Formal and semi-formal trousers - Stripe/s

[HappyStroller]

This thread is actually a follow-up of a Fedora Lounge thread called 'White Tie - Double striped trousers' which has the following link:

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=12502

since the topic covered is more suitable for the LL forum.

That thread started in early October last year, before I knew much about the London Lounge. By the end of October, that thread stopped expanding and I had migrated over to this lounge.

Over here, I wish to cover the details relating to installing stripes to cover the outer side seams of the legs of semi-formal (a.k.a., half-dress) (Black Tie) single stripe and formal (a.k.a., full dress) (White Tie) pants.

As I am not a tailor or, even, a novice tailor, the sketches presented by me will not have many details a professional tailor would demand. Also, things which may be usually be part of a trousers may be left out deliberately for simplicity sake.

[HappyStroller]

This post covers the basic trouser leg without stripe.

In Drawing No. 1 immediately below, the left drawing shows the inside face of the front part of the right leg of a pair of trousers. The right drawing shows the outside face of the rear part of the same leg.



The front part is placed over the rear part with their outside faces facing each other. The two parts are sewn together along the dashed lines. The result is show in Drawing No. 2 immediately below:-



The left drawing shows the trouser leg after sewing has been completed. At this moment, we are seeing the insides of the leg. The leg is like a tube which has to be turned inside out. When that is done, the leg will look like a normal one, where we see only its outside face, as shown in the right drawing.

Note that provisions for cuffs, pockets, etc., have been left out for simplicity sake.

Now it takes too much effort on my part to keep on producing this kind of illustration, so I prefer to use line diagrams showing only the parts of a leg in plan outline form as seen from above.

Drawing No. 3 immediately below shows the same thing as Drawings Nos. 1 and 2 combined, but in line form only:



The top drawing show the two parts of the trouser leg - front and rear.

The second topmost drawing shows where the two parts are sewn together.

The third drawing shows the sewn leg after sewing has been done with the inside faces on the outside.

The bottom-most drawing shows the leg in normal form after the leg has been turned inside out.

I shall leave my posting at this stage for a while in case others wish to comment on whether, in principle, the trousers can be sewn as presented (because I would be too busy during Chinese New Year, including the Eve which is tomorrow 8^).

[HappyStroller]

I believe Manton attributed the origin of the formal trouser stripe to its original role as a cover to protect or hide the buttons on the sides of cavalry breeches somewhere in the Fedora Lounge thread referred to in the opening post of this LL thread.

However, when I look at pictures of military breeches which were used during the American Revolution, the buttons were clearly seen, not hidden. But those buttons were not positioned all the way along the entire length of the breeches. They functioned more like those functioning buttons found on our jacket sleeves nowadays, to enable the wearer to open up the ends partially only.

By the time the American Civil War took place, soldiers were wearing trousers. It was these trousers which had stripes.

[HappyStroller]

According to Etutee's LL archive article:-

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/...pic.php?t=5526

"Trousers are cut forward which bring the pockets farther front so as not to disturb the coat when a hand is thrust into the pocket".

In other words, if my interpretation is correct, the stripes are supposedly not exactly vertical; towards the top, just before the side pocket openings are encountered, the trouser seams curve towards the front.

But if one looks at some SR pants, the seams are in a straight vertical line.

Anyway, this aspect is not the point of my current post, which is pre-occupied with constructing the pants so that the waistline looks horizontal. I hope some one can explain how that can be achieved.

The reason why one wishes to have a waistline that looks horizontal is because for a person with a protruding belly, the trousers tend to be lower in the front than at the back, even when worn with braces. I understand the reason for a pair of fish tails (or, is it fish hooks?) at the rear of the pants is to avoid having the rear too high up relative to the front waistline. But if that is the purpose, the waistline should be going upwards towards the front of the trousers; instead one can see the rear portion of the waistline going upwards ending at the extreme tips of the fish tails (or, hooks?).

BTW, is it correct that any pair of pants, whether formal, semi-formal, informal or casual, to be worn with braces should not have cuffs?

[couch]

I understand the reason for a pair of fish tails (or, is it fish hooks?) at the rear of the pants is to avoid having the rear too high up relative to the front waistline. But if that is the purpose, the waistline should be going upwards towards the front of the trousers; instead one can see the rear portion of the waistline going upwards ending at the extreme tips of the fish tails (or, hooks?).

