# pleats vs. flat front VS. cuffs vs. no cuffs



## shrum (Oct 23, 2005)

I know that each of these have been discussed at some length in prior posts. However, I have a slightly different question.

I was just at M Penner in Houston and was measured for a MTM pair of Oxxford flat front grey flannel slacks to wear with a blazer (slacks are light weight (190 g) cloth). I had assumed that I would have the slacks cuffed. However, my salesperson suggested that uncuffed would be more appropriate, presumably due to either the flat front or being worn with a blazer, or both.

Does this "guideline" make sense to folks, or are pleats/no pleats and cuff/no cuff completely independent decisions (actually, I remember Andy's book saying that cuffs were appropriate for pleated pants, but the reverse--no cuffs appropriate for flat fronts--may not be the case).

LJ


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

All my pants are flat front with cuffs. If I had pleated pants, I would cuff those as well. I don't like plain bottom pants. They look funky to me.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

All of my pleated pants are cuffed. Some of my flat front pants are cuffed some not - non cuffed pants are more casual ones - although cuffs originated as a casual feature... Also keep in mind that extra weight helps lighter cloth drape better.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I'd say dress slacks should always be cuffed, whether you want them plain front or pleated, is up to you.

Brian


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Cuffs always.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*To cuff or not to cuff?*

To cuff pleated pants is a personal decision, depending on your height, weight of fabric, type of shoe worn etc. Tall men 6'2" and above can lessen their perceived height by wearing cuffs. A heavier weight fabric such as flannel, looks better cuffed. Some loafers, such as the penney loafer worn with odd trousers and a sport coat, look better when adorned with a cuff. Longer vamp shoes, such as the C&J Weymouth, look even more sleeker when uncuffed pants are part of the assemblage.

Plain front pants, in general, should not be cuffed. This pant is made to be worn by those more lithe in build. It is to be avoided by the more robust. The uncuffed plain front, when tailored properly so that the pant slopes from front to rear (fishtailed) provides a sleeker more sophisticated look.


----------



## jsherman02 (Oct 9, 2006)

As stated before, I am a flat front guy with cuffs...no matter what.


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

I also don't like uncuffed pants. They just lack substance, IMHO.


----------



## Chris Despos (Nov 30, 2005)

dfloyd said:


> The uncuffed plain front, when tailored properly so that the pant slopes from front to rear (fishtailed) provides a sleeker more sophisticated look.


Well said. That is why I went to uncuffed on all my trousers. I prefer the look of how they lay on the shoe. Pleated trousers also in my case.

For clients, it is their preference .


----------



## minimal (Dec 10, 2004)

Clearly it's a matter of tastes, in most cases.

Though I'd like some of the "I hate pants without cuffs" crowd to tell me what they do in formalwear.

My own opinion: flat fronts & slightly sleeker leg & no cuffs all go together for a longer, cleaner look. pleated fronts & roomier leg & cuffs are a more casual/country/sporting look. I have both and don't mix the two styles together, but I doubt anyone in the world would notice if I did.

Cuffs are known to shorten the appearance of the leg, so if you want to appear a little longer-in-the-leg you might forgo them. But if you're wearing a coat, who can tell if you're also wearing pleats or not? So use your taste as a guide.

Exception: cuffs on formal clothing are "right out". Sartorially equivalent to, say, counting to 5 whilst holding the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

I tend to prefer a single pleat with no cuffs.

Double pleats I generally get cuffed though I actually have a couple of pairs that are uncuffed. I don't think I have more than a pair or two of flat front trousers but I'd probably leave then uncuffed. 

I tend to find it's the weight and drape of the material that drives my decision whether to cuff or not rather than the pleats. I don't fuss too much about the decision though.


----------



## Drag0n (Aug 24, 2006)

I usually have my suits made with a single pleat and my odd tousers made with no pleats (usually). Either way, I like to get my pants cuffed (very thick ones) because I think it is better for my silouette and especially my shoes.

I think you should try all the variations and see which set up you like the most. Depending on the build, height, pant silouette (slim, full), shoes, etc. everything can change.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Chris Despos said:


> Well said. That is why I went to uncuffed on all my trousers. I prefer the look of how they lay on the shoe. Pleated trousers also in my case.


Same here. I like the sleekness of no cuff.

I actually asked for cuffs on the suit I had hemmed the other day. But I guess they were so used to no cuffs that they came back without cuff anyway.


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*Personal taste...*

I prefer cuffs on winter weights (flannels, tweeds, worsteds,etc.), I think they (cuffs) compliment the look of the heavier fabrics better. My summer weights (linens, tropical wools, cottons) are usually straight, with a bit of a slash giving them a tapered, tailored fit around the ankles. This look fits lighter fabrics, IMHO. they also work better with summer shoes, which are lighter as well.

