# Do you guys taper the ends of your pant legs?



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

I saw this photo in the "unbuttoned button downs" thread earlier and noticed that the guy on the right's pants look noticeably slimmer at the bottom than through the rest of the leg:



It's a nice look and I like how it looks so I wanted to see what you all think. I might even be wrong and they might just be slim fitting pants, but the suit itself looks pretty standard and not like one of those ultra-slim suits that lot of guys are wearing now. I like how it's skinny around the ankle and shows off the shoes, my pants are noticeably larger (than his) at the ankle and unless I'm walking fast you'll barely ever see my socks (or feet) while I'm walking. I wanted to try this out so I went for lunch earlier in a black suit and black loafers without socks, and I noticed that my pants seem quite large at the ankle almost like they're "flopping around." I'd never really noticed this when wearing proper dress shoes, but as pointed out in my "Critique My Style" thread my pants are a tad too long.

So in summary:
- Do you guys like the fit of his suit?
- If he were to wear dress shoes instead, would the pants fit around them nicely or would they look too slim?
- Can you taper pants at the ankle or should they be the same fit all the way down?
- Are my pants too baggy?
- Any other thoughts?


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

I'm glad you've brought this up and interested in what others may think.

I have two suits where the trouser tapers to an 8 ½ inch opening. Because the waist of the trouser is 32, the taper is gentle, not extreme. However, I'm unsure if this is acceptable or not. I think I'd prefer 9 inches, but my suits, currently, are only RTW. If the wearer is trim, than I think the sleeker cut of the trousers can work. 

1) So to answer your first question, I think yes, it can look good;
2) Regarding your second question, they do sit nicely with dress shoes *especially* with a sleeker shaped one. If a wear lower cut loafers (similar to the photo) then my socks show. Thus I just wear dress shoes;
3) Yes, I think you can have them tapered. Regarding the shape, both Flusser and Antongiavanni state that the trouser leg should follow the natural contour of the leg - i.e., taper;
4) I'm unsure if your trousers are baggy. Flusser says trouser opening should cover two-thirds of the shoe. To me, this seems too much, and would result in a straight leg and not a tapered leg that Flusser actually advocates;
5) I, too, would also like to hear the thoughts of others.

I think the slimmer tapering trouser line can work and look nice, especially on the trimmer figure. By this I do *not *mean skin-tight trouser.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I personally think that the "carrot" look is awful and that tapering your pants legs is generally a bad idea. However, there are exceptions to every rule and in this case I am willing to apply the exception to myself and to you.

I have somewhat large thighs, so if I buy a pair of pants that fit comfortably around my thighs they can both look and feel very baggy around my ankles. This is exacerbated by the fact that overall I'm somewhat on the short and small side, which makes it look like I'm a boy wearing man's pants. On top of all that, I have small feet, so I don't like when my trousers swallow up my shoes.

Like you, I feel like when I move, it should look like I'm walking, not performing some levitation magic trick where I'm approaching you without moving my feet.

So I will sometimes have my pants gently tapered. The look I'm shooting for is just to look like I have regular legs and regular pants and hopefully you would not notice they are tapered unless I tell you or for some reason you are looking very closely at my legs.

I suppose if one is very slim and in good shape and going for the "modern" or Euro look or whatever you want to call it, a more sever taper could be appropriate but I would only do it with suit trousers.

Both those guys bother me a bit because in addition to having slim pants openings, they also seem to have short pant legs. And big cuffs. I also don't like their shoes, or the fact that they appear not to be wearing socks. Their slim pant bottoms just accentuate that. Put it all together and for me it's too much. 

But I tend to be somewhat conservative about suits and jackets. If they were to dial it down a notch or two, I think it could look pretty sharp albeit not my style.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm 5'7", 160 lbs, athletic build (I don't look like a bodybuilder but I'm pretty built). 40" chest, ~32" waist, shoe size 8.5 (US), and the bottom of my pants are 9" in diameter. What do you think, should I cut it down?



jean-paul sartorial said:


> I suppose if one is very slim and in good shape and going for the "modern" or Euro look or whatever you want to call it, a more sever taper could be appropriate but I would only do it with suit trousers.


I'm only talking about suits, I never really wear dress pants on their own. I would like something that's not so tapered as to be inappropriate for business or wearing with dress shoes, because I don't want to buy a suit that I can only wear for going out with friends and never use for business, it seems like a waste of money. Or am I wrong and this is something that most people do?

