One of the most desired articles of clothing in a modern vintage-inspired wardrobe are the trousers. However, they can be one of the most misunderstood, in terms how how our modern perception equates to the historical or vintage reality.
Today I’m going to delve a little bit into the basics of the transition of trousers from the 1930’s through the 1950s. It’s a quick overview so I’m not touching on everything, but it will give you a good starting point!
Please note that since I’m located in the United States, most of my research and primary sources are from sources from my places of residence. It could be different depending on where you’re from!
– A Beginning –
We absolutely adore wearing our vintage-style trousers everywhere in modern times, but was it like that in the past? Well, it depends entirely on what era you’re looking at.
The beginning in our more contemporary history of women wearing trousers is said to begin with Amelia Bloomer, an early Women’s Rights and Temperance advocate. She caused quite the scandal by sporting bifurcated garments in the Victorian era, calling it “Dress Reform”. However, what isn’t commonly known is that Amelia actually adapted it from a friend, Elizabeth Smith Miller, who started wearing the loosely fitting outfit in 1861. It was a fad that wasn’t with the majority, and was re-visited in the 1890s as bicycling “bloomers” for women. Some daring women even start wearing trousers for riding, though often women wore trousers under riding skirts for modesty. In the American West, and at places where work or necessity required, women wore pants with more frequency. They even had a short-lived popularity during the Great War, when women helped out at home (much like they would again in WWII), but it was not widely accepted for wear outside the farm, the factory, or the boudoir.
Enter the 1920’s and the “flapper”. Pajamas are all the rage- in the boudoir and by the seaside, by the late 1920s. Some daring women even started wearing men’s trousers. Was it accepted by the majority of every town and every social setting? Not yet. But they started gaining in popularity thanks to the seaside, the boudoir, and the new collegiate co-eds!
– The 1930’s –
The 1930’s is when we really see women in trousers get their stride. Women wearing trousers was still not widely accepted by the majority in the early part of the 1930’s. In fact, studios used to try to keep Kate Hepburn from wearing them between sets in Hollywood, because the photographers would snap her over the studio gates and it was still “shocking”. The story goes, when they refused to let her wear er trousers, she paraded around the backlot in her underwear until they changed their minds! But, really, the resorts and the young set, the Hollywood sirens, and the elite, are what caused the trousers to catch on in popularity.
By the mid 1930’s trousers were acceptable for wear for sportswear. They’re mostly seen on campus, at the resort, and in other places if you lived in the warmer climates like Southern California or Florida. Cannes was a big place for wearing trousers. How daring!
In the first half of the 1930s, we see very loosely fitted trousers. The images above are from 1934. The “rise” (that is, crotch length), was EXTREMELY low. Think M.C. Hammer low. Seriously. Sometimes down to your knees! Notice here, these are mostly for sporty summer wear. This is quite common in the 1930s. You don’t often see them “dressed up”, and if you do, it’s usually a fashion of the wealthy or in film.
In the second half of the 1930’s, trousers really start going crazy. In 1939 it seemed everyone wanted them, and they were here to stay! There were lounging trousers, playing trousers, work trousers, beach trousers, pajamas… and sometimes even dinner outfits. The late 1930’s were playful, and trousers fit in perfectly with this ideal. The image on left is from 1938, and the image on right from 1939. Still notice they have the very loose fit. Trousers were NOT meant to hug your butt. The ideal was to have them fit like a bifurcated skirt- skimming your hips and rear loosely, then falling to a low crotch, and splitting into a bifurcated garment.
This image is from 1942, and this is what most of us think of when we think of vintage women’s trousers or pants. They’re still for active wear, primarily. You don’t often see them dressed up. In some areas of the US and abroad women were still shunned if they wore pants. In other areas (including California), they were more widely accepted and sometimes even worn to church- which shocked quite a few (or, so I read, in a 1939 Vogue magazine).
For your WWII impressions, these trousers are the ideal look. Are they suitable for every occasion? Not if historical accuracy is your goal. But for war work, home front work, gardening, the beach, or for collegiate looks they are great! I wear them all the time in my day to day vintage inspired looks, because I’m honestly not trying to look like I’m out of a time machine- I just want to wear what I like. But if accuracy is your thing, take heed and consider where you live and what your activity is if you want to wear vintage trousers for WWII impressions.
