# Cuffs or No Cuffs with Grey Flannels Trousers?



## AndrewH (Sep 19, 2014)

Hi Everyone,

I just bought a pair of light grey flannel trousers (Linea Naturale) -- online -- via Nordstrom's. 

Before I take them to the tailor, I wanted to solicit you for some opinions as to whether they should be cuffed or not. They're flat-front, and I keep hearing that "flat-front trousers are not to be cuffed, pleated trousers are". Is there any rule/tradition to this, and what are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance,

Andrew


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

Cuffs! Flannels don't look right without them to my eye. I'd go about 1 3/4 inches or so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kaehlin (Mar 29, 2014)

I would have them cuffed. Flannels cry out for cuffs, in my opinion.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

As others have said, cuffed, for sure.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Do your other flannels have cuffs? I like cuffs, but it's hardly a rule, more a preference.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Cuffs. If you don't like them, you can have them decuffed.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Believe who you wish: Cuff no break is what I learned in 1959, when I worked in a Campus Ivy shop and have worn ever since. When I dropped my youngest Son off for college at Yale a couple of years ago, I took him to J. Press to purchase a few apparel items I knew he'd need. Tony, the wonderful tailor at J. Press New Haven, was chalking up a pair of trousers for my Son when he asked the following question: "Cuff, no break?" While it was phrased as a question - it was really a suggestion. I was taken back more than 50 years to the Campus Ivy shop I worked in. The owner would always suggest the "cuff/no break" answer. Tony has worked at J. Press New Haven since 1968 - 46 years! His rhetorical question has always been the same.

For your perusal: 3 pairs of Gray flannels with the cuff/no break look.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Peak my friend, just because it was you who rang the bell.

I tend not to post often on the Trad forum because most of the little I know is of the Anglo-American tradition developed between the wars. If the OP is not familiar with the distinction, the dress discussed here on the Trad forum, while it had roots in the Anglo-American tradition, developed on its own in New England after WWII. Others often refer to it as Ivy.

To be brief, as the OP is from New Jersey, let me just say that the vast majority of sophisticated American traditional dressers wore cuffs, and that is still the case today.

As this is the Trad forum, to my mind, the best choice is to emulate Billax, as he is a true master of Trad, and he wears cuffs. An example:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...ad-What-are-you-Wearing&p=1608653#post1608653

I advise the OP, as well as every one else, to peruse the ensembles Billax has posted. It will be time well spent. Study and you will notice the results in your own mirror. I guarantee it.

Edit:

While I was typing this post the man himself answered.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

LIFE magazine, 1954, taken at J. Press New Haven. Cuff, no break. While I will readily admit that I know very little about Trad (maybe nothing) I have worn the Ivy League Look myself for 56 years. This photo goes back 60 years. I don't know if TRAD has any definitive answer to your question. Nothing wrong with that! The world has very few definitive answers. I do know that proponents of the IVY League Look DO have an answer to your question. It is directly below.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> Peak my friend, just because it was you who rang the bell.
> 
> I tend not to post often on the Trad forum because most of the little I know is of the Anglo-American tradition developed between the wars. If the OP is not familiar with the distinction, the dress discussed here on the Trad forum, while it had roots in the Anglo-American tradition, developed on its own in New England after WWII. Others often refer to it as Ivy.
> 
> ...


Mr. Kirchner,
I am humbled - and most grateful for your comments.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

And I too am humbled, Mr. Kirshner, by your reference to me, which will make little sense to those just arriving since I deleted my post and I did it because (and here's where you can call me extra, extra dumb) I didn't realize I was in the Trad Forum until I saw Bilax's stuff (very nice, BTW) and I'm thinking of late I really, really, don't belong here. But glad you heard the ding. You are truly an AAAC First Responder.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Cuffs!


----------



## sisco (Sep 20, 2014)

I would like to to peruse the ensembles Billax has posted. However, I have not been able to use the search function to achieve this goal. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Even with a flat front, I think that cuffs look best with flannels. Besides, something needs to help the fabric drape.

-Quetzal


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

sisco said:


> I would like to to peruse the ensembles Billax has posted. However, I have not been able to use the search function to achieve this goal. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Perhaps the best way is to go to his post, at the top of his post click on "Billax", then go to "view forum posts". You will get all his posts and then go through them.


----------



## AndrewH (Sep 19, 2014)

Thank you all; question answered.

