Question About Length For Men

[cabinetman]

I don't remember this subject being brought up, but I'd like to get some opinions. Ever since my military career I've been a stickler for what my clothes look like and how they fit. I had my uniforms tailored in keeping with my military bearing.

Now, LOML is on my case about pant leg length on both dress pants and jeans. She says that the long look is what's in. Whenever I buy jeans, they always seem too long and kind of gather on top of shoes, so I would get them tailored. I've always liked my military cut where the front of the pant just touches the top of the shoe, and the back is down on the heel, so the side view is a slant.

Maybe the manufacturers are making them long, but they just feel too sloppy. LOML says that's what's "in" now. Need some help here!!
.

[RayintheUK]

What does it matter what's "In" at the moment? I totally agree with the trouser just touching the front of the shoe - I think a rumpled tube of material round the ankle looks scruffy, unkempt and just plain wrong. As you might imagine, the "style" of off-the-waist jeans with the crotch around knee level does my blood pressure no favors at all!

Stick in there, Mike - we're not fashion statements at our time of life, but we'll always want to look smart.

Ray.

[Pappy]

Add me to the list of Old Farts that believe clothes shoud fit! Now days I have to try on T shirts to make sure they don't hang off me!

[Anthony]

I dont really know that style length of pants legs have changed much because this is how I have been doing it always.
With 'dress' pants, what you have described is almost what I have done,except that i have the front a little longer length to allow for a 'break' in the front crease of the trouser , caused by the material resting on the top of the front of the shoe. This is how all my tailors/dry cleaners have automatically measured me.for alterations. For a UNIFORM pant I can understand that the look you described would work, but to me, even with a tuxedo or suit, say, a pant that hangs with no extra material begins to looka bit skimpy and somehow to me cheapens the look(much as a shirtsleeve that just reaches the end of your arm would make the shirt look too small.) Note, I have not invented this look, it has been what my European tailors (Italians in my neighborhood as well as Chinese from Hon kong) have shown me, and automatically offer. Note also we are not talking baggy or sloppy here..

With jeans and other casual pants(khakis etc) I would never tailor them as you have described nor would i crease the front, ( any more, I have done it in the past) the look is much to contrivedd to me and doesnt enhance the casualness of the pant. I would shorten the length to the right length for my leg of course, but would definitely allow for the material to bunch up a LITTLE around the foot. A BIT more break seems to work fine. Dragging the floor behind or siphoning up puddles would be a sign that there is too much material
The 'just fits' look vs the 'slightly more material' look I think is in a nutshell, the classic contrast between a Euro style look, vs an American catalogue look.

The hip hop BS with the pants waist below the a$$ is of course idiotic.

Now, with regards to natural fibers vs synthetics........

[jking]

My dress pants I prefer to have a slight break in the crease. If the crease breaks at the back, the pants are too long. I agree with Anthony that "Uniform" pants look better slightly shorter than this. Jeans are a little different. I try to have as little bunching at the bottom as possible without ending up with flood pants.

+1 on the saggy, oversized jeans being stupid.

[jziegler]

I'll admit to wearing my pants longer than what you describe, but it's because I'm too cheap to pay for tailoring (except on dress pants) and too lazy/not good enough at sewing to do it myself. I'm on the short side (around 5'7") and a 30" inseam is a bit too long, but is the shortest that I can normally purchase. I'd like 1/2" - 1" shorter (depending on the actual fit) but I can get it. I still wouldn't go as short as you (I'm younger and never wore a uniform like you did), but shorter would be good. I really hate buying the shortest jeans and fraying the back because I step on them.

Jim

[kirkroy]

It would be interesting to me to see a breakdown of fashion consciousness among men. I fall closer to the "don't care at all" end of the scale than I do to the "actively thinks about fashion" end. I guess I'm always a little surprised to hear men having conversations like this...

[crokett]

Cabinetman, I used to sell mens' dress clothes. What you refer to is known as 'break'. A light break or no break the trousers are cut as you describe, or should be. What you describe is sometimes called a boot cut. I've seen some where the front is a light break and they are cut straight across so you see sock at the back of the leg. That looks awful. A heavy break they are longer in the front. I prefer a heavy break and cuffs. All my cotton and dress slacks have cuffs and are cut with a heavy break. I also like my jackets with the waist pulled in a bit - more than anything else that will let people know your clothes are tailored.

[Bruce Cohen]

Jim,

I found that I can get jeans with a 29" inseam online. The Gap, LL Bean, Eddie Bauer carry them. Of course, you're not gonna get them at the price Target sells their brand for, $12.00.

Or you can do what I used to, Duct Tape to hem the legs. Lasts thru about 2-3 washes.

Bruce

[dkerfoot]

This is just me, but in my opinion, if you are thinking about getting your jeans tailored, you are thinking way too much.

I am right with you on military uniforms and agree with a light break on dress slacks. But for jeans, the only only question I ever ask is: Holes or no holes?

[gsmittle]

SURELY I'm not the only one who read the heading and thought "Tape Measure"? I prefer a FastCap Flat Back myself.

Jeans I really don't care about the break. I usually wear them for really casual stuff/work around the house/etc. Like many, my waist is slightly longer than my inseam, which makes buying off the rack interesting...

My work clothes I'm a little more particular with--I have to look "professional" (whatever that means), but at the same time I'm all over the classroom, including the floor.

I did amaze my students at an awards ceremony in the spring, though. Showed up in black tie, light break on the trousers, tailored jacket, cufflinks, the whole bit. Only thing I didn't have was a shirt garter.

Playing dress-up once in a while is fun!

g.

[Russianwolf]

My Levis 501's are cut perfect at the factory. My dress slacks have a medium break in them. If they get to the point of no break (from shrinking), then I donate them to charity.

Also the amount of break is affected by the shoes. I wear cowboy boots with my dress slacks a lot and the break is reduced as the heel is pushed higher.

[MilDoc]

IMHO it's all a matter of personal taste, as long as your pants aren't "high water" and your BC doesn't show in the back!

[RodKirby]

What does it matter what's "In" at the moment? I totally agree with the trouser just touching the front of the shoe - I think a rumpled tube of material round the ankle looks scruffy, unkempt and just plain wrong. As you might imagine, the "style" of off-the-waist jeans with the crotch around knee level does my blood pressure no favors at all!

Stick in there, Mike - we're not fashion statements at our time of life, but we'll always want to look smart.

Ray.

Totally agree with you, Ray!

[rjwaldren]

On dress slacks, a slight break at the front with taper to the back so that when standing normally the cuff remains parallel to the floor. That's the way tailors have always dressed me. It's more of a comfortable clean look, rather than the crisp rigid uniform look.

Same with jeans, but without the tapered hem. Funny thing, I never saw creased jeans until I was in the AF with a guy from E Texas, I don't think he ever pressed them again after that day.