Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

tell me everything i need to know about cuffing wool pants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tell me everything i need to know about cuffing wool pants

    never done it before, but just got a nice pair of howard yount flannel pants. i had avoided it because i thought cuffing was mostly for taller people...is that true?

  • #2
    I'm 5'7" I cuff my dark wash jeans and sometimes my chino's... I guess I'd have to see a reference of people cuffing pants, but I don't think you have to be tall for it to look good.

    Comment


    • #3
      Its not about how tall you are but rather your proportions. Guys with proportionally long legs will cuff to visually shorten the legs and give a more balanced profile. Guys with very long torsos and short legs (like Michael Phelps) would avoid cuffing as it will make them look even more imbalanced. Regular proportioned people can cuff or not cuff, I think at that point it is more a matter of preference.

      Check out Phelps here: https://throwingthesideeye.files.wor.../09/boys2.jpeg Notice he's quite tall (6'4" I think) but his waist is lower than the more normal Ryan Lochte while his shoulders are still a good couple inches higher.

      What does that mean? It means he should avoid low-rise pants or cuffed pants, which will both shorten his legs further in relation to his abnormally long torso. See also: http://www.primermagazine.com/wp-con...se/image04.png vs http://www.primermagazine.com/wp-con...se/image03.png

      Comment


      • #4
        [MENTION=12707]DapperTexan[/MENTION] has a good explanation. To me the cuff creates a visual break and does shorten the length of legs. I'm not a fan of cuffing. All the older (50s-60s) men in my office have old pleated pants with cuffs and I just associate cuffs with an older look.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Scofield View Post
          never done it before, but just got a nice pair of howard yount flannel pants. i had avoided it because i thought cuffing was mostly for taller people...is that true?
          Howard yount generally had a higher rise which should offset the cuff in terms of perceived height, at least to an extent.

          Try going with a 1.5" cuff instead of the 2" that is so popular right now. I go tapered and no break with cuffed pants. If you don't like the look there is plenty of fabric left over to go no cuff.
          My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSs1xkOEoJdPfZ4KRW575qA

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by thecharlesg View Post
            Howard yount generally had a higher rise which should offset the cuff in terms of perceived height, at least to an extent.

            Try going with a 1.5" cuff instead of the 2" that is so popular right now. I go tapered and no break with cuffed pants. If you don't like the look there is plenty of fabric left over to go no cuff.
            I would second this suggestion. I've experimented with some cuffing from Land's End trousers and there is some break in the pants, which I dislike. I am currently waiting to have them hemmed up to no break- it is just a way better look with cuffs. Break + cuffs just looks sloppy to me.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm 5-6 with a 26 1/4" inseam, so I have shorter legs....guess I shouldn't cuff

              Comment


              • #8
                I disagree with the generic guidelines typically given on cuffs and height. I think the rise and break of the trouser affects the balance between the legs and torso infinitely more than the cuff.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Scofield View Post
                  I'm 5-6 with a 26 1/4" inseam, so I have shorter legs....guess I shouldn't cuff
                  I'm 6'1/2" and a 29 inseam. As much as I like the look of cuffs (and the weight helps drape and movement), I generally don't have them on my pants.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pardon me, I'm bumping this post.

                    I'm getting ready to purchase a pair of wool flannel trousers for this fall/winter season and I am highly considering having them cuffed. The look of cuffed flannel, especially with suede or boots, really appeals to me. I currently do not have any of my trousers cuffed (I cuff jeans and chinos) and I wear them with a slight contemporary break. The general consensus on this thread though seemed to be cuff = no break. Which I agree with the statement that it does look sloppy. But then I saw this picture posted in another thread.
                    http://chattypics.com/files/Butler_tcsuyyvd9b.jpg
                    It seems this gentlemen has a slight break? Would this still be considered sloppy? My main concern with going cuffed with no break is that it will throw off my proportions too much. I'm 6' with a 31.5" Inseam, however the pants I'm looking at have a medium high rise. Can anyone speak to the wiser on that? I also agree with cuffed trousers generally look better with a good taper. Would a 16" opening be too less of a taper to go cuffed no break? Thank you all!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leanderthal View Post
                      Pardon me, I'm bumping this post.

