# Army vs. Ivy: Khakis in the 1950s



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Returning GI's brought the khaki to campus originally in the Army style cut. 
From 1953 Cornell student newspaper








Heres what "Full Cut" Means from the same newspaper 1952,








Pleated and cuffed "officer" versions available also


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

In 1954 and 1955, a new "Ivy League" version appears (from where I dont know.








These are slimmer slacks with the notable feature of the belted back. 








[This is from the Lafayette College newspaper) Interestingly the classic colors for the Ivy Chino were Tan and Gray and Black! (Also the colors used by Uniqlo in their current vintage chino though Uniqlo Grey is close to what we call khaki). If you asked what were the least Trad chino color, I guess many would say black if the thought occurred at all. 








Here's another view. Another feature is cuffed hems.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

As the decade wore on, these pants lost the belted back and continued to slim. From the Penn State newspaper 1958,








and got a pocket flap.
About the same time, the "Ivy" term became passe and even the traditional clothes came under the influence of the new super trim, cuffless "Continental" cut. From the 1959, Lafayette student newspaper.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

The natural shoulder traditionalist wasnt ready to give up the cuffs yet, but by the turn of the decade, the cut became even trimmer than the old Ivy cut and shorter. From the Cornell newspaper, 1960 and 1961.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Thanks for posting those images. Lots to observe. I thought it was esp. interesting to see the way the terms "khaki" and "chino" were used, that you could get a pair of trousers for a dollar more than 3 tennis balls, and that a zipper fly was a dollar extra.

Interesting too that the first (earliest?) image shows pleats. Does "officers" specifically denote pleats and cuffs? Is that the military equivalent of the difference, in a very general way, between work wear and dressier clothing?


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

I was thinking the same thing as Hudson. Tennis balls cost less today than they did back then (and are better too). A decent pair of Khakis have gone up 10 fold.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Great ads and I too was struck by the cost of tennis balls vs. pants.

Brian


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> As the decade wore on, these pants lost the belted back and continued to slim. From the Penn State newspaper 1958,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who still sells khakis like this besides ? Button-through pockets seem to be the standard now.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

katon said:


> Who still sells khakis like this besides ? Button-through pockets seem to be the standard now.


I have some LE ones w/ flaps. One alternative are the classic hunting pants from Filson. I don't mean the Filson Lodge Collection Made in HK Khakis, (which may or may not, I dont know) but the Cover Cloth or Single Tin Cloth Made in USA pants. Ruggedly finished (up to and including suspender buttons on the outside) but a great cut (slim and tapered) casual pant.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

AP -- Do you mean any of these Filson pants?

=


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I have two pair of Orvis (made in USA) with flaps on the pockets. Unlike the ad pictured here, however, the flap is angled toward the button rather than being horizontal.


----------



## momainetx (Jan 2, 2008)

*Cramerton?*

Anybody know about/remember the Cramerton brand of khaki? They were supposed to be the authentic versions of the military style; popular in Midwest colleges in the early 1960s. If you were really into it, you would have them starched.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> AP -- Do you mean any of these Filson pants?
> 
> =


Right, though I see the shelter (not cover) cloth are made in HK now. The sahara cloth look interesting too.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

Was I seeing things or did most of those early pants have slant pockets? I thought you had to have on seam ft pockets to be official.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

tinytim said:


> Was I seeing things or did most of those early pants have slant pockets? I thought you had to have on seam ft pockets to be official.


I am not sure what you mean by official. The Buzz Rickson khakis which are supposed to be obsessive repros have slant pockets on their WWII era models (although the 1961 model is on-seam).

FWIW, J.Press khakis pockets are not on-seam. (Brooks too, I think).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't know what I'd do without you and your great posts to help me with my sense of "young trad" style. Thanks again, AP.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> I am not sure what you mean by official. The Buzz Rickson khakis which are supposed to be obsessive repros have slant pockets on their WWII era models (although the 1961 model is on-seam).
> 
> FWIW, J.Press khakis pockets are not on-seam. (Brooks too, I think).


Go back and read some older post on Khakis. Many a member here has said if they have slant pockets then they're not TRAD.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

tinytim said:


> Go back and read some older post on Khakis. Many a member here has said if they have slant pockets then they're not TRAD.


