# Is a belt really necessary?



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Just a simple question - assuming your pants fit perfectly anyway, is there really any point wearing a belt (or braces), or are they just for show, and is it acceptable to wear a suit without either?

Also, is it acceptable to leave the last button (closest to your wrist) on your jacket unbuttoned for anything remotely formal?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

It looks weird and people will tell you so.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

I think it looks like something is missing and odd, not wearing a belt or braces.


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

a!!!!1 said:


> is it acceptable to wear a suit without either?


Side adjusters are perfectly acceptable in lieu of a belt or braces.



a!!!!1 said:


> Also, is it acceptable to leave the last button (closest to your wrist) on your jacket unbuttoned for anything remotely formal?


When I see somebody unbuttoned I will sidle up along side and say, "Hey Buddy, you missed a button there" and before he can respond I add,"Better check your fly too....."


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

a!!!!1 said:


> Just a simple question - assuming your pants fit perfectly anyway, is there really any point wearing a belt (or braces)


 If your pants fit perfectly, they *require* a belt or braces. If they stay up on their own, they don't fit right. Trousers are not jeans.

(We'll ignore side tabs and other self-contained mechanisms for keeping pants up, as they mostly amount to something like a belt.)


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

A belt provides a nice visual break between trousers and shirt.

To me, an open cuff button either says "I'm too careless to button properly." or "Hey, look at me... working buttons!!" neither of which I find to be an attractive statement.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Tomasso said:


> When I see somebody unbuttoned I will sidle up along side and say, "Hey Buddy, you missed a button there" and before he can respond I add,"Better check your fly too....."


We've just got a new guy in from New York who does that. He's only been here two days, and already no one likes him. He insists on wearing this rather expensive looking *black* pinstripe DB suit, with one of the working cuff-buttons undone. Everyone else is wearing t-shirts, polos, jeans, shorts, sneakers, sandals and flip-flops. Thinks he owns the place.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

amplifiedheat said:


> If your pants fit perfectly, they *require* a belt or braces. If they stay up on their own, they don't fit right.


That is the first correct answer!


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Just a simple question - assuming your pants fit perfectly anyway, is there really any point wearing a belt (or braces), or are they just for show, and is it acceptable to wear a suit without either?


Agree with comments that all pants need a belt or braces if they fit perfectly, if they don't need anything they will be just a bit too tight. If you are not going to take your jacket off and show off your braces then perhaps a belt is best which does get seen.

If you are to remove your jacket then suggest braces are a must so thet can be on view for everyone to see. No point in wearing braces then hiding them under a jacket.

Comfort and Style come together so wear for comfort and show off with style.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Dressing ourselves is a process...a process that should be completed, if it is to be done right. Failure to secure ones trousers with a belt or Braces, renders the process incomplete. LOL, It leaves you looking like someone out for a walk down "skidrow"...certainly not a desirable effect!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

You need to wear a belt. The outfit looks incomplete otherwise. 

I have a business associate who regularly doesn't wear a belt. He says he hasn't travelled with one since the government practically started making you undress before passing through airport security. Though he travels a great deal, that's not a good excuse...he still looks unkempt. Thankfully our mutual client is "business casual" and most of the folks we encounter dress poorly anyway, so he can get away with it!


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

amplifiedheat said:


> If your pants fit perfectly, they *require* a belt or braces. If they stay up on their own, they don't fit right. Trousers are not jeans.
> 
> (We'll ignore side tabs and other self-contained mechanisms for keeping pants up, as they mostly amount to something like a belt.)


I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that pants that fit perfectly ought to be so loose that without the aide of a belt or braces that they would fall down?


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that pants that fit perfectly ought to be so loose that without the aide of a belt or braces that they would fall down?


 They should not be so tight as to stay up unaided.
If they were to be, they would be pulled tight about the body, rather than being allowed to drape naturally.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> They should not be so tight as to stay up unaided.
> If they were to be, they would be pulled tight about the body, rather than being allowed to drape naturally.


Well, while I might be able to get behind this while wearing braces, the problem I find is that if they are that loose and you tighten them to you with a belt, the waistline bunches up and looks unsightly. While I wouldn't want the entire garment to fit tightly, the waistband I certainly want to be secure enough to hold the pants in place. Is it the rest of the pants that you're referring to? I can't see how a securely fitting waistband would drape any differently than if you secured the waistband to you by way of a belt.

And for the record, I do wear a belt.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> Well, while I might be able to get behind this while wearing braces, the problem I find is that if they are that loose and you tighten them to you with a belt, the waistline bunches up and looks unsightly. While I wouldn't want the entire garment to fit tightly, the waistband I certainly want to be secure enough to hold the pants in place. Is it the rest of the pants that you're referring to? I can't see how a securely fitting waistband would drape any differently than if you secured the waistband to you by way of a belt.
> 
> And for the record, I do wear a belt.


Everything is a matter of degrees. It is (of course) an exaggeration to say that if a pair of trousers were not so tight as to stay up unaided, that they would bunch up if worn with a belt. If they are bunching up, they are too loose. If they stay up on their own, they are too tight. The happy medium is the correct fit.

