[alkydrinker]

Today I bought some nice 100% wool Ralph Lauren suit pants at Marshalls for $29 (on clearance). They are in the taupe/brown hue with a fine pattern that I think would be considered birdseye.

They were so cheap because they were part of a suit that got split up. The tag has "missing mate" or something like that handwritten on it.

I know wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket is frowned upon because of how it stands out as a belonging to a suit, but there is nothing wrong with orphaned suit pants is there?

There is so much polyester on the market...usually if I see dress pants for around $30 they are guaranteed to be poly. I had to jump on these considering they are 100% wool, a brand name, in my size, and only $29.

 

[alkydrinker]

Sorry, now I see several old threads about this such as: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...ommunity/showthread.php?105398-Wearing-old-suit-pants-as-slacks-a-fashion-don-t

My initial search didn't pull these up.

I will try post pics tonight so I can solicit opinions on if these particular pants could be worn well as separate trousers. Reading through the previous threads, I see that opinions are mixed on what suit pants can be worn separately.

 

[paul winston]

Legendary Sam Walton wore overalls and drove a beat up pickup trunk. He did'nt care what people thought. It is easy to have that attitude when you are one of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. If you care what you look like, and if you care what others think about your appearance, don't wear suit trousers as odd trousers. (The exception would be trousers from a flannel, gabardine, or poplin suit. )
Paul Winston
Winston Tailors
www.chipp2.com/blog/
www.grenadineties.com

 

[Matt S]

Solids always work, though navy is hard to pull off as odd trousers. Glen Urquhart check trousers are good under a navy blazer, but for everything else stick to casual wear. So for your birdseye trousers, I'd avoid wearing a sports coat with them.

 

[dcjacobson]

The only orphaned suit pants I would rule out are pinstripes and chalkstripes.

Good luck,
Don

 

[TSWalker]

The only orphaned suit pants I would rule out are pinstripes and chalkstripes.

I agree with this entirely. If wearing an odd jacket with jeans is even occasionally acceptable (provided it doesn't scream "half a tuxedo" or the like), then wearing odd trousers without a jacket should be permissible.

 

[Starch]

Kind of odd to see all the "No!"s on that other thread. If they're solid, what's the difference? The same pant is being sold as a standalone (so to speak) already. That goes for solids and a lot of patterns (glen plaids, etc.). Stripes are really the only obvious exception. And tuxedo pants.

Going slightly askew toward a related subject: while wearing pants that are really "orphaned" (i.e. they've tragically lost their jacket altogether) makes sense, avoid wearing pants that are just stepping out on their own (i.e. the jacket is still extant). Most people wear the pants of a suit out first, and you're in danger of orphaning the jacket. Unless, of course, you get two pairs of pants from the get go, but that formerly somewhat common practice seems mostly to have vanished.

 

[CuffDaddy]

I agree with Starch's view.

When I lost quite a bit of weight a few years ago, I had a number of suits where the jackets were way too large to be worn, but where the trousers could simply be taken in a couple of inches and still worn. I got good casual use out of the glen checks, and even got some wear out of the striped ones as cool-weather golf pants.

 

[zzdocxx]

(i.e. they've tragically lost their jacket altogether)

That is so sad.

 

[Acct2000]

I agree with Starch's view.

When I lost quite a bit of weight a few years ago, I had a number of suits where the jackets were way too large to be worn, but where the trousers could simply be taken in a couple of inches and still worn. I got good casual use out of the glen checks, and even got some wear out of the striped ones as cool-weather golf pants.

For you, it could work, because you have put a lot of thought into it and have a sense of style that most men don't have.

A lot of men could easily do it with the wrong suit pants and the wrong situation. Most of the time, for example, a pair of suit pants would not work well with a polo or a tee shirt. You will see the difference.

Most men won't. As far as advising people, better safe than sorry.

Many of the regular posters here know enough about whether the pants will work in a specific situation or not; I'll concede that. They can probably "take chances." Most guys should not.

