to cuff or not to cuff

[The Happy Stroller]

I do wonder sometimes whether this cuff tradition is of Italian origin.

A gentleman's suit trousers is not cuffed. And gentlemen are those who wear Morning Dress, Strollers, and Evening Dress, such as dinner jackets and Cutaway Tailcoats; the trousers have stripes and have forward pleats.

American businessmen are the ones whose conservative business suits have trousers which have reverse pleats and are cuffed.

In the City of London, there are gentlemen who work in professions such as bankers and lawyers. Since they are not businessmen, and as Flusser mentions in his book Dressing The Man the English regard cuffless trousers the epitome of dressing, or something like that, their trousers do not have cuffs. or, is it just a Savile Row thing?

Originally Posted by dragon8

I always thought the rule of thumb was: if pleats cuff if flat front no cuffs.

But with my suits i always cuff.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

Where tradition ends and legend begins is always hard to determine in these matters. And frankly my own rule is always to decide tailoring details upon what looks good on oneself and with the clothes one is wearing.

I have always heard that it was the Prince of Wales, later Duke of Windsor, who popularized the Jazz Age taste for cuffed trousers. Certainly it was a risque style in an age when flat bottomed trousers were the rule. But as time went on and cuffs made inroads into fashion, cuffed became acknowledged as the proper way to go. Indeed, I've known many businessmen in New York who feel they are too "conservative," whatever that means, to wear cuffed trousers.

 

[william]

At this point in history it's personal preference (barring the aforementioned formal wear rule).

 

[Manton]

I agree that no cuffs predates cuffs, and that cuffs originated as a country detail. Perhaps some very conservative Englishmen still feel this way and won't get cuffs on the trousers of a city suit. Nonetheless, today one sees cuffs all over London, and Savile Row seems hardly hesitant to make them. Unlike the case of some other popular deviations from classic style, which they will make, but grudgingly, and after an attempt to talk the customer out of it.

 

[The Happy Stroller]

You're right, CG, the Prince of Wales was the culprit. It seems I was totally wrong about the Italian connection. According to Maria Constantino in her MEN'S FASHION IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY - From frock coats to intelligent fibres, the British followed his example when he turned up his trousers at the muddy paddocks at the Ascot to avoid dirtying his trousers. It was really an English practice; in France, men were required to turn down their trousers when they presented themselves at their clubs. Then for some reason trousers became tailored with cuffs for almost half a century. The practice was stopped by the government with the arrival of the Second World War when cloth had to be rationed. Similarly, DB jackets became widespread during the intervening period between the two Wars, partly because Tarzan etc. emphasied masculine shoulders, then were not allowed to be made for the same reason. Pleats were not allowed by the French government for the same reason.

So now we know why we have all these confusion about whether to have pleats and cuffs ever since.

Originally Posted by Chauncey Gardner

Where tradition ends and legend begins is always hard to determine in these matters. And frankly my own rule is always to decide tailoring details upon what looks good on oneself and with the clothes one is wearing.

I have always heard that it was the Prince of Wales, later Duke of Windsor, who popularized the Jazz Age taste for cuffed trousers. Certainly it was a risque style in an age when flat bottomed trousers were the rule. But as time went on and cuffs made inroads into fashion, cuffed became acknowledged as the proper way to go. Indeed, I've known many businessmen in New York who feel they are too "conservative," whatever that means, to wear cuffed trousers.

 

[D'Varlet]

Opinions?
Oh good! I'm qualified to participate.

Cuffing flat or pleated pants seems to me to be a simple matter of aesthetics.
I never really considered the rules or the history of it.

Pleated pants make a specific sort of visual statement.
They're fuller and they're more detailed, and that invites more evaluation from the eye of the viewer.
Cuffs seem to me to be the natural extension of that statement.

Cuffs also add fullness and detail, they seem completely in keeping with the theme and the drape of pleated pants;
A theme that begins at the very top of the pleats.

To have a pair of pleated pants just "˜end' at the bottom strikes my eye as wrong.
Even on shorter men, I think scaling the cuff height down proportionately is a much better answer than hemming.

Conversely, flat fronts have less material and are more direct.
The intention of the cut is to produce a cleaner and more fitted line, sometimes to the point of nearly defying the concept of "˜drape'.
To my eye, a cuff is totally unrelated to what the cut of these pants is trying to say.

Far from cuffing, I'd prefer to see the line of flat fronts kept as clean as possible -- with a decent fishtail on the hems and a little lighter break on the shoe tops.
It just seems more...what's the word?...Harmonious.

But hey! I quote cartoon pirates in my signature line.
What the heck do I know?
LOL

D'V

 

[bucephalus]

To me cuffed trousers do not look right with a double vented jacket.