# Which Khakis Are Trad



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

The discussion regarding tassel loafers got me thinking about khakis. I believe, historically, khakis became popular with returning servicemen after WW2 who wore old uniform pants for casual outfits and later on college campuses; buying army surplus khakis at army/navy stores. If these were based on uniforms we can probably assume the fit was full, full rise, flat front and uncuffed. Later when campus stores and ivy favored shops started carrying khakis we can also assume that these were originally modeled after the surplus army style.
Therefore I conjecture that trad khakis were full or somewhat baggy, flat front and uncuffed. Later versions sometimes seen in college photos of the early 60's appear to be more tapered, less baggy and with a lower rise, perhaps because being worn by younger students and now carried in more shops. I can date my first pair of khakis to about 1965 although I am unsure of the exact fit. The first pair whose fit I remember I got at the Gap in the 70's and the fit was full, full rise, flat front with change pocket and uncuffed. Would one say that khakis styled like the original WW2 surplus pants are "Trad" while later incarnations including slim-fit models are "Ivy League" or even "Preppy"?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A discussion of this subject could easily become an exercise in splitting hairs... To my mind Khakis are Khakis and Khakis do generally fall within the style spectrum we reference as Trad...whatever that means(?)!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The flat front ones.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

It's all about personal preference.

Nonetheless, here's what I think makes for a classic, timeless pair of chinos. 1) No pleats, i.e,, plain front. 2) Straight leg (obviously). 3) A good, full cut. 4) Cuffed with a 1.25 - 1.75-inch hem. 4) 100% cotton when possible (although I've strayed into the non-iron territory with my LEs). 5) Deep, on-seam pockets in front. 6) Two buttoned pockets in back. 7) A good medium to high rise in front (never low-cut!). 8) No elastic "comfort" waists. 9) No other adornments, including cargo pockets.

Almost any color, although I can't do anything too bright or a Nantucket red, etc. Also not terribly fond of dark brown or grey.

That's about it.


----------



## WildCard22 (Feb 23, 2015)

As far as brands go I like Bill's Khaki's.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

For brands, I've become a Lands' End convert. And yes, I know it's heresy to the cause, but I like the no-wrinkle versions. They look really good with blazers and other jackets. 

I also think J. Crew does a good job with their Essential Chinos, especially in the classic and regular fits, but they don't offer cuffs. But if I want an all-cotton chino, that's my choice. I buy my J. Crew chinos very long and then sew my own cuffs.

Oddly enough, though, even in the traditional fit, J. Crew's pockets are not very deep. I'm a pocket stuffer--I need pants that I can shove my hands into comfortably.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Duvel said:


> ....Oddly enough, though, even in the traditional fit, J. Crew's pockets are not very deep. I'm a pocket stuffer--I need pants that I can shove my hands into comfortably.


Then you need Bill's. Very generous pockets. Bill's M2 is my go-to khaki. Although I have a couple M2P, as well....we like our pleats in the South!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I like Bill's. I have a summer-weight twill pair that I like a lot. I can't afford Bill's as easily, though.



FLCracka said:


> Then you need Bill's. Very generous pockets. Bill's M2 is my go-to khaki. Although I have a couple M2P, as well....we like our pleats in the South!


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Duvel said:


> I like Bill's. I have a summer-weight twill pair that I like a lot. I can't afford Bill's as easily, though.


I hear you. I was fortunate to get four brand new pair from that surplus store in Maine for about $25 each (shipped), thanks to the PSA that was posted here.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> A discussion of this subject could easily become an exercise in splitting hairs... To my mind Khakis are Khakis and Khakis do generally fall within the style spectrum we reference as Trad...whatever that means(?)!


I respectfully disagree. This forum goes to great lengths on minute details to try and establish a working definition of trad clothing. A case can be made that slim fitting, low rise khakis are no more "trad" than 2-button, darted jackets. Both may be comfortable, good looking and well fitting and produce great looking outfits when paired together but are they trad? I maintain that all khakis are not trad just as all Harris tweed jackets are not trad. I would consider a requirement for hook vents on 3/2 sack jackets in order to be considered trad to be an example of splitting hairs.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

How much longer for a pre-hemmed pair of pants so hem can be removed and re-hemmed with 1.5" cuffs?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

When I sew my own, I find that I need at least 4 inches of extra material. I think OCBD has a formula for figuring this out on his site. I learned to sew mine from his tutorial.



Triathlete said:


> How much longer for a pre-hemmed pair of pants so hem can be removed and re-hemmed with 1.5" cuffs?


