# Poll: pant cuffs on shorter men?



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

From Ask Nick Sullivan in Esquire:

"If you're on the shorter side, cuffs can visualy shorten your legs, while a clean non-cuff finish has a lengthening effect."

This is, of course, a basic rule that most AAAC members already knew. 

But some who are on the shorter side post pictures of themselves in cuffed pants nevertheless. Do you think that is a good look?


----------



## Moose Maclennan (Apr 20, 2006)

It's an old wives' tale. Nobody's legs ever looked shorter for having cuffs.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

Moose Maclennan said:


> It's an old wives' tale. Nobody's legs ever looked shorter for having cuffs.


I disagree. Anything that interupts the vertical line of the slacks will have the effect of making the legs look shorter.

I would also favor the military style for hemming the legs, slightly longer in the back (to the top of the heel) and a slight break in the front.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

This is not a "rule." It is advice.

It is not very good advice, IMO. Cuffs do more to _promote_ a vertical line than they do to break it up. A long crease running from waistband to the ankle, followed by another in-line crease dropping the last 1.25", is a *lot *better than a crease that jogs around diagonally hither and yon, and does not reach the waistband.

Besides, how often in a business context is one's height being judged from the perspective of a full-body view? Height is quite accurately judged, regardless of whether you're wearing cuffs, knee-breaches, or rubber hot pants, when you stand face to face and shake hands. Or when you stand next to someone on a podium/dias or other presentation arena.

*There is nothing a short man can wear, except for stilts, to "look taller." What he can do is make sure that he looks proportional.  *Since most short men are short because they have disproportionately short legs, what matters most is getting the waist up to an appropriate level. Low-rise pants on short men make them look like penguins.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> This is not a "rule." It is advice.
> 
> It is not very good advice, IMO. Cuffs do more to _promote_ a vertical line than they do to break it up. A long crease running from waistband to the ankle, followed by another in-line crease dropping the last 1.25", is a *lot *better than a crease that jogs around diagonally hither and yon, and does not reach the waistband.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that there is no such thing as optical illusion?


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

Cuffs are perfectly fine on short men, they do wonders for the drape of a trousers especially with light materials. However, the proportion is often wrong, i.e., they are often too large. They should be discreet, around 1" high on shorter men. 

They are a natural accompaniment to pleats, and I think they look better on a trousers with a fuller cut and less of a taper towards the feet, so the motion of the legs is blurred within the action of the fabric. And they need the right context:

A properly waisted jacket buttoned at the natural waist with a cupped skirt allied to high rise trousers can do a lot to enhance the impression of proportionality and banish the illusion of the waddling duck. On an SB, open quarters also help to emphasise the legs. Correctly configured, even a DB can look very good on a shorter man provided that the line from the waist to the cuffs is sleek and streamlined. On a slim man, unvented jackets cut very slightly short can also be particularly useful in creating the streamlined tapered cylindrical look. And cuffs can have an important role to play in maintaining and finishing this look.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I am saying that there are few real-world circumstances in which the optical illusion proposed would be remotely effective. Optical illusions are easy to create on a blank piece of paper with simple lines, in part because the context is so controlled and contrived.

In the real world, men rarely wander about in front of blank walls, being viewed by others at a distance of 20 feet. Instead, we spend almost all of our social and work time in environments _filled_ with referenced points - most commonly, other men. I don't care what pants he's wearing, or whether he's wearing pants _at all_, a 5'5" man standing next to a 6'4" guy is going to look short. Period. And, when you stand close enough to shake his hand and have a business conversation, a man looks _exactly_ as tall as he is.

People don't determine height by looking at other people's ankles. You ever heard a witness to a robbery say "Well, he looked pretty tall to me... probably 6-2 or 6-3... at least he was showing a lot of sock"? No. It would be preposterous. Since all our feet start at the same place - the ground - height is determined by looking at where your _head_ ends.

This "short men shouldn't cuff trousers" is simply nonsense. Look at the Duke of Windsor, the best dressed man in history, and the owner of a 5'3" frame:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tDE48Ur4Xas/SNz590xnc3I/AAAAAAAAAgs/X0fj4g5BEAE/s1600-h/duke3rq.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tDE48Ur4...AAAg0/ZgmZFfEgmYM/s1600-h/Duke_of_Windsor.jpg

He wore them cuffed, because he understood that proportion was what mattered, not trying to fool people into thinking that he was a tall man.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Great post, Finian. You get it.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> I am saying that there are few real-world circumstances in which the optical illusion proposed would be remotely effective. Optical illusions are easy to create on a blank piece of paper with simple lines, in part because the context is so controlled and contrived.


