Are these Slacks, or Chinos?

[FedoraFan112390]

Are the pants in the following pix, by the best of your estimation, slacks or chinos?

 

[emigran]

Were not the original 'chinos" only Khaki in color...???

 

[FedoraFan112390]

Were not the original 'chinos" only Khaki in color...???

I thought Chinos, Slacks, and Khakis were three different styles of dress pant?

 

[pgoat]

I am hardly an expert but I'll take a crack at this till more knowledgeable folk chime in.

First - I'm seeing at least three different styles of pants in those photos. The first two pics look like different styles and the last few look similar to each other. Are these family pics, btw? Very cool photos.

In all my research/readings/obsessing I have never found a definitive delineation between khakis, chinos, slacks, trousers and so on. What a manufacturer or wearer calls them varies and I prefer to focus on the styling details, fit, fabric and so on to differentiate pants.

The first pair look like what would be called slacks by most folks in my experience; they could well be synthetic or a blend, and the lower leg cut certainly suggests the 1970s. My own take is these are 'casual dress' pants of their time, something you could wear on a date, while working in a non-stuffy office atmosphere, as a student, etc. I suppose you could call them chinos, but to me, chinos are a fancier version of khakis - cut in a more classic straight leg profile, but using a thinner, sleeker fabric and drapier cut.

The younger man at right in second photo appears to be wearing more casual pants - traditional cotton drill khakis or even a 'jean' style of twill. They look more like work pants to me, more heavy duty than the first pic, and probably inspired by jeans or military khakis.

The last few pics look more like separate dress pants (although who knows, they could have been part of a suit, though it's doubtful). The high waist, pleats and appearance of the fabric say 'dressy' to me. My dad - who was born in Europe ca. WWI and came to the US after WWII - wore pants like this to work pretty much every day of his life in my memory. In fact, except for, say, a pair of swimming trunks at the beach, I recall my dad, a man of spartan tastes, wearing only three types of pants:

• A suit, to church, weddings, funerals, and similar formal affairs, with shined black shoes (usually Florsheims).
• Khakis (always in the classic tan) on the hottest summer days, with a short sleeved buttoned dress shirt and navy canvas deck shoes.
• grey worsted wool 'dress' pants/slacks like the last few pics here, to work, in winter, pretty much any time and place other than the above. Almost always worn with a short-sleeved white shirt as above, and an older pair of slightly beat up black Florsheims (he'd rotate down his 'nice' Sunday pair when these wore out beyond resoling, and buy a new pair for church every few years). In winter he'd sometimes wear a flannel shirt and he slipped Totes rain covers over his shoes. No boots, and no coat! I think his dress pants may have been re-purposed daily wear 'separates' because in colder weather he'd wear a hat (trooper type with fold down ear flaps), gloves - and a suit jacket in matching grey worsted.

My point is, I think many men of that generation had very few items compared to us, and they tended to wear dressier stuff on a daily basis (my dad had one small, discreet gold dress watch, which he really only wore to church or other important dressy occasions).

 

[emigran]

Yep... pgoat... that's how I kinda remember ( I'm pushin septagenarian)

 

[BlueTrain]

We talk about what our fathers wore, which is understandable. But we usually don't mention what our grandfathers and great-grandfathers wore. Mostly it wasn't that different, I suspect, although some things will stand out.

One thing that the older generations usually wore that had gone out of style with our father's generation was high-top dress shoes. They seem to have reappeared lately, however, but in a heavier and fancier style, like British shooting boots. But the older dress shoes typically had thinner soles and thin uppers, all leather, but don't ask me what kind of leather. All that I ever saw were black and had capped toes.

Men's everyday clothes, which we would call "dress clothes" today, haven't changed that much since before 1900, incredibly enough. Such clothing was invariably a suit consisting of a jacket and pants and sometimes a vest. Details of styling varied a lot and still do but the basic fit has remained the same with some exceptions. Some years the waist was a little more fitted than usual but otherwise, that's about it. Lapels varied in width, width of the trouser legs, plain front or with pleats, all variations of a basic design, referred to as a sack suit or lounge suit and today, more likely called a business suit.