As a side note, what exactly is it that makes that guy's suit look so nice? I showed the pic to a couple of my friends who HATE wearing suits and both of their initial reactions were "whoa that's a nice suit." Is it the fit? The material?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

If this is any help, I taper my pant legs to 8 1/2" at the cuff. The taper begins at the _knee_. Suit pants and khakis, cuffed or uncuffed, all the same. I am slim and have large feet and, yes, there may be somewhat of a duck look when one is built this way and wears a slightly pegged pant, tho no one's ever commented on it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Clarification on the above., about the taper beginning at the knee. The knee, in my case, is brought in to 10 1/2", then tapered to 8 1/2" at the cuff. Taking it in reverse order, the leg widens as it goes up from the cuff, reaching 10 1/2" at the knee and continuing outward until it reaches the crotch. If that line does not meet the crotch, meaning it narrows it, then the straight taper line from cuff upward is 'bent' c. 7" from the crotch, forming a line that goes from the 'bend' to the existing crotch. The knee is c. 13' down from the crotch. These measurements are not universal, are mine only, yet I think individual measurements such as these are something each guy should know, sorta like the correct pressure in their tires. Bear in mind tho that I am two-inches taller than you, 15-pounds lighter and three times as old.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> As a side note, what exactly is it that makes that guy's suit look so nice? I showed the pic to a couple of my friends who HATE wearing suits and both of their initial reactions were "whoa that's a nice suit." Is it the fit? The material?


Given that the wearer is Luca Rubinacci, scion of perhaps the most famous of the Neapolitan tailoring houses, the overwhelming likelihood is that _everything_ about the suit is nice.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> If this is any help, I taper my pant legs to 8 1/2" at the cuff. The taper begins at the _knee_. Suit pants and khakis, cuffed or uncuffed, all the same. I am slim and have large feet and, yes, there may be somewhat of a duck look when one is built this way and wears a slightly pegged pant, tho no one's ever commented on it.


I peg some of my trousers in the same way described by P&P, but usually only on some odd trousers (also do it myself as does he). Here's an example - orphaned BB suit trousers that I tapered from 19" to 16" (size 8.5 shoe). Second pair are chinos with a 15.5" opening.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> I'm 5'7", 160 lbs, athletic build (I don't look like a bodybuilder but I'm pretty built). 40" chest, ~32" waist, shoe size 8.5 (US), and the bottom of my pants are 9" in diameter. What do you think, should I cut it down?


I'm a bit taller (and thicker in the waist) than you, but the same shoe size. Tapering to 16" on suit trousers would probably been too extreme - a safer size would be to take them from 19" to 17", that would reduce some of the "flapping" of your trousers while not producing a too obvious taper.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> I'm 5'7", 160 lbs, athletic build (I don't look like a bodybuilder but I'm pretty built). 40" chest, ~32" waist, shoe size 8.5 (US), and the bottom of my pants are 9" in diameter. What do you think, should I cut it down?


I'm almost your exact size (although my "athletic build" is deserting me somewhat at this point) so while I may be biased I obviously think you can taper your pants legs. I see the same thing you see, and I don't like it and I taper mine.

I would say just trust your judgment as to when and how much to taper. If you're wearing a sack suit, it probably looks okay a little baggier. If you like your suits trim and slim, get a bit more taper.

If I were you I'd take a nice (but used) pair of chinos or a pair of thrift store dress pants if you can find some and take them to a tailor. Have them taper the legs to 17" and see how it looks. You don't want to mess up your expensive suit.



> I don't want to buy a suit that I can only wear for going out with friends and never use for business, it seems like a waste of money. Or am I wrong and this is something that most people do?


Many people never wear suits at all! On the other hand, people of a certain class have both the money and the need for purely social suits as they attend a lot of formal social events.

I think most of us are in-between. Most if not all of our suits will be capable of doing double duty at business or social occasions, though some will be more business-y than others. Like most people, I think I've gradually accumulated suits over the years so at this point I have something in the closet for just about every situation.