Apart from giving a cleaner line at the waist, a principal reason for cutting pants this way is to ensure that one's shirt (and brace tabs, if the buttons are set on the outside) is not exposed under the waistcoat in the back when one bends forward from the waist. The rear of trousers cut this way will certainly be higher than the front, by design.

BTW, is it correct that any pair of pants, whether formal, semi-formal, informal or casual, to be worn with braces should not have cuffs?

No.

[RWS]

. . . . [Is] it correct that any pair of pants, whether formal, semi-formal, informal or casual, to be worn with braces should not have cuffs?

I think that formal and semi-formal trousers shouldn't have turn-ups. (Remember that turn-ups originated -- so I've read -- in an attempt to keep the trousers from being muddied by the muck encountered in the countryside, or in the city by pedestrians: not, in other words, on trousers worn by those riding in carriages or even on horseback to, say, a ball.) But there's no reason why casual trousers can't be worn with braces.

And, in this day, anything goes.

RWS

[HappyStroller]

Apart from the fish tails, the waistline also rises from the sides of the trousers towards the fish tails, starting from the point where the outer side seams are located.

Anyway, I think I have figured out how a big belly should be accomodated for this kind of trousers. It seems the top of the front centre of the waistband needs to be moved up higher and higher above the navel the more protruding a belly becomes. The sides of the waist and the navel may remain on the same horizontal leve, but the top point also becomes vertically higher than the sides of the waist. Therefore, a tailor would need to slope upwards the front part of the waistband starting from the sides of the waist towards that front top point as a belly swells.

So if one simply brings along a vintage SR dinner trousers to a non-SR tailor, telling him that a trousers exactly like that is desired (except the brace buttons should be inside instead of outside), one will get exactly what one asks for, plus the brace buttons have been faithfully copied and sewn outside also. Everyone knows how slim those folks were during the Great Depression.

Then there's no choice but to look for another, hopefully more able, goblin. Rumpelstiltskin, where are thou?

Apart from giving a cleaner line at the waist, a principal reason for cutting pants this way is to ensure that one's shirt (and brace tabs, if the buttons are set on the outside) is not exposed under the waistcoat in the back when one bends forward from the waist. The rear of trousers cut this way will certainly be higher than the front, by design.
...<snip>...

I understand the reason for a pair of fish tails (or, is it fish hooks?) at the rear of the pants is to avoid having the rear too high up relative to the front waistline. But if that is the purpose, the waistline should be going upwards towards the front of the trousers; instead one can see the rear portion of the waistline going upwards ending at the extreme tips of the fish tails (or, hooks?).

[bluscuro]

Dear Happy Stroller,

At the time of initial measurement , your cutter will take careful note of the characteristics of your figure. He will advise , especially if the trousers are to be worn exclusively with braces, that the rise be increased ( the difference between the outleg and the inleg measure = "the rise") and the waistband at least an inch larger than would normally be prescribed for belted trousers.This is to ensure that the braces do their job suspending the trous rather than relying on grip at the waist. Because of this ease, brace trousers are supremely comfortable , especially when seated (stomach tends to distend when seated , particularly when the wearer has Bacchus as a companian ).


Whether or not the design of the trouser is to incorporate a peaked back (for the attachment of braces) or not , he will assess how much "back rise"to add to the outseam measurement in order to accomodate your seat and to allow ample "stride". This back rise is typically 1.5 inches but can be more or less, dependent on the magnitude of the old gluteas maximus.

Therefor, no matter whether a trouser is belted or to be worn with braces, has little or no significence on the appearance of the band (horizontal or sloping toward the front).

You are correct in your view that the front of the band needs to be higher when dealing with a portly figure. However,the front of the band will nearly always be below the rear of the band , for the reasons I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

A pair of peak backed trousers for formal dress will usually be made with a half band , that is to say that the rear two quarters are cut incorporating both the back- rise required and the equivalent of the front (seperate band) section.


A well cut pair of brace trousers will also tend to have a superior drape , due in part to the increased ease of the extended rise but moreover due to the fact that the trousers are free to find their natural sweet spot rather than being held firmly at the appointed waist.

Hope this doesn't confuse matters further !!

bluscuro

[HappyStroller]

Thank you, Bluscuro, for your wonderful explanation. It was helpful, not confusing at all, unlike my convoluted thoughts which were not well articulated.

In short, it's the front and back rises that are critical. Thanks for the needed enlightenment!