[NYtrad]

I have a fairly small build and have been toying with the idea of getting 1 inch cuffs (as opposed to my typical 1.25 inch cuffs) on a new suit I purchased last week.

This is going to be a fairly slim fitting suit after some alterations. I've noted over the years that most men wearing slim fitting suits opt out of cuffs all together.

I'd prefer to be traditional and keep the cuffs, but I'd like to get them as small as possible while having them still look normal (the larger the cuff, the shorter in stature I will seem).

Does anyone have a take on my potential 1 inch cuffs...or maybe as a smaller guy I should be opting out of cuffs all together?

Thanks.

 

[Andy]

NYTrad:

1.5 inch cuffs are standard but you can go more or less depending on your height and style.

Just go to the Trouser Chapter in your copy of The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes (you do have one don't you? :icon_smile: ) where you'll find:

Cuffs are de rigueur with pleated pants especially suit trousers and look great on casual pants too. They also serve a function of adding extra weight to the bottom allowing the pants to hang better.

​

Some stores discourage cuffs because it's more expensive for them to put on, so you may have to insist on cuffs. If you're under 5' 10" and you've told that cuffs make you look shorter, ignore that outdated advice, and just have the tailor make the cuff 1 ¼ "instead of the average 1 ½". The same logic makes sense for those of you over 6' - try 1 ¾" cuffs. ​

 

[CuffDaddy]

My strongly held conviction is that the size of one's cuffs do NOTHING to alter perceptions as to one's height. (I presume that is what you're getting at.) When you are estimating the height of another human being, do you look at their ankles? No, you look at the height of the person's eyes, head, and shoulders relative to yours.

In fact, NONE of the various tricks to "look taller" work, unless you count elevator shoes. All a short man can (or should) try to do is look proportional. But no clothing will convince someone that you are 6' tall if you measure 5'4". Get over it and own it.

If you are small in height and width and depth, then scaling down proportions generally may work well, including cuffs. That said, some very well-dressed gentlemen who happen to be short have stuck with the usual dimensions on things like cuffs, ties, and lapels, to good effect. If you inclination is to downsize all your accents and details, then cuffs should follow. The converse would be true as well, I think.

 

[Orsini]

One inch might be a bit narrow. 1 1/4" would be better.

 

[eagle2250]

IMHO, one inch cuffs would look worse than no cuffs at all. Why not just skip the cuffs? :icon_scratch:

 

[NYtrad]

My strongly held conviction is that the size of one's cuffs do NOTHING to alter perceptions as to one's height. (I presume that is what you're getting at.) When you are estimating the height of another human being, do you look at their ankles? No, you look at the height of the person's eyes, head, and shoulders relative to yours.

In fact, NONE of the various tricks to "look taller" work, unless you count elevator shoes. All a short man can (or should) try to do is look proportional. But no clothing will convince someone that you are 6' tall if you measure 5'4". Get over it and own it.

If you are small in height and width and depth, then scaling down proportions generally may work well, including cuffs. That said, some very well-dressed gentlemen who happen to be short have stuck with the usual dimensions on things like cuffs, ties, and lapels, to good effect. If you inclination is to downsize all your accents and details, then cuffs should follow. The converse would be true as well, I think.

Thanks for the input. Not necessarily trying to look taller, just trying not to look stumpy. A 1.5 inch cuff on a person with longer legs may be fine, but someone with shorter legs (like myself) definitely needs something proportionally smaller.

You are correct, I do downsize all of my accents - narrower ties, narrower lapels, and shorter cuffs. I'm just trying to figure out how short the cuffs can go (1 inch or 1.25 inches).

 

[NYtrad]

IMHO, one inch cuffs would look worse than no cuffs at all. Why not just skip the cuffs? :icon_scratch:

Thanks. I tend to lean toward the traditional look (flat front with cuffs), hence why I would prefer not to skip the cuffs.

I'd like the cuffs as small as possible while not looking overly small. I think the consensus so far has been 1.25, any thoughts?

BTW I am 5'4'' if that means anything.

 

[TheGreatTwizz]

FWIW, I work with a gentleman who is about 5'6", and his standard 1.5 inch cuffs do not look out of place (he also wears his jackets about an inch and a half long by my standard), but I wouldn't go smaller than 1 1/4. 1" is a bit small.....

 

[PTB in San Diego]

Nay. 1" will look cheap, and I have a feeling it may not hold its shape. 1 1/4" will be clean and crisp, and I think it will be preferable to, and better-finished than, no cuffs. BTW, what does your tailor say?

Sounds like you have a wise approach in general. As I get older, the concept of proportionality - in everything, not just material things -- becomes more and more important to me.

 

[CuffDaddy]

Thanks. I tend to lean toward the traditional look (flat front with cuffs), hence why I would prefer not to skip the cuffs.

:icon_scratch: The pairing of flat-fronts with cuffs is in no way more "traditional" than pairing cuffs with pleats or FF's with plain hems...

 

[sunjh2004]

Trust me and from my personal experience, for smaller built guys, flat-front-no-cuff trousers are much more flattering. You get better proportion and can look lean and neat. Maybe not the most traditional way, but in my humble opinion, to look the best is more important than to look "traditional".

 

[Flanderian]

I like cuffs. I do feel it helpfull to proportion cuff depth slightly to leg length though not height. I'm of roughly average height but have very short legs, with a 29 inseam. I find a 1 1/4 cuff works better than the standard 1 1/2. But 1 inch might look too shallow.

 

[Bjorn]

I would go without cuffs on that suit.

Many thinks it makes one look less stumpy if one is short.

 

[arkirshner]

OP,

. There are certainly enough times in life that one's preferences go by the wayside. Since you "prefer to be traditional and keep the cuffs" that's what you should do. As to proportion consider that 1.5 " is to 1" as 72" is to 48". That is to say the proportion of a 1 1/2 inch cuff to a 6 foot man is a 1 inch cuff on a 4 foot man. I don't know your height but 1 1`/4 inch is as low as you should go. Probably 1 3/8 inch will be closer to being truly proportional. Any way if you tire of cuffs you can always have them taken off.

 

[Penang Lawyer]

When I first started with SR made suits all trousers were with out cuffs. It took a while to get use to them. You might consider doing away with cuffs.

 

[phyrpowr]

Nay. 1" will look cheap, and I have a feeling it may not hold its shape. 1 1/4" will be clean and crisp, and I think it will be preferable to, and better-finished than, no cuffs. BTW, what does your tailor say?

^^ I got some khakis from the thrift with 1" cuffs, and this is true. Had to go cuffless on them. Well made wool probably better, but I would still go for 1 1/4 or 1 1/2"

 

[Mr. Mac]

Nay. Nay. Nay. Like the horsey says, nay!

 

[eagle2250]

...... I think the consensus so far has been 1.25, any thoughts?

BTW I am 5'4'' if that means anything.

A 1.25" cuff is the absolute minimum. Personally, I would go with a 1.5" rendition!

 

[Matt S]

:icon_scratch: The pairing of flat-fronts with cuffs is in no way more "traditional" than pairing cuffs with pleats or FF's with plain hems...

Perhaps he meant Trad, which is flat front and turn-ups.

 

[NYtrad]

Perhaps he meant Trad, which is flat front and turn-ups.

Thanks Matt. Yes I did mean Trad.