# Pants length - Having break or no break



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

How does the break on pants go along with wearer's body type? I never had my OTR purchases hemmed before and just went with the manufactured length. As it turns out, they are excessively long (almost to borderline sloppy) so having that take care off now. Now the question being - should I keep some break on the pants or none? I have a little bit of weight on midsection so a perception of longer legs would go in my favor. Personally I like a cleaner look but I am not trying to go with high-water pants either. 
Also should break differ between casual pants (such as khakis) vs dress pants?


----------



## ZackP (Jan 10, 2013)

It seems to me that no break would work if you want a cleaner look. I personally think full break makes the pants look baggy and ill-fitting (my opinion). I am also a shorter guy (5'5") so no-break would to me give that length illusion.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

This is something of an Anglo/American divide but most men who care about how they look in England (not as many as you might think, unfortunately) will choose a full break for dress (or any woolen) trousers i.e. one clean break at the front and a smooth line down to just above the heel of the shoe at the back. A slanted hem (slightly shorter at the front than it is at the back) is ideal to optimise the appearance of the full break. 

Both English and American men agree that trousers any longer than a full break simply look appalling and cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. 

However, in England, half-break (even no break) trousers can be tolerated especially on more casual wear and heavier/stiffer cloths e.g. chino's. 

And my personal view contra to the arguments of the various breaks being centred around the illusion of leg length - as this is based upon observation of a figure standing still. I find that I am often sitting down or in motion when wearing trousers and so the extra length of full break assists in granting a more pleasing appearance to both these activities, most especially when in motion as a no-break length woolen trouser will flap most unbecomingly around the ankles.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

ZackP said:


> It seems to me that no break would work if you want a cleaner look. I personally think full break makes the pants look baggy and ill-fitting (my opinion). I am also a shorter guy (5'5") so no-break would to me give that length illusion.


I kinda think that when one walks or sits or lounges, no break makes the trousers look ridiculously short. However, if one is wearing a more modern slimmer outfit, hipster if you want, it can work. Or with really nice bresciani socks


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> This is something of an Anglo/American divide but most men who care about how they look in England (not as many as you might think, unfortunately) will choose a full break for dress (or any woolen) trousers i.e. one clean break at the front and a smooth line down to just above the heel of the shoe at the back. A slanted hem (slightly shorter at the front than it is at the back) is ideal to optimise the appearance of the full break.
> 
> Both English and American men agree that trousers any longer than a full break simply look appalling and cannot be countenanced under any circumstances.
> 
> ...


Sorry, did not see your post. What you said...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Rick Blaine said:


> How does the break on pants go along with wearer's body type? I never had my OTR purchases hemmed before and just went with the manufactured length. As it turns out, they are excessively long (almost to borderline sloppy) so having that take care off now. Now the question being - should I keep some break on the pants or none? I have a little bit of weight on midsection so a perception of longer legs would go in my favor. Personally I like a cleaner look but I am not trying to go with high-water pants either.
> Also should break differ between casual pants (such as khakis) vs dress pants?


At the risk of adding another variable to the equation, I think you'll have to consider cuffs vs no cuffs. My preferences:


Casual + No Cuff = Little to no break
Casual + Cuff = Slight break
Dress + Cuff = Slight to full break
Dress + No Cuff = Strictly Verboten


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Using SHP's format....with some variations


Casual + No Cuff = Slight break. 
Casual + Cuff = I do not put cuffs on my casual pants. 
Dress + Cuff = Full break 
Dress + No Cuff = Slight Break.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Slight break on everything, just as in the military. Keep it simple.


----------



## Flairball (Dec 9, 2012)

Since my misadventure with the Russian ladies I've been struggling with this myself. To be perfectly honest I prefer no break, but as has been pointed out some trouser types will appear floppy without a break. I think I will be going no break on heavy, stiff fabrics with a narrower cut, and slight break on everything else. I think I happen to look better with little to no break.


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

Flairball said:


> I think I happen to look better with little to no break.


People invariably do, in my very humble opinion.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Thanks, this has been helpful.

shaver, your definition of full break sounds pretty clean as well. how would you put half/ quarter break in words?

ps- just looked at upr_ crust' s pics from WAYWT. is that a full break? surprised to see how many people are wearing excessively long pants in that thread.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Using SHP's format....with some variations
> 
> 
> Casual + No Cuff = Slight break.
> ...


Dress + No cuff = full break IMO.