I imagine that it would certainly be possible to cut a pair of dress slacks in such a manner that the pants themselves were loose enough to drape properly, but the waistband was tight enough to hold them up, however I believe this would be a somewhat odd look, with the pants suddenly drawing in at the waistband.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> Everything is a matter of degrees. It is (of course) an exaggeration to say that if a pair of trousers were not so tight as to stay up unaided, that they would bunch up if worn with a belt. If they are bunching up, they are too loose. If they stay up on their own, they are too tight. The happy medium is the correct fit.
> 
> I imagine that it would certainly be possible to cut a pair of dress slacks in such a manner that the pants themselves were loose enough to drape properly, but the waistband was tight enough to hold them up, however I believe this would be a somewhat odd look, with the pants suddenly drawing in at the waistband.


I'll be perfectly honest and upfront; I don't agree. But, I like being able to discuss it constructively.

In this vein of thinking, where do side tabs fit in?


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

For MTM or bespoke suit trousers, I'll go with daks tops with side or rear adjusters. For OTR suit pants and odd trousers, a belt. I'll leave braces to circus clowns and French waiters.

AD


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

For men... Pants are designed to be worn with a belt or braces. In the military, there are actually regulations which prohibit the wearing of pants (with beltloops) without a belt, because it just doesn't look right.

For women, they don't have the same restriction, but their pants are cut different (they have hips!!).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

There's a rich load of *manure *in this thread! Of course men's pants can be cut to be worn without any form of additional suspension. They do have to be cut to sit on the waist, rather than the lower rise that is now standard. An entire company (sansabelt) was started around manufacturing such pants. Many high-end retailers, such as Paul Stuart and (at times) Polo, offer odd trousers with side tabs that are clearly not intended to be worn with suspenders.

Look at the pants on this page: https://www.paulstuart.com/category...01&subProdCatId=0&MainCatId=14&headermenuid=1 Does anyone serious think that the peach-colored cotton-linen blend slacks are intended to be worn with _braces_?

Some militaries may have rules against trousers without belts, but the British army used to issue fatigue trousers with straps rather than belts: https://www.silvermans.co.uk/Produc...ER+TROUSERS+BRITISH/ItemId/10266/Default.aspx

Whether you think the beltless look is a good one is a matter of personal taste. It is not one of propriety.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Ah, Sansabelt... an aberration of the early 60s that in my opinion would have best been forgotten!

If this is a look you like, by all means go ahead and wear it!








I find this "modern" version of Sansabelt slacks to be not at all a flattering drape, while the original 60s version resembled (all too unfortunately) women's slacks.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Hanso and CuffDaddy have logic on their side. If side adjusters can be used to make trousers sit, and fit, properly without added support, then logically it must be possible to have trousers exactly like that--but without the adjusters because the waistband is already perfect in size.

Whether you like the resulting look is another question, but it's bound to be at least as good as the look you'd get from side-adjusters.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> I imagine that it would certainly be possible to cut a pair of dress slacks in such a manner that the pants themselves were loose enough to drape properly, but the waistband was tight enough to hold them up, however I believe this would be a somewhat odd look, with the pants suddenly drawing in at the waistband.


I don't understand this at all. However tight and "drawn in" they must be with the belt, they can be that tight on their own. If there's much difference, then all you've done is guarantee bunching.

*All* of my custom-made suit pants stay up on their own. I wear belts with them 99% of the time because I prefer the look, but pants that are cut to sit at the waist don't require much tightness to stay up on their own.

As for pants suddenly "drawing in" at the waistband - that is what pleats do. And what the little darts on unpleated pants do. Pants that do *not* "draw in" at the waist would be the abberation.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Checkerboard, would putting a belt on those trousers (which are worn too low and too long) really help matters? The lack of a belt just isn't the issue, is it?

Understand, I'm not arguing for the look. I'm pointing out that it has long historical precedent, and is not in any meaningful sense "wrong." It's not a rule, it's not a convention, it's merely a preference. And everyone is entitled to their own preferences. But not to having them recognized as rules that must not be broken.

IIRC, Gianni Agnelli, one of the contenders for the title of best dressed man in (modern) history was prone to wearing suit trousers without belts or suspenders. Here's a photo of him that appears to reflect it. I can't rule out the possibility that he is wearing suspenders far to the side, but it seems unlikely.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Checkerboard, would putting a belt on those trousers (which are worn too low and too long) really help matters? The lack of a belt just isn't the issue, is it?
> 
> Understand, I'm not arguing for the look. I'm pointing out that it has long historical precedent, and is not in any meaningful sense "wrong." It's not a rule, it's not a convention, it's merely a preference. And everyone is entitled to their own preferences. But not to having them recognized as rules that must not be broken.
> 
> IIRC, Gianni Agnelli, one of the contenders for the title of best dressed man in (modern) history was prone to wearing suit trousers without belts or suspenders. Here's a photo of him that appears to reflect it. I can't rule out the possibility that he is wearing suspenders far to the side, but it seems unlikely.


Building on this, while I do wear a belt, I think its partly out of fear of not "following the rules". Lets take the suspender issue for example. We all know that a jacket should remained buttoned while standing (generally), in which case, you can't see the belt. When the coat is unbuttoned, either during sitting or for those who like the look, if one is wearing braces (and assuming the braces stayed hidden), wouldn't it just look like you weren't wearing a belt? That would seem to mean that if you wear braces, in order to keep from looking "wrong", you should flash your braces from time to time to show "look here, I do have something holding my pants up!"

Does this make any sense, or do I need more coffee?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hanzo, it makes complete sense. If an unadorned/unpunctuated waist were so offensive, then suspenders would hardly be an acceptable option - or they would be designed to attach over the fly to make them more evident.

