# Wearing old suit pants as slacks -- a fashion don't?



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

Hi there.

My tailor often tells me to wear old suit pants as slacks when the jackets are at the end of their life. He tells me this is okay -- even for slacks that may have mutliple pin stripes and, in my mind, are "obvioulsy" suit pants as opposed to simply slacks. I get using plain blues or grays as slacks-- but what about other more "suit-like" designs?

I would be curious as to your opinion and what others would do in this situation.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

I say its fine in the summer, but could lead to trouble if you start trying to wear a sportscoat with suit pants.


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

Maybe its a personality flaw on my part, but whenever I see someone doing it I think "man, those are suit pants without the jacket." 

I would love to do so myself since I have so many I could convert into slacks at this point...but don't want to be "that guy." I could just be overthinking it...


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

Not okay.
Maybe okay with very plain solid pants- and a few plaids/tweeds. But in the majority of cases- no.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I've done it with some trousers from solid dark-gray suits, but that's it. Would never do this with patterned trousers.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

*Perfectly fine*. Plenty of old AA/Esky illustrations show it being done. Of course, I also don't believe there's a rule against wearing a suit jacket without the pants.*

Go into any upscale men's classic clothing store and you will see patterned odd trousers in glen plaids, windowpanes, etc. Glen plaid suit pants are the exact same. *It is not wrong*.

* I do think pinstriped jackets without matching trousers looks awful. Not because it looks like half a suit, but simply because it looks bad.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Solids, windowpanes, plaids and checks work well as odd trousers. Sporty contrasting herringbones could work. As for stripes, I think they need to be fairly bold to work.

No: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=GREY&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=

Maybe yes: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=NAVY&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

They will always look like what they are - suit trousers whose jacket is missing. Don't do it - they look wrong.


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

GBR said:


> They will always look like what they are - suit trousers whose jacket is missing. Don't do it - they look wrong.


That's what I think when I see someone wearing them. Are there others out there that feel the same way or are we the only two?


----------



## cglex (Oct 23, 2006)

For solids perfectly fine. In fact, some years ago, I bought a pair of BB pants (Brooksease separates maybe) for suits to wear with a navy blazer. The blazer is long gone but the pants are still in the rotation.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

You might, just might, be able to pull this look off with graphic tees and summer hats.


----------



## kkollwitz (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm impressed that someone wore out a suit jacket before the pants. 

Jack Benny said he'd get 12 pairs of matching pants to go with his jacket, so I'm pretty sure he never had that problem.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I sometimes wear my solid grey suit pants separately, as well as my olive pants from a cotton suit. Both are backup options for when the other stuff isn't available or not quite what I'm looking for.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

I'm one that DOES think it's possible to wear SOME suit pants as slacks. It's totally dependant upon the pants style and print, though. Something that's obviously part of a suit doesn't work, like pinstripes, checks, or many herringbones. But I don't think it's true that NO suit pants work as slacks. 

For example, I have a solid black suit, which pants work just fine as black slacks.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I've never done it. Would never think of doing it. For me it's wrong not just because they so obviously look like suit trousers but because none of my various styles include a rig that partly includes a pair of slacks that look like or are in fact suit trousers.
When I'm not wearing a suit, I'm wearing chinos, jeans, linen or woollen slacks NOT suit trousers!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)




----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It would depend on the pants. Some would work; some would not.

Unless you really know what you are doing, you are not likely to know the difference.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Where did this b*llshit come from that says that it is _per se_ wrong to be "caught" wearing a piece of a suit that might be identified as such? The DoW had many plaid suits whose jacket and pants he often wore separately.

Whether a pair of pants has a matching jacket somewhere in the universe has *no influence* on whether the pair of pants look good on their own. Imagine that a I have a pair of odd grey glen plaid slacks - an item offered for sale as such by such "radical" and fashion-forward merchants as Brooks Brothers. Imagine further that I wear them! Perhaps with a blazer and an OCBD, as I have seen other men do countless times. Now, imagine that I have a jacket made in the same fabric. Am I now forbidden to wear the pants? If not, what difference does it make whether the jacket was made after or the same time as the pants.

I beseech you, AAAC brothers of mine, let go of this assinine notion that pieces of a suit are somehow _tainted_ by the existence of a corresponding jacket or pair of trousers.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It would depend on the pants. Some would work; some would not.
> 
> Unless you really know what you are doing, you are not likely to know the difference.


The same could be true of pairing patterns, or picking a shirt that isn't white, or shoes that aren't black captoes. If people enthusiastic enough about clothes to join a clothing forum can't be trusted to actually _use their eyes_ to _make some judgments_, and must be protected by prophylactic proxy rules, then who _can_ be trusted?


