The issue with narrow pants

[CrimsonSox]

I can appreciate the slimming effect of slender trouser legs, but there's a drawback to their being too narrow. The front crease does not fall neatly, but tends to bunch up in front of the shins or knees as the fabric clings to the leg. Here are a few examples, starting with President Hollande:








By contrast, the trousers in the following picture are tapered and trim, but they are full enough to fall more cleanly, with a crisp front crease.

 

[konda]

Sweatpant vibes in last photo. No go. Don't use long johns or knee high socks with narrow pants -> problem solved.

 

[CrimsonSox]

I like trim pants, as long as the front crease falls neatly. The crease is bunched up in Craig's pants, and I doubt the issue is his wearing long johns or thigh length socks.

 

[atoms]

Being a skinny man, I wear narrow pants. But I understand where the OP is coming from. I notice, especially with my cotton pants that are thinner and stretch easier at the knee. That said, I am happy to trade that problem for the alternative. The alternative opens up a whole other can of worms; balance between upper and lower body.

 

[Chowkin]

Don't use knee high socks with narrow pants -> problem solved.

I'm thinking of getting my tailor to fully line my trousers

 

[CrimsonSox]

Interesting observation from Colin Heywood of Anderson and Sheppard: their trousers traditionally averaged 21 inches (10.5 inches measured on one side) at the knee, and 18 inches (9 inches measured on one side) at the leg opening: http://www.savilerow-style.com/issue018/style04.htm A friend who's had clothes made at Henry Poole also had trousers with those measurements.

However, Heywood notes that a 20 inch (10 inch on one side) knee with a 17 inch (8.5 inch on one side) leg opening is becoming more popular for the clients at A&S. Of course, we're talking about averages here, with the actual measurements varying with the size of the waist, thighs, calves, etc.

 

[konda]

Even a 17" leg opening is large. In my opinion pants like that are not really even tapered and only fit a more robust man. Personally I have a 15.75" leg opening at max on my pants. A 17" opening would flap around like Batman's cape. Then again em gents 50+. I understand them not wearing trousers with a tighter fit.

 

[chogall]

Gotta be smoking some next level **** if you think DoW's pants are trim... They are baggy pants by modern day standards, especially for a very trim figure such as DoW.

That said, fullness of pants should be a function of rise; higher the rise the fuller pants need to be to drape. As to the leg opening width, it should be dependent on the fullness of the pants.

Or just wear flood pants #menswear style disregarding your figure.