# Dress Trousers: Flat Front or Pleated?



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

OK I have both although my recent trend is flat front, cuffs, slight break. I have, however several pairs of both forward and reverse pleated wool dress trousers which I still wear with sport jackets and will continue to do so. All my suits (3) have pleated trousers. Perhaps I am no so trad as I would like to think..


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

What is your question, sir?



fred johnson said:


> OK I have both although my recent trend is flat front, cuffs, slight break. I have, however several pairs of both forward and reverse pleated wool dress trousers which I still wear with sport jackets and will continue to do so. All my suits (3) have pleated trousers. Perhaps I am no so trad as I would like to think..


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Is there a clear "trad" preference?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Flat's where it's at.

Although I do like a single forward pleat in flannel


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I like flat myself. I think many here prefer flat, and it might be more trad, so to speak. However, I do not present myself as an expert in "trad," so please take my answer as simply me presenting my own preference. I also like little or no break.

Just as an aside, when I worked in a men's shop in the '70s, pleated was considered very traditional and very sharp.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

fred johnson said:


> Is there a clear "trad" preference?


Yes, there is a clear preference. Reverse pleats just do not cut it in the world of Ivy. I cannot speak to Trad.

Flat front trousers are fully acceptable (and are the standard) for the Ivy look. Forward pleat trousers are also acceptable, but you'd better not have an ounce of fat on you. Open, puffy, forward pleats from too much avoirdupois are awful, while forward pleats on very slender guys can look terrific. Heavy guys, with a bit of rotundity to them, NEED reverse pleats, though it is not a look that is innate to Ivy or Trad. Know thyself!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

There would seem to be a clear preference. Case closed!


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Note: Forward pleats must be worn at or slightly above the natural waist. No lower.

See: Ben Silver, Andover Shop


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Point is moot. There are no forward pleats.



Z.J.P said:


> Note: Forward pleats must be worn at or slightly above the natural waist. No lower.
> 
> See: Ben Silver, Andover Shop


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*

And flat front trousers, contrary to public opinion are not slimming:


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

If you're fat, nothing is slimming.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Andy said:


> ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*


Pleats are trendy? Hmmm.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

As you have seen, in this forum flat-front rules, and the strictest rules are cuffs (1.75-2"), no break. Rules being meant to be broken not everyone who does trad dresses quite like that. Forward pleats have an English look that works in the Anglophile tendencies of trad. Reverse pleats not so much if ever. Andy makes a point worth taking in, though hardcore trads don't consider it. I would add that flat-front is almost necessary with a 3/2 sack suit jacket or sports coat/blazer. Pleats are best with a more fitted jacket, in the English or more traditional Italian manner. Contemporary skinny jackets and low-slung skinny flat front pants are anathema to most folk in either the trad or the fashion forum. However, dress to please yourself.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

efdll said:


> As you have seen, in this forum flat-front rules, and the strictest rules are cuffs (1.75-2"), no break. Rules being meant to be broken not everyone who does trad dresses quite like that. Forward pleats have an English look that works in the Anglophile tendencies of trad. Reverse pleats not so much if ever. Andy makes a point worth taking in, though hardcore trads don't consider it. I would add that flat-front is almost necessary with a 3/2 sack suit jacket or sports coat/blazer. Pleats are best with a more fitted jacket, in the English or more traditional Italian manner. Contemporary skinny jackets and low-slung skinny flat front pants are anathema to most folk in either the trad or the fashion forum. However, dress to please yourself.


What's the consensus thought on the 1960's skinny, flat front trousers with narrow lapel sport coats or suits and skinny ties. While not low rise as today, it definitely has overlaps to today's skinny craze. Was that not trad at all (think Paul Newman's '60s films)? Is it just an interstice between trad and hippies?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Consensus thought? Why would you care about the average, the mediocre? Care about opinions, especially the expert opinions, and care about your preferences. The hell with consensus.

My own opinion is that skinny flat-front trousers have their place, for sure. The rest of the outfit has to work with them, though. Probably not easy to pull off.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Case reopened.



Andy said:


> ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*
> 
> And flat front trousers, contrary to public opinion are not slimming:
> 
> View attachment 13588


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

_ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*
_



FLCracka said:


> Pleats are trendy? Hmmm.


I think he meant they (flat front) are trendy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Topsider said:


> If you're fat, nothing is slimming.


