Highwaisted pants

[Mr. Rover]

It looks like those pants pictured have dropped belt loops (third picture). Of course, this could be a trick of lighting, as the first pictures seems to only include buttons on the outside of the pants. Those would be worn higher, because the belt would fasten at your natural waist and a normal waistband is forsaken.
Whereas, if you look at these 1930's pants, the waist isn't quite as high. In this pair of pants, the waistband seems to be similar to how "normal" dress pants are.

Take a look at this thread, Jerry. It's all about high-waisted styles.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=3909&highlight=high+style

 

[MrBern]

A few years ago, I rediscovered vintage high waisted wool military pants.
I just love `em and usually recommend them to friends who travel for business. Tho I have found some heavier pairs made of 22oz or 30 oz, the military stuff is usually labelled 18oz serge wool, which doesnt wrinkle much at all. And when ironed, shapes up beautifully. American uniforms arent scratchy, tho beware Greek or British enlisted mans pants.
The field trouser & the dress trouser are pretty much the same pant. Basically the same cute as a pair of high waisted khakis.
Early war is a lighter caller often called 'mustard', later its more brownish, and the aircorp had the snazzy dark olive pants often called 'chocolate' by collectors.
On ebay, the post-war & korean war stuff usually goes a bit cheaper than WWII uniforms.
You could search for Trousers, Field, Wool
or jsut simply, wool WWII pants
Good luck & watch out for moths.
-b

 

[scotrace]

Not High Enough

It looks like those pants pictured have dropped belt loops (third picture). Of course, this could be a trick of lighting, as the first pictures seems to only include buttons on the outside of the pants. Those would be worn higher, because the belt would fasten at your natural waist and a normal waistband is forsaken.
Whereas, if you look at these 1930's pants, the waist isn't quite as high. In this pair of pants, the waistband seems to be similar to how "normal" dress pants are.

Yes, in the second and third picture of William powell, he is wearing pants with loops, dropped. The first picture (from an earlier, 30's film) shows pants with no loops and brace buttons.
The pants you're wearing are very nice, but I think what I need (and BT refers to) are much higher in the waist. Those look modern to my eye.

 

[Mr. Rover]

They're actually 1930's or 1940's vintage with a button fly. There's no date, but I can confirm that the last time it was worn, someone left a 1944 minted mercury dime in the pocket. They're really quite high, because you can see that the short end of the tie is almost the same length as the fat end, and that's a 30's vintage tie.

ray

P.S. I just measured. The fly is about 10".

 

[Rigby Reardon]

Okay, I've got pics finally, as all the alterations are DONE. Finally. For the third time. (Why do tailors not understand "it's vintage", do we really have to say, "don't change things you think are wrong"? )

Here's the pics...the color is accurate in these pics, the suit was advertised as 'chocolate brown', and I can't argue w/ that description. Sometimes I feel like a big Wonka bar once I put the jacket on.

That waist is up PAST the ubiquitous and seemingly useless belly button. The thumbnails are intentionally small, just click on them for a bigger view.


Yes, black shoes. Shoot me now.

And one last one, for real reasons, honest...

1) This back length seems okay with me, what do you think? Yeah, my hands in my pockets kind of skew this, so maybe not the best pic, but it's the only turned one I took.
2) Look, french suspenders. Love these. Not sure if there was anything like them so I could call them period or not, but they are honestly such a nice leather tab construction they seem older than anything I've ever had. They are actually ARTICULATED, not stitched at the 'X'.
3) Do these pants make my butt look like chocolate?

Last odd question...I just threw this belt on, intending to change it...and although it really does clash a bit w/ the suit, it picks up the same tone of leather on the suspenders, so I may go w/ it. If you're going to clash, coordinate your clashes so they look REALLY intentional.

The only thing he did that I couldn't get him to UNDO was this: He decided the zipper was too long! OH NO! So he (brace yourselves) REMOVED IT, CLIPPED TWO INCHES OFF, and sewed it back in. He apparently didn't change the inseam, so he didn't change the structure of the pants doing this, he just removed one of the vintage oddities...RATS. Okay, so I'm going to have zipper envy at the QM folks, please don't point and laugh. I also plan to have a very loud conversation in one of the elevators, complaining how it WAS 10", but he just lopped 2" off the end, that's why it's only 8" now...and when they look shocked, ask how they'd like it if THEY'RE zipper got trimmed by a tailor unnecessarily.

Pictures of the whole suit going up in a separate thread...and maybe tie choices against this in a third. Yeah, I was just WAITING ON THE PANTS...

 

[Mr. Rover]

Just one piece of advice- don't wear belts and suspenders at the same time. Pick one or the other. It makes you look insecure about your pants, and honestly...it's just not done.

 

[Rigby Reardon]

Okay, that explains a lot...at first I didn't have a belt, and I felt only half-dressed. I figured it was a de facto accessory - I saw belt loops, so I filled 'em. Looking back at the reference pics, I should have realize that...the suspenders do the job. Okay, no worries then!

Thanks again - that's three I owe you (the collars, the tie dimple, and the belt)! Appreciate you taking the time to help me get straight.