Interesting. So people who are fat or have short stubby legs do not have to avoid clothing with horizontal stripes? Dark clothing do not have any slimming effect?


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Look at the Duke of Windsor, the best dressed man in history.


I would place Astaire, Barbera, Cooper, Fairbanks Jr., and Grant (not necessary in that order) over him. The DoW, like Agnelli, is too contrived and affected IMO.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I think the rule is cuffs with pleats, plain front with no pleats for shorter guys. I am on the shorter side, so I've given this topic a lot of thought.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Leighton said:


> I think the rule is cuffs with pleats, plain front with no pleats for shorter guys. I am on the shorter side, so I've given this topic a lot of thought.


This isn't a rule, just a suggestion to give people who who can't make up their mind. I like pleated trousers with and without turn-ups. The trads like flat front trousers with turn-ups.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You forgot the option, "Yes, if they're proportionately smaller cuffs."


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Jovan said:


> You forgot the option, "Yes, if they're proportionately smaller cuffs."


I just tried adding your option but wasn't able to. Any idea how to do it?


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

It's perfectly fine to cuff trousers for shorter guys. The trick is ensuring the rest of the trouser fits well enough to tolerate it. I have some of my trousers cuffed and some not. I cuff based on the "feel" of the material and the overall look of the garment, not based on my height. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

3holic:

I didn't vote since I thought the "Rule" was to cuff! :icon_smile_big:

You need to review what I have in *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes* about cuffs and men's heights:
Cuffs are de rigueur with pleated pants especially suit trousers and look great on casual pants too. They also serve a function of adding extra weight to the bottom allowing the pants to hang better.

Some stores discourage cuffs because it's more expensive for them to put on, so you may have to insist on cuffs. *If you're under 5' 10" and you've told that cuffs make you look shorter, ignore that outdated advice, and just have the tailor make the cuff 1 ¼ "instead of the average 1 ½".* The same logic makes sense for those of you over 6' - try 1 ¾" cuffs. ​
If you don't cuff your pants have the tailor slant the bottoms so that the hem is lower at the back to the top of the shoe heel. Tailors call this a "fishtail". Cuffs are hemmed straight across.​


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

3holic said:


> I would place Astaire, Barbera, Cooper, Fairbanks Jr., and Grant (not necessary in that order) over him. The DoW, like Agnelli, is too contrived and affected IMO.


Perhaps, but his enormous influence on most of those you mention is an undeniable historical fact. For example, as David, Prince of Wales, he was a huge influence on the young Astaire who performed in London in 1923, indeed, his publicly expressed enthusiasm (he went back ten times to watch the Astaires perform) was responsible for catapulting the young Astaire to early stardom. Prior to this, Astaire had little interest in clothes. Since Scholte, who cut the DoW's jackets always refused to cut for theatrical types, Astaire was routed to the next best thing, Scholte's former pupil Per Anderson, of Anderson & Sheppard, a firm then specialising in catering to the theatrical and film professions.

In his autobiography, p.116, Astaire has this to say about the PoW:

"All this time I was taking special notice of how he was dressed -impeccably in tails. H.R.H. was unquestionably the best-dressed young man in the world, and I was missing none of it. I noticed particularly the white waistcoat lapels-his own special type. This waistcoat did not show below the dress coat front. I liked that.
I heard that Hawes and Curtis made the Prince's dress shirts and waistcoats. Next morning I was there and asked if I could get a waistcoat like H.R.H.'s. I was apologetically told that it could not be done. So I went somewhere else and had one made like it."

And Liza Minnelli has explained how the PoW's style ended up being so influential in Hollywood.

"There was a whole set of people in New York who were really under the influence of the Duke of Windsor - the way they dressed, the elegance, the spiffiness, the pressed pleats, casual, easy. They were all friends of the Duke of Windsor, and I think they brought that style to Hollywood. Hollywood really didn't have that kind of elegance until this whole group of people moved out there: the Gershwins, my dad [the great film director Vincente Minnelli], Fred Astaire, Vernon Duke, Cole Porter.."

From Giles, _Fred Astaire - His Friends Talk_, p.50


----------



## pkprd869 (Jul 7, 2009)

I don't like cuffs, but to each his own. I agree if you're a fella that is 5'7" like me and you want cuffs, just have a shorter cuff like an 1"-1.25" like posters above mentioned to keep proportion. I think these rules are just sales clerk convenience. Instead of having to pin up trousers in a mirror both ways for a fella to see which one he likes, they just blab a quick rule and folks go with it.

