Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dear all,

I have a question:

Is it possible that regarding some pants the better placement of brace buttons are on the outside?

In Europe, mens pants sometimes tend to be slimmer closer fitting and to sit lower. If this is the case, I have seen pants from some (better) more fashion directed brands who have put functional brace buttons on the outside.

First, I thought this was hideous, but i actually tried a pair on and they where very, very comfortable (for tight pants at least).

Is there a compelling reason that this simply shouldnt be done? I have only seen brace buttons on the inside before (although my experience is very limited and have never actually seen a suit made to be worn with buttons, in Sweden it is not very common right now)

I also have a couple of tigher-fitting suits that i could very much imagine would be very comfortable with braces, although hardly with the buttons on the inside. I have four Albert Thurstons that would fit nicely.

None of the above would be worn (by me at least) without a jacket, so neither the buttons nor the braces would be shown off.

What do you think? Will value any and all opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
I'd stick w/ inside brace buttons and fit the trousers slightly looser in the waist. This is, however, just my opinion. I did, though, once own a pair of especially elegant Oshkosh B'gosh overalls which had magnificent brass outside buttons on the braces. When plowing, the mules were unimpressed. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,852 Posts
Wearing braces with tight, low-cut pants is a sartorial solecism. Trousers are supposed to 'suspend' from suspenders (hence the name), not look as if they're painted on, with braces sitting atop them as more or less decorative afterthoughts.

The whole effect of tight pants with braces sounds distinctly 'off,' and adding outside brace buttons to the mix would only make things worse. If your trousers are so tight in the waist that you 'need' to move the brace buttons to the outside, your trousers are too tight, period.

In fact, tight and low-cut pants on men is a sartorial solecism too. Leave the skinny jeans to the tweener girls, and learn to wear your trousers decently full-cut and on the natural waist like a man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
There's nothing wrong with putting brace buttons on the outside of the waistband; indeed, it was the norm for many years. Braces do require a higher and looser waistband, though - the trousers won't sit properly if they're too low or too tight around the waist.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Hi again,

Thank you for your comments. I am aware of the (largely american) sentiment that all pants should have a very full cut. However, I would argue that full cut pants are in themselves not necessarily of any better pedigree than tighter. Check what the original british dandys of the 17th and 18th centuries where wearing, and you'll find that tight pants where quite common (due to all the riding i guess).

I would like to point out that lower, tighter pants do not stay up by themselves but need a belt or braces. Othwerwise the wearer has an extreme physique. Therefore, they will be hanging from the shoulder if braces are used. If a belt is used, not so much. Pants can be pretty tight without being plastered on.

The height of the pants and the fit is a question of fashion. "Trad" in in itself only fashion not going back more than a hundred years, and having been reinvented several times at that.

Suits with a full "american" fit are not sold nor worn in northern europe, and are (probably) considered as much of a quirk when worn as a full tweed suit. I do also remember seeing some older cowboy movies, and those jeans looked kinda tight. Is Clint a tweener girl?

I do prefer a fuller fit, although a somwhat lower waist, but I wouldnt call a specific pants fit a solecism in itself. The generic norm for pant fit probably has more to do with average weight than anything else, and northern europeans have a (sickening) fascination with excercise and healthy cuisine. That I do no myself share btw.

Is there any functional point to having the buttons on the inside, does the fit improve in any way? Why did buttons move to the inside?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
From Bown's Bespoke

Found something on Bown's Bespoke:

"The positioning of such buttons also requires thought. I stipulate that they should be on the outside of the trousers at the front, but on the inside at the back - so that when I drive the Royce without my jacket they will not make impressions in the leather. It is surprising how difficult it is to make tailors follow this simple instruction.)"

its at https://www.bownsbespoke.com/albertthurston.htm

I don't own a rolls but I dont want put a dent in my leather couches :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Found something on Bown's Bespoke:

"The positioning of such buttons also requires thought. I stipulate that they should be on the outside of the trousers at the front, but on the inside at the back - so that when I drive the Royce without my jacket they will not make impressions in the leather. It is surprising how difficult it is to make tailors follow this simple instruction.)"

its at https://www.bownsbespoke.com/albertthurston.htm

I don't own a rolls but I dont want put a dent in my leather couches :)
Beat me to the punch....I IMMEDIATELY thought of Bown's when I read the topic....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
Found something on Bown's Bespoke:...
I found this particular observation of Bown's logical, and that's now I now prefer the buttons (despite not owning a Rolls).

Also, I sometimes reflexively run my thumbs between shirt and waistband to push the slack in the shirt off to either side. My thumbs don't catch on the front buttons if those are on the outside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Hi again,

Thank you for your comments. I am aware of the (largely american) sentiment that all pants should have a very full cut. However, I would argue that full cut pants are in themselves not necessarily of any better pedigree than tighter. Check what the original british dandys of the 17th and 18th centuries where wearing, and you'll find that tight pants where quite common (due to all the riding i guess).
Yes, and they weren't wearing braces.

I would like to point out that lower, tighter pants do not stay up by themselves but need a belt or braces. Othwerwise the wearer has an extreme physique. Therefore, they will be hanging from the shoulder if braces are used. If a belt is used, not so much. Pants can be pretty tight without being plastered on.
If have any sort of waist or a butt is extreme to you, so be it.

The height of the pants and the fit is a question of fashion.
Fit, yes. Height, no. There is a reason its called a 'waist', that's where its supposed to sit. And your hips, are not your waist.

Suits with a full "american" fit are not sold nor worn in northern europe, and are (probably) considered as much of a quirk when worn as a full tweed suit. I do also remember seeing some older cowboy movies, and those jeans looked kinda tight. Is Clint a tweener girl?
It's not an American cut. If anything, you might call it a British cut. And jeans are not suit pants, the comparison is silly.

Having buttons on the inside or outside is personal choice, but if you're doing it because their is not enough room inside your waistband, you are wearing them too tight. You can disagree all you want, but you came here looking for advice, we're giving it to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Having buttons on the inside or outside is personal choice, but if you're doing it because their is not enough room inside your waistband, you are wearing them too tight. You can disagree all you want, but you came here looking for advice, we're giving it to you.
This sums it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
You can disagree all you want, but you came here looking for advice, we're giving it to you.
I will not attribute this to the OP, but it seems that quite a few come here looking not for advise, instead, while using the form of a question, they are looking for confirmation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
I will not attribute this to the OP, but it seems that quite a few come here looking not for advise, instead, while using the form of a question, they are looking for confirmation.
It's lame to ask for advice when you're mind really is fully made up. But sometimes people have mostly made up their mind and yet want to double-check it against the opinions of others. They're naturally resistant and may need a bit more persuading to change their mind, but I don't see what so wrong with that?

None of that, though, really applies here. The OP asked a very specific question, namely "Is there a reason why the buttons have to be inside." He quickly got the answer: No, not really. He then asked a follow-up question, namely "Is there a reason buttons migrated to the inside." Nobody directly addressed that, but I think I've read elsewhere that the answer has to do with the decline in the wearing of vests.

The stuff about tight vs loose fit is a tangent, which the OP opened up with his comments about why he was thinking about button placement. People jumped all over that and he got drawn into defending his remarks. He said up front he valued all opinions, so he somewhat opened the door on that. But he really hadn't asked for guidance about tight vs loose fit.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thank you for your comments. I asked a friend as well, and he argued that if you drive a lot or sit down a lot, the buttons should go on the outside on the front, and that having them on the inside makes little practical sense.

My comments where in no way meant to be taken as anti-american, btw. I only meant to illustrate why I was thinking of fitting brace buttons to lower, tighter pants and that wearing a very full fit with a higher waist really isnt much of an option.

Having now fit the buttons front-out and back-in i must say that they work marvelously. The pants stay where they are supposed to be without a belt, and I look taller for it.

Somwhat off-topic, but I found a funny page on the internet that stated that:
"It is reported that the husband of Queen Victoria had a genital piercing. The reason for this was the popularity of the very tight Beau Brummel pants. By having genital piercings, the penis could be anchored to the left side and eliminate the bulge."

Something to consider when advocating the Natural Order of the Fuller Fit... Your natural waist may very turn into what the next century thinks akin to a stapled penis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
It's lame to ask for advice when you're mind really is fully made up. But sometimes people have mostly made up their mind and yet want to double-check it against the opinions of others. They're naturally resistant and may need a bit more persuading to change their mind, but I don't see what so wrong with that?
Your point, that inquiries often are for the purpose of double checking, is persuasive and I will always be sure to give questioners the benefit of the doubt. I hope the OP notices I did not attribute "asking with his mind made up" to him. My comment might well have been made by starting a new thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
My comments where in no way meant to be taken as anti-american,
They certainly were not taken that way. I welcome you here and hope you visit often. A man who can start, what turned out to be an illuminating discussion about button placement, is our kind of man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
^ Yes. On the other hand, you've given us something new and wince-inducing to think about every time we see a picture of Prince Albert--which may not be often, but still.... You lose points for that.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,973 Posts
^ Yes. On the other hand, you've given us something new and wince-inducing to think about every time we see a picture of Prince Albert--which may not be often, but still.... You lose points for that.
Quite the contrary. I think the OP gains points for managing to introduce the topic of genital piercing to the discussion in an unforced way.
Regards,
Gurdon
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top