Suits with lighter trousers

[jswindle2]

I have noticed in period films(victorian and the like) that some men's suits have a slightly lighter trouser than the jacket. Has this been a common fashion on and off in time or was this frowned upon? I kind of like the look and was considering putting toghether some suits like this.

 

[Tomasso]

I can't speak to Victorian dress but today the jacket and trousers of a lounge suit should be made of the same exact material. Anything else would fall into the odd jacket/odd trousers category.

 

[Undertow]

I have noticed in period films(victorian and the like) that some men's suits have a slightly lighter trouser than the jacket. Has this been a common fashion on and off in time or was this frowned upon? I kind of like the look and was considering putting toghether some suits like this.

Perhaps you should post a few examples?

 

[jswindle2]

I'll try

Perhaps you should post a few examples?

I can't think of a specific example right now but I'll search the net for some pictures.
Jerry

 

[jswindle2]

The more I think about it....

The suits I'm thinking of could actually be the odd jacket/trouser set up with very similar fabrics.

 

[Yeps]

Are you talking about stuff like this?

 

[Guttersnipe]

In the nineteenth century suits were often made up of contrasting or mismatched pieces. It was common to see two piece matched and one contrasting (e.g. a vest or trousers). Sometime three contrasting pieces were worn. At times it was actually considered a bit flashy to have a matched suit! Which is really funny to modern aesthetics when you consider the 1840's and 1850's penchant for loud plaids!!!

Checkout the this still for Gangs of New York. Think of what Daniel Day-Lewis is wearing as what the fashionable, albeit a little foppish, gent would consider smart and fashion-forward in the late 1840's or early 1850's:

Here's a period plate from 1857:

And here's a photograph from the 1850's:

Here's a fashion plate from 1877. As you can see, matched suits are now starting to be seen as fashionable:

 

[Undertow]

...I kind of like the look and was considering putting toghether some suits like this.

Although I think it's a good look for the period, I would suggest sticking to something a little more modern for a number of reasons.

To put together a suit such as those posted, and to wear one around town, you'll be crossing into costume wear. Worse yet, the costume won't even make enough sense for anyone to appreciate. It's bad enough people already think you're in a costume when you're wearing seersucker in the summer...

Also, to find appropriate articles would likely be quite expensive and probably either require custom cutting, or great modification. For instance, you could probably destroy some Morning dress to look like some of those suits, but again, we come back to my first point.

If you want a contrast, you should consider a tweed jacket and wool slacks, etc.

(besides, try to find a genuine top hat in your size that's not made out of wool, yikes! )

 

[Tomasso]

Here's a fashion plate from 1877. As you can see, matched suits are now starting to be seen as fashionable:

And here's Albert, Prince Consort to Queen Victoria (as in Victorian era) wearing a matched suit circa 1850.

BTW, if I've learned anything on the FLounge it's that movie wardrobes don't hold much water in terms of sartorial scholarship.

 

[jswindle2]

Well I did'nt quite mean that mismatch..

Although I think it's a good look for the period, I would suggest sticking to something a little more modern for a number of reasons.

To put together a suit such as those posted, and to wear one around town, you'll be crossing into costume wear. Worse yet, the costume won't even make enough sense for anyone to appreciate. It's bad enough people already think you're in a costume when you're wearing seersucker in the summer...

Also, to find appropriate articles would likely be quite expensive and probably either require custom cutting, or great modification. For instance, you could probably destroy some Morning dress to look like some of those suits, but again, we come back to my first point.

If you want a contrast, you should consider a tweed jacket and wool slacks, etc.

(besides, try to find a genuine top hat in your size that's not made out of wool, yikes! )

I meant a SLIGHT lighter color not mismatched like Gangs of New York. I thought that I had seen a slight color mismatch in more like the 20th century times movies. They may have just been odd trouser/jacket combo's with a small difference but enough to not be a actual matching suit.

 

[jswindle2]

Yeps got it close...

The second picture that Yeps posted is the closest to what I have in mind. The gent handing his valet his things is wearing what I was thinking of(except his trousers would be a solid color and maybe a bit darker. I think it's a pretty smart look.
Jerry

 

[Tomasso]

Whenever you match odd jacket to odd trousers you should have enough contrast so that it does not appear that you are trying make a suit out of separates. I hope you're not thinking of doing that. [bad]

 

[Yeps]

The second picture that Yeps posted is the closest to what I have in mind. The gent handing his valet his things is wearing what I was thinking of(except his trousers would be a solid color and maybe a bit darker. I think it's a pretty smart look.
Jerry

If you look for a stroller (the successor to the morning suit, as far as I can tell, but I might be wrong) that should get you what you want.

Here is our very own Sproily (who I sadly have not seen around), modeling that look very well.

And I agree with Sig. Tomasso about contrast.

 

[Guttersnipe]

And here's Albert, Prince Consort to Queen Victoria (as in Victorian era) wearing a matched suit circa 1850.

BTW, if I've learned anything on the FLounge it's that movie wardrobes don't hold much water in terms of sartorial scholarship.

That photograph is from a series taken in May of 1860. When discussing historical fashions we tend to loss site of the fact that they were just as fluid then as the have been in the last hundred years. Just as every decade from the 1920's to the 1950's has its own unique character, so did every decade from the 1830's to the 1860's and beyond. Early photography, and even much modern B&W photography, does not capture the color variation or gradation well. Because of that one of the things that usually strikes people the most when examining surviving articles of 19th century clothing is how bright (even gaudy to our modern eyes) they are.

I imagine that in person this fellow's waistcoat would've fallen into the "eye bleeder" category for sure:

Checkout the colors/patterns of these trousers:

 

[Tomasso]

Could you please re-size those pix; they make the thread very hard to read.

 

[Fletch]

Sporty? (1930s)

Vested suits at the time could be worn with contrasting trous or, more rarely, contrasting jacket.
The latter tends to look a little odd, like overalls perhaps, but it could be brought off with aplomb.

Aplomb times fourteen. The Casa Loma Orchestra, Atlantic City, 1933.

 

[Richard Warren]

From what I've seen, orchestras tended to dress in theatrical costume.

 

[Feraud]

They don't looks as theatrical as they do uniform.
Any fellow in the pic on their own would look fine but the collection of similarly dressed men creates a different impression.

 

[Undertow]

...Checkout the colors/patterns of these trousers...

Guttersnipe, just wondering if you could expand on those trousers: are they repros, actual period articles, etc? And approx. what year are they from?

 

[jswindle2]

That's what I had in mind...

If you look for a stroller (the successor to the morning suit, as far as I can tell, but I might be wrong) that should get you what you want.

Here is our very own Sproily (who I sadly have not seen around), modeling that look very well.



And I agree with Sig. Tomasso about contrast.

but perhaps with a solid trouser instead. Although that look is rather appealing. I had a more modern cut in mind though.