With regards to cuffs adding weight to help pants hang better there's other ways. I wear a military style hem (ROTC days carry over) and have my alterations lady leave some extra material in the hem. No flopping at all.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> Interesting. So people who are fat or have short stubby legs do not have to avoid clothing with horizontal stripes? Dark clothing do not have any slimming effect?


I did not say that weight was not subject to practical illusions. I said height was not. Height is absolute. Weight is relative. A man who is 6'4" is tall. Period. A man who is 200 lb is very stout if he's 5'6", but not if he's 6'4". Proportion is subject to illusion. Height is not a a proportion.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> I would place Astaire, Barbera, Cooper, Fairbanks Jr., and Grant (not necessary in that order) over him. The DoW, like Agnelli, is too contrived and affected IMO.


You're entitled to your wrong opinion. The DoW invented a lot of the stuff that those other guys wore, or at least made it acceptable to do so.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> I think the rule is cuffs with pleats, plain front with no pleats for shorter guys. I am on the shorter side, so I've given this topic a lot of thought.


This is no rule at all. It's internet-forum-created nonsense. If I were wearing flat fronts (which I never, ever, _ever_ do or will), I would be _desperate_ to have a cuff to try to generate _some_ kind of crease that might make it to the vicinity of the waistband, rather than crapping out in a web of crotch wrinkles.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Cuffs are perfectly fine on short men, they do wonders for the drape of a trousers especially with light materials. However, the proportion is often wrong, i.e., they are often too large. They should be discreet, around 1" high on shorter men.
> 
> They are a natural accompaniment to pleats, and I think they look better on a trousers with a fuller cut and less of a taper towards the feet, so the motion of the legs is blurred within the action of the fabric. And they need the right context:
> 
> A properly waisted jacket buttoned at the natural waist with a cupped skirt allied to high rise trousers can do a lot to enhance the impression of proportionality and banish the illusion of the waddling duck. On an SB, open quarters also help to emphasise the legs. Correctly configured, even a DB can look very good on a shorter man provided that the line from the waist to the cuffs is sleek and streamlined. On a slim man, unvented jackets cut very slightly short can also be particularly useful in creating the streamlined tapered cylindrical look. And cuffs can have an important role to play in maintaining and finishing this look.


These are good observations.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

A tailor in the business for 35+ years said that the cuff can't be too small otherwise it would look weird. He said 1" was too short. I just believed him and had a 1.25" cuff put on my pants. Is he right, do 1" cuffs look too small? Maybe 1" cuffs are too small for my proportions. I'm 5'6", muscular build if that makes a difference.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

At 5'4, I favor about one and a quarter inches of cuff. I hemmed a pair of pants, but in the summer and in some casual settings I will roll up my pants to my ankles, and the hem makes that a lot less neat than I'd like it to be.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> A tailor in the business for 35+ years said that the cuff can't be too small otherwise it would look weird. He said 1" was too short. I just believed him and had a 1.25" cuff put on my pants. Is he right, do 1" cuffs look too small? Maybe 1" cuffs are too small for my proportions. I'm 5'6", muscular build if that makes a difference.


Please don't worry about a 1.25" cuff. Most people couldn't tell 1" from 1.25" at a distance of several feet if their life depended on it. It's just the almost-2" cuff that you want to be wary of.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Andy said:


> . *If you're under 5' 10" and you've told that cuffs make you look shorter, ignore that outdated advice, and just have the tailor make the cuff 1 ¼ "instead of the average 1 ½".*


Thanks, Andy. I am actually of average height and weight. Wearer of 40R suits with trousers both cuffed and uncuffed. I just thought this is a interesting topic that may generate some discussion here on the forum.



CuffDaddy said:


> You're entitled to your wrong opinion


If so, those pictures you posted certainly did not do him justice. The d.b. suit jacket puts and the suit in the second picture looks too full for his frame.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> I did not say that weight was not subject to practical illusions. I said height was not. Height is absolute. Weight is relative. A man who is 6'4" is tall. Period. A man who is 200 lb is very stout if he's 5'6", but not if he's 6'4". Proportion is subject to illusion. Height is not a a proportion.


In my post, I did not say "weight", I said "fat". Of course some one who is 200lbs and 6'4" is not fat. But I am talking about, using your example, some one who is 5'6".

Furthermore, you still have not answered my other question whether people with short, stubby legs ought to avoid wearing pants with horizontal stripes.

Physicists will disagree with your curious concept that vertical dimension (i.e. height) is absolute, whereas horizontal dimension (i.e. girth) is not.

