Oxford Bags

[herringbonekid]

To my mind, the 'Fluffy' trouser was the 1920s/1930s equivalent of the pull on tracksuit trouser/jogging bottoms etc of the modern world.

that's what i said on page 15: :eusa_clap

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?8423-Oxford-Bags&p=1419085&viewfull=1#post1419085

 

[Two Types]

I'm not sure what to think. The early photos of sporting trousers suggest Oxford traditionally wore a wider legged trouser (at least compared to Cambridge). By the 1930s Cambridge students are also wearing the 'fluffies' for sports. Does that mean the look spread at the same time that the look was adapted to become Oxford Bags?

Furthermore, the notion of 'Oxford bags' going out of fashion in the mid to late 1920s troubles me. Most genuine photos of 'bags' (not the comedy ones, that seem to have set up for newspaper shoots) do not show a super-wide trouser. When I compare the original 'bags' (in photos) to many trouser styles in the 1930s, there seems to be very little difference in width. I would be interested to hear from anyone who owns original, verifiable, examples to tell us what the differences were.

Truth be told, I do believe the 'fluffies' formed the origins for Oxford Bags. I am increasingly convinced the notion of the 'overtrouser' for covering plus-fours is an urban myth. What width were plus-4s after all? If were refer back in this thread we can see Baron's reference to 23 inch bottoms with 25 inch at the knee as being the common measurements for original 'Oxford Bags'. That seems a correct dimension for the fluffy, but they would hardly fit over plus-4s. Look at this photo from 1926.

The man in the centre is wearing wide trousers, possibly bags of the original dimensions. Would they fit over the plus 4s worn by his friends? Add to that that 'bags' were - I believe - traditionally in lighter weight fabrics, whilst plus 4s were traditionally very heavy. It would look ridiculous.

For reference: these trousers are 23 inches circumferance at the cuffs:

I would say they are similar to the 'Fluffies' in width.

So i am still with you that 'fluffies' were the original Oxford bags - how they went from the fluffy wool to normal wool, and from the river, to the classroom, then into the mainstream, still needs to be answered.

 

[herringbonekid]

i think that the fluffy is the Oxford Bag.
Whether the earlier teens-20s version subsequently influenced the everyday menswear trend for wider 11 -12" bottom trousers* that would dominate the 30s and 40s is not yet provable, but i would think highly probable.





* these everyday wide legged trousers of the 30s and 40s are not Oxford Bags nor should they be called them. the fluffy is the Oxford Bag. that is my theory.

 

[Two Types]

What we really need to do is trawl through the memoirs of Oxford students of the period. And to search the local newspapers. They should be the sources for the true stories.
And we need to know what the original name was for 'fluffies'. Does anyone have sportwear catalogues from the early 1920s? There must be someone out there who has some further clues.

(by the way, this is fun. It's the thirst for vintage knowledge. Isn't this what a certain Mr Chevalier was talking about when he was so frustrated by the Lounge?)

 

[herringbonekid]

more just in !

'The Oxford Crew' 1896:

students wearing shorts in a boat. nothing much to see. but look closer at the older guy on the right:

them's some wide trousers for 1896 !

 

[Qirrel]

I think it is very probable that they were simply called sporting trousers/tennis trousers/boating trousers etc.

 

[herringbonekid]

I think it is very probable that they were simply called sporting trousers/tennis trousers/boating trousers etc.

yes, but 'Oxford Bags' became the nickname.

 

[Chasseur]

i might have to try and find some really thick cream flannel to make a similar trouser

If you find some let me know. For the past couple of years I've been looking high and low for that and I really want to get several set of tennis/cricket trousers done on a historical pattern. H&S most years has one but the price is a wee bit pricey for me for a pair of trousers.... (this year's run would have run by upwards of $500 for a pair of trousers...).

