turned up or finished plain?

[DD MacDonald]

Turned-up or finished plain, trousers, that is.

I have a wonderful friend who shares many of the same tastes as my own. It is always interesting to see how far our choices go in parallel and when they diverge.

The finishing of trousers is one example. Whereas I invariably opt for a turned-up cuff on the trousers for a suit, my friend always has them finished sans cuff. Whereas I almost never cuff a pair of cordourys, my friend's style is to do so. I cuff for business and keep plain for casual. My friend's protocol is reversed.

There is nothing right or wrong in this to me. I grew up in Chicago and a deep cuff always seemed derigeur on my father's suits from Stricklands. My friend grew up on the East Coast by way of London and plain finished trousers furnished by Anderson & Sheppard were his father's style.

I'm curious as to the habits of the Lounge.

DDM

[manton]

Cuffs on everything but formal clothes, and cloth so heavy it can't easily be cuffed.

[dopey]

Same as Manton, although I occasionally finish plain front casual trousers without cuffs even if the cloth is not that heavy. I have yet to get a suit without cuffed trousers (not counting a tuxedo) and don’t see myself doing so anytime soon. Like you, I do not think their is anything inherently right or wrong about doing it either way.

[Concordia]

Like Manton, I prefer cuffs except where forbidden.

But one could easily do without and not do wrong.

[Costi]

I favour plain finished trousers for city / business suits, even DB (goes without saying for formal wear) and cuffed for odd trousers and more casual wear, except heavy fabrics. I usually have my uncuffed trousers cut slightly slanted to minimize break in front but have the back touch the heel. Cuffed trousers worn shorter, just touching the shoe, preferrably hanging from braces.
I guess I go along the same coordinates as your wonderful friend's, MacDonald.
Do you think that unusually tall or short people are better off with one style rather than the other, as we often see suggested?

[TVD]

I love turn-ups. Deep ones. Other than morning suit, evening dress and dinner jacket I get them on everything.

However, theoretically speaking, this is incorrect. I recall an old friend of my grandfather who would never ever wear turn-ups other than in the country. Even his flannel trousers for town were straight. To him, a turn-up was not so much informal, but rather rustic. Obviously, he was right in the sense that turn-ups originated in the mud of the countryside.

Today, that distinction is all but dead, I feel. But it should be remembered that the turn-up can never fit the boot / shoe as snuggly as a trouser leg without it.

[RWS]

The camp of "less is more" will find me in it. Turn-ups do look rustic (more appropriate, here, than "casual") to me, too; and so I generally have my trousers hang straight and true but will wear turn-ups on many odd pairs (not, however, blue jeans!).

[dopey]

The camp of "less is more" will find me in it. Turn-ups do look rustic (more appropriate, here, than "casual") to me, too; and so I generally have my trousers hang straight and true but will wear turn-ups on many odd pairs (not, however, blue jeans!).

You have convinced me to try a plain hem (slanted, of course) on my next pair of hard finish suit trousers.

[Cantabrigian]

Has anyone gotten cuffs on trousers finished on a slant?

I don't much care for a full break but would like my trousers to end a bit closer to the welt of my shoes in the back. I do prefer cuffs myself and am wondering if I could have the best of all possible worlds here.

[Concordia]

It can be done, but can look odd. Ask the guy who would try it for you.

Personally, I think part of the charm of cuffs is a more-horizontal line at the ankle. Making a virtue of necessity, perhaps.

[RWS]

Has anyone gotten cuffs on trousers finished on a slant? . . . .

I've tried it, more than once; Concordia's right: it looks odd (feels okay, though).

[TVD]

Slanted turn-ups: Poole do not like to do it, my Prague tailor messes it up. His old, sadly retired cutter was a master of it: the secret is to use a slight slant only, and unstitch the two halves of the trouser leg at the seam and then handsow the bits into place to avoid tension. A nightmare, but he loved this as a tour de force of his skill. If you did not know what had been done, it was imperceptible, but looked better than a straight turn-up.

Until you find a tailor who prides himself on doing it, one to be avoided. Too high risk.

[Costi]

I think (originally "rustic", yes) turn-up trousers have become just as "casual" as tweed jackets worn in the city on weekends. As ever fewer gentlemen actually own countryside residences or spend much time in rural environments, what used to be worn exclusively in the country is nowadays accepted in the city on "casual" occasions.
A longer, slanted but cuffed trouser leg, besides the frequent inherrent creasing of the cuff due to a bias fold, sounds much like a paradox to me: as TVD correctly pointed out, turn-ups undoubtedly originated in the practical necessity to raise the trouser hem above the shoe level in order to protect it from getting dirty on muddy/dusty country roads; hence the manner of wearing cuffed trousers (sometimes very) short, practically one turn-up depth (3,5-4 cm) short of a full-length plain hem trouser leg, and consequently with zero break. To lengthen and then slant (to counteract the lengthening) this initially shortened, turned-up trouser leg is too much a procustean operation for my taste.
It is thus apparent why cuffed trousers (worn short like this) would look inappropriate (from a purist point of view) with city or (God forbid!) formal wear. But this is all history and we all know how styles distil these basic elements into delightfully elegant heresies.

[BenedictSpinola]

I have a general preference for suit trousers without turn-ups, unless the suit is tweed.