Too far the other way is not a good look, either.
Toothpick trousers, dress shoes without socks
- Thread starter malocchio
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Cab Calloway in his Zoot Suit...these were popular in the 40's.....Rather see this than guys walking down the street with their pants hanging down to their knees....
I try not to fret too much over what fashion forward young people are wearing "these days" in any given decade, particularly what they are wearing in Manhattan. (Are they wearing this in Milan, Rome, and Naples, too? That would give me pause!)
That said I have gone on record here as not liking what I thought of as the Thom Browne suit cut of high water pants, short jackets, and short sleeves. To me a look that says "I have not bought a new suit since my bar mitzva (or choose your culturally specific adolescent dress up activity) yet here I am out of business school." But that look seems to have stuck, and I would not consider it a specifically Thom Browne look these days. I would say lots of suits are cut somewhat shorter and somewhat tighter these days than they were.
I admit I have not seen the no socks with a suit, traditional dress shoes, and high water trousers approach on the streets, at least here in DC. I would not go that way. I am far too old. I am not sure that it would bother me on younger people though. At least not any more than the high water pants with socks bothers me. Depends on how high water, I guess.
Not that I have any opinion at all about what women should wear. But I remember when women always wore "hose" of some sort or other with business-wear dresses or skirts. To see a women dress "bare-legged" in a business context would have been striking. But now hose seems rare. And if a woman is wearing hose it can seem over-dressed as in wearing an excessive amount of clothing, rather than being dressed more formally than necessary. Although I am guessing, most women would still wear hose when addressing the corporate board or arguing to the Supreme Court.
I can easily see the day when men going sockless for day to day business attire, be it a suit or something else, was ordinary. Fashions, even every day fashions or dress customs, change/evolve. Men used to always wear a hat. For that matter men used to rarely be without a tie. Socks may be the next thing to go. What do I know?
That said I have gone on record here as not liking what I thought of as the Thom Browne suit cut of high water pants, short jackets, and short sleeves. To me a look that says "I have not bought a new suit since my bar mitzva (or choose your culturally specific adolescent dress up activity) yet here I am out of business school." But that look seems to have stuck, and I would not consider it a specifically Thom Browne look these days. I would say lots of suits are cut somewhat shorter and somewhat tighter these days than they were.
I admit I have not seen the no socks with a suit, traditional dress shoes, and high water trousers approach on the streets, at least here in DC. I would not go that way. I am far too old. I am not sure that it would bother me on younger people though. At least not any more than the high water pants with socks bothers me. Depends on how high water, I guess.
Not that I have any opinion at all about what women should wear. But I remember when women always wore "hose" of some sort or other with business-wear dresses or skirts. To see a women dress "bare-legged" in a business context would have been striking. But now hose seems rare. And if a woman is wearing hose it can seem over-dressed as in wearing an excessive amount of clothing, rather than being dressed more formally than necessary. Although I am guessing, most women would still wear hose when addressing the corporate board or arguing to the Supreme Court.
I can easily see the day when men going sockless for day to day business attire, be it a suit or something else, was ordinary. Fashions, even every day fashions or dress customs, change/evolve. Men used to always wear a hat. For that matter men used to rarely be without a tie. Socks may be the next thing to go. What do I know?
I know that other guys are held up as the "style paragons" of the past ... Carey Grant, and so forth ... but Fred Astaire was one of the best dressed guys of the past as well. We forget about that nowadays. But check out his trousers ...
Fairly baggy and high-waisted ... very much so by today's standards.
But there was a darned good reason he had his pants like that. It was intentionall. It served a purpose.
Fairly baggy and high-waisted ... very much so by today's standards.
But there was a darned good reason he had his pants like that. It was intentionall. It served a purpose.
If it's just fashion, then yeah, anything can come and/or go.
But socks ... well ... without them the feet get really really stinky really really fast. And unless "not bathing" becomes the newest fashion, I don't see that. No-show socks perhaps (but to me that seems silly) but not actually sockless.
But I'm an old fart too, so what do I know?
<But I'm an old fart too, so what do I know?>
This thread is a perfect example of "people used to ask me how things are, now they ask me how things were!" Or at least we both tend to answer as to "how things were," not that either of us remembers Fred Astaire in his salad days.
I think zoot suits were sort of the "rapper style" of their day. I do not think anyone was wearing a zoot suit to the office.
For that matter, do you think more average guys dressed like Fred Astaire, day to day. I do think trousers used to be higher-waisted, but I am not sure quite that high-waisted for the regular guy on the street. These photos do not show it, but ties used to be much shorter, maybe that was to go with the high-waisted trousers. What do you think he is wearing for a belt in that video, or for that matter in the fifth photo down. Notice how tiny his wrist watch is by modern standards in the first photo. Did guys tend to wear two-toned shoes as much as Astaire does? I do think they wore spectator shoes more often than we do these days. I suppose there are dancing clothes and regular clothes. Although in the movies FA had to be ready to break into a dance at any moment.
The dress in the third photo down is implicitly army issue, but I am guessing that those slacks are highly-styled for anything the army would issue.
This thread is a perfect example of "people used to ask me how things are, now they ask me how things were!" Or at least we both tend to answer as to "how things were," not that either of us remembers Fred Astaire in his salad days.
I think zoot suits were sort of the "rapper style" of their day. I do not think anyone was wearing a zoot suit to the office.
