or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How much of a break?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How much of a break? - Page 2

post #16 of 48
I've had to do this, too, on RTW pants. It does have a name. I can't remember what it is, but I think it has the word "French" in there somewhere. Not "French cuff" but French something ... I think ...
post #17 of 48
I prefer a to wear them "short and narrow" Like this (thanks to my Dutch 'collegue' Nexus) (Italian La Zetgai trousers and Santoni fatte a mano)
post #18 of 48
No break at all. And, very nice combination. Wish more Americans would do similar things.
post #19 of 48
IMO no break at all only looks good on slim, flat front trousers-which wouldn't have a cuff anyway. If it has a cuff, a slight break ala Saville Row style looks best. I've rarely had tailors get this right- they almost always go for too much break. Tailors around Richmond suck- all the ones I've been to at least. Need to find a new one.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Cuffless trousers should slant rearward, so that the back of the trouser leg is longer (about 1/3 to 1/2 way down the shoe heel) while the front rests on top of the shoe.
i've never heard of anyone leaving the pants long enough to cover part of the heel, at least not on purpose. this would look too long to me. wouldn't it suffice to have the pant legs reach the top of the heel regardless of whether or not they are cuffed? btw, the first time i requested slanted cuffs on my pants, the tailor refused to do it. she said it was 'old man style.' so i've had my pants hemmed straight across since then, if omly for continuity.
post #21 of 48
Not the actual heel of the sole, but the rear of the shoe. I guess technically that's not a heel.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
btw, the first time i requested slanted cuffs on my pants, the tailor refused to do it. she said it was 'old man style.' so i've had my pants hemmed straight across since then, if omly for continuity.
Christ, is she the tailor to Prince Michael or something? Refusing? At any rate, the tailor I patronize -- he still has a strong Italian accent -- does wonders with everything I bring him...except pants. For some damned reason the length is always far too long. This, from an Italian cat? He should be going shorter, not longer. I prefer a slight break myself.
post #23 of 48
Quote:
I have my tailor cuff all my pleated pants, and I have her potion the cuff slightly above the heel in the rear, thus there is a slight break over the shoe, which in turn in my opinion is the cleanest look (read traditional / classical) one can have. I believe the mid-point between one style and another is called the mid-continental, if I properly recall Flusser.
Mid-Atlantic. Flusser claims that Barbera calls it that.
post #24 of 48
I live in a smaller city, and was pleased--after having read this thread--that when I took two pairs of pants in to be hemmed, I requested the tailor do an Italian style with cuffs on one pair. He did not skip a beat, and marked them just as Manton described. Thanks. I now have more confidence in my local tailor.
post #25 of 48
Thread Starter 
Something related: With slight or even no break, wouldn't the 'top part of the back of the shoe' be seen when one is in stride? Is this supposed to happen and, er... acceptable? For myself, I don't like this part appearing when walking... By 'top part of the back of the shoe', I mean the part indicated by the arrow in the picture . I really hope the arrow is clear enough. What exactly is it called, by the way? The picture: WJTW
post #26 of 48
Thread Starter 
Any replies for this? Any replies would help and might prevent any possible mistakes when choosing or altering pants... WJTW
post #27 of 48
In my opinion breaks look better on trousers that have a slight flare to them. It should be a slanted break so there is a slightly more noticeable break in the front. And also for the pant cuff covering the back of the heel that was fairly popular in the early part of the 20th century. As say the 1918 to 1920's.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j,Jan. 19 2005,11:52
If you want the back to the top of the shoe heel and a minimal break, a slanted hem will do that
That's the Savile Row way, and I think it looks best on uncuffed trousers. Personal opinion.
The cuffs need to be parallel to the legs of the trousers, so if the hem is slanted it would be hard to get the cuffs right. The seam would have to be at an angle to compensate for the slanted hem. I am no tailor but from a purely geometrical point of view it seems quite complex.
post #29 of 48
Quote:
To generalize a little: the Italian way is no break at all; the cuffs may not even quite reach the top of the shoe.  The American way is a generous break; the cuffs are 1/2" longer than they need to be to reach the shoe.
Strange, because we always thought that Americans have too short trousers (JFK look). The Italian rule every tailor here will use -if not asked differently-, as I know, is: "you have not to see socks while walking (not just standing)". So trousers will rest on the shoe with a generouse break. And trousers are always cuffed AND slanted (the rear is longer and it is 1-2 cm above heel of the shoe). My, personal, rule is: trousers have no break, but touch the shoe; very hard to meet perfectly.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
The cuffs need to be parallel to the legs of the trousers, so if the hem is slanted it would be hard to get the cuffs right. The seam would have to be at an angle to compensate for the slanted hem. I am no tailor but from a purely geometrical point of view it seems quite complex.
Cuffed trousers are never slanted. Only cuffless trousers are slanted.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How much of a break?