It is nice to not wear the same suit to a wedding you're already sick of wearing to work, and to look like you're at a wedding instead of at the office. But I never made that a priority. I guess if you shop enough sales and you'll be confronted with an informal suit that looks nice at 50% off and demands you take it home.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cards, those pants look really good. I'm proud of you. But your final picture displays a problem which maybe I only find as such. It's this: I don't like it, on me, when the flap of a loafer embraces the cuff. I don't wear slip-ons often and have a couple of pants that are hemmed wider and break longer specifically so this won't happen (tho even then it sometimes does). Good job tho. Nice cuff on the grays. Put some sun block on your ankles and hang 'em out the window on the next nice day.


----------



## Saddleback Leather (Aug 3, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> I personally think that the "carrot" look is awful and that tapering your pants legs is generally a bad idea. However, there are exceptions to every rule and in this case I am willing to apply the exception to myself and to you.
> 
> I have somewhat large thighs, so if I buy a pair of pants that fit comfortably around my thighs they can both look and feel very baggy around my ankles. This is exacerbated by the fact that overall I'm somewhat on the short and small side, which makes it look like I'm a boy wearing man's pants. On top of all that, I have small feet, so I don't like when my trousers swallow up my shoes.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree that this look seems to favor the taller/slim physique.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm not so sure that your in awe of the tapered pant leg or the fact that the entire suit fits him like a custom made glove.

Regarding the tapering... I take no position. Just don't do it if your thighs are extremely thicker than your ankles. Otherwise it will look bad.

Regarding your side note, its not just the cloth, which does look pretty shiny from the picture. Has a good drape too, which has nothing to do with the actual cloth per se, but it does look expensive... I digress.

Its the fit. The suit is made perfectly for him. But, past the suit, its whats underneath that ultimately decides how good the suit looks. Put a suit on George Clooney and magically it looks great. Put the same suit on... anyway, you get the idea.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Have them taper the legs to 17" and see how it looks.


What do you mean 17"? When I did mine I looked at the diameter at the cuff, what measurement are you talking about?



Leighton said:


> I'm not so sure that your in awe of the tapered pant leg or the fact that the entire suit fits him like a custom made glove.
> 
> Regarding your side note, its not just the cloth, which does look pretty shiny from the picture. Has a good drape too, which has nothing to do with the actual cloth per se, but it does look expensive... I digress.
> 
> Its the fit. The suit is made perfectly for him. But, past the suit, its whats underneath that ultimately decides how good the suit looks. Put a suit on George Clooney and magically it looks great. Put the same suit on... anyway, you get the idea.


Are suits that are that fitted usually the ones that look the best? I don't like mine THAT slim so I guess I'm asking if a suit can have that "whoa that's a nice suit" factor if it's well fitted for you but without being a "glove" as you put it, maybe just through having very high quality material or something. As you can tell I'm not too knowledgeable about this, I only own 2 suits and they were both under $600 so anything you can tell me would be useful.

And what does "drape" mean?


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

> What do you mean 17"? When I did mine I looked at the diameter at the cuff, what measurement are you talking about?


I presume this measurement is the circumference.



> Are suits that are that fitted usually the ones that look the best? I don't like mine THAT slim so I guess I'm asking if a suit can have that "whoa that's a nice suit" factor if it's well fitted for you but without being a "glove" as you put it, maybe just through having very high quality material or something.


It is the way someone carrys their suit; it was touched upon, if I recall, in the thread on 'Young Guys and Suits'. If you're uncomforatable in your suit it will show. Bespoke, by its very nature, is comfortable to wear.

That is why, also, what looks great on the catwalk never works in day-to-day life.



> And what does "drape" mean?


The way it hangs.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> Are suits that are that fitted usually the ones that look the best? I don't like mine THAT slim so I guess I'm asking if a suit can have that "whoa that's a nice suit" factor if it's well fitted for you but without being a "glove" as you put it, maybe just through having very high quality material or something.


I wish the word "fitted" had never been introduced. Closeness of cut and fit are two totally separate things. There is a fairly wide range of closeness of fit that is a matter of taste. But within any particular level of closeness of cut, clothes can fit well or poorly. For the level of closeness that he has selected, the suit fits him perfectly. His father's clothes fit him equally well. His father is not young and tall and slim, so he doesn't look quite a striking overall. Rubinacci's great current popularity owes a little something, I think, to the fact that the scion is virtually a model, very outgoing, happy to interact with the press and people, etc. His clothes are a part of it, but only a part.

I will take a little issue with characterizing the suit overall as being very slim. The trousers are definitely on the slim side, but the jacket looks to have a very normal amount of ease. The pants probably look smaller than they are because he is walking in them, and some of the material is trailing (and hidden) behind his front leg.