True, but pants that fit one's circumference look far better than those with belly flopping over them.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

And isn't everything, to some degree, at one time or another?



dks202 said:


> _ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*
> _
> 
> I think he meant they (flat front) are *trendy*.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Andy said:


> ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*
> 
> And flat front trousers, contrary to public opinion are not slimming:
> 
> View attachment 13588


LOL. But even with pleats, trying to squeeze three pounds into a two pound sack is never going to make for a pretty picture! :teacha:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> What's the consensus thought on the 1960's skinny, flat front trousers with narrow lapel sport coats or suits and skinny ties. While not low rise as today, it definitely has overlaps to today's skinny craze. Was that not trad at all (think Paul Newman's '60s films)? Is it just an interstice between trad and hippies?


I was rushing out last night and did not do a good job with this post. I was trying to ask about everyone's opinion (good point Duvel re "consensus") on the reasonably brief window in the mid '60s when trousers got very skinny (and tended toward no break or even higher) and were flat front (but not low-rise), lapels and ties were very skinny, overcoats and raincoats were very short (hit at the knees or just above or below) and collars were short (and many were tabs). When I see those suits, sport coats, trousers, et al. in movies today, they look pretty close to what is in fashion today. How does that fit into the larger concept of trad or Ivy? Was it seen as an anomaly by many at the time? Did the "older" generation eschew it?


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Duvel said:


> Point is moot. There are no forward pleats.


Great honk, strict Ivy rules out in Des Moines...


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Andy said:


> ONLY pleated - unless you never sit down or put anything in your pocket. They are trendy. Real men wear pleats - read my *book.*
> 
> And flat front trousers, contrary to public opinion are not slimming:
> 
> View attachment 13588


Pleats remind me of the 90s. In a bad way. All of my tailored clothing is flat front and there are no issues with sitting or utilizing pockets. A quick walk walk through JAB will cure of you any desire to wear pleats...


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Eric W S said:


> Pleats remind me of the 90s. In a bad way. All of my tailored clothing is flat front and there are no issues with sitting or utilizing pockets. A quick walk walk through JAB will cure of you any desire to wear pleats...


Yes, but those are terrible examples of pleated trousers. Pleated trousers are a matter of preference. Most guys don't know what they are doing, so they buy whatever they see first and in a size that fits their hips and not their waist. It gives them a bad reputation, and I for one feel like that is a shame.

If you don't like them, don't wear them. If you do(for the comfort or the aesthetics) make sure you don't try and cut corners.

All that being said: Are they Ivy? No.
Are they trad? What the heck is trad? Traditional. Then yes. Traditionally English. 
Why does that matter? Traditional English clothing is a major influence on Traditional American clothing.

I'll extend my list: Ben Silver, Paul Stuart, Chipp, Andover Shop, O'Connell's


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Z.J.P said:


> Yes, but those are terrible examples of pleated trousers. Pleated trousers are a matter of preference. Most guys don't know what they are doing, so they buy whatever they see first and in a size that fits their hips and not their waist. It gives them a bad reputation, and I for one feel like that is a shame.
> 
> If you don't like them, don't wear them. If you do(for the comfort or the aesthetics) make sure you don't try and cut corners.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter at all actually. Well, it may matter to someone who needs some justification for wearing them. Personally, I really don't follow all these rules and then try to trace their origins back to an "authority" myself. To each ther own though.

Have you been inside a Paul Stuart recently? I was there yesterday and they haven't shown any pleats in the Loop store with any frequency this season, or last. Even their Black Tie has been plain fronted.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

And why not? I believe there is an alma mater close by of a highly regarded member of this forum.



EastVillageTrad said:


> Great honk, strict Ivy rules out in Des Moines...


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Fading Fast said:


> I was rushing out last night and did not do a good job with this post. I was trying to ask about everyone's opinion (good point Duvel re "consensus") on the reasonably brief window in the mid '60s when trousers got very skinny (and tended toward no break or even higher) and were flat front (but not low-rise), lapels and ties were very skinny, overcoats and raincoats were very short (hit at the knees or just above or below) and collars were short (and many were tabs). When I see those suits, sport coats, trousers, et al. in movies today, they look pretty close to what is in fashion today. How does that fit into the larger concept of trad or Ivy? Was it seen as an anomaly by many at the time? Did the "older" generation eschew it?


Wasn't there and not a trad, but from old movies and pictures of real campuses, I don't think there was ever a uniform "Ivy" look that spanned generations.

19 y/o undergrads, 25 y/o grad students and their 55 y/o professors wore different clothes, from what I gather.

The 55 y/o teaching at an Ivy in 1959 might be wearing clothes he had made in 1938.

The 45 y/o "trad" stock broker of 1959 got his Ivy education before khakis came on the scene--in his day they wore pleated flannel to class and white tie for mixers with the girls' college.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Duvel said:


> And why not? I believe there is an alma mater close by of a highly regarded member of this forum.


The point is puritanical adherance to a strict set of "rules" is fine, if that is how you need to dress, more power to you, but don't force your mantra on others as the be all end all...

I am an ivy-devotee of long standing, that said, do pleated trousers enter my rotation? Sure.

I don't think I'll be getting kicked out of the Harvard Club dining room for that infringement anytime soon. Perhaps the view from Des Moines is different?


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Eric W S said:


> It doesn't matter at all actually. Well, it may matter to someone who needs some justification for wearing them. Personally, I really don't follow all these rules and then try to trace their origins back to an "authority" myself. To each ther own though.
> 
> Have you been inside a Paul Stuart recently? I was there yesterday and they haven't shown any pleats in the Loop store with any frequency this season, or last. Even their Black Tie has been plain fronted.


I feel like it matters because the English influence is all over the stylistic choices of what people in this particular community wear. Button-down collars, Shetland wool, cuffs on trousers, shoes with brougueing, Argyle socks, navy blazers(supposedly), and even the sack jacket takes cues from the Scholte drape cut made famous by Anderson & Sheppard. Why cast out the pleats? You already said it: To each their own.

I haven't been in Paul Stuart for a while. I guess I refer to their past offerings and their House Model for their bespoke offerings.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Okay, I can see that point.



EastVillageTrad said:


> The point is puritanical adherance to a strict set of "rules" is fine, if that is how you need to dress, more power to you, but don't force your mantra on others as the be all end all...
> 
> I am an ivy-devotee of long standing, that said, do pleated trousers enter my rotation? Sure.
> 
> I don't think I'll be getting kicked out of the Harvard Club dining room for that infringement anytime soon. Perhaps the view from Des Moines is different?


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

"I'll extend my list: Ben Silver, Paul Stuart, Chipp, Andover Shop, O'Connell's"[/QUOTE]
Add vintage Polo, ralph did some good forward pleats once upon a time..


----------



## The Yankee (Jan 3, 2010)

Trust your instinct. I used to belong to the anti-pleated camp for a really long time, then realized it was stupid.

There are some definite advantages to certain body types to wearing pleated, but not for everyone. Maybe I should wear them, but I feel silly and self-conscious in pleats, so I don't. Other people don't have this hangup and are in fact very happy to wear them. 

Bottom line: If you feel stupid, you'll look stupid. If you feel good about how you've exercised your judgement, you'll look good.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Z.J.P said:


> I feel like it matters because the English influence is all over the stylistic choices of what people in this particular community wear. Button-down collars, Shetland wool, cuffs on trousers, shoes with brougueing, Argyle socks, navy blazers(supposedly), and even the sack jacket takes cues from the Scholte drape cut made famous by Anderson & Sheppard. Why cast out the pleats? You already said it: To each their own.
> 
> I haven't been in Paul Stuart for a while. I guess I refer to their past offerings and their House Model for their bespoke offerings.


Paul Suart does not have a "House Model" for MTM (I would hesitate to describe them as bespoke as well, since they do not tailor in house). They will base it on the Phineas line if that is your desire, but generally will tailor to your tastes. You can wander in and order a 3 roll 2 sack suit if that is what you want. You start witht the fabric and work forward. The associate I deal with says a few folks still order the stereotypical sack, but most have long moved on to a soft shouldered english drape style similar to what the Andover Shop offers.

End of the day the influences became a seperate style in and of themselves here in the States. It's good to be aware of the origin of a garment, but going to deep is too #menswear for me.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I know this is a style forum and all, but I do think we (myself included) tend to over-think these things.


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

Duvel said:


> I know this is a style forum and all, but I do think we (myself included) tend to over-think these things.


This post should show up in every thread.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Eric W S said:


> Paul Suart does not have a "House Model" for MTM (I would hesitate to describe them as bespoke as well, since they do not tailor in house). They will base it on the Phineas line if that is your desire, but generally will tailor to your tastes. You can wander in and order a 3 roll 2 sack suit if that is what you want. You start witht the fabric and work forward. The associate I deal with says a few folks still order the stereotypical sack, but most have long moved on to a soft shouldered english drape style similar to what the Andover Shop offers.
> 
> End of the day the influences became a seperate style in and of themselves here in the States. It's good to be aware of the origin of a garment, but going to deep is too #menswear for me.


https://www.paulstuart.com/paulstuart_custom.cfm House Style, I guess. It doesn't outright say pleats, but the program is headed up by Rykken, who is a former partner of Flusser, and I bet he might argue for pleats when asked by a client.

You are right. This is very #menswear. Enough for today.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Z.J.P said:


> https://www.paulstuart.com/paulstuart_custom.cfm House Style, I guess.
> 
> You are right. This is very #menswear.


One picture on the website does not constitute a "house style". Paul Stuart's self described "forward" style is the Phineas Cole Line itself, which changes with current tastes. The main line exhibits a playful sense of style but not as forward as Cole.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Eric W S said:


> One picture on the website does not constitute a "house style". Paul Stuart's self described "forward" style is the Phineas Cole Line itself, which changes with current tastes. The main line exhibits a playful sense of style but not as forward as Cole.


From the link: _The Paul Stuart Custom silhouette, or "house style," is based on an iconic jacket design invented over eighty years ago on Savile Row by the personal tailor to the Duke of Windsor. The cut is defined by lightly padded shoulders, high armholes, a slightly generous sleeve at the bicep, draped chest and blade, and definition at the waist. Softly constructed for ease of movement, the overall effect was to provide a masculine, athletic appearance._


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Duvel said:


> I know this is a style forum and all, but I do think we (myself included) tend to over-think these things.


+1, but it is probably tautological that one over thinks clothing details if they are reading and posting on a style forum. I sometime have to remind myself that (1) nobody else notices the small things that I am thinking about regarding clothing and (2) this stuff does not matter much in the big picture of life (but is absolutely fine as a hobby and enjoyment).


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

I sometimes wear pleated and cuffed pants with heavier sport coats, especially when the coat covers a sweater. I think more material in the pants tends to balance the greater bulk of the coat and sweater combination.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that "Ivy-League" calls for a Flat Front, whether casual or dress. "Trad" isn't really my thing (the closest I get is to wearing a narrow striped tie with a Button-Down and a Sport Coat), and I need at least one pleat in my slacks, anyway.

-Quetzal


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

I have been purchasing clothes of varying quality for long enough to have been told by SAs in men's stores they only stock flat-front, or at other times pleated, trousers for the old guys. I guess I am approaching the age at which they will be talking about me in reference to one or the other style.

PS: I think the quality of the garment has a lot to do with it. I have been semi-regularly ridiculed by a female colleague in England for my pleated chinos - she referred to them as female-repellant, but she seemed to find my nice, dark brown HSM trousers perfectly acceptable. In fact, she was surprised they were pleated. Cheap pants, I suppose, lead to the pillow-in-the-lap or state-of-arousal effect when sitting.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

LordSmoke said:


> I have been purchasing clothes of varying quality for long enough to have been told by SAs in men's stores they only stock flat-front, or at other times pleated, trousers for the old guys. I guess I am approaching the age at which they will be talking about me in reference to one or the other style.
> 
> PS: I think the quality of the garment has a lot to do with it. I have been semi-regularly ridiculed by a female colleague in England for my pleated chinos - she referred to them as female-repellant, but she seemed to find my nice, dark brown HSM trousers perfectly acceptable. In fact, she was surprised they were pleated. Cheap pants, I suppose, lead to the pillow-in-the-lap or state-of-arousal effect when sitting.


In the big-suit designer era of the '80s into the '90s, (multi) pleated pants were for the young and flat-front for the old. In the late 60's/early 70's, hip hugging bell bottoms were for the young and any pants with a crease for the old. These are trends, most of them not very flattering and some just plain silly -- which didn't stop me from following them. As for pleats being female-repellent, ask any woman you know how repelled they were by Vincent Cassel's pleated trousers in _Black Swan_.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

efdll said:


> In the big-suit designer era of the '80s into the '90s, (multi) pleated pants were for the young and flat-front for the old. In the late 60's/early 70's, hip hugging bell bottoms were for the young and any pants with a crease for the old. These are trends, most of them not very flattering and some just plain silly -- which didn't stop me from following them. As for pleats being female-repellent, ask any woman you know how repelled they were by Vincent Cassel's pleated trousers in _Black Swan_.


