Which do you prefer (Need your opinion on pants break)

[A Guy from Shanghai]

While I know that pants break is more of personal taste/preference, I need the forum's opinions.

Here are 2 pairs of pants:

1)

2)

 

[Hard2Fit]

1.
(this would have made a great poll)

 

[edmorel]

For me, degree of break is in relation to my entire outfit. I wear slim pants with small leg openings and a jacket on the shorter side so I go with no break to 1/2 or so above the shoe. I also have a relatively large shoe size (10) so another school of thought says that my pants should be a bit wider at the leg, but you just have to go with what you feel. Wider opening pants worn with more relaxed clothing deos not look good with no break, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Metlin]

From the front, while the first one breaks more, I think it makes you look a lot taller. The second one looks a lot more fitted, but it narrows out a little too much towards the feet, which doesn't look as good.

From the side, once again, I think the first one flows a lot better and the second one looks a little twisted (could be just an optical illusion).

So, while I would never ever wear anything in the color of the first one, I think that I prefer the break in the first than in the second.

IMHO, YMMV and all that, of course.

 

[Jumbie]

I prefer the break in the second one but I don't know why it's protruding so far from the back of your shoe. It looks funny and, actually, rather bad.

Also, both of your leg openings look too large to me.

 

[porcelain monkey]

Number one. It seems that pants are getting shorter all the time (thank you Thom Browne), but I am still of the school that there should be a slight break. Also, as wool pants age and are laundered I have found they can shrink a bit. When you bend your knees the fabric pulls up a bit. Pants that are hemmed with no break will ride up to reveal more sock. Not my favorite look at all.

 

[Jumbie]

Originally Posted by edmorel

Wider opening pants worn with more relaxed clothing deos not look good with no break, but that's just my opinion.

I would agree with this as well although I really don't like the no break look in general. I prefer a very small amount.

 

[A Guy from Shanghai]

Thanks for the opinions so far...please continue

Here are some relevant informations:

Both pants are cords, flat front, straight leg with leg opening 8.75". Both cuffed at 1.75". Please note, I do have a small feet. 6.5D.

And I am a hair under 5'10".

 

[sartort]

i would definitely consider taking both of these cords to your tailor and having them tapered. my tailor charges $15 per pair. It's definitely worth it. Once tapered to a smaller opening, say 7.5" or so, I think the 2nd pair has the proper break. You might enjoy a fuller cut at the bottom so please disregard my advince, but given that you have smallish feet, I think a narrower leg opening would strike a good balance.

 

[southbound35]

I prefer pair #1 and agree that a slight taper would improve the overall look.

 

[Style Pontifex]

I think the break is more appealing in the second picture. I typically only prefer a lot of break in jeans. Even though these are casual, they look pretty frumpy with the amount of break in the first pair of pants.

I agree both pairs need to be tapered.

 

[JayJay]

#1

 

[Golf_Nerd]

Originally Posted by southbound35

I prefer pair #1 and agree that a slight taper would improve the overall look.

+1

 

[grimslade]

The break on the first pair is to my taste, but in the side shot the leg opening looks too wide.

 

[vitaminc]

For cotton, linen and light weight wools I prefer full break because they don't drape as well as wools.

I prefer the break in the second one but I don't know why it's protruding so far from the back of your shoe. It looks funny and, actually, rather bad./QUOTE]

Because the 2nd pair is off balanced. Too much fabrics at the back of his pants around the ass area and too much fabrics around his front shin.