Also, that's what I mainly wear. Short guys should never wear cuffs. IMO...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> Thanks, this has been helpful.
> 
> shaver, your definition of full break sounds pretty clean as well. how would you put half/ quarter break in words?
> 
> ps- just looked at upr_ crust' s pics from WAYWT. is that a full break? surprised to see how many people are wearing excessively long pants in that thread.


Upr* is indeed wearing a full break as is this (somewhat miserable looking) fellow here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-Are-You-Wearing-Today&p=1349689#post1349689

This (more cheerful) chap is modelling the no (or light) break look:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-Are-You-Wearing-Today&p=1348825#post1348825

A half break is (rather obviously!) something exactly between the two.

To my mind equally as much to be avoided as the dreaded 'pooling' effect of over long trousers is the trouser that does not quite touch the top of the shoe.

* I cannot currently recall an occasion when upr's fit has been less than perfect.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> Dress + No cuff = full break IMO.
> 
> Also, that's what I mainly wear. Short guys should never wear cuffs. IMO...


NO. No, no, no! Please stop repeating this myth. Bjorn, you know I love you man... but don't! :eek2:

If the short man wants cuffs, he can get cuffs. They just need to be proportionate. On a taller guy like me (6'1 and up) 1.75-2" cuffs are desirable. But if you're say... Tom Cruise or shorter (5'7 and under) a 1.25" cuff is optimal.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Rick Blaine said:


> Thanks, this has been helpful.
> 
> shaver, your definition of full break sounds pretty clean as well. how would you put half/ quarter break in words?
> 
> ps- just looked at upr_ crust' s pics from WAYWT. is that a full break? surprised to see how many people are wearing excessively long pants in that thread.





Shaver said:


> Upr* is indeed wearing a full break as is this (somewhat miserable looking) fellow here:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-Are-You-Wearing-Today&p=1349689#post1349689
> 
> ...


In an ideal world, I like little to no break, though one needs to temper this "rule" by the width of the leg opening (narrower cut trousers need to be cut without a break - wider leg opening can have a small amount of break).

Now, my postings of the last two days exhibit more trouser break than I consider ideal - as if I'm not keeping my alterations tailor busy enough this week (have visited him twice so far, and it's only Wednesday). When I've the time, I will have him take action on yesterday's and today's trousers.

Ironically, the suit that I left with my tailor on Monday needed to have both the sleeves and the trouser hems lengthened by about 1/2 inch or so - the shop in London where I bought the suit was a bit overly zealous on providing me with "no break".

For my ideal trouser length, look at my posting of this past Monday - the trousers on that suit are the proper length for my legs (in their current configuration - it seems that I've lost an inch, overall, in height, as of late - the aging process - arghhhhh).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think I've found that, with my height and build, a slight break is optimal whether or not the trouser opening is narrow.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

upr_crust said:


> In an ideal world, I like little to no break, though one needs to temper this "rule" by the width of the leg opening (narrower cut trousers need to be cut without a break - wider leg opening can have a small amount of break).
> 
> Now, my postings of the last two days exhibit more trouser break than I consider ideal - as if I'm not keeping my alterations tailor busy enough this week (have visited him twice so far, and it's only Wednesday). When I've the time, I will have him take action on yesterday's and today's trousers.
> 
> ...


A rare foray outside of the WAYWT thread for upr and proof that an American eye, well-trained to the minutiae of fit, can hold to an alternate preference for the depth of break than an English fellow. :icon_smile:


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

I was getting a suit altered a while back, and mentioned to my tailor (who, while we were chatting, proudly informed me that he was one month away from celebrating his 50th anniversary as a tailor, btw) that although I'd always opted for a full break, maybe I could go for something a little different for once.

He responded that due to my unusually large calves, I should avoid anything less than a half to full break, if I wanted things to look their best.

I'd never before really considered this point, the connection between oversized calves and pants break, but as I tend to trust his experience and judgement in such matters, and know that he has no fundamental objection to altering pants for a more modest break for other people, I accepted his advice.

Having thought it over, I can now see where he was coming from. And I'm convinced that he gave me good counsel.

So, opinions?
-- 
Michael


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I can see why having a moderate break would be preferable if your calves are large. It might minimize a "bottom heavy" effect?


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A rare foray outside of the WAYWT thread for upr and proof that an American eye, well-trained to the minutiae of fit, can hold to an alternate preference for the depth of break than an English fellow. :icon_smile:


I second. Very rare to Mr UC posting outside WAYWT.

