or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cuffs Issue
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cuffs Issue

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

I'm sure there is a thread about this but searching the new site is a pain so I'm creating a new thread.

 

It seems that when I have my pants tailored, if the leg opening is a bit narrow the pants end up bunching up and the break looks terrible. The length at the back by the heel is fine, it comes to just above the heel of the shoe, but the front just looks ridiculous.

 

My tailor claims that he can't make it shorter in the front 'cause if there is too much of a slant it will look funny. I am not quite sure I understand why and I don't wanna pay more if he is right in what he says.

 

Is there a proper way to tailor pants with narrow leg openings so that the break will look the way it should?

 

Appreciate your help,

 

Eli

post #2 of 9
Do you mean this?

500
post #3 of 9

Just had my tailor do this to a pair of BB Fitzgerald pants.  He thought it silly when I suggested it, but the pants turned out well.  Doesn't look odd at all. 

post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 

Yes! (Mine are a bit worse or so I make myself think)

post #5 of 9
If you want to have an angled hems so as to cover the heel with minimal break, you can put a horizontal dart on the forepart under the cuff where it won't be seen.

I've never had to do this though, because I reckon that if the opening for the foot doesn't cover the laces, you're doing it wrong...
post #6 of 9
The tailor is right on the narrowest of narrow openings. On those you are best with No break anyways.

Any opening that is reasonable should have no problem with more bias in the front. So just override them. They tend to suggest jacket sleeve come up to middle of the hand (exaggeration) too smile.gif

Here is a helpful link
http://www.styleforum.net/forum/thread/33550/how-much-break-for-trousers
Edited by JamesX - 7/21/11 at 3:33pm
post #7 of 9
I have been dealing with this lately in my pants. I do my own simple alterations, and since I'm a shrimp with a 27" inseam, I've been pegging my pants in a bit so they don't look like tents at the bottom. At the same time, I'm looking for the just-touch-the-shoe-but-no-break length, again because of my general scale. I find that it's a bit of a predicament.

The bro above is correct in that the narrower the pants get, the worse a big break looks; they begin to bunch and crumple a lot sooner. The adjustment to 'just touch the shoes at the instep' is a very touchy thing. Just a cm too long and the pants are crunching. Just a cm too short and the pants are flapping when I walk and encroaching on highwater territory. I think that there's a good reason why the tailors and alterationists don't like this call; it's a pain in the ass to execute.

Boy, but when I get it right, it looks some bloody good!

It seems that the call, for me, is to find where the pants just touch or just miss the shoes at the instep, and then give about a cm of slant to the bottom to keep the socks hidden (when standing) and the flapping down to a minimum.
post #8 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesX View Post

The tailor is right on the narrowest of narrow openings.

imo, then you can skip the cuffs, too.
post #9 of 9
From what angle do you look at your pants? The break looks huge if you are to looking at your hem from above but then looking at it in the mirror side on, there really isn't much break at all. I tend to wear 7.5 to 8 inch opening pants. In my opinion, with slimmer pants, it's okay if it's a little too short as it has less of a problem with flapping pants than wide leg pants. Besides, it gives me an excuse for fun socks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cuffs Issue