The mid-late 1940’s were all about teen culture. Swing music was here to stay, and fashion followed the teen trends. Here we’ve got three girls wearing teen styles. Women’s trousers for other age groups followed similar lines but were a bit more conservative in tone. Notice we’re getting the narrower legs as we move to the late 1940’s. I am now in my 40s (updated post) and would still wear all of these, unashamedly.
Also, take note- it’s the first time we see jeans as we think of them now! Previously, as far as my research goes at this time, women would have slacks in similar lines to the trousers I pictured made in denim (think my Smooth Sailing trousers), or wear trousers that were manufactured for men. By the mid 1940’s women had their own version of jeans marketed to them specifically. Wearing the menswear until we got our own seemed to be quite the recurring trend in the evolution of women’s trousers.
Move into the 1950’s and things start to get slim. Some trousers still followed the lines of the late 1940’s, but most started getting really narrow legs. We still don’t have the higher crotch point, like with modern pants (which you’ll notice if you look at the pictures above), but the crotch length did start moving a bit upward. This was the predecessor of the skinny jean- but mixed with the longer crotch length. It’s an interesting fit, and can feel a bit off if you try making one up from a vintage pattern, when we are so used to things hitting so high and snugly today. Those old pattern covers can be a bit deceiving!
– Let’s Get Technical –
Let’s go over some terms that pop up quite a bit with vintage trousers:
What is “Sanforized”? You may see this on a bunch of old catalog description, and sometimes even printed and woven on old labels. It is NOT a fabric. It is NOT a weave. It’s a PROCESS. It’s basically pre-shrinking your fabric by treating it. Sometimes it’s done before sewing, sometimes it’s done after sewing. This is still a widely used process in the textile industry on natural and cellulose based fibres.
What are “Mannish” or “Man-Tailored” slacks? These terms were used interchangeably throughout the 1930’s and the 1940’s. This just means they were a little more tailored- and usually followed the line of men’s trousers of the time. Women’s trousers, however, almost always fastened up the side instead of the front until you get to the mid 1940s, and even then, it was most common for them to fasten at the side. You do see them with front fastenings in some snapshots of the 1930’s, but these were usually actual men’s trousers, rather than women’s trousers. By the late 1950’s, you see front fastening, back fastening, and side fastening trousers.
What are Dungarees? Dungarees and jeans, as far as garments, are basically the same thing. The name they are called depends on where you live. Most people think of Dungarees or Jeans as casual workwear trousers with topstitching details and pockets- the predecessor of today’s jeans or denim. As far as fabric goes, denim fabric is made of a twill weave, and often thicker and sturdier than other twill weaves. But dungaree is also a fabric! The difference between dungaree and denim is when they are dyed. Dungaree fabric is dyed and then woven, and denim is woven and then dyed.
Now, let’s look at the Rise…
The easiest way to do this is through looking at vintage patterns and their pieces.
Check that out! See the blue line across the middle? That shows where all other rises compare with 1930’s rise (crotch length).
Does that explain why your vintage trousers don’t hug your butt the way you expected?
So, long story short- don’t expect to sew from a vintage pattern, or buy original vintage trousers, and have them fit like modern pants. There’s more to them than the length and leg width!
For a side note from me… this is why I took SO LONG drafting the Smooth Sailing trousers. I was very familiar with the problems of vintage trousers. They just don’t fit in a way that’s comfortable and flattering to most modern women because of what we’re now accustomed to wearing and seeing. Working in theatre under a tailor for several seasons, I saw how different crotch lengths and shape could affect the width on different bodies. Because of this, I drafted the Smooth Sailing trousers to be a mid-point between mid-1930’s and modern fit. They’ve still got a longer crotch line and looser fit from the hip down than modern trousers, but they also don’t ride up your butt like a lot of trousers we see now.
And as a final note- remember that all vintage trousers and pants were meant to fit at your natural waist. For those who don’t know, that’s where the smallest part of your waist is, near your belly button. When the 60’s came in we started getting low rise, but before that time, things hit higher. Now, we call them “high waist”, but they really just sit at where your natural waist is.
Want more vintage trouser inspiration? Check out my Pinterest board for 1930s/40s Women in Trousers!
Do you have any questions about vintage trousers or pants? Let me know in the comments!
Jeanne Marie
September 11, 2014 at 7:03 pm (11 years ago)Fascinating history. I hope to soon be making a pair of vintage-style wide-leg casual trousers that fits, so your information on the various crotch lengths is very helpful. And, if your Kickstarter goes through (best of luck), I’ll be trying the Smooth Sailing e-pattern!
Bonita Vear (@bjvear)
September 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm (11 years ago)Such a delightfully educational post! I really enjoyed learning about the history of trousers, and now it makes sense as to why even my vintage reproduction trousers still don’t look quite right… Personally, I’d prefer a lower crotch with my trousers and shorts anyway ~ half the time I’m getting a wedgie when sitting down!
Guess I’ll be making my own then. Or buying some Wearing History ones! ;)♡
xox,
bonita of Lavender & Twill
Rozy
September 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm (11 years ago)Wonderful history lesson, thanks for sharing. I don’t like the way modern slacks fit at all, I guess I’ve been a vintage gal all along. By the way, the easiest cure for “muffin top” is to wear slack (pants, trousers) that come all the way up to your natural waist. Why modern women like hip huggers that accentuate the wrong things is beyond me.
Lindy Shopper
September 11, 2014 at 8:04 pm (11 years ago)This explains why I just don’t fit into modern pants and why vintage pants fit so well – I need those extra inches in the crotch length!
Laura
September 11, 2014 at 9:09 pm (11 years ago)How would they fit someone with a pear shape body? Usually they tend not to fit in the waist, if they do at the hips. Thanks!
Pamela Oberman
September 11, 2014 at 11:43 pm (11 years ago)Absolutely love these trousers – reminds me of some great movies with Lauren Bacall and young Kathryn Hepburn swanning around looking glam with elegance and style – in linen crepe and satin
Larissa
September 12, 2014 at 2:42 am (11 years ago)As for wearing trousers: I am getting the feeling, that women in the US could get away with it earlier than in europe. My mother (born in the late 50s) told me that she wasn´t allowed to wear trousers until she was about 15. So even then wearing trousers was frowned upon in smaller towns.
Magpie Stitcher
September 12, 2014 at 7:50 pm (11 years ago)Definitely varied with where you lived/”who you were”! My Mom grew up in a small town in Arkansas in the 1930’s-40’s. (Mining town – her dad was chief engineer.) She wore shorts to play tennis – but a skirt over them when bicycling to & from the tennis court. In college (Stephens Women’s College, in Missouri, then the University of Arkansas just after the War) pants were allowed for riding & sports. Not on the streets, NOT lounging around in the sorority house . . . . she really didn’t like letting me & Little Sister wear jeans, in the ’70’s, probably as a result of this training. Trousers, OK, but jeans were strictly for gardening, playing after school, etc.
How times do change.
Lisette
September 12, 2014 at 5:07 am (11 years ago)I love your diagram on crotch lengths. Would you do a similar one on leg width? So many sewers don’t seem to notice that the “wide leg” 40s styles still taper near the bottom and are disappointed by what they’ve made. I’d love to see how it compares with a 50s leg.
kinseysue (@kinseysue1)
September 12, 2014 at 5:57 am (11 years ago)What a wonderful post. I enjoy reading the history behind the fashions and am always drawn to the 1930s styles. I am not the only who appreciates your research. Thanks for a great blog post.
Brigid Boyer
September 12, 2014 at 9:02 am (11 years ago)This was such an informational post Lauren! I learned a lot, thanks!
Flashback Summer (@EmileighRogers)
September 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm (11 years ago)This. Makes. So. Much. Sense. I’ve worked with vintage pants patterns and had issues. I knew the crotch was lower, but all of this makes it make much more sense, and now I have better expectations of how they’re supposed to fit! (Lying envelope illustrations!)
vintageneedle
September 13, 2014 at 1:54 am (11 years ago)Great insight and now I understand a little better! Thanks for sharing!
Megan
October 13, 2014 at 11:46 am (11 years ago)I am doing a price based comparison, holding inflation constant, on products from the 1950s and today. Where did you get the price of Wrangler jeans in the 1950s graphic from?
Thanks!