----------



## RT-Bone (Nov 12, 2013)

I just can't do cuffs on chinos/khakis.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Triathlete said:


> How much longer for a pre-hemmed pair of pants so hem can be removed and re-hemmed with 1.5" cuffs?


I do 4" extra for a 1.5" cuff and 1" sewn under. For calculating pre-cuffed length, I multiply the desired cuff height by two and then add the amount I want sewn under, which is the desired cuff height minus 0.5" for me. One inch is usually fine for the range of cuff heights most of us prefer. As an example, if you want a finished hem length of 30" and a cuff height of 1.5", you would multiply 1.5" by 2 which is 3" and add an inch for a total of a 34" inseam before cuffing.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

fred johnson said:


> I respectfully disagree. This forum goes to great lengths on minute details to try and establish a working definition of trad clothing. A case can be made that slim fitting, low rise khakis are no more "trad" than 2-button, darted jackets. Both may be comfortable, good looking and well fitting and produce great looking outfits when paired together but are they trad? I maintain that all khakis are not trad just as all Harris tweed jackets are not trad. I would consider a requirement for hook vents on 3/2 sack jackets in order to be considered trad to be an example of splitting hairs.


A definition of Trad is useful only so far as it is descriptive, not prescriptive. These discussions almost always edge dangerously close to creating a big Trad-definition stick to beat people with, and that's just not cool.

Plus, Trad as a defined concept really doesn't go back much farther than Harris and the beginning of this board. Its borders are and always have been fuzzy. Where does Trad end and Preppy begin? Are Trad and Ivy the same or different things? If different, what's the difference? How much overlap do these styles have? These are impossible questions to answer.

The fact is that people whose clothing habits could accurately be described as Trad have worn everything from WWII-style full-cut khakis to slimmer-fitting, low-rise versions. Flat front is just about the only common factor. That's as close as you're going to get on this question.


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Orgetorix said:


> The fact is that people whose clothing habits could accurately be described as Trad have worn everything from WWII-style full-cut khakis to slimmer-fitting, low-rise versions. Flat front is just about the only common factor. That's as close as you're going to get on this question.


Other than flat-front, I have to agree, trad khakis are all over the place in cut, make, etc....


----------



## FJW (Jan 25, 2012)

Ok, I'm on board with the flat-front, but are cuffs required?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

fred johnson said:


> I respectfully disagree. This forum goes to great lengths on minute details to try and establish a working definition of trad clothing. A case can be made that slim fitting, low rise khakis are no more "trad" than 2-button, darted jackets. Both may be comfortable, good looking and well fitting and produce great looking outfits when paired together but are they trad? I maintain that all khakis are not trad just as all Harris tweed jackets are not trad. I would consider a requirement for hook vents on 3/2 sack jackets in order to be considered trad to be an example of splitting hairs.


....and you have every right to disagree and I suspect are technically correct in doing so. However, I personally find endless arguments over seemingly never ending degrees of detail to be tiresome and hence my (from your perspective) premature conclusions expressed in my earlier post. I agree with your subsequent observations and thank gawd, of the 23 pairs of khakis hanging in my closet, at least 12 pair are Bills and none are of the hip hugger or pegger designs identified as not meeting the Trad muster. LOL.  Seriously, no offense intended!


----------



## colorvision (Aug 7, 2014)

thegovteach said:


> Other than flat-front, I have to agree, trad khakis are all over the place in cut, make, etc....


Most trads here seem to prefer cuffs, but there are examples to the contrary:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?201107-Trad-by-the-Master
edit: meant to reply to "Ok, I'm on board with the flat-front, but are cuffs required?"


----------



## style417 (Jun 28, 2014)

Duvel said:


> It's all about personal preference.
> 
> Nonetheless, here's what I think makes for a classic, timeless pair of chinos. 1) No pleats, i.e,, plain front. 2) Straight leg (obviously). 3) A good, full cut. 4) Cuffed with a 1.25 - 1.75-inch hem. 4) 100% cotton when possible (although I've strayed into the non-iron territory with my LEs). 5) Deep, on-seam pockets in front. 6) Two buttoned pockets in back. 7) A good medium to high rise in front (never low-cut!). 8) No elastic "comfort" waists. 9) No other adornments, including cargo pockets.
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with your list, though most of mine are uncuffed, which works fine in my office environment. Most of the ones I own are Bills M2 (when I can get them on sale).


