Oxford Bags

[Baron Kurtz]

TwoTypes, how do contemporary (circa '25) British references describe "Oxford Bags"?

We have in this thread my Men's Wear (1925: "about 25 inches around the knees, and 22 inches around the bottoms") ("writers … covering the Henley Regatta cabled word of "the very loose flannel trousers worn") and John Wannamaker's release "First in America" in the spring of 1925 of Redleaf-London OXFORD BAGS … 20 to 25 inches at the foot."

So, evidence would suggest wider at the knee than the foot. Somewhere around 22-25 at the foot, at least in America. Hyena Stomp's trousers above, for example, are distinctly flared - wider at the foot than the knee.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'm of the opinion, btw, that Oxford Bags are so difficult to find and define because they became the standard trousers of a few years post 1925. Far from being a short lived trend - and very far from the ridiculous tent-proportioned costume garments we see pictures of every so often - they caught hold and became essentially "normal".

 

[Edward]

Great photo Ed. Very timeless outfit.
I actually love the matching waistcoat and jacket/contrasting trousers look.

I'll never know the answer for sure, but I've long suspected it might have been a three piece suit of which the trews had worn out. I love it myself. I wish I had a clear shot of the waistcoat, as it looks to be quite low-cut for daywear. To my eye, anyhow...

nice photo Edward. they look like typical 11" bottom wide legged trousers (probably flannel), and whether all 11" bottom 30-40s trousers qualify as 'Oxford Bags' is still open for debate.
for my money, Oxford bags have to be either the original 'blanket bag' boating trouser, or something much wider than 11"... which unfortunately we've yet to see an actual example of.

My opinion would be once they get to being bigger than 23" or so all around, they start to become caricature rather than for real - though I don't have your expertise on that front. I'd agree true Oxford bags are those that the Oxford rowers wore back when, but I wouldn't really quibble with the term used as a colloquialism for men's fashion trousers styled after them. [huh]

 

[herringbonekid]

I'm of the opinion, btw, that Oxford Bags are so difficult to find and define because they became the standard trousers of a few years post 1925. Far from being a short lived trend - and very far from the ridiculous tent-proportioned costume garments we see pictures of every so often - they caught hold and became essentially "normal".

true, but there still seems to be something that happened in the mid 20s before they became the norm.

Two Types has quite a bit of written evidence of the mid 20s English college fad trousers. much written description but no pictorial evidence aside from the oft-posted photo of Jack Buchanan in a shoe-covering pair that are clearly wider than 11" or 12".

calling all 11" trousers Oxford Bags (as Edward suggests) kind of renders the term redundant.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Exactly. My point is there was a brief period where these things were shocking. Then the style gurus at Tailor and Cutter, Mens Wear, Tailor's Gazette et al. got on board and the wider hems took off and became normal.

How would one decide whether a pair of undated trousers was a "crazy" pair from 1925 or a "normal" pair by 1929, and then a "conservative" pair by 1935?

 

[herringbonekid]

Exactly. My point is there was a brief period where these things were shocking. Then the style gurus at Tailor and Cutter, Mens Wear, Tailor's Gazette et al. got on board and the wider hems took off and became normal.

i hear you Baron, but i'm suggesting that their is still something wilder that hasn't been found by any of us collectors. there was mention (in Two Type's lecture) of 'crushed strawberry' colour; never seen a pair of those in real life. never seen a pair as wide as the Jack Buchanan's in real life either...

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Maybe. Haven't seen any physical evidence of them, though. Sounds like the kind of things Blowers wears …

Widest pair I own were 24" before I have them narrowed (never far, the fabric is still there). They belong to a black French suit, of all things. This suit fits me (i.e. someone 5' 2"), so you can imagine how RIDICULOUS 24" cuffs look.

 

[herringbonekid]

these are 24" bottoms. they look cool as heck.

 

[Rudie]

*rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

 

[Edward]

Reminds me of when the 'combat trousers' I was wearing from the end of the eighties suddenly became fashionable as 'cargo trousers' around 1995, and what would have today been called the "yummy mummy" set (ugh.... the only thing worse than the term "yummy mummy" is the type of woman who would self-label as such) were buying them in The Gap. Similar shift... Nowadays, of course, people stare at anything approach bags... Almost full circle.

 

[Edward]

Maybe. Haven't seen any physical evidence of them, though. Sounds like the kind of things Blowers wears …

Widest pair I own were 24" before I have them narrowed (never far, the fabric is still there). They belong to a black French suit, of all things. This suit fits me (i.e. someone 5' 2"), so you can imagine how RIDICULOUS 24" cuffs look.

More culottes than trousers, I should think...

 

[Two Types]

I must get around to posting the text to my lecture. It answers many of the questions.

 

[Two Types]

Oxford Bags:
The 20th Century’s Most Important Trousers

Part One:

 

[Two Types]

Part 2:

 

[Two Types]

Part 3:

 

[esteban68]

:eusa_clap

 

[Two Types]

OK: That is an edited version of my research. It isn't completed yet and I know that I have some way to go before it is complete. However, it is all from contemporary reports.

In summary: I believe HBK's theory (that Oxford Bags were derived from the blanket bags worn for rowing) is correct. The weight of evidence so far supports this theory. Furthermore, the Oxford Bags of 192 were originally around 22/23 inches circumference, briefly increased to ridiculous proportions, then settled down into the standard trousers with 22 inch bottoms that remained popular for so many years. Thus, whilst one might not accurately refer to 1930s trousers as Oxford Bags, the bags of early 1925 would have been almost indistinguishable from the trousers of the 1930s. Indeed, there is contemporary evidence for people using Oxford Bags to describe trousers in the 1930s (if my memory serves me correctly,John Betjeman's An Oxford University Chest from 1938 refers to mechanics walking up the high street in their oxford bags).)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

If I were you, with any view to publishing, I would remove the text immediately to preserve novelty.

If I had a thruppence for every piece of stuff of mine that has been ripped off and stolen by so-called bloggers and internet fashion "experts" (I don't mean M. Chevalier, I must add), I would be a millionaire, depending on the base unit of the measure of currency.

 

[Two Types]

Good point BK. Sorry gents!

I will edit it down to a basic outline which gives you the basics.

BK: What did you think?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It's not great for passing on knowledge, but it's the reality of the times we live in.

But hey, at least we have an internet copyright lawyer on forum!