# Flood water hemming



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

I was thinking of sporting a pair of Bills Khakis flood water style. Are there any general rules of thumb on proper length. Inches above ankle or off floor etc?


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I have my khakis done up with a 30 inseam, which yields no break and shows off the sock when walking. I wouldn't call them high waters, but this is the effect I get when I wear them. Shorter than that by an inch would show plenty of sock and get the desired effect I believe. Your tailor will be more help here as well.


----------



## Cajunking (Apr 30, 2010)

I don't think I would have them any higher than an inch or two over the ankle.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

When it comes to hi-waters, it's a fine line between Gene Kelly and Alfalfa!!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

'Highwater' lengths only look good on slim pants. Bills are not slim pants.

Speaking more generally, I believe it is a mistake to hem (most) pants without a break. I did this with a few pants, based on ideas floated here, but quickly re-hemmed them longer. I have only one pair which looks good short and these are rather slim cut.

I realize 'highwater' pants, like the 2" cuff, are a matter of faith for many people here, but this preference was and is based not on what looks good but rather some sort of intellectual ideal unconnected to real-world observation, probably with a dolop of an immature desire to be 'different' mixed in.

If anyone wants to see the proper length for pants, check out the photos posted by A Squire, who most of the time deferred to tailors on the matter and always looked good as a result.


----------



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> When it comes to hi-waters, it's a fine line between Gene Kelly and Alfalfa!!


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Doc, when I grew up, when trad was new, no break was standard (and pants were cut slim). What "looks good" is in the eye of the beholder; as for immaturity, guilty as charged :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Capris for men? Actually sounds more like Emmett Kelly than Gene Kelly.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I agree with Rambler. Do what you like. No break is a great look (IMHO) for khakis. I love a good break (read, full) on my suits, but khakis are less formal paints, so they don't need to drape across my penny loafers. 

The ultimate is cuffed khakis with no break - a bit of formality, but still loose and comfy. I would worry about soiling my khakis were they to have the full break my suits do (ie - closer to the floor). 

Do yourself a favor and experiment with Land's End's Legacy Chinos. You can blow 20-30 bucks with no tailor's charge. If you like what happens, then go on to Bills.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

We never really had a problem with flood warning trouser lengths! In fact they were de rigueur for us


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Khakis worn without a break, even a fuller cut, can be a very good look providing that the rest of the attire is in tune. Many of the older men in these scenic New England towns wear nothing but full cut khakis that break right around the ankle. I doubt that many of them would have any idea that they were exhibiting any kind of fashion, but rather wearing the types of clothes that they've always worn.

Like many elements to the style, this is likely regional, but it bears mentioning that the Northeast US can easily be considered the cradle of the canon, so what the majority of New Englanders unselfconsciously wear can be relied upon for a measure of authenticity.


----------



## garden and gun (Jun 25, 2010)

Way off the floor!!


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

I personally think this look is silly. I prefer a very slight break on my khakis and maybe a little more on the Bills. The leg opening on Bills is wide and it doesn't look good in a "floodwater" hem. Shorter guys (under 6') look even shorter when the Bills are ankle length! I am 5'8 and I sure don't want to make my legs appear any shorter than they are!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Grew up in the mid-South (NC, 1950s and '60s) and "highwaters" are usually cut to fall to the top of the ankle bone.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Rule 1. Launder your khakis several times before hemming to prevent future shrinkage. Probably a good idea anyway, but if you have them cuffed w/no break you have less margin for extra shrinkage.
Rule 2. I would suggest to have them cover the ankle bone and touch the shoe. 
Rule 3. The style of the classic "Ivy League Look" pants from the 1950's, when the no break look was the trend was to have the trousers tapered from the knee down. By contrast, Bills M2 have very little taper and very wide hems. Probably, your tailor can taper your Bills for an extra $10. I usually go to a 16" cuff (on a 9D)

During the early 1960's, college kids might have been more likely to switch to hip-hugger Continental-style pants with no cuffs, low rise, and hems falling inches above the ankle. Thats what you see in the "Take Ivy" style pictures. I doubt its a good idea to turn M2's (or probably even M3's).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

That's it, hem just kisses the shoe-tops, pants tapered, or "pegged." Haven't heard "continental" in decades! A self-belt in back, buckled meant you were going steady. Bill's dimensions would have been baggy, and thus un- or anti-ivy. Even M3s


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Just touching the shoe top was the standard in '67 (and no old man pleats neither) but highwaters needed some altitude


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Also, despite what someone wrote above, the conventional wisdom is that less break is preferable for shorter people. I agree w/ conventional wisdom but YMMV.


