Cuffs are practical. They add weight. This improves the drape and, to some extent, helps to pull out wrinkles that might form while sitting. It's not about the bottom of the pant leg but about the look of the pant leg all the way down from the waist. Some fabrics and pants look much better on some legs with cuffs. Some do not. It all depends. They are an option and a resource.

 

I think if you go look at the photos in the American Men (Trad) thread, whenever you see full leg shots, they appear to have cuffed pants legs. Even more than flat front or no darts, this seems to be a consistent rule.

I fully subscribe to Alan's Law which is (to paraphrase) I've never passed up a chance to cuff my pants without regretting it.

Somehow pants with cuffs never seem to flare too much or taper too much. Not sure why.

 

I was forced to let down the cuffs on my bill's chamois. They actually make me look tall without the cuffs! Anyway, I still prefer cuffs on flat front, just because it's so different from everyone else.

 

To cuff or not

Cuffs are basically an issue for your own taste.(especially for casual slacks) No one really cares except a few on this board....

 

Cuffs are basically an issue for your own taste.(especially for casual slacks) No one really cares except a few on this board....

Great point, Mel. And while we're on the subject, aren't button-downs just an affectation? After all, it's not as if anyone here is actually playing polo in them. And what's wrong with pleats and darts, anyway?

Well, gotta throw on my flip-flops and scram. See ya at TGIFriday's.

EGF

 

You cuff because you can.

 

I was forced to let down the cuffs on my bill's chamois. They actually make me look tall without the cuffs!

I also look taller without cuffs on khakis. Also, as someone who hems my own pants, the Bills M1 pants are heavily tapered and are a bugger to put cuffs on, and consequently they don't look good (check out photos of our members in M1s with cuffs -- they gap and make the leg wrinkle).

Remember, trad pants are supposed to be straight leg from the knee down, which dovetails perfectly with cuffs. Tapered pants aren't quite so authentic and coincidently don't take cuffs well. I'm not saying we should stop wearing Bills, rather that they were never designed to take cuffs (see the "Bills Prototype" thread) as they were military pants.

However, I cuff flannels their ilk.

DocD

 

I'd suppose cuffs are trad simply because getting a pair of well-made pants when young and then growing into them is trad.

 

Great point, Mel. And while we're on the subject, aren't button-downs just an affectation? After all, it's not as if anyone here is actually playing polo in them. And what's wrong with pleats and darts, anyway?

Well, gotta throw on my flip-flops and scram. See ya at TGIFriday's.

EGF

Most styles are more that just utilitarian. There is nothing wrong with liking trad etc. if you like sack jackets so be it. I do but most people don't notice going "dartless" or "pleatless".

 

I think I like cuffs because they make pants look a little dressier, or at least they have that connotation. When worn in the presence of people wearing jeans, I think it shows that you care about dressing well that much more. Perhaps this is convoluted reasoning, though...

 

A smoker friend of mine, about 15 years ago, liked to ash in his cuffs. He never had to ask for an ashtray and he never mucked up a recyclable beer bottle.

 

I also look taller without cuffs on khakis. Also, as someone who hems my own pants, the Bills M1 pants are heavily tapered and are a bugger to put cuffs on, and consequently they don't look good (check out photos of our members in M1s with cuffs -- they gap and make the leg wrinkle).

Remember, trad pants are supposed to be straight leg from the knee down, which dovetails perfectly with cuffs. Tapered pants aren't quite so authentic and coincidently don't take cuffs well. I'm not saying we should stop wearing Bills, rather that they were never designed to take cuffs (see the "Bills Prototype" thread) as they were military pants.

However, I cuff flannels their ilk.

DocD

Interesting. I guess that was what I was saying. Cuffs make tapered legs a little straighter and flared lags a little straighter also. But you might be right that fighting the pants natural shape doesnt do you (or the pants) any favors.

I actually have 3 pairs of STP M1's that I need to take the alterations tailor. Now I am questioning whether to have them cuffed. I guess if I cuff them and tire of it I can always hem them.

 

I have no idea why. But I cuff all the trousers I own (jeans excepted). To me uncuffed trousers look unfinished, as if the maker got to the bottom, got tired, and just stopped. To me, it's like unbuttoning the bottom button of a vest or pairing belts and shoes - you just do.

 

Interesting. I guess that was what I was saying. Cuffs make tapered legs a little straighter and flared lags a little straighter also. But you might be right that fighting the pants natural shape doesnt do you (or the pants) any favors.

I suppose I could dig out photos, actually I probably should before making sweeping generalizations about stuff here.

I guess if I cuff them and tire of it I can always hem them.

Exactly, it's easy to reverse cuffing, but impossible to add cuffs later. Anyway, the cuffs on M1s look stupid on me, and don't look great on some members, but maybe they'll look just fine on you. Just cuff them and forget them.

I have no idea why. But I cuff all the trousers I own (jeans excepted). To me uncuffed trousers look unfinished, as if the maker got to the bottom, got tired, and just stopped. To me, it's like unbuttoning the bottom button of a vest or pairing belts and shoes - you just do.

That's because you probably live in the US. Our British cousins would only rarely cuff chinos/khakis, in fact probably never.