----------



## WildCard22 (Feb 23, 2015)

What is a good target prices for the Bill's M2 in a standard color? And are there any big sales to look out for during the year?


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ....and you have every right to disagree and I suspect are technically correct in doing so. However, I personally find endless arguments over seemingly never ending degrees of detail to be tiresome and hence my (from your perspective) premature conclusions expressed in my earlier post. I agree with your subsequent observations and thank gawd, of the 23 pairs of khakis hanging in my closet, at least 12 pair are Bills and none are of the hip hugger or pegger designs identified as not meeting the Trad muster. LOL.  Seriously, no offense intended!


... no offence taken. I think that we can agree that "trad" evolved into Ivy League which later evolved into preppy with some style elements staying the same and some changing. What I was looking for was a baseline, so to speak, of where it all began in terms of khakis.


----------



## Mikestyle49 (Sep 29, 2014)

I like J Crew's Bowery Khaki's. I need slim fit though, trad or not. Full cut is way to big on me


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

fred johnson said:


> ... no offence taken. I think that we can agree that "trad" evolved into Ivy League which later evolved into preppy with some style elements staying the same and some changing. What I was looking for was a baseline, so to speak, of where it all began in terms of khakis.


No I don't think we can agree that "trad" evolved into Ivy League... See Orgetorix contribution above.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> Then you need Bill's. Very generous pockets. Bill's M2 is my go-to khaki. Although I have a couple M2P, as well....we like our pleats in the South!


AMEN!


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

I do cuffs, but once those start to get worn or tattered, then I have them altered to no-cuffs to extend their life.


----------



## wh1 (Sep 19, 2009)

my first pair of true khakis back in the late 1970's were actually a couple of pairs of WW2 issue khakis trousers I purchased at a garage sale. Still the best wearing I have had. They lasted all through high school and college and into the early 90's. I agree with the original premise of the thread. Only pair I had that were better were a pair of Calvin Klein's purchased in 1984. Flat front, with cuffs, fabric was amazing and the color was beautiful.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

fred johnson said:


> ... no offence taken. I think that we can agree that "trad" evolved into Ivy League which later evolved into preppy with some style elements staying the same and some changing.


Generally Trad refers to the globalized version of Ivy League, first the Japanese interpretation, and later the Internet-influenced one that takes classic Ivy, 80s preppy, modern "Southern Collegiate" (is there another name for this?), and English mod style and merges them together into the sort of stuff people wear here and on the other Trad message boards, blogs, etc. So the timeline is more Ivy > Preppy > Trad than Trad > Ivy > Preppy.

I don't think that pre-50s Ivy League has a name, exactly. Brooks Brothers of course slyly suggested that it had always been known as the "Brooks Brothers Look" back during the first boom. 









(1956)

The style itself traces back to the very first premium Ready-to-Wear clothing makers in the U.S., Brooks and competitors like Rogers Peet and Browning King who used high-quality British fabrics with off-the-rack construction to promote their vision of off-the-rack clothing being something for everybody, not just sailors and prospectors, an American equal to the tailored styles of the British. (A really interesting period, in my opinion.)


----------



## sarakali (May 19, 2013)

For me, Jack Donnelly's Slim Fit (sized up one) does the trick. You get a generous rise but with that nice taper for a slim leg (and custom hem with cuffs of course). While I'd long to fill up my entire wardrobe with Jack Donnelly's, Land's End lighthouse chinos are perfect for everyday use. The straight fit with a cuff in a khaki color is perfect for the trad on a budget.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

sarakali said:


> For me, Jack Donnelly's Slim Fit (sized up one) does the trick. You get a generous rise but with that nice taper for a slim leg (and custom hem with cuffs of course).


+1. Jack Donnelly Dalton Slims are my workhorse khakis. I have a pair in every color, including the new olive. They're not perfect, their minor shortcomings having been discussed in other threads, but they absolutely nail the fit for me, are solidly constructed out of hefty fabric and made in USA. Their customer service is also second to none.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

hardline_42 said:


> +1. Jack Donnelly Dalton Slims are my workhorse khakis. I have a pair in every color, including the new olive. They're not perfect, their minor shortcomings having been discussed in other threads, but they absolutely nail the fit for me, are solidly constructed out of hefty fabric and made in USA. Their customer service is also second to none.


