# Tan or Navy Trench Coat?



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

I'm going to be getting a trench coat to wear to work and am undecided whether tan or navy is the better color option. I wear chinos quite a bit and my concern is that since the chinos/khakis are usually some shade of tan or brown that a tan trench over it would be too much "matchy-matchy" and I would be better off with navy. Either way it will be a 3/4 length coat of about 40". Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Being toward the 'old' side, to me trench coats are always tan. But wearing a trench coat over chinos does put a crimp in that feeling . . . unless you accessorize the trench. Would a bright scarf or muffler tied inside the lapels help break up the 'matchy'?


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

I'll be wearing it when it's not nearly cold enough for a scarf so let's assume it's a plain mackintosh style coat.


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

But on the hanger I prefer the tan as well.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

If you're going to be wearing khakis most frequently, you won't want a tan trench cat. Although if you're wearing a trench, aren't you presumably going to be wearing at least a sport coat or maybe a suit? Furthermore, is Madison a fairly rainy part of WI? Trench coats are for rain, not every day warmth. 
Do you already have an overcoat?
Also, olive is a totally under rated color.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> Also, olive is a totally under rated color.


^This.
But yes if a liner is available, it may be better for the uncertain conditions as may present in some weather patterns. A scarf is a touch of dash that may not be the best option in the region. a grand cap as a cover is certainly fitting and there are many appropriate options for any circumstance. Details of construction and convenienence may be adjusted by thoughtful persons. 
One would not wish to err on the side of sartorial boldness in some communities. A little is sometimes too far. Caution is in the air these days.
Best wishes to you, and good fortune follow your endeavors,
rudy


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> Also, olive is a totally under rated color.


I concur.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have been recently wrestling with this dilemma myself. I already have an olive trench but fancy another... tan or navy? Perhaps I should just get both. 

At any rate - don't get a 3/4 length. That's just wrong.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I have been recently wrestling with this dilemma myself. I already have an olive trench but fancy another... tan or navy? Perhaps I should just get both.
> 
> At any rate - don't get a 3/4 length. That's just wrong.


One of the just plain stupid things to come out of this current men's fashion trend of smaller, narrower, skinnier this, that and the other thing is the three-quarter (or even less) trench coat, raincoat and overcoat. While those of us on this board will debate the aesthetic merits of narrower versus wider ties or lapels, the width of those features has no functional impact to the article (maybe lapel width matters in a hacking jacket if you are out walking in the Highlands, but really...).

But a coat exists to provide protection against rain, wind and cold, so having it stop at or near the knee is nonsense - why would any rational person not want a long coat to protect more of his clothing and body? Normally men's fashion doesn't dismiss function so obviously as the three-quarter-length coat does. And as to aesthetics - those coats look ineffective, out of scale to the body and silly. There is a presence to a long, elegant coat that provides one visual sweep from neck to mid-calf that reflects confidence and power (all opinions that can be disputed). These three-quarter coats will be the first to be out of style when the pendulum swings.

Coats - especially wool overcoats - should be all but immune to fashion trends as one's favorite overcoat should be a high-quality one, bought for a meaningful (but thoughtful) amount of money twenty years ago that is now well worn, maybe even a bit frayed at the edges, but feels like a second skin and still, despite its wear and tear, speaks of quality.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> One of the just plain stupid things to come out of this current men's fashion trend of smaller, narrower, skinnier this, that and the other thing is the three-quarter (or even less) trench coat, raincoat and overcoat. While those of us on this board will debate the aesthetic merits of narrower versus wider ties or lapels, the width of those features has no functional impact to the article (maybe lapel width matters in a hacking jacket if you are out walking in the Highlands, but really...).
> 
> But a coat exists to provide protection against rain, wind and cold, so having it stop at or near the knee is nonsense - why would any rational person not want a long coat to protect more of his clothing and body? Normally men's fashion doesn't dismiss function so obviously as the three-quarter-length coat does. And as to aesthetics - those coats look ineffective, out of scale to the body and silly. There is a presence to a long, elegant coat that provides one visual sweep from neck to mid-calf that reflects confidence and power (all opinions that can be disputed). These three-quarter coats will be the first to be out of style when the pendulum swings.
> 
> Coats - especially wool overcoats - should be all but immune to fashion trends as one's favorite overcoat should be a high-quality one, bought for a meaningful (but thoughtful) amount of money twenty years ago that is now well worn, maybe even a bit frayed at the edges, but feels like a second skin and still, despite its wear and tear, speaks of quality.


My wholehearted agreement with your sentiments here, FF.

I will admit freely that a full length overcoat makes me feel quite dashing - heroic even - especially when unbuttoned with the tails flapping in the wind. :redface:


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

Shaver said:


> I have been recently wrestling with this dilemma myself. I already have an olive trench but fancy another... tan or navy? Perhaps I should just get both.
> 
> At any rate - don't get a 3/4 length. That's just wrong.


I have all three, I rarely wear the olive, the navy looks very sharp with grays and tans, the tan looks best with everything. It's my go to.

The navy on navy ( most of my suits) just looks too monochromatic.

My .02$


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

Thank you all for the thoughts, perhaps I should clarify and add some details...

I do not plan on wearing the coat only when it is raining but as more of a "fall coat" when it is not cold enough for my wool coat but a coat of some time is called for. I am looking for a coat with a removable liner as well, so it will not be a garment designed solely for rainwear. Living in WI, "cold" is somewhat subjective, so I would wear the coat anywhere from a crisp 50 degree fall day without the liner, to a more chilly 30 degree day with a few snowflakes. Colder than that would call for my wool coat, warmer than those conditions and wool would uncomfortably warm to me. 

I do not care to wear scarves unless they are needed for practical purposes, so if it is cold enough for a scarf, I would not be wearing this coat. That is not a question of fashionability, but of personal preference and individual taste. 

I use the term "trench coat" somewhat loosely to describe a non-wool coat longer than waist length. Specifically, I am looking at the Brooks Brother Cotton Car Coat (available in Navy only), the Brooks Brothers Newbury Trench in Navy, or the Sanyo Grays Trench in Taupe (it is available in only Taupe or Black).

I do not want a full length coat because I feel I would generally be underdressed for full-length. I will be wearing something such as chinos or wool slacks with longwings and a button up shirt. No tie, no sportcoat. I have a full-length coat for more formal occasions when I would be wearing a suit. I want to be nicely dressed but I feel a full length coat would be too much for my environment. 

I am attempting to replace black car coat with zip out liner that I have been wearing. Thanks to the forum I no longer like a black coat for everyday wear.

At this time, I can only get a single coat. I like the look of the Taupe Sanyo the best and it would look great with darker charcoal trousers, but upwards of 50% of the time I will be wearing some shade of khaki pants so my instinct says a navy is the better choice to be more universal but I am still a "noob" and am looking for thoughts and opinions.

Photos below of my top three. They are all about the same price. As an fyi, I do not want to wear a Barbour instead.


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

perhaps top coat is the better choice to describe what I am speaking of? In my mind a top coat implies a wool coat and a trench a non-wool, but I know that is likely incorrect. Although I appreciate being accurate, I don't want to stray too much into the nuances of car coat versus walking coat in this thread if possible. I only bring it up because if the coats in the photo posted look silly because they are not full length, my eye doesn't see it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If you were inclined to purchase a classic Trench coat design (double breasted, belted and all that!), my strong recommendation would be to go with a classic tan color. While I have a navy (actually AF blue) trench in my closet, my classic khaki toned Burberry gets all the wear time. The blue one has not come out of the closet in the past seven or eight years! However, given your penchant for the single column of buttons and an un-belted waist, navy seems to be the best choice for color. Good luck in your hunt!


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

My wardrobe has been rigorously edited twice in the past few years - once on retirement and again after moving to a high rise - but my two trench coats, blue and tan, are still with me. With a liner, either can serve as an overcoat, and the colors are different enough to allow more choice in putting together an ensemble for the increasingly fewer occasions I can find to wear a suit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

richb said:


> perhaps top coat is the better choice to describe what I am speaking of? In my mind a top coat implies a wool coat and a trench a non-wool, but I know that is likely incorrect. Although I appreciate being accurate, I don't want to stray too much into the nuances of car coat versus walking coat in this thread if possible. I only bring it up because if the coats in the photo posted look silly because they are not full length, my eye doesn't see it.


The images which you have posted are of mackintosh, these can be traditionally a little shorter. A trench and a mac are both raincoats though and should really only be worn when precipitation is actual or threatened.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> One of the just plain stupid things to come out of this current men's fashion trend of smaller, narrower, skinnier this, that and the other thing is the three-quarter (or even less) trench coat, raincoat and overcoat. While those of us on this board will debate the aesthetic merits of narrower versus wider ties or lapels, the width of those features has no functional impact to the article (maybe lapel width matters in a hacking jacket if you are out walking in the Highlands, but really...).
> 
> But a coat exists to provide protection against rain, wind and cold, so having it stop at or near the knee is nonsense - why would any rational person not want a long coat to protect more of his clothing and body? Normally men's fashion doesn't dismiss function so obviously as the three-quarter-length coat does. And as to aesthetics - those coats look ineffective, out of scale to the body and silly. There is a presence to a long, elegant coat that provides one visual sweep from neck to mid-calf that reflects confidence and power (all opinions that can be disputed). These three-quarter coats will be the first to be out of style when the pendulum swings.
> 
> Coats - especially wool overcoats - should be all but immune to fashion trends as one's favorite overcoat should be a high-quality one, bought for a meaningful (but thoughtful) amount of money twenty years ago that is now well worn, maybe even a bit frayed at the edges, but feels like a second skin and still, despite its wear and tear, speaks of quality.


This is all well and good. Unless you're 5' 4" and a 3/4 length coat is WAY past your knees already. Also being 5' 4" I need things trim and slim or I look like a kid playing dress up.


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

Shaver said:


> The images which you have posted are of mackintosh, these can be traditionally a little shorter. A trench and a mac are both raincoats though and should really only be worn when precipitation is actual or threatened.


Thank you. I assume trench = double breasted with belt and mac = single breasted without a belt.

If neither of these styles are good for "everyday" wear because they are rainwear, what WOULD be "by the book" appropriate to wear in the fall when not wearing a suit but also not super casual? I may not be grasping what makes these items "rainwear". I don't think it is simply because they are non-wool because certainly there are occasions when it is too warm for wool yet not raining. I don't think it could be the style of the mac as it is about as nondescript as it could be. It is length and anything non-wool and not waist length is rainwear? There must be something other than Barbour.

I'm just looking for additional knowledge, not questioning the judgement or saying I will heed it nessasarily.

Thanks!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

khaki or green.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

crocto said:


> This is all well and good. Unless you're 5' 4" and a 3/4 length coat is WAY past your knees already. Also being 5' 4" I need things trim and slim or I look like a kid playing dress up.


At 5'3", this has not been my experience. If you buy a properly sized "xxS" or even "xxXS" trench, the full length is more flattering than a 3/4" and all of the features are in proportion. Also, I've never come across a 3/4 length coat that was "WAY" past my knees.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> At 5'3", this has not been my experience. If you buy a properly sized "xxS" or even "xxXS" trench, the full length is more flattering than a 3/4" and all of the features are in proportion. Also, I've never come across a 3/4 length coat that was "WAY" past my knees.


What? Where the heck are you getting extra small trench/rain/car coats? I couldn't even get my shoulders into a small at Brooks Brothers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Also, what's the deal with all these new so called "trench coats" that stop above the knees. That isn't a trench coat, a trench coat should be half way down my shins, waving hello to my ankles! Not looking up at my nads!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> Also, I've never come across a 3/4 length coat that was "WAY" past my knees.


But that's what the traditional length of a trenchcoat is. Hard to find though nowadays.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Have you looked here?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Get something in navy if you're getting a rain coat and tan will clash with your trousers. However, if it's cold enough to wear a top coat, perhaps you need something heavier duty on your legs than chinos, such as flannel, corduroy, or moleskin.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> Have you looked here?


It is from this manufacturer I intend to make my next purchase.

Manchester is a very rainy place, a decent trench coat gets plenty of use between October and May.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

richb said:


> Thank you. I assume trench = double breasted with belt and mac = single breasted without a belt.
> 
> If neither of these styles are good for "everyday" wear because they are rainwear, what WOULD be "by the book" appropriate to wear in the fall when not wearing a suit but also not super casual? I may not be grasping what makes these items "rainwear". I don't think it is simply because they are non-wool because certainly there are occasions when it is too warm for wool yet not raining. I don't think it could be the style of the mac as it is about as nondescript as it could be. It is length and anything non-wool and not waist length is rainwear? There must be something other than Barbour.
> 
> ...


Obviously there is overlap in the culture of usage nowadays. However trench and macs were originally purpose designed for protection against wet weather, and to my mind it remains the stylish choice to wear them in the conditions for which they were intended.

As to what you might consider wearing instead there are a few choices. Personally, I would be lost without my trusty British Warms when the cold weather starts to bite, and I consider that they bridge the formal/casual divide very succesfully indeed. If I am needing to look extra smart then a dark navy cashmere Crombie style overcoat will adorn my back.

A decent overcoat is the best friend a man can have - properly chosen and well fitted - they can set you apart in a way that only high quality shoes can even begin to approach.

When I observe men in suits wearing hiking-style plastic overcoats I weep softly as I turn my face away.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

^When you see that on television, such as The Weather Channel (though they may have stopped wearing suits outside) or Good Morning America, it's often because L.L.Bean or somesuch have promotional consideration on the program. Not that you'd see those programmes where you reside, but it's a sad case of the almighty dollar crushing any sense of style. With the rest of those men, I'm afraid they just don't know any better.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

crocto said:


> What? Where the heck are you getting extra small trench/rain/car coats? I couldn't even get my shoulders into a small at Brooks Brothers.


By "xxS" I mean for the xx to be a number. I.E. "38S" or "38XS". Sorry for the confusion. I would never advocate buying an alpha-sized trench.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> But that's what the traditional length of a trenchcoat is. Hard to find though nowadays.


Yes, of course. My trench coats and balmacaans fall to the tops of my shins about an inch or two below my knee caps. But a 3/4 length coat falls much higher (mid to lower thigh), even on my short frame. My point was, saying that short men HAVE to wear 3/4 length coats is false. Bogart is the perfect example of what a well-tailored, full-length trench can look like on a small frame:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A decent overcoat is the best friend a man can have - properly chosen and well fitted - they can set you apart in a way that only high quality shoes can even begin to approach.
> 
> When I observe men in suits wearing hiking-style plastic overcoats I weep softly as I turn my face away.
> .
> .


This, +1.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Don't forget, though, that Bogart had an imposing screen presence plus a number of camera tricks that made him look taller than he really was.

Most people have no idea that Tom Cruise is 5'7, either.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

Two answers about trench coats:

I. "Class"

Tan is the more upper class color. Navy and olive are the working man's colors.

In the almost ancient book, "Dress for Success", the author made a study as to the type of raincoats worn on a rainy day. The author, John Molloy, went to Grand Central station and saw most men in tan raincoats. The trains from the wealthy suburbs terminate at Grand Central. He compared it to what men were wearing getting-off from a subway stop in a working class area of Bronx. These men wore navy.

Therefore, Molloy advised that in order to "dress for success", one should wear tan so as to emulate the executive class.


II. To Heck with Class, What is a Good Color?

If you are unconcerned with "dressing for success" or "how to get the executive look" (as Mortimer Levitt termed it), then pick a color that you like. That is what I do.

Of your choices I prefer navy. It is dressier. It can be mistaken for a top coat. In comparison, a tan raincoat can not be mistaken for anything other than a raincoat.

Also, a tan raincoat presents a certain image, both positive and negative to different people. E.g., tough as nails Bogart, gangster, private detective, spy, rumpled police detective Colombo, and pervert. The other colors do not carry such intense associations.

I have had raincoats in navy, tan, and olive. The light colors (tan and bamboo yellow) get dirty pretty quickly. They will require more trips to the cleaners.