Other things that may be attracting your eye are the full sleeves on the jacket, the high-gorged peak laepls, and the combination of a pale blue shirt (more flattering to 95% of men than stark white) with a simple tie (a very italian look these days).


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> It is the way someone carrys their suit; it was touched upon, if I recall, in the thread on 'Young Guys and Suits'. If you're uncomforatable in your suit it will show. Bespoke, by its very nature, is comfortable to wear.
> 
> ["drape" means] The way it hangs.


I'm a confident guy but I think I definitely go out of my way to keep my clothes looking good, for example purposely trying to avoid getting a suit dirty or wrinkled, so that may be why I don't look as good in it as I could. Maybe it's also the fact that mine aren't bespoke and I almost always take my jacket off when I get home because while it is comfortable enough to keep on while I'm working, it's definitely not the most comfortable thing in the world. What do you think?

So is drape related to the quality of the material or the fit or is it just a general observation of the suit as a whole?



CuffDaddy said:


> For the level of closeness that he has selected, the suit fits him perfectly. His father's clothes fit him equally well. His father is not young and tall and slim, so he doesn't look quite a striking overall.
> 
> Other things that may be attracting your eye are the full sleeves on the jacket, the high-gorged peak laepls, and the combination of a pale blue shirt (more flattering to 95% of men than stark white) with a simple tie (a very italian look these days).


There was just something about his suit in particular that made me think "whoa" as soon as I saw it, and that made some of my friends who don't know anything about suits think "whoa" as well. I can't remember the last time I've seen a suit that I thought looked THAT good. If you have any examples of suits with a slightly more relaxed level of closeness that still look amazing, please post them so I can get a better feel for it.

I honestly don't think the father's clothes look that great. I don't think it has to do with the fact that Luca is younger and better looking; I'm trying to visualize the father in his suit and it seems like he'd look just as good in it (or almost as good, but it definitely wouldn't lose that much of its appeal just because he's older).

What are full sleeves?


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

I would hesitate to find anything wrong with articles worn by father and son Rubinaccis. Just my opinion.


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

st look at the spalla camica on Luca's shoulder and sleeve! PRISTINE!


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Given that the wearer is Luca Rubinacci, scion of perhaps the most famous of the Neapolitan tailoring houses, the overwhelming likelihood is that _everything_ about the suit is nice.


ahh... yeah. You're looking at a $10,000 suit, give or take a few bucks.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

> I'm a confident guy but I think I definitely go out of my way to keep my clothes looking good, for example purposely trying to avoid getting a suit dirty or wrinkled, so that may be why I don't look as good in it as I could. Maybe it's also the fact that mine aren't bespoke and I almost always take my jacket off when I get home because while it is comfortable enough to keep on while I'm working, it's definitely not the most comfortable thing
> in the world. What do you think?


There was a Savile Row tailor who recommeded to his clients that they wear their first bespoke suit for at least 24hrs: do the gardening in it, wash the car in it, sleep in it. The idea was to break the clients inhibitions of wearing a suit.



> So is drape related to the quality of the material or the fit or is it just a general observation of the suit as a whole?


Different fabrics drape differently. Pleated trousers drape differently to flat fronted trousers.



> I honestly don't think the father's clothes look that great. I don't think it has to do with the fact that Luca is younger and better looking; I'm trying to visualize the father in his suit and it seems like he'd look just as good in it


I disagree with you here: I think the father dresses in accordance to what works with his body shape; and so does the son.


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

Jake Genezen said:


> I disagree with you here: I think the father dresses in accordance to what works with his body shape; and so does the son.


Yes. I'm sure that the look of the elder Rubinacci is resultant of the style of the garment itself. Here are a couple of Signore Rubinacci, in immaculately fitted suits.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

One of the problems I often see with an overly tapered leg is the massive shoe effect. I remember I once tried on an H&M suit for novelty, and even with my 8 1/2 shoes, it was quite clownish.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It's a balancing act.

The clown shoe effect is bad. The look of a visible taper from a large butt/thighs to tiny ankles is horrible.

OTOH, if you size up to get pants that fit your thighs, you get the "no shoe" effect because your feet get swallowed up. And you look like you are wearing hip-hop dress pants or flares because your leg openings seem abnormally large.