Will be taking all my chinos to the tailor to get them hemmed for no break. All dress pants will little break as upr/shaver have suggested. This takes me another realization... I don't think I have ever worn pants of proper length in my life.



> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-Are-You-Wearing-Today&p=1349689#post1349689


First day to school or just another Monday?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Just buy some manpris and be done with it. :icon_smile:


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A rare foray outside of the WAYWT thread for upr and proof that an American eye, well-trained to the minutiae of fit, can hold to an alternate preference for the depth of break than an English fellow. :icon_smile:


I know this is not part of this thread, but I have seen it many times, and I have no idea what WAYWT means. I am sure I am just overlooking something, but can someone tell me?


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I know this is not part of this thread, but I have seen it many times, and I have no idea what WAYWT means. I am sure I am just overlooking something, but can someone tell me?


W.hat A.re Y.ou W.earing T.oday

theres one in the fashion forum & one in the trad forum


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

Flairball said:


> Since my misadventure with the Russian ladies I've been struggling with this myself.


i think I missed something...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

He's referring to the place where he has things altered. He mentioned in the Trad WAYWT that they hemmed his trousers an inch too long.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

There are worse misadventures one could have. 

I like a little bit of break -- but I'd rather have a full break than have my pants be too short.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Shaver said:


> A rare foray outside of the WAYWT thread for upr and proof that an American eye, well-trained to the minutiae of fit, can hold to an alternate preference for the depth of break than an English fellow. :icon_smile:





Rick Blaine said:


> I second. Very rare to Mr UC posting outside WAYWT.
> 
> Will be taking all my chinos to the tailor to get them hemmed for no break. All dress pants will little break as upr/shaver have suggested. This takes me another realization... I don't think I have ever worn pants of proper length in my life.


My breaking silence outside of What Are You Wearing Today, in the Fashion Forum, is due to two factors - having a work day with some slow spots in it, and the subject of the thread which impinged on recent experience (having suit trousers lengthened 1/2 inch to achieve the proper length).


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

salgy said:


> W.hat A.re Y.ou W.earing T.oday
> 
> theres one in the fashion forum & one in the trad forum


I should have been able to figure that one out...


----------



## ZackP (Jan 10, 2013)

Jovan said:


> NO. No, no, no! Please stop repeating this myth. Bjorn, you know I love you man... but don't! :eek2:
> 
> If the short man wants cuffs, he can get cuffs. They just need to be proportionate. On a taller guy like me (6'1 and up) 1.75-2" cuffs are desirable. But if you're say... Tom Cruise or shorter (5'7 and under) a 1.25" cuff is optimal.


Glad someone else feels the same! Cuffs look awesome! I'm 5'5" and those BIG cuffs look silly, but nice smaller ones look pretty great and add a nice finishing touch to dress pants.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I wear my chinos with less break than my wool trousers, but I prefer some break in all of my pants.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Well if you go with 4 levels - no break, slight break, modest break, severe break. Only slight and modest are good choices. No break and you look like a snotty nosed kid whose outgrown his pants. Severe break and more like a sloppy guy whose poorly fitting pants keep falling down. I prefer modest break for my trousers.


----------



## mmccre1056 (Apr 27, 2012)

I prefer a slight break myself. My tailor makes sure that the tops of the shoes are covered properly and this usually results in the front hem covering the laces and the rear hem having a fishtail in the back, but not down to the heel joint. Just make sure that your socks match the trouser color.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm a fan of the no-break look but this is for casual wear (mostly) mind you. If the pants in question are too long to achieve this, I'll sometimes cuff em. In the winter, this exhibits the socks. In the summer, the ankles.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> I second. Very rare to Mr UC posting outside WAYWT.
> 
> Will be taking all my chinos to the tailor to get them hemmed for no break. All dress pants will little break as upr/shaver have suggested. This takes me another realization... *I don't think I have ever worn pants of proper length in my life.*


A common occurrence judging by the fellows I observe on my commute.........



Rick Blaine said:


> First day to school or just another Monday?


Yeah, it's not such a flattering shot is it? Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike having my photo taken? Even worse, I absolutely refuse to ever allow anyone to video tape me: this can result in awkward stand-offs in social situations......


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A common occurrence judging by the fellows I observe on my commute.........
> 
> Yeah, it's not such a flattering shot is it? Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike having my photo taken? Even worse, I absolutely refuse to ever allow anyone to video tape me: this can result in awkward stand-offs in social situations......


