# Hem pants at an angle?



## aspiringadult (Jul 13, 2010)

Do you most of you hem your pants at an angle? That is, longer in the back, perhaps by about a half inch?

Especially with slim cut pants, so that there wouldn't be a pronounced break in the front but the shoes would still be covered in the back. 

Thanks.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

aspiringadult said:


> Do you most of you hem your pants at an angle? That is, longer in the back, perhaps by about a half inch?
> 
> Especially with slim cut pants, so that there wouldn't be a pronounced break in the front but the shoes would still be covered in the back.
> 
> Thanks.


If they're uncuffed, yes. It's called a guardsman's slant and I prefer the look of it.


----------



## paul winston (Jun 3, 2006)

As Hanzo has pointed out, you can slant plain bottom trousers. You can even have the front of the trouser go to the shoe top and slant the rear of the trouser from the trouser side seam to the back of the trouser. It can be slanted to the heel top or lower.
Paul Winston
Winston Tailors
www.chipp2.com
www.chipp2.con/blog/


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

As posted above, very common practice. Military dress pants are also hemmed this way so that the back of the pant ends halfway between the top of the shoe and the top of the heel, while the front rests lightly on the top of the shoe, allowing a slight break of the crease.


----------



## CJB (Feb 26, 2009)

Is it to be expected that any reasonably competent alterationist can do this?


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

CJB said:


> Is it to be expected that any reasonably competent alterationist can do this?


I would think so. As Top Gun said, this is how my uniform trousers were done in the military, and while they certainly handled a LOT of volume, they were far from Savile Row tailors.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

No! Never


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Also called a "fishtail" and is common on non-cuffed trousers. Trousers with cuffs are straight at the bottom.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

All of my pants are uncuffed, and yes, I do have them finished with a slanted hem.


----------



## aspiringadult (Jul 13, 2010)

How much of a difference are we talking about here? Half inch longer in the back? Full inch?

Thanks everyone.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

I like 3/4" diff. But doing the hemming myself, I find that more the slant, the harder it is to get the inside edge stitched down cleanly at the very front and very back of the hem. I'd be curious to know whether there are tricks to deal with this.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Good God man, no, never. A heathen practice most commonly seen in the colonies so I'm told, especially the Americas


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Kurt N said:


> I like 3/4" diff. But doing the hemming myself, I find that more the slant, the harder it is to get the inside edge stitched down cleanly at the very front and very back of the hem. I'd be curious to know whether there are tricks to deal with this.


Actually there is, which I am happy to reveal, having examined a pair of my own trousers (inherited from my dead father-in-law) which were hemmed in this way by his tailor. It's very simple, the turned-up material is cut open along the line of the crease, fore and aft, allowing the hem to lie smooth on either side.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> ... the turned-up material is cut open along the line of the crease, fore and aft, allowing the hem to lie smooth on either side.


And overlapped on the aft crease, I take it?


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Good God man, no, never. A heathen practice most commonly seen in the colonies so I'm told, especially the Americas


we do this purposely, just to aggravate you.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

All my tropical worsteds in the military were done this way. If memory serves, the front was just barely long enough to break the crease (thus the term "break") and the rear dropped to cover all or nearly all of the leather portion of the back of the shoe, but none of the rubber or leather heel. A little high at the rear was preferred to any amount of too low. The overlapping fabric at the front and rear of the inside seam was cut away to allow a single thickness whose edges met.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

All my plain bottom trousers are shaped to heel-between half an inch and a full inch.
I once had a pair of corduroys with turn-ups that had a slight slant to heel...purchased at Freedman and Tarling of Cork Street...anyone remember them?

*W_B*


----------



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

I learn something new every day here.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

I had been thinking about doing this since I have a medium break in front but my pant leg keeps catching on the outside edge of my shoe at the ankle when I walk. Drives me nuts.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

John Malloy and others advocate a slant on plain bottoms and parallel to the ground with cuffed trousers.(no slant)


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Kurt N said:


> And overlapped on the aft crease, I take it?


No, definitely not overlapped - that would have looked awkward. There is a narrow V-shaped notch extending almost to the point where the fabric is turned back upon itself.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

No problem if you get them too long in back...just use the Jeff Foxworthy method and walk off the excess.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Hanzo said:


> I would think so. As Top Gun said, this is how my uniform trousers were done in the military, and while they certainly handled a LOT of volume, they were far from Savile Row tailors.


Unless that military tailor is Gieves and Hawkes of Savile Row.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

The actual term for this is a "shaped bottom". Yes it is. A Gaurdsman finish is actually an upside down L shape rather than a slant. I used to have a suit that had a vent at the bottom of the trousers that had a button but then I was 19 with access to Gieves and hawkes tailors so I was a bit emboldened design wise.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Top Guns said:


> As posted above, very common practice. Military dress pants are also hemmed this way so that the back of the pant ends halfway between the top of the shoe and the top of the heel, while the front rests lightly on the top of the shoe, allowing a slight break of the crease.


The average age of my customers requesting the angle (or cant) cut hem is over 70. And almost everyone of them were career military or life-long cowboy (the cant cut looks good on boots).


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

One of my vintage suits has this feature


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

David Reeves said:


> The actual term for this is a "shaped bottom". Yes it is. A Gaurdsman finish is actually an upside down L shape rather than a slant. I used to have a suit that had a vent at the bottom of the trousers that had a button but then I was 19 with access to Gieves and hawkes tailors so I was a bit emboldened design wise.


Upside-down L? I can't picture it and Google is no help.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

^ I think it would be like the hems on some fashionable 60s suits: straight across at quite a high level from the front, then a vertical drop to a longer length from about the start of the heel backwards. Quite funky, but I think you really need heavily tapered legs and a very slim cut overall to make it look right. Chelsea boots or other boots also would work nicely with it.

I'm sure David Reeves will be along shortly to correct me if I've misunderstood the term.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Holdfast said:


> ^ I think it would be like the hems on some fashionable 60s suits: straight across at quite a high level from the front, then a vertical drop to a longer length from about the start of the heel backwards. Quite funky, but I think you really need heavily tapered legs and a very slim cut overall to make it look right. Chelsea boots or other boots also would work nicely with it.
> 
> I'm sure David Reeves will be along shortly to correct me if I've misunderstood the term.


quite right. Never been a fan myself though. Have on the other hand quite liked the idea of a jodhpur bottom on a trouser but, how impractical is that?!


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

David Reeves said:


> quite right. Never been a fan myself though. Have on the other hand quite liked the idea of a jodhpur bottom on a trouser but, how impractical is that?!


The elastic reminds me a little too much of a prep school tracksuit I had to wear...


----------

