No-break suit pants for my wedding

sixfiveoh

Starting Member
I went thru the suitsupply custom suit process, and am overall pretty pleased with the outcome. I tend to gravitate toward no break pants and even go so far as to prefer the cropped look, at least with casual outfits. But I don't want to look goofy on my wedding day. Any thoughts on the length/taper on these pants, and/or the suit in general? Thanks!


(First picture there's a bit of bunching causing the pants to sit uneven. Oops)
 

Attachments

  • WhatsApp Image 2021-09-07 at 10.51.39 AM.jpeg
    WhatsApp Image 2021-09-07 at 10.51.39 AM.jpeg
    105.6 KB · Views: 105
  • IMG-4929.jpg
    IMG-4929.jpg
    200.5 KB · Views: 106
  • IMG-4930.jpg
    IMG-4930.jpg
    194.7 KB · Views: 100

EclecticSr.

Elite Member
Too short. I don't understand the facination with this look. Showing socks while standing
make it appear that you're wearing your kid brother's pants who happens to be shorter than you. In time you may come to appreciate the classic look and looking back you might ask yourself, what was I thinking. It's your wedding, no time to look trendy.

Fads and fashion come and go, hopefully style and classic will endure. at least for the foreseable future or at least as far as my aging eyes can see.



Should you choose to have them lengthened, hope there is enough fabric to maintain cuffs
or you mught be forced to go hemmed. My preference is for guardsman /cadet hem.

So far the consensus is, too short. All of the above opinions expressed by a combined couple of centuries of knowledge about dressing well.

Congrats on your wedding and best wishes.
 

sixfiveoh

Starting Member
The trouser length seems altogether proper in regard to the rest of the suit. It is what many young men wear these days.

Forget this forum, does your bride like it?

She likes what I like, so no help there :icon_scratch:

I went to a tailor today and he commented that the suit looked really good, and he actually liked the silhouette and didn't mind the hem at all. They length is more fashion forward, but the look works.

After some discussion we decided to lengthen them by 3/4", so the hem will rest just above the heel counter. Really hoping this doesn't create too much break at the front because I do really like that clean look.
 

Matt S

Connoisseur
She likes what I like, so no help there :icon_scratch:

I went to a tailor today and he commented that the suit looked really good, and he actually liked the silhouette and didn't mind the hem at all. They length is more fashion forward, but the look works.

After some discussion we decided to lengthen them by 3/4", so the hem will rest just above the heel counter. Really hoping this doesn't create too much break at the front because I do really like that clean look.
The front of the trousers isn't even touching the shoe now, so they will still look clean when lengthened a little. I don't think they look all that clean right now. The trousers need to be grounded. They're still going to look short. I always have my tailor angle the hem so they can be shorter in front but longer in the back. With turn-ups like you have, the angle can only be very slight.

The only other issue I see is that the waistcoat looks too long, and the length is more noticeable with a double-breasted waistcoat than a single-breasted waistcoat. Lengthening the trousers should help make the waistcoat look not quite so long, though the waistcoat should end around the height of the bottom jacket button. If you like trousers with a very low rise, then there's not much you can do about that.

Overall, the fit looks very good. That's the most challenging part!
 

medhat

Super Member
She likes what I like, so no help there :icon_scratch:

I went to a tailor today and he commented that the suit looked really good, and he actually liked the silhouette and didn't mind the hem at all. They length is more fashion forward, but the look works.

After some discussion we decided to lengthen them by 3/4", so the hem will rest just above the heel counter. Really hoping this doesn't create too much break at the front because I do really like that clean look.
I think most of the commenters will have absolutely no issue with lengthening them by 3/4", myself included. Maybe I missed it, but why cuffs? At @Matt S pointed out, if the pants are uncuffed and you want them with no/min break, a tailor can adjust the end of an uncuffed pant so they have a touch of extra length towards the heel. It can be almost unnoticeable to the untrained eye but the appearance can look very finished. I've seldom seen short(er) pants with cuffs in the current fashion, and with those full-sized cuffs the overall effect seems a bit off to me.
 

challer

Senior Member
She likes what I like, so no help there :icon_scratch:

I went to a tailor today and he commented that the suit looked really good, and he actually liked the silhouette and didn't mind the hem at all. They length is more fashion forward, but the look works.

After some discussion we decided to lengthen them by 3/4", so the hem will rest just above the heel counter. Really hoping this doesn't create too much break at the front because I do really like that clean look.
High waters are not fashion forward. Overly tight slim fit seems to be. 3/4 will still be too high for most here. The challenge is getting a good tailor that knows what they are doing.
 

EclecticSr.