                      I'm getting ready to purchase a pair of wool flannel trousers for this fall/winter season and I am highly considering having them cuffed. The look of cuffed flannel, especially with suede or boots, really appeals to me. I currently do not have any of my trousers cuffed (I cuff jeans and chinos) and I wear them with a slight contemporary break. The general consensus on this thread though seemed to be cuff = no break. Which I agree with the statement that it does look sloppy. But then I saw this picture posted in another thread.
                      http://chattypics.com/files/Butler_tcsuyyvd9b.jpg
                      It seems this gentlemen has a slight break? Would this still be considered sloppy? My main concern with going cuffed with no break is that it will throw off my proportions too much. I'm 6' with a 31.5" Inseam, however the pants I'm looking at have a medium high rise. Can anyone speak to the wiser on that? I also agree with cuffed trousers generally look better with a good taper. Would a 16" opening be too less of a taper to go cuffed no break? Thank you all!
                      From what I've read, aside from aesthetics, the main purpose of cuffs is to add some weight to the bottom of the trousers to help the fabric hang straight and keep the lines clean. So having anything more than a slight or quarter break defeats the functional purpose of cuffs; with a half or full break, the fabric (especially a stiffer or heavier fabric) is going to gather around the ankles and calves, throwing off the drape anyway.








                      If you want cuffs, a 1.5" to 2" cuff with no break or slight break is the way to go, especially if the pants have larger opening at the hem: like putting a fold in a piece of paper, the cuff will also add some rigidity to the fabric at the hem which help stop the fabric from flopping around too much when you're moving.



                      Regarding cuffs and a person's height, I agree with pretty everything others have written: deciding to go with cuffs (and the height of the cuff) is about your height to inseam ratio, the rise of the pants, and the fabric. I'm no tailor, but if I was you I would go with the break and cuff combination in the picture you shared. It doesn't look sloppy to me at all.
                      Last edited by JohnG; May 12th, 2016, 08:57 AM. Reason: Spelling

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Leanderthal View Post
                        I'm getting ready to purchase a pair of wool flannel trousers for this fall/winter season and I am highly considering having them cuffed. The look of cuffed flannel, especially with suede or boots, really appeals to me. I currently do not have any of my trousers cuffed (I cuff jeans and chinos) and I wear them with a slight contemporary break. The general consensus on this thread though seemed to be cuff = no break. Which I agree with the statement that it does look sloppy. But then I saw this picture posted in another thread.
                        http://chattypics.com/files/Butler_tcsuyyvd9b.jpg
                        It seems this gentlemen has a slight break? Would this still be considered sloppy? My main concern with going cuffed with no break is that it will throw off my proportions too much. I'm 6' with a 31.5" Inseam, however the pants I'm looking at have a medium high rise. Can anyone speak to the wiser on that? I also agree with cuffed trousers generally look better with a good taper. Would a 16" opening be too less of a taper to go cuffed no break? Thank you all!
                        It depends width of the leg. The current look, as exemplified by the Jort flannels, is tapered leg with a two inch cuff and no break. My personal rule is: the wider the leg, the more of a break. What you don’t want is a lot of fabric suspended in the air (and a strong horizontal silhouette above the shoe). If you have a wide trouser leg, it should touch the shoe—and that means at least a slight break. That is what the gentleman in the pic is doing. If he went without break, the trousers would look too short (as possibly clown-like) because the leg is relatively wide.

                        Do you have a pic of your potential purchase?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by theplayerking View Post
                          It depends width of the leg. The current look, as exemplified by the Jort flannels, is tapered leg with a two inch cuff and no break. My personal rule is: the wider the leg, the more of a break. What you don’t want is a lot of fabric suspended in the air (and a strong horizontal silhouette above the shoe). If you have a wide trouser leg, it should touch the shoe—and that means at least a slight break. That is what the gentleman in the pic is doing. If he went without break, the trousers would look too short (as possibly clown-like) because the leg is relatively wide.

                          Do you have a pic of your potential purchase?
                          That makes a lot of sense. I was just going to go with LE's because of the price. I'm sure they aren't the best, but their pants fit me well and they're affordable right now. Says that the tailored had a 16" opening on a 32x32.
                          http://www.landsend.com/products/men...78?sku_0=::LGH

                          Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks [MENTION=15090]JohnG[/MENTION] lots of good stuff in that reply!

                            Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leanderthal View Post
                              That makes a lot of sense. I was just going to go with LE's because of the price. I'm sure they aren't the best, but their pants fit me well and they're affordable right now. Says that the tailored had a 16" opening on a 32x32.
                              http://www.landsend.com/products/men...78?sku_0=::LGH
                              With those particular trousers, I would go with no cuff and a small break—essentially as they’re shown on the website.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X