But then, as you said "(one) is entitled to (one's) wrong opinion."


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Leighton said:


> I think the rule is cuffs with pleats, plain front with no pleats for shorter guys. I am on the shorter side, so I've given this topic a lot of thought.


I am 5'7'' and have trousers in every combination of fronts and bottoms.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Perhaps, but his enormous influence on most of those you mention is an undeniable historical fact. For example, as David, Prince of Wales, he was a huge influence on the young Astaire who performed in London in 1923, indeed, his publicly expressed enthusiasm (he went back ten times to watch the Astaires perform) was responsible for catapulting the young Astaire to early stardom. Prior to this, Astaire had little interest in clothes. Since Scholte, who cut the DoW's jackets always refused to cut for theatrical types, Astaire was routed to the next best thing, Scholte's former pupil Per Anderson, of Anderson & Sheppard, a firm then specialising in catering to the theatrical and film professions.
> 
> In his autobiography, p.116, Astaire has this to say about the PoW:
> 
> ...


Your knowledge of the DoW and Astaire is quite impressive. I am not saying the DoW is not well-dressed, or that his influence on mens wear is not vast. I do find exception with the phrase *"best dressed man in history."* Yes, he had influenced those you cited in your post, but history is filled with students outshinning their teachers --think Plato and Socrates.

Look at the two pictures posted with an critical eye. Can you honestly say he was impeccably dressed? Can you see in the first picture the fabric pull on the jacket where it was buttoned? And that the lapel was too wide?

In the second picture, the suit was cut much too full for the DoW's frame, rendering his head to appear as the size of an orange.

Despite all the obvious sartorial flaws exhibited, those 2 pictures were held up as shining examples of "*the best dressed man in history*." Is this a case of the emperor's new clothes?

My observation is that when the rich, famous and powerful breaks the rule, he is lauded as a pioneer by the masses who will shout bravo and trip over themselves trying to emulate him. OTOH, when a nobody breaks a rule, he is automatically presumed to be ignorant and subjected to disdain.

Do others agree with this observation? Perhaps this will be an interesting topic for another thread.


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

In viewing the WAYWT threads on AAAC and SF, you will see a number of shorter men wearing cuffs quite well.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> If so, those pictures you posted certainly did not do him justice. The d.b. suit jacket puts and the suit in the second picture looks too full for his frame.


I love it when witnesses give testimony that amounts to their own cross-examination.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> Physicists will disagree with your curious concept that vertical dimension (i.e. height) is absolute, whereas horizontal dimension (i.e. girth) is not.


You need to re-read my earlier posts, since you are badly misunderstanding. We're talking about optical illusions. Human height is not often subject to optical illusions, for the reasons I have already set forth. Width, on the other hand, is much more subject to them. For one thing, unless everyone is standing physically touching the _same_ wall, there's no uniform frame of reference... unlike, say, the objective distance that one's head ends above the floor.

That means that stout men _do_ have to make certain wardrobe concessions, since they will want to maximize positive illusions and minimize negative ones.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

I was a portrait photographer for many years and I can say with considerable certainty that anything that interrupts a line will visually shorten the line.

So with a woman's portrait a long neck line is elegant. A turtle neck sweater or a mock turtle neck will make the neck look shorter and thicker. Even a choker necklace will have a similar effect.

To elongate the neck line we would have a dress or shirt with a V-neck. The neck obviously ends where it ends, but visually it is extended by the v-neck apparel.

Similarly the straight line of the slacks is interrupted by a cuff or a distinct break and it will make the legs look shorter.

I will stand by my original post: *A military style hem, with the rear to the top of the heel and the front with a very slight break will give the illusion of greater length.*


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Packard said:


> I was a portrait photographer for many years and I can say with considerable certainty that anything that interrupts a line will visually shorten the line.
> 
> So with a woman's portrait a long neck line is elegant. A turtle neck sweater or a mock turtle neck will make the neck look shorter and thicker. Even a choker necklace will have a similar effect.
> 
> ...


Hear, hear, words from an expert.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

46L said:


> In viewing the WAYWT threads on AAAC and SF, you will see a number of shorter men wearing cuffs quite well.


Yes, it is a nice look. But looking stylish and appearing shorter are two different things.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> You need to re-read my earlier posts, since you are badly misunderstanding. We're talking about optical illusions. Human *height is not often subject to optical illusions*, for the reasons I have already set forth.


 (emphasis added)

You need to re-read Packard's post.



> That means that stout men _do_ have to make certain wardrobe concessions, since they will want to maximize positive illusions and minimize negative ones.