Here's a picture of Miles Davis. At the time this was taken, he was also regarded as one of the world's most stylish men, and was in many ways responsible for the minimalist style of dressing that came to dominate the pre-hippie-60's, and that is so in-vogue today.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Without a belt, to what object will you attach your cell phone? You must have a belt.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

I carry keys and a cell phone in my pants pockets. My pants would almost certainly fall down from the weight while walking and or moving if I didn't wear a belt.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

MikeDT said:


> We've just got a new guy in from New York who does that. He's only been here two days, and already no one likes him. He insists on wearing this rather expensive looking *black* pinstripe DB suit, with one of the working cuff-buttons undone. Everyone else is wearing t-shirts, polos, jeans, shorts, sneakers, sandals and flip-flops. Thinks he owns the place.


Aren't you and your coworkers just _assuming_ that because of how he is dressed? Just tell him to tone it down a little.



alphadelta said:


> For MTM or bespoke suit trousers, I'll go with daks tops with side or rear adjusters. For OTR suit pants and odd trousers, a belt. I'll leave braces to circus clowns and French waiters.
> 
> AD


I guess the men who wear them on this forum are circus clowns and French waiters? 



Bernie Zack said:


> Without a belt, to what object will you attach your cell phone? You must have a belt.


 You're joking, right?


----------



## Lonnekerus (Nov 12, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> Also, is it acceptable to leave the last button (closest to your wrist) on your jacket unbuttoned for anything remotely formal?


It is, if you want to give people the impression that you're trying to show off your surgeon buttons.


----------



## Lonnekerus (Nov 12, 2009)

Tomasso said:


> You're joking, right?


He is indeed.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

A belt may become unnecessary as part of the normal ageing process--or at least no longer be noticeable--as we develop what we in the trade refer to as "Dunlap's Disease." That's when "your belly done lapped over your belt buckle..."


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

a!!!!1 said:


> Just a simple question - assuming your pants fit perfectly anyway, is there really any point wearing a belt (or braces)...?


That's a pretty big assumption. Unless you're wearing custom made pants or your body is exactly what the manufacturer had in mind in designing your pants, you may need to adjust things with a belt. If you're buying RTW, you get the choice of a 36 or a 38. There's rarely a 37 or 36 1/2.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

The perfect daks tops look:

AD


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Lonnekerus said:


> He is indeed.


I should have used a retracting key chain or a flashlight holder as a more appropriate example. What man wouldn't have these essentials on their belt!


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> *All* of my custom-made suit pants stay up on their own. I wear belts with them 99% of the time because I prefer the look, but pants that are cut to sit at the waist don't require much tightness to stay up on their own.


 We must have different waists.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Thanks for the replies, it seems unanimous that either a belt or braces should be worn. So if not wearing anything looks wrong, does not wearing a belt but wearing braces look wrong if you have your jacket on? It's effectively the same look as not wearing either. When I wear a suit I rarely take my jacket off anymore.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

That's one way to think about it. Another way, however, is that wearing neither belt not braces only looks wrong if you take your jacket off. Keep your jacket on, and people think you're wearing braces!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> Thanks for the replies, it seems unanimous that either a belt or braces should be worn.


You evidently quit reading too early.


----------



## bp_bear (May 11, 2010)

I hate to go against the consensus which appears to have formed on this subject; however I must confess that I never wear a belt with my suit trousers. 

My best friend once told me about a fellow Cadet at Sandhurst, who showed up to interview with one of the regiments he was considering joining (I cannot recall which regiment precisely). Upon arrival the Cadet was met by a senior officer who noticed that the Cadet was wearing a belt with his suit trousers. At this, the Cadet was ordered to remove the belt, whereupon it was taken to a near-by microwave (as the story goes, although there may have been some other heat source involved) and was horribly mangled. The belt was subsequently returned to the Cadet who was ordered to wear the now distorted mass about his waist for the remainder of the weekend. For this reason, as well as that I don't really like the look of a belt with suit trousers, I never wear a belt with my suit. 

It may well be that this bias against belts with suits is one of the numerous eccentricities of the British Army. It may even be peculiar to this particular regiment. It is however a rule that my mate, the inspiration for my sartorial rebirth, swears by and one that I have adopted in something of an homage to him.

As for braces, I wear them occasionally but find that adjusting the sides of the trousers is more than adequate.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not sure what you're going against, since it was already stated by a few members that side tabs and braces are also acceptable.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

> My best friend once told me about a fellow Cadet at Sandhurst, who showed up to interview with one of the regiments he was considering joining (I cannot recall which regiment precisely). Upon arrival the Cadet was met by a senior officer who noticed that the Cadet was wearing a belt with his suit trousers. At this, the Cadet was ordered to remove the belt, whereupon it was taken to a near-by microwave (as the story goes, although there may have been some other heat source involved) and was horribly mangled. The belt was subsequently returned to the Cadet who was ordered to wear the now distorted mass about his waist for the remainder of the weekend.


This is not quite so bad as the reported inspections in Scottish regiments, to verify everyone's being attired as a "true Scotsman." But it still reads like a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> Building on this, while I do wear a belt, I think its partly out of fear of not "following the rules". Lets take the suspender issue for example. We all know that a jacket should remained buttoned while standing (generally), in which case, you can't see the belt. When the coat is unbuttoned, either during sitting or for those who like the look, if one is wearing braces (and assuming the braces stayed hidden), wouldn't it just look like you weren't wearing a belt? That would seem to mean that if you wear braces, in order to keep from looking "wrong", you should flash your braces from time to time to show "look here, I do have something holding my pants up!"
> 
> Does this make any sense, or do I need more coffee?


