Suits and suit pants.

[Wild Root]

That's an interesting idea. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m sure it could have happened that way but, also I feel that they were just put a way and forgotten about too. Also, some are careless and have just tossed "Grand Dad's old bags" in the trash.

The amount of clothes that have been tossed over the years is really something! What we have today are sincerely survivors! Oxford bags are really fun looking pants! If you twist a tailor's arm enough, I'm sure you could get a pair made custom! Just take him a pare of vintage pants that you like, have him copy the construction over all and then make them flare out at the hip to a whopping 35"+!

I'd love to see some one wearing true Oxford Bags with a nice 30's shirt, a nice 30's tie and a sweater vest! What a cool look that would be!

Say Marc, I saw Ben McGinty at the Rose Bowl yesterday! He says hi.

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Hi, Ben! Haven't seen him in months. I told him about the Lounge, but Ben has practically zero interest in cyberchatting.

 

[BellyTank]

I'd love to see some one wearing true Oxford Bags with a nice 30's shirt, a nice 30's tie and a sweater vest!
=WR=

Sweater vest-

Is that like a Cardigan then?

B
T

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Sweater vest-

Is that like a Cardigan then?

B
T

Tank top (no Belly ) in 'English'. Sweater without arms.

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

And probably (though not always) with a v-neck.

 

[BellyTank]

...aahhh.... you mean a sleeveless pullover.
A slipover!

Mind that banana Peel!:kick:

B
T

 

[herringbonekid]

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!

....................................

i think the trousers in that photo must have been a novelty pair for a show. i can accept that a 35" circumference was available (half that being 17.5" front to back...more than enough to completely hide your shoe). that is enormous (and looks like what the guy in the photo with the 2 dames is sporting)... but 35" front to back ? that is bonkers.

also, notice that in the catalogue images posted they exaggerate the illustration to make their point.....they are advertised as 20" or 22" bottoms. that's only 11" front to back....i have a pair of 23" bottoms (my widest pant !) and they don't look as flared as they do in the old illustrations.

hello, by the way.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

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!

....................................

i think the trousers in that photo must have been a novelty pair for a show.

hello, by the way.

Hola!

I have the best illustrative picture that i'll scan later. Towards the end of the bags fad it became a point of contention as to who could get their tailor to make the biggest/widest ones. So i guess they were novelty, but as with all fads, it gets vulgar in the end. 35" back to front, then, is not so unreasonable, but it is most certainly vulgar. Simply ridiculous. But the people who had them made wore them in all seriousness. With straight faces.

bk

 

[herringbonekid]

Hola!

I have the best illustrative picture that i'll scan later.

i'd love to see it.
i have a theory....(i've just come up with it in the last 3 minutes)....some americans heard about this 'oxford bag' thing kicking off in england and thought "we'll show those brits a thing or two about cuff width !" and a radical, albeit shortlived, moment in campus sartorial history was made.

seriously though, i have yet to see an english 20s/30s trouser wider than 12" front to back.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

i have a theory....(i've just come up with it in the last 3 minutes)....some americans heard about this 'oxford bag' thing kicking off in england and thought "we'll show those brits a thing or two about cuff width !" and a radical, albeit shortlived, moment in campus sartorial history was made.

seriously though, i have yet to see an english 20s/30s trouser wider than 12" front to back.

Neither have i.

Sounds like a decent theory. I think bags were first introduced to the states by well-to-do travelling Ivy League types who went over to Oxbridge and saw the students wearing these things. The pic i have i think is from France. A dashing French chap with his bags flying in the wind. oo-er missus!

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Reminds me somewhat of the '90s fad for very, very oversized jeans. In Paris, I once saw a couple of guys sporting jeans that easily measured 70" (35", doubled) around the legs.

 

[nightandthecity]

For myself I've never seen wider than 22" to 23" in 1920s-30s trousers though I have heard of such, and its clear from the foregoing that it isn't myth! But a 22 or 23 would be known here in the UK as an Oxford bag...and I was bought up in Oxford too!

Root, I am not really embarrassed about wearing my 22" trousers and I wear them frequently, it was but a crude and ill thought out attempt at hyperbole. I think what I meant was that when I wear them I am aware of stepping over some sort of sartorial boundary!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

it was but a crude and ill thought out attempt at hyperbole.

Perhaps the best turn of phrase i've seen yet on the lounge. :cheers1:

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Here he is. Now these are some wide legged bags:

bk

 

[Wild Root]

HoooooOOOOOOOOOO RHAAAAAA! Those are SWEET! I want a pair made right now!!!

I have seen a photo some what like that before but, man, that's a rare photo! You hardly ever see photos of these.

Good shot my friend!:cheers1:

=WR=

PS. The guy who is wearing them doesn't look all that young!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

He looks like Jimmy Walker, the dapper mayor of New York in the '20s.

 

[Wild Root]

The Mayor of NY would wear bags? How cool would that be!

=WR=

 

[Sardou]

Slipping into the Lounge before last call . . .

Does anyone happen to know WHY Oxford banned the wearing of knickers? Did Cambridge as well? After all, both Edwards (VII and VIII) had been photographed in them, so they can't have been viewed as scandalous per se.

Just a guess, but perhaps being so associated with sport (especially golf and shooting), they were viewed as too informal to be seen in class. Any ideas?

As a further guess, I'd imagine that their popularity was fueled entirely by the thrill of so obviously violating the rule while outwardly appearing to comply with it. Once that became ho-hum, that was the end of it.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is a difference between "breeks" and "plusses"?

Sardou,
who lives, alas, in a time when "cut off at the knees"
implies humiliation, rather than sartorial splendor.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

HoooooOOOOOOOOOO RHAAAAAA! Those are SWEET! I want a pair made right now!!!

I have seen a photo some what like that before but, man, that's a rare photo! You hardly ever see photos of these.

Good shot my friend!:cheers1:

=WR=

PS. The guy who is wearing them doesn't look all that young!

He doesn't look young, does he. And this is from 1925, near the start of the craze. Maybe he's an artist Boho type that can't quite bear to get rid of the jacket/waistcoat ensemble. Nice hat he's wearing, too.

In my opinion they look ridiculous. As i said earlier, when a fad is taken to its logical extreme it can get quite obnoxious. People saw this in the fashion mags and said The party is, like, so over dude!

bk

p.s. The photo is gleaned from a book. I take no credit for finding it.

p.p.s. Didn't oxford have a dress code? Like the public schools. Knickers, i'm sure, would not confrom to any dress code.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The Mayor of NY would wear bags? How cool would that be!

=WR=

Mayor Jimmy Walker patronized speakeasies, was on the take, and had lots of chorus girl friends -- though he was married. That's the unsavory part. The good part is that he was a very stylish dresser; was famous for it, in fact. Wore raccoon coats and always used spats, for starters ...