Really, to no one in particular, my point in churning out these odd views is simply to drive a stake through the heart of the old argument that something or other is "trad" or "not trad". If this whole style of dressing is going to have any longevity, or transportability between people or regions, or tranferability(sp) between generations, it should be based on some reasoning or thought. Just throwing out the " 'cause it's trad" argument is meaningless, because someone who hasn't spend much time on this forum will find the argument laughable and too easy to ignore. As I said above, any Brit ignore the argument if used to justify cuffs vs no cuffs.

DocD

 

That's because you probably live in the US. Our British cousins would only rarely cuff chinos/khakis, in fact probably never.

DocD

That's like catnip to me. Dressing distinctly from "Our British cousins" is the whole point of why I dress trad.

But your post has great information. I wonder, if in lieu of pictures, you might have time to explain by what you mean by saying that cuffs "... make the pants gap..."?

 

Great point, Mel. And while we're on the subject, aren't button-downs just an affectation? After all, it's not as if anyone here is actually playing polo in them. And what's wrong with pleats and darts, anyway?

Well, gotta throw on my flip-flops and scram. See ya at TGIFriday's.

EGF

You weren't replying directly to me, but your sarcasm is noted. So, to be trad, we should put cuffs on our pants because we're supposed to? Is that what you're getting at?

As for button-down shirts, they may be an affectation, but I prefer them nonetheless. I like the aesthetic of something 'going on' up there, and the inherent casualness of the button-down suits me well. And as I said in my first post, I prefer the aesthetic of the sack jacket as well, not having two scars running down the front and all. I like flat-fronts instead of pleats in part because they're more casual, and in part because I find pleats ugly and unbecoming.

But the question remains: why should I put cuffs on my pants? Why is this trad? It can't be functionality, can it? Because if it were functionality trads would wear pleated trousers, no? And I refuse to buy the 'just because' argument; it's rather ignorant to wear a particular style of clothing because that's what you're supposed to wear. I'd rather have a reason to wear something than to wear it blindly. So, can anyone give me a valid reason why cuffs are trad? (And I'm not ignoring Doc D.'s note about the sillyness of 'trad' versus 'not trad'.)

 

Dad and grand-dad said so,
I believe them,
That ends it, I cuff too.

 

Dad and grand-dad said so,
I believe them,
That ends it, I cuff too.

Exactly right. I haven't the slightest idea -- nor do I care -- how pant legs came to be cuffed in the first place. I only know that uncuffed pants are wrong.

EGF

 

I only know that uncuffed pants are wrong.

I wish Brooks Brothers saw it this way.

LW

 

I don't know about cuffs in the Trad fashion sense but I do know how and what started it.

It was due to muddy conditions on the roads and walkways when people would throw out the wash water, etc. It was a very “pedestrian" thing as I think I heard it called and was a moniker of the middle/poor in the area. The Elite were known for not having to bother with getting their clothes in such condition. Hence the tux is never seen with it. Also you will not see it on most dinner wear sorts of clothing.

I don’t know why I remember it but I do. I was told that by a friend of mine that is a FIT grad. She was going on and on one night on fashion history and when I was dosing off she started in with men’s fashion stuff to amuse (read awake) me.

 

I cuff all my tailored clothes save the tux. However, almost all of my cotton pants are uncuffed. Just seems more in line with the spirt of the garment, along with the fact that cuffs on heavy cotton often look sloppy.

 

All of my dressier trousers and nicer khakis are cuffed. I have some casual khakis that I bought without cuffs. I agree that some of the heavier khaki materials look bulky cuffed.

I am probably 80% cuffs. But it's not one of those things I get all religious about or anything.

 

I don't know about cuffs in the Trad fashion sense but I do know how and what started it.

It was due to muddy conditions on the roads and walkways when people would throw out the wash water, etc. It was a very "pedestrian" thing as I think I heard it called and was a moniker of the middle/poor in the area. The Elite were known for not having to bother with getting their clothes in such condition. Hence the tux is never seen with it. Also you will not see it on most dinner wear sorts of clothing.

I don't know why I remember it but I do. I was told that by a friend of mine that is a FIT grad. She was going on and on one night on fashion history and when I was dosing off she started in with men's fashion stuff to amuse (read awake) me.

I've heard versions of this, but not quite the same: I've always heard that the better off cuffed to keep the mud and whatnot from messing up their trousers as they went walk about, and since evening wear never worn out on the hunt, etc., those trousers do NOT take cuffs. But this never made sense to me, as the one way to guarantee that stuff gets caught up in your trouser is to have cuffs. I crossed my leg this morning at a meeting and several pebbles fell out of my cuff. It got a laugh.

 

As for button-down shirts, they may be an affectation, but I prefer them nonetheless. I like the aesthetic of something 'going on' up there, and the inherent casualness of the button-down suits me well.

I think this is one of the things I like about cuffs-something going on down there, plus the added weight to the bottom of the trouser leg

 

I remember reading a post, don't remember by who, suggesting that the essence of Trad style is to make business dress more sporty and sportswear more dressy. Cuffed Khakis would be in that spirit.

(Which begs the question, maybe "why not no cuffs on dress pants?" I guess you gotta stop somewhere.)