# Untucked shirt. Proper length



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Hi,

What's the proper length of a casual shirt if it is worn untucked? Where does the hem should end in the front and in the back? Pictures and photos are welcomed. I'm sort of dubious.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

My feeling is that the shirt should end at the wrist. It certainly shouldn't hang down beyond one's backside. That's for coats.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Casual shirts meant to be worn out will typically not have as long a tail as dress shirts. That's a nice rule you can use so you don't waste time trying on shirts that you know won't fit. 

Otherwise, what oldsarge said.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Do you think this picture below represents the rule correctly?










It is a high rise jeans though. With a low rise jeans the rule has to be different. Any ideas?


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

IMHO, the shirt should be at least long enough that you don't show your underwear/back everytime you bend over. The picture is pretty correct but I think you can go a bit longer. I like this article from primer:

https://www.primermagazine.com/2011...d-the-front-be-of-an-untucked-button-up-shirt

I think there was a lengthy discussion about this a while back. It got quite heated too if I remember correctly.


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

It should be made to be worn untucked, with a straight hem and a split at the side seams. (this is your clue its OK)

If you're talking about a dress shirt with tails longer than the front, I don't think anyone here will give approval.


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

The way I think the OP means is as bad a look as young clueless girls showing their bra straps.

Even worse is when middle age women want to copy the look because their daughters are doing it.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

sethblack said:


> IMHO, the shirt should be at least long enough that you don't show your ass everytime you bend over.


Back or ass? If you mean ass the shirt should be way below a crotch which is not an option as it looks bad. If you mean back then I understand what you mean.

As for hems. I'm interested in two cases. 1. Hems are straight. 2. Hems are not straight.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

take_five said:


> Back or ass? If you mean ass the shirt should be way below a crotch which is not an option as it looks bad. If you mean back then I understand what you mean.


Right. I meant the lower back/upper buttocks actually. With how low some people wear their jeans nowadays, everytime they bend down, you not only get a glimpse of their back but also their the top of their buttcheeks. Which is just ridiculous. I'll edit the post to be clearer.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Yes, yes, yes, straight hem, no tails, meant to be worn untucked...











No, No, No, never wear a dress shirt (or any shirt with tails) untucked


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

That guy looks rumply. 

What's he doing with his hands I wonder ?


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

dks202 said:


> Yes, yes, yes, straight hem, no tails, meant to be worn untucked...
> 
> No, No, No, never wear a dress shirt (or any shirt with tails) untucked


I can't agree with you on this. There are tons of casual shirts with tails that are supposed to be worn untucked. E.g. I have several colorful ones with short sleeves. They are not supposed to be tucked since they are casual and they have short sleeves.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

sethblack said:


> Right. I meant the lower back/upper buttocks actually. With how low some people wear their jeans nowadays, everytime they bend down, you not only get a glimpse of their back but also their the top of their buttcheeks. Which is just ridiculous. I'll edit the post to be clearer.


Yeah, now I get what you mean. 

*2all*, the key question is how low the shirt should cover the fly and seat areas. I have a shirt that is pretty long and covers the fly completely. However If I lean forward seating the back of a shirt tends to go up so the hem end touches the belt. If the shirt is shorter (covers the half of the fly area) the lower back will be seen if you bend or lean forward. It is a dilemma I can't solve. Too long shorts look bad though on the other hand they cover your back properly if you bend or lean forward.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

take_five said:


> I can't agree with you on this. There are tons of casual shirts with tails that are supposed to be worn untucked. E.g. I have several colorful ones with short sleeves. They are not supposed to be tucked since they are casual and they have short sleeves.


I don't understand what casual and short sleeves have to do with tucking in your shirt. If it has tails it was meant to be tucked.


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

dks202 said:


> I don't understand what casual and short sleeves have to do with tucking in your shirt. If it has tails it was meant to be tucked.


I don't think that holds true anymore. Used to bother me, but for what the Forum generally refers to as "casual wear" it's pretty much a standard look. Just left a few days in Scottsdale. The "tucked in" crowd looked curiously out of place. Sign of the times I guess.


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

take_five said:


> Yeah, now I get what you mean.
> 
> *2all*, the key question is how low the shirt should cover the fly and seat areas. I have a shirt that is pretty long and covers the fly completely. However If I lean forward seating the back of a shirt tends to go up so the hem end touches the belt. If the shirt is shorter (covers the half of the fly area) the lower back will be seen if you bend or lean forward. It is a dilemma I can't solve. *Too long shorts look bad* though on the other hand they cover your back properly if you bend or lean forward.


Of course they do, they're shorts :rolleyes2:

But what exactly do you mean by "too long"? A higher rise?
A higher rise looks better and won't even be noticed when wearing your shirt untucked anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

GWW said:


> Of course they do, they're shorts :rolleyes2:
> 
> But what exactly do you mean by "too long"? A higher rise?
> A higher rise looks better and won't even be noticed when wearing your shirt untucked anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem.


