drew1

Suspended
51
United States
New York
Brooklyn
I'm 5'8 and 162 lbs or so and always wear 32/30 with jeans. I tried on some Banana Republic dress pants in 32/30 but for some reason, they don't seem to cover my loafer that i was wearing. Like imagine you are wearing a loafer and the pants while you are standing up, doesn't cover it all so you can see your socks. Are those dress pants too short?

Someone told me he is not surprised that the length is not long enough because he is 6'1 and for Banana Republic, he wears 31 or 32 in length whereas i wear 30 in lenghth?
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
7,523
Sweden
Värmland
Värmland
Height has nothing to do with it, inside leg measurement is what matters. I'm 6' and I wear a 30" leg, sometimes a 32" depending on cut and style. Whereas my very leggy Swedish wife who is 5'11" has a 36" inside leg. "72 inches of therapy" as Julia Roberts expressed it in Pretty Woman, while nekkid in the tub with RG! ;)
 

Jake Genezen

Senior Member
718
England
West Midlands
Birmingham
for some reason, they don't seem to cover my loafer that i was wearing. Like imagine you are wearing a loafer and the pants while you are standing up, doesn't cover it all so you can see your socks. Are those dress pants too short?
A reason I don't wear loafers is because they are shaped/cut lower than, say, laced shoes. I have my trousers altered so there is a break at the front, with a guardsman slant at the back. With my laced shoes, the trouser break nicely (for my tastes, anyway); when I put on a pair of loafers, you can see some sock. Some loafers, like apron loafers, are not shaped/cut as low as some others.
 

statboy

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
499
United States
OK
Oklahoma City
Height has nothing to do with it, inside leg measurement is what matters. I'm 6' and I wear a 30" leg, sometimes a 32" depending on cut and style. Whereas my very leggy Swedish wife who is 5'11" has a 36" inside leg. "72 inches of therapy" as Julia Roberts expressed it in Pretty Woman, while nekkid in the tub with RG! ;)
Height doesn't determine inseam length. But the correlation is probably in the 0.7 range. The OP clearly has long legs relative to his height. In the parlance of our statistical times, he's an outlier.
 

jean-paul sartorial

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
429
I'm a shade over 5'8" and generally wear about a 30" inseam. It's obviously the inside leg that is more important than height, but like previously mentioned there is a correlation between the two. I don't view 5'8" and a 30" inseam as particularly out-of-the ordinary.
 

drew1

Suspended
51
United States
New York
Brooklyn
Is inseam the length?? I'm confused why so many of you are using that word. When i look at jeans/shoes, all i look is the 2 numbers such as 32/30 which is the waist size and length. Or is inseam the same thing as lenght??
 

jean-paul sartorial

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
429
If you wear 32/30 pants, 30" is the length of the inseam, not the total length of the pants. The inseam is the seam that runs from the hem of the pants up to the crotch, ie. the inner leg measurement.

You and I are roughly the same height and take the same inseam on our pants.
 

neskerdoo

New Member
81
United States
Maryland
Baltimore
Read me again, I never said it did. I said, "Height has nothing to do with it" (i.e. trouser length), inside leg measurement is what matters.
I think he was partially agreeing with you, subject to the qualification in his next sentence. Perhaps had his period been a comma... Or had he started off with "It is true that..." Read him again and see what you think.
 

Saltydog

Super Member
1,638
Height has nothing to do with it, inside leg measurement is what matters. I'm 6' and I wear a 30" leg, sometimes a 32" depending on cut and style. Whereas my very leggy Swedish wife who is 5'11" has a 36" inside leg. "72 inches of therapy" as Julia Roberts expressed it in Pretty Woman, while nekkid in the tub with RG! ;)
Sorry, and with all due respect, but I just lost all interest in discussing clothing! Other images keep running through my mind. :)
 

10gallonhat

Senior Member
935
United States
Plano
Texas
5'7" and I always have my pants tailored because 30" (the shortest inseam most brands offer) is too long for my liking.

Every brand will fit differently though, for example I don't wear Ralph Lauren pants or shorts because even if I have them altered so the inseam is shorter, the crotch area (whatever it's called) is always too baggy, like it's made for someone with a 12" shlong going commando, and baggy pants look ridiculous on anyone over the age of 16.

Edit: I think it's good to have all your nice pants tailored anyway so you can get the exact length you want that works with your height and your shoes. The issue about the pants being perfect for laceups and too short for loafers isn't a big deal because loafers are casual anyway, so it doesn't matter if a sliver of sock or ankle is showing.
 
Last edited:

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
7,523
Sweden
Värmland
Värmland
pics or it didn't happen.
Later. She's got one on her facebook of when she was about 16 (about 1980), standing next to a shortish female friend in a kitchen in a summer house both in very short shorts and her comment about herself is, "even then I had legs that ended where most other people have armpits" ;)

Keep dreaming guys! ;)