Why keep you braces hidden? Don't just flash them from time to time, let them out for some fresh air and let the world see them!!! Taking your jacket off gets rid of all this "is he wearing braces or not", just go for it and be proud to wear braces with style.

When sitting down at meeting or table (jackets off) no one can see is you are wearing a belt or not anyway, at least with braces they can be seen and other can see you have a bit of style in you dress code. I find most people like the look of braces on a guy, even if they would not wear them themself so I say wear them and share them...


----------



## bp_bear (May 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm not sure what you're going against, since it was already stated by a few members that side tabs and braces are also acceptable.


Perhaps, "majority opinion" would have been more accurate than "consensus".


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Edinburgh Lad said:


> Why keep you braces hidden? Don't just flash them from time to time, let them out for some fresh air and let the world see them!!! Taking your jacket off gets rid of all this "is he wearing braces or not", just go for it and be proud to wear braces with style..


I was under the impression (and I'm sure others more experience can back me up on this) that despite the sartorial standard set by one aging talk show host, braces should never be seen since they are basically a form of undergarment. That being said, I only wear braces on pants without belt loops (which limits me to either my tuxedo or mess dress). To my eyes, lack of a belt just sticks out when I see it. Its not that it looks bad, but its almost as though society has said that you will wear a belt, and not wearing one somehow just doesn't look right. Like Kennedy and the Paddock cut that is currently being discussed on another thread, I always thought that Kennedy buttoning the bottom button seemed odd. Never was I aware that the specific cut allowed for that.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

helo-flyer said:


> I was under the impression (and I'm sure others more experience can back me up on this) that despite the sartorial standard set by one aging talk show host, braces should never be seen since they are basically a form of undergarment.


And not too long ago in our past, shirts were also considered to be undergarments, with only collars and cuffs being appropriate to be seen in public. Thus the original reason for working sleeve buttons--no self respecting man would be caught dead in public with his jacket off.

Times change as do the styles of the time. If it is now acceptable to remove one's jacket in public and show one's shirt (gasp), then it seems reasonable that showing a belt OR braces would be as acceptable. Funny how belts are to be seen, yet braces are considered "underwear." Braces are only underwear when worn under the coat. They are outerwear at any other time, just as a belt would be.

As to the OP, wear a belt if you wish, or braces, or no pant support system at all. If you are commfortable and confident in what you wear, and the cothing fits you, you will look GOOD!

As for throwing a belt in a microwave, it must have been one of those belts with a leather or plastic buckle (not likely at all!) as putting metal in a microwave would have had a VERY different outcome than the story above suggests. Another heat source? Like an oven that was pre-heated? Or perhaps the old academy open fire? Perhaps a fireplace? Sorry. Having spent enough time in the military I know how these stories get mangled over time--probably more-so than the belt.


----------



## bp_bear (May 11, 2010)

Top Guns said:


> As for throwing a belt in a microwave, it must have been one of those belts with a leather or plastic buckle (not likely at all!) as putting metal in a microwave would have had a VERY different outcome than the story above suggests. Another heat source? Like an oven that was pre-heated? Or perhaps the old academy open fire? Perhaps a fireplace? Sorry. Having spent enough time in the military I know how these stories get mangled over time--probably more-so than the belt.


I think you underestimate the ability of a bunch of army officers to find a heat source. I've witnessed (and been party to) some much greater displays of pyromania than the burning of a belt during my time in the mess! I did find the microwave part of the story somewhat suspect though.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

helo-flyer said:


> I was under the impression (and I'm sure others more experience can back me up on this) that despite the sartorial standard set by one aging talk show host, braces should never be seen since they are basically a form of undergarment.


I don't think I've ever actually known anyone who thought of suspenders (I'll use good old American terminology if you don't mind :icon_smile_big in this manner. In fact, I first heard about it in this forum and I don't think it's a widely held belief. Most guys like to show off their suspenders and buy them in fancy colors and patterns just for this purpose.

Cruiser


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think I've ever actually known anyone who thought of suspenders (I'll use good old American terminology if you don't mind :icon_smile_big in this manner. In fact, I first heard about it in this forum and I don't think it's a widely held belief. Most guys like to show off their suspenders and buy them in fancy colors and patterns just for this purpose.
> 
> Cruiser


You bring up a good point. Being 25 and in a world that increasingly turns more and more casual, I take many of my sartorial cues from what I learn on this board. Specifically I remember a discussion where it seemed that the general consensus was that suspenders should not be seen.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

According to current style books and floor staff at high end men's stores, you can go sans belt/suspenders IF:
1. Its a "modern" or "fashion" suit with pants cut for it.
2. The pants close in the front with an "extended tab."
3. Your feeling adventurous.
4. You have a body shape that suits it. (usually quite thin or well muscled)

I'd suggest against it if your interviewing, the father of the bride at a wedding, in court, or other situations where you are more interested in looking steady, dependable, traditional, etc. 
In other words its a strong sartorial flourish that makes a statement (as can be seen from the strong opinions on both sides of the issue). Just decide if its a statement you want to make, and if you want it risk it drawing attention from something else your trying to convey.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

bp_bear said:


> I think you underestimate the ability of a bunch of army officers to find a heat source. I've witnessed (and been party to) some much greater displays of pyromania than the burning of a belt during my time in the mess! I did find the microwave part of the story somewhat suspect though.


Actually, I don't underestimate--I am a 23 year Army Veteram myself. However, given the circumstances as described, one would expect that the microwave in question would not have been the cadet's and therefore one would also assume that once the metal started arcing and causing much aggravation to said microwave, its owner (or whomever was fiscally responsible) would have had an immediate negative reaction to continuing the microwave destruction process--which, given the circumsatnces, would be far more likely than destroying the belt.

Have I seen Soldiers do some incredibly stupid things? Sure I have. And a situation of cooking a belt with a metal buckle in a microwave would normally be in a more social setting, and involve drunken tomfoolery, not as a "corrective" measure to teach some new prospect that he shouldn't have worn a belt.

Also, not really knowing, but I would expect using an oven would be exceptionally unlikely, as would being able to access an open fire and then retrieving the offending belt and making the poor young fellow wear it.

In other words (and far fewer), I don't doubt the story was told, nor do I doubt the story was believed--I merely doubt its accuracy. My experience is that stories of this nature start out as something less obnoxious and then grow into something far more grand and entertaining to tell.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think I've ever actually known anyone who thought of suspenders (I'll use good old American terminology if you don't mind :icon_smile_big in this manner. In fact, I first heard about it in this forum and I don't think it's a widely held belief. Most guys like to show off their suspenders and buy them in fancy colors and patterns just for this purpose.
> 
> Cruiser


Braces were made long time ago inujust plain dull colors to be kept out of sight but hey we are in the modern age now and braces are made in lots of colors and styles so why hide them, get out there and show them off. If belts can be worn all the time in full show why can't braces? Most belts are just plain black or brown leather...very boring but braces are a style symbol and show who the real guys are... you can't say a guy in a nice pair of braces does not cut a dash at any meeting, event or just out and about. Bet you can't say the same about a guy in a boring belt!!


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Thanks for the replies, it seems unanimous that either a belt or braces should be worn. So if not wearing anything looks wrong, does not wearing a belt but wearing braces look wrong if you have your jacket on? It's effectively the same look as not wearing either. When I wear a suit I rarely take my jacket off anymore.


a!!!!1,

Can you clarify your question then, Are you asking "Is it OK to not wear a belt on trousers that have belt loops?" Is that what you are trying to ask?


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> a!!!!1,
> 
> Can you clarify your question then, Are you asking "Is it OK to not wear a belt on trousers that have belt loops?" Is that what you are trying to ask?


Yeah, I guess I have two questions: (1) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that have belt loops? and (2) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that don't have belt loops? 
And I was pointing out the fact that if you have your jacket on, no one can tell whether you're wearing them anyway, right?


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Yeah, I guess I have two questions: (1) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that have belt loops? and (2) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that don't have belt loops?
> And I was pointing out the fact that if you have your jacket on, no one can tell whether you're wearing them anyway, right?


Why cause yourself all the worry...just wear braces all the time and always take your jacket off so people can see your braces. If you stick to the braces within a short time you won't want to go back to wearing a belt again. The more people see you in braces the more they just get used to it and know you are a braces guy. Maybe more will follow your style. Go for it mate.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> In fact, I first heard about it in this forum and I don't think it's a widely held belief. Most guys like to show off their suspenders and buy them in fancy colors and patterns just for this purpose.


 This is broadly true, although I have limited respect for the show-off crowd. On the other hand, I have boundless respect for the "only I know I'm wearing fluorescent green suspenders" crowd.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

a!!!!1 said:


> Just a simple question - assuming your pants fit perfectly anyway, is there really any point wearing a belt (or braces), or are they just for show, and is it acceptable to wear a suit without either?
> 
> Also, is it acceptable to leave the last button (closest to your wrist) on your jacket unbuttoned for anything remotely formal?


In an ideal world, perfectly fitting trousers should not need either a belt or braces - or even side tabs, for that matter. The operative word is "perfectly" here. Whether the trousers are equipped with belt loops or braces buttons is subtext.

As has been noted, wearing the coat will obscure whether one is wearing a belt or not. That also goes for braces. So long as the coat is not removed, the question is moot. Wearing trousers with belt loops without a belt will look strange when the coat is removed - as though the belt were forgotten. Trousers worn with braces and belt at the same time also looks strange. Braces worn on trousers with belt loops but without a belt looks somewhat less strange, but if that's going to be done, it would be better to have the belt loops removed.

As for leaving the coat sleeve button(s) nearest the wrist unbuttoned - it looks a bit foppish and ostentatious. That's precisely why I have done upon occasion:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> As for leaving the coat sleeve button(s) nearest the wrist unbuttoned - it looks a bit foppish and ostentatious. That's precisely why I have done upon occasion:icon_smile_wink:


I like that. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

I hear that with a suit, a belt doesnt need to be worn with trousers. With jeans of course they look better with a nice belt.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> A belt provides a nice visual break between trousers and shirt.


You'll have a visual break between trousers and shirt anyway, given that they're usually of contrasting colours.

A visual break between the coat and trousers of a suit is precisely the opposite of the desired effect - I would never wear a belt with a suit.


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

I think people are generally used to seeing a belt in the scenario OP describes. So no belt stands out as odd. Not sure if there is much more than that. 

Pants are not going to drop down. In fact, when a belt is necessary to hold the pant in place, not sure it is a pleasant sight at all.


----------



## allan (Sep 8, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> Yeah, I guess I have two questions: (1) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that have belt loops? and (2) is it ok to not wear a belt or braces on trousers that don't have belt loops?
> And I was pointing out the fact that if you have your jacket on, no one can tell whether you're wearing them anyway, right?


If the trousers have belt loops, they need a belt in those loops, unless you want to look like you forgot your belt.

If they don't: if they have brace buttons, wear braces; if they have side adjusters, you don't need either.

I don't see the problem...

Now you can go on to decide what style of trousers you prefer.

Sure, if you keep your jacket on and buttoned all day while you are in public, no one can tell. Are you sure you'll be doing that... in Houston in the summer? :biggrin:


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

allan said:


> If the trousers have belt loops, they need a belt in those loops, unless you want to look like you forgot your belt.
> 
> If they don't: if they have brace buttons, wear braces; if they have side adjusters, you don't need either.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that pretty much summed up everything I was asking.

What are side adjusters? All my suit pants have belt loops.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> What are side adjusters? All my suit pants have belt loops.


There are different styles. Here's a common one.


----------



## Elmusico (Mar 13, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Here's a picture of Miles Davis. At the time this was taken, he was also regarded as one of the world's most stylish men, and was in many ways responsible for the minimalist style of dressing that . . . is so in-vogue today.


Seemed acceptable for stylish jazz musician Miles Davis to forego belt, so guess this music teacher can pull his off too.

At work during week generally wear one since for school teacher to preside over classroom dressed in a suit jacket or sport coat all day is out of the question when simple button down dress shirts draw skepticism and a necktie borders on overkill.

Sunday mornings frequently do church organist gig and generally break out either a suit or combine dress slacks and sportcoat. Belt definitely gets included when going whole nine yards with: tie, watch, pocket square, etc., but when donning fewer accessories sometime skip it. Jacket covers everything up anyway.



VincentC said:


> [W]ith a suit, a belt doesnt need to be worn with trousers. With jeans of course they look better with a nice belt.


Actually I haven't worn any belt with blue jeans for years. Not sure about image of "nice belt" for jeans, as I've only seen wide width affairs embossed with gaudy designs, metal rivets, etc. My jeans all fit snugly so leaving loops empty suggests a deliberate stylistic choice not to wear one, rather than neglectful oversight.


----------



## stevelovescufflinks (Jan 9, 2010)

belts are a necessity just like Cuff-Links are key for civility


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Thanks, that pretty much summed up everything I was asking.
> 
> What are side adjusters? All my suit pants have belt loops.


click on the link to the Paul Stuart website that CuffDaddy provided in one of the earlier responses to this thread and you will see examples of side adjusters.


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

Solution: forgo pants altogether.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

amplifiedheat said:


> This is broadly true, although I have limited respect for the show-off crowd. On the other hand, I have boundless respect for the "only I know I'm wearing fluorescent green suspenders" crowd.


I think fluorescent Green is a bit too much, even I would hide them Ha Ha. But what is wrong with showing off your braces, it is not like you are a "show-off" as such but more just just comfortable to walk aroud and not hide them. They look good and give a bit of style so why should other people not see them. If you had a nice stylish top would you cover it up with a sweater all day?

Most guys like the look of someone in a good traditional stylish pair of braces and often comment how good and smart it looks. How ofter does a guy make a comment about another guys belt? So braces must have something going for them so why hide them.

What percentage of guys do we thing wear braces and what percentage show them off or keep them hidden, would be nice to know.

I reckon.. 
20% wear braces and only 5% show them off
75% wear belts and all show them off lol.
5% wear no belt or braces


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

I know this thread has been going on long enough, but I'll weigh in as being in the camp who believes that pants with belt loops just don't look right without a belt in them. As for intentionally leaving a button undone to show off surgeon's cuffs, I despise the practice.


----------



## poly.kid (May 13, 2010)

Brize said:


> You'll have a visual break between trousers and shirt anyway, given that they're usually of contrasting colours.
> 
> A visual break between the coat and trousers of a suit is precisely the opposite of the desired effect - I would never wear a belt with a suit.


I disagree. For what it's worth, I consider the wearing of a belt an essential part of projecting a neat and tidy appearance as well as for the more practical application of keeping your trousers/pants up. Furthermore, I think wearing a belt and matching shoes with a suit is a good finishing touch, particularly to a plain suit. I'm interested to know other thoughts on my opinions as being only 22 I'm sure I could well be miles out of touch on this matter!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Suits can look great either way. This wouldn't be much an issue back when trousers were cut very high, as you couldn't see the belt or lack thereof anyway.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Eschewing a belt might cause those around you to think you've been put on suicide watch and perhaps invoke sympathy.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

poly.kid said:


> I disagree. For what it's worth, I consider the wearing of a belt an essential part of projecting a neat and tidy appearance as well as for the more practical application of keeping your trousers/pants up. Furthermore, I think wearing a belt and matching shoes with a suit is a good finishing touch, particularly to a plain suit. I'm interested to know other thoughts on my opinions as being only 22 I'm sure I could well be miles out of touch on this matter!


If your suit is only fitted with belt loops and not brace buttons then go for the belt and match it to your shoes. I prefer to wear suits with no belt loops and go for the button braces. The contrast between shirt and trousers looks good without the need of a belt.

Have you ever tried wearing braces, at 22 I suspect maybe not but this could be the style that gives you that little bit of finishing touch as you say and sets you out amongst your piers. A nice pair of braces will set off a pain suit very well and the admiring looks and comments you will get when you take you jacket off will make it all worthwhile. I reckon Gordie Land is ready for you in braces.


----------



## ExecAccess (Jan 1, 2010)

Belts pull an outfit together - literally


----------



## SueST (Jul 23, 2010)

I agree a belt can be a great finishing touch to an outfit. Also a great chance to add a bit of colour or life to an otherwise dull outfit.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Edinburgh Lad said:


> If your suit is only fitted with belt loops and not brace buttons then go for the belt and match it to your shoes. I prefer to wear suits with no belt loops and go for the button braces. The contrast between shirt and trousers looks good without the need of a belt.
> 
> Have you ever tried wearing braces, at 22 I suspect maybe not but this could be the style that gives you that little bit of finishing touch as you say and sets you out amongst your piers. A nice pair of braces will set off a pain suit very well and the admiring looks and comments you will get when you take you jacket off will make it all worthwhile. I reckon Gordie Land is ready for you in braces.


Actually no, I've never tried them. I thought about it but as I already dress better than most people in my age group, I thought it might be a bit much (like I'm telling people "hey look at me, I dress better than you do"), or even silly (as I can't even recall the last time I saw a younger guy wear braces). What do you think?


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

A belt is technically an accessory (meant to be ornamental), not an item of utility. Most people, however, wear belts to help hold up their pants. This is probably due to the limited selection of readymade sizes available to the masses.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

poly.kid said:


> I disagree. For what it's worth, I consider the wearing of a belt an essential part of projecting a neat and tidy appearance


Well, that much certainly isn't true. Traditionally, a suit would never have been worn with a belt.

Having said that, times change, and I can understand why people might expect to see a belt at a man's waist - or, as is more often the case, on his hips.

The problem is that most ready-to-wear suit trousers are made with belt loops, which mandate the wearing of a belt. They also have a low rise, which makes them unsuitable for braces.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Actually no, I've never tried them. I thought about it but as I already dress better than most people in my age group, I thought it might be a bit much (like I'm telling people "hey look at me, I dress better than you do"), or even silly (as I can't even recall the last time I saw a younger guy wear braces). What do you think?


Braces in the UK are a bit of a fashion thing right now for younger guys, which is good as it breaks down this issue of only wearing them to with suits as they wear them more in a casual way. I see quite a lot of young guys wearing braces out and about.

Why not just give braces a try if you have never worn them before you may find you like them. I thought most guys would have tried wearing braces at some time, even youger guys must have borrowed a pair off their Dad now and again. Do most guys not have a pair of braces in the back of the drawer that they have bought before and maybe worn once or twice and then forgot about?

I agree wearing braces with a suit is more of a dress style thing and may come over as you say trying to dress better than others but if you are going to wear a suit anyway you are out to make a dress statement so why not wear braces with it as they do make a suit look and feel better.

Showing your braces is a personal thing I know but why not if you are going to wear braces anyway just give them a flash now and again and see what reaction you get from people. I bet most think they look great and would encourage you to take your jacket off to see them fully.

I think you should give braces a go and see how you get on with them, what do the rest of you think?


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

I think I agree with A!!!!1 on this one. Someone in their mid twenties in the U.S. really can't get away with suspenders on anything less than suit or tuxedo. If you wore them, they would be basically take over the whole outfit because thats all people would notice, and if its ever a more than once thing, you quickly become known as the guy who wears suspenders.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

helo-flyer said:


> I think I agree with A!!!!1 on this one. Someone in their mid twenties in the U.S. really can't get away with suspenders on anything less than suit or tuxedo. If you wore them, they would be basically take over the whole outfit because thats all people would notice, and if its ever a more than once thing, you quickly become known as the guy who wears suspenders.


If Robert Pattinson can wear braces why can't other young guys wear them ?

It must be a U.S. thing then as lots of young guys stores here in the UK sell braces like Top Man and River Island and you see quite a few guys out and about wearing them. I agree it can be seen as an older guy thing with suits and Tux but why should younger guys not be able to wear braces as well without becoming known as the guy who wears suspenders. A lot of boy bands are also seen wearing braces on TV which helps the image amongst the younger guys.

Who is going to keep the tradition and style of wear braces going if all the young guys stop wearing them, will they die out when all the older guys die out with them ? At least Robert Pattinson is trying to keep braces alive, lets not let them die out, it would be such a shame.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

Edinburgh Lad said:


> It must be a U.S. thing then as lots of young guys stores here in the UK sell braces like Top Man and River Island


There's a huge difference between clip-on braces worn as fashion accessories and 'proper' braces worn with suits - fashion-conscious kids have as much affinity for braces as they do for skinny jeans.



Edinburgh Lad said:


> Who is going to keep the tradition and style of wear braces going if all the young guys stop wearing them, will they die out when all the older guys die out with them?


IMHO, men in their twenties should only wear braces with suits if they're going to keep them covered, or if they're to the manner born.

I don't think we need worry too much about the future of braces - I understand that Thurstons are the busiest they've been in years.

The desire to wear one's trousers on the waist and with proper drape invariably stems from a greater interest in sartorial propriety and an expanding waistline, both of which come with age.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

Brize said:


> There's a huge difference between clip-on braces worn as fashion accessories and 'proper' braces worn with suits - fashion-conscious kids have as much affinity for braces as they do for skinny jeans.
> 
> IMHO, men in their twenties should only wear braces with suits if they're going to keep them covered, or if they're to the manner born.
> 
> ...


I do agree clip-on's are not "proper" braces but a few manufactures do now supply jeans with button braces attached like G-star, Vio and Jack Jones so the younger market must be there.

I would never suggest wearing clip-on's braces with a suit or dress trousers these must always be button end "proper" braces.

