Leg Opening/Pant Length Question

[hitokiri8]

I've looked at tons of posts on the pant length question as I am wearing a pair of Khakis right now that are just plain bugging me. After reading the abundance of posts on the question, I think the thing that's bothering me is that the leg opening on these pants is too big. For those who tend to wear pants with little to no break, what is the approximate measurement of the leg opening on your pants and do you get them slanted?

 

[bluemax]

If no break, 7-7.5" diameter at the hem is ideal.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

Originally Posted by bluemax

If no break, 7-7.5" diameter at the hem is ideal.

7" diameter is about a 22" leg opening. That would probably be very baggy on most people, or be bell-bottoms.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

You're being a chops-buster, he means 7" across the width. That seems a hair tight to me, honestly I've done no-break with 8.5" width, but i would say 8" and under is a pretty safe spot for a no-break or slight gap to look nice.

 

[hitokiri8]

Thanks guys. These pants are a bit under 8.5" I believe, so I'll take a shot with a tailor and have 'em brought into 7.75" to see how that works out.

 

[Jumbie]

I believe I once saw a tailor mention 2/3 of shoe size. I may be mistaken though.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

You're being a chops-buster, he means 7" across the width. That seems a hair tight to me, honestly I've done no-break with 8.5" width, but i would say 8" and under is a pretty safe spot for a no-break or slight gap to look nice.

Sometimes I can't help myself from being an ass. Anyways, it depends on the waist size. Too much taper can look weird. Personally, at about a 30" waist, 7.5" to 8" is ideal for me.

 

[bbaquiran]

Originally Posted by Jumbie

I believe I once saw a tailor mention 2/3 of shoe size. I may be mistaken though.
I think you mean the pants should cover 2/3 of the shoe length?
Anyway IMO it also depends on shoe size. I have small size 6 feet, so I prefer to show more of the shoe.

To answer the OP, 7" at the hem for trousers, no break and straight across (not slanted).

 

[Jumbie]

Originally Posted by bbaquiran

I think you mean the pants should cover 2/3 of the shoe length?

I took it to mean 2/3 of shoe size e.g. I have a size 12 shoe so I'd go for an 8" opening.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

Originally Posted by Jumbie

I took it to mean 2/3 of shoe size e.g. I have a size 12 shoe so I'd go for an 8" opening.

It must be the shoe's actual length. If not, a size 9 would need a 6" opening, which is pretty much skin-tight.

 

[Jumbie]

I might be missing something here or not understanding the proper measurements but when I say 8", I'm not talking about circumference but rather the length of the opening from front to back when laid flat.

Is that better?

 

[fcuknu]

I usually go with 16" around, or 8" laid flat, and thats REALLY slim. Girls skinny jeans tend to be 10-12 inches, and straight 14-16, so anything slimmer than 14-16 sounds insane.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

I was referring to the same thing. 6" laying flat is extremely skinny.

Going by your understanding of the rule, most people with a shoe size of 8 or less probably couldn't even get their pants on.

 

[constant struggle]

7.75 is perfect for me

 

[Jumbie]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLaw

I was referring to the same thing. 6" laying flat is extremely skinny.

Going by your understanding of the rule, most people with a shoe size of 8 or less probably couldn't even get their pants on.

I don't see why this would be the case. Like I said, I wear a size 12 shoe and I just got up and measured one of my RTW pants and it's 9" flat. If it were 8", I could still get my feet in with absolutely no problem. By extension, I don't see someone with a size 9 shoe having any problems with a 6" flat opening unless, for whatever reason, they don't point their toes when pulling on their trousers.

Anyway, I may be remembering incorrectly and misquoting him.