|
-
29th April 13, 10:01 AM
#1
In making a tartan kilt great pains are taken to see that the pattern is centered, the pleats all match and/or maintain the intended pattern. When a pants leg has a seam on the outside the tartan design is disrupted. I was wondering if the same type of care was followed in making trews. Of all the trouser-type garments I have, even those with some design in the fabric, only the trews have no external seam. With as much pattern as you have in a tartan, it certainly makes it look better.
-
-
29th April 13, 10:20 AM
#2
I have always liked the look of trews and tartan trousers. I would own a pair of either in a New York minute.
The Official [BREN]
-
-
29th April 13, 11:01 AM
#3
In the US, tartan trousers are more commonly seen than trews.
Last edited by piperdbh; 29th April 13 at 11:27 AM.
--dbh
When given a choice, most people will choose.
-
-
29th April 13, 11:07 AM
#4
 Originally Posted by piperdbh
How about a North Carolina minute? I have a pair of Royal Stewart trousers, 34 waist, 30 length, a pair of black Stewart trousers, 36 waist, 32 length, and a pair of Black Watch trousers, 36 waist, 32 length. $35 US for the set and I'll pay shipping.
Wow! PM sent.
The Official [BREN]
-
-
29th April 13, 11:26 AM
#5
PM replied to; editing previous post.
--dbh
When given a choice, most people will choose.
-
-
29th April 13, 10:37 AM
#6
(this may be playing the devil's advocate, but here it goes) Two hundred years ago I would ask do the the "fit" or "hang?" Since then our use of "trousers" and "pants" has changed. Here on the forum, we are continually dancing around this issue as we use historical terms both in a modern way and the original sense. So it may be more revealing not to ask how many seams, but do they pull up at the knee when astride a horse? If they do, they are trousers. If they accomodate in the seat, they are trews. Of course, modern usage I expect to be totally different. Thank you for openning this issue, maybe someone can answer in the modern sense.
Elf
There is no bad weather; only inappropriate clothing.
-atr: New Zealand proverb
-
-
29th April 13, 11:18 AM
#7
 Originally Posted by Elf
(this may be playing the devil's advocate, but here it goes) Two hundred years ago I would ask do the the "fit" or "hang?" Since then our use of "trousers" and "pants" has changed. Here on the forum, we are continually dancing around this issue as we use historical terms both in a modern way and the original sense. So it may be more revealing not to ask how many seams, but do they pull up at the knee when astride a horse? If they do, they are trousers. If they accomodate in the seat, they are trews. Of course, modern usage I expect to be totally different. Thank you for openning this issue, maybe someone can answer in the modern sense.
This is getting more complicated. Give me a little time to locate a horse.
Last edited by cck; 29th April 13 at 11:20 AM.
Reason: needed my response
-
-
29th April 13, 12:10 PM
#8
-
-
29th April 13, 01:12 PM
#9
Last edited by creagdhubh; 29th April 13 at 01:13 PM.
-
-
30th April 13, 06:24 AM
#10
Basically, trews are high waisted, fish-tailed in the back, closer fitted to the leg, only have the inside leg seam and no pockets.
If they're low waisted, loose fitting, have pockets and two seams on each leg, they're trousers.
I did say BASICALLY.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks