Men's Clothing Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

How are your Corduroys Hemmed?

1 reading
Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
U

undarted

· Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I was wondering if you gentlemen could give me some advice. My cords are unfinished, and I plan on taking them to a tailor or an alterations (should it matter?)

The issue is this...I'm not fond of cuffs. I don't like them, I don't like how they shorten the visual length of the trousers. Also, I need at least 3-4 inches of upturned fabric to prevent the pants from catching on the speed lace latches of my boot.

On the other hand...since corduroy has vertical lines, I fear a blind hem would give the impression that the pants are indeed unfinished, as if I just folded the pants under and inside.

How are your cords finished?
 
#5 ·
For what it's worth, I had some Bills wide-wale cords that I was told couldn't be cuffed, so I hemmed them and have been unhappy ever since. They just look wrong to me. Unfinished. I suppose it's a matter of what you're accustomed to seeing above your shoes. Now I will only buy cords that can take a cuff.
 
#6 ·
Ive got an option for you - On about half my khakis and cords I take a cue from J Crew and instead of a cuff or no cuff I hem them, leave alot of fabric back underneath and use a visible stitch across the leg about 2 or so inches up. Im not sure If I am explaining that well. But basically, since I have all that material back inside, it gives the bottom of the pants structure, and the visible hem across the legs ive the impression of a cuff, without a cuff. Just reference the J Crew website and look at their broken in khakis for an example. The key to looking good is to make sure that visable hem is a good 2 inches up.
 
#8 ·
With big heavy monster cords hemming with cuffs can be a problem, since (1) the cloth has to be folded over four times, and (2) cords are often slightly tapered at the bottom. Any taper at all makes cuffs virtually impossible, especially on pants as heavy as cords.

Familyman, anything to add?

Another POSSIBLE option if you don't like cuffs and don't like to see the horizontal stitching is to simply roll them inside by several inches, adjust to the right length, and then put a long stitch along the side seams only, then press the fold with the iron. If the overlap is long enough and the stitching is long enough, they should be fine. But you will have to remember when slipping the pants on you should be careful not to snag your feet.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#9 ·
Phil said:
Ive got an option for you - On about half my khakis and cords I take a cue from J Crew and instead of a cuff or no cuff I hem them, leave alot of fabric back underneath and use a visible stitch across the leg about 2 or so inches up. Im not sure If I am explaining that well. But basically, since I have all that material back inside, it gives the bottom of the pants structure, and the visible hem across the legs ive the impression of a cuff, without a cuff. Just reference the J Crew website and look at their broken in khakis for an example. The key to looking good is to make sure that visable hem is a good 2 inches up.
Click to expand...
Another great countrywear idea, Phil.
 
#11 · (Edited)
I prefer cuffs. That said, I do have a couple of pairs of Land’s End cheapos that I will wear when hunting or just mucking about in the woods. More comfortable when stuffed into a pair of wellies. And when wearing regular boots, they pick up less “stuff”. Probably wear a par tomorrow. If I have time, I will post a pic.
 
Discussion starter · #12 ·
Thank you for your advice, everybody.

I did browse the jcrew site to spy on the style of hems, which look quite good. However, they seem a bit pronounced for my taste. I wonder if there exists a more subtle hem, rather than the pronounced straight stitching, to convey a sense of 'finished' but not 'bulky' as mentioned in this thread.

I lack the sartorial vocabulary to describe the hem I wish for. Perhaps a blind hem with a subtle hint of a horizontal line, perhaps I'm thinking of pickstitching on lapels, or puckering blind hems. I'm not sure. It may be a minor detail, but I'm a firm believer that style is in the details.

Sorry to impose this vain pursuit on you gentlemen, but hoping for any solution among you gents is a solid wager.
 
#19 ·
My motto is "form sometimes follows function". If your cords will never see the great outdoors except in between home-car, car-office, (like me) then by all means cuff them, 1.5" to 1.75". On the other hand, if you are mucking out stables or chain-sawing firewood, you don't need to take your work home with you in your cuffs at the end of the day.

Yours (with apologies to Mr. Sullivan),
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
About this Discussion
26 Replies
19 Participants
Last post:
TradTeacher
Men's Clothing Forums
posts
1.7M
members
84K
Since
2004
A forum community dedicated to men’s fashion and clothing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, materials, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Timeless Style Trad Style The Interchange Food, Drink, Travel & The Arts Deals, Steals, & Sales!