And, thank you Billax, for your "re-visit" to J. Press. Teaching a son to dress as a gentleman is more than admirable; it gives rise to a great tradition. I have 2 younger daughters. For us, keeping them away from the mall trash outfits is a heavy chore.

Cheers.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

For cuffed trousers, I prefer a military break.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

Billax said:


>


'Nuff said!


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

Billax said:


> LIFE magazine, 1954, taken at J. Press New Haven. Cuff, no break. While I will readily admit that I know very little about Trad (maybe nothing) I have worn the Ivy League Look myself for 56 years. This photo goes back 60 years. I don't know if TRAD has any definitive answer to your question. Nothing wrong with that! The world has very few definitive answers. I do know that proponents of the IVY League Look DO have an answer to your question. It is directly below.


Admittedly, this is not the "Shell or No Shell thread" but these shoes do look like shell to me!

Nice examples throughout of the "cuff, no break look". I like it.


----------



## swb120 (Aug 9, 2005)

1 3/4" cuffs.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Yodan731 said:


> Cuffs! Flannels don't look right without them to my eye. I'd go about 1 3/4 inches or so.


Absolutely.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Cuff 'em if you got 'em.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

According to The OPH, 1 1/4 inches. But I like how 1 3/4 inches looks on my own.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Duvel said:


> According to The OPH, 1 1/4 inches. But I like how 1 3/4 inches looks on my own.


I suggest 1 1/2" at a minimum.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

OCBD posted something a while back on another thread about proportion to height. For me at a little over 6 feet, the larger cuff looks better. But yes, I agree. The 1 1/4 seems too small for anybody's trousers, the OPH be damned!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Duvel said:


> OCBD posted something a while back on another thread about proportion to height. For me at a little over 6 feet, the larger cuff looks better. But yes, I agree. The 1 1/4 seems too small for anybody's trousers, the OPH be damned!


I'm a little over 6' too and 2" cuffs looked stupid on me and I doubt they look good on you. 1 1/4" is just right for me. The OPH is correct.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Oh, well, on that basis, everything I've thought up to now is just out the window. LOL.



Doctor Damage said:


> I'm a little over 6' too and 2" cuffs looked stupid on me and I doubt they look good on you. 1 1/4" is just right for me. The OPH is correct.


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

No hard and fast on cuff size. I think anywhere from 1 1/4 - 1 3/4 works, depending on your height. I also think heavier fabrics work better with larger cuffs, but that is just my opinion. I wear 1 3/8 - 1 1/2 in worsted wool.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Doctor Damage said:


> I'm a little over 6' too and 2" cuffs looked stupid on me and I doubt they look good on you. 1 1/4" is just right for me. The OPH is correct.


Umm... what is the OPH?

I have always been a little disturbed by some of the cuff depths displayed on menswear forums - to my mind 2" is pure hipster, even 1 3/4" can appear excessive.

I have always opted for 1 1/4" on chinos (to resonate with the depth of my belt - a certain appealing symmetry).

All this said, I was compelled to enquire of Billax as to the depth of cuff on one of this recent Trad WAYWT contributions and to which the answer was 1 5/8". Thus emboldened I had my latest pair of cavalry twills turned up at 1 1/2" and whilst I am very pleased with the result still I am certain that I will never go any deeper than this.

The argument for personal height to dictate cuff height makes little sense as the suggested proportions seem unrelated one to the other e.g. the ratio between a 5 ft 10" man and a 6 footer is 1/35 yet the oft recommended increase from 1 1/2" to 1 3/4" is 1/6. It simply does not add up.

A trousers' material and cut (and a dash of _tasteful_ personal preference) are the best indicator of cuff height.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hipster? Excessive? _Huuuhhh?_ All my trouser cuffs come in at 1.75" and look pretty normal to me. Here's a couple examples, one with a slimmer trouser and the other with a fuller cut. I could probably go up to 2" and no one would notice. In fact, trousers during the '30s often did IIRC.







AndrewH said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I just bought a pair of light grey flannel trousers (Linea Naturale) -- online -- via Nordstrom's.
> 
> ...


I keep seeing this "rule" parroted everywhere without so much a suggestion of why pleats and cuffs should always go together besides "they just do". (It also doesn't explain why formal morning/evening trousers can be pleated but must never have cuffs!) Everyone else here has said it, but do what you want. I've seen pleated trousers without cuffs and plain front with them. Both look fine. It's just a matter of what you find aesthetically pleasing versus functional.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Umm... what is the OPH?
> 
> I have always been a little disturbed by some of the cuff depths displayed on menswear forums - to my mind 2" is pure hipster, even 1 3/4" can appear excessive.
> 
> ...


