Trouser Hem/Cuff Circumference

[Sartorially Challenged]

Is there such a thing as "the classic" circumference of trouser hems or cuffs?

It seems 18 inches (9 inches each side) is the standard. Most of my suit pants seem to have 18 inches, but some brands like Luciano Barbera seem to have 16 inches (or 8 on each side).

Any thoughts? Thanks.

 

[Sartorially Challenged]

Anyone?

Surely, there must be someone who is willing to prounounce (with great pomp and authority) what the definitively classic circumference is!

 

[itsstillmatt]

I think that in the US the "classic" is 23 cm.

FWIW, I have pants that range from 18-20.5

 

[Sartorially Challenged]

23 cm is about 9 inches. I assume you mean only on one side, which makes the circumference 18 inches.

What determines the optimum circumference? Should slim people, for example, have slimmer cuffs/hems?

 

[Soph]

Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged

23 cm is about 9 inches. I assume you mean only on one side, which makes the circumference 18 inches.

What determines the optimum circumference? Should slim people, for example, have slimmer cuffs/hems?

Depends how your jackets are made also.
I think 16 is ideal, but I'm a shoe freak.

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged

Anyone?

Surely, there must be someone who is willing to prounounce (with great pomp and authority) what the definitively classic circumference is!

no such thing. it's proportional.

 

[Manton]

18 to 20 works for most builds. Really big guys might need more. Less is more of a stylistic choice. Leaner coats really ought to be paired with narrower trousers.

 

[Joel_Cairo]

Originally Posted by Manton

18 to 20 works for most builds. Really big guys might need more. Less is more of a stylistic choice. Leaner coats really ought to be paired with narrower trousers.

I think shoes also work into the equation. With a bal, I won't go wider than 8 inches across at the hem, though I can handle up to 9.5 or maybe if I had to 10 with a chunky blucher.

 

[Manton]

Yeah, but that is sort of impractical. I mean, it would get expensive to buy different trousers just to wear with different shoes to keep the scale right. Can you imagine how many new pairs of trousers Portnoy would have to buy?

 

[Joel_Cairo]

Originally Posted by Manton

Yeah, but that is sort of impractical. I mean, it would get expensive to buy different trousers just to wear with different shoes to keep the scale right. Can you imagine how many new pairs of trousers Portnoy would have to buy?

I think it's pretty clear that the guiding principles of Portnoy's wardrobe are free from any meddlesome hindrance of "practicality"

 

[Shoe-nut]

I don't think a 20" cuff on todays slim designs would look very good. 50 years ago and older a 20" cuff was the norm for almost all slacks and suites even cotton pants like Khakis or Chinos had wide legs.

 

[nioh]

I'm for the tapered cut pant with a tight cuff, 18-20cm.