That's about the timeline as I recall. I believe my colleague's commentswere in reference to specific trousers, in particular, my cheap wash-and-wear pleated chinos. As noted, she found the HSM quite nice and was a bit taken aback that they were pleated.

_Black Swan_? Can't find a pic of the gentlemen, but I am reminded that my wife and I both had the same reaction to the movie - WTF did we just see? I believe at least one professional critic had the same reaction.:biggrin:


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

efdll said:


> In the big-suit designer era of the '80s into the '90s, (multi) pleated pants were for the young and flat-front for the old. In the late 60's/early 70's, hip hugging bell bottoms were for the young and any pants with a crease for the old. These are trends, most of them not very flattering and some just plain silly -- which didn't stop me from following them. As for pleats being female-repellent, ask any woman you know how repelled they were by Vincent Cassel's pleated trousers in _Black Swan_.


This is very true. Both men and women make fun of pleats. In High School, I remember a teacher coming in and laughing, proceeding to tell us about some guy who was wearing "chest-risers" with "twenty pleats" on each side. They stopped as soon as they saw me, for that day I was wearing my 1930s Tuxedo (it was "Formal Day" for an upcoming dance), which doesn't exactly have pants that rise to my chest or twenty pleats on each side.

I guess I'll need to look for a skinny shawl-collar Tuxedo, since that's what is apparently fashionable (the ACTUAL skinny-style from the 1960s, seeing how that decade is in).

-Quetzal


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

I'd love to find some trousers with a single forward pleat.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

MythReindeer said:


> I'd love to find some trousers with a single forward pleat.


Try the U.K. sites, for OTR. Pakeman, Cato ,Carter for one. There are some others. I favor single forward pleat with side adjusters, usually it's MTM or bespoke.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Quetzal, don't. Nothing beats the 30s for elegance.


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

EclecticSr. said:


> Try the U.K. sites, for OTR. Pakeman, Cato ,Carter for one. There are some others. I favor single forward pleat with side adjusters, usually it's MTM or bespoke.


Their smallest size is 32, and my waist is ~31. I usually wear size 30 given vanity sizing. All Pakeman said in their response to my query was "we don't do much vanity sizing," which is not helpful.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

MythReindeer said:


> Their smallest size is 32, and my waist is ~31. I usually wear size 30 given vanity sizing. All Pakeman said in their response to my query was "we don't do much vanity sizing," which is not helpful.


Sorry about that. I suppose taking them in a full size might not be doable given that their not slim to start with. Solid trousers though.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Eric W S said:


> Paul Suart does not have a "House Model" for MTM (I would hesitate to describe them as bespoke as well, since they do not tailor in house). They will base it on the Phineas line if that is your desire, but generally will tailor to your tastes. You can wander in and order a 3 roll 2 sack suit if that is what you want. You start witht the fabric and work forward. The associate I deal with says a few folks still order the stereotypical sack, but most have long moved on to a soft shouldered english drape style similar to what the Andover Shop offers.
> 
> End of the day the influences became a seperate style in and of themselves here in the States. It's good to be aware of the origin of a garment, but going to deep is too #menswear for me.


Good to hear regarding the Paul Stuart MTM program. I used to be a regular customer when I lived in Chicago many years ago. I was back up last year and popped in the Loop store and saw my old SA. I forgot what great quality the have and I thought about ordering an MTM suit in order to get the pleated trousers.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

I wear only flat front these days, but I actually agree with Andy. Pleated trousers can be slimmer and drape better while still having enough "give" to sit, bend, and have stuff in pockets. I have a closet-full waiting for a comeback.


----------



## Starting Late (Apr 26, 2010)

Andy's got it right. Sometimes I think that everyone here forgets the amount of weight being carried by the average American man. Flat-front pants can make these men look fatter and sometimes even ridiculous, in my opinion. In fact, with low-rise pants so common these days, flat-front pants can make even a slim man look out of shape, as though he's carrying a pot belly when the fact of it is he's in fairly good shape. So, when the average man ventures into low-rise, flat-front territory, he is, in the terminology of the Summer Olympics, "attempting a high-degree-of-difficulty dive." It makes a person forget that the very purpose of a man's suit is to hide flaws rather than exaggerate them. (All of this assumes, by the way, that the pants (and the rest of the outfit suit) are actually tailored to fit, but that's another subject altogether.)


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Also, pleats better disguise a large member. I know pleats have saved me from many an embarrassing situation!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Obviously, some have less to worry about than others!!


----------

