# How long should pants go?



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

How long should pants go? ankle? 3 inches above ankle so we can see some socks?


----------



## CWJ (Mar 22, 2006)

depends on whether or not you have socks worth showing or if you want to show off that you're not wearing socks


----------



## R Rackley Adams (Jul 19, 2006)

Pants way past the ankle is "break". "No break" are often jestfully referred to as "floods" and clearly show some ankle. "Some break" hit the top of the shoe, and "full break" almost hits the floor. I am a "no/little break" man myself, and favor the 1 3/4" cuff.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

thank you Rackley.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Ironically, I was going to start collecting photos for a thread on just this topic. Anyway, Adams you're quite right about the "full break" hem, which drives me nuts and is way too common (although those older Polo ads show long pants). My alterations guy did that to all my Bills and O'Connell's pants, so now I have to correct the problem myself DIY. Next time I get pants hemmed professionally, I will probably insist on doing it in my socks (_sans_ shoes) so that when the shoes are on they aren't too long. Probably the only solution is to do it yourself.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

To quote Foghorn from another thread: "THERE IS NOTHING TRAD ABOUT A BREAK NOR IS IT TRAD TO HAVE A SLANT IN THE CUFF. PANTS SHOULD BE WORN HIGH ENOUGH THAT NO SHOE POLISH EVER GETS ON THE PANTS."

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=52934&highlight=polish

This might be just hair too high for my taste, but I'd say it's a decent guideline.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Polish*



tripreed said:


> To quote Foghorn from another thread: "PANTS SHOULD BE WORN HIGH ENOUGH THAT NO SHOE POLISH EVER GETS ON THE PANTS."


If you clean and shine your shoes properly no polish should get on your trousers.

Trimmer


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Untilted said:


> How long should pants go? ankle? 3 inches above ankle so we can see some socks?


Three inches above the ankle? I think the name for those is "Capris"....


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

Trousers should show your shoes, but hide your socks. That pretty much implies very little break.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Untilted said:


> How long should pants go?


To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a man's pants should be long enough to reach his waist. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

I seem to end the day with more break than when I began it, so I try to start off with very little break.


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

I think everyone that answers to this thread should post their age (39)- it often reveals a lot about this particular issue.
I was in Press some years ago with my dad while getting fitted for a suit.
When the subject of break came up, I started to say "well, just a tiny bit, yes.." and my 80 year old dad piped up with a firm "no break!" which started a conversation not unlike the one that is taking place here. I despise the full break, but have found that somewhere between the fitting and the wearing of a new suit that the no break seems to grow to near flood- I am also equally repelled by the flood, no doubt from having hand me downs and school uniform trousers that were showing some ankle, calf, even knee (no doubt because my dad said "no break!" back then, too).
The upside of no break is noticeable in one way- during my dad's and my discussion, I pointed out that he had a slight break in all his trousers now, to which he replied "That's only because I've g-d shrunk three inches in my old age" and laughed a bit as it seemed to be another compelling reason not to break (no need for refitting after osteoporosis sets in). 
I think that for many, this is an issue divided on generational lines, kind of a trad vs. traditional debate of sorts..
Regards,


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Going for just a slight break in the trouser leg, as it comes in contact with the top of ones shoe, is the length to strive for IMO. However, as observed by "Longwing," it is virtually a law of nature that one will end the day with more break in their trousers than when they started the day!


----------



## Larchmont (Jan 2, 2005)

Casual pants - no break, worn lower than waist and loose fit.

Dress pants - slight break, worn at waist and generally more fitted.

That may translate to three fingers and no finger (earlier thread).


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

Untilted said:


> How long should pants go?


I should think at least 5 years, 10 if they're Bills.

That one was for you Pihl.

JB


----------