Somewhere in the middle there is sometimes a gentle taper which balances out the worst of the two extremes. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule for big-thighed yet somewhat small-and-short people like myself. You just have to look at the pants and decide if a slight taper will work or not.

When in doubt, stick with the smaller/no taper. Too little taper does not look as bad as too much, and if you change your mind you can always fix it later.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Thinking this thread was about tapering pant legs rather than the Rubinacci clan, I think Jean Paul ( just above) has put it all together very nicely.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cardinals: Those trousers look straight out of the early '60s. Very nice.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

A!!1, look at this thread, find suits that you find "striking" and maybe we can help you narrow down the qualities. https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=160731

To me, its really the way the model carries himself and the overall physical figure that matters more to me. He could be wearing jeans and a dress shirt and he'd look just as good IMO. But that said, the suit does look very expensive. It has the expensive shine, which is different from the cheap suit shine.

edit:
Thats a nice suit, and its not cut extremely close to the body either.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I can't say I like the taper on either man's trousers. Too close throughout, which especially makes Rubinacci Sr. look top heavy.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Looking at it again, I agree that Rubinacci Sr looks a tad top-heavy; I think Rubinacci Jr has it spot on, though.

I think Jean-Paul Sartorial has it spot-on, too: it's a balancing act: different frames/figures need different cuts to look their best.

This photo of Andy Murray on the left (I've posted it before) reveals, in my opinion, what the wrong cut does to a figure: his trousers are too voluminous and thus out of proportion with the rest of his body: he looks like a ten-year-old who has put on his dad's suit - or at least trousers. He may have big thighs, and if so a taper of some sort is needed, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The straight leg trousers are fine on his body type. The problem is that the trousers are hemmed a little long. The jacket also _appears_ too small with the way he's standing, which may contribute to looking out of proportion. Both him and Beckham actually seem to have the same cut of trouser. However, the short rise and too big shirt collar aren't doing Mr. Murray favours either.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I concur in your analysis, Jovan.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> This photo of Andy Murray on the left (I've posted it before) reveals, in my opinion, what the wrong cut does to a figure: his trousers are too voluminous and thus out of proportion with the rest of his body: he looks like a ten-year-old who has put on his dad's suit - or at least trousers. He may have big thighs, and if so a taper of some sort is needed, in my humble opinion.


Both of those look like low end suits to me. I'm sure Beckham spends a lot of money on his clothes so there's something wrong he he makes an expensive suit look cheap.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Jovan said:


> The straight leg trousers are fine on his body type. The problem is that the trousers are hemmed a little long. The jacket also _appears_ too small with the way he's standing, which may contribute to looking out of proportion. Both him and Beckham actually seem to have the same cut of trouser. However, the short rise and too big shirt collar aren't doing Mr. Murray favours either.


Yes, I guess he needs slimmer (rather than tapered) trousers. I just think overall that Murray's head looks way too small for his body, which in reality it is not (see picture below).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jake, I think the issue is not that the trousers are too wide, but that they are too low. They are low rise to begin with, and he is then wearing them even lower. That makes the legs pile up. If he were to (be able to) pull them up, the issue would go away.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

As a former tennis player, I can tell you that the sport does tend to give you large thighs (and one Popeye-esque large forearm which makes finding properly fit shirt sleeves an interesting challenge). Roddick is 6'2" with somewhat of a naturally skinny build so he's okay. In fact if he weren't a world-class athlete he would probably be bean pole skinny so the thigh muscles help.

But here is a picture of Michael Chang:










Oak trunk thighs, small feet, small frame. Try to picture him looking good in either a slim/straight cut or a relaxed cut pair of pants without taper.

I think that is the situation where a subtle taper can help. If I'm wrong, someone please tell me because that is pretty much my exact build.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

> Oak trunk thighs, small feet, small frame. Try to picture him looking good in either a slim/straight cut or a relaxed cut pair of pants without taper.
> 
> I think that is the situation where a subtle taper can help.


I agree with here, but again, it may just be down to personal preferences in the end. In my humble opinion, I think that smaller frames or shorter people need slimmer cuts, and that a gentle tapered leg is best suited for an athlete's body. Otherwise the clothes look too big for them.

The reason I thought Murray needed a taper was because I believed he had big thighs, but I don't think he does, or at least not on the scale of Chang. But I do agree with CuffDaddy _et al _that the low rise trousers and where he is wearing them are not flattering whatsoever. 

