The London Lounge

Alden writes of thigh stranglers and espouses a wider leg trouser.

My trousers are right about 44cm circumference at the cuff.

What would the measurement be of a pair of trousers pictured above?

While undoubtedly comfortable, could such wide trousers be worn today?

I have a pair of Linen trousers that look quite similar. They are cut very high and (of course) do have side adjusters instead of belt loops. They drape wonderfully.

http://www.manufactum.de/group/172345/d ... 773.0.html


RichardS

I think it’s not so much the cuff (hem) measure that appears larger in the picture, but rather the thigh and knee measure. The cuff cannot be too wide even with full-cut trousers (44 sounds reasonable, perhaps you could add 2 more if you fancy), because the trouser leg should taper in a bit at the cuff. The bottom measure should also be in relation to the person’s height and shoe size.
I don’t see why such trousers could not be worn nowadays (perhaps the fullness is just a bit exaggerated as it is a sketch, not a photograph); they look perfectly fine… if you have the stature of the gentleman pictured wearing them

Dear RichardS:
Thank you for the nice picture of the linen trousers I have been looking for something like that. I myself am a big fan of high a waist and full cut trousers, even when I was skinny as a kid. Today I use them to try to hide my well uh, much bigger stomach .

Best Regards,

Cufflink79