What you probably won't find today is a heavy-weight suit. Instead, they tend to come in "year-round" weight, which for all practical purposes is a warm weather suit. Light color suits are not in fashion at the moment, apparently. The shirt was available in innumerable variations over the years and so was the tie.

A business suit was not formal dress and I doubt anyone in my family ever had anything formal. A business suit is considered "informal," but not casual, of course. It was not considered a working dress, necessarily, although an old, worn-out suit might be worn for until it was rags and possibly acquired second-hand. This is all for ordinary people. Rich people had their own rules and just like today, were unconcerned with whatever rules ordinary people had to follow.

Another difference was that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers probably wore suspenders--braces. My father never wore them, although I do with some pants. And then there are hats.

My father wore a hat when dress up for his whole life, a baseball cap when working. But he never had a homburg or a straw boater. My wife's grandfather had a straw boater, though, and we have it now. But it's not in good enough shape to wear and anyway, it's the wrong size. My father did wear a straw dress hat which I guess you would call a fedora.

 

[Seb Lucas]

My grandfather a successful restaurant owner only ever had three of anything. He was born in 1908.

 

[FedoraFan112390]

We talk about what our fathers wore, which is understandable. But we usually don't mention what our grandfathers and great-grandfathers wore. Mostly it wasn't that different, I suspect, although some things will stand out.

One thing that the older generations usually wore that had gone out of style with our father's generation was high-top dress shoes. They seem to have reappeared lately, however, but in a heavier and fancier style, like British shooting boots. But the older dress shoes typically had thinner soles and thin uppers, all leather, but don't ask me what kind of leather. All that I ever saw were black and had capped toes.

Men's everyday clothes, which we would call "dress clothes" today, haven't changed that much since before 1900, incredibly enough. Such clothing was invariably a suit consisting of a jacket and pants and sometimes a vest. Details of styling varied a lot and still do but the basic fit has remained the same with some exceptions. Some years the waist was a little more fitted than usual but otherwise, that's about it. Lapels varied in width, width of the trouser legs, plain front or with pleats, all variations of a basic design, referred to as a sack suit or lounge suit and today, more likely called a business suit.

What you probably won't find today is a heavy-weight suit. Instead, they tend to come in "year-round" weight, which for all practical purposes is a warm weather suit. Light color suits are not in fashion at the moment, apparently. The shirt was available in innumerable variations over the years and so was the tie.

A business suit was not formal dress and I doubt anyone in my family ever had anything formal. A business suit is considered "informal," but not casual, of course. It was not considered a working dress, necessarily, although an old, worn-out suit might be worn for until it was rags and possibly acquired second-hand. This is all for ordinary people. Rich people had their own rules and just like today, were unconcerned with whatever rules ordinary people had to follow.

Another difference was that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers probably wore suspenders--braces. My father never wore them, although I do with some pants. And then there are hats.

My father wore a hat when dress up for his whole life, a baseball cap when working. But he never had a homburg or a straw boater. My wife's grandfather had a straw boater, though, and we have it now. But it's not in good enough shape to wear and anyway, it's the wrong size. My father did wear a straw dress hat which I guess you would call a fedora.

Excellent and interesting post. Thought you might be interested in seeing these. The first gentleman, on right, is my maternal great grandfather (1883-1956) pictured in 1945; the second is my paternal great-great grandpa (1880-1949), in what would be likely their daily style of dress:

My paternal great grandfather did wear a hat, but it seems not all the time. The only picture I have of him with a hat is from Sunday, April 22nd 1945 and he's holding it:

My other maternal great grandfather (center in first picture, 1888-1964) was a more open hat wearer:

Note: Speaking more of clothes, it seems to me that among that generation (roughly born in the 1880s), those sort of shawl cardigan sweaters seem to have been popular wear in cold weather. In their children's generations (1910s-1930s let's say) I've not really seen cardigans except on professional men of that generation - professors and such - white collar men. My maternal great grandfathers both self-made well to do men, what we'd call high upper middle class today; their children chose instead to be blue collar workers (my one grandfather was a security guard, the other a Parks Dept. Foreman). I've never seen a photo of my mother's father wearing a cardigan sweater in cold weather, and in my entire life I've never seen my father's father wearing a cardigan. Only as I said have I ever seen professional men of that generation wear one.