Elite Member

sixfiveoh

I went to a tailor today and he commented that the suit looked really good, and he actually liked the silhouette and didn't mind the hem at all. They length is more fashion forward, but the look works.

Personally, I would find another tailor.

As both Matt and I pointed out, to achieve a clean no break and still cover the heel counter
the way to go is with a guardsman hem.

Stop confusing cuff with hem, two different animals.
Cuffs are what your trousers have, hemmed the fabric is turned under and blindstitched,
uncuffed. I won't go into the peocedure to create a guardsman hem, but any tailor worth his salt would know it.
 

never behind

Super Member
I really like the no break/shiver/slight break range on my trousers, but those are too short IMO. As others have said, you should be able to lengthen them and keep the no break silhouette. The hard part for you in that regard is the small leg opening. It will limit how much you can let them out before it starts breaking.
 

challer

Senior Member
You have received an interesting array of advice on hemming, cuffing, and soliciting the advice of your fiancee. The third point will ultimately be more important than the hemming or cuffing. Most anytime one looks back on treasured photos from long ago, there will be plenty of fodder for thoughts about hair styles, tie widths, jacket lengths, and more. You will see past those to the people and times. Your wedding photos will not become horrid reminders of your sartorial journey. Reminders, yes, but not horrid. If you and your fiancee agree on a look, do what you agree on. I have always worn my trousers touching but not breaking with a 1 3/4" cuff. I like it, and no one has ever openly criticized or questioned it, just as I have never openly criticized or questioned those who prefer a pronounced break with or without a cuff.
When the OP sits down, the whole effect is greatly magnified.
 

EclecticSr.

Elite Member
Young man comes on and solicits opinion and or advice on the look of his wedding suit.
Either to validate his choice or, has some apprehension about his choice particularly about cuffs.

The fact that he, his tailor and bride to be who would go along doesn't make it right.

Part of the forum is to offer guidance when solicited and so far many here have voiced
their opinion. We are after all a group of people who for the most part wish to promote dressing well discounting the latest fad or fashion.

It's not about having a chuckle 10-20 years from now, it's advice for the moment.
 

sixfiveoh

Starting Member
I think most of the commenters will have absolutely no issue with lengthening them by 3/4", myself included. Maybe I missed it, but why cuffs? At @Matt S pointed out, if the pants are uncuffed and you want them with no/min break, a tailor can adjust the end of an uncuffed pant so they have a touch of extra length towards the heel. It can be almost unnoticeable to the untrained eye but the appearance can look very finished. I've seldom seen short(er) pants with cuffs in the current fashion, and with those full-sized cuffs the overall effect seems a bit off to me.
Why cuffs? No reason, just thought it would be an interesting detail. I'm not married to the idea. In fact, if a cadet hem appears to be the way to go after I get the pants back (tomorrow) then no problem losing the cuffs!

Personally, I would find another tailor.

As both Matt and I pointed out, to achieve a clean no break and still cover the heel counter
the way to go is with a guardsman hem.

Stop confusing cuff with hem, two different animals.
Cuffs are what your trousers have, hemmed the fabric is turned under and blindstitched,
uncuffed. I won't go into the peocedure to create a guardsman hem, but any tailor worth his salt would know it.
Will look at this as a next step.

Any reason I should avoid cuff? I've read that a larger cuff, 5cm, is particularly acceptable on a slim fit (<7.5in) leg opening.
 
Last edited:

Matt S

Connoisseur
Why cuffs? No reason, just thought it would be an interesting detail. I'm not married to the idea. In fact, if the answer is a cadet hem appears to be the way to go after I get the pants back (tomorrow) then no problem losing the cuffs!


Will look at this as a next step.

Any reason I should avoid cuff? I've read that a larger cuff, 5cm, is particularly acceptable on a slim fit (<7.5in) leg opening.
You should avoid cuffs because you can't get a good guardsman slant with them. You need a slightly wider hem to wear turn-ups well.
 

delicious_scent

Elite Member
For the suit you have, I'd keep the cuff length as is. If you lengthened it, it's just going to catch on your shoes and mess up the drape.

The main issue is how narrow the trousers are overall, and how narrow the hem opening is.

The narrower something is, the less margin for error you have in terms of messing around with break, and more likely it is for the trousers to catch on your shoes if it was the 'appropriate' hem length that everyone is suggesting here.
 
G

Guest-407757

Guest
I sort of feared that was the case. No offense to anyone here, but I’m not ready to go any wider in leg opening at this point in my life! I actually typically wear 6.5”-6.75” on chinos and jeans so this 7” was me being “conservative”.

Oh well, will see what it looks like slightly longer, can always iterate!
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

Deals/Steals

Trad Store Exchange