Suits and suit pants.

[Veronica Parra]

 

[Dr. Shocker]

another excellent thread folks......I have been in search of these for quite some time but alas what I find is always way to small or in a few cases way to big......

 

[WA]

On page 1 those pants pictures remind me of my Dads old Navy pants from the 50's - super baggy.

The baggy jeans of the 70's were about half as baggy.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yowzah!

Here are some catalog clippings to illustrate my point.

WR.

Another excellent thread, Root.

A pair that i just got from England. 10 pounds from ebay. Mustard yellow with adjuster buckles at the side, inverse pleats, button fly, high waist ... and 22 inch cuffs! Let me tell you, these are wide on top of size 6.5 (38) feet:

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Terrific!

 

[BellyTank]

Jolly good Strides Baron old Bean!
I think I actually saw those ones on the Blighty'Bay...

B
T

 

[Wild Root]

Fantastic! Oh, if they made those today, they would fly off the racks!

That looks to be more of an ivory shade!

I need to take some photos of my ivory flannels! They have the NRA tag in the back pocket too! So, they're from 1933-1935.

Any way, good looking pants! However, I'll warn you, soon as you own one pair like this, you'll want more wide legged trousers from this point on!

=WR=

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Boy, those are fine looking pants and I really like the color. They would look great with a pair of spectators.

 

[Wild Root]

Brown and white two tones and a navy blue double breasted coat! Very sharp!!!

=WR=

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Boy, those are fine looking pants and I really like the color. They would look great with a pair of spectators.

Yeah the photos are not a good representation of the colour. They are a solid rich yellow. Really beautiful.

Brown and white two tones and a navy blue double breasted coat! Very sharp!!!

=WR=

:rage: I have the blue DB. Now i need to wait to find a pair of spectators. The ones i favour are a brown and white cap toe. They seem to be next to impossible to find in a size 6-6.5 (approx. 38). Well, i should stop saying such things. I've been saying that about 30s/40s suits in the midwest for about 8 months. I just yesterday picked up a suit from the Goodwill dated 1-25-40 that fits me!!!!!! check the show us your suits II - it'll be appearing soon. Spectators, thou wilt be mine ... If you wish upon a star ...

bk

 

[Wild Root]

I can't wait to see the suit! As for the shoes, that size is going to be easier then my size 12D.

Keep your eyes on ebay! Some good shoes are to be found on there! Trust me, you'll find them!

=WR=

 

[Wild Root]

I know these aren't two tone but..

These are rare! and would look smart with your pants!

http://cgi.ebay.com/1940s-mens-swin...363234080QQcategoryZ48862QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Not cap-toes but, sweet and cheap nevertheless! Also, they're 40's!

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-40s-ART...362073654QQcategoryZ48862QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Even better!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Gangste...361019758QQcategoryZ48862QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
=WR=

 

[Mycroft]

Would one of theries why there are many suit pants out there that appear to match a jacket out there is the existance of a 4-piece suits at the time?

 

[Wild Root]

Yes and no. Four piece suits were sold but not in large quantities. The pants that we find in vintage stores belonged once to suits and some were separates. Some times I find four piece suits! Yes, some times I do but, they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re always small or too big horizontally. Never too long mind you.

There is no real reason why there are homeless pants because we could never know the history behind each garment that we may find. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s part of the fun of vintage because it all has history and it belonged to some one at one time and it has stories to tell.

No matter what, buy nice vintage pants when ever you find them because they need a good home too!

Suits are great but, orphan trousers give a great look!

=WR=

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Would one of theries why there are many suit pants out there that appear to match a jacket out there is the existance of a 4-piece suits at the time?

I'm not sure. A pair i just picked up with a really wierd union label (see other thread) had a makers tag inside - Rough Rider of california - which would suggest they were sold as separates. whereas others i picked up have no tags at all, even union tags, suggesting they were part of a suit.

I see in some of the old catalogues that for 2 bucks extra they'd send a second pair of pants. But then, from the "new campus styles" type advertisements it would appear that those really cool campus-style trousers were sold as separates.

bk

 

[nightandthecity]

I keep a rough database of measurements on my own stuff. Most of my 1930s to 1950s trousers are 18-20" bottoms, but I have one pair of proper 22" Oxford bags, from the 1920s. They take some courage to wear, and I'm pretty shameless! The difference that those extra inches make is incredible. Incidentally, they were very popular in the 1970s on the Northern Soul scene here in Britain - not flares, but proper 22 and 23 inch Oxford bags. Along with sleeveless Fair Isles.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I thought bags typically had greater than 30" cuffs?

bk

 

[Wild Root]

They did! I have seen a photo once of a young man at a tailor shop where the tailor is measuring the width of the hem. The measuring tape showed that one pant leg was 35" wide! And that wasn't the circumference so, doubling the width you'd get a 70" circumference! Big? Why, yes they were! Oxford bags were popular because at Oxford knickerbockers were contraband on campus. So, the young students would pull these oxfords over their knickers and then shed them when off of campus to hit the green for 18 holes.

I have never seen an original pair of Oxford Bags! I know they exist but, in small sizes. The trousers I pictured in the Sears Ad of 1936 are separates! They are also not Oxford bags. They are campus styles that were designed off of the English style but, not as extreme as they were over seas.

nightandthecity, you find your self being self-conscious about your wide leg pants? I find that very interesting! I have friends over here that would only prefer to wear them 22" and more then the others. Heck, I have friends over in England and other parts of Europe that prefer the late 20's early 30's Bags to the late 30's and early 40's 18"-20" hems. As for I, I think they look so sharp! Stove pipe legs are super keen!

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Root is right: 30-35 inches, at least.

I've never seen any Oxford bags in person, either. I think they were more popular in England than in the U.S.

Why not keep an eye on ebay.co.uk ?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I have a theory as regards the lack of bags. I have an idea that as soon as the fad passed, people just got the bags cut down to normal proportions. The bags were normal sized through the ass as far as i can see from vintage pics. So, just cut the legs down appropriately, and you have the latest style without having to pay for more fabric.

And maybe get some knickers made from the excess fabric

bk