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> The same could be true of pairing patterns, or picking a shirt that isn't white, or shoes that aren't black captoes. If people enthusiastic enough about clothes to join a clothing forum can't be trusted to actually _use their eyes_ to _make some judgments_, and must be protected by prophylactic proxy rules, then who _can_ be trusted?


You apparently? 
Dude asked a question, he got an answer, and generally, a consensus that did not absolute bar the reuse of trousers. 
So chill out. 
And Billy- care to post pics of some of the trousers you were considering wearing odd- this discussion would be better if it was more specific as to how a given pair could be split up.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Youngster, would you like to answer this question:

Imagine that a I have a pair of odd grey glen plaid slacks - an item offered for sale as such by such "radical" and fashion-forward merchants as Brooks Brothers. Imagine further that I wear them! Perhaps with a blazer and an OCBD, as I have seen other men do countless times. Now, imagine that I have a jacket made in the same fabric. Am I now forbidden to wear the pants? If not, what difference does it make whether the jacket was made after or the same time as the pants.

In the meantime, I assure you that I am perfectly "chill." I just grow weary of the false meme prevalent among the iGentry that suits are somehow both sacrosanct and tainted - their holy union must not be put assunder, and uncleanliness will befall the man who does! So many people have adopted this preposterous belief that the rational case to the contrary has to be made very forcefully, lest it be drowned out by the sea of unthinking "no, don't!" responses.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> If not, what difference does it make whether the jacket was made after or the same time as the pants.
> 
> I beseech you, AAAC brothers of mine, let go of this assinine notion that pieces of a suit are somehow _tainted_ by the existence of a corresponding jacket or pair of trousers.


Your point is a good one, but for whatever reason anytime I see someone wearing pants (usually stripes) that were clearly part of a suit the first thing that comes to mind is "what happened to the jacket, and why isn't he wearing it?"

Now, maybe the jacket has been lost, maybe the jacket was ruined, or maybe the person just made a conscious decision to mix and match suit pieces. Those are all fine reasons, but I have observed that the VAST majority of suit pant wearing separates people do so because they just didn't give any thought to what they are wearing. They stumbled out of bed that morning and just threw on the first pair of pants they found on the floor, regardless of how it coordinates with the rest of their clothing. It's that attitude that I react negatively to, not the fact that the person is wearing odd suit pants.

TLR Odd suit pants are often, but not always, an indicator that the person is a thoughtless dresser.


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> Your point is a good one, but for whatever reason anytime I see someone wearing pants (usually stripes) that were clearly part of a suit the first thing that comes to mind is "what happened to the jacket, and why isn't he wearing it?"


And while you can make a case that this is nothing wrong with wearing suit paints as slacks, this is the heart of the issue in my mind. Anyone with a small amount of expereince or fashion sense will have this thought cross his mind when he sees someone wearing suit pants -- that clearly are -- as slacks.

You can rationalize it away that it is okay to do so, but there will be people out there that think twice if they saw someone in "suit slacks." And, if one needs to make the case that it does not matter what people think to begin with probably would not be part of this forum!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> Those are all fine reasons, but I have observed that the VAST majority of suit pant wearing separates people do so because they just didn't give any thought to what they are wearing. They stumbled out of bed that morning and just threw on the first pair of pants they found on the floor, regardless of how it coordinates with the rest of their clothing. It's that attitude that I react negatively to, not the fact that the person is wearing odd suit pants.


Isn't the issue, then, not that the suit pants are _per se _problematic, but that they are worn very poorly? Isn't the remedy not to eschew suit pants in favor of other pants that can *also *be worn poorly, but to simply wear any and all pants well? To be thoughtful in matters of coordination?


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Youngster, would you like to answer this question:
> 
> Imagine that a I have a pair of odd grey glen plaid slacks - an item offered for sale as such by such "radical" and fashion-forward merchants as Brooks Brothers. Imagine further that I wear them! Perhaps with a blazer and an OCBD, as I have seen other men do countless times. Now, imagine that I have a jacket made in the same fabric. Am I now forbidden to wear the pants? If not, what difference does it make whether the jacket was made after or the same time as the pants.
> 
> In the meantime, I assure you that I am perfectly "chill." I just grow weary of the false meme prevalent among the iGentry that suits are somehow both sacrosanct and tainted - their holy union must not be put assunder, and uncleanliness will befall the man who does! So many people have adopted this preposterous belief that the rational case to the contrary has to be made very forcefully, lest it be drowned out by the sea of unthinking "no, don't!" responses.


