The London Lounge

The following quote is from Savile Row Style Magazine Spring 2010 edition, relating to Anderson and Sheppard ...and how they cut their trousers.
http://www.savilerow-style.com/issue018/style04.htm

“And while the business will always be about style rather fashion, it moves with the times. Among the recent trends that shop manager Colin Heywood reports is a ‘more modern look’ with trousers.If you look back in years, all of our trousers would have had a pleated front,” he says. “Now a lot of younger guys want flat fronted trousers with a slimmer cut.

“The total circumference used to be 21 inches at the knee and 18 inches at the bottom. That has changed to 20 inches and 17 inches (respectively) and occasionally 19 inches at the knee and 16 inches at the bottom, which gives a very tapered look.

I was wondering how common it is to have bottoms finished to 17''. I see a lot of men in suits around Savile Row and Jermyn street who do seem to favour a lot of taper. However, it's difficult to know if these are 18'' bottoms, but with an exaggerated taper visually suggested with more fullness at the tops. My friend ordered a suit at Henry Poole and they recommended 17'' bottoms to him, off the bat, despite him being a hefty chap. So, I was wondering if 17'' bottoms are a common preference, or the exception? Also, if one were to go with 17'' bottoms, what size of turn up would be pleasing to the eye? thanks, Rowly.

Rowly, the answer may well depend on additional personal factors besides height and weight as evaluated by the tailor. For example, I'm just under six feet and slim; I could easily wear a 17" bottom if I liked the look in general, but I have long narrow feet (US 12A), and that narrow a trouser bottom would disproportionately emphasize my feet. Poole gave me a 21" knee and 18" bottom, which by coincidence is what I had specified (and continue to) for my MTM trousers, whether plain front or pleated (waist 30.5", seat 38' 3/4", thigh 24 1/2" at 4 inches below the fork, outseam 43 3/4", rise 11"--for context). Of course the present fashion moment favors extended toes on shoes, so some may not mind this effect. A man with very large calves might also not look best in trousers with very narrow bottoms; the extra room might be needed for them to hang properly.

A heavy man with moderate or small feet might well look good in trousers with a pronounced taper, presuming they were cut well to hang with a good line.

Surely, having pre-defined numbers for the knee and bottom is like saying everyone should have 33-inch trousers? Wouldn't this most definitely depend on the height, weight and size of the client?

My tailor told me the trouser leg opening should be around half of the size of the foot. That's just his opinion, I wanted to go one inch smaller, but I trusted him for now. Yet to collect my suit.

It sounds to me that A&S are not predetermining what customers should have, but are instead commenting on the trend in cut, based on the wishes of many of their clients. Of course we are all different shapes and sizes...but the quotation made me wonder whether 18'' bottoms are considered a default, or if many prefer a more narrow bottom. I'm just curious to know what's going on in the bespoke world. Each person will have their personal requirements...but the tailor, who deals with many clients, is well placed to notice any trends.Would you not agree?

Rowly

There are no general rules for the width of the trouser bottom but many tailors do start at 18 inches and move from there depending on the client’s physique or wishes.

As regards the quote from A&S, I think the style standard has always been for tapered trousers. In this regards it is not a trend. Just because a man has his clothes made by a tailor does not mean he has a notion of style. Many men have baggy pantaloons made for them while others choose skin tight silos of cloth that preclude walking in them. Tailored clothes are no guarantee of style, you are the guarantor.

The question is not as much “how much” taper as it is “what kind of taper?” If you start your investigation at the bottom of the trouser or the knee you’ve got things turned around. The taper starts and is determined by what goes on at the waist and hips.

Now a lot of younger guys want flat fronted trousers with a slimmer cut.

If a trouser is very trim at the top end how can it taper? If you look closely you will find that very narrow tops on trousers lead to a look of greater width at the bottom because there is a limit as too how small a bottom can be made and still be wearable. So a narrow top trouser winds up looking more like a silo and less like a cone, a look with little style.

Anthony Sinclair cut very slim clothes for Sean Connery in the 60s. This is about as slim a trouser can get while maintaining an elegant taper or what we call “line.”



Try to imagine Sinclair’s trouser with a jeans-like adherence at the waist and hips and you will see the bottoms of the trouser suddenly appear bigger.

Pleats are helpful to the extent that they give us width up top from which to taper and comfort without appearing too wide. For a non pleated trouser to provide the same width and comfort it would have to be too wide and too much width is inelegant. (Many Italian tailors I know refuse to even make non pleated trousers for this reason.)

A few members have asked me if the trousers in the following photo have pleats. They do. The trouser is in fact quite slim as slim as the Sinclair model. It tapers to a bottom of 17 inches from an ample measure at the hips.



Remember that your hips are covered by your jacket or coat. If you think the amount of width necessary to generate an elegant line is outdated and not sufficiently skin tight, you will be reassured to know that in practical terms, no one sees your hips. (Sports trousers meant for wear in summer without a coat can be made more jeans-like but they will never have the allure of a well tapered trouser.)

Cheers

M Alden

One way to make non-pleated trousers that are wide enough at the hips to allow for a shaping taper is to replace the pleats with darts (one per leg), the same way it is done at the back. The thigh size can be almost the same as on a pleated trouser, while the darts ensure a smooth transition to the waist the same way pleats do. All my cords and moleskines are made like that and it works best on high-waisted beltless trousers, as it helps the top part hug the waist better than a jeans-like cut.

Michael, the tapered look in your photo is exactly the look I am referring to.

From one of my first posts...( I have since graduated from extremely inexperienced to quite inexperienced )

My tailor still insists on making the trousers full enough at the top to allow a tapering on the way down to finish with 18'' bottoms. He showed me how he brings them in at the waist using darts all around, so as to keep a nice shape. He still thinks a certain amount of fullness is required at the thigh, for the suit to look elegant.

I have tried various permutations and as I have gained experience, I have moved from thinking my tailor's fullness was too full....to now wondering should it be fuller. Given that I have a 34'' waist, do you think that that will provide enough fullness for a taper to 17''?
Also, I like a single reverse pleat...can the effect be achieved with this...and finally, given a 17'' bottom, what size of turnups look best? Your photo is exactly the look I'm hoping to achieve. To my eye, it looks extremely smart as well as being extremely stylish. Thanks, Rowly..

One way to make non-pleated trousers that are wide enough at the hips to allow for a shaping taper is to replace the pleats with darts (one per leg), the same way it is done at the back. The thigh size can be almost the same as on a pleated trouser, while the darts ensure a smooth transition to the waist the same way pleats do. All my cords and moleskins are made like that and it works best on high-waisted beltless trousers, as it helps the top part hug the waist better than a jeans-like cut.

Absolutely correct. You have a very good tailor. Who has the patience to make things like this anymore?

Michael