# "Classic Fit" pants are too big on legs



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Has classic/ full cut become a new way of saying fat man pants? I was at macy's last week and tried their dress pants RL, Nautica etc and these are absolutely worst fitting pants. These pants (albeit great colors) were fitting like potato sacks below the waist. I am a moderately big guy so my waist is around 38" but maybe legs aren't so big??

I like to wear a modern cut on pants. It suits me and my dress style fairly well. Now I am not sure how to attain it on OTR pants... should I change the label? Perhaps the store? I read somewhere that I should get pants one size smaller and let the tailor bring the waist out a little bit. 

Suggestions please?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

For most of the 20th century, it was well understood that dress trousers should have minimal contact with the legs. Now, men have been trained to think that pants should fit like jeans, which don't drape. So men think their pants need to fit closely. They don't. But the marketers have decided to just run with it.

Here's an illustration that nicely shows how men's trousers were supposed to fit from the time when the modern vocabulary of proper dress was created. 









Lots of men today would characterize those trouser legs as "baggy," even though they are the opposite. They hang vertically and maintain their shape; skinny trouser legs that have been stretched and pulled, and that are clinging to various points, are what actually resemble a bag.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Rick has a point. Some legs are cut different than they were years ago. Suit pants, not so much so, they have stayed the same, but even dress pants, sans jackets, sometimes they are a bit roomier. Some of this is due to the place (Banana Republic) having different model names for the fit.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I have the opposite problem; finding trowsers that aren't too tight. I am not unduely corpulent, and so can wear slacks cut in the currently popular style. I do not, however, like the fit nor absence of drape. As pointed out by Cuff Daddy, that's how jeans are supposed to fit. 

Perhaps the store you were in was selling older merhandise, made prior to the switch to skinny-fitting clothes. Given current fashion you should be able to find suits cut to your preferences.

I recall from high school, our football coach urging us to wear chinos or slacks rather than jeans, as he thought jeans were too tight and not suitable for athletes.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

memphislawyer said:


> Rick has a point. Some legs are cut different than they were years ago. Suit pants, not so much so, they have stayed the same, but even dress pants, sans jackets, sometimes they are a bit roomier.


??????????????????????

I guess maybe I need to do my shopping in Memphis. There is little in Atlanta but nut-huggers.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Cuffdaddy, I can see that my earlier post was not clear. Yes, some stores, like the aforementioned Banana Republic, have different cuts in the same pant, and there is or was a Mad Men line that was cut very slim in the leg, and then there is the Emerson model and one other model in chinos. Relaxed through the leg it says and then others say traditional or slim or what have you.

In our nicer shops in Memphis (Oak Hall, James Davis), I can not say that I have noticed much of a change in the drape of the leg. My wife will go with me and sometimes say that the leg appears to swallow me, but she has not said that Hilti or Cortina or whatever brand seems too tight on the leg. I only get her commenting on that with jeans and chinos usually.

No, dont shop in Memphis. My daughter lives in Atlanta and it is a delight to go to Stockton and other shops even if the prices are a tad higher. We have Macy's, Dillards, Jos. A Bank and then those two upper-end stores and that's it for men (well, Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Kohls, Steimart).


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

CD, the picture above shows pants that are less roomier than the dress pants being sold at departmental stores (though I admit, I was pointing towards a slimmer cut) but nothing as tight as jeans or yoga slacks. :tongue2:

The trousers I am wearing right now (RL dress pants from Macy's), have fabric collecting at the shoe, opening is trying to eat my foot, and when I walk it feels like I am wearing a parachute. Also, I am not wearing tailored double breasted jackets half the time... I need to wear pants that goes alongwith rest of the attire.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

"[F]abric collecting at the shoe" is a function of hem length. Have them hemmed shorter.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

There is enough variety in men's clothing that I'm not sure why we still insist on having this argument. If you want slimmer fitting pants, buy slim (not skinny, big difference) pants. If you are CuffDaddy and you want hammer pants, you can buy those too. I was in Memphis last Christmas and walked in to the Jos A Bank in Collierville looking for flat front slim trousers...I couldn't find a single pair that fit that bill. All of them were pleated potato sacks. I walked across the parking lot to Dillards and found exactly what I was looking for. See, now wasn't that easy?


----------



## JeffTL (Aug 7, 2012)

At the store where you were shopping (disclaimer: I am professionally involved therewith), your best bet will probably be the suit separates trousers. Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger suit pants (to be distinguished from Calvin Klein dress pants, which are more skinny than slim) will have the sort of shape you are looking for. In fact, you'll probably need to try a 40 in Hilfiger.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Jeff/upthewazzu - how do you guys define skinny vs slim? Is there a proper distinguishment between them?