Pleats are an individual thing, I prefer them on just about everything and they work with my 6'1", 175 frame. Depending on the weight of the wearer, pleats can accentuate excess weight, giving the guy a tent like appearance or they can minimize the size of the gut. This I believe should be a serious consideration in choosing which way to go, if you're a tad out of shape.


----------



## dragon (Jan 28, 2006)

I believe if there are pleats cuff theleg. If there is no pleats then no cuff.

But personally I love cuffs. Makes it look more fashionable


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

I have to agree with the "flat front & cuff dissenters". It dosent make a whole lot of sense to me. 

I quite like dfloyd's argument about the contradicting build requirements necessary to get both the flat front and cuff. Very intelligent.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

*cuffed versus no cuff*

Trousers should be cuffed


----------



## montmorency (Apr 16, 2005)

I agree with tasteful one that it is more a matter of the type of fabric, than pleated vs. flat front. I prefer single pleats and have had some finished with cuffs and some without, depending on the look I was trying to achieve.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I believe a well dressed gentleman should have a bit of both (cuffed vs hemmed) in their wardrobe. Most of my trousers are flat fronts, though I do have a few pleated pairs, with some cuffed and some hemmed. Looking at my casual wear, hemmed legs have a decided edge and regarding dress trousers, the count is probably close to even when considering cuffed vs hemmed.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

vwguy said:


> I'd say dress slacks should always be cuffed, whether you want them plain front or pleated, is up to you.
> 
> Brian


Historically, in the nineteenth century all "trowsers", as they used to sometimes spell it, were plain fronted and uncuffed, even for wear with a tail coat or frock coat. Tail coats and dinner jackets are worn to this day with uncuffed trousers. In fact cuffs were originally found only in more casual clothing around the Edwardian period.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

For those who can't decide, good sample photos can be found in any Brooks Brothers catalogue: all the pleated pants are cuffed, while all the flat-front pants are un-cuffed. Not that I necessarily recommend this "rule", but flip through, look at the photos, and decide if you like cuffs or no-cuffs. Often they have both standing side-by-side.

By the way, why would a tall man want to "shorten" his perceived height? That strikes me as bizarre (or perhaps a conspiracy by short tailors who resent the superior height of their clients...).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

flat front, no cuff
pleated front, cuffed


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*tall men in cuffs*

Tall men who are long of limb want to shorten their height when they look as if they are all legs; they want to divide the torso more equitably. Some long legged men look as if they are wearing a zoot suit, espeicially those wearing a DB.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

What's the height of a cuff? I always thought it was supposed to be fairly tall, but some brands have short cuffs.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

I have the opposite problem - I am 5'8 and have short legs. So I don't have cuffs on my pants.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*plain?*

plain bottoms on pants are for uniforms. or jeans.


----------



## Trommel (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't like turn-ups and I don't like pleats.

Without both means a more graceful, cleaner and less fussy look.


----------



## shrum (Oct 23, 2005)

Thanks to everyone for chiming in. It seems clear that there are no "rules" to be broken here, as the opinions were quite varied. I now know a lot more than I used to, but am not sure I'm closer to a decision.

One thing I found interesting was that the opinions regarding the relation between material and cuffs. I had heard the argument that one might want cuffs on lighter materials (e.g,. gabardine) because it would make the end of the pant leg heavier and thus hang better. Yet, some who replied to this post had exactly the opposite take.

At any rate, I appreciate all of your advice.

L. J.


----------



## Smooth Jazz (Apr 28, 2004)

shrum said:


> grey flannel slacks to wear with a blazer (slacks are light weight (190 g) cloth)
> LJ


Pls confirm that this is a mistake -- 190gm flannel (I can only imagine) is like tissue paper -- thats a touch over 6oz.

To your main question -- this is only my opinion -- most suit trousers look better cuffed. Barring formal wear, some very somber shade suits, especially if they are in mohair, look good uncuffed -- not to say that they would look bad cuffed. Most odd trousers look better cuffed -- exceptions are moleskin and cord trousers that look plain weird when cuffed. In general, pleated trousers look better than plain -- exceptions are heavy wool and cotton odd trousers which can look quite natty without pleats. If you have a big Michelin in the middle -- stick with pleated trousers unless you have a masterful trouser cutter. Also, contrary to popular opinion -- well-cut and deep pleated English pleats are more sliming than reverse continental pleats. As a rule, trousers made of fabrics that weigh less than 8oz. look bad -- hence the request for a clarification up above.

Good luck!


