How wide do you like your leg opening on dress trousers?

[Nobilis Animus]

Let's assume that the shoe sizes and heights of forum users are normally distributed. In the US according to the Google, the average shoe size is 10.5 and average height is 5'9". About 80% of users take a 7" to 8" leg opening. This leads me to believe that shoe size is unrelated to leg opening or there is a multiplier between maybe 0.75 and 1 for most shoe sizes. What say you people?

It could also mean that most people are wearing leg openings which are sub-optimal for their shoe size.

I once knew an old Italian tailor who took one look at me in his shop after I told him I wanted a classic proportion and immediately rattled off the exact measurements I just posted, including my inseam. I already knew to ask for them, but that's just further confirmation they were correct - to my mind.

 

[An Acute Style]

Do you mean normatively or descriptively? Meaning, that it's true that there should be no relationship between leg opening and shoe size, or that there is, in practice, no relationship?

I think most guys look best with a leg opening of either 20 or 21cm. I also assume some normal distribution for shoe size, weight, and height.

I do not think leg opening preference is tied to shoe size. I agree that 19 to 21 cm is about the sweet spot for almost all shoe sizes. If there is a correlation, the multiplier increases/decreases gradually from shoe size to shoe size.

 

[An Acute Style]

It could also mean that most people are wearing leg openings which are sub-optimal for their shoe size.

I once knew an old Italian tailor who took one look at me in his shop after I told him I wanted a classic proportion and immediately rattled off the exact measurements I just posted, including my inseam. I already knew to ask for them, but that's just further confirmation they were correct - to my mind.

I don't disagree personally, but optimal when it comes to style is in the eye of the beholder. We can say, optimal or not, people prefer what they prefer and it appears to not be correlated with shoes size like many have presumed.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

I do not think leg opening preference is tied to shoe size. I agree that 19 to 21 cm is about the sweet spot for almost all shoe sizes. If there is a correlation, the multiplier increases/decreases gradually from shoe size to shoe size.

Height is probably a better determinant. If you're short, a larger leg opening will only make you dumpier.

Edit to the above: They may be adjusting for the height factor too, rather than the shoe size. It's a trade when one is both not particularly tall and has biggish feet. We're also assuming proper foot sizing, which may not be accurate. There's a weird tendency for modern men to want larger shoes.

 

[dieworkwear]

I do not think leg opening preference is tied to shoe size. I agree that 19 to 21 cm is about the sweet spot for almost all shoe sizes. If there is a correlation, the multiplier increases/decreases gradually from shoe size to shoe size.

Yes, I think we're in agreement. I don't think leg opening has much to do with shoe size, and in any case, shoe size doesn't always tell you the actual length of the shoe. Some shoes are longer than others for stylistic effect, and the difference in length can be greater than what's reflected between shoe sizes. I think it's best to just go by your eye.

Guys who wear Alden in size 8 will have a very different silhouette than someone who favors Gaziano & Girling.

Alan Flusser once wrote some rule about a shoe covering 2/3rds of your shoe. I like his writing, but thought that was one of the more outdated ideas.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

I like to take several things into account with hem width.

1) What will fit around my calves. I simply can't wear narrower than 8 inches.

2) Fabric. Something that drapes neatly, like flannel, hits a shoe nicely with a wider opening. Even around 9 inches can look good. I normally don't do 9, but it can look good. Corduroy and other cottons don't drape so cleanly and look better with a narrower opening if you want a clean look. If you don't mind fabric flopping about at the bottom, then 9 inches can be fine. You can also get them hemmed a bit shorter to prevent this flopping about. I don't mind this sort of fit with more casual ensembles. It's actually what I'm wearing now--6 wale cords from the Andover Shop.

3) Shoe chunkiness. Slim shoes look better with narrower hems. Chunkier shoes, like Aldens, do well with wider hems. I think it is important to remember that this was the context in which Aldens were designed. Those lasts weren't meant to go with slimmer trousers.