 

[scotrace]

J. Peterman

In other threads, the prospect of asking Peterman to do even better with their vintage inspired goods has been discussed. So while we're at it, why do they make these for women only? "Men's trousers from 1940, adapted to a woman's body."
Bah! WHY?? Why not take the same pants, put them up in a good quality wool, change out the buttons, and sell them to MEN?
In fact, I've just sent a letter asking same.
(NOTE: Images swiped from an ebay auction so you can see the real item)

 

[Mr. Rover]

No problem, Jerry. I just saw the pictures from QM. Looking dapper.

 

[Wild Root]

The only thing he did that I couldn't get him to UNDO was this: He decided the zipper was too long! OH NO! So he (brace yourselves) REMOVED IT, CLIPPED TWO INCHES OFF, and sewed it back in....

Sue him! There is NO REASON why a tailor should change this! If that happened to me, I'd have shortened "his" zipper, the dumb A^#%@!! I have no toleration for bad alterations! Especially when it's to an area that wasn't asked to be touched! If there are any tailors out there, hear this: DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING UNLESS YOU'RE ASKED!

I would have thrown a fit and sued him for changing something that I didn't ask to be changed! Take him to the cleaner?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s brother! Oh, and never, ever, ever, take another thing to that guy AGAIN!!! If possible, at least GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Be careful next time you take any vintage to any tailor and make sure they understand not to change anything! ANYTHING!!!

Sorry, but that just makes me sooooooo mad! I have some stories but, nothing like that!

I feel for you brother, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m just mad that it happened to you! Can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t believe some tailors can be so ignorant! The stupidity is beyond all comprehension!

Ok, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m done, carry on!

=WR=

PS. The color on your belt does go well with the leather on the braces but, it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s improper to wear a belt with braces as you well know I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m sure. Also, the braces are very nice originals! Good show!

 

[Matt Deckard]

Why on earth would someone shorten the zipper?

 

[Wild Root]

Must have been a tailor from Who Ville!

=WR=

 

[scotrace]

But not here

There's a Lyndon Johnson story that would fit here. Seems he liked long rise trousers and specified the length of the zipper with a nudge. That's as mixed-company as I can make it.
Johnson was considered a smart dresser. I think he was just a skunk.

 

[Sefton]

In other threads, the prospect of asking Peterman to do even better with their vintage inspired goods has been discussed. So while we're at it, why do they make these for women only? "Men's trousers from 1940, adapted to a woman's body."
Bah! WHY?? Why not take the same pants, put them up in a good quality wool, change out the buttons, and sell them to MEN?
In fact, I've just sent a letter asking same.
(NOTE: Images swiped from an ebay auction so you can see the real item)

Excuse me if this is a dumb question but what exactly has been done to these pants that makes them "for women only"? Is there a specific area where the cut
would preclude a man wearing them without looking like...a man wearing women's pants? Too binding in a "special" place?[huh]

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

The only thing I can see is that possibly the cuffs are cut rather narrow which might look strange on a man.

 

[scotrace]

Fabric

The only differences, it seems, are the narrow leg bottoms as you say, and these are made of silk.

 

[Wild Root]

Oh man, don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t you guys know? The zipper is on the other side, and women sizes run smaller then men?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s!

The fabric has something to do with it but not much. The tapered cut is much like Zoot suit pants from the 40?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s. A man could wear these with out any one really know the difference if he was small waisted and into Zoot suits.

=WR=

 

[scotrace]

Oh Man

If you look at the drawings at jpeterman.com, it looks like the legs only appear super tapered in these pictures because of the angle at which they are photographed.
No one said that men should buy these pants. I think Peterman should revamp them and offer them for men. That would, of course, include resizing. I really don't think we're looking at zooter's pants here.

 

[Rigby Reardon]

Why on earth would someone shorten the zipper?

All I can assume is that it just looked WRONG to him. I had in fact told him several times that I was trying to maintain the cut, the lines, it is some 60-70 years old, etc., etc. ...thought I'd covered the bases. I guess not. When I saw it, I gave him some grief over it, but he hadn't raised the inseam, just repositioned the zipper (I'm still clueless why). I still needed him to correct the length, so I chose diplomacy to get the job done. But I appreciate the co-miseration, guys.

Yup, went sans belt for the QM, and it worked well. I thought my suspenders were anything BUT accurate, but I did get a couple compliments on those...if I see more around, I'll post a link.

J

 

[Wild Root]

Friend, if you care about your suit at all, don't take it to that guy again! He'll just end up screwing it up further! He'll more then likely chop all the extra fabric out of it and leave off the cuffs. For the love of Pete, don't take it back to that tailor ever again! If he completely ignored you the first time, he's not worth your time or money! You need to find a tailor that knows tailoring. I mean, it's like taking a Duesenberg into Jiffy lube to have the oil changed, then picking it up to find they put a 2005 Honda steering wheel on it because they thought it looked better!

Just don't take it back! Even if it's the only guy in town! Don't do it! I'm sure you could find an old lady who could do a swell job for half the price!

=WR=