Tacking onto that, I've got two in Original fit and they're similar to M2s for me. I tried the Hybrid fit, but they just didn't seem to offer enough room - though I wonder if sizing slightly up would've helped. At any rate, I echo the sentiments above about the customer service, etc.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

With respect and strictly speaking: Khakis are not chinos. Chinos are not khakis. Khakis are military and baggy. Chinos are slim.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

aucociscokid said:


> With respect and strictly speaking: Khakis are not chinos. Chinos are not khakis. Khakis are military and baggy. Chinos are slim.


That's an arbitrary and entirely made-up distinction, unless you can provide some evidence that the terms are properly defined that way. Most people use one term or the other and mean the same thing by it.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

aucociscokid said:


> With respect and strictly speaking: Khakis are not chinos. Chinos are not khakis. Khakis are military and baggy. Chinos are slim.


Khaki refers to a color and chino refers to a cloth. And what Org said.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

Khakis - being military - are also meant to be starched. Chinos: Worn above the ankle; "highwater." https://thedapergentleman.com/2015/01/11/the-gentlemans-khaki-vs-chino/


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'll be damned. He's right. It says right there on the Internet.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

aucociscokid said:


> Khakis - being military - are also meant to be starched. Chinos: Worn above the ankle; "highwater." https://thedapergentleman.com/2015/01/11/the-gentlemans-khaki-vs-chino/


What's a "daper gentleman"? Is that like a "diaper dandy"?


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

aucociscokid said:


> Khakis - being military - are also meant to be starched. Chinos: Worn above the ankle; "highwater." https://thedapergentleman.com/2015/01/11/the-gentlemans-khaki-vs-chino/


I'm not too sure that article should be taken as the final word on the khakis vs chino debate.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

fred johnson said:


> I'm not too sure that article should be taken as the final word on the khakis vs chino debate.


Exactly. Are they tan? Do they fit you well? Are you happy with them? What more do you need? Anyone who needs to justify or certify their wardrobe by one banal defnition or another has too much time on their hands. I have never stopped to ask myself if anything I own or wear is Trad, Preppy, or Ivy.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I never have to ask myself either. I have my closet divided into Trad, Preppy, and Ivy, and there's another section called Check With Ask Andy Forum Members.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Duvel said:


> I never have to ask myself either. I have my closet divided into Trad, Preppy, and Ivy, and there's another section called Check With Ask Andy Forum Members.


Which section contains the 6/2 double breasted blue blazer?


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Duvel said:


> I never have to ask myself either. I have my closet divided into Trad, Preppy, and Ivy, and there's another section called Check With Ask Andy Forum Members.


Before or after you check the Official Preppy Handbook? God knows you can't dress in style without doing so. Especially if you never grew up inthe tradition.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

God knows! Oh, my, you are so right!



Eric W S said:


> Before or after you check the Official Preppy Handbook? God knows you can't dress in style without doing so. Especially if you never grew up inthe tradition.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?91082-Army-vs-Ivy-Khakis-in-the-1950s


----------



## WildCard22 (Feb 23, 2015)

In the south all of these types of pants are known as "khaki's", could be a regional distinction.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

C. Sharp said:


> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?91082-Army-vs-Ivy-Khakis-in-the-1950s


Csharp. Thanks for the link, the evolution seems clear


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

That link from C. Sharp is good reading. What I personally find interesting, too, is that the illustrations look much how I prefer and try to wear my chinos--no break, cuffed, full cut, at least a mid-rise.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Duvel said:


> [C]hinos--no break, cuffed, full cut, at least a mid-rise.


This is the way to go. This is emphatically the way to go.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Emphatically, if that works for your particular build.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

Authentically: Khakis are also made from Cramerton Army cloth.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm trying to imagine what particular build it would not work for. It seems accommodating to a range, to me.



Triathlete said:


> Emphatically, if that works for your particular build.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

I can't wear the full cut. Wind-bags on me.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Talk about your full cut... On my way back from a grocery run this afternoon, I stopped in the Goodwill and picked up two baggy-butt corduroy trousers, one dark brown and one light tan, from a virtually no-name department store brand. Flat front, high rise. No cuffs. About 1-2 inches too big in the waist, perfect in the inseam. They give me kind of an old-timer look channeled through Woody Allen when I wear them with my LL Bean flannel shirt and Lands' End sweater vest. I've been missing corduroy trousers in my wardrobe. 

They're not perfect. But doggone, they're comfortable. All this to say, even if they did not have that ease in the waist, they are some of the fullest trousers I've tried on ever, probably at least as large as a Bills.

They probably don't qualify as office wear. But I can see them serving heavy duty as dead-of-winter trousers in off-duty hours with my LL Bean norwegian and the like.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Good Deal! I like it.


----------

