Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quoted in Esquire's Encyclopedia of 20th Century Men's Fashion
I thought this might be of historical interest (on Don Draper's coffee table as we speak), and still very useful for today. Definitive.

Cuffs. The rule here depends on several things: suit style, fabric and -when yome right down to it - preference. British-oriented tweed or a soft flannel looks better cuffed; hard-finished worsteds can take a razor-sharp crease that one may not want to break with a cuff. "Weighting" lightweight summer trousers with cuffs helps them retain their shape. Narrower bottomed trousers are more apt to go cuffless, while the true natural-shoulder traditionalist would never dream of decuffing his trousers. Leaving off cuffs lengthens the line of trousers, helps make a short man look taller. Degree of dressiness is no criterion - sport slacks can go cuffless (why have dirt catchers on the golf course or picnic grounds?) About the only general statement that can be made is that softer and heavier goods look better cuffed; whether or not you choose that more advanced look of cufflessness for your smooth-finished fabrics depends, of course, upon your own taste.
Pleats Trouser fronts are either plain-fronted or single- or double-pleated; the double-pleat is, for the most part, limited to tradition preserving custom tailors. While the single-pleat is still, by far, the most popular, the trimmer look of pleatless trousers is continually gaining favor and is de rigueur for the younger man and the natural shoulder enthusiast. Sport slacks, especially are going the way of no pleats (though the less-confining pleated models are preferred by many active sportsmen: e.g. golfers). While pleats - contrary to popular conceptions- will not hide a "pot," they will give a heavier-set man more room through the front. The choice, therefore, depends on comfort and the "look" a man wishes to achieve.
Rise. The rise of a man's trousers is that space from the crotch seam to the top of the waistband. In the past few years, slacks with a dungaree-type low rise, usually featuring an extension waist band and side tabs, have found enthusiastic popularity, especially with younger men. These trousers, naturally, fit lower at the waistline, resting on the hips. A slim man who likes the casual effect of such sport slacks, can wear them; a heavier man should avoid a low-rise trouser since a stomach bulging over the top of one's trousers looks most unflattering.
Taper. With the whittling down of clothing to trimmer proportions, all trousers have begun to be more emphatically tapered (decreased gradually in width from top to bottom): from a 23"-19" knee-to-bottom ratio of not too many seasons ago, the average pair of trousers today measures 21"-18". Some sport slacks and young men's suit trousers measure 17" - and even narrower - at the bottom. Esquire feels that the extreme taper of pipestem trousers deserve no more place in the wardrobe of the well dressed man than the baggy look of yesteryear. Trousers must also be proportioned to a man's build - more taper will help a shorter man look taller but will only exaggerate the height of a tall, slim man.
Length. Proper length for trousers follows an absolute rule: they should just touch the tops of the shoe - with only the barest suggestion of a break if at all. (There should certainly be no break at all at the time of the fitting, since trousers will inevitably sag a bit.) The very-high fashiontrend of ankle length trousers is a skimpy look that goes along with tight pants - the tight pants that are worn by many young men, but which are no more advisable for the well dressed man than the too-long trousers that slop over the shoes (April, 1962, pp. 94-95).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
Very good!

I'm obsessed with trouser length. I recently had my M2's further shortened and re-cuffed much to my satisfaction. However, the shorter look raised a new issue. Suddenly I became greatly aware of the width of my pant legs. Somehow having no "break" seemed to indicate that I would do better with a slimmer pant.

I'm a short guy (scraping around 5'-8") of medium build. I think my break-less M2's would look perfect on a taller guy.

My dry cleaner, when I tried the newly shortened pants on, approvingly said that I looked "cute" in them. I think I know what she means, and I'm not sure it's a good kind of "cute". Maybe I look too boyish. Or too much like those old men in Chinatown with BIG wide pants that are suddenly chopped off at the ankle, revealing tiny feet.

Sigh. But I also wonder if, at some point, continuing to fool around with our clothes becomes decidedly un-tradly. (For what that's worth.) I envy yesterday's dresser for his ability to simply "set it and forget it".

Today we're all a perpetual work in progress. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Very informative. Interesting that the single pleat was much more prevalent than the double pleat. I don't see the single pleat very often today although I know that some British firms offer that option. Thanks for posting, AldenPyle!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,023 Posts
It was a pretty common look to show sock back then. More common than people think. Just look at that one thread that has pictures from '50s and '60s colleges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,808 Posts
That's a fabulous book, although it doesn't cover anything newer than the early 1970s and is waaaaaay overpriced on the used book market.

Regarding pants: I originally thought, like many here do, that short pants with thick cuffs would look good. But they don't. Now I wear them long and with narrow cuffs. The short pants and white socks were very much "of a time" and I don't think it really works today, unless one is trying to be ironic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,808 Posts
You think $500+ is overpriced? For "Esquire's Encyclopedia of Roughly Three-Quarters of the 20th Century Men's Fashions"?

(I agree.)
Actually, $500 is not too bad; I've seen them listed for over USD$1,000 in the past. That's just ridiculous and I'd like to take this opportunity to rant about the upward inflationary effects of the internet and Antique's Roadshow on the prices of used books and used cars.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,023 Posts
That's a fabulous book, although it doesn't cover anything newer than the early 1970s and is waaaaaay overpriced on the used book market.

Regarding pants: I originally thought, like many here do, that short pants with thick cuffs would look good. But they don't. Now I wear them long and with narrow cuffs. The short pants and white socks were very much "of a time" and I don't think it really works today, unless one is trying to be ironic.
Wanna bet? :icon_smile_big:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
At those prices, the market is probably more professional than for entertainment. I just photo-copied a couple of pages at the library.
One thing you can get from scanning this book is that the statement that classic Men's style is timeless is bunk. The most that can be said is that men's fashion cycles tend to last no less than the life of a good suit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,808 Posts
AldenPyle said:
At those prices, the market is probably more professional than for entertainment. I just photo-copied a couple of pages at the library.
That has always been my feeling about that book. If I found it cheap somewhere I would buy it for the bookshelf, but I wouldn't pay any serious money. Historians or theatrical costumers will find it useful, but for the rest of us it's something to borrow from the library, read once, and forget about. Still a good book though, and I wish we had something similar that took us up to the modern day.

One thing you can get from scanning this book is that the statement that classic Men's style is timeless is bunk. The most that can be said is that men's fashion cycles tend to last no less than the life of a good suit.
Careful...thinking like that can get you hurt on the main forum!
 
1 - 13 of 13 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