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

AldenPyle said:


> Also, despite what someone wrote above, the conventional wisdom is that less break is preferable for shorter people. I agree w/ conventional wisdom but YMMV.


I assume you are referencing what I had posted. For clarification, I agree that I do not want my pants to be puddled up on the tops of my shoes. I am speaking specifically about Bills in the fact that there is a very fine line between just right and too short. In my opinion the leg opening is too wide to be worn without any break at all.....it looks bad on guys that are short. The excessive width of the hem does in fact make MY legs look shorter. I prefer for them, as Rambler stated, to just kiss the top of the shoe with a bit of a break. I also have gotten away from having the much adored 1.75" cuff on them as well, again it makes MY legs look even shorter. YMMV.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> I assume you are referencing what I had posted. For clarification, I agree that I do not want my pants to be puddled up on the tops of my shoes. I am speaking specifically about Bills in the fact that there is a very fine line between just right and too short. In my opinion the leg opening is too wide to be worn without any break at all.....it looks bad on guys that are short. The excessive width of the hem does in fact make MY legs look shorter. I prefer for them, as Rambler stated, to just kiss the top of the shoe with a bit of a break. I also have gotten away from having the much adored 1.75" cuff on them as well, again it makes MY legs look even shorter. YMMV.


Thanks for the clarification. I think this is exactly right, tapered pants are particularly helpful for the shorter guy, such as myself.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Good posts by a bunch of our members.

Let us not forget that the super-short pants of the 1950s and 1960s were every much a mindless fashion trend as flip-flops and cargo shorts are today.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Doctor D, I quite agree. I well remember being ridiculed by an older gent because I couldn't remove my pants without taking off my shoes first!


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Like P&G, I've always gone with 30" and little to no break on my khakis, and sometimes cuffed (no more than 1.75"). They always looked right to me. Any deviation to any of that and I feel wrong somehow. I even apply that to cords.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Just be careful. This is like playing with a loaded gun. Too high and people will point and laugh!


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Such hemming looks as if the trousers are second hand and the wearer is too poor or stupid to buy those that fit properly.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

That's harsh. We do things a little differently over here.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> That's harsh. We do things a little differently over here.


Really?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Really?


Ah, I love to see the maximum satire in the fewest possible words. Reminds me of tongue-tied college boys trying to impress the girls :icon_smile:


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> Ah, I love to see the maximum satire in the fewest possible words. Reminds me of tongue-tied college boys trying to impress the girls :icon_smile:


nephew,
well stated!


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Indeed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I agree that if you must do it, the opening can't be as wide as on Bills. I'm thinking of taking my LE Legacy Tailored Fit from 17.5" to 16.5".


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Is there a broad trend to trimmer cut, tapered pants? I mean among traditional (not necessarily "trad") clothiers? Come to think of it, is there any such trend in the natural shoulder-ivy-trad world?


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

I'm sorta headed in that direction with about half my trousers. At the Cards5 Sewing Circle I'm teaching myself to taper trousers from 19-20 to around 16" from the knee down. Here's a recent sample of my work. Looks pretty good from outside, but the inside could use more technique. At least for me, I think the tapered pants work better with my slimmer cut sack jackets.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm impressed: if you find yourself in need of more practice, I can send you 10 pair to hone your skills on. I find myself leaning in that direction, which is why I asked.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Eh, I'm still practicing (and not trying to start an alterations business - just trying to save my pennies). I'm currently working on a pair of BB navy herringbone flannels that'll be given away free on the thrift exchange when I'm done (38xabout 32 with 2" cuffs) because they probably won't be perfect, but definitely serviceable.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Still, impressive. Nonce tailoring a decidedly Naval skill!


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I love threads that go over the fine points of major detail.

As long as you aren't close to approaching Capri, I think it looks far-far-far better than horrid pooling... which is pretty typical for most suit wearing guys these day; men afraid of socks most probably. I prefer almost-no break on my pants, which starts to approach high-water territory. Pants falling down just above the heel looks clumsy to me, these days, though it was/is de rigeuer with many.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

After regular work today, I relaxed (did more work) this afternoon in a pair of duckhead's that I tailored as highwaters with a 16" opening - paired them with pebble-grain chukkas, pelican hook belt, and BB uni-stripe with rolled sleeves.