Sartorial propriety is not an age thing, one strives for this all the time, and as for the expanding waist one does not strives to have this but works-out to ensure they don't. I hope it is not a case that as you get older your waist expands so you have to wear braces. I prefer to have the choice.

Not sure why guys in their 20's (or any age) should have to keep braces covered and why anyone who does wish to show their braces should be classed as "to the manor born" this sounds like a rather sweeping statement. I do not cover mine and see other guys who do likewise and none look to be from the manor born class. A guy wearing smart stylish proper button braces, shirt & tie does cut a dash anywhere, why hide all that style under a jacket?​


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

Edinburgh Lad said:


> Sartorial propriety is not an age thing, one strives for this all the time​


Indeed, but attention to such matters invariably comes with age. I wore a belt throughout my twenties, and, like some of the younger posters in this thread, thought that a suit looked incomplete without one.



Edinburgh Lad said:


> Not sure why guys in their 20's (or any age) should have to keep braces covered and why anyone who does wish to show their braces should be classed as "to the manor born" this sounds like a rather sweeping statement. I do not cover mine and see other guys who do likewise and none look to be from the manor born class. A guy wearing smart stylish proper button braces, shirt & tie does cut a dash anywhere, why hide all that style under a jacket?​


I've read your posts encouraging men to show their braces and I find your approach refreshing. I'm not convinced, though, that braces are stylish. To me, they're primarily functional, facilitating a far superior drape than can be achieved with a belt. They're also more comfortable, of course.

Do I otherwise take pleasure in wearing braces? Perhaps, but only a little. I'd say that it's 90% function, 10% affectation. The problem is that most people don't understand the benefits of wearing braces and therefore assume that it's 100% affectation. This misconception is difficult to dispel anyway, more so if the braces are being shown off.

It's often said-correctly, I think-that young men need to dress according to their status. A 20-year-old kid dressed in braces, French cuffs and a pocket handkerchief is likely to raise a few eyebrows, and understandably so. The way that we dress mediates the way that other people perceive us, so we can't just dress to please ourselves.

French cuffs and braces can, with the right demeanour, connote authority. Equally, though, they can make a callow young man look like a schoolboy.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

The problem I see with the expanding waistline issue is that many men wear their dress pants below the bulge, therby accentuating the girth and destroying the leg-line. Obviously, braces would help in this situation, but ONLY if the gentleman involved accually shifts where he wears his pants waist. I have certainly seen men wearing braces AND still keep their pants waist below their gut. This just makes a person look like a rube. Might as well have one's tie about 5" too short as well.

However, I believe that anybody can pull off braces as fashionable. It is merely a matter of choosing appropriatley fitting clothes, and then wearing them correctly.

As for when to show braces, the situation dictates. If in a formal meeting, obviously jackets are required and braces will be kept hidden. However, if jackets off is the standard in the workplace, and if more whimsical ties are accepted as appropriate, then whimsical braces would also be appropriate. However, if very conservative ties are the norm, then keep the braces understated.


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

I'm thinking that even if my pants fit perfectly and I didn't need a belt, I tend to carry keys and my wallet in my pockets which can weigh down on my pants.

Another thing to think about is how a belt can help keep your dress shirt tucked in. Though sometimes it appears the belt's helping to keep shirt material outside the pants.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

This is why I wish all trousers came with those rubber shirt grippers. I'm actually considering installing some...


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

jwa_jwa_jwa said:


> I'm thinking that even if my pants fit perfectly and I didn't need a belt, I tend to carry keys and my wallet in my pockets which can weigh down on my pants.
> 
> Another thing to think about is how a belt can help keep your dress shirt tucked in. Though sometimes it appears the belt's helping to keep shirt material outside the pants.


Braces work far better in keeping pants up that are weighed down. Belts allow pants to slide down, which in turn causes wearers to have to hike them back up several times throughout the day. This in turn can cause the shirt to pull out from the pants.



Jovan said:


> This is why I wish all trousers came with those rubber shirt grippers. I'm actually considering installing some...


These can work. My military dress pants all had shirt grippers in them, but they only worked so-so, however they still work better that nothing at all. Granted, I have not tried every version out there....


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

Top Guns said:


> Belts allow pants to slide down, which in turn causes wearers to have to hike them back up several times throughout the day.


One of the best reasons to wear braces, in my opinion. There's nothing so inelegant as a man hoisting up his trousers.


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

A belt is a utility item, as are braces.

My trousers fit, but I wear braces with them.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Brize said:


> One of the best reasons to wear braces, in my opinion. There's nothing so inelegant as a man hoisting up his trousers.


 It's the second most convincing reason, in my book. The first: After a large meal, one's options with a belt are a)too tight for comfort and b)too loose to function. Suspenders=supreme postprandial comfort.


----------



## Edinburgh Lad (May 11, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Top Guns* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1129222#post1129222 
Belts allow pants to slide down, which in turn causes wearers to have to hike them back up several times throughout the day.



Brize said:


> One of the best reasons to wear braces, in my opinion. There's nothing so inelegant as a man hoisting up his trousers.


Nothing more reassuring than standing up and with a slight lift of your shoulders you can feel your trousers lifting into perfect position and know that they are there to stay as you walk about. I don't like the trouser hoisting lark, give me braces anyday.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Do they make OTR suits with pants with side tabs?


----------



## bp_bear (May 11, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Do they make OTR suits with pants with side tabs?


Roderick Charles do this. If I remember correctly, my OTR suits came with unfinished trousers which were adjusted for fit and finished with a number of options. The options included side tabs, pleats, cuffs and belt loops/brace buttons.


----------