Aesthetically speaking, I love fuller cut, pleated trousers and the way they drape; but on a narrow frame or small frame I don't think they look good. As I have a 5' 11'' narrow-than-average frame, I don't wear fuller cut trouser, though I'd love to. My lower half would be disproportionate to my upper half otherwise, which is what I thought was happening with Murray.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm around 5'8" with a very small frame (I'd be a 36 short if I watched what I eat and didn't work out) and small/narrow feet. I think a somewhat tapered leg is absolutely essential to keep me from looking 4'6" with size 5 shoes. 

In my opinion tapering has everything to do with your height and shoe size. Regular trousers absolutely envelope my shoes after they've been properly hemmed.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> Looking at it again, I agree that Rubinacci Sr looks a tad top-heavy; I think Rubinacci Jr has it spot on, though.
> 
> I think Jean-Paul Sartorial has it spot-on, too: it's a balancing act: different frames/figures need different cuts to look their best.
> 
> This photo of Andy Murray on the left (I've posted it before) reveals, in my opinion, what the wrong cut does to a figure: his trousers are too voluminous and thus out of proportion with the rest of his body: he looks like a ten-year-old who has put on his dad's suit - or at least trousers. He may have big thighs, and if so a taper of some sort is needed, in my humble opinion.


The suit would look fine if either one of two things were true.

1) The top was not so dkin tight
2) the bottom was as tight fitting as the top.

Also, the pants are sitting too low, he needs to pull them up.


----------



## zblaesi (Dec 30, 2009)

I'm overweight (obese, really), so this makes finding decent-looking pants much more difficult. For instance, I find Arizona jeans complement me best: though I need to buy a huge waist to accommodate my belly and poor posture, the legs/hem appear to be tapered, so I don't end up with the parachute-pants-effect. Unfortunately, Arizona jeans don't look that great otherwise. I much prefer Levi 501 STFs, but when I buy the appropriate waist, I end up with really baggy pants, particularly at the hem. 

I think this problem stems from the following fact: most companies make their pants with a really long inseam, then just hem them for each smaller inseam. As a result, a shorter inseam will have a much wider hem depending on how big the waist is.

I'm thinking tapering might be a good option for me. I can buy the pants I like--say, Levi 501s--and just have the legs/hem tapered so I get the waist without a freakishly wide hem that consumes my shoes.

This problem is probably particular to me (or other overweight fellows), but I thought it was worth mentioning.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Straight cut pants are straight from the knee down, not from the thigh. Although thigh width plays a part with the width of the lower part of the pant. It has to do with the patterns they use. The manufacturer calculated that more people could wear the bigger size waist if they made the thighs and calfs bigger. The billowy ankles can be solved equally well by making the entire knee to ankle portion skinnier.

Which brings up a point on definition. All pants taper from the thigh to the ankle. Straight cut refers to a straight cut from the knee down. Taper means that the leg will continue tapering towards the ankle.

Heres a picture example. Hopefully it works









And here is a straight jean. Which is normal.









Sorry to use jeans as an example, but I daresay I can't think of any normal men's pants that come in tapered.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

What would you call these?

Also, isn't the classic military chino a tapered leg?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Those appear to be a straight cut to me, can't tell for sure without lying the pants down or if the manufacturer says so. Of course there are slight tapers, but a slight taper isn't really noticeable. *edit* Of course, with that much stacking, who the heck can tell. Stacking being the fact that the pant leg is grossly too long for the model.

Don't know about the Chino. I was only thinking about wool pants and what is generally available today.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Straight cut pants are straight from the knee down, not from the thigh [...] All pants taper from the thigh to the ankle. Straight cut refers to a straight cut from the knee down.


Thanks Leighton for the definition; I must admit, regarding the 'straight cut' I was always unsure where the actual straight cut began.

What are the effects on the suit's silhouette? To generalise, which - 'English', 'European', 'American' -favour which cut of trouser?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Thank you, Leighton. That was helpful.

FTR, I own those jeans and they are 17" at the thigh and 14" at the ankle. And indeed they are almost straight from the knee down. I have measured them and they appear to be around 14 1/2" at the knee. Also the taper from the thigh to knee appears to come mainly from the back, and from the knee down the pants look almost sort of bent, as if they were for bow-legged people. I don't have the finer eye to see exactly how the magic happens beyond that.

