How they wore them in the 40's

[Blackjack]

As a decades long fan of 40's style, (not only for the comfort level but I think it's just the cats nuts period) I just realized something while watching the new Nancy Drew box set. In one scene Nancy asks Ted for his belt and he replies something to the effect of "If I gave you my belt I'd be wearing my pants like a pair of spats"!! This got me thinking of all the other movies with the same basic scene and the fact that not only were the pants high waisted and baggy but I think men just wore them a LOT looser. We all got used to wearing jeans and basing our pants on our exact waist size, but unless I'm WAY off base here I'm guessing 60 years ago men bought and wore their pants a size or two above what their waistline would dictate for comforts sake and some "relaxing" room after a big meal. Or was it that pants were not available off the rack in as many sizes? Either way Lou Costello was always hikin his drawers up, thank God for suspenders back then huh?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Before the '60s, store-bought suit pants were made one or two waist sizes higher than they are today. In other words, a size 40 suit would come with size 34 trousers. Either men were fatter back then, or they liked roomier pants (which suspenders could hold up just fine).

.

 

[Sefton]

Marc's point about the suspenders rings true. Why would you need suspenders if your trousers are tight? I need a little air cirulation for comfort. Leave the tight look for the ladies.

 

[Kentucky Blues]

I prefer that too... though I think more than a single pants size is a bit much. Then again, I have a waist too narrow to be properly fitted, so what I might call 2 sizes up may very well be 3 or 4, lol. Looseness is great, but I'm afraid I'd end up with a swimming pool around my waist.

 

[reetpleat]

Sorry, but I think you guys are way off. Having worn vintage for many years I have noticed two things. One, if you have a waist slimmer than your hips, vintage slacks fit very nicely as they are cut and a belt is simply for the extra bit of adjustment that is needed as your waist will fluctuate a half inch or so.

Secondly, if you have a waist a little bigger than that, you will start to have trouble with them falling down a bit below so you might need a belt to cinch them in or wear suspenders.

if you have a waist much bigger than that, back then you would wear your pants way up on your gut like fred mertz or lou costello, and use suspenders to hold them up. If they slipped below your gut, they would be way loos on your waist and hips.

Think about it, today, waists are much lower, in my opinion, because more men have guts so the choice is either to war them way high which would look silly today, or wear them below the gut, cinched around the waist.

But back then, most younger men would have slim waists until they were middle aged. I think pants were definitely designed to fit comfortably somewhat snugly around the waist.

back in SF I used to dance so much and eat so healthily, that I was very slim and my pants were so comfortable. Now that I am gaining weight, I find my high waisted pants keep slipping down to my hips. Very annoying.

 

[Blackjack]

I don't know reetpleat...I remember my Grandfather who was slim and his pants were always being cinched up by his belt, and I was just getting this theory from old movies I had watched. There may be something to it, not that what you say isn't true about how they fit if your slim and "IF" you buy them to your proper size, I'm just thinking that in the 30's and 40's men wore them bigger for what ever reason which would definitely add to the look of the baggy pant style that I do like. Look at Zoot Suits, they were cut over sized to thumb their nose at the governments "ban" on material to help out the war effort. It was illegal to even make those suits at one time! Ah well , it's just a theory. I just wish I could find someone who makes high waisted baggies without having to have them made custom.

 

[resortes805]

Look at Zoot Suits, they were cut over sized to thumb their nose at the governments "ban" on material to help out the war effort.

Actually zoot suit slacks were EXTREMELY fitted around the waist. or should I say around the rib cage! It accentuated the billowing knees back to a tight cuff at the ankles...the mini blimp look!

 

[reetpleat]

I don't know reetpleat...I remember my Grandfather who was slim and his pants were always being cinched up by his belt, and I was just getting this theory from old movies I had watched. There may be something to it, not that what you say isn't true about how they fit if your slim and "IF" you buy them to your proper size, I'm just thinking that in the 30's and 40's men wore them bigger for what ever reason which would definitely add to the look of the baggy pant style that I do like. Look at Zoot Suits, they were cut over sized to thumb their nose at the governments "ban" on material to help out the war effort. It was illegal to even make those suits at one time! Ah well , it's just a theory. I just wish I could find someone who makes high waisted baggies without having to have them made custom.

