[Winhes2]

My suit trousers' leg bottoms range from 8.25" to 11" when laid flat. Double those for trouser leg bottom circumferences.

I'm considering narrowing some if my 9.5", 10" and 11" leg bottoms.

My lapels are all 3.25" to 3.75".

I'd thought of relating the trouser bottom width to lapel width. I suppose a pro rata percentage of lapels between 2" and 5" and trouser bottoms between, say, 7" and 11". But I've read some consider lapel width an adornment to be considered independent of the tightness of the suit's fit.

In an earlier thread here, which I was unable to find, I recall a suggestion that 8.25" to ?9? Would be a timeless standard.

Elsewhere I've read the following ideas:

- trouser bottoms to cover shoe laces.

- smaller guys, smaller widths. Bigger guys, bigger widths.

- fitted suits narrower widths, looser suits, wider widths.

How would you decide the width of your trouser bottoms.

 

[Watchman]

Proportions and aesthetics. It may take you some time to find out what looks good on you.

And yes, you don’t want wide leg trousers on slim fitting suits or vice versa.

You can have a competent tailor give your trousers a nice taper at the opening of the trousers at your feet.

I find this allows greater showcasing of your footwear…

Cheers!

 

[never behind]

I found a rule of thumb by a poster, I believe on here, that had trouser opening at 2/3s the length of one’s shoe. So if your shoe is 12” long, the half measure on the trousers would be 8.125”. I found it to be a decent starting point that I could adjust based on proportions, as Watchman noted. Since I’m not slim in the seat and thighs, I ended up slightly wider, closer to 3/4 of the shoe length. Otherwise I looked more like an ice cream cone. I never thought about lapel width.

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

I am so happy to be an OTR TNSIL. These are questions I have never pondered.

 

[Winhes2]

.