Still working on pegging more of my trousers, but just haven't had the time lately.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

I like the highwater look, though I go for more of a break. The problem with puddling is that it's never fashionable (in traditional clothing)---whereas you can go quite high if you have the right trousers/socks/physique. Cards, I think you did a phenomenal job with those trousers.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

I also enjoy a higher hem. Very slight break. The problem I run into is that the hem length can be perfect while standing, like cards earlier photo (nice work btw), but when I walk I feel like they're too short as my stride pulls them up. 

Thought's on a happy medium?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

I have the same problem as firedancer. Hopefully some of you gents can help us both. With so many on this forum wearing pants with no break...there must be a key to getting it just right.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

If they're just covering your socks then you have nothing to worry about.

Since originally posting in this thread I've come to the conclusion that I probably need 17" openings at the minimum (standard measurement for most "slim fit" chinos now). Any smaller I risk having a clown shoe effect with my somewhat big feet. For the purists out there, not all trousers from the '50s and '60s necessarily measure 16" at the bottom. I suppose what I'm getting at is that proportion should be taken into consideration.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Cards5 is to be commended for his inhouse alterations efforts. Personally, I am too timid about such things to attempt the same. However, , Gents: I am sorry, but "peggers" are "no trousers for old men!" Jovan, your age excuses from this admonishment!  LOL.

PS: Appologies to Cormac McCarthy!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

What about the old men that wore them when they were prevalent?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
:icon_scratch: Wellllll...I was your age back then and I never wore them, but, as you suggest, there were many who did!  However, peggers were never Trad, regardless of the age of the wearer!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

https://www.acontinuouslean.com/2008/05/19/take-ivy/


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)




----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

You know you're getting on in years when all you have to do to answer the question posed by this thread is to look at old pictures of yourself. For me, this method says (a) put on the pants in question, put on a pair of penny loafers, then (b) measure to hem the pants 1" above top back part of the loafers. No cuffs, no need to narrow the pants legs. Your only worry will be next year's Trad revival of bell-bottoms, wide belts, and paisley shirts.

As for that great picture of MJ: that was one guy whose pants never got tangled up in his shoes in the middle of a dance number!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> :icon_scratch: Wellllll...I was your age back then and I never wore them, but, as you suggest, there were many who did!  However, peggers were never Trad, regardless of the age of the wearer!











Clam diggers not Trad?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

I've a theory on the highwater look. Back in the day, cotton chinos were probably made of variable quality cotton. I suspect that most of the guys back then had their chinos hemmed to properly break across the front of the shoe, and after repeated washings the pants naturally shrunk to the highwater look that some aspire to today.

I'm not saying the look is good or bad, but I suspect that it came about totally by accident. If so, then the "correct" length to hem today's chinos to get the highwater look of yesteryear is to recreate the natural shrinkage of those properly hemmed old chinos...anywhere from 1.5 to 3 inches.

If I'm wrong, never mind...


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

The Alfalfa analogy is spot-on. Growing up, highwaters equaled poverty, at least in my neck of the woods. It may be 1960s trad, but to me it appears a relic more appropriate to the Great Depression. I suppose I'm more comfortable with bits and pieces of the trad look rather than the whole shebang. Gimme a sack coat, an ocbd, a pair of Bills M1s, some gunboats, and call me happy. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I've a theory on the highwater look. Back in the day, cotton chinos were probably made of variable quality cotton. I suspect that most of the guys back then had their chinos hemmed to properly break across the front of the shoe, and after repeated washings the pants naturally shrunk to the highwater look that some aspire to today.
> 
> I'm not saying the look is good or bad, but I suspect that it came about totally by accident. If so, then the "correct" length to hem today's chinos to get the highwater look of yesteryear is to recreate the natural shrinkage of those properly hemmed old chinos...anywhere from 1.5 to 3 inches.
> 
> If I'm wrong, never mind...


Not entirely accurate. High waters (though not called that back then) were quite fashionable in the early 20th century. The difference being that these men wore wool trousers and socks, frequently with what we'd now call dress boots. Not military-inspired cotton trousers with sockless penny loafers as per the '60s collegiate look. IIRC, Edwardian era styles had something of a resergence in the '60s.

A good example is in the 1927 film _Metropolis_. The ruthless corporate character Joh Frederson wears wool trousers that are full in the thigh but taper down dramatically and end above the ankle. While one could write this off as science fiction costuming, that clearly isn't the case -- all of the costumes and their details, including the barely-there flapper and exotic dancer attire, are very contemporary for the time.



Bandit44 said:


> The Alfalfa analogy is spot-on. Growing up, highwaters equaled poverty, at least in my neck of the woods. It may be 1960s trad, but to me it appears a relic more appropriate to the Great Depression. I suppose I'm more comfortable with bits and pieces of the trad look rather than the whole shebang. Gimme a sack coat, an ocbd, a pair of Bills M1s, some gunboats, and call me happy. :icon_smile_big:


To be fair, the look most here aspire to is NOT the above the ankle Thom Browne look, but one where the hem sits right at the bottom of the ankle and just touching the shoe. There are a lot of people here who prefer full cut trousers as you do. Doesn't matter if it's historically accurate or not, as long as it makes you happy and looks good.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Not entirely accurate. High waters (though not called that back then) were quite fashionable in the early 20th century. The difference being that these men wore wool trousers and socks, frequently with what we'd now call dress boots. Not military-inspired cotton trousers with sockless penny loafers as per the '60s collegiate look. IIRC, Edwardian era styles had something of a resergence in the '60s.
> 
> A good example is in the 1927 film _Metropolis_. The ruthless corporate character Joh Frederson wears wool trousers that are full in the thigh but taper down dramatically and end above the ankle. While one could write this off as science fiction costuming, that clearly isn't the case -- all of the costumes and their details, including the barely-there flapper and exotic dancer attire, are very contemporary for the time.
> 
> ...


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Jovan said:
> 
> 
> > Not entirely accurate. High waters (though not called that back then) were quite fashionable in the early 20th century. The difference being that these men wore wool trousers and socks, frequently with what we'd now call dress boots. Not military-inspired cotton trousers with sockless penny loafers as per the '60s collegiate look. IIRC, Edwardian era styles had something of a resergence in the '60s.
> ...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That's what happened to me once. Had them at the right length... then a few washes later and they were too short. I was under the impression they were prewashed, though. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

It must be a cultural thing to some extent. In Christopher Hitchens' memoir he relates a few stories of Americans at Oxford in the 60s and how their pants never seemed adequate to the task of covering their ankles.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Moral of the story: Prewash before hemming!

I thought the high water look was intentional or that it at least became so after a bit. Quite a few pictures in Take Ivy of guys in slim jeans that come to above their ankles. No way was that not on purpose.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...but do real chinos ever stop shrinking? Yesterday I was wearing a pair of Bill's Bullard Field pants and noticed that they seemed just a hair shorter than what I normally consider a minimal cuff or hem length for me. When first purchased and before hemming, my wife washed these trousers four or five times to pre-shrink them. She then measured and hemmed them so that the hem on the trouser legs sat on top of my shoes, showing just a slight break in the crease. Now, just a brief 12 to 14 months later, the hemmed legs are not quite long enough to do more than occassionally brush the tops of my shoes! I have not gotten any taller, so the Bill's must still be shrinking? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Weird. I wash mine a few times before hemming and they seem to have stabilised.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Moral of the story: Prewash before hemming!
> 
> I thought the high water look was intentional or that it at least became so after a bit. Quite a few pictures in Take Ivy of guys in slim jeans that come to above their ankles. No way was that not on purpose.


Exactly, at least in my area NC/SC. It was done as a sort of a joke, really, and just became *sort of *faddish. Nowhere nearly as serious as "no brown in town", etc.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

xcubbies, phyrpowr: From two guys who were really there, your insights are definitely welcome. Thanks.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> xcubbies, phyrpowr: From two guys who were really there, your insights are definitely welcome. Thanks.


Jovan, I also suspect that there were more "micro-regional" variations than any national standard. In my little semi-rural school, 1968, I don't recall many khakis being worn: tropical wool, or blends, and *NO *cuffs, pleats, or break. Khakis were what I wore to work, wiring buildings with my Dad, who wore khaki pants and shirts (and a snap brim fedora and a cigar). It was only when I got to UNC that I saw all the frat boys wearing khakis (standard and high water), and within a year and a half, they were gone in favor of bell bottom jeans


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

My reference point are late 1960s St. Louis. It's true that at a certain point blue denim Levi's became very popular. One thing I don't think you'll find now, but were very popular at that time, are light corduroy Levi jeans. i've made some curosry searches to see if the cords were still made and no one seemed to know what I was talking about. I recall wearing all of the above to school at that time.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Levi's cords. I wore those until I couldn't find them anymore, early 1980's.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> Is there a broad trend to trimmer cut, tapered pants? I mean among traditional (not necessarily "trad") clothiers? Come to think of it, is there any such trend in the natural shoulder-ivy-trad world?


I'm fairly short, thin, and wear a small shoe (7.5 in most Aldens) and I feel like my shoes swim in non-tapered pants.


----------