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

Rick Blaine said:


> Jeff/upthewazzu - how do you guys define skinny vs slim? Is there a proper distinguishment between them?


Unfortunately, there is no standard in place to define slim or skinny. In fact, most manufacturers have different terminology to describe the fit of their pants; slim, modern, tailored, city, trim, etc. Some online retailers do specify actual measurements, but most don't.

The only way to know what looks good on me is by trying it on. The same can be said about most men. What looks slim on me, may look hilariously skinny on the next guy. Or what looks slim on you, may look baggy on me.


----------



## JoshuaNY (Oct 26, 2012)

I have the same problem with pants. My waist is a 38, but my legs are not large. It takes me a long time to find dress pants that fit, but arent skinny or too baggy. I like them to actually fit.


Classic dress pants for a 38 waits will be gigantic. I have had luck with some slim fit styles. You definitely need to shop around.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> For most of the 20th century, it was well understood that dress trousers should have minimal contact with the legs. Now, men have been trained to think that pants should fit like jeans, which don't drape. So men think their pants need to fit closely. They don't. But the marketers have decided to just run with it.
> 
> Here's an illustration that nicely shows how men's trousers were supposed to fit from the time when the modern vocabulary of proper dress was created.
> 
> ...


I am not certain why you consider skinny trousers by virtue of how they cling to various points to end up resembling a bag. In my opinion a bag or "baggy" or a "sack" is a large non form fitting garment. Having said that I do have some older trousers that are kind of baggy and were purchased when that was more the style. I still like to wear them even if they are not very fashionable right now precisely because of the way they drape. Slimmer fitting trousers do run the risk of clinging, not draping well and you can't put too much in their pockets. All in all, I probably prefer trousers that are somewhere in between slim and baggy even though I have succumbed to purchasing some slimmer flat front trousers in the last few years. In the picture you show - the white trousers do look a just a bit baggy (although I would happily wear them) - the brown trousers look just about right.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> Has classic/ full cut become a new way of saying fat man pants? I was at macy's last week and tried their dress pants RL, Nautica etc and these are absolutely worst fitting pants. These pants (albeit great colors) were fitting like potato sacks below the waist. I am a moderately big guy so my waist is around 38" but maybe legs aren't so big??
> 
> I like to wear a modern cut on pants. It suits me and my dress style fairly well. Now I am not sure how to attain it on OTR pants... should I change the label? Perhaps the store? I read somewhere that I should get pants one size smaller and let the tailor bring the waist out a little bit.
> 
> Suggestions please?


Well I think anything labeled "classic" in this day and age is potentially a euphemism for overweight at the very least and obese at worse. I am a bit surprised that you are struggling to find trousers that are sufficiently thin in the leg. As others have suggested - flat front thinner leg pants are much more the norm these days and the usual observation is exactly the opposite. When I compare an off the rack Armani trouser I purchased in 2005 to one purchased in the last year it is unbelievable how much thinner the leg is in the modern trouser. I guess my point here is even Armani - "classically" known for baggy full fitting trousers is now cutting their trousers with a fairly thin leg. I suspect you need to shop around a bit more - you should easily be able to find something with a more modern cut.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

JBierly said:


> I am not certain why you consider skinny trousers by virtue of how they cling to various points to end up resembling a bag. In my opinion a bag or "baggy" or a "sack" is a large non form fitting garment.


When a garment gets stretched out, we say that it is "bagging at the [knees, elbows, etc.]" Trousers that touch the legs excessively when standing will start to be under pressure when seated or when walking with strides exceeding a couple of feet. Unless made with spandex or other stretch material, this stress will gradually cause the fabric to alter its shape. Instead of straight creases down the front and rear, you'll get stretched bubbles of fabric in various places. You can see the process at work in this photo:










The man on the right is wearing classically-cut trousers. They appear to contact his body only incidentally below the waist. Notice how they retain their original form. The man on the left, in contrast, is wearing slim trousers. Notice the bizzare shapes they have been stretched and distorted into. Which one looks more like a shapeless sack to you?

JB', remember that a sack remains a sack even when it is stuffed full to bursting. Being less than packed with contents does not render something sack-like. Being shapeless does that. Surely you know the old Southern saying about 10 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound sack!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

JBierly said:


> I am a bit surprised that you are struggling to find trousers that are sufficiently thin in the leg. As others have suggested - flat front thinner leg pants are much more the norm these days and the usual observation is exactly the opposite.


Exactly. That's why I bothered posting. Anyone who remarks that "modern" pants are tough to find... well, it suggests that they have an extremely distorted view of what constitutes a normal fit.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

If you are interested in high quality, proper fitting clothing, don't step foot into a store like Macy's. Their business model is selling the cheapest, highest profit stuff that they can possibly sell. They have no desire to offer proper clothing. 

I can just about guarantee that anybody can walk into a Brooks Brothers (the regular stores, not the outlets) and find a pair of trousers that fits their frame.

This really shouldn't be this difficult.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

nolan50410 said:


> I can just about guarantee that anybody can walk into a Brooks Brothers (the regular stores, not the outlets) and find a pair of trousers that fits their frame.


Used to be the case. Not necessarily anymore: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?112654-Brooks-Brothers-Madison-pant-change


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

CuffDaddy: You seem to keep going on this either/or proposition. Either one wears trousers so tight they look like a mess, or they wear stuff from the '30s. Why can't there be an in between?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jovan,

Of course there are points on a continuum. The problem is that normal pants are now portrayed as being at one end of the continuum, when, in fact, they are at the mid-point. Trousers on the "large" side of the spectrum are essentially non-existent today. This is what large-legged trousers look like:



But nobody is pushing those. So the apparent spectrum ranges between the fit that was standard for the better part of a century and the tightest possible fit. If that's the spectrum, then the "stuff from the 30's" (which would also be the stuff from the 40's, much of the 50's, anyone who wasn't trying to be hip in the 60's and 70's, all of the 80's, all of the 90's, and the first 6-7 years of the 00's) looks big. But it's just normal.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Jovan said:


> CuffDaddy: You seem to keep going on this either/or proposition. Either one wears trousers so tight they look like a mess, or they wear stuff from the '30s. Why can't there be an in between?


I wouldn't agree that Mr. Barbera's trousers appear to be "from the '30s". They just fit.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...
> Here's an illustration that nicely shows how men's trousers were supposed to fit from the time when the modern vocabulary of proper dress was created.
> 
> 
> ...


Well stated.

I call these traditional trousers "full-cut" or "drape trousers" since, when they became popular back in the 1930s-1950s, they were meant to be worn with full-chested drape jackets. The jacket and trousers had the same type of construction and proportions: they were proportional to one another and complimented each other. I favor these full-cut trousers because they go along with my vintage look, are very comfortable, look slick, and, as Cuff pointed out, don't make my legs look like sacks.

Most guys nowadays who care about their dress are wearing well fitted, sleek jackets and sports coats, much like those drape jackets of yesteryear. So why do these same men, when wearing such jackets, settle with skinny, shapeless, wrinkled messes for trousers? IMO, it looks sloppy and disproportional: it makes the wearer look top-heavy.

Just to reiterate my point using the photo from above:


CuffDaddy said:


>


The proportions of the gent on the right look more natural because, as Cuff pointed out, his trousers are the traditional full-cut variety. His trousers are proportional to his jacket.

The man on the left, however, looks very awkward and top-heavy proportionally merely because his trousers don't mesh with the rest of his kit. His feet look enormous because of his skinny pants. From the waist up he looks fine; from the waist down he's a disaster.

And with these skinny pants being the fashionable thing right now I see an unfortunate lack of understanding or ignorance of proportionality.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Points taken.

This is how I prefer my trousers to fit. I see nothing too tight about these, nor any lack of drape. They just taper a bit at the opening.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

You guys really need to stop using that same stupid picture as a reference guide for slim trousers. It looks like he's wearing white skinny jeans which isn't at all what anyone here is talking about.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> The man on the right is wearing classically-cut trousers. They appear to contact his body only incidentally below the waist. Notice how they retain their original form. The man on the left, in contrast, is wearing slim trousers. Notice the bizzare shapes they have been stretched and distorted into. Which one looks more like a shapeless sack to you?
> 
> JB', remember that a sack remains a sack even when it is stuffed full to bursting. Being less than packed with contents does not render something sack-like. Being shapeless does that. Surely you know the old Southern saying about 10 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound sack!


CD

I think fit of pants on older gent is great whereas the other guy is beyond "Brooklyn hipster trying t dress up". Everytime I (or anyone) for that matter propagates the use of "slim", that's the first image that pops to mind but I am looking for something in the middle.