 

[Qirrel]

I wonder what, though, that made the "Oxford" bag name stick. What was it about the oxford bags/sporting trousers that made them so special as to (possibly) turn into an urban myth? All the cartoons that were posted in this thread are likely to be exaggerated in their portrayal of the "bags". Maybe the original oxford bag (apart from the sporting trousers) was just a pair of sporting trousers made from regular cloth and not used for sporting purposes?

 

[herringbonekid]

I wonder what, though, that made the "Oxford" bag name stick.

simply that they were the widest, baggiest, possibly weirdest trousers seen up to that point.

 

[herringbonekid]

If you find some let me know.

tweed rather than flannel, and expensive per metre, but the best i've seen so far are these ones:

http://www.ardalanish.com/lights.html

 

[Two Types]

more just in !

'The Oxford Crew' 1896:

them's some wide trousers for 1896 !

I see 'Fluffies'.

 

[Two Types]

Maybe the original oxford bag (apart from the sporting trousers) was just a pair of sporting trousers made from regular cloth and not used for sporting purposes?

Exactly! Just as the sports wear of the modern age - tracksuits and trainers - have been adopted for everyday wear. History is repeating itself - just with much less taste and style.

 

[Two Types]

tweed rather than flannel, and expensive per metre, but the best i've seen so far are these ones:

http://www.ardalanish.com/lights.html

That Shetland Cream herringbone is amazing.

 

[Two Types]

Whilst we are on the subject, these are my tennis trousers (not that I play tennis anymore - but you'll know what I mean):

 

[Qirrel]

simply that they were the widest, baggiest, possibly weirdest trousers seen up to that point.

But why oxford, and not some other town? The sporting trousers surely must have been used in other places as well. My point is that oxford might simply have been the place where the wide legged 30s trouser was seen for the first time worn with a suit.

 

[John in Covina]

But why oxford, and not some other town? The sporting trousers surely must have been used in other places as well. My point is that oxford might simply have been the place where the wide legged 30s trouser was seen for the first time worn with a suit.

It was a collegiat (spelling) look and Oxford was the college. It may have originated there.

 

[herringbonekid]

But why oxford, and not some other town? The sporting trousers surely must have been used in other places as well.

yes... Cambridge.

My point is that oxford might simply have been the place where the wide legged 30s trouser was seen for the first time worn with a suit.

so the fuzzy trousers aren't Oxford bags, and Oxford just happened to be the first place where wide-legged trousers were popularised. erm...

...i'm sticking with my theory.

 

[Qirrel]

yes... Cambridge.

Surely there were other places in the UK where people wore trousers for "tennis, cricket, and boating purposes".

so the fuzzy trousers aren't Oxford bags, and Oxford just happened to be the first place where wide-legged trousers were popularised. erm...

...i'm sticking with my theory.

Yeah, forget what I wrote there. Got a bit confused, I think.

According to esquires encyclopedia, the original trousers had 22" bottoms, and earlier in this thread, a 1925 source reads "20 to 25" bottoms". 20" and 22" is hardly a "bag" compared to 30s trousers.
We see people wearing the fuzzy trousers in older pictures, and my source suggests that sports trousers were made quite a lot wider than regular trousers, so why should that garment suddenly become controversial some time in the 1920s? It must be because someone decided to wear them outside a sporting arrangement, or because they decided to get an exaggerated version of the already wide trouser. The whole story about the plus fours under the bags etc. etc. seems improbable with the circumferences cited in original sources. And the whole idea of it really is just silly. Wouldn't it get awfully hot, and not make any other difference at all, since the plus fours would be covered?

 

[Cobden]

Not sure if it'll help much, but I have two pairs of British made sporting trousers, one pair appears to be 1910s or 1920's (judging by the label and lack of pleats and the rear buckle, as well as the narrowness of the trousers) and another which I think are 30's-50's. Both are made from an odd, cushy wool, though they aren't knapped. They don't feel or look expensively made, and the later pair are clearly off-the-peg.