# Correct pants length



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

This might seem crazy but what is considered the correct length for pants. Every tailor I've ever been to has a different slant on it. Most of the Eastern European tailors like the Michael Jackson look, I hate it. 

Is there a different length for cuffs vs straight? I've seen some tailors that slant the hem on regular pants so they're longer in the back but break clean in the front. That usually can't be done on cuffed pants.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

In theory I like the idea of no break on cuffed pants. In practice all my pants have a very slight break. (all are cuffed except those which go with my dinner jacket)


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

I like mine with a very minimal break. Avoids the sloppy look of 3 superfluous inches of pant at the bottom of your leg, while at the same time ensuring that you don't look like you're wearing pants from before that last great growth spurt. Plus, the little break provides some insurance should you indeed have a growth spurt, or more likely should the pants shrink.

It all boils down to personal preference, though, so do what looks best to you.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The answer depends on the person. I like the idea that it all has to do with someone's stature. Shorter people need as little break as possible. If they have a full break it looks like they are too small to fit into normal sized clothing. Tall people need a full break. They want to avoid looking like they are so tall that they can't find pants that are long enough. Of course none of this is actually true, but you are looking to avoid these kinds of first impressions. The same goes for shirt sleeves, tall people should show barely any cuff while shorter men should show a full half inch of shirt. Hope this is of some help.


----------



## playdohh22 (Dec 4, 2007)

I don't believe there is a such thing "correct pant length". I believe it is all preference and how you prefer to wear it. Do you prefer to have a break or not ? If you cuff your pants - I'd suggest no break as well, wear the cuffed chinos a tad shorter. Take a look at this - they have a somewhat good example.

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...&Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=492&CMP=EMC-061208d


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> The answer depends on the person. I like the idea that it all has to do with someone's stature. Shorter people need as little break as possible. If they have a full break it looks like they are too small to fit into normal sized clothing. Tall people need a full break. They want to avoid looking like they are so tall that they can't find pants that are long enough. Of course none of this is actually true, but you are looking to avoid these kinds of first impressions. The same goes for shirt sleeves, tall people should show barely any cuff while shorter men should show a full half inch of shirt. Hope this is of some help.


While I think that your reasoning for short people is sound, your reasoning for tall people isn't. I'm tall (6'2") and like minimal break. Why would I want all that excess fabric on my pants?  It looks like I either couldn't afford to get them shortened to the correct length or didn't know any better. Same thing with not showing any shirt cuff. Showing shirt cuff is a sign of good tailoring and a person who knows how to wear his clothes, not a sign that his jacket is too short. If you've got a full inch of cuff showing then your jacket sleeves are obviously too short, but showing the right amount is, well, right.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

wnh said:


> While I think that your reasoning for short people is sound, your reasoning for tall people isn't. I'm tall (6'2") and like minimal break. Why would I want all that excess fabric on my pants? It looks like I either couldn't afford to get them shortened to the correct length or didn't know any better. Same thing with not showing any shirt cuff. Showing shirt cuff is a sign of good tailoring and a person who knows how to wear his clothes, not a sign that his jacket is too short. If you've got a full inch of cuff showing then your jacket sleeves are obviously too short, but showing the right amount is, well, right.


I am also tall (6'3") and agree I dont like not showing shirt or having baggy pants. Its just much more important for us tall folk to avoid the more then 1/2 in. shirt cuff and no break whatsoever on our pants. I really don't like looking more lanky then I already am.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> I am also tall (6'3") and agree I dont like not showing shirt or having baggy pants. Its just much more important for us tall folk to avoid the more then 1/2 in. shirt cuff and no break whatsoever on our pants. I really don't like looking more lanky then I already am.


I agree, but I don't think that's limited to tall people. Even short people will look funny with considerably more than 1/2" of cuff showing. Pants with no break is up for debate -- in large part because many people here like them that way -- but I too think it makes a man look like his pants just don't fit.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Just as it's a personal preference of cuffs vs. non-cuffs, there is also a preference in the break in one's pants. I prefer cuffs with some break.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

From the Trouser Chapter of the CD-Rom, *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*:

_One of the most obvious faux pas in men's fashion is wearing too short, "high water", pants. Pant bottoms should cover the shoe so that you socks do not show when you walk. _

_The pant leg should "break" at the front of the shoe and approach the top of the heel at the back. The outseam is the measure of the waist to the bottom of your pants and the inseam is the measure of the crotch to the bottom. Inseam is the measurement used for length in men's pants._

_ It's a good idea to have your tailor make pants at least ¼" longer than you think they should be to allow for shrinkage. Most pants shrink in the length even if you dry-clean them. It's almost worth it to go to your own tailor it's best to wash or dry clean trousers prior to finishing the cuffs._

_Even then I like to make the cuffs just a little longer than normal to allow for future shrinkage. Fabrics will continue to shrink a little for the next several cleanings._

_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._


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

Andy said:


> From the Trouser Chapter of the CD-Rom, *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*:
> 
> 
> _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._


Which is one of the things I've encountered over the years from different alteration tailors. My favorite tailor has retired and I can't seem to find one locally that will slant uncuffed pants. They really do look nicer when they are slanted or tapered.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

As usual Andy is spot-on when it comes to "men's fashion." But this leaves out the general Trad exception which is minimal to no-break which may or may not show a bit of sock or sock-less ankle when walking. (Highwaterphobia isn't a common ailment in those who favor the archaic anyway.)

