Pants suggestions for stocky legs?

[Saltricks]

I've had some trouble finding pants that are flattering to my legs, and I've searched for help but none of the threads are very helpful. I am 5'10, 180 pounds, but my inseam is 29. I have ~24 inch thighs at the largest portion, and ~18 inch calves. I've been wearing higher rise pants and gotten a medium break with no cuffs for the most part...but to me my legs just seem very very short. Please help.

 

[acecow]

Try no break at all.

 

[bjornb17]

I've got big 29" thighs, and about 6'1. I wear 30" inseam pants with flat front, which gives almost no break, and this definitely is the best look. Anything with pleats or longer inseam looks like Hammer pants on me.

 

[Working Stiff]

I we're starting to see a movement back towards higer-rise, fuller-fitting, pleated pants. If done well, this can be an excellent look. It should ameliorate your difficulties.

 

[Saltricks]

Re: no break

I thought that break elongates the legs (which i sorely need) is that not necessarily true?

Do you guys have any suggestions on brands that are good quality but cut more generously in the thigh area, but still have a little bit of a taper on the calf area? These RLPL fit pretty decently, but the lack of tapering in the calf area makes my legs look a little tree trunky

 

[acecow]

Originally Posted by Saltricks

Re: no break

I thought that break elongates the legs (which i sorely need) is that not necessarily true?

Do you guys have any suggestions on brands that are good quality but cut more generously in the thigh area, but still have a little bit of a taper on the calf area? These RLPL fit pretty decently, but the lack of tapering in the calf area makes my legs look a little tree trunky

Break shortens, not elongates. Any visual disturbance from a clean straight line like break or cuffs will shorten your legs.

A darker color trousers would also help.

 

[countrygent]

I feel your pain, dude - I have a similar challenge - 5'7", 28.5" inseam, 23" thighs and wide hips for my height. I don't have a definitive solution yet, but a few observations gleaned from trial and error:

- Dark colors are definitely best - light-colored pants, particularly worn with a dark top, draw attention to the midsection/thighs.

- I don't really buy the idea that some people espouse, that higher-rise pants work better for short folks. I find high-rise pants create a large unbroken swath of fabric right across the area that I don't want to draw attention to, which makes me look both short(er) and wide(r).

- Pay close attention to how tapered the legs are - an extreme taper will make you look top-heavy (inverted triangle) while too wide of a leg just emphasizes stockiness.

- Minimal break seems to work best, any puddling of fabric around the ankles increases the stumpy look.

- Any excess fabric ballooning around the hips or thighs makes things 10x worse. Conversely, super-tight through the thigh with relaxed fabric around the knee looks goofy - need to get that just right, trim but not snug.

- Pleats don't seem to do me any favors - I know that they are supposed to create a vertical line, but the extra fabric volume and increase in pant width seen in profile don't help.

- Try to eliminate extra fabric in the crotch - again, trim but not snug, and enough room for the boys to breathe

. Any extra fabric resulting in a drop-crotch look really emphasizes thickness through the thighs.

My best-fitting pants so far are medium-low rise, flat front, with some taper (8.25" leg opening), in dark colors, sized up to fit hips/thighs and then taken in at the waist.

 

[Saltricks]

Originally Posted by countrygent

I feel your pain, dude - I have a similar challenge - 5'7", 28.5" inseam, 23" thighs and wide hips for my height. I don't have a definitive solution yet, but a few observations gleaned from trial and error:

- Dark colors are definitely best - light-colored pants, particularly worn with a dark top, draw attention to the midsection/thighs.

- I don't really buy the idea that some people espouse, that higher-rise pants work better for short folks. I find high-rise pants create a large unbroken swath of fabric right across the area that I don't want to draw attention to, which makes me look both short(er) and wide(r).

- Pay close attention to how tapered the legs are - an extreme taper will make you look top-heavy (inverted triangle) while too wide of a leg just emphasizes stockiness.

- Minimal break seems to work best, any puddling of fabric around the ankles increases the stumpy look.

- Any excess fabric ballooning around the hips or thighs makes things 10x worse. Conversely, super-tight through the thigh with relaxed fabric around the knee looks goofy - need to get that just right, trim but not snug.

- Pleats don't seem to do me any favors - I know that they are supposed to create a vertical line, but the extra fabric volume and increase in pant width seen in profile don't help.

- Try to eliminate extra fabric in the crotch - again, trim but not snug, and enough room for the boys to breathe

. Any extra fabric resulting in a drop-crotch look really emphasizes thickness through the thighs.

My best-fitting pants so far are medium-low rise, flat front, with some taper (8.25" leg opening), in dark colors, sized up to fit hips/thighs and then taken in at the waist.

Any brand of dress pant that you find works well? Or is it all in the tailoring? I think mabitex might be a little sausagey on my legs...

 

[bigchris1313]

Originally Posted by countrygent

I don't really buy the idea that some people espouse, that higher-rise pants work better for short folks. I find high-rise pants create a large unbroken swath of fabric right across the area that I don't want to draw attention to, which makes me look both short(er) and wide(r).
By wearing a jacket, this problem more or less disappears. You get the long leg look of a high rise trouser without the giant fabric midsection, which finds itself conveniently hidden--or at least obscured--behind the quarters of your jacket. Of course, if you can't wear a jacket, then all bets are off. You can always compromise by getting more casual pants to be worn without jackets cut at your hips or slightly above, and then get proper trousers to be worn with jackets cut at the waist. Alternatively, you can minimize the giant fabric midsection look by ensuring that while high, your rise is no higher than it needs to be (read: give your balls just enough room to be comfortable--no more!) tl;dr --> Wear Jackets

 

[Ich_Dien]

 

[countrygent]

Originally Posted by Saltricks

Any brand of dress pant that you find works well? Or is it all in the tailoring? I think mabitex might be a little sausagey on my legs...

Trousers that I am most satisfied with so far are Howard Yount, size 34, taken in at the waist and seat.

 

[countrygent]

Originally Posted by bigchris1313

By wearing a jacket, this problem more or less disappears. You get the long leg look of a high rise trouser without the giant fabric midsection, which finds itself conveniently hidden--or at least obscured--behind the quarters of your jacket.

Of course, if you can't wear a jacket, then all bets are off. You can always compromise by getting more casual pants to be worn without jackets cut at your hips or slightly above, and then get proper trousers to be worn with jackets cut at the waist. Alternatively, you can minimize the giant fabric midsection look by ensuring that while high, your rise is no higher than it needs to be (read: give your balls just enough room to be comfortable--no more!)

tl;dr --> Wear Jackets

Agreed. However, I rarely wear a jacket.

With trousers, I try to find a rise/cut that minimizes the height of the swath of fabric between crotch and belt, while simultaneously avoiding any hint of drop-crotch and also maintaining visual balance between legs and torso. This seems to correspond to a medium-low rise, worn, as you say, to give just enough ballspace for comfort.

 

[Saltricks]

Originally Posted by countrygent

Trousers that I am most satisfied with so far are Howard Yount, size 34, taken in at the waist and seat.

do you get your waist size in howard yount or size up? I think I'll try a pair.

 

[countrygent]

Originally Posted by Saltricks

do you get your waist size in howard yount or size up? I think I'll try a pair.

I size up to 34 and have them taken in - 32's fit in the waist but are too tight in the thigh. Thigh measurements for HY trousers are here, BTW:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.p...&postcount=726