The London Lounge

Hello everyone!

This is my first post to LL after lurking here for many months. Many will know me already from my posts from AAAC and SF, but I am turning to this audience today as I have a question about bespoke trousers.

As some already know I have a fascination for 19th century and Edwardian men's styles and in my passion for which I even found myself being gently rebuked by Manton for being over enthusiastic to the point of 'mania' when I wrote my little 'treatise' (I assume this is Manton's polite way of saying 'rant' ) on daytime formalwear on SF:

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=21338

If you read the post someone raises something that had been weighing heavily on my mind for a while about how they used to construct their trouser hems in the 19th C. They would shape the trouser hems to mould with the instep of the boot. Let me try to show you a couple of good examples (though it is difficult to be certain if some of the trousers depicted are not gaiter bottom trouser):



Note that the hem is cut to mould around the boot rather than be 'broken' by it. The result is a fluent and unbroken line of extraordinary eloquence. It leads one to fear that the modern way of cutting hems is symptomatic of the mass produced RTW age in which we live - for this style is clearly only possible with bespoke tailoring.

The gentleman on the left in next picture from 1836 also wears just such a style of trouser (the one on the right clearly wears gaiter bottoms):



Here is yet another example from 1849 where the man on the far right clearly wears non-gaiter bottom trousers:



I think the way it elongates the leg and effortlessly melts into the rest of the silhouette is simply breathtaking.

What I would like to ask LL forum member who have more tailoring experience is whether the following pattern from Edward Minister's monumental 1853 treatise "The Practical Guide to Practical Cutting" represents a pattern that does exactly this:



The pattern in question is diagram 2 on this plate. Figure 1 is referred to in the text as "plain trousers" and seem to have the modern straight up and down cut, although even then the hems seem to be shaped to follow the contours of the foot.

The other alternative that could be considered is Louis Devere in his "Handbook of Practical Cutting Around the Centre Point System, 1866":



Again I wish I were better able to picture the final sihouette better from the patterns.

So many wonderful secrets of tailoring seem to have been lost. It is like doing musicological research to find the Bach cello sonatas were probably intended more for the 6 stringed viola da gamba. I am seriously wondering if just such a lost historical tailoring technique might be successfully resurrected - in the same manner as you can hear recordings of the Bach played on the viola da gamba today.

So what do you folk think - have I gone mad as Manton has already alluded to or do you think it would be feasible to commission a pair of bespoke trousers to be cut to one of these patterns (whether following Minister or Devere) and end up with something so subtly different to modern 'plain' trousers that only its greater elegance of line would be noted? Obviously with gaiter bottoms it is different and it would look all too clearly like historical costume, but maybe - just maybe! - there is something wonderful waiting to be rediscovered with the non-gaiter bottom trousers.

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum

Welcome, Sator.

I'll leave it to others to opine on whether this leg cut might figure again in "correct" bespoke daywear in any significant way.

I'd just observe that something similar has been fashionable in pop attire and is currently enjoying a revival in some quarters. In the mid-60s, up to about '67 when flares and bell-bottoms began their ascendency, the skinny stovepipe trouser was popular (short Beatle suits and Beatle boots); toward the end of that period people wore them longer and often opened a notch on the side seam to allow the trouser bottom to spread over the shoe or chelsea boot. I have vague memories of Stones in velvet pants like this with blousy print shirts and double-breasted 19th-century military coats with high collars.

Lately around campus (I work at Penn) I've seen young women in long skinny fitted trousers with the notch taliored in. I don't recall seeing it on the guys, but that may just be inattention on my part.

So adjusting the bottoms to get the same line without the notch might make you au courant. I suspect that bottom more or less requires a very shaped "breeches" cut to make sense, rather than the straight-hanging creases of the 20th century (Notice none of your illustrations have front-rear creases). How well this would work in the context of a modern suit I'm not sure.

I'm sure of one thing, though: if one insists on wearing trousers that are very long, this cut is a damn sight better in my view than the collapsed concertinas we've had to look at around people's shoes for the last ten years.

couch wrote:Welcome, Sator.

I'll leave it to others to opine on whether this leg cut might figure again in "correct" bespoke daywear in any significant way.

I'd just observe that something similar has been fashionable in pop attire and is currently enjoying a revival in some quarters. In the mid-60s, up to about '67 when flares and bell-bottoms began their ascendency, the skinny stovepipe trouser was popular (short Beatle suits and Beatle boots); toward the end of that period people wore them longer and often opened a notch on the side seam to allow the trouser bottom to spread over the shoe or chelsea boot. I have vague memories of Stones in velvet pants like this with blousy print shirts and double-breasted 19th-century military coats with high collars.

Lately around campus (I work at Penn) I've seen young women in long skinny fitted trousers with the notch taliored in. I don't recall seeing it on the guys, but that may just be inattention on my part.

So adjusting the bottoms to get the same line without the notch might make you au courant. I suspect that bottom more or less requires a very shaped "breeches" cut to make sense, rather than the straight-hanging creases of the 20th century (Notice none of your illustrations have front-rear creases). How well this would work in the context of a modern suit I'm not sure.