Never heard that before. Personally, I have no preference.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah, I've never understood that. I mean, Bill's Khakis are onseam pocketed (and thus the military pattern they're based on were) but I don't see how that precludes something from being trad, TNSIL, Ivy League or whatever you wish to call it.


----------



## BeauJest (May 19, 2007)

I remember those backstraps on my father's pants...I thought they were very sharp. As the Penn State ad pictured above said, "they won't be around very long..."

Does anyone know of a maker that still incorporates them?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

BeauJest said:


> I remember those backstraps on my father's pants...I thought they were very sharp. As the Penn State ad pictured above said, "they won't be around very long..."
> 
> Does anyone know of a maker that still incorporates them?


https://www.baracuta-g9.com/v2/shop/view_product.php?id=646

Baracuta has some on sale AND priced in pounds. No better time to buy.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

^How is the fit on those--anyone know? I'm mighty tempted to grab a pair. EDIT: Check that. Shipping to the US is £25!

I'm pretty sure that Engineered Garments uses backstraps on some of their trousers.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Great old advertisements, Alden.

Funny how with memories of military service (in tropical chinos) fresh in the minds of the American public the marketing machine was able to make the link in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, you couldn't market anything the US Army wears for use by civilians, except as hunting gear or work clothing.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Great old advertisements, Alden.
> 
> Funny how with memories of military service (in tropical chinos) fresh in the minds of the American public the marketing machine was able to make the link in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, you couldn't market anything the US Army wears for use by civilians, except as hunting gear or work clothing.


Thanks. Do they even have army surplus stores anymore?


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> Thanks. Do they even have army surplus stores anymore?


Sure do! Military surplus is still big with the streetwear crowd.


----------



## Texan (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for posting, Alden.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I dunno, they don't seem like they have the authentic stuff so much anymore.



katon said:


> Sure do! Military surplus is still big with the streetwear crowd.


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

AldenPyle said:


> Thanks. Do they even have army surplus stores anymore?


They're popular in the southeast. And very authentic. I bought a AKM bayonet in one for $30 and left it in my briefcase. A week later (I forgot I had the bayonet) I tried to get through airport security with the bayonet in the briefcase. It's a long story but I'm happy one one of the security guys was ex army and very understanding.

Dr Damage- I would agree with your observation years ago but every designer and his mother is on the army bandwagon. RL Polo GI khakis. Polo jungle fatigue jackets Vietnam era. Bastian and Randolph sunglasses. It's huge marketing. So much so the Army tried to cut a deal with Sears to sell unit insignia. I hear some brass at DoA went ballistic when they found out and it has been stopped. But the marketing machine for the Army look is bigger and more vulgar than ever.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

BeauJest said:


> I remember those backstraps on my father's pants...I thought they were very sharp. As the Penn State ad pictured above said, "they won't be around very long..."
> 
> Does anyone know of a maker that still incorporates them?


I don't know of anyone who still makes trousers with a back strap, but I do remember wearing them myself.

In 1956 and 1957 I attended Glendale Junior College before I went to UCLA. I think we now call two year colleges City Colleges, at least out west.

At that time many of us wore 'polished cottons' in a khaki color with belt in the back. I don't think I have seen anything called polished cotton since. It compared to heavier weight khaki such as the Army issued about like pinpoint or broadcloth compares to beefy oxford. At that time, Clark's Desert Boots were popular footwear.

I also had some odd wool trousers with a back strap. I never saw suit pants with one. Before they died out in the early 60's clothing makers were putting them in silly places like the back of a driving cap or the back of a wind breaker type jacket. We joked that next they would be putting a belt in back on the back of belts, but happily that never happened to my knowledge.

As I stagger down memory lane here I should remind you that I only know what was taking place in a small part of the country ie: So Cal. We were a much less mobile society and did not have the wide and rapid exchange of information that we pretty much take for granted today.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

AlanC said:


> ^How is the fit on those--anyone know? I'm mighty tempted to grab a pair. EDIT: Check that. Shipping to the US is £25!
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Engineered Garments uses backstraps on some of their trousers.


Some vendors in the U.K. have modest shipping charges and some are very high. Of course, Thurston has the best as don't charge anything for shipping.

I had never heard of Engineered Garments before and just checked their website. From what I saw, the garments must be engineered to not fit and to not look very attractive.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a picture from Yale Daily News, 1948. Still no mention of backstraps, cuffs, taper etc.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> In 1954 and 1955, a new "Ivy League" version appears (from where I dont know.