In this case, the pants in question are (or appear to be) much baggier than the picture above. Maybe RL just doesn't care about the cut when they are making it for Macy's? Here is a better picture of what I would really like (in my _plus_ size ofcourse). If you call this stuffing 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag, we truly differ in opinions.

https://store-us.hugoboss.com/Slim-...pd.html&cgid=21400#!i=8&color=030_Medium-Grey

OTOH, Macy's potato sacks (as JBierly said... its becoming an euphemism for overweight folks)

https://www1.macys.com/shop/product...CCASIONS=Dress&sp=1&spc=26&ruleId=27&slotId=2


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

You know it's funny, and somewhat ironic, but I happen to be wearing a pair of single-pleated HSM wool flannel trousers this morning.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Rick

If you are _plus_ size, or even a tad overweight, you don't need to be wearing anything that tapers to the ankle. It will only accentuate your heavier mid-section.

You need pants like Mr. Barbera is wearing.


----------



## PMRuby (Jan 13, 2010)

Rick Blaine said:


> CD
> 
> I think fit of pants on older gent is great whereas the other guy is beyond "Brooklyn hipster trying t dress up". Everytime I (or anyone) for that matter propagates the use of "slim", that's the first image that pops to mind but I am looking for something in the middle.
> 
> ...


There are several problems here. The first is that the two linked trousers are completely different and serve completely different people, despite both being roughly the same color - one is pleated, the other isn't.

The bigger problem is this: if you have a 38 inch waist, you're not going to find trousers that fit you like the ones the 32 inch-waisted model in the ad is wearing. It's just not happening. Your hips will be too wide and stomach not flat enough and, most likely, your butt too big in comparison to your thighs and calves to be able to look like that. I understand you have recently lost weight and continue to lose more. I also lost considerable weight some about two years back. You'll be shocked how much better you look when you get to your goal weight. There's a reason why a certain body type is used to model menswear. While that body type is slimmer than I am right now, I'm much closer to it now than I was in the past and I can assure you that you'll have more options in which you look better when you're trimmer. Equally, I can assure you that there's no way clothes can make you look like a completely different body type than you possess - properly fitting clothes flatter your figure; they aren't some magical proposition that can make you look like something you're not.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Rick, Mr. Barbera (the guy on the right) is the owner of an Italian wool mill and a manufacturer of (pretty expensive) men's clothing. You're not going to find pants that look _quite_ as good as his for $100. But I doubt his trouser legs are much, if any, wider than the "potato sack" you link to. The "potato sack" is just not a great pair of trousers, so it's not going to hang as well as super-nice trousers that were probably cut specifically to fit Mr. Barber. If nothing else, the "potato sack" does not seem to have a very sharp crease.

Regarding the Boss pants, those are definitely a 5 pound sack. (I'm not saying anything about how many pounds you are, nor of what substance! ) Notice that just standing still, there's already a crotch-star forming. The creases are being pulled out of the mid-thigh area. The rear view reveals a flannel wedgie. The rise is quite short, and nowhere near long enough to allow the trousers to be worn at the waist. Those pants are physically uncomfortable to look at.

If you're used to wearing jeans, the Hugo pants may look OK. And, hell, that may be the way all OTR men's pants are in the future. But that's not how men's pants fit for the previous 80 years.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Rick Blaine said:


> CD
> 
> I think fit of pants on older gent is great whereas the other guy is beyond "Brooklyn hipster trying t dress up". Everytime I (or anyone) for that matter propagates the use of "slim", that's the first image that pops to mind but I am looking for something in the middle.
> 
> ...


You are comparing apples and potatoes. While Boss is not exactly the epitome of men's clothing design, it is many echelons higher than LRL, which is low-line name-licensed merchandise. Those terrible LRL trousers have no shape to the cut at all, do not drape well, and even appear to lack a proper crease. None of that, though, has anything to do with the volume of fabric used.

The Boss, on the other hand, while being a better cut, is still not a good cut. Even with the model's trim build, the trouser legs still cling to his legs, rather than draping. It does not look particularly good on him, and on anyone else, with less than a model or athlete's build, it will look terrible.

Once you learn more about the concept of drape, you will likely learn to appreciate it.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Rick, Mr. Barbera (the guy on the right) is the owner of an Italian wool mill and a manufacturer of (pretty expensive) men's clothing. You're not going to find pants that look _quite_ as good as his for $100. But I doubt his trouser legs are much, if any, wider than the "potato sack" you link to. The "potato sack" is just not a great pair of trousers, so it's not going to hang as well as super-nice trousers that were probably cut specifically to fit Mr. Barber. If nothing else, the "potato sack" does not seem to have a very sharp crease.
> 
> Regarding the Boss pants, those are definitely a 5 pound sack. (I'm not saying anything about how many pounds you are, nor of what substance! ) Notice that just standing still, there's already a crotch-star forming. The creases are being pulled out of the mid-thigh area. The rear view reveals a flannel wedgie. The rise is quite short, and nowhere near long enough to allow the trousers to be worn at the waist. Those pants are physically uncomfortable to look at.
> 
> If you're used to wearing jeans, the Hugo pants may look OK. And, hell, that may be the way all OTR men's pants are in the future. But that's not how men's pants fit for the previous 80 years.


