Hi guys,
I'm of a pretty tall and thin build, and so I often have to sacrifice cuffs on my vintage suit trousers in order to extend the inseam to a serviceable length. As much as this bothers me sometimes (I like the look of cuffed trousers), I generally prefer a wearable suit to an unwearable one.
Sometimes however, I'm faced with a conundrum. I refer to those times when the trousers could be made to fit while keeping a cuff, but at the expense of the rise. When faced with this problem, I have to choose between being able to hike the pants up as far as they will go (which is good) or keeping cuffs (also good).
I'm curious as to what you all think. Are cuffs worth the sacrifice? How many vintage suits do you see without cuffs, and what is your opinion on their effectiveness? To clarify, these are full-legged, double forward-pleated, high-rise trousers I'm talking about.
Thanks!
I'm of a pretty tall and thin build, and so I often have to sacrifice cuffs on my vintage suit trousers in order to extend the inseam to a serviceable length. As much as this bothers me sometimes (I like the look of cuffed trousers), I generally prefer a wearable suit to an unwearable one.
Sometimes however, I'm faced with a conundrum. I refer to those times when the trousers could be made to fit while keeping a cuff, but at the expense of the rise. When faced with this problem, I have to choose between being able to hike the pants up as far as they will go (which is good) or keeping cuffs (also good).
I'm curious as to what you all think. Are cuffs worth the sacrifice? How many vintage suits do you see without cuffs, and what is your opinion on their effectiveness? To clarify, these are full-legged, double forward-pleated, high-rise trousers I'm talking about.
Thanks!
Last edited: