Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-06-11 04:23:13)

^ Yep.
I'm wearing my brown genuine grain ones. The stars of the show with just some simple Uniqlo khakis and a ditto navy sweat up top.


You're swamping them though Shooman with those large leg openings. Just my twopence.

Last edited by 1966 (2009-06-11 04:47:36)

I've noticed on a number of pics from the gentlemen of the forum that sometimes there appears to be a certain 'half mast' element to the length of the trousers. Patrick, for instance, favors a shorter leg length, I can see.
I wondered if this is maybe an Ivy thing?. I was always taught that trouser bottoms always rested on the top of the shoe heels. Now I know this would alter with rolled up chinos etc. but it would certainly apply to a dress or suit pant.
I have to be careful of this 'cos I have a short leg length and anything half mast and I would look like the stumpy, village idiot. What do you say chums?

Last edited by The Beatnik (2009-06-11 05:47:01)

I'm not tall with my 29" inseam but an 8" leg opening with the slightest break (the front just resting on the shoe) just looks ideal to me. No flapping fabric and lotsa shoe on display.

*Edit*

Yeah, what Moose said.

An exception to the rule: I don't mind my denim to be a bit longer.

Last edited by 1966 (2009-06-11 05:53:27)

Are we all short arses on this forum? I know I seem to spend a fortune on alterations.

Last edited by The Beatnik (2009-06-11 05:57:11)

Slight break/no break is not the same as half mast though, in my book. None of this exaggerated "Italian" ankle height for me. Simply fitting the length of the legs themselves makes sense.

Last edited by Alex Roest (2009-06-11 06:11:32)

Alex, you sentimental fool you. You remembered that 'plain English' remark... And I thought you didn't care!

Thrifting sack suits from the golden-age is instructive: even in regularly sized suits (as opposed to either 'short' or 'long') in what might be termed 'mainstream' sizes (say 40-44" chest) the trouser inseams rarely tend to be longer than a breathtaking 28". They wore their pants short in those times, make no mistake about it.

Personally I like a minimal break, but am probably not brave enough to go for the full-on display of the entire ankle. It can look very sharp on the right person: they have to be able to carry it with a degree of confidence and panache.

Last edited by Natural Sole Brother (2009-06-11 08:07:45)

The full-on Golden Ages thing can be great with the right accessories. Our very own Bandofoutsiders wears it well, I think: his eyewear and haircut always suit the look down to the ground.

Highwater pants can work well with really beautiful shoes. If the shoes are even slightly wrong the Village Idiot look is sadly unavoidable.

Last edited by Alex Roest (2009-06-11 08:06:04)

Too short always the right way to go, too long always a disaster. Worn exceptionally short with Clarks desert boots or chukkas, a little lower with a loafer or brogue, but always always always swinging above the shoe with no break. This is a core element in the Ivy Look. Wear them any other way and you're on the wrong forum.

GG