That was a typo. He meant shirts. Notice the i and o are next to each other on your qwerty keyboard.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

take_five said:


> I can't agree with you on this. There are tons of casual shirts with tails that are supposed to be worn untucked. E.g. I have several colorful ones with short sleeves. They are not supposed to be tucked since they are casual and they have short sleeves.


I have a solution for this disagreement and your issue with the shirt exposing your back when you bend forward, or being too long. Just tuck it in.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

dks202 said:


> Yes, yes, yes, straight hem, no tails, meant to be worn untucked...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first two are the correct way but the one style that Rob is wearing makes him looks sloppy.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

take_five said:


> I can't agree with you on this. There are tons of casual shirts with tails that are supposed to be worn untucked. E.g. I have several colorful ones with short sleeves. They are not supposed to be tucked since they are casual and they have short sleeves.


Those shirts are still meant to be tucked, but I often see people wearing shirts with tails untucked. It looks really sloppy to me, but it is indeed fashionable.

On the other hand, shirts with a straight hem and vent can still be worn tucked. Frank Foster makes all of his shirts this way, and none of mine are meant to be worn untucked.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I agree that it is currently fashionable to look sloppy with tails untucked. Who's "Rob", Howard?


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

medhat said:


> I don't think that holds true anymore. Used to bother me, but for what the Forum generally refers to as "casual wear" it's pretty much a standard look.


I've come around to agree with this. When I first started dressing better and paying attention to what's "correct," I adopted the traditional/AAAC-approved belief that any shirt with tails should be tucked in. After living by that for awhile, I realized there were times when this was coming off as stuffy and just not very cool.

I think wearing a shirt untucked is definitely way over-done, in many cases looks bad, and for a lot of shirts it shouldn't even be considered. But, there are certain casual ensembles were it looks better than tucked in to me. I suppose it taps into a more nihilistic streetwear aesthetic that, while not my ideal, in certain scenarios just works (most commonly in hot weather). I see specific mentions about shirt tail length from companies like JCrew where they'll say something about their shirts like "shirt length is not too long or too short so you can wear it untucked or tucked in." So to the OPs original point, I think there is sortof a shorter length without a lot of excess that is best for wearing a shirt untucked.

I haven't actually measured this, but I think some of today's casual shirts are designed with shorter tails (not just shorter overall) so that there is less difference in length from the lowest point of the tails to the length at the sides where the shirt is at its shortest. I think this smooths out the potential awkwardness of an untucked shirt, giving it a look closer to a shirt with a straight hem.


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

^^In Baltimore, those really long tshirts are humorously referred to as "ghetto gowns"


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

alkydrinker said:


> ^^In Baltimore, those really long tshirts are humorlessly referred to as "ghetto gowns"


Here in DC, I like to call them Minnesota (Ave) Muumuus.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Echoing similar responses, an untucked shirt requires three things for me...

1. A straight hem.
2. A length that does not extend past my hips.
3. A fitted silhouette.


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> That was a typo. He meant shirts. Notice the i and o are next to each other on your qwerty keyboard.


You're a genius, it makes even more sense now.
But as highter rise trousers (and.. shorts) would help with the back showing issue I thought he wrote shorts on purpose :tongue2:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

dks202 said:


> Who's "Rob", Howard?


How can one not know of Robert Kardashian of Arthur George socks?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Grayson said:


> Echoing similar responses, an untucked shirt requires three things for me...
> 
> 1. A straight hem.
> 2. A length that does not extend past my hips.
> 3. A fitted silhouette.


If you have legs like Grace Potter, the whole "straight hem" thing kind of loses its momentum.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Matt S said:


> Those shirts are still meant to be tucked


Where did you get this rule? Casual colorful short-sleeve shorts are not meant to be tucked even though they often have tails.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

GWW said:


> Of course they do, they're shorts :rolleyes2:


My bad. It was a misprint. I meant shirt. 



GWW said:


> But what exactly do you mean by "too long"? A higher rise?
> A higher rise looks better and won't even be noticed when wearing your shirt untucked anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem.


I mean a shirt is long enough to cover the crotch area (a place where legs join the torso), so a fly can't be seen. That looks bad but it is secure if you bend or lean forward as a lower back can't be seen.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> That was a typo. He meant shirts. Notice the i and o are next to each other on your qwerty keyboard.


Thanks!  Another thing is that 'shorts' and 'shirts' sound pretty similar to my ear.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> I have a solution for this disagreement and your issue with the shirt exposing your back when you bend forward, or being too long. Just tuck it in.


No way Jose. Lol Frankly, I used to tuck in my casual shirts in jeans back in the day but I don't do it anymore as it looks too uptight.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

alkydrinker said:


> I see specific mentions about shirt tail length from companies like JCrew where they'll say something about their shirts like "shirt length is not too long or too short so you can wear it untucked or tucked in." So to the OPs original point, I think there is sortof a shorter length without a lot of excess that is best for wearing a shirt untucked.