 

[Balfour]

... If wearing an odd jacket with jeans is even occasionally acceptable ...

Is it? Dreadful look in my view.

 

[TSWalker]

For the purist, no... but then the purist would not be breaking up a suit, would he?

 

[Balfour]

For the purist, no... but then the purist would not be breaking up a suit, would he?

Fair point.

 

[CuffDaddy]

but then the purist would not be breaking up a suit, would he?

False, at least if one regards purists as those who insist upon adherence to tradition. As has been discussed, illustrated, and (in my view) proven many times, there is no rule against "breaking up a suit," and there never has been. It is an oft-repeated bit of advice, originally intended as a prophylactic against ill-considered combinations or uses, but anyone who thinks it a rule is mistaken.

 

[Oldsarge]

As a 'bit of advice', though, it is worth considering. However, I do adhere to the view that so long as the trousers are not obviously pin or chalked stripe, it would be damned hard to prove that they had once belonged with a matching jacket.

 

[Acct2000]

Prove, no, but hold up a pair of slacks and hold up a pair of suit pants and at least 90% of the time, I could tell you which came from a suit. Cuff Daddy and AR would have to explain how I know; I would not be able to put it into words.

If I can see it, I would suspect a lot of people would wonder if something is "off." This is one of those things that veteran posters here would probably be able to do wisely and in the right place. However, an average guy could really end up looking silly. I agree with Cuff Daddy that there is no rule, but it is a needlessly dangerous place for most average guys.

There is usually something better than a pair of suit pants when you are not wearing the suit jacket. That said, there is no "rule."

 

[Starch]

There are only two things that distinguish one pair of pants from another:
- the fabric
- the construction / tailoring.
(Okay, a third: how they've worn ... but the OP is talking about new pants, so that's not even a factor).

Fabric
There are quite a few fabrics (most, probably) that clothes manufacturers use interchangeably for suits and dress pants. In terms of basic type of fabric, I don't think there's anything that's generally used for suits that's not used for pants: worsted, flannel, etc. There are some (heavier, lighter, more unusually textured) that are pretty common for pants, but rare for suits, but going that direction isn't the issue.

In terms of color: There are, of course, some that are rarely used for pants (most stripes, though not all), and some that are used for pants but rarely for suits (Madras ... hmm ... that would be an interesting suit). Also, of course, GTH pants have a certain place in the world, while a whole GTH suit might be a bit over emphatic, except where humor is the prevailing goal.

Construction
Are suit pants constructed differently from dress pants? Not so far as I can tell. Of course - as is the case with fabric - there are some cuts and variations that you'd see in pants (more casual ones, anyway), that would be weird in a suit. But I'm pretty sure you can walk into about any men's clothing store with a varied inventory and buy a pair of dress pants that are constructed exactly the same as a pair of suit pants.

Bottom line: There are pants that clearly don't belong to a suit, but (with the exception of stripes), there aren't any pants that clearly do belong to a suit.

 

[TSWalker]

False, at least if one regards purists as those who insist upon adherence to tradition. As has been discussed, illustrated, and (in my view) proven many times, there is no rule against "breaking up a suit," and there never has been. It is an oft-repeated bit of advice, originally intended as a prophylactic against ill-considered combinations or uses, but anyone who thinks it a rule is mistaken.

I do love how you bristle at even the suggestion of a rule. :wink2:

I suppose the key point here is which tradition we are suggesting a strict adherence to, the pre-1920s habit of wearing a suit jacket with odd trousers or the established tradition after the widespread acceptance of the sports coat where a suit of clothes is normally worn only as a suit of clothes.

My point was simply that by modern Details magazine standards (wear a tux jacket with the sleeves rolled up over a T-shirt) few would likely notice that these were suit pants being worn without their matching jacket... and unless they are worn with an obviously mismatched jacket, few are likely to care. That said, these trousers were designed to be worn with their matching jacket - this is inherent in the garment and the word "suit", but I agree it is not a rule.

Finally, to the OP, did they have any that were 38-34? :icon_smile_big: