or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Do no break/little break pants look "short" to the casual observer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do no break/little break pants look "short" to the casual observer?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
In the non-iGent world, do no break slacks look Pee Wee Herman-esque?

Recently, I had someone who dresses rather poorly comment that my suit pants were "too short." The thing is, I have my tailor do no break + 0.5 inches, so this shouldn't look odd in the slightest. A far cry from this kind of Thom Browne shit:





Are most people accustomed to seeing fabric bunching at the bottom of pants?

Discuss.
post #2 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrd617 View Post
Are most people accustomed to seeing fabric bunching at the bottom of pants?

Discuss.

Yes.
post #3 of 14
I've gotten several compliments on my no-break trousers. However, in my retarded opinion, fuller pants suffer from the same problem as shirts with lower armpits. When bending the knee, fuller-cut pants ride up higher, while slimmer pants stay on the shoe. I'm not sure why that happens and if it happens to anyone but me at all.

To answer your question: a casual observer won't think your pants are too short if they cover the socks completely.
post #4 of 14
Thread Starter 
Manton: I'd be interested in hearing your opinion since you wrote a whole book on conservative business dress. Are people, in effect, doing themselves a disservice by going no-break? Does it look good to an iGent and bad to the rest of the world?
post #5 of 14
Many casual observers will think no-break pants are too short and are even incorrectly so. Furthermore, most will have strong preferences for black shoes over brown shoes (especially women), especially when paired with blue or grey. iGent style and Great Unwashed style are fairly uncorrelated.
post #6 of 14
Just look around the next time you're at a busy public place like a mall, restaurant, airport etc. and notice how many people have their strides dragging along the floor. I'm not a proponent of the Thom Brown no break but every time I buy trousers I have to tell the on site alterations people I don't want the hems touching the heels of my shoes and ideally about half way between the top of the backstrap and the top of the heel.
post #7 of 14
Is it not something to with the angle of cuff cut? My alterations guy (and previously my mum) always cut them with a strong drop to the heel (called a regimental back, I think), so they fall to the top of the shoe heel at the rear and have a half inch break at the front. My tailor says the way to do it is when bestockinged at fitting time, you make the back touch the floor, and pin the front to give your preferred break. It looks clean without looking like you are wearing hoistys. You avoid both iGentry and looking like a (different sort of) dickhead, because you are conservatively dressed. The trick of CBD is surely to avoid drawing attention. Short trousers are a statement. So are ankle puddles. If it's done well, no one will notice the detail unless they look, they will take away the overall impression. Same principle of not wearing a Huntsman with a disney tie.
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrd617 View Post
In the non-iGent world, do no break slacks look Pee Wee Herman-esque?

Recently, I had someone who dresses rather poorly comment that my suit pants were "too short." The thing is, I have my tailor do no break + 0.5 inches, so this shouldn't look odd in the slightest. A far cry from this kind of Thom Browne shit:





Are most people accustomed to seeing fabric bunching at the bottom of pants?

Discuss.

There is a difference between little/no break and being a full 3 inches too short, which is what is shown in the pic.
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjornb17 View Post
There is a difference between little/no break and being a full 3 inches too short, which is what is shown in the pic.
Correct. But certain people with less discerning eyes seem to believe that no break trousers are too short. I'd characterize no break trousers as fine, but Thom Browne ones as far too short.
post #10 of 14
I like the minimal break, but they can look short especially as you're walking since the pants get pulled up by your legs.

--Andre
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
If it's good enough for the President, I say to hell with the nay-sayers:



post #12 of 14
I've always worn trousers with no break and, although I think some people find it vaguely strange, I expect them to notice the care I put on my overall look and understand the trousers lenght as a style option.
However, I think most untrained eyes don't go much further than noticing the tie's colours...
post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrd617 View Post



Hobbit (with really furry feet)
post #14 of 14
I know that prior to buying my first real suit, I thought the same thing. I feel more enlightened now. As to why most people do it... I know I did it because that's how I thought pants should fit in the early 00s, and that's where, up until recently, most of my thoughts on this stuff came from.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Do no break/little break pants look "short" to the casual observer?