1930s trousers cuff width?

[nihil]

Hi all

I'm wondering what the (typical) trousers cuff width was in the 1930s?
Most of my modern suits and trousers got a 23cm/9" width when laid flat. I believe this is quite a classic width?

Some time ago I had a fleabay found suit sent to my tailor, and he took sleeves and trouser length out. But the trousers were still too short, or rather, the legs were so wide that they could not archive the correct drape. He have suggested that I have the legs taken in, in order to get them closer to my legs and thus getting an appropriate drape that way. The trousers are quite wide right now, with 26cm/10,25" width when laid flat. I suspect the suit is late 70s, as it looks too new to be really old (I think), but it got a lot of classic features like very high waisted trousers and very wide legs. The tailor suggested to go down to 19cm/7,5" width, but after I came home and measured some of my other suits, 19cm/7,5" seems awfully slim for a classic style suit. I'm instead considering to let him take them in to around 23cm/9" and also use the last cm in the length, and simply live with them being ever so slight too short. Any suggestions?

 

[herringbonekid]

the typical 30s width is 10.5 - 11 "

 

[Rudie]

What hbk said. Try if they drape better with braces.

 

[nihil]

Thanks for the answer.
The problem is that the cuffs do not settle properly on my shoes, they more like 'hover' above, creating a really odd look. The tailor said they would require 2-3cm/0,8-1,2" more in the length, but they got only around 1cm/0,4" more to let down, as they have already been let down 5cm/2".

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Do the trousers have permanent turn ups? How deep are they? If so, have you thought of a false/"French" cuff?

 

[herringbonekid]

that's a length problem rather than a width problem.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Please don't make them narrow. It wouldn't solve the problem at all. If you look at vintage pictures the hover look is not that bad or uncommon. It's better than a lot of bunching at the shoes. The tailor wants to talk you into a modernn look maybe. Just for length to for a false cuff as baron kurtz suggested.

 

[Feraud]

that's a length problem rather than a width problem.

Agreed.

 

[nihil]

There are only about 1cm left to let further out. Then there simply are no more extra fabric on the inside of the trousers.
The problem with the hover look is that they do not achieve any drape right now, and that causes the legs to be completely straight down. And where they meet my calves, they change 'direction' which gives then an odd 70's-ish flared look.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Completly straight down sounds good (!) change of direction less so and it's also kinda the opposite of "Straight down". Pictures would help.
My favourite cuff width is about 10" (25cm) and more.

Did you search the Lounge? There are many good thread about the correct witdh, lenght, cuffs and even the "break" above the shoes. Just in case you want some picture "proof".

30s trousers sizes
Flared Trousers (1930's/40's)?
30s-50s-British Suit Trouser photo resource
Cuffed trousers length&

And of course the "sticky" with catalog scans. Pictures say more than words.

 

[herringbonekid]

If you look at vintage pictures the hover look is not that bad or uncommon.

depends... early 1920s trousers with an ankle width of 8 - 9" look good with an inch of sock showing.
1930s trousers at 10 - 11" ankle width should really hit the shoe (even if they have virtually zero 'break') to give that heavy 'curtain fall' look or else they can look clownish if worn off the shoe, and flapping about while walking.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes. You are right. But I think little to no break would already feel "too short" for people who are used to modern standards. Also if you walk or sit it might appear shorter.

 

[Dinerman]

Check out this thread for some measurements. I think it's really more about the shape of the trousers- the proportion of thigh to knee to cuff, than it is about the measurement itself. That is to say, a pair of trousers from the '70s and the '30s may have the same cuff width, but the difference between straight cut and bellbottom makes or breaks the look.


The '20s narrow trouser/high water look

 

[Annixter]

Agreed with F.F. Floey; straight down with no break isn't necessarily a bad thing. nihil, look at some of the 1930's and 1940's catalog scans in the important thread sticky thread for reference, and you will see plenty of trousers with little or no break. Better to have your pants floating a little when walking instead of dragging in the mud and getting caught under your heel! As for the change in direction, a picture would definitely help us understand.

 

[nihil]

I do not have the trousers with me, but I got this picture I took before I went to the tailor with the suit (hence the super-short sleeves as well).

http://www.imagebam.com/image/cc7758212776704

The lack of length make them look positively 70's-ish, when the short legs interact with my calves and thus chances direction. They are longer now, but still a tad too short to be able to rest on my shoes, and give a proper drape to the trousers.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

[huh]I would say they are just too short. It's a common problem with vintage clothes for us taller folks. If they would be more narrow they could look more like 20s trousers. See HBK's comment and Dinermans picture above.

On the general discussion here is a link I wanted to quote earlier. Sears & Roebuck 1939 with all the measurements. There is a wide variety in the same year (!) and you also see the drape and the lenght in the pictures. Certainly shorter and with less "break" than today.

 

[nihil]

Since the picture was taken the trousers have been let down an additional 5cm/2", but they still got that 'dangling' effect, as they are not quite long enough.
The big problem is that my calves make the trousers legs 'change direction', and since they do not quite reach the shoes, they can not drape correctly. it looks positively 70s-ish.

 

[herringbonekid]

bin them and move on.

 

[nihil]

It's a tad late for that. I've already spent 90-ish$ on alterations, and both jacket and waistcoat fits me really well now. I guess I'll just have the legs taken in. A shame as it would have been great to preserve the wide legs.
Suit is in excellent condition as well. I can't find a single sign of wear on them. My tailor was quite impressed with the fabric and workmanship.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

What era is this suit from?

bk