Good luck.

Good luck.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

son of brummell said:


> Two answers about trench coats:
> 
> I. "Class"
> 
> ...


It is nice that someone remembers Molloy. However, if you check pp. 24 -26 of his second (1988) edition, you will see that his several experiments, including one in an unnamed commuter station, compared beige raincoats to black ones, and drew the upper middle versus lower middle class conclusions from that comparison.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Don't forget, though, that Bogart had an imposing screen presence plus a number of camera tricks that made him look taller than he really was.
> 
> Most people have no idea that Tom Cruise is 5'7, either.


Actually, Tom Cruise is 5' 4", not 5' 7". His ex wife, Katie Holmes, is 5' 8". When I saw pictures of them together (both wearing equally flat shoes), she was 4 inches taller than him.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I just looked at many pictures of them together. Heights are all over the place even in pics where she is in heels. Who knows. My point is that all sorts of tricks are made in movie photography, costuming, etc. for actors to appear taller and it definitely helps when they have a good screen presence.

Sometimes though, they drop the ball on that. Daniel Craig very much looks his 5'10 (if not shorter) in _Skyfall_ because of the short and tight suits. Quite evident in scenes where he plays opposite the taller, better tailored Ralph Fiennes.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

godan said:


> It is nice that someone remembers Molloy. However, if you check pp. 24 -26 of his second (1988) edition, you will see that his several experiments, including one in an unnamed commuter station, compared beige raincoats to black ones, and drew the upper middle versus lower middle class conclusions from that comparison.


Thank you for the correction, and I am sorry for my sloppy scholarship.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

son of brummell said:


> Thank you for the correction, and I am sorry for my sloppy scholarship.


Usually, I try to restrain pedagogy, but I did not want the many who own navy trench coats to fear the connotation. Your point about black, however, makes me wonder if the same negative vibe would persist now, a quarter century after Molloy's second edition was published. Would the popularity of black suits, etc., soften the connection to the lower middle class? I'm interested because I like black and wear it often, including a black raincoat tailored to knee length to go over heavy sweater outfits. Maybe it is time for someone to do a modern edition of Malloy.


----------



## S.Masterson (Jun 17, 2013)

Tan and DB for me. I have no issue whatsoever with other colours, but were I to choose another dark coat I would not ideally go for a trench coat.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

You could try olive or black.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

richb said:


> Thank you all for the thoughts, perhaps I should clarify and add some details...
> 
> I do not plan on wearing the coat only when it is raining but as more of a "fall coat" when it is not cold enough for my wool coat but a coat of some time is called for. I am looking for a coat with a removable liner as well, so it will not be a garment designed solely for rainwear. Living in WI, "cold" is somewhat subjective, so I would wear the coat anywhere from a crisp 50 degree fall day without the liner, to a more chilly 30 degree day with a few snowflakes. Colder than that would call for my wool coat, warmer than those conditions and wool would uncomfortably warm to me.
> 
> ...


Member and person of accepted repute richb,
As one anticipates an update of your decision for my own clarity of mind, it is likely that all these matters have become rather over complicated in the discussions among and between persons who all wish you well and would give their best thoughts for your education; however, as persons that always strive to reach farther than situation may permit and circumstance may allow, it is yourself that remains the best arbitrator of the many views and perspectives as generously offered by our many benefactors and contributors. Clearly, not your issue. You represent an independent spirit of mind and will that are well established in Madison, an acknowledged bulwark of such in historical memory. As the leader in command on the ground in this moment, your decision is of utmost import to others who look for similar answers to their own quandaries.
For the three selections proposed to meet your requirements as noted and without any particular ties to any viewpoint but one's own nor any authority to speak on behalf of any other, given these three selections as the finalists, the Sanyo Taupe wins support, but one always defers to the person on the ground in the moment. It is to be noted that none are items of any particular resonance in my own experience, but my experience is not at all similar to yours. That is without doubt to your credit.
It is always important to be satisfied in one's own mind with the decisions made and actions taken and to carry one's own choices as a gift and a pleasure.
Do that and all is well,
rudy


----------

