Joined
·
9 Posts
So is the example in the photo an ok example of cuffing?If you are going to cuff, do it right. Walking around, wearing high water pants, with your socks showing is reserved for those who have not yet reached the age of majority. Cuffed trousers can present a nice finished look for an adult gentleman, but the cuff should be brushing the tops of your shoes if you want to do it right. Just saying......![]()
No, the photo shows an extremely poor example of cuffing. There's nothing wrong the amount of socks that is visible. The problem is that you (or whoever it is in the picture) rolled up the cuffs and somehow cinched them tight. As a result, the circumference of each cuff is much smaller than the circumference of each lower trouser leg.So is the example in the photo an ok example of cuffing?
If you are going to cuff, do it right. Walking around, wearing high water pants, with your socks showing is reserved for those who have not yet reached the age of majority. Cuffed trousers can present a nice finished look for an adult gentleman, but the cuff should be brushing the tops of your shoes if you want to do it right. Just saying......![]()
Why do I get the impression the OP is referring to an entirely different issue? Perhaps something to do with UK street wear. I.e., things that youngsters do that are locally cool, and have nothing to do with more traditional forms.No, the photo shows an extremely poor example of cuffing. There's nothing wrong the amount of socks that is visible. The problem is that you (or whoever it is in the picture) rolled up the cuffs and somehow cinched them tight. As a result, the circumference of each cuff is much smaller than the circumference of each lower trouser leg.
A cuff isn't supposed to be a ligature. (Unless you hate your ankles and want to choke them to death. I'm assuming, however, that such an action is not high up on your to-do list.) A cuff and the trouser leg immediately above it should each have the same circumference.
No cinching!
You might be right. I'm not sure any more….My ability to read tea leaves is a bit rusty.Why do I get the impression the OP is referring to an entirely different issue? Perhaps something to do with UK street wear. I.e., things that youngsters do that is locally cool, and have nothing to do with more traditional forms.
Mine, nonexistent. But the photo taken in total makes me surmise the OP and I are functioning from different frames of reference.You might be right. I'm not sure any more….My ability to read tea leaves is a bit rusty.
Or from different planets.Mine, nonexistent. But the photo taken in total makes me surmise the OP and I are functioning from different frames of reference.
Uh-huh, kinder, gentler! 👍We've added a whole new meaning to the word cuffing.
You fellas were much kinder in response than what I would have posted at 6 AM this morning.
^ That did cross my mind. I decided to put my judgment in abeyance pending more data.Either we're being put on or…
^ Yep.a brief read through on his part of some threads might have given the poster a clue as to what we're all about.
The theory is that cuffs break up the length of the body and makes the legs look shorter. Someone who is 5'9" can wear them, but stick with cuffs at 1.5" high and not higher. The weight of cuffs helps the trousers drape better, which can make someone look taller. What's more important is ensuring the clothes are well-fitted and well-proportioned. Trendy low-rise, skin-tight trousers do much more harm than cuffs.I hear cuffs on pants are better suited for taller people because it helps make them look shorter. Is this true and would it still look good on someone like me who's 5'9"?