Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: tell me everything i need to know about cuffing wool pants

  1. #11
    Varsity Member JohnG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Quoted
    137 Post(s)
    Quote 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 at 09:57 AM. Reason: Spelling

  2. #12
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    858
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Quoted
    287 Post(s)
    Quote 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?

  3. #13
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)
    Quote 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

  4. #14
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)
    Thanks @JohnG lots of good stuff in that reply!

    Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

  5. #15
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    858
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Quoted
    287 Post(s)
    Quote 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.

  6. #16
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,547
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2083 Post(s)
    Cuffed trousers are quite on-trend in the haute menswear circles. Personally I don't see any need for them unless the trousers are pleated or meant to be worn with a double-breasted jacket, where they lend both literal and visual weight to balance the top and bottom parts of the outfit. Those looks (or rather, how they have been reimagined and appropriated from old fuddy-duddy-dom in recent years) are too fashion forward for my needs, so I stick with single-breasted jackets and flat-front trousers with no cuff.
    Ben

  7. #17
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theplayerking View Post
    With those particular trousers, I would go with no cuff and a small break—essentially as they’re shown on the website.
    What about these particular trousers would make you go no cuff, if you don't mind my asking?

    Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

  8. #18
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    858
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Quoted
    287 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leanderthal View Post
    What about these particular trousers would make you go no cuff, if you don't mind my asking?
    As @LesserBlackDog noted, cuff are trending right now. However they’re usually with a very slim, tapered look. The LE trousers you cite are a bit fuller. Adding cuffs could make them a bit 90s (fuddy-duddy?) in my opinion. It’s a matter of personal taste, but the trend in cuffs right now is more like this:


  9. #19
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Quoted
    327 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theplayerking View Post
    As @LesserBlackDog noted, cuff are trending right now. However they’re usually with a very slim, tapered look. The LE trousers you cite are a bit fuller. Adding cuffs could make them a bit 90s (fuddy-duddy?) in my opinion. It’s a matter of personal taste, but the trend in cuffs right now is more like this:

    Ah, noted. Would you say then that Butler in the picture that I posted looks "fuddy-duddy"? Or does being an older gentleman allow him to wear this look successfully?

    Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,059
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Quoted
    452 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leanderthal View Post
    Ah, noted. Would you say then that Butler in the picture that I posted looks "fuddy-duddy"? Or does being an older gentleman allow him to wear this look successfully?
    He looks good. But as you noted, he's older which makes styling the pants that way more age-appropriate. Everything is also fitted really well. If you get the perfect tiny break like that, cuffs on slightly-wider pants are easier to pull off.

    Those Land's End pants could be styled with cuffs and wouldn't look bad. They aren't wide. They're just not super-slim. But styling that way will not look fashion forward, specifically because they aren't super-slim. And they also probably won't look classic unless you're 50.

    But you could always get them cuffed and take the cuffs off if you don't like them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •