The 'Italian" pegged / narrow pant

[Soph]

Definitly a way to show the whole shoe.
The first picture I believe these are 14.5 inch (so alot of people will say this is too much especially in the states; I expect a few wisecracks) where most would probably go about 15.5 to 16 inch in the states. Also the angle of this pant from the original poster, the right cuff (ours) is a bit more full. The difference from T. Brown being that they get very narrow at the ankle versus just short and wide with Brown:
The pants on the right from Esquire do not seem to be narrow enough.

]]

 

[grimslade]

A great look.

For horseback riding.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by Soph

Definitly a way to show the whole shoe.
The first picture I believe these are 14.5 inch (so alot of people will say this is too much especially in the states; I expect a few wisecracks) where most would probably go about 15.5 to 16 inch in the states. Also the angle of this pant from the original poster, the right cuff (ours) is a bit more full. The difference from T. Brown being that they get very narrow at the ankle versus just short and wide with Brown:
The pants on the right from Esquire do not seem to be narrow enough.

]]

Soph, the pics don't load for me becuase at work I think we are still using 486 computers

Anyway, I have gotten used to wearing the narrow trousers and now feel uncomfortable if I try to wear something more full. Boots look a lot better with narrow trousers due to the long vamp. I believe that if you are of average build but with small feet, narrow trouser legs are great for you. I don't think I'd wear 14-14.5 dress pants as I think it would be too drastic with 10.5 shoes but my khaki type pants are about 15 inches and I think 15.50 or so is perfect for my suit pants. I also keep them somewhat high, just touching the shoe. Nothing worse than severe "stacking" on dress pants. I don't like a pants cuff covering up half the vamp of the shoe. I also don;t like the look of pants cuffs flapping when you are wearing boots.

 

[Soph]

Yes, I like about 15.5 inches. Can't stand baggy pants, and covering those lovely shoes we all strive for.

 

[itsstillmatt]

The first picture looks terrible and is missing the cuff that is an absolute necessity in my mind.

18 is the average in the US which is just too big in my mind as you have to wear them too long in order for there to be balance.

I like somewhere around 16 or so, but it depends on the fabric and how it drapes.

 

[Roy Biggins]

The first picture is too narrow, and the second picture is not narrow enough.

I alter all of my pants to have a 15.25-15.5 opening to show more of the shoe.

 

[Braughn]

I think the trend to slim leg pant is long over due. Last summer managed to get a pair of Jil Sander seersucker pants with 16" hem. This fall found at Saks a Michael Kors wool pant with 15" that feel and look terrific. Not only do they show off the shoes better, but also show off one's legs and butt.

Love this forum. I've learned so much from you guys. Thanks!

 

[Toiletduck]

I believe the first picture is from the Members pictures thread? I believe the look went well for the original poster, w/ full view.

 

[Soph]

Originally Posted by Toiletduck

I believe the first picture is from the Members pictures thread? I believe the look went well for the original poster, w/ full view.

Yes, it's just an authentic example from Europe whereas the Esquire is 'US mag wannabe". I thought it fine on him as well hence why I used it. I wouldn't go as far as 18.5 cms but it illustrates the higher the narrower effect very well.

 

[grilledcheese]

I can't really see how the first picture looks "terrible." The absolutism on this board can get a little tiresome--everyone so quick to dispense the "right" answer as if there were such a thing. It's funny, because I recall the member forum photo that is the source for the picture on the left, and as Toilet Duck noted (awesome name by the way), the dude that posted the picture looked pretty confident and good. Conversely, I actually think that the GQ guy (besides looking generally corny) has trousers that are borderline sloppy looking--it has something to do with the amount of break with the cuff. I acknowledge that some might think he looks great, and that's cool too. Things like break or cuff/no cuff, etc. are endlessly personal and/or contextual. On a personal note, I only own one pair of pants that taper to anywhere near the degree of the pants in the left photo, and they're hemmed to about his length. They're an older pair of Pradas (the only Prada item I own) that I didn't get rid of because they are a really nice light blue flannel wool material. I don't wear them often, but on days when I'm feeling confident (not to mention slimmer), I'll rock those pants with some purple Pantherellas and some C&Js just because...

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

Well, on the frist picture I remember the whole look and I must say it was a bit too narrow at the ankle for the following reasons:
- his feet are too big.
- monkstraps won't let the pants fall properly which is aggravating when the ankle is very narrow
- the pants has relatively "full" thighs which makes the tapper very dramatic
I prefer narrow ankles but with a slim leg all the way, like incotex does.

!luc

 

[Frittata]

Originally Posted by Soph

Yes, it's just an authentic example from Europe whereas the Esquire is 'US mag wannabe". I thought it fine on him as well hence why I used it. I wouldn't go as far as 18.5 cms but it illustrates the higher the narrower effect very well.
Soph...can you post the Esquire pic in a more detailed resolution... I'd like to learn something about it... as I'm half-italian

 

[Jovan]

That article is from GQ.

I can see how you'd get confused.

I too like the trend of narrow cuffs. I didn't specifically ask for it on my suit trousers from Baron Boutique, but they came out pretty beautifully that way when I just said to size them however they thought would look good.

 

[Get Smart]

I've only worn narrow trousers around 15" wide, and always tailor normal widths of 16-7" down to 15". I have some pairs of 14" bottoms that my friend's label made me and those work really well with certain outfits/shoes. but it's a bit too narrow for most wearings. Obviously, one's waist size is important in determining if a narrow leg will look good. a 36" waist with 15" openings isnt gonna look too good.

 

[Soph]

Originally Posted by Jovan

That article is from GQ.

I can see how you'd get confused.

I too like the trend of narrow cuffs. I didn't specifically ask for it on my suit trousers from Baron Boutique, but they came out pretty beautifully that way when I just said to size them however they thought would look good.

GQ, Esquire etc. all the same crap to me. I still pick up some hairstyle and color combos I like from these mags though, and an occassional good idea among all the fashion(y) advice.