Your logic really is beyond me. Even if "height is *not often* subject to optical illusions" as you say (experts disagree with that), that means *occasionally* it is, correct? Thus, why wouldn't shorter men want to maximize positive illusions by making wardrobe concessions as stout men do?


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> I love it when witnesses give testimony that amounts to their own cross-examination.


And I love it when one voluntarily provides exhibits that completely undermine and disprove one's point. 
Maybe the pant cuffs will deflect your bullet from entering your foot?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> Your logic really is beyond me. Even if "height is *not often* subject to optical illusions" as you say (experts disagree with that), that means *occasionally* it is, correct? Thus, why wouldn't shorter men want to maximize positive illusions by making wardrobe concessions as stout men do?


Optical illusions disappear when the appropriate reference is available. For human height in social and business considerations, appropriate reference is essentially always available. The .000000001% of occasions on which it is not do not outweigh the substantial other advantages of cuffs.

But the man who thinks the DoW was not well dressed is beyond my power to help.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I highly doubt humans are built with a ruler in their heads. I cannot spot a person in a crowd and say with certainty what height he or she is. Maybe within 4", but thats a lot of variation. Now if they stood next to someone of known height I could probably get it to 1-2".

If I'm standing next to someone 6' tall, theres nothing I can do about it. I'll look shorter. But if I stand with confidence and wear appropriate clothing I'll only look 3-4" shorter instead of the 6" shorter. Unless I'm back to back, which never happens. Now if I slouch I'll look my true height or shorter.

If I'm in a room with a 7' guy...not sure. I would hope I look taller because everyone's looking at my 7' friend, but not sure...

Look at Al Pacino and Tom Cruz. In the movies they look to be normal height. Now, I understand there are plenty of camera tricks, but watching the Godfather, if you look at Pacino's height compared to the people he's standing with, you can see that he's actually quite short. But the character and the way he carries himself gives you that illusion of larger than life. I'm sure the same is true in real life.

re: the DOW.

In those pictures, it seems like he's a little overweight, but the waist suppression hides it pretty well and gives the illusion of height as well. Anyone else think the same?

final edit, I promise.

Does the DOW look short in this picture?


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> But the man who thinks the DoW was not well dressed is beyond my power to help.


Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Or are you being dishonest? Where did I say the DoW was not well dressed?

You furnished 2 photos of him and proclaimed him as the best dressed man in history. I named several others that I would place above him -- this is a matter of difference of opinion.

You stated my opinion was wrong, and I substantiated my position by pointing out some _very obvious_ flaws of his clothing by *using the 2 photos which you have furnished. *

Don't try to change the subject when you have lost the argument. It is very unbecoming.

Oh, and thank you for bring the rope to your own hanging.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

The Duke of Windsor had his admirers, including this guy - another example of someone of average height wearing turn-ups:










The admiration, however, was mutual:










As for his clothes, on close inspection they have some glaring problems with them. In at least one case, the problem was severe enough that it would not pass the QC of a good quality RTW factory.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

To Finian and Cuff Daddy: The above are some of the best posts to appear on AAAC-learned, opinionated, and illustrated (not, thank God, with inane pictures of themselves and their family but with an exemplar of style) and to the point. Keep it up, gentlemen-there is little enough worth reading on this Forum, and you have added a great deal. Best for the Holidays.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Or are you being dishonest? Where did I say the DoW was not well dressed?
> 
> You furnished 2 photos of him and proclaimed him as the best dressed man in history. I named several others that I would place above him -- this is a matter of difference of opinion.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on your (self-declared) victory. You have obviously persuaded yourself very thoroughly.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> I highly doubt humans are built with a ruler in their heads. I cannot spot a person in a crowd and say with certainty what height he or she is. Maybe within 4", but thats a lot of variation. Now if they stood next to someone of known height I could probably get it to 1-2".


And would the fact that they were wearing cuffs influence your ability to estimate their height? Would you calculate their approximate height by scanning them from their feet and keeping an optical "odometer" of how far your eyes had traveled up the body before reach the head? Or would you compare the height of their head to: 1) your own eye level; and/or 2) nearby reference points?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm amazed that a discussion on something like cuffs could turn into a vicious, catty argument...


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I'm amazed that a discussion on something like cuffs could turn into a vicious, catty argument...


I must disagree( See my reply above). Expressing one's opinions strongly, and supporting them with evidence, is not vicious. There are far too many "anything goes" types on this Forum to begin with, and after all, these posts and replies are anonymous.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Maybe one is anonymous on the internet, but that doesn't mean manners are dead or not expected here. This isn't 4chan.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> And would the fact that they were wearing cuffs influence your ability to estimate their height? Would you calculate their approximate height by scanning them from their feet and keeping an optical "odometer" of how far your eyes had traveled up the body before reach the head? Or would you compare the height of their head to: 1) your own eye level; and/or 2) nearby reference points?