I understand what you are saying about straight leg vs taper beginning at the knee. If what you are saying is correct, it should make no difference in size whether I get straight leg or tapered. The only impact would be in the leg opening. Which makes total sense to me.

However, it's my experience that it seems like what happens below the knee seems to impact what happens above. I know I wear those jeans in a size 30. If I try to wear what are labeled as "straight leg" jeans, I have to size up to 34. Of course the terms that mass manufacturers and/or jeans makers use to appeal to the casual dresser is likely to differ from the "proper" terminology used in more traditional and dressier circles.

At any rate, I'd like to try and get the a similar effect in a dress pant, but I'm not sure how to do it, absent handing over those jeans to an expensive tailor for a full bespoke job. 

I don't mind getting suit and pants separate RTW, but not sure what is the better alteration. Do I get pants that are looser in the upper leg but fit my waist and then try a slight taper, or do I go with a slimmer cut that fits my thighs and then get the waist and possibly the pant openings taken in?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Ah, your question makes more sense to me now. I can help you with that.

Your correct, cetaris parabis, the jeans would fit the same, except one would accentuate the thighs and one would not. 

After some digging, I notice that they are Nudies and you did buy the "Big Bengt" cut. According to their website the Big Bengt is "A baggy vintage fit with narrow leg opening, narrow yoke, and high rise." Meaning that particular jean in their lineup is going to be a more full cut. So, it is not surprising to me that their, say... "Slim Jim" (which is described as "you can wear them super tight") would be much skinnier and a tighter fit than the Big Bengts. You probably want to look at the "Easy Emil" or the "Average Joe" both of which are a looser cut and will fit closer in the waist and hips to the Big Bengt that you already own.

*Disclaimer* No, I am not a Nudies expert, I am just good at research and analysis. But I do like jeans.... and clothes... and nicely fitted clothes... I digress.

Ok, similar effect in dress pant. Just looks like a slim fit dress pant with a slight taper to me. You can get a slim fit dress pant from say... Boss and have a local tailor narrow the opening a little. Shouldn't be too much in cost. Its a simple operation. I think... Doesn't sound hard, but I'm no tailor.

As to which is better. Fitting in the seat is best. You can always widen or tighten the waist to suit your hips or waist. Altering the seat is much more expensive. Aside from the seat, there should be a plethora of dress pants cuts available. If your willing to spend time searching I'm sure you can find something that fits your seat and has the thinness in the legs you want. At that point, if you still want the taper effect, its a simple operation as I said above. To the best of my knowledge.

@ Jake:
Don't know. But generally American is a fuller cut, so the trousers would be more baggy to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Try pinning the leg opening to 8.5 inches (17 inches in circumference as another poster wrote) of your pants and see how you like it. The trimmer look may work well with your physique.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Regarding Luca's suit from the original post and how I was asking generally why it looks so nice, I'm wondering now if it was just a combination of the perfect light at the perfect angle or something, because after looking at some of his other suits, I don't think any of them look that special, definitely nowhere near as nice as the original pic. For example this one doesn't stand out at all to me:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

This one looks nicer than the first picture, actually. The fit is better too.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Jovan said:


> This one looks nicer than the first picture, actually. The fit is better too.


It looks more conservative and versatile but it definitely doesn't have that "holy sh** thats a nice suit" factor that the first one has, in my opinion.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Jovan said:


> This one looks nicer than the first picture, actually. The fit is better too.


I agree too. Appears a straight leg also (?)

_EDIT: _Yes, perhaps it may have more of a conservative look. But a conservative look can still be elegant, I would say.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

a!!!!1 said:


> It looks more conservative and versatile but it definitely doesn't have that "holy sh** thats a nice suit" factor that the first one has, in my opinion.


I guess we have different standards. That was my reaction to this picture. The first one just made me think, "Yet another trendy suit..." however well made it is. It barely looks like he can get the leg openings past his ankles.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Thats a nice suit in the second picture.

You probably like the first one because its a different color than "normal" and it has peak lapels. This one is pretty darn standard, nothing to make it stand out from any other suit other than the construction and fabric. Both of which appear to be very nice FTR.

