How wide do you like your leg opening on dress trousers?

[ifpie]

According to earlier posts Alan Flusser's rule is that hem width should be around 3/4 of shoe length. But at some point you guys start talking about the 2/3 rule. I'm confused, are you still referencing Alan Flusser or is 2/3 a different approach? Thanks in advance!

 

[PSNY]

I am 6'0, 190-195lbs, athletic, with large calves, 16.25" at the largest point, and I have double pleated pants that are flawless at 7.5". I wear a UK size 10. It depends on how the trouser is cut.

 

[Mirage-]

I prefer about 19cm-19.5. which according to your definitions is very slim, though it doesn't look so to/on me. UK9/9.5 shoes.
And trust me, I actually almost can't get any trousers that "wide" in Italy (for an it48) already, in RTW. I have to let trousers out, if they even have allowance, or often buy European brands which paradoxically are often made in Italy, but not to the prevailing trend here.
And even so I'm the person (well, male) with the largest hems in my office building, and the entire office of hundreds of people probably only has a handful near retirement who might have more than that.

 

[DorianGreen]

I prefer about 19cm-19.5. which according to your definitions is very slim, though it doesn't look so to/on me. UK9/9.5 shoes.
And trust me, I actually almost can't get any trousers that "wide" in Italy (for an it48) already, in RTW. I have to let trousers out, if they even have allowance, or often buy European brands which paradoxically are often made in Italy, but not to the prevailing trend here.
And even so I'm the person (well, male) with the largest hems in my office building, and the entire office of hundreds of people probably only has a handful near retirement who might have more than that.

I hear you, I live in Germany and can say that here it's not much different, hems are pretty narrow. But I can easily figure that this disagreeable trend has born in Italy. As much as I like Italian tailoring and appreciate their cut, can't help but blaming this practice, together with the trend to short hems.

I like wide leg trousers, so my almost only chance to get them is to go bespoke.

I voted for 9,5inch, the results of this poll show that a vast majority of men like their trousers pretty narrow at the hem.

 

[Mirage-]

I've actually realized the linen trousers I got recently are much larger than my cotton and wool, they are about 21cm, and it looks slightly unusual but still good, and useful for the overbearing heat of summer. I found them in a physical shop no less, kind of old-fashioned. If only they had side-tabs (which are very uncommon in Italy) I might have gone back to try a flannel in that cut.
Although, here the heat is absurdly coming back in again. I barely had time to wear cotton sweaters, not even wool, and now I am probably putting those linen trousers right back into rotation from their supposed seasonal retirement...

 

[Bopper]

I see here that 8.5" = 17" is not enough, especially with gunboats. This pair is too narrow even for loafers, imo. I'm not sure about a formula yet. It'll be a trial and error method. I'm thinking at least 9 is better for me. This pair has double forward pleats, and need another inch at the knee as well. They are also a bit too full in the thigh. I'm thinking that if I go with a flat front and get the knee right, I would go with straight cut down to the hem with cuffs, of course.

 

[rollout]

I prefer a full 8.5" or 9" leg opening, so the legs hang straight and over the shoe enough not not to need a break. Added cuffs weight helps the legs to hang straight. Just like last few years "new" style from the late fifties. They are too skinny and don't hang well, so end up looking like "high water" pants. The bigger/taller the guy, the worse they look. Not to mention being very tight and uncomfortable. Change the style a lot and more pants get sold. It makes more traditional dressed men look better by comparison. Thanks, GB.

 

[Harwid]

All a matter of opinion. I can’t stand what you seem to refer to as traditional style. I haven’t worn pants with pleats or cuffs for many years - definitely not this century. My suit pants range from 7 1/2 to 9”. The 7 1/2 is an Isaia from 2017.

Chinos and 5 pocket casual pants are narrower.

I see people posting wide bottom pants with cuffs and wonder if they are in the UK. Or New England.

Jeff

 

[Son Of Saphir]

Me know a nice man with 22 inch hems.
(from Fedora Lounge)

 

[DorianGreen]

Me know a nice man with 22 inch hems.
(from Fedora Lounge)
View attachment 2248703

View attachment 2248705

I like a wide leg opening (10"/25cm), but these are overdone and look caricatural.

 

[DorianGreen]

This is the way.

 

[Son Of Saphir]

My best trousers are all cut like Oakey's. 10 inch hems, and go up to slightly past the navel, and worn with braces. Have always liked wide legs.

 

[Son Of Saphir]

Alan Bee's friend wears trousers well here. The way trousers cut like that move when you walk is really a sight to see.

Alan Bee's trousers

Tutee's perfect trousers

 

[moltoelegante]

22cm / 8.75" for me. Anything under 20cm / 8" just looks too skinny.

 

[jeremygo]

Here in Brooklyn, I'd say a majority of men are still wearing slim fit chinos and jeans (probably 7.5" and below). The exception are young men who seem to be leaning hard back to the JNCO days.

Most of my leg openings, from jeans to formal trousers, are 8" to 8.5", which works fine for me: easy-ish to find OTR and not too big, not too slim by my eye.