Only a "Yale Man" would carry a ball peen hammer to his Macro Econ lecture!!


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Only a "Yale Man" would carry a ball peen hammer to his Macro Econ lecture!!


Actually, that is from Cornell.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> Actually, that is from Cornell.


A Cornell and a Yalie exit the restroom.

The Yale man notices his peer failed to wash his hands.

"At Yale, a gentleman is taught to wash his hands after using the lav," he said.

"At Cornell, we are taught not to pee on our hands!!" he replied.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

^ Actually, barring a Yalie style mishap, one's member is likely to be much cleaner than anything else a guy touches in the men's room.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

A WWII veteran/University of Iowa student in 1947








Dennis Hopper wearing chinos w/backstrap.


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

^Note the prominent creases. This is how it's done.

Scott


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

^ Also: Creamy socks with loafers (with said creased khakis)


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> A WWII veteran/University of Iowa student in 1947





Naval Gent said:


> ^Note the prominent creases. This is how it's done.
> 
> Scott


One things for sure. This guy did not just throw his chinos in the dryer.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Creases are okay. I cannot stand starch though -- that's going too far. (And I hate the stuff in general.)


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

One thing is that the authentic Ivy League style chino of the mid-1950's wasn't a super slim fit. At least not compared to the low-rise "Take Ivy" style of the mid-1960's. Notice the cut on Dennis Hopper's buckle backs. 








Another example
















Bill Thomas should taper his M2's like this.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

These look great. I notice two things:

-- These chinos, all featured in warm weather shots, are of a much lighter weight fabric than (say) the Bills original twill. I think this helps account for the relaxed, effortless quality they put across so nicely.

-- Where are the OCBDs? I think chinos look best with other shirts such as the darker polos as in these pics, unless the OCBD is white (JFK) and provides a sharp contrast to the usual khaki color. I've grown frustrated with wearing non-white OCBDs with khakis, the tone being too similar. I don't think khakis look so swell when paired with non-white OCBDs.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> These look great. I notice two things:
> 
> -- Where are the OCBDs? I think chinos look best with other shirts such as the darker polos as in these pics, unless the OCBD is white (JFK) and provides a sharp contrast to the usual khaki color. I've grown frustrated with wearing non-white OCBDs with khakis, the tone being too similar. I don't think khakis look so swell when paired with non-white OCBDs.


I would say that the blue OCBD and khakis got pretty effed out during the Dotcom bubble. Think pink!


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I do have a pink BB OCBD that is very nice indeed. The sleeves of my white BB OCBD's for some reason have out-shrunk my other colors, although they've never seen a dryer -- further limiting my options of shirts to wear with khakis. 

It's raining relentlessly here anyway.....


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

I like the pink OCBD as well. The university stripe option is nice as well. 

My favorite color is blue so I do sport the blue OCBD and khakis from time to time. Some details can help avoid the late 90s Dockers business casual look. British khaki for the trousers. Surcingle belt. Loafers or bucks.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

The university stripes don't offer much contrast tonally with the standard khaki color. White looks fabulous, though. Although then you have to deal with the very high contrast with many jackets (like a navy blazer). Not always desired in less dressy situations. My girlfriend (a fan of my trad attempts) positively hates a blue OCBD with khakis, and I agree with her, though I'm with you: Blue OCBDs rock.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

*Ivy Style Chino UCLA 1957*

Here's a picture of the Ivy style chino on a UCLA art major in 1957.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> A WWII veteran/University of Iowa student in 1947


I've looked at this picture several times in the past, but this is the first time I noticed what must be 3" cuffs!


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Those are some great looking khakis. I really like that cut.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I wonder if things got slimmer because
(A) Ivy students who buy from top clothiers are going to get something more fitted than the US government can supply. I remember being at an army surplus store when I was in high school, and really frustrating the salesman. I was very thin, and the trousers seemed really baggy. He finally said something like, "they're not going to fit like a pair of levis".

(B) Ivy Leaguers, like everybody else, were tribal. Most 20 year olds are lean, and most 40 year olds are heavier. Going to more fitted clothes would have set them apart as authentic. In fact, maybe legacies didn't really want to look like the middle class GIs who were turning up. 