I understand. They do have a jeans-like fit (sits much lower than waist) but it works with my casual jackets better than full cut dress pants... atleast the ones currently in my wardrobe. And personally, I don't find them tight/uncomfortable, just different. I can't afford Mr Barbera's clothing but I could give it another try at something better than LRL/Nautica. Any recommendations besides BB?



upthewazzu said:


> You know it's funny, and somewhat ironic, but I happen to be wearing a pair of single-pleated HSM wool flannel trousers this morning.


Actually wouldn't mind seeing pictures to get your visual definition of slim cuts. 

Thanks for comments *PMRuby*. Duly noted. I was borderline 34 last year before ballooning to current day state and it was different.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

Rick Blaine said:


> Actually wouldn't mind seeing pictures to get your visual definition of slim cuts.
> 
> Thanks for comments *PMRuby*. Duly noted. I was borderline 34 last year before ballooning to current day state and it was different.


They're not slim cut by any stretch, they just happen to be the only full cut pair of trousers in my rotation. Which I found ironic since I was wearing full cut trousers while arguing for slim cut.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Updated thoughts on classic fitting pants:


Recently, I thrifted a pair of Zegna and Hickey Freeman dress pants from Ebay, got the the length/waist adjusted by the local tailor and it's a world of difference. Proper drape and length make world of difference on the pants. No wonder my unfitted Macy's purchases looked like crap!! I still think cheap American labels make the full cut too wide but these two pants have not disappointed me. 

Point being - my faith in classic clothing and world order have been restored.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Rick Blaine said:


> Point being - my faith in classic clothing and world order have been restored.


Bravo!


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> Updated thoughts on classic fitting pants:
> 
> Recently, I thrifted a pair of Zegna and Hickey Freeman dress pants from Ebay, got the the length/waist adjusted by the local tailor and it's a world of difference. Proper drape and length make world of difference on the pants. No wonder my unfitted Macy's purchases looked like crap!! I still think cheap American labels make the full cut too wide but these two pants have not disappointed me.
> 
> Point being - my faith in classic clothing and world order have been restored.


I think with proper tailoring one can get a slim or modern cut without having some of the problems associated with "skinny pants." The picture of the Boss pants really shows that it is just a bit too tight - subtle but the pulling at the crotch is obvious. One really can have trousers that are lean (thinner leg) and well fitted yet continue to drape well. But it is a fine line - just don't gain any weight!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Rick Blaine said:


> Proper drape and length make world of difference on the pants. No wonder my unfitted Macy's purchases looked like crap!!


I.e., it's just as possible to cut and sew an ugly, ungainly pair of full-cut pants, as it is a pair of nut-huggers! There have been a few things that American RTW had learned to do well, and one of those was to cut a pair of pants that hung properly and fit without binding. This has been mostly eroded since off-shoring, as the task was handed over to folks for whom the objective was an unknown concept.


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> For most of the 20th century, it was well understood that dress trousers should have minimal contact with the legs. Now, men have been trained to think that pants should fit like jeans, which don't drape. So men think their pants need to fit closely. They don't. But the marketers have decided to just run with it.
> 
> Here's an illustration that nicely shows how men's trousers were supposed to fit from the time when the modern vocabulary of proper dress was created.
> 
> ...


Sorry Cuff, those are baggy and skinny pants only do that when people who aren't skinny where them.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

johnpark11 said:


> Sorry Cuff, those are baggy and skinny pants only do that when people who aren't skinny where them.


Nope, skinny are skinny as in cut small at any given size. Otherwise, you could just size up...

What cuff says above is true, skinny fit trousers do fit skinny. If skinny fit trousers aren't a tight fit on a skinny person, he must be wearing a size too large.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Rick Blaine said:


> Has classic/ full cut become a new way of saying fat man pants? I was at macy's last week and tried their dress pants RL, Nautica etc and these are absolutely worst fitting pants. These pants (albeit great colors) were fitting like potato sacks below the waist. I am a moderately big guy so my waist is around 38" but maybe legs aren't so big??


Sometimes. If they use the term "comfort fit," definitely.


----------

