Full-legged trousers

[Cary Grant]

In your opinion, can the classic, 1930's-40's era full leg trouser be pulled off today?

I'm 6'2" and slender. My tailor says "absolutely" it could work.

Anybody here currently sport this look?

[RWS]

I'm 6'1" and slender. I like the look in the abstract but don't seem able to pull it off well: a slight taper from around the knee works better.

[mmkn2]

Anybody here currently sport this look?

I like the look.

Although I am 6' 1", I have the reverse trunk/leg proportions that would do this look well (i.e., I have a longer trunk and shorter legs).

The look is also more adventurous than its tapered brother, adventurous in the sense that there's a very small margin of error before crossing over from classic clothing to fashionland.

- M

[alden]

Mr Grant

If you are tall and slender you can follow yours truly and wear trousers like the one pictured above. The best cut is very full up top and then tapered. They are as chic as they are comfortable and that's a combination that's tough to refuse.

Cheers

[masterfred]

I'm 6'1" and slender. I like the look in the abstract but don't seem able to pull it off well: a slight taper from around the knee works better.

I too find it an attractive look "in the abstract" but agree that for even a tall slender man that a gradual taper of perhaps 2-3" from the knee makes for a bit more refined line....although the very full cut does have a relaxed chic.

[alden]

Trouser cone or cylinder?

Surely all trouser cuts contain some amount of taper, but some wind up cone or cylinder shaped. Take a look at the two trousers below:





Astaire’s trouser is a cone shape, ample at the waist and thigh and tapered to the cuff.

The second dandy is wearing a trouser whose waist and thigh is more form fitted and narrow. There is nowhere to taper so the trouser winds up with a more cylinder shape.

The first choice has comfort and line and you have to like winning that daily double!

Cheers

M Alden

[Greger]

Style, fashion and taste. Style is db or sb whether body coats or "sack" costs or overcoats and etc. Fashons are the details such as longer or shorter lenghts, pointed lapels or regular or shawl, loose fitting to close fitting, straight or tapered, cuffs narrow to wide, and so on. Taste is pulling it all together so it looks terrific on that person. Taste is where some of the best cutters shine. They go the extra step.Taste only shows up in rtw and mtm by luck, while tailored, the fine details can be adjusted at the fittings. Fashions are not all bad. Even some of the extreme ones are unique, but many are crazy. When you go with average fashion then you are always in "style". The extreme fashions only last a short while, but can be fun. Pulling out an old fashion, that hasn't come back yet, or again, you may get away with. And, if it is "tailored" correctly (taste) it will look great. Whether the general public is ready for it or not can only be found out when worn in public.

[Cary Grant]

Thanks for the prompt and helpful feedback.

I've even thought of going the whole nine yards and getting the fishback/tail, etc.

Is it feasible that these could also be flat-fronted?

[Greger]

If you are going to do it, then fish tail is the way to go.

There is an elegance you can not beat without braces.

[RWS]

. . . . these could also be flat-fronted?

Of course!

[Jordan Marc]

Rather than the tapered and cylindrical approaches to wide-legged trousers, there is another version which involves a slight flare below the knee. Example: If the trousers have a cylindrical drop to the knee of, say, 19 inches, they flare to 20 inches at the bottom. It's almost imperceptible but oh so elegant. It's a cut that Bernard Weatherill favored for men and women who stand with a hyperlock, where the leg below the knee bows backward. There's more to it than a straight cut. The back half of the trouser legs are chalked with a slightly curved pattern form. For those of us who are tall and have large feet (over 6 feet and bigger than 12s), this variation on a straight-legged theme looks wonderful if the trousers are high rise, braced, and hemmed with 2-inch turn-ups that break slightly just behind the caps of your oxfords and slant down to just above your heels. Even if you're not so tall but stand bowbacked, the flared variation works just as well.

JMB

[yachtie]

That's pretty close to the cut I wear. I loathe "pegged" trousers. ( They are not for those of us with large feet)

[Cary Grant]

Interesting point, Yachtie. I tend to opt for tapered legs but have 11.5 shoes... albeit b width (aka "skis")

[MildlyConsumptiv]

Interesting point, Yachtie. I tend to opt for tapered legs but have 11.5 shoes... albeit b width (aka "skis")

I'm 5'11.5", slim and am around a 11.5. For trousers, I've settled on 21 inches at the knee tapering to 19 inches at the ankle. I think anything less makes the shoes stick out.

I consider it a full cut, but if they're fitted properly they don't look particularly full. They certainly don't flop around when I walk like the fellow's trousers in the illustration.

[Costi]

Anybody here currently sport this look?

As Mr. Alden testifies, the full cut is very comfortable. I also prefer the look of draped cloth over my thighs (as opposed to cloth clinging to them in the low-rise, belted version). The legs have a slight taper, from the waist to the knee and on to the hem, without being too narrow down. The length is just above the shoe, with a very slight break (if any).
If you could pull off the look? - as your tailor said: "absolutely"! The only drawback is that, once you have worn a pair of trousers cut like this, you will never want to wear any of the old, low-rise, narrow leg trousers in your wardrobe...