If you wear your pants high enough, you would need suspenders, but zoot suits were quite fitted at the waist.

Tailoring was cheap and easy to get. Why wouldn't men want a decent fit?

How old was your granddad at the time. It may be possible he was old enough to be losing weight and not buying new pants. many old guys end up this way, and just cinch the belt in.

 

[Benny Holiday]

back in SF I used to dance so much and eat so healthily, that I was very slim and my pants were so comfortable. Now that I am gaining weight, I find my high waisted pants keep slipping down to my hips. Very annoying.

Oh . . . so that explains it. We ought to start a club, the 'I'm getting older and my metabolism is slowing down and messing with my vintage look' association. :eusa_doh:

 

[Blackjack]

Haha... my grandfather was always slim, I don't think he changed pants size in 50 years. I think Chevaliar may have hit it, that the sizing was just larger then. I don't remember where read it ( may have been Classic Style) but they had a collector who acquired one of Bogarts suits from the Big Sleep I think and it had as I remember a 34 waist. I cannot believe he had a 34 waistline so there must be "something" to this.

 

[Barry]

How old was your granddad at the time. It may be possible he was old enough to be losing weight and not buying new pants. many old guys end up this way, and just cinch the belt in.

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbL6YnmnprI

 

[Mr. 'H']

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbL6YnmnprI

LOL that clip is funny.

:eusa_clap

 

[funneman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbL6YnmnprI

Ha ha, that's very funny.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Well, I like what I read, I have some to ad.

Men wore pants on their natural waist… we still have a natural waist today, just the manufacturers are not making them that way. I’m so tired of pants that are cut low… they annoy me. My self, if I were heavy, I’d much rather look like Pappy O’Daniel then John Goodman. lol

Here are some photos of men wearing their pants in the period… gives us some ideas.

Looking at some of these photos, we see that men then as today really can be careless as to the height or lack of altitude of their trousers. They put on, they wear, the take off… that’s the life of a pair of trousers… unless, the man was dapper, a dandy, a sharpie, a fashion plate or a movie star, it was different… appearance was given more attention and thought.

FM~

 

[Micawber]

Looking at some of these photos, we see that men then as today really can be careless as to the height or lack of altitude of their trousers. They put on, they wear, the take off… that’s the life of a pair of trousers… unless, the man was dapper, a dandy, a sharpie, a fashion plate or a movie star, it was different… appearance was given more attention and thought.

FM~

Well said.

 

[Blackjack]

Looks to me like theres some cinched up pants on these pics too.

 

[Orgetorix]

Just to point out...the men in these photos aren't wearing their trousers all at one uniform height. Yes, on average they're higher than one typically sees today, but not everyone is wearing their trousers up on their lower ribs.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Yes, it appears that some men wore them a little baggy… now, two schools of thought on this… one being that the depression made some thick men thin… second, the third photo is a French photo… and the French were known to wear their pants a little baggy so I’m told.

I’d also like to make mention that these men are all wearing belts… interesting isn’t it.

 

[Tony McNally]

Why 30's 40's trousers were cut wider than needed at the waist

Button brace Trousers of the 30's and 40's were made a little wider at the waist than was needed, so that the trousers hung off the braces and not the wearers waist. This meant that the trousers draped in the they were designed to and that the drape was not down to the wearers body shape which may give a different drape per person for the same pair of trousers. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Matt Deckard]

One of the reasons forward facing pleats were so popular was the fact that back in the 30's and 40's tailors put enough material in the thighs to make the creases fall straight.

Watching some of the old Hitchcock movies filmed in the UK in the 30's you can see how they switched over from the snug trousers to the wider legs that usually ended in a 20" opening at the bottom for the foot.

So ideally a long rise, wide in the thighs and 20" opening... at least according to the originals I've measured and the tailoring books I have from the era.