I've come to the conclusion that only we care about cuffs or not. I'm fairly certain that no one but us cares or will notice whether flat front pants have cuffs or not. People will probably notice the shoes and skip over the cuffs unless the cuff is particularly out of proportion. If they even bother to look down at the shoes.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton, I agree entirely. Few viewers will even look at a man's ankles, much less notice whether the pants have cuffs, and _far_ less let that information override their observation of whether they have to look up or down (and by how much) to look the man in the eye.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm amazed that a discussion on something like cuffs could turn into a vicious, catty argument...


Jovan, it's often hard to tell whether people are being serious, facetious, or T-I-C on the internet. Often comments that read as officious or snarky are meant as good natured kidding. (After a while, putting a winky-face emoticon behind every post gets tiresome.) While 3holic *is* wrong about the cuffs issue, and *is* wrong about the DoW, I don't think he genuinely took or intended any offense in the thread. I certainly did not.

That said, if my tone ever o'erstepped the bounds, I do apologize.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Sator said:


> The admiration, however, was mutual:


Character assassination, Sator? Really?


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Jovan, it's often hard to tell whether people are being serious, facetious, or T-I-C on the internet. Often comments that read as officious or snarky are meant as good natured kidding. (After a while, putting a winky-face emoticon behind every post gets tiresome.) While 3holic *is* wrong about the cuffs issue, and *is* wrong about the DoW, I don't think he genuinely took or intended any offense in the thread. I certainly did not.
> 
> That said, if my tone ever o'erstepped the bounds, I do apologize.


Nothing whatsoever to apologize about! Your remarks were to the point, and backed up with evidence. It would appear somtimes on this Forum that such an approach is not considered "cricket", although it is usually the best informed posters who are criticized here for such replies. If someone is WRONG, then say so!! Nothing you said was rude or out of bounds. I was recently "warned" about a comment regarding an OP about an obvious and fraudulent troll, because a few other uninformed persons objected. Ridiculous.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

rsmeyer, thanks for your kind words. But I've been married for more than a decade... apologizing for offense without an admission of wrongdoing is well-within my comfort zone.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

amplifiedheat said:


> Character assassination, Sator? Really?


Not at all. Recently declassified information suggests that the real reason for the abdication was the fact that home office objected to Wallis being a Nazi sympathiser. The business about her being a divorcee was just a smoke screen to permit the king a way to bow out graciously. However, the Duke also belonged amongst the British upper class who were pro-Nazi, just like Sir Oswald Mosley. The Duke may also have been promised back the throne after the Nazi had conquered Britain. He was forced to choose between the Empire and the Reich - in marrying Wallace, he had declared his love for the latter.

https://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/113232

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2074100.stm

Quite aside from the fact that he was a traitor to his country, I am not kidding about the questionable quality of his clothes:

The faults that are listed would not allow that coat to pass the QC of a RTW factory, unless it were making for a lower grade manufacturer eg for Target.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> rsmeyer, thanks for your kind words. But I've been married for more than a decade... apologizing for offense without an admission of wrongdoing is well-within my comfort zone.


I've been married for over four decades, and my dear wife has taught me to stick up for what I know is right. We are obviously both married to great gals, and I wish you the best for the Holidays.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I'm amazed that a discussion on something like cuffs could turn into a vicious, catty argument...


I am actually an internet softie, meow. :icon_smile_big:

And what good is a forum without a little controversy to spice it up occasionally? :devil:

But seriously, don't you agree response is necessary when someone:

1) superfluously proclaimed so-and-so to be the *best dressed man in history* and dismissed anyone who disagrees as being wrong --when being well-dressed is a subjective matter with no right or wrong answers.

2) furnished evidence to support his proclaimation which -- hilariously --turned out to completely undermine his arguement.

3) persisted in penning posts with nothing valid to substantiate his point.

4) lack the grace to concede -- or stay silent at the least; instead attempted to obfuscate the matter by putting words into another's mouth.

Just as someone obstinately tries to prove that I am wrong, I am equally obstinately standing my ground awaiting irrefutable evidence to be brought forth.



CuffDaddy said:


> While 3holic *is* wrong about the cuffs issue, and *is* wrong about the DoW, I don't think he genuinely took or intended any offense in the thread. I certainly did not.
> 
> That said, if my tone ever o'erstepped the bounds, I do apologize.