In the fashion world men's pants length is a little like women's skirt length as it goes up and down over the years but not nearly as dramatically and without nearly as interesting scenery. 

Right now we seem to be in the era of Piles of Fabric at the Ankles.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

You will get a lot of recommendations. Take your pick.

My vote would be to look at the thread started by AldenPyle on June the 7, (Tapering Bills).

The photos show a length that is as close to perfect as you can get, IMO.

If you ask the question on the other Forum, you will probably get an answer like the one that you got from Andy. Your choice.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

Ivy League style has always been very fluid, starting in the 1920s. The break on trousers, while always a personal choice, has been as fluid as everything else ivy. Yes, in the late 50s / early 60s men tended, as a group to wear their pants short. That was typical of all dressers however, not just ivy. 30 years previous, you might be hard pressed to find anyone with high waters. You cant pick a snippet out of time and think that nothing came before or after it. Some examples that come to mind are cuffs, which were not nearly as prevalent as most members on here think. In fact, cuffed pants were probably in the minority on those dressed in the ivy style until the late 40s / early 50s. People like to ignore that fact, just as they like to ignore the fact that J Press sold darted 2 button coats nearly 60 years ago. I hate to break to you, but there is no "curriculum". There were (and are) pleats, darts, spread collars, english shoulders, and god knows what else all thrown in the mix. Its been that way for ivy style since the 20s. If it makes everyone feel better to act like nothing came before 1955 and the world ended in 1962, then have fun with that. 

Now, the topic - depends mainly on the width of your trousers. Wide legged pants need to be longer, generally speaking, then pegged pants. In fact, I think narrow pants look best with little to no break, while wide leg pants look best with a slight break.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I've decided that I like a substantial break, so long as the back of the cuff doesn't drop below the top of the shoe heel. 

We all analyze our trouser length in a static position, standing rigidly before a mirror. In that case, nearly no break might look best. But how often does some one look at you at attention that way; and if they do, are they studying your cuffs? The truth is that when one is walking, trousers that have a substantial break look more elegant while trousers with no break really look too short. Most of the time, people see you in motion or sitting or with something in front of you.

So I have decided to accept and live with the fact when I'm standing in front of a mirror, it might look like there is too much material. But when I am in motion, I look great. And when I'm sitting, the length looks good, too.

It's all a trade off.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

It's funny how people have different perceptions and phobias regarding pants length. Personally I cant stand pants that are slanted so that you are just about to tread on the pants with your heel. I don't want my pants pouring like water onto my shoes. I seldom notice sleeves that are too long the way I notice the pants. As Andy points out the slanting is whats normally done but if the length is wrong the first thing that happens is you end up dragging your pants on the ground or threaten to. As a 33 inseam I am still wondering how the world can offer up OTR pants in 2 inch inseam increments like 32 or 34 (gee high waters or a puddle of cloth?).


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

So far this has been an interesting thread. Does anyone have photos with examples of what the various lengths or breaks look like?


----------



## Moose Maclennan (Apr 20, 2006)

tinytim said:


> So far this has been an interesting thread. Does anyone have photos with examples of what the various lengths or breaks look like?


I always thought this was a good example of "shake, not break":


----------



## Michael Marshall (Nov 17, 2015)

I saw a early 20's guy in an outfit that I assumed his "internship" as a pharmacy student required while working at the pharmacy (side note... he was wearing a university pharmacy student jacket, so that is why I knew). His pants were very short; to the point of showing above the ankle and it was apparent he was wearing white socks with black pants and black shoes. Is this the trend for that age group? I was taken back by it.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Michael Marshall said:


> His pants were very short; to the point of showing above the ankle and it was apparent he was wearing white socks with black pants and black shoes. Is this the trend for that age group?


Only if they are doing the moonwalk.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

So taken back [sic] that you felt compelled to resurrect a decade old thread, I see.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa (Dec 3, 2011)

Michael Marshall said:


> I saw a early 20's guy in an outfit that I assumed his "internship" as a pharmacy student required while working at the pharmacy (side note... he was wearing a university pharmacy student jacket, so that is why I knew). His pants were very short; to the point of showing above the ankle and it was apparent he was wearing white socks with black pants and black shoes. Is this the trend for that age group? I was taken back by it.


If he didn't have a one and three quarter inch cuff, who cares?

;0)


----------

