punch? If so, please check the issues for 1881. Apparently there are lots of cartoons that illustrate the fashion for wide trousers, which has been linked to the origin of Oxford Bags.

 

[splintercellsz]

Well whatever the true reason for high-water type pants, we will never know. But what I do know is that if this one still fits... which it might if I have it altered (a bit snug in the midsection, and lengthen the trousers), I will have a nice excuse for dress boots!

 

[Patrick Hall]

Well whatever the true reason for high-water type pants, we will never know. But what I do know is that if this one still fits... which it might if I have it altered (a bit snug in the midsection, and lengthen the trousers), I will have a nice excuse for dress boots!

If you'd rather not wait for a good vintage pair to turn up, or if your feet are too large a size for most of the vintage pairs that DO turn up (like me), I recommend Allen Edmonds' Fifth Street. It' s a balmoral dress boot with a beautiful cap toe, on a vintage-esque last. They have it in burnished brown and black. I love mine.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes, I have read the "dirty roads theory" too but I guess it is just fashion. They didn't invent a magical strett cleaning machine in 1928, did they?

Two trousers lenghts from the early twenties from the sidney mugshots.

 

[herringbonekid]

i believe this is Sean Crowley who designs for Ralph Lauren, in an original 20s suit:

more of him here:

http://dandyportraits.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/dandy-portraits-debuts-short-film-about.html

(Two Types, before you click on the link above i must warn you that it contains a tie collection which might give you a heart attack).

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Looks great. I also love his home. But we really have to ask him a few questions about low rise trousers from RL. :boink:

 

[herringbonekid]

But we really have to ask him a few questions about low rise trousers from RL. :boink:

it might not be Sean, but somebody has questions to answer.
(i think i already know the reason... see Oxford Bags thread).

 

[Two Types]

That is a lot of ties! There seems to be quite a few regimental/club ties in there. I draw the line at ties I'm not qualified to wear.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes, of course... I know I know. Old discussion too.

I don't question why the POLO pants have a low rise but at least the RRL trousers that are aimed at the "heritage" market. Come on. They go through all the hassle of making authentic 30s looking outerwear and then stop at the trousers. Why?

 

[Metatron]

I think the jackets, vintage looking as they are can be integrated into a modern outfit, but the rise of the trousers is a dealbreaker.
That's a great blog btw HBK, thanks for sharing.

 

[cpdv]

I think the jackets, vintage looking as they are can be integrated into a modern outfit, but the rise of the trousers is a dealbreaker.
That's a great blog btw HBK, thanks for sharing.

I had a couple into work who were looking at a suit. Besides being thick headed and rude the man's wife insisted that "those pants are soo high! Are they supposed to be like that!? I don't like those!" I then politely informed her that those trousers were actually quite low in comparison to what they have been in the past. They also would casually insult parts of my dress (in reference to the suit he was looking at of course) and turn to me and say "oh no offense". My favorite was "I never button the top button I think it looks absolutely ridiculous!" How I hate sometimes the uneducated unwashed hoard of "I never wear suits but I HAVE to for X event" people

 

[Cobden]

Do you old copies of Punch? If so, please check the issues for 1881. Apparently there are lots of cartoons that illustrate the fashion for wide trousers, which has been linked to the origin of Oxford Bags.

Alas, I do not. Just a bit of Google image search...

 

[herringbonekid]

I draw the line at ties I'm not qualified to wear.

i wouldn't. there's a pub in Oxford in which the walls (and ceiling if i remember correctly) are covered with vintage college ties... each one more interesting than the last.
i would gladly wear many of them regardless of the club or college they belonged to.