I use height and weight not only to determine cuff height, but also lapel width, and tie width. For example, skinny lapels and 1 1/4" on a 6'5" 275 pound man will extremely tiny. 3.5" lapels, 3.5" ties and 2" cuffs look huge on my frame. It is all about scale, and of course personal preference.

OPH - Official Preppy Handbook


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I use height and weight not only to determine cuff height, but also lapel width, and tie width. For example, skinny lapels and 1 1/4" on a 6'5" 275 pound man will extremely tiny. 3.5" lapels, 3.5" ties and 2" cuffs look huge on my frame. It is all about scale, and of course personal preference.
> 
> OPH - Official Preppy Handbook


Scale of course but my point being that few of us here are 5ft tall or 7ft tall, even then the difference in scale is negligible as it would relate to trouser cuff depth e.g. a 7ft man may be 40% larger than a 5ft man, if the 5ft man wears 1 1/4" cuffs then the proportional increase for a 7ft man would be a mere 1/2".

I do agree, however, that girth (which in my post I had not included as a factor) will more significantly inform adjustment to scale. The differences in scale bequeathed by girth are physically possible to be more extreme than even the most outlandishly proposed differences in height, which is to say a man with a 52" waist will be 63% larger than an average man such as myself.

.
.
.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I just like the way 1.75 looks. I don't think I'm a hipster. I'm more of an oldster.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am 5'7" and athletic in build, so I go with 1 3/8". I better like the way it looks. I didn't see much need to examine it more than that.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

I am 6'1" and have had my last two suits cuffed at 1.75". I also do not cuff any of my tailored pants and personally do not cuff chinos. It's all about your personal preference and style.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

There's so much talk of scale when it comes to things like cuffs and lapels and ties etc. and the resulting rules with very little thought given to how other people actually experience the clothes we wear. I'm only 5'-3" and I think 1-1/2" cuffs look best on me. It has nothing to do with my height and everything to do with my cuffs' proximity to my shoes. If I wore a size 6 shoe, I might think about reducing the depth of my cuffs because a larger cuff would appear to swallow smaller shoes. As a size 8.5, I feel the scale of a 1.5" cuff compliments my shoes well. Someone in a size 12 should probably consider going up to 1.75" or 2". Similarly, Billax has a formula for pants leg opening size on his blog that I believe is spot on. It has nothing to do with the wearer's overall height or girth but with the size of the shoe and its features (laces, tassles, buckles etc.) which makes perfect sense, since most people's eyes are drawn to the joints and edges of our clothing and how these relate to one another, and they rarely see "the whole picture" as we imagine it.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

We can get a little OCD around here. Not to be confused with OCBD.



vpkozel said:


> I am 5'7" and athletic in build, so I go with 1 3/8". I better like the way it looks.* I didn't see much need to examine it more than that.*


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think that's partly it for me too. I wear a larger shoe size, 10.5 to 11, so a larger cuff "feels" right to me. I don't bother with a formula but just go with what my eye tells me looks good. At the same time, I have some smaller cuffs, and I think they're fine, too.



hardline_42 said:


> There's so much talk of scale when it comes to things like cuffs and lapels and ties etc. and the resulting rules with very little thought given to how other people actually experience the clothes we wear. I'm only 5'-3" and I think 1-1/2" cuffs look best on me. It has nothing to do with my height and everything to do with my cuffs' proximity to my shoes. If I wore a size 6 shoe, I might think about reducing the depth of my cuffs because a larger cuff would appear to swallow smaller shoes. As a size 8.5, I feel the scale of a 1.5" cuff compliments my shoes well. Someone in a size 12 should probably consider going up to 1.75" or 2". Similarly, Billax has a formula for pants leg opening size on his blog that I believe is spot on. It has nothing to do with the wearer's overall height or girth but with the size of the shoe and its features (laces, tassles, buckles etc.) which makes perfect sense, since most people's eyes are drawn to the joints and edges of our clothing and how these relate to one another, and they rarely see "the whole picture" as we imagine it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Duvel said:


> We can get a little OCD around here. Not to be confused with OCBD.


