Size of pants leg at the ankle

[mack11211]

Dear Folks:

A matter of proportion.

I got some pants, dress trousers with small pleats (I like pleats sometimes).  They have a straight leg.  The measure at the ankle is 19 to 19.5 and they just don't look good.

Other pants of 50 or 60 years ago look good with this measure because they are deeply pleated to taper from the full thigh.

But the contemporary pants just look trad in a bad way.  How much to taper?  Other pants have legs as narrow as 16.

Proportion-wise, I'm 5'8'', basically a 40R with a 34 inch waist.  My shoe size, 8.5, is not very large.

Weigh in.

 

[bch]

We're the same height. I have some trousers that are as large as 19.5" at the cuff, which I have been meaning to have tapered when I have the time. Ideally, I like 18". Anything substantially narrower looks disproportionate to my size 10 shoe, IMO.

 

[Manton]

Now, keep in mind that to do this, you have to find a tailor who will open the side seams of each leg to the hip, trim out some cloth, and then restitch the legs. Some will insist on taking the trousers entirely apart, so that they can recut each piece individually.

That said, a 17" bottom, or maybe 17.5 if the pleats are shallow, will be just right for you.

 

[j]

Copy a pair you think looks right. Mine vary widely, from <16 to >19". For standard suit-type pants, 18" seems to be reasonable, but it should be proportionate to your shoe size. For an 8.5, probably 17" or so, I would think.

 

[bch]

Manton, how big a deal ($ wise) is this type of alteration?

 

[Manton]

I don't know. I haven't ever had to do anything that drastic. Alteration prices vary widely in any case. When I have alterations to do, I take the garments to one of my regular bespoke tailors. I find that they either don't charge me or charge me a pittance. I think they mostly don't even accept alterations work but do it as a favor for regular clients.