4) Body size. I have a slightly larger build. Fairly standard for the general population, but bigger than most guys on here. Smaller guys won't look as good with 9 inch hems as I do. You have to pay attention to proportions.

I think that overly narrow hems can be unflattering. I also think they can cause pants to drape less well. That picture of Andreas above would look more flattering with wider hems, IMO.

 

[AnGeLiCbOrIs]

You'd need some narrower options in the poll to cover what people are asking for these days.

 

[Stylewords]

I have seen many people post fits where the leg opening is too narrow. Can't remember seeing anyone with a leg opening that is too wide (let the debate abound on Alan Bee's trousers). For an average size man, a dress trouser opening of 8.25 to 8.75 inches (with a little margin either side) should be about right.

 

[thedose]

I also feel like the 7.5" majority per the vote are the trend-following hipsters, that are opting for those slim fit trousers (yuck). Yes, .5" does make a difference. Point being -- men should not wear slim fit womens trousers, nor yogapants.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I also feel like the 7.5" majority per the vote are the trend-following hipsters,

it’s really a matter of proportion rather than just arbitrary numbers. A 7.5” opening can look fine and none-hipster provided the rest of the trouser is cut normally.

 

[Torzano]

I remember trying the rivet chinos. They had a 7.5 leg opening on size 36. They weren’t for me. If you like very slim fit they work but I couldn’t imagine that leg opening on wool pants. There would be no drape.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I remember trying the rivet chinos. They had a 7.5 leg opening on size 36. They weren’t for me. If you like very slim fit they work but I couldn’t imagine that leg opening on wool pants. There would be no drape.

it depends on the wearer. Most of my wool slacks are 15” and I have plenty of drape and they don’t feel skin tight.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

This is where body proportions come into play. Narrowing a trouser leg too much when you have a larger waist looks comical, as does a wide opening on a 5'5" man. It's not enough to look at averages and then say this is how it should be; that's the same mentality that leads to the 'drop 6' in RTW suits.

I think Alan Flusser was spot on - covering 2/3rds of the top of one's shoes is a good rule of thumb that can be adjusted. Following a trend for narrower trousers without paying attention to one's own height and shoe size is what leads to the clown-foot:





Whereas too wide of an opening can have the effect of looking squat and dumpy:





What's a good example of the middle way?

This is close:



People have to play to their strengths.

 

[thedose]

I am 5'6" @ 140lbs and I cannot do anything below 8".... I've tried as low as 6.5", and that was horrendous (hello SuitSupply).

From personal experience -- I've found that anything under 8" is hipster/women's slim fit yogapants, and has absolutely NO drape, the trousers stick to the calves, as @Nobilis Animus has shown above on images 1 and 2, and IMO that look is NOT stylish!

Unless you have pencil-legs, I cannot muster how ANYONE can justifiably wear 7 or even 7.5" hems with a proper drape. Now, if you are of the type that prefers the trousers to stick to your calves, then this discussion is over. I am talking about a drape similar to the one that Vox has, again, in @Nobilis Animus last picture.

 

[An Acute Style]

I think Alan Flusser was spot on - covering 2/3rds of the top of one's shoes is a good rule of thumb that can be adjusted.

Which of these is closest to covering 2/3 of the shoe? Ethan's stance does not show off how well the pants fit. I like the way they look.

You guys... I found this poll interesting in that assuming a normal distributions of heights, waists, and shoes sizes, almost everyone prefers a similar leg opening of 7" to 8".

Whose to say they all look great? Whose to say that any of us look great? But that's what the people want. Clearly, what works or does not work for you may or may not work for others. Head over to a WAYWRN thread to post your outfits and see outfits with different leg openings. We need more data.

Lastly, if you're looking for ill fitting trousers, you will find them at every leg opening width. Similarly, you can probably find well fitting trousers at every leg opening width if you search hard enough. There are people with 7.5" leg openings and a nice drape.