• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Trouser Hem/Cuff Circumference

Sartorially Challenged

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
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

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Anyone?

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

itsstillmatt

The Liberator
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
13,969
Reaction score
2,086
I think that in the US the "classic" is 23 cm.

FWIW, I have pants that range from 18-20.5
 

Sartorially Challenged

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
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

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,006
Reaction score
13
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

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
6,546
Reaction score
140
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

RINO
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
41,314
Reaction score
2,879
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

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
11
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

RINO
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
41,314
Reaction score
2,879
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

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
11
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"
smile.gif
 

Shoe-nut

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
165
Reaction score
2
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

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
698
Reaction score
2
I'm for the tapered cut pant with a tight cuff, 18-20cm.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,160
Messages
10,578,945
Members
223,882
Latest member
anykadaimeni
Top