----------



## Smooth Jazz (Apr 28, 2004)

A couple more observations:

No cuffs / plain front configuration can look quite good for flannel odd trousers -- I do have a couple like these and love them. 

With appropriately sized cuffs -- no reason why the vertically challenged amongst us cannot wear cuffed trousers -- although -- no cuffs -- would be more elongating.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

For me, cuff and pleats only!


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Smooth Jazz said:


> Pls confirm that this is a mistake -- 190gm flannel (I can only imagine) is like tissue paper -- thats a touch over 6oz.


It's not a mistake. I have seen and felt the swatches. It's a worsted flannel, of course, and there's not much there there. Of course, have you ever tried wearing traditional-weight flannel in Houston, even in the winter?


----------



## kaiiwa (Oct 15, 2006)

None of my suit pants are cuffed. I have single peated and flat front pants.
I just do not like how cuffed pants break. I like how plain hem breaks "flows" while cuffs "sit".

I break all the rules.  :icon_smile_big:


----------



## shrum (Oct 23, 2005)

Smooth Jazz said:


> Pls confirm that this is a mistake -- 190gm flannel (I can only imagine) is like tissue paper -- thats a touch over 6oz.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, as jcusey notes, 190 is correct. I thought they felt great, and was thrilled that I could get a lightweight flannel, which will mean I'll actually be able to wear the pants (in Houston) the full fall and winter season. They did not have any to try on, as it was a new product for Oxxford, it seems. I'm hoping, given how much folks here like Oxxford, that they know what they're doing, as the pants were definintely not cheap.
> ...


----------



## teddyriley (Apr 27, 2006)

I'm 5'10" but have a short inseam, about 30.5" to 31"5 depending on the rise of the pants. Cuffs tend to shorten the look of my legs.

I prefer flat front since I am more athletically built (though not an athlete). No cuffs look sleeker, and I don't like the extra weight cuffs provide. When I walk I notice that the extra weight "throws" the pants leg forward, and it just makes my pant leg sit weird atop my shoe.

I think you should consider your style aesthetic as well. Some guys here who only like pleats and cuffs probably lean towards a more conservative, English influenced look. I consider myself sort of edgy and like to mix up classic style with influences of the more forward fashion houses. I suppose that influence leads me to like flant front with no cuffs, and I don't think it makes a dress pant more casual.

Also consider how much your pants taper. I have a few pairs of flat front Incotex trousers which have a nice taper. I wouldn't think of putting cuffs on them.

To each his own. I wouldn't go around commenting that one should have or shouldn't have cuffed or not cuffed his pants, unless it is truly horrible.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

teddyriley said:


> Some guys here who only like pleats and cuffs probably lean towards a more conservative, English influenced look.


I always thought "turn-ups" were absent from the English look.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*cuffs*

cuffs on trousers always.
plain bottoms on shorts always.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Remember what clothes are for. Too look and feel the way to want to feel!
Except:
I can say without a doubt that pleats and cuffs are not "a matter of taste" unless it doesn't matter how you look. 
Most of us, sadly including myself do not have the perfect male model's body therefore we must choose clothes along with styles that accenuate our good features and camoflauge or detract from our not so good features.
When there is an absolute rule such has "absolutely no cuffs on a tuxedo pant" As far as I remembered, black tie is still formal. It's not an issue up for major discussion.

However pleats casual or formal are optional, but why are they optional? 
My take on why...
Keep in mind that I'm 5 feet 10 inches, 235lbs (45lbs over weight, but I'm told I hold it well) and I wear a 50 reg athletic cut jacket, 17.5 neck/ 36 sleeve, 38 waist, 30 pant. I'm wide with short legs, husky/stalky. I have a tall torso with short legs, I'm actually a good candidate for lifts..I need to post that.
Cuffs make me look shorter and pleats because of the extra rom provided where I really don't need it make me look even fatter not slimmer.
Pleats making everyone look thinner is a big misconception. Pleats only make you look thinner when you have fat rolls being laminated tightly by flat front pants, meaning you can see the individual rolls of fat. In that case pleats will hide the several rolls of fat and try to camoflauge them as one pudgy area.
I find pleated pants to baggy in the leg and lower abdominal, but if I buy a smaller waisted pant, say a 36 and have my tailor let the waist out to a 38 I get a much less baggier leg. I have noassitol syndrome, so fitting into a let-out 36 is not a problem for me.

The more important question you might want to ask yourself or someone else, is which looks better on your physique? 
When you look in the mirror, which style gives you greater confidence in your appearence?
It's obvious your not breaking any sartorial rules in this case. You now just have to decide which style looks better on your body.