I'm sure of one thing, though: if one insists on wearing trousers that are very long, this cut is a damn sight better in my view than the collapsed concertinas we've had to look at around people's shoes for the last ten years.

Thank you your comments.

I must say I took pains to avoid any reference to the cyclical re-emergence of the exagerated RTW bell bottoms every few decades. A recent post on either AAAC or SF reminded us that the trend all also appeared a couple of decades before the late 60/early 70s as well. Clearly when a bespoke touch is added when correctly following the silhouette of the boot, we are talking about something so different as to be chalk and cheese.

I also note the following post on LL:

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=4888

"Flare. I am not proposing the wearing of flares as such, but there is a difference between trousers that start with a full waist, taper a little to the knee, and then gently curve outwards, and those that are simply straight up and down. One of the great advantages of bespoke, I feel, is that the former can be made to fit exactly, starting right on the natural waist and coming in to exactly where your knee is."

I found this after I had written my post and was surprised. Clearly, this ancient art of cutting to follow the boot is not entirely dead and still practiced by some artisans.

Next, I realised my foolish omission on inspecting the cover of Edward Minister's encyclopedic tour de force on cutting and would like to make amends by showing it now:



The eloquence of the hourglass silhouette on the dress coat puts even the finest dress coats of our age such as those worn by Fred Astaire to complete shame. Modern dress coats look shapeless and straight as a beanpole by comparison. I could go on (until Maton rebukes me once again for my 'mania') and this is surely worthy of another thread. But Minister writes extensively about the difficulty in cutting trousers. You can appreciate what he means once you note the subtle taper and gentle flare over the instep of the boot so understated as to be virtually unnoticeable - yet all the more breathtaking for that. This is a grand display of old world bespoke tailoring that leaves one as surely astonished as Felix Mendellsohn when he first rediscovered the works of the then virtually forgotten JS Bach gathering dust for over a hundred years in the archives.

I think the issue is one of harmony. Trousers got wider as coats got less fitted and more draped. The trousers you admire above would look out of place with a modern coat. As to who can make them, I don't know. There are tailors out there who are willing to try anything once, but this is a pretty esoteric request.

manton wrote:I think the issue is one of harmony. Trousers got wider as coats got less fitted and more draped. The trousers you admire above would look out of place with a modern coat. As to who can make them, I don't know. There are tailors out there who are willing to try anything once, but this is a pretty esoteric request.

You are quite right Manton. I agree with you entirely on your typically keen observation that these patterns cannot be copied wholesale without discord between the modern drape cut style and the more 'anatomical' cuts of the 19th century. By 'anatomical' I mean a sartorial ideal of bringing out the natural elegance of the body in the mannner of a sculptor - a Classical ideal.

As an aside those interested in this subject will surely enjoy this exhibition:

http://dept.kent.edu/museum/exhibit/nudity/main.htm

Do you really think though that these last trousers from the cover of Minister's book are particulary fitted? A couple of the trousers worn by gentlemen in the pictures I have posted are also quite generous in their cut though you would be right in pointing out that one or two of the gentlemen in the pictures wear and one of the patterns from Devere depict very tight cut trousers. If you still felt ALL of the trousers depicted were ridiculously skin tight you can of course still modernise and make the fit more generous. One of the patterns from Louis Devere also shows a 'wide cut trowser(sic)' because wider fits certainly had become more common by the mid century. The taper to below the knees and gentle flair over the boot persists even then. The Neapolitans for one still cut trousers fairly narrowly today (I suspect that may be something that has 19th century origins). Moreover the question I had was less one of the fit, pockets etc (much of which can be modernised) as much as about the construction of the hem - taper and flare over the instep - which allows an avoidance of a reliance on a 'break' in the hem over the shoes. That - above and beyond all else - is the stylistic feature I admire (though you may think me eccentric for it).

Dear Sator,

It is a pleasure to see someone so impassioned about clothing bring such fresh ideas for debate on the LL. I admire your fervor and I can see how intense it is from the fact that you will not have anyone challenge the idea you are affirming: you seem to be looking for confirmation rather than debate But it’s perfectly fine to stand for what you strongly believe in – I have a similar nature and I thoroughly empathize. And such being the case, how could I possibly miss the opportunity to state what I think of this?...
Having your trouser hems fly away from your boots was a serious sartorial faux pas in the 19th century civilized world, much like today's terrible “concertinas” couch mentions. I remember a passage from Balzac’s “Illusions perdues” where Lucien Chardon, freshly arrived in Paris from the provincial town of Angouleme, realizes how badly he is dressed by comparing himself with the elegant young men out for a walk at the Tuilleries in the afternoon; and one of the elements were his trouser hems which were “in conflict” with his boots.
I agree that aesthetically speaking the shape of these trousers looks more fluent and flattering to the leg than more modern straight cuts, with a break. Please consider that modern trousers are cut so that at the bottom they cover about two thirds of the shoe (22-24 cms at the hem); more would not look right in my view. If the trousers are to flare in order to achieve this, then they necessarily need to be tighter than this between knee and ankle – which in turn limits how wide the trousers can be around the thighs. The result? – a flat-front slim cut trousers, at best, with which this bell bottom could work. Paired with a similarly slim coat with a somewhat longer skirt, perhaps it could look interesting (with only the slightest flare, not 5/6 of the foot covered in cloth), but probably fashion-forward rather than conservatively elegant for these days. Some ideas are only good in the right context. I may take great pleasure in admiring Michelangelo’s David at the Galleria dell’Accademia in Firenze, but I wouldn’t want it in my livingroom…
Once again, I very much admire your passionate “sartofilia” and I realize how much more interesting, complex and varied 19th century tailoring was compared to present-day. When you delve into such an interesting and rich period of the history of costume, it’s sometimes difficult to remain a lucid historian and not turn nostalgic.

