Trouser/Pants Leg Length History Lesson

[theinterchange]

Watching movies, and looking at photos from the Golden Era even up to the 1970's and they were mostly what folks today would term "high waters".

My question is this, when/why exactly did we start wearing pants that had legs so long they bunch up around our ankles?

Randy

P.S forgive me if this has been covered.

 

[Rathko]

I assume you're talking about dress trousers rather than jeans. I think most people with half a clue make sure their trousers are the right length - slight break when cuffless; no break when cuffed. The only people I see wearing them overly long are teenagers going to their part-time job stocking supermarket shelves or young adults in telesales. Either way, it's the product of ignorance rather than intent.

 

[skyvue]

I see lots of cuffed trousers now that are way too long, but I suspect it's ignorance, not personal choice. Many folks don't seem to know there's a difference (or should be) in the length of cuffed and uncuffed trousers.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



When did it become really typical? That's easy: the 1970s. (I remember! )


.

 

[MrBern]

Before pavement, didnt a lot of men wear their pants a tad short to avoid the mud & horse manure from soaking into the trousers?
I think thats where turn-ups /cuffed trousers developed. Rolling up the trou to avoid soil.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Good question, the prevailing mid-nineteenth century fashion for trousers - flared knee, tapered ankle, and a prodigious break - hardly seem practical for walking in muddy streets. Although I bet those narrow ankles came in handy when tucking pants into the boots before heading out the door!

Before pavement, didnt a lot of men wear their pants a tad short to avoid the mud & horse manure from soaking into the trousers?
I think thats where turn-ups /cuffed trousers developed. Rolling up the trou to avoid soil.

 

[theinterchange]

I assume you're talking about dress trousers rather than jeans. I think most people with half a clue make sure their trousers are the right length - slight break when cuffless; no break when cuffed. The only people I see wearing them overly long are teenagers going to their part-time job stocking supermarket shelves or young adults in telesales. Either way, it's the product of ignorance rather than intent.

I meant long pants in general.

Marc Chevalier, I would speculate mid to later 70's, right?

 

[reetpleat]

I don't recall that from the seventies. Flared legs would not really work long. but they did kind of cover the shoes, so i guess that is long, but not bunched up.

I remember in the 80s when fashion swing towards tapered legs again, there was a trend of pleated with narrow cuffs, and bagging down at the shin and ankle.

 

[flat-top]

I remember in the 80s when fashion swing towards tapered legs again, there was a trend of pleated with narrow cuffs, and bagging down at the shin and ankle.

Cavariccis anyone?

 

[davestlouis]

Lord have mercy flat top, those are horrible. I was a teenager in the 80s and we all wore our pants too long. Had a friend who thought he was a fashion plate, wore a lot of clothes from a brand called "genera", although I'm not sure of the spelling. Reminds me of that pic you posted.

Anyway, I work with several men whose suit pants drag the ground, so the back of the cuff gets frayed...not a good look.

When I look at 60s pictures, lots of pants that I think are too short. Even look at JFK, narrow legs, and short. In comparison, look at the 80s DB suite with wide legs...those were worn much longer.

I have to imagine that the width of the pants leg has a bearing on the appropriate length too...

 

[Artie]

People don't know the difference in fit between dress pants and jeans. So guy X goes to target to buy a pair of "dress" pants he buys them in the same size as his jeans. He then proceeds to wear them at the hip like his jeans instead of the waist so they bunch up on his shoes.

 

[Mario]

Fresh from the 'Bay: really nice 30's highwaisted pants presented in a...well...somewhat peculiar fashion...

 

[Tailor Tom]

My thoughts...

People don't know the difference in fit between dress pants and jeans. So guy X goes to target to buy a pair of "dress" pants he buys them in the same size as his jeans. He then proceeds to wear them at the hip like his jeans instead of the waist so they bunch up on his shoes.

I believe Artie has hit on part of the problem, that of where a person wears a dress trouser. Now that I am in my 3rd decade of tailoring, I have seen it all. I have had to train many a young gentleman in how to wear his trousers and suits too. Namely, pulling them up higher. Most times it is the first time he has been actually instructed how to wear garments (I have also had to teach many a young many how to tie a tie) Granted, the rise on most trousers has been reduced over the years, as has the entire fit changed. So holding a modern garment to older standards is not a fair comparison.

On what length is appropriate, I always believes that is an individuals choice. I also try to steer clients towards what works with their stature and the garment in question. A shorter gentleman with very short trousers looks out of place, just as a tall man in trousers overtly long does. The width of the pant leg is considered too. A narrow trouser simply won't drape well over a shoe. I also take into consideration what the garment will be used for....if he is sitting versus standing, etc. (I still remember an old Tonight Show with Ed MacMahon sitting next to Johnny with half of his shin exposed to million across the nation.)

Personally I like a fuller break on my trousers. If I am ever concerned about them rubbing on shoes and soiling due to wax, I simply have heal guards installed.

 

[Selvaggio]

So Tailor Tom, you don't suscribe to the cuffed-no-break dictum? Particularly on the shorter legged gentleman? I have a, ahem, friend who has pretty short, somewhat stubby legs, and he has recently been thinking all his trousers are too long. Maybe not afterall.

 

[JimWagner]

I really can't speak to cuffed trousers as I haven't owned a pair since about 1963. But as a teenager I was taught by my father that dress pants should fall to where the sole meets the uppers at the heel without break, and have maybe a 1/2 inch break in front. This actually makes them a little longer at the back than the front.

He also taught me that about 1/2 inch of shirt cuff should show beneath suit coat sleeves. And that no shirt should show between the vest and trousers when standing straight. (Oh yeah - Stand Straight!)

 

[sproily]

Fresh from the 'Bay: really nice 30's highwaisted pants presented in a...well...somewhat peculiar fashion...

I was looking at those.. They are almost exactly the same as the ones I have.

 

[Tango Yankee]

I see lots of cuffed trousers now that are way too long, but I suspect it's ignorance, not personal choice. Many folks don't seem to know there's a difference (or should be) in the length of cuffed and uncuffed trousers.

I'd say that's true. After retiring from the USAF I needed civilian suits and business casual outfits for job hunting and work. I didn't have a lot of money so went to a couple of chain stores (not Jos. A. Bank) to buy them. I found that the tailors at those establishments seemed to think that the bottom of the trouser legs should end in puddles.

The last time I bought dress trousers I bought them online and took them to a tailor for alterations. That worked out much better! Of course, by then I was a bit clearer on what I wanted, but still hadn't heard the no-break for trousers with cuffs bit. I also tend to buy trousers in the "long" size to get a higher rise as I have short legs but a long torso. Well, now it's more round than long, but still. lol

Regards,
Tom

 

[Drew B]

Most of my pants are shortish but my favourite pair are long and baggy. but they tend to fit perfectly on the top of my shoe and never get dirty or anything.... i love them

just my 2c,
Cheers,
Drew.

 

[Tailor Tom]

So Tailor Tom, you don't suscribe to the cuffed-no-break dictum? Particularly on the shorter legged gentleman? I have a, ahem, friend who has pretty short, somewhat stubby legs, and he has recently been thinking all his trousers are too long. Maybe not afterall.

I personally think that cuffed trousers on men of shorter stature is a def no-no. The cuff cuts a man off visually, making his legs look even shorter, and out of proportion to the rest of his body.

and to JimWagner: I like your dad already....I think he gave you great advice !

 

[Mario]

I was looking at those.. They are almost exactly the same as the ones I have.

I didn't bid in the end because I thought that the asked price was a bid too high for me given all the other purchases I did this month and my therefore slightly unbalanced budget...