No offense taken, Cuffdaddy, and no hard feelings. But I still await supportive evidence on your assertion that I am wrong. And I still await your justification on how the DoW was without flaws in those 2 photos. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

rsmeyer said:


> I've been married for over four decades, and my dear wife has taught me to stick up for what I know is right. We are obviously both married to great gals, and I wish you the best for the Holidays.


Aww, how sweet.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

3holic said:


> Aww, how sweet.


Thanks! i should add that I see nothing wrong whatsoever in the exchange between you and Cuff Daddy, both gentlemen defending their heartfelt sartorial opinions. I think the Forum moderators should chill, and spend more time on the stench that emenates from the Interchange. And a Happy Holiday to you, too, sir.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> rsmeyer, thanks for your kind words. But I've been married for more than a decade... apologizing for offense without an admission of wrongdoing is well-within my comfort zone.


I apologize in advance (without admitting any wrong-doing) for any future offenses I might commit.:icon_smile_big: (Emoticon added for emphasis.)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> 2) furnished evidence to support his proclaimation which -- hilariously --turned out to completely undermine his arguement.
> 
> 3) persisted in penning posts with nothing valid to substantiate his point.
> 
> ...


The photos were not intended as "proof" that the DoW was the best dressed man in history. They were intended as proof that he wore cuffs, despite being a short man, to no ill effect. If you want to argue about the DoW not being well-dressed, you can team up with Sator and create a "DoW Over-rated?" thread. In the meantime, I think even you would concede that he _was_ well-dressed, that he _was_ short, and that he _did_ wear cuffs.

I have explained my position regarding cuffs and the optical illusion-ability of height many times. I will summarize again. If you can't understand this, I just can't help you:

1. Most optical illusions depend upon the _absence_ of objective reference points. This is certainly the case with the "broken lines appear shorter" family of illusions. When a ruler is placed on the page next to the classic broken line/unbroken line figures, not only can we measure the fact that they are the same length, it suddenly becomes _readily apparent_. With regard to human height in almost any business or social setting, such "rulers" are abundant - most commonly, other people. There is almost no chance of "fooling" anyone about your height, downwards or upwards, except by slouching or standing slightly on your toes.

2. Likewise, the frame of reference for measuring height is constant, making objective comparison easy. The classic illusion figures are usually printed on a blank ground - if there were a perpendicular line across the base of the figures, it would be immediately apparent that they started at the same place, and the only question would be whether they ended at the same place. We wouldn't have to judge the overall length, we could just judge whether the end points are the same or different. With human height, we have the same situation. The _ground_ is the horizontal line. The tops of our heads are the end points. If one's head ends above another's head, then he is taller. There is no need to try to judge the "length" of the man's line - you can just look at where his head ends and get your answer.

3. We have yet another objective reference readily available to us for determing the height of others - our own height. We all know how tall we are. If we have to look up to look someone in the eye, we know that person is taller; if we have to look _way _up, we know that they are much taller; if we have to look down, they are shorter; if we have to look _way_ down, they are much shorter. Unless we are meeting someone for the first time on a ramp, this method is essentially foolproof. Cuffs don't enter into it. This objective reference is not available for width, which is one reason that weight/breadth _is_ more subject to illusion.

4. Even in the absence of such "rulers" and objective references, the chance that a fold of cloth at the ankle would influence anyone's perception of height is remote. It is one thing to break a line at the middle, or at the 1/3 mark - if you'll notice, the classic broken line illusions are all broken at some central point (and in a dramatic way). A break 3" from the ground on a 5'6" man is broken, what, 5% of the way along the line? And it's subtle - at a distance where one can view the entire form of the man, the chance of noticing cuffs is miniscule; and if you're too close to view the entire man, then you already know how tall he is (see #2). Besides, the mandatory elements of men's dress are replete with far starker horizontal breaks at far more significant junctures: the collar breaks the neck, and the belt or waistband breaks the torso. At the same place as the cuff, the shoe breaks the leg... and the contrast is far starker than that of a cuff. If it were ever possible for a break at the area of the ankle to generate an illusion of shortness, then the _shoe, _not the cuff, would be the culprit. Are you suggesting that short men wear shoes precisely matched to the color of their trousers?

5. There are myriad other arguments and facts that show the cuffs-make-you-look-shorter shiboleth to be utter nonsense, but I haven't the time or energy to exhaustively catalog them. I'll just throw one out: if cuffs make you look shorter, should bank robbers start rolling their pants before committing a robbery in order to generate false witness estimates of their height?

