Trouser Leg Opening Size: What Range is Acceptable, How You Should Decide

[VRaivio]

unbelragazzo, your leg opening should be in accord with the girth of your ankles. Judging by your measures, I'd say yours are on the slimmer side of spectrum. You'll have to find a harmony between thinner ankles and bigger feet, as tapered trouser ankles and big feet cause the 'mafoofan effect'. Or so it seems, I don't know his shoe size.

 

[unbelragazzo]

Why necessarily in accord with the girth of ankles? If the pants break over the shoe, ankles are hardly ever seen. And even if so, the bagginess of a 10" opening isn't so excessive as to seem ridiculous even over a slender ankle. This, by contrast, looks ridiculous to me. This gent is apparently well known for such a look, or at least the suitorial blog from whence this image comes claims so, but for me personally, I just can't stomach it. Do I just have bad taste and everybody else loves this?

 

[TonyThe Tailor]

With the current style trends, I go by Shoe size + 6.5 - 7 for Flat Fronts and +7.5 - 8 on Pleated.

 

[unbelragazzo]



With the current style trends, I go by Shoe size + 6.5 - 7 for Flat Fronts and +7.5 - 8 on Pleated.

I assume this is total diameter? So for my 11.5 shoes and flat front pants, this would be ~17", or 8.5" measured across when laid flat?

 

[bmf895]



With the current style trends, I go by Shoe size + 6.5 - 7 for Flat Fronts and +7.5 - 8 on Pleated.

This formula seems to work in my case:

8.5 (shoe size) + 7 = 15.5 / 2 = 7.75

 

[bmf895]



I assume this is total diameter? So for my 11.5 shoes and flat front pants, this would be ~17", or 8.5" measured across when laid flat?

I think you mean circumference or when laid flat, diameter x 2. But you've got the idea.

 

[unbelragazzo]

Sorry, yes, you got my meaning, thank you.

 

[Parker]

2/3 of the shoe length is the traditional rule. But, do whatever looks proportionate to your body and looks good with a jacket.

 

[VRaivio]

unbelragazzo: I go for harmony of proportions. 10'' might work for others, but my ankles are as slender as they come. On the picture you linked, I only see ugliness in that Ignatius Joseph fellow's trous.

 

[lincolnshirepaul]



Why necessarily in accord with the girth of ankles? If the pants break over the shoe, ankles are hardly ever seen. And even if so, the bagginess of a 10" opening isn't so excessive as to seem ridiculous even over a slender ankle. This, by contrast, looks ridiculous to me. This gent is apparently well known for such a look, or at least the suitorial blog from whence this image comes claims so, but for me personally, I just can't stomach it. Do I just have bad taste and everybody else loves this?

Bloke on the right - fail. If he lengthened his trousers and bought smaller shoes in a more subtle colour, he would look 1000x better.

 

[Mr Engineer]

With the current style trends, I go by Shoe size + 6.5 - 7 for Flat Fronts and +7.5 - 8 on Pleated.

Interesting........

 

[EBugatti]

Actually, trouser leg opening is proportional to waist size. If you have a larger waist, a larger opening is going to look more proportionate all other things equal (assuming you yourself are proportionate, so if you are short and stocky, have huge feet, have a pot belly, etc. then the rule might not hold as well).

Therefore, to me if you have a 34 waist you should have a 7.75 pant leg opening, 36 has an 8.0 and then scale accordingly.

 

[papa kot]

I would say that the overall geometry of the upper body, not just the waist, is a good reference point.

If you are build or have a heavier top, then slim pants may look a bit silly even if somehow they fit in the waist. Thus, you probably want pants that are on the straight/wider side. Wider pans call for more break and, in my opinion, shoes that have a more geometrically pronounced toe.

 

[dieworkwear]

Traditionally, a man's leg opening is proportional to his shoe size, and his shoe size is proportional to ...

 

[papa kot]

Traditionally, a man's leg opening is proportional to his shoe size, and his shoe size is proportional to ...

... the size of his foot?