For that matter, do you think more average guys dressed like Fred Astaire, day to day. I do think trousers used to be higher-waisted, but I am not sure quite that high-waisted for the regular guy on the street. These photos do not show it, but ties used to be much shorter, maybe that was to go with the high-waisted trousers. What do you think he is wearing for a belt in that video, or for that matter in the fifth photo down. Notice how tiny his wrist watch is by modern standards in the first photo. Did guys tend to wear two-toned shoes as much as Astaire does? I do think they wore spectator shoes more often than we do these days. I suppose there are dancing clothes and regular clothes. Although in the movies FA had to be ready to break into a dance at any moment.
The dress in the third photo down is implicitly army issue, but I am guessing that those slacks are highly-styled for anything the army would issue.
I think they were "just long enough" to be tucked into the vest of a three-piece suit and not come untucked in normal use. And back then pants were higher-waisted and so even without a vest it didn't look "too short" per se.
But ... Normally "back in the day" one either wore a vest or kept one's suit jacket on and buttoned almost all the time except when seated ... and double-breasted suits are often to be left buttoned even when seated ... so "tie length" wasn't as big a deal as it became later when lower-waisted pants were more common, and guys tended to more often wear their suit jackets unbuttoned or taken off.
With suits generally moving from 3-piece and 2-piece-three-button toward 2-piece-2-button as the most common option, with pant waists lowering, and with the greater acceptance of wearing an unbuttoned suit jacket or even not wearing the jacket at all, I suspect that ties tended to become longer ... and the issue of the correct length a more important point to get right ... as that transition took place.
Yeah, old-timey wrist watches from past decades tended to be much smaller than the massive chunks of timekeeping that are customary nowadays. Even "small-faced" watches nowadays are on the larger side by historical standards.
I believe that Astaire usually made sure to wear something ... shoes, socks, what have you ... that would create some sort of visual contrast at or near his feet, so as to draw attention to the movement of his feet. Of course, that's hard to do in evening wear, but he'd do what he could.
In general, I think the spectator shoe was far more common "back in the day" when dressing up for casual events was also far more common.
You guys may not believe me, but if I try to go sockless in my shoes or wear my baseball cap backwards or not tuck in my shirt, I can feel my dad slap me in the back of the head, rest his soul.
Yea, I suspect some of the things Astaire wore had a costume aspect to them. I am guessing that kind of "belt" was never in style among the mundane man.
Maybe spats will come back!
<Even "small-faced" watches nowadays are on the larger side by historical standards.>
For sure. Watches are huge these days. I have an an inexpensive windup wrist watch I was given--a "learned" person on this forum actually--from around the late 1930s early 1940s. It is said to be a men's wrist watch, but it is tiny. Way small than anything I remember from say the 1950s and 60s. Smaller than that Sinatra photo watch. I have tried wearing it, but it just screams to me women's watch. I still find it hard to believe it is a man's watch. But for owning that watch, I do not think I would recognize what Astaire has on in that first photo as a watch.
Sinatra may simply be wearing a Cartier tank watch. They are still pretty small and may have been smaller back in the day. The internet tells me Cary Grant liked Cartier.
Maybe spats will come back!
<Even "small-faced" watches nowadays are on the larger side by historical standards.>
For sure. Watches are huge these days. I have an an inexpensive windup wrist watch I was given--a "learned" person on this forum actually--from around the late 1930s early 1940s. It is said to be a men's wrist watch, but it is tiny. Way small than anything I remember from say the 1950s and 60s. Smaller than that Sinatra photo watch. I have tried wearing it, but it just screams to me women's watch. I still find it hard to believe it is a man's watch. But for owning that watch, I do not think I would recognize what Astaire has on in that first photo as a watch.
Sinatra may simply be wearing a Cartier tank watch. They are still pretty small and may have been smaller back in the day. The internet tells me Cary Grant liked Cartier.
I have girly wrists. I usually look ridiculous in today's watches. Some of them look more like I'm wearing a wall clock! Lol
I believe you. On the other hand, I think it is just that kind of reaction from fathers (the "older generation") that results in clothing trends among youth! Older people are not supposed to get it. If they disapprove/find it unconventional--all the more reason to wear it.
I am with you on that. I usually try for watches that are on the smaller side, but they are hard to find. I just got a Vostok Amphibian that looks huge on my wrist, but as far as i can tell that is just the look these days. I do have thin wrists.
Lol'd my friend. I have been blessed with a son that is sure I have no fashion sense and loves to buy clothes at Goodwill. He has more clothes than any girl his age. Even some "flood pants!" Oh, the humanity!
Bottom line...I associate Capri pants with girls....period.
Now with the new middle-of-the-road non-gender....who the F knows?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now with the new middle-of-the-road non-gender....who the F knows?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had a bunch of off colored jokes about some of these more modern designs pictured earlier, but I decided to keep them to myself. I don't want these guys' life partners mad at me.
I've been reaching for a Timex that is "just right" in size. A quartz battery operated. Perfect for me and my diminishing eyesight, lol.
In my neck of the woods, high-cuffed pants are paired with elf boots Blundstones.
Either rolled up or simply pushed up.
Male or female, and they are so common that there are stories of people coming home from parties with mis-matched (ie. sizes) pairs.
Either rolled up or simply pushed up.
Male or female, and they are so common that there are stories of people coming home from parties with mis-matched (ie. sizes) pairs.
Here ya go.
- Thread starter
- #39
The short pant suit thing is just experiencing a comeback, nothing new.
May 10, 1953. New York, NY
Vivian Maier, terrific photo exhibit was on display locally earlier his year, real people from the non-romanticized good old days.
http://www.vivianmaier.com/
dave
May 10, 1953. New York, NY
Vivian Maier, terrific photo exhibit was on display locally earlier his year, real people from the non-romanticized good old days.
http://www.vivianmaier.com/
dave
Similar threads