LOL! I would love to see to footage of that :icon_smile_big:

Shaver, 2 questions on your picture(s) -

1. How do you make a knot where the tie is pinched so nicely right under the knot? Is it the fabric of tie or knot type? I'd like to learn more.  
I got few skinnies as an experiment (2.5") and there isn't much I can do with them. Wool skinny ties are too thick to do anything but standard knot and knitted skinny has too much volume in the knot. Next I am looking at 3" grenafaux ties.
2. Is it okay to close all buttons of an overcoat/peacoat (even if there is no jacket under it)? Just looking at your other picture in the same thread.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> LOL! I would love to see to footage of that :icon_smile_big:


There is no footage for I am adept at locating the 'delete' function on these wretched devices. The advent of camera phones with video function makes it a little trickier but I can sniff out any culprit who may be videoing me with an uncanny sixth sense. Do any of the chumps who wander around randomly videoing guests at gatherings ever even watch the banal tripe which they record?

-



Rick Blaine said:


> Shaver, 2 questions on your picture(s)
> 1. How do you make a knot where the tie is pinched so nicely right under the knot? Is it the fabric of tie or knot type? I'd like to learn more. :smile:
> I got few skinnies as an experiment (2.5") and there isn't much I can do with them. Wool skinny ties are too thick to do anything but standard knot and knitted skinny has too much volume in the knot. Next I am looking at 3" grenafaux ties.
> 2. Is it okay to close all buttons of an overcoat/peacoat (even if there is no jacket under it)? Just looking at your other picture in the same thread.


The tie knot is my beloved half-windsor, kept taut through each twist and turn to minimise bulk. I have seen the odd four in hand on the Trad WAYWT done rather splendidly but I cannot manage anything but a shapeless mess with that particular knot - at any rate I covet the sharp 'v' shape and deep, slick cuilliere that the half-windsor will grant. For a knit silk tie I tend toward the Nicky knot.

When I wear a pea coat it is as an alternative to a jacket, and too fitted to squeeze a jacket underneath even if I wished. Unless it was a quick walk to the shop I would not wear an overcoat without a jacket underneath - in fact I rarely cross the threshold to the outside world without a jacket on my back. As to button closure, I haven't really given it too much thought. If it's cold enough to wear it's normally cold enough to button an overcoat up. There is something rather dashing about overcoat tails billowing out behind you as you walk though.......


----------



## von Schönberg (Feb 19, 2013)

Amen. Half break *works for me *since *my* trousers do not come up "short" when sitting or lounging (which makes it look as though there wasn't enough material to finish the job). Isn't this why socks are not in the underwear category? I recently had some suit pants hemmed at the top of the heel, resulting in more break than anticipated. Yet, when I sit, the pants appear like I knew exactly what I was doing (NOT!). A trade-off, I suppose.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm afraid I don't follow. It's expected that some sock is going to show when sitting no matter what your level of break.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## fly4food84 (Feb 17, 2013)

I prefer a break personally, but not a large one.


----------



## jebarne (Jul 26, 2012)

What is the break Daniel Craig wears in skyfall? Not commenting on the very slim fit of the suit itself, but the pants have a fairly deep cuff and seem to have a very slight break. Those of you with more experience with terminology will better know how to describe it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

No break at all, if I recall correctly, which is pretty much required with leg openings that small.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Shaver said:


> This is something of an Anglo/American divide but most men who care about how they look in England (not as many as you might think, unfortunately) will choose a full break for dress (or any woolen) trousers i.e. one clean break at the front and a smooth line down to just above the heel of the shoe at the back. A slanted hem (slightly shorter at the front than it is at the back) is ideal to optimise the appearance of the full break.
> 
> Both English and American men agree that trousers any longer than a full break simply look appalling and cannot be countenanced under any circumstances.
> 
> ...


I prefer a moderate-full break in suits and wool trousers, straight line down the back, and a slightly slanted cuff. I wear a slight break on chinos. I wear cuffs in suits and wool, no cuffs on chinos.

As a large fellow with broad shoulders and a barrel torso (I'm a standard sized rugby union prop, if that helps), I find that no break looks silly on a wider leg opening and smaller leg openings either make me look like an ice cream cone, or the legs are so trim that the waist has to be so large to accomodate my quads that everything looks wrong. That said, I stick to wider leg openings and moderate break.


----------