My ex's grandfather (1930-1999) for example, was a former high school teacher, a very respected and respectable man, who wore a suit, tie, and cardigan as his casual wear. We had her home movies done, and there was only one video where he wasn't wearing a tie or cardigan - and that was on a hot summer day where you could tell he had simply opened his dress shirt and removed his tie to be less warm. But among that generation, dressing in "dress clothes" daily seems more a rarity.

I would argue that the "GI Generation" - whatever date range you choose to categorize them by - was the first generation to eschew the formality of their parents' dress. But then again - look at the photos I've posted above. Outside of my great great grandfather, these guys are dressing in clothes not very far removed from what their sons were wearing at the same time. Perhaps in the 1930s and 1940s, the older generation began to dress less "dressy" for want of money? You do certainly see the bowler hats/derbies and suits with tails of the 1900s to 1910s disappear by 1940, and as a book I read noted, most people viewed a top hat as being a symbol of all that was wrong with society by the 1930s.

I do notice the main generational difference in terms of clothing does seem to be suits. Here is my maternal great grandfather (the father of the bride's) idea of a wedding tux, in 1948:

And also, here is my great uncle (by marriage) Karl (who was bitterly, and falsely, accused of being a Nazi spy by his sister-in-law, who hated Germans - but was cleared, and later baked a cake for President Kennedy - the man with the mustache) in the 1930s.

Those suits, to me, look like they could easily have fit in in 1920 as opposed to the 1930s-1940s. For comparison, my grandfather's idea of a suit in 1948:

My grandfather (1920-1975) served in WWII; Karl (1911-1974) did not. Only one out of four great grandfathers had military experience. It is my gut feeling that a man who served in the military, especially in the generation that served in WWII, was more likely to dress less formal in later life - perhaps a subconscious rebellion against the rigidity of the military? I do notice that my grandfather's brother, who did not serve in WWII, always dressed as formal as he could. I've never seen a picture of my grandfather in the 1950s or 1960s wearing a suit unless the occasion called for it, where his brother might wear one coming just to visit the house. I think WWII began the path to less formal dress which the Baby Boomers greatly accelerated in the 1960s.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, styles and hence, formality in clothing, is continually changing, so it's difficult to pin down a date to when something changed. In other words, it's always changing.

Formal day dress, which is what the men are wearing in the wedding photos above, is sometimes still worn but very, very rarely. I think that's the uniform for appearing before the Supreme Court. But I could be wrong because I've never done that. Formal day dress (tail coat, vest and striped pants) used to be a standard outfit for a daytime wedding. For the past few decades, though, the groom has sometimes worn what amounts to a costume.

Chances are my great-grandfathers might have worn a frock coat but probably never a tail coat. But given that all my grandfathers and great-grandfathers were farmers, it is more than likely that they would never have owned such an outfit, no more likely than they would have owned a silk top hat. Such things were still being worn into the 1920s, though. It you go back far enough and believe it or not, we all have antecedents who lived before the Civil War, there would have been other forms of men's clothing (as well as women's, another topic). But most people were not wealthy enough to keep up with the latest fashions and for that matter, most men would have had no use for much of the clothing the well-off would have worn. They had clothes they wore for work and at least one outfit to wear to the meeting house. More people still lived in rural areas then and city people may have dressed a little differently. And so on and so forth.

 

[FedoraFan112390]

Well, styles and hence, formality in clothing, is continually changing, so it's difficult to pin down a date to when something changed. In other words, it's always changing.

Formal day dress, which is what the men are wearing in the wedding photos above, is sometimes still worn but very, very rarely. I think that's the uniform for appearing before the Supreme Court. But I could be wrong because I've never done that. Formal day dress (tail coat, vest and striped pants) used to be a standard outfit for a daytime wedding. For the past few decades, though, the groom has sometimes worn what amounts to a costume.

