Height of trouser cuffs

[Trilby]

2 inch cuffs are too much, unless you are very tall.

 

[MilanoStyle]

zjpj83, it looked pretty good in my eyes.  But all of those pants with 3"+ cuffs had really narrow cut.  For straighter cut pants won't work as well.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

Frankly, I find myself a bit confusticated, fellas. When I try to reconcile this quotation:

(lisapop) And Flusser is an authority on cuffs because...? (Extended silence, the chirping of crickets heard, people shrugging their shoulders in bewilderment). Flusser used to sell sweaters at Pierre Cardin before becoming the self-appointed arbiter of all things sartorial, but if you need to follow his rulings, go right ahead. Hey, it sells books, so who am I to argue.

with this one:

(lisapop) I don't believe I disparaged any shirt guys in this discussion, I simply gave credit where credit is due, to the Gambert family for making well-regarded custom shirts for Alan Flusser. http://66.170.193.77/cgi-bin/ib3/iko...=ST;f=1;t=9555

I find inconsistency. In the first mentioned quotation, Flusser is a pisher. Quite convenient here in this thread. In the second post, Flusser is well-regarded. Of course, the second quotation is part of a thread wherein the writer used Flusser to imply untruth in my claim to have made Michael Douglas's horizontally striped shirts for the movie "Wall Street". Quite convenient there. Also convenient that, while Manton sources his information from Alan Flusser, his adversary cites "an esteemed and knowledgeable Savile Row tailor" and "Another knowledgeable, experienced tailor". While lisapop can immediately attack Manton's citation, no honest disagreement can be had with Mr. Esteemed, Señor Knowledgeable, or Sir Experienced. Hence, when faced with a choice of to whom to ascribe veracity, I am left with only one propositor whose argument is backed by something more than an intimation of possible accuracy. Which, personally, I find to be a shame. Yesterday, I thought lisapop had finally realized that advocation can be accomplished without denigration ... and thanked him for it. Today, I am sadly shrugging my shoulders in bewilderment and wondering whether this is the testimony of a man ... or the chirping of crickets.

 

[johnapril]

Frankly, I find myself a bit confusticated, fellas. When I try to reconcile this quotation:
Quote:

(lisapop) And Flusser is an authority on cuffs because...? (Extended silence, the chirping of crickets heard, people shrugging their shoulders in bewilderment). Â Flusser used to sell sweaters at Pierre Cardin before becoming the self-appointed arbiter of all things sartorial, but if you need to follow his rulings, go right ahead. Â Hey, it sells books, so who am I to argue.
with this one:

(lisapop) I don't believe I disparaged any shirt guys in this discussion, I simply gave credit where credit is due, to the Gambert family for making well-regarded custom shirts for Alan Flusser. http://66.170.193.77/cgi-bin/ib3/iko...=ST;f=1;t=9555

I find inconsistency. In the first mentioned quotation, Flusser is a pisher. Quite convenient here in this thread. In the second post, Flusser is well-regarded. Of course, the second quotation is part of a thread wherein the writer used Flusser to imply untruth in my claim to have made Michael Douglas's horizontally striped shirts for the movie "Wall Street". Quite convenient there. Also convenient that, while Manton sources his information from Alan Flusser, his adversary cites "an esteemed and knowledgeable Savile Row tailor" and "Another knowledgeable, experienced tailor". While lisapop can immediately attack Manton's citation, no honest disagreement can be had with Mr. Esteemed, Señor Knowledgeable, or Sir Experienced. Hence, when faced with a choice of to whom to ascribe veracity, I am left with only one propositor whose argument is backed by something more than an intimation of possible accuracy. Which, personally, I find to be a shame. Yesterday, I thought lisapop had finally realized that advocation can be accomplished without denigration ... and thanked him for it. Today, I am sadly shrugging my shoulders in bewilderment and wondering whether this is the testimony of a man ... or the chirping of crickets.
Only in America.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

Only in America.

Erudite.

 

[lisapop]

Apologies for the confusion and omissions...

Well-regarded: Gambert.
Tailor making my 1.5" cuffs: Joe Morgan, Chittleborough & Morgan, London
Tailor making my 1.75" cuffs: Raphael Raffaelli, NY
(Alan Flusser is an excellent stylist with great taste, but he is not an authority on the technical aspects of tailoring. Nor am I for that matter)
Grayson

 

[Renault78law]

i'm about 6'2" and I like cuffs at 1.75". 1.5" seem too small for me. a bigger cuff would be more stylistic, but inappropriate for most settings

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

Thank you, again, Marc.

 

[Vintage Gent]

Speaking as an amateur authority (oxymoron alert) on vintage clothing, this discussion of cuff width is all very interesting. Before 1960, in the age when virtually all trousers were double pleated, anything less than 1 3/4" was virtually unheard of. Even on trousers for the most vertically challenged of gentlemen, a substantial cuff was the intractable norm. It's something of a surprise to come across trousers with a 26" inseam sporting a fat roll of fabric in the bottom precinct. Still, there's something appealing about the wider cuff, a fullness that gives the trousers such an elegant drape.

My own preferences? At 5' 11", I find the 1 3/4" serves me quite well.

 

[Horace]

Quote:

Only in America.
Erudite.
Or perhaps profound. If you think about it for too long.