As the leaner lines caught on in broader society (as they are doing again now), it quickly became apparent that they didn't suit everybody. IMO, the 1959 to 64 trad look that I prefer is best worn by lean people.

Any thoughts? Am I wrong?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> These are slimmer slacks with the notable feature of the belted back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice to see in that ad that there was still order in the world back then and that the new black and grey varieties were announced as "chino slacks" NOT "khakis" :icon_smile_wink: 
When and why, do you know, did it become common to call all colours "khakis" ? 
I still gasp everytime I see that written, most recently in the navy trousers thread when someone wrote "navy khakis"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> Here's a picture of the Ivy style chino on a UCLA art major in 1957.


Wow! I'm more interested in the painting! Who's the artist? What's the work? Anyone know?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> I wonder if things got slimmer because
> (A) Ivy students who buy from top clothiers are going to get something more fitted than the US government can supply. I remember being at an army surplus store when I was in high school, and really frustrating the salesman. I was very thin, and the trousers seemed really baggy. He finally said something like, "they're not going to fit like a pair of levis".
> 
> (B) Ivy Leaguers, like everybody else, were tribal. Most 20 year olds are lean, and most 40 year olds are heavier. Going to more fitted clothes would have set them apart as authentic. In fact, maybe legacies didn't really want to look like the middle class GIs who were turning up.
> ...


Interesting question. I think the simple answer is just fashion. East coast college styles before 1925 or so were very slim but became bulky during the 1930's. There was just a general shift toward slimmer looks in the late 40s into the 1960's and then back to bulkier styles then back again and so on. During the late 1950's there was a European designer look that featured very slim-line no-cuff pants. That never really caught on in the States (at least according to the Esquire Encyclopedia) but it did have a big influence on the cut of youth clothing in the early 1960's.

I guess its natural to think that slimmer cuts are more flattering to young thin people. But if you had worn those Take Ivy styles on campus when I was in college in the mid-80's, people would have thought it looked pretty twinkie-ish. You might ask why the LLBean preppie look in the 1970's was so bulky relative to other clothes of the time.

As far as the issue of social class goes, I would say that it is unlikely that fashion changes are completely orthogonal to the dynamics of social hierarchy. But these influences are likely to be too subtle to tease out without more work than could possibly be worth it. In fact, I guess the class structure of Ivy League colleges in the fifties is more complicated than we might think. I also suppose that the impact of GI Bill students on elite colleges wasn't that visible after 1950 or so, when the initial flood of WWII vets subsided.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Nice to see in that ad that there was still order in the world back then and that the new black and grey varieties were announced as "chino slacks" NOT "khakis" :icon_smile_wink:
> When and why, do you know, did it become common to call all colours "khakis" ?
> I still gasp everytime I see that written, most recently in the navy trousers thread when someone wrote "navy khakis"


There's a thread on this forum that goes into this topic if you want to look. Basically, US Army WWI uniforms were khaki colored and came to be referred as khakis, which became a generic term for Army uniforms. Uniforms in WWII may have been more likely to be olive drab, but were still called khakis. In some regions, (maybe the South?) khakis became a term for military inspired twill pants in whatever color.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Khaki wearing American college students seeing the world were a fixture on the international travel scene. Implausibly, Life magazine photographed two such students visiting Shanghai in May 1949. 








Visiting a noted cultural institution








Trying local folk dances


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Meeting interesting foreign people. (Strangely, all named Suzie). Nice wingtips!








Oh Dear. {Just a reminder kids, don't put crazy pictures on Facebook. They might be on the net 60 years later}








Walk of Shame. Remember to tuck in your shirt.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. It would be great to see the text of the article that accompanied those pics! :thumbs-up:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Wonderful photos (as usual) AP. Especially that last set.

It's a wonder that GI pants were so baggy looking in WW2, when pleats were banned to save material (or so I have always understood). I note that one of the ads speaks of "officers cut" - baggier? The higher rankers seem to have the baggiest cut.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I agree with AP about compromising pictures, but in their defence you probably can't recognise them now or they don't even care by this point!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Those gents don't have prospective employers looking them up on Facebook: but you 20 somethings do. That's very good advice.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Unless you count the picture where I'm holding up a glass of beer, not doing keg stands or anything else asinine, I have nothing to worry about. I wasn't disagreeing with his advice, in fact I've always followed that rule.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I know you weren't: I was speaking to the less circumspect :cool2:.


----------