Chances are my great-grandfathers might have worn a frock coat but probably never a tail coat. But given that all my grandfathers and great-grandfathers were farmers, it is more than likely that they would never have owned such an outfit, no more likely than they would have owned a silk top hat. Such things were still being worn into the 1920s, though. It you go back far enough and believe it or not, we all have antecedents who lived before the Civil War, there would have been other forms of men's clothing (as well as women's, another topic). But most people were not wealthy enough to keep up with the latest fashions and for that matter, most men would have had no use for much of the clothing the well-off would have worn. They had clothes they wore for work and at least one outfit to wear to the meeting house. More people still lived in rural areas then and city people may have dressed a little differently. And so on and so forth.

As far as modern day wedding outfits with regard to the groom: From what I have seen, since roughly the 1940s, it's been the standard tuxedo with white or black bowtie depending on the level of personal formality the person has, although Gen Xers and younger sometimes just go with a regular suit sometimes with no tie - my cousin, who is 42, when he got married in 2006, wore a plain suit with no tie. I've seen others wear much less - My parents were married in city hall in 1989 and they wore what would be termed semi-casual clothes (dress shirt, slacks, and my mother a dress - not white); my sister when she got married in 1998, she and her husband wore graphic t-shirts, jean shorts, and sneakers :O - They were also married in city hall.

The last formal "Church" weddings in my family were in 1972, 1994, and 2011. In 1972 when my mom's sister got married, my grandfather wore a white shirt, black bow tie and a typical tuxedo. The groom wore a tuxedo with a blue frilled shirt typical of the early 1970s as did his groomsmen. In 1994 when my aunt (Dad's sister) got married, my grandfather wore a single breasted suit with a bowtie (and he loathed wearing the bowtie); my father, who walked my grandmother down the aisle, work a double breasted suit with a colored tie; and in the 2010 wedding the groom wore a single breasted suit with a white regular tie; and the father of the bride wore a three piece suit with a black tie.

I think women's clothing, though, has changed much more than men's since 1900. A great deal more.

 

[BlueTrain]

I wore a kilt and day jacket with a necktie when my wife and I were married in a church ceremony in Washington, D.C. in 1979. My wife wore the usual wedding dress. Two of the other men in the wedding party also wore kilts. When my daughter got married a few years ago, the groom wore his Air Force uniform and the other men wore matching rented suits. In the wedding of one of my nephews last summer, all the men wore matching rented suits again but a fair number of the guests wore tuxedos, something I've never worn in my life. But it was a summertime outdoor wedding and the men did not wear their jackets, just vests and pants. For most men anymore, a suit is about as dressed up as it ever gets. Even in church on Christmas eve, many men were dressed casually.

 

[FedoraFan112390]

I wore a kilt and day jacket with a necktie when my wife and I were married in a church ceremony in Washington, D.C. in 1979. My wife wore the usual wedding dress. Two of the other men in the wedding party also wore kilts. When my daughter got married a few years ago, the groom wore his Air Force uniform and the other men wore matching rented suits. In the wedding of one of my nephews last summer, all the men wore matching rented suits again but a fair number of the guests wore tuxedos, something I've never worn in my life. But it was a summertime outdoor wedding and the men did not wear their jackets, just vests and pants. For most men anymore, a suit is about as dressed up as it ever gets. Even in church on Christmas eve, many men were dressed casually.

I don't wear suits often, simply because I don't have many opportunities too, but the most casual I get is a polo shirt and slacks outside, and in the house, a white t-shirt. In summer, I'll wear shorts but they're bermuda shorts, or plaid (golf print) shorts with a polo or white V neck t-shirt. I only have two graphic t's I'll wear to bed and that's only because my girl got them for me - I don't wear jeans or t-shirts ever, otherwise.

 

[basbol13]

The way I understand it Chinos are made from course twilled cotton. Which has a weaving in it that causes the fabric to have parallel diagonal lines to the weave. I don't think from the pictures I could tell one way or the other