----------



## WinstonSpencer (Mar 12, 2006)

I hate to beat a dead horse, but it will not be the last time.

flat front, no cuff
pleated front, cuffed.


----------



## charle22 (Feb 20, 2004)

*single pleat and cuffs*

I've found that my trousers without turn-ups don't drape well. So, I've requested additional fabric for added weight. Although this method works, I usually order my trousers with a single pleat and cuffs.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Matt S said:


> I always thought "turn-ups" were absent from the English look.


That's right.

There's a lot of nonsense written about draping. Guys, you're obviously getting the WRONG trousers. Good trousers without turn-ups often have a little band to "anchor" them if you absolutely must. Kailwa, you are right you are not breaking any rules, it's just that there is a predominance of US tastes on this forum. They can't help it.

Excepting people who are built, as Capt. Ron says, in such a way that cuffs suit them better, the more elegant (less boxy) way is without turn-ups.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Mr. Winston,
Surely you would omitt the cuff rule for pleated tuxedo pants?
yea or ney ?


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Lighter weight trousers can have black tape to weigh them down, as Rossini says. Not a reason for turn-ups. The reason for turn-ups is that they make you feel good. 

English pleats make your side on view slimmer and your front view broader. Because an English cut jacket tends to narrow the waist, the look balances. Reverse pleats make the front look slimmer and the side look larger - it is simply a different look. Again, whatever makes you feel good.

It is nonsense to say pleats are not slimming unless you have rolls of fat. The additional fabric gently falls into the thigh and knee, making the waist look tighter. Like a lot of tailoring it is about how the eye sees things. But, if you have a small waist and a flat stomach you may find that pleats disguise a little too well that which you would like to be obvious. Just don't put on any weight...

I am slightly puzzled by this talk of 'rules'. Where are they written? Who makes them? What are their qualifications? Surely it would be better to post a picture of yourself, looking smart in your chosen combination. Then others could respond in the same manner. That way, we might actually learn something about what works for us. 

Happy New Year


----------



## jcriswel (Sep 16, 2006)

WinstonSpencer said:


> I hate to beat a dead horse, but it will not be the last time.
> 
> flat front, no cuff
> pleated front, cuffed.


This is the rule. It makes sense. It works for everyone 99.9% of the time. I don't understand why so many words have been wasted when it can be reduced to this simple equation.

jcriswel


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I have only one rule: try to stay away from flat fronts unless _you _actually have a flat front (I don't). Crunches or pleats - pick one.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Flat front slacks look much better w/o cuffs. It is always going to be a personal choice but I think that a cuff on a FF trouser just doesn't look good. On suits it depends on alot of things. first of all the cut of the leg of a FF suit pant will also dictate the cuff or no cuff. I have put cuffs on the last three suits that I have had made or purchase. All 3 italian and very dressy. All FF pants.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I've never owned a pair of pleated pants. When I was younger I didn't wear them because I associated them with old men. Now that I am approaching old man status I still don't wear them but for a different reason. Being slender I think plain front pants look better on me. Perhaps if I wore my pants a little higher this wouldn't be so much so, but I still prefer the look of plain front pants. I don't feel as strongly about cuffs, but I don't wear them either.

Cruiser


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

jcriswel said:


> This is the rule. It makes sense. It works for everyone 99.9% of the time. I don't understand why so many words have been wasted when it can be reduced to this simple equation.
> 
> jcriswel


...because it is not true.

*W_B*


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

I think this is one of those items that will never be resolved or have a true consensus reached. I've tried just about every combination possible and as I replace or add items I've set my standard as plain front for all trousers, cuffs on suits and dress trousers, and plain bottoms on all casual pants. Of course with formal wear I wouldn't wear cuffs either. In the end each of us has to make our choices and wear them with confidence.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Brooksfan said:


> I think this is one of those items that will never be resolved or have a true consensus reached. I've tried just about every combination possible and as I replace or add items I've set my standard as plain front for all trousers, cuffs on suits and dress trousers, and plain bottoms on all casual pants. Of course with formal wear I wouldn't wear cuffs either. In the end each of us has to make our choices and wear them with confidence.


.

Don't you also think that how you perceive something looks when you wear it has a lot to do with your own mood at the time? For myself I know I've worn something and felt good about it but on another day the same thing just did not look/feel "right".
I think personal perception is something always in varying degrees of change.

Mychael


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

hockeyinsider said:


> What's the height of a cuff? I always thought it was supposed to be fairly tall, but some brands have short cuffs.


1 3/4" use to be the norm. today 1 1/2" seems to be the average. 
taller men usually go 1 3/4" or 2" for very tall. for shorter men sometimes 1 1.4"


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

the norm is no cuffs


----------