Sator wrote:I must say I took pains to avoid any reference to the cyclical re-emergence of the exagerated RTW bell bottoms every few decades. A recent post on either AAAC or SF reminded us that the trend all also appeared a couple of decades before the late 60/early 70s as well. Clearly when a bespoke touch is added when correctly following the silhouette of the boot, we are talking about something so different as to be chalk and cheese.

Sator, I'm not sure if I was clear. If you think I was describing flares or bells, I must not have been clear. I was referring to the earlier long version of the stovepipe or pegged trouser, which in the mid '60s hugged the calf and ankle (as Costi rightly notes) far closer than any normal suit trouser (let alone bell-bottoms) and was allowed to spread over the boot by opening notches at the side seams. This silhouette is (at least below the knee) much closer to your early 19th-century illustrations. You'd just fill in the space added by the notch with extra cloth at the bottom circumference, as (to my non-tailor's eye) your patterns seem to show.

I'm reminded of the anecdote of David (later POW and Duke of Windsor) as a young man being slated for having trousers creased front-and-rear, rather than at the sides as his father did. His father would represent late 19th-century practice. I wonder if side-creasing is a relic of the kind of contoured cut you're advocating, or if the two things were unrelated. Manton, do you know?

Costi wrote:Dear Sator,

It is a pleasure to see someone so impassioned about clothing bring such fresh ideas for debate on the LL. I admire your fervor and I can see how intense it is from the fact that you will not have anyone challenge the idea you are affirming: you seem to be looking for confirmation rather than debate But it’s perfectly fine to stand for what you strongly believe in – I have a similar nature and I thoroughly empathize. And such being the case, how could I possibly miss the opportunity to state what I think of this?...
Having your trouser hems fly away from your boots was a serious sartorial faux pas in the 19th century civilized world, much like today's terrible “concertinas” couch mentions. I remember a passage from Balzac’s “Illusions perdues” where Lucien Chardon, freshly arrived in Paris from the provincial town of Angouleme, realizes how badly he is dressed by comparing himself with the elegant young men out for a walk at the Tuilleries in the afternoon; and one of the elements were his trouser hems which were “in conflict” with his boots.
I agree that aesthetically speaking the shape of these trousers looks more fluent and flattering to the leg than more modern straight cuts, with a break. Please consider that modern trousers are cut so that at the bottom they cover about two thirds of the shoe (22-24 cms at the hem); more would not look right in my view. If the trousers are to flare in order to achieve this, then they necessarily need to be tighter than this between knee and ankle – which in turn limits how wide the trousers can be around the thighs. The result? – a flat-front slim cut trousers, at best, with which this bell bottom could work. Paired with a similarly slim coat with a somewhat longer skirt, perhaps it could look interesting (with only the slightest flare, not 5/6 of the foot covered in cloth), but probably fashion-forward rather than conservatively elegant for these days. Some ideas are only good in the right context. I may take great pleasure in admiring Michelangelo’s David at the Galleria dell’Accademia in Firenze, but I wouldn’t want it in my livingroom…
Once again, I very much admire your passionate “sartofilia” and I realize how much more interesting, complex and varied 19th century tailoring was compared to present-day. When you delve into such an interesting and rich period of the history of costume, it’s sometimes difficult to remain a lucid historian and not turn nostalgic.

I am delighted by the intelligent comments and discussion. You are right that when I get particularly animated about something my enthusiasm can be easily be misinterpreted. That is a risk we must all take at times in life otherwise we would be as quiet as mice and go nowhere. It is wonderful to share ideas - even totally crazy ones like these - with an audience perceptive enough to take interest. So thoughtful, passionate disagreement is something I welcome openly. Indeed I would dearly love to have Michelangelo's David in my back yard but feel free to talk me out of it. They are all but ideas after all!

I think Manton has clearly lead the way in pointing out the potential for creating a chimeric monster by mating 19th C 'trowsers' with a modern drape cut coat. It is understandable that others have followed suit.

I am however still interested to know if you think these "wide trowsers" from Devere really are that narrow around the thigh?



It looks fairly full to me. Yet the taper and gentle flair at the hems persists.

nb This is a close up of the following image that has already been posted. The tightly fitted "trowsers" of the sort you allude to are shown to the right: