Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,538 Posts
Cuffed, again

Generally now I prefer cuffs, whether OTR or put on by tailoring, except, of course, for evening wear. I do think that cuffless casual pants are practical, because there's less chance of getting hung up on something if you are doing a task where that is possible. Also, nowhere for chuffed-up dirt to reside that needs to be knocked out afterwards.

To my eye, cuffs do tend to negate height, or leg length rather, but I think that is so minor that I wouldn't say to use that criterion unless one is very short. One thing that is off-putting to me, whether with cuffs or not, is the tendency for men to have a puddle of fabric around the ankles. It looks sloppy to me. A medium break is my choice, and I'm sticking with it:icon_smile_big:
 

·
Site Creator
Joined
·
11,747 Posts
Cuffs!!

From The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes (ordered yours yet? :icon_smile: Only the investment of what you'll spend for lunch today!):

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 If you're under 5' 10" and you've told that cuffs make you look shorter, ignore that outdated advice, and just have the tailor make the cuff 1 ¼ "instead of the average 1 ½".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.

If you don't cuff your pants have the tailor slant the bottoms so that the hem is lower at the back to the top of the shoe heel. Tailors call this a "fishtail". Cuffs are hemmed straight across.

Cuffs or "turn-ups" date to the 1860s when members of the Windsor cricket club began rolling up their trousers to protect them from mud and water. Consequently tennis players copied the look by rolling up their flannel trousers before hitting the courts.

English Royalty was seen in town wearing turn-ups and even to the Ascot races! British gentlemen began imitating the style, but the initial response was not positive.

There was pandemonium in the House of Parliament in 1893 when Viscount Lewisham appeared wearing cuffs on his trousers. Society disapproved of turn-ups, claiming that they collected dirt that would be brought indoors and that men had to take care to turn them down before entering a respectable indoor location.

The advantage of knee breeches worn in the 18th Century was that the hem was high enough off the ground that they were not likely to be soiled, and the stockings worn with knee breeches were much easier to launder.

But by 1880 tailors were stitching them onto trousers, and by the early 20th Century, cuffs had become an accepted variation on trouser bottoms.

Fashion Fundamental: Formal dress trousers are never cuffed, because there could not possibly be any chance of mud at a formal occasion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
Sorry Andy, but slim fit suits just look rediculous with cuffs ...

Now that slim fits are being made with a single pleat, these also should not be cuffed. The tapered leg ending in a cuff just looks out of place. My BB db flannel Regent with minimal break and a single pleat just couldn't be cuffed. I will agree that trousers with the standard 19-inch opening can take cuffs well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,538 Posts
I just thought of a further limiting factor to adding cuffs: If the leg is tapered all the way to the end, there might be a problem doing cuffs, as the smaller lower circumference might not fit over the greater upper circumference. Perhaps that can be accommodated by letting out the side seam a bit, but my tailor gets sticky about that working.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top