I hope that helps.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

rsmeyer said:


> I think the Forum moderators should chill, and spend more time on the stench that emenates from the Interchange.


I'm perfectly "chill," good sir. Nothing in my responses indicated I was otherwise.

I have nothing against spirited debate, but the _insults_ made me think it might be getting too personal. Obviously I was wrong.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

Wearing a suit with trousers with as a high a rise as you can reasonably support, and where the waist line is not visible when your jacket is buttoned, creates the best illusion of height. In addition, shoes and hair color should also be similar to the suit color, i.e. dark shoes with dark hair with a dark suit or lighter shoes with a lighter suit and hair. The single color look maximizes verticality in my opinion. 

The weight of cuffs keeps the crease and pant leg at its lowest point, which I find is a plus. I have several pants without cuffs and I notice on occasion the pant leg rising up (especially when wearing calf high socks).


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Packard said:


> I apologize in advance (without admitting any wrong-doing) for any future offenses I might commit.:icon_smile_big: (Emoticon added for emphasis.)


You should! ;-)


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I'm perfectly "chill," good sir. Nothing in my responses indicated I was otherwise.
> 
> I have nothing against spirited debate, but the _insults_ made me think it might be getting too personal. Obviously I was wrong.


You were.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I'm perfectly "chill," good sir. Nothing in my responses indicated I was otherwise.
> 
> I have nothing against spirited debate, but the _insults_ made me think it might be getting too personal. Obviously I was wrong.


The postings above were some of the most erudite on this Forum, and I know I learned from them. So they disagreed-so what! I find far more offensive the argument on a different thread about whether the excellent magazine "M' was "gay"-how putrid!


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> If you want to argue about the DoW not being well-dressed, you can team up with Sator and create a "DoW Over-rated?"


Why do you persist in putting words into my mouth? Where did I say the DoW was not well-dressed? I merely stated that I would place several other well-dressed men above him because, in my opinion, he is not *the best dressed man in history.*

Do you find all others with dissenting opinions on subjective matters wrong?

Anyway, I do respect others' opinions even when they differ from mine. However, I do not like to be baselessly accused of being wrong -- and repeatedly at that -- just because I disagree with you.

As for your detailed dissertation on cuff and height appearance, I must apologize for not reading that. It is late and I am tired. Experts such as Alan Flusser, Nick Sulliver, and Packard had all spoken and I will take their words for it.

Okay, this thread is long enough. And I had pretty much said what I wanted to, I am happy and content....purrrrr...:icon_smile:


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

rsmeyer said:


> And a Happy Holiday to you, too, sir.


Thank you rsmeyer.

Merry hristmas to you and your wife, Cuffdaddy and his wife, Packard, Sator, Jovan, Finian, Leighton, amplifiedheat, 46L, ykurtz, Matt S, Holdfast, Moose, oh and of course Andy! and everyone who had contributed to, or had the saintly patience to read, this thread. Have a wonderful time! :aportnoy:


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

3holic said:


> Thank you rsmeyer.
> 
> Merry hristmas to you and your wife, Cuffdaddy and his wife, Packard, Sator, Jovan, Finian, Leighton, amplifiedheat, 46L, ykurtz, Matt S, Holdfast, Moose, oh and of course Andy! and everyone who had contributed to, or had the saintly patience to read, this thread. Have a wonderful time! :aportnoy:


And, as Tiny Tim said, "God bless us, everyone".


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> As for your detailed dissertation on cuff and height appearance, I must apologize for not reading that. It is late and I am tired. Experts such as Alan Flusser, Nick Sulliver, and Packard had all spoken and I will take their words for it.


IOW, everything I said in this thread was a waste of electrons. You were never interested in my position, since I am not "an expert." I wish you had said as much up front. Regardless, maybe other readers will find something of value.


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

Short guys the world over wear cuffs and look good. :icon_smile:


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

indylion said:


> Short guys the world over wear cuffs and look good. :icon_smile:


He looks great from the waist up. But if he had a single continuous crisp crease down the front of his pants his legs would appear longer. The leg line is broken by the cuff, the hard break in the front just above the cuff, and the hard break in the crease at the knee (the slacks are too long).

Breaking the line of the legs into for discrete sections serves to make the legs look shorter and alters the proportions also.

Breaking the legs up into


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

indylion said:


> Short guys the world over wear cuffs and look good. :icon_smile:


One thing that doesn't help is that the jacket buttons too high. It makes the top half of his body look shorter. The right button stance is the key to balancing the top and bottom halves of the body, making each appear as long as possible.


----------