You should know that I agree that there are many instances where this mixing and matching of pants can be done- I even noted in my first post that plaids and tweeds are an easy exception. But that's not really what the question was. OP noted that the slacks were pinstripe- certainly less versatile and harder to match than plaid, especially given that they look less sporty. Though the illustration that you posted seems to show that it may work, the practice is likely far more difficult, and done wrong, can resemble a butlers livery. So lets get a bit more specific, shall we:

- Plain pants can easily be mixed up, especially worsteds, poplins and flannels. All are sold as dress pants seperately, and a good rule of thumb is that if you would buy them on their own as odd pants, then wear them on their own. Just be carefull if you are wearing them just because you have them.

-Plaids are sporty and can mix well, but keep the overall look sporty.

-Pinstripes are harder to mix, as they are normally found only on suits. They do not go well with either solid or patterned blazers. Stores such as express, however, do often sell such pants to be worn semi-casually with open collared shirts. If you do not like this association, avoid the look, but know that it is done is the 20-30y.o. age range in some bar and nightclub settings (along with square toed shoes)

-More irregular pinstripes are actually harder to match- consider giving up on these.

-Orphaned pants are always easier to wear if worn more casually. Consider wearing patterned pants with a sweater instead of a blazer, as shown in the illustration. Odd tweeds with a cable knit and brogues can be a particularly good combination.

-Never try to make a new suit out of orphaned pants and jackets. No matter how similar, it will not work. That said, orphaned flannels + an orphaned tweed would work. A blue worsted may be able to be converted into a blazer.

-The more casual details that pants had on them before being orphaned, the easier the will make the transition to odd pants. Rougher, heavier fabrics, off seam pockets, side tabs, cuffs, and belt loops all mean they will make good odd pants. Fine fabrics with delicate details like split backs tend to look too dressy, and thus will be harder to dress down.

That's the best I can do. I hope it's not asinine.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Billyjo88 said:


> And while you can make a case that this is nothing wrong with wearing suit paints as slacks, this is the heart of the issue in my mind. Anyone with a small amount of expereince or fashion sense will have this thought cross his mind when he sees someone wearing suit pants -- that clearly are -- as slacks.


Of course clothing is communicative, and, as such, the message recieved by others matters. But if the pants coordinate well with the other items worn, what is the problem? Look at the AA/Esky illustration I posted above. Grey chalkstripe trousers are as suit-suggestive as any pants can be, but does his ensemble look unappealing? Offensive? Distracting? Or does it look elegantly casual? I think it looks like the man _owns _his wardrobe, and makes it do his bidding.

The man who can only wear items with their prescribed mates is a man whose wardrobe dictates to him. A man who can occassionaly mix and match is the master of his closet. Like many advanced dressing techniques, it is less fool-proof... but if one is _not_ a fool, then the rewards are great. *Besides, a fool with no aesthetic sense is always going to find a way to dress poorly, not matter how many axioms we dispense to him on AAAC.*


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

I'm solidly with cuff on this one. It's plain silly to say you can wear x-pattern pant, but not y-pattern. This is similar to the ongoing "you can't wear bluchers with suits" argument. If you like the style and it looks good, wear it (certain situations excepted). It's 2010. People wear all sorts of silly things. If wearing a pair of trousers without the matching jacket is your worst infraction, you're doing well. I assume the anit-seperate suit trouser crowd is 100% against taking off the suit jacket at all times during the day for fear of being caught in odd trousers?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Thougtful post, Youngster. It's certainly more work to post something like that, but it does far more to advance the conversation than a "no" does. 

I might personally quible with some points here or there, but your list, I think, reflects exactly the sort of garment-by-garment and pairing-by-pairing analysis that has to be done for the "real" answer.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Isn't the issue, then, not that the suit pants are _per se _problematic, but that they are worn very poorly? Isn't the remedy not to eschew suit pants in favor of other pants that can *also *be worn poorly, but to simply wear any and all pants well? To be thoughtful in matters of coordination?


Fair point.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


>


I think I remember someone using this exact phrase: "Well, in that case, they're no good for anything but golf trousers."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

What, golf doesn't count? 

Actually, golf pants is the fate of 3 pairs of my former-suit trousers. 2 glen plaids and a pinstripe.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

kkollwitz said:


> I'm impressed that someone wore out a suit jacket before the pants.


No kidding. I buy a second matching trouser whenever possible. I burn through pants much faster than jackets.


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

If you like the look, do it! However, the idea of suit trousers outliving jackets is not confirmed by my experience, trousers generally go before jackets unless you have an accident of some kind.