May I ask where you see the mentions of JCrew? I'd like to read them.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Lol That was a nice picture


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Grayson said:


> 2. A length that does not extend past my hips.


I don't get what this means since the term 'hip' has always been somewhat a mystery to me. Where does it end where does it begin? It is too obscure for me. There have to be some more precise markings and borders.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

GWW said:


> But as highter rise trousers (and.. shorts) would help with the back showing issue I thought he wrote shorts on purpose :tongue2:


True though a high rise trousers and shorts is a hard thing to get these days.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

take_five said:


> Where did you get this rule? Casual colorful short-sleeve shorts are not meant to be tucked even though they often have tails.


Tails are meant to be tucked. Colourful, short sleeve shirts are certainly casual, but that doesn't mean they aren't supposed to be tucked.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

take_five said:


> I don't get what this means since the term 'hip' has always been somewhat a mystery to me. Where does it end where does it begin? It is too obscure for me. There have to be some more precise markings and borders.


Funny... I've never had issues knowing where my hips are, and I can't even operate a Hula Hoop. :icon_scratch: 

No matter - Consider the middle of your trouser zipper length as where the line of your hips reside.:thumbs-up:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

dks202 said:


> I agree that it is currently fashionable to look sloppy with tails untucked. Who's "Rob", Howard?


Rob Kardashian, Kim's Brother


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

During the very hot summer months guys should be wearing shirts untucked cause you'll wind up getting a sweat stain coming home, Has that ever happened to you guys?


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

How dare you be so practice Howard


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Grayson said:


> Funny... I've never had issues knowing where my hips are, and I can't even operate a Hula Hoop.


Lol at Hula Hoop joke.

I don't get where the demarcation line should be drawn between a leg (thigh) and a hip.

It pisses me off when Levi's state on their site - 'these jeans sit on the hip'. Hip is not one inch high so the question arises - where does exactly they sit? 



Grayson said:


> No matter - Consider the middle of your trouser zipper length as where the line of your hips reside.


Yes. I agree on this! I'm going to visit my tailor this weekend to have my shirt altered right this size - it should reach the middle of the zipper.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Matt S said:


> Tails are meant to be tucked. Colourful, short sleeve shirts are certainly casual, but that doesn't mean they aren't supposed to be tucked.


Okay, let's put it this way...  There are two rules: 
1. Don't wear casual shirts tucked in the jeans. 
2. Don't wear shirts with tails untucked.

The first rule is like a straight flush while the second one is like a flush at most. The first rule has a way higher priority.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I think it's pretty obvious which shirts are meant to be tucked and which are not. A shorter, straight hem on a casual shirt -- like a Hawaiian shirt -- is meant to be worn untucked. A button up shirt with tails is meant to be tucked.
As for looking stuffy, well, some also think suits and ties make a man look stuffy but we don't care about that around here. Personally, I think untucked tails make a man look like he's trying hard to look cool at best, and sloppy at worst. For us guys who enjoy a good beer and a good meal regularly, untucked tails makes us look like we're seven months pregnant. Besides, that untucked shirt tails thing is so 2004.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

take_five said:


> Okay, let's put it this way...  There are two rules:
> 1. Don't wear casual shirts tucked in the jeans.
> 2. Don't wear shirts with tails untucked.
> 
> The first rule is like a straight flush while the second one is like a flush at most. The first rule has a way higher priority.


If you're a young guy and want to be cool, hip, fashionable, or whatever... You can have rule 1. For the rest of us it's rule 2.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

tigerpac said:


> How dare you be so practice Howard


I'm in the hot sun all day and I come home and I'm sweating to death.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

Darn auto correct. "practical" 

No I hear ya my friend


----------



## Ryan Johnson (May 5, 2014)

I think people look best with their dress shirts tucked in. Crotch length for casual shirts are acceptable.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

dks202 said:


> If you're a young guy and want to be cool, hip, fashionable, or whatever... You can have rule 1.  For the rest of us it's rule 2.


For the rest of us? Speak for yourself please.  With a rule 2 one is going to look uptight as Dwight did:


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

take_five said:


> For the rest of us? Speak for yourself please.  With a rule 2 one is going to look uptight as Dwight did:


If you look as bad as Dwight does with your shirt tucked you need better-fitting clothes. Tucking a shirt into low-rise trousers never looks good.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Ryan Johnson said:


> I think people look best with their dress shirts tucked in. Crotch length for casual shirts are acceptable.


It looks better that way.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

take_five said:


> For the rest of us? Speak for yourself please.  With a rule 2 one is going to look uptight as Dwight did:


Dwight never knew how to tuck in his shirt.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL>
Tucking in his shirt was/is the least of Dwight's problems!


----------