I hope that we are actually OCPD_._

I know I am.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Ha ha. That's what I meant, thank you. And a perfect example. One letter does make a significant difference in meaning, and thank you for pointing out my lapse.

For more information, go here: https://ocd.about.com/od/diagnosis/f/OCD_OCPDFAQ.htm

.


Shaver said:


> I hope that we are actually OCPD_._
> 
> I know I am.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> There's so much talk of scale when it comes to things like cuffs and lapels and ties etc. and the resulting rules with very little thought given to how other people actually experience the clothes we wear. I'm only 5'-3" and I think 1-1/2" cuffs look best on me. It has nothing to do with my height and everything to do with my cuffs' proximity to my shoes. If I wore a size 6 shoe, I might think about reducing the depth of my cuffs because a larger cuff would appear to swallow smaller shoes. As a size 8.5, I feel the scale of a 1.5" cuff compliments my shoes well. Someone in a size 12 should probably consider going up to 1.75" or 2". Similarly, Billax has a formula for pants leg opening size on his blog that I believe is spot on. It has nothing to do with the wearer's overall height or girth but with the size of the shoe and its features (laces, tassles, buckles etc.) which makes perfect sense, since most people's eyes are drawn to the joints and edges of our clothing and how these relate to one another, and they rarely see "the whole picture" as we imagine it.


I use height/weoght as a generic way to get at shoe size, width, etc. It isn't perfect, but it helps to get you in the ballpark.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Ultimately, it's a weird thing to get picky about, but the main reason I do is that I enjoy being picky about it, if that makes any sense. It's fun. It's one of those little things that one gets to exercise some control over. Maybe I'll be a real individual about this and go with 1 and 7/8 from now on--not a fraction more, not a fraction less!


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

6' tall, 190 lbs.. 1-1/2" cuff with slight break, Bills M1's, J Press Cords and all wool trousers regardless of weight.


----------



## Carl Adair (Oct 15, 2014)

I love cuffs so I ignore the rules sometime. The key is if the pants are slim cut. If so go plain bottoms if they are traditional cut then I think it's ok to cuff them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Carl Adair said:


> I love cuffs so I ignore the rules sometime. The key is if the pants are slim cut. If so go plain bottoms if they are traditional cut then I think it's ok to cuff them.


No, cuff whatever you want. The size of the leg openings make no difference.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Jovan said:


> No, cuff whatever you want. The size of the leg openings make no difference.


I think he is saying that if they are slim cut that cuffing them will result in creating more tapering which is true.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

AndrewH said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I just bought a pair of light grey flannel trousers (Linea Naturale) -- online -- via Nordstrom's.
> 
> ...


I'm just curious as to the cut. I'm looking for affordable flannel slacks and have been eyeing those. I suppose I could always try them on as I have a ton of Nordstroms to choose from, but thought I'd solicit your opinion. Are they on the trimmer side or more full?

Oh, and I would go with a cuff. There, now my reply is at least relevant to your query.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

hardline_42 said:


> There's so much talk of scale when it comes to things like cuffs and lapels and ties etc. and the resulting rules with very little thought given to how other people actually experience the clothes we wear. I'm only 5'-3" and I think 1-1/2" cuffs look best on me. It has nothing to do with my height and everything to do with my cuffs' proximity to my shoes. If I wore a size 6 shoe, I might think about reducing the depth of my cuffs because a larger cuff would appear to swallow smaller shoes. As a size 8.5, I feel the scale of a 1.5" cuff compliments my shoes well. Someone in a size 12 should probably consider going up to 1.75" or 2". Similarly, Billax has a formula for pants leg opening size on his blog that I believe is spot on. It has nothing to do with the wearer's overall height or girth but with the size of the shoe and its features (laces, tassles, buckles etc.) which makes perfect sense, since most people's eyes are drawn to the joints and edges of our clothing and how these relate to one another, and they rarely see "the whole picture" as we imagine it.


Good point. Shoe size also affects the trouser hem circumference that looks best, IMO. Scale is often what distinguishes good taste from a Halloween costume.


----------



## CharlieChannel (Mar 16, 2006)

Flannels need cuffs.
Admittedly, MOST trousers other than denim and sometimes chino, should have cuffs.
Pleats enhance cuffs, but the answer is: cuff anyway, and like me, wait for pleats to "come back"
into vogue -- or order pleats in your bespoke or MTM, as I always do.


----------