Also, looking again at the first picture I am not convinced his pants are even tapered at all. It appears that way if you only look at the leg he's got forward, however, look at the back leg and theres a lot more room around that ankle than appears in the other leg.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

[IMG said:


> https://i37.tinypic.com/11s00hu.jpg[/IMG]


Did he forget his socks again??? Gotta wear socks....:icon_scratch:


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Leighton said:


> You probably like the first one because its a different color than "normal" and it has peak lapels. This one is pretty darn standard, nothing to make it stand out from any other suit other than the construction and fabric. Both of which appear to be very nice FTR.
> 
> Also, looking again at the first picture I am not convinced his pants are even tapered at all. It appears that way if you only look at the leg he's got forward, however, look at the back leg and theres a lot more room around that ankle than appears in the other leg.


I don't really like peak lapels but maybe it is the color and how it looks shiny (is there a term here for that?). The second one looks nice but to me it just looks like a regular suit and if I saw a guy walking down the street in it I wouldn't give him a second look.

Does anyone have a picture of the first suit from a different angle so we can verify if there even is a taper or not?


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

> =a!!!!1;1134643]The second one looks nice but to me it just looks like a regular suit and if I saw a guy walking down the street in it I wouldn't give him a second look.


I think it is down to personal preferences and what ticks one's boxes, though I understand what you are saying. When I was younger I didn't care for navy suits whatsoever as it denoted (for me, at least) big corporate 'fat cats'. However, a navy suits does not have to denote this whatsoever. A dark navy gaberdine suit with a light pink shirt can look very nice and far from 'business-y', in my opinion. But this is only my opinion.

Also, grey suit, tie-less white shirt sounds boring - and it can be. Be in 'Heat' De Niro looks striking in it - despite the fact that it is predominately a double-breasted jacket that is too long, and he wears opened, not buttoned!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

a!!!!1 said:


> I don't really like peak lapels but maybe it is the color and how it looks shiny (is there a term here for that?). The second one looks nice but to me it just looks like a regular suit and if I saw a guy walking down the street in it I wouldn't give him a second look.
> 
> Does anyone have a picture of the first suit from a different angle so we can verify if there even is a taper or not?


Why is it necessary or good to stand out?


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> I think it is down to personal preferences and what ticks one's boxes, though I understand what you are saying. When I was younger I didn't care for navy suits whatsoever as it denoted (for me, at least) big corporate 'fat cats'. However, a navy suits does not have to denote this whatsoever. A dark navy gaberdine suit with a light pink shirt can look very nice and far from 'business-y', in my opinion. But this is only my opinion.
> 
> Also, grey suit, tie-less white shirt sounds boring - and it can be. Be in 'Heat' De Niro looks striking in it - despite the fact that it is predominately a double-breasted jacket that is too long, and he wears opened, not buttoned!


I agree with you and I definitely think navy and gray suits can look great depending on the material, the fit, what you wear them with, etc. In this specific case, I just don't see anything great about the suit in question.



Jovan said:


> Why is it necessary or good to stand out?


I don't like fitting in. If I'm spending 10k on a Rubinacci suit it better stand out. Just personal taste.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I wouldn't spend more than half of that on a suit!


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

> a!!!!1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like fitting in.
> ...


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> > Some of the greatest and radical thinkers - Marx, Sartre, Freud, Darwin, etc - far from fitted in, but you wouldn't know that from the attire they wore which was predominatey bourgeois-conforming.
> 
> 
> True. This is just personal preference, it's not really something to debate.


----------



## mysharona (Nov 4, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I wouldn't spend more than half of that on a suit!


Then you wouldn't be wearing a Rubinacci!


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Well, unless you want to be like Barney in _How I Met Your Mother_, I highly doubt you wear a suit everywhere you go. Rather, the suit is for business or special occasions. I'll nix special occasions/clubbing/going out from this tirade.

But in terms of business, the point of the suit is to look professional. Pic #2 is about as far as I would take it and still know I will be taken seriously for my ideas. #2 make me afraid of being labeled as too into fashion. Or trying to stand out too hard. This of course does not apply if you work in fashion or some other industry where peacocking is the key to success.

So, really, the suit isn't a peacocking device. There are much better clothes to peacock in.

That said, it could be used to peacock. Clearly Mr. Rubinacci has shown us how. The shine, or sheen as I like to call it, of his suit is indicative of the wool used and helps make the suit stand out. But what probably draws your attention to the suit is the closeness of the fit and the color. Its an odd shade of brown. Add his flashy pocket square, and you can't help but notice him. Not to mention he carries himself well (always an attention getter).


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Leighton said:


> Well, unless you want to be like Barney in _How I Met Your Mother_


 which we all do, to varying extents.


----------