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> . The man who can only wear items with their prescribed mates is a man whose wardrobe dictates to him. A man who can occassionaly mix and match is the master of his closet. Like many advanced dressing techniques, it is less fool-proof... but if one is _not_ a fool, then the rewards are great.
> 
> 
> > I think this sentiment is right on, CuffDaddy - nothing wrong with being bold and even fashion-forward at times. However "fashion", by definition, is a matter of taste -- and taste is what is being discussed. Its not that one can't wear suit pants as slacks, but how would one feel if he did? Fashionable -- or uncomfortable?
> ...


----------



## De-Boj (Jul 5, 2009)

I have to jump in and back up CuffDaddy on this one. I think the key to this working is not in the pants themselves, but it is how you dress yourself. Pinstripe pants are not the easiest to wear without a suit, but you can do it. Try it once, get a little outside your comfort zone. I think it is healthy to try something different every now and then.

Break new ground, then post a picture and ask everyone how you did.


----------



## jacnyr (Apr 29, 2010)

I wouldn't to it, as for me the pants are the first to go. On the other hand, I have no problem with wearing jacket as sportcoat.


----------



## Mark Fowlkes (Jun 3, 2010)

My issue with suit pants worn solo isn't so much the missing jacket, as it is the fit. By fit, I mean the way a huge number of American men wear their suit pants fitted. I've seen countless hundreds of guys over the years, who, when their jackets come off for some task or other, show VERY poorly fitted suit pants. Poor as in a waist so large that the belt gathers it in, and a crotch so low that it has a clown pants effect. I believe a lot of men ignore the suit pant's fit, thinking the jacket covers it anyway, so they may as well go for total comfort. Of course the members of this list would never do this, but huge numbers of the general populace do. So. I would say, for them, no suit pants without the jacket. Many of the members of this list could most likely pull it off brilliantly, though. As for me, I probably would not do it, just my preference, no dogmatic issues.
Mark Fowlkes


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

How many people would actually be able to tell the difference between orphaned suit trousers and a regular pair of dress trousers? Some may say pinstripes would be an obvious give away. But then one can buy pinstripe trousers which where never intended to be part of a suit.


----------



## icky thump (Feb 2, 2008)

Depends what for. 

I think in the summer you can often walk into the office wearing suit pants, a dress shirt and a tie -- giving the impression that you beat everyone in and just came back from going out for coffee.


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

icky thump said:


> I think in the summer you can often walk into the office wearing suit pants, a dress shirt and a tie -- giving the impression that you beat everyone in and just came back from going out for coffee.


In other words, you can fake it -- but you would not feel "confident" if your colleagues saw you walk into the office that way?


----------



## cmavity (Feb 5, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> How many people would actually be able to tell the difference between orphaned suit trousers and a regular pair of dress trousers? Some may say pinstripes would be an obvious give away. But then one can buy pinstripe trousers which where never intended to be part of a suit.


+1 to this question. A vocal minority has commented that they always have a negative response when they see suit pants without the corresponding jacket. How do you know they are orphaned suit pants? Is there anything that distinguishes suit pants from odd trousers other than the fabric pattern? If not, then it certainly seems to me that what you find offensive is the pattern or style of the fabric in that particular pair of trousers and not the fact that they are orphaned suit pants, which is not inconsistent with virtually everyone's opinion here.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> The same could be true of pairing patterns, or picking a shirt that isn't white, or shoes that aren't black captoes. If people enthusiastic enough about clothes to join a clothing forum can't be trusted to actually _use their eyes_ to _make some judgments_, and must be protected by prophylactic proxy rules, then who _can_ be trusted?


Many who read here don't want to become enthusiastic about clothes. They want to know enough to avoid sartorial pratfalls. Those in that population might want to avoid wearing suit pants as a pair of pants to substitute for khakis, etc. My advice was not aimed at the clothing enthusiast portion of our readership.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Well, that's fine thinking, forsbie, but the problem is that categorical statements get read by the learned, the unlearned, and the uninterested alike. The second may want to become the former, and, in the process, adopt prophylactic guidelines as absolute statements of propriety. 

IOW, I think you have to make explicit that there is, in fact, no rule against it, but that it's unwise for most novices, since it's easy to screw up.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2021)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've never done it. Would never think of doing it. For me it's wrong not just because they so obviously look like suit trousers but because none of my various styles include a rig that partly includes a pair of slacks that look like or are in fact suit trousers.
> When I'm not wearing a suit, I'm wearing chinos, jeans, linen or woollen slacks NOT suit trousers!


Jeans are not slacks,some chinos look like party pants. They are wool suits and the pants are slants or suit pants.I believe the shirt and shoes can throw the combo either directions.


----------

