or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › no cuffs on flat fronts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

no cuffs on flat fronts?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I bought some great flat front RLPL black wool trousers. I have never bought flat front trousers before and was wondering if I should have them altered without a cuff. Also, as a side note, I'm buying a RLPL sport jacket and will need the sleeve buttons put on and the waist probably taken in a bit. Should I get all of these alterations done at the Madison Ave. Polo store, or is there a better place to go? Thanks, as always.
post #2 of 12
I would skip the cuffs for flat fronts. If you, and the trousers are slim, then cuffs will spoil the nice look. We actually had a civilized row about this about a month ago on the forum so you can do a little search if you're in the mood. B p.s. Congratulations on your purchases. I wish I could indulge aswell.
post #3 of 12
No cuffs.
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
Yeah, they have a narrow leg opening too, so I'm going to go no cuff I think.
post #5 of 12
I'll third the no cuffs. As for the alterations I can't give you a good answer having never had anything tailored at the store.  My wife and I have used Dynasty Tailors on 38th between 5th and Madison and have been very happy with the work they have done.
post #6 of 12
No cuffs. I say this as someone who loves cuffs, and has cuffs on all but my tux trousers.
post #7 of 12
Allow me to dissent, please and say that I enjoy a nice cuff on a plain front trouser. I don't have them on all my plain front chinos, esp. the heavy ones, such as Navy surplus or Bill's. I don't have them on my plain front pincord suit. I don have them on my plain front poplin and linen because both these fabrics hang better, I think, with a cuff. I have them on all my J Press suits that have plain front trousers. Perhaps it's a more sophisticated look to be sans cuff on flat front; perhaps it looks better, and perhaps my aesthetic sense is undeveloped in this regard.
post #8 of 12
Quote:
I bought some great flat front RLPL black wool trousers.
Based on my own RLPL purchases, I'd guess that the flat front RLPL models are all narrow at the knee and at the leg opening. So, unless you're going to be wearing these pants with strictly "trad" accoutrements (buttondown shirts, Aldens, etc.), I'd skip the cuffs.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
I have them on all my J Press suits that have plain front trousers.
Horace: Isn't the "Trad" way to forgo cuffs on flat front trousers worn with sack coats? Serious question.
post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
Ok, another question, because I've only once before had to have the waist of pants taken in that are RTW and have the split back "V" in the back of the waist: I'm assuming that a tailor that takes in the waist can actually keep this V? Is this something you ask for, and can every tailor do it? Because I bought some Brooks RTW Golden Fleece trousers at their flagship store, and they took in the waist a bit and got rid of that split back, which made me angry. I figured on high quality RTW trousers, it would be a given that you wouldn't do that. ideas? thanks
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Quote:
(Horace @ Jan. 23 2005,03:31) I have them on all my J Press suits that have plain front trousers.
Horace: Isn't the "Trad" way to forgo cuffs on flat front trousers worn with sack coats?  Serious question.
I don't know. I've always had them and I've never really noticed. I think esp. with the Press trousers, they hang better with cuffs. I don't think I'm really the best authority on what Trad is. I differ from my cohorts in that I prefer the forward pleated trouser and a 2b, slighted darted coat -- a la JFK-style Southwick or Paul Stuart or Andover cut. Sty Stu: I've seen quite a few of the old flat Barbour moleskin trousers, which were (are?) tailored with the cuff. These are very slim fitting trousers with narrow leg openings. Of course, these were in true country settings, so I don't know if cuff is then par the course, or what.
post #12 of 12
Quote:
Sty Stu:  I've seen quite a few of the old flat Barbour moleskin trousers, which were (are?) tailored with the cuff.  These are very slim fitting trousers with narrow leg openings.   Of course, these were in true country settings, so I don't know if cuff is then par the course, or what.
I just think that if you wear American traditional buttondown shirts and the BB/Alden shoes with any trouser (slim or not) that, in turn, you need a "traditional" wide cuff (1 5/8"- 1 3/4"). In the '50s and '60s in college and from walking around New York and Chicago, I'd always see cuffs on men wearing traditional clothes and on the Brooks salesmen. But this is my own preference (based mostly on memory and what I wear), and certainly can't be either right or wrong. Roetzel writes that the British don't like cuffs (p 96) and agrees with Manton that pants without pleats look better without cuffs (p 139). I certainly don't know enough about what the British prefer when it comes to cords and moleskins-their pants always look narrow to me as you say. I'm putting away my Roetzel book now and notice that, on the cover, the cords are uncuffed, FWIW.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › no cuffs on flat fronts?