Sty Stu: Â I've seen quite a few of the old flat Barbour moleskin trousers, which were (are?) tailored with the cuff. Â These are very slim fitting trousers with narrow leg openings. Â 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.