A Break from the Ordinary

All good things must come to an end, and trousers are no exception.

Somewhere near the ankle, the pants must end. There a few practical reasons for this, the most important one being that the pants can’t have an infinite length and have to end somewhere. Second, the pants can’t be too long or they’d interfere with walking and other ordinary activities.

Exactly where the pants end is a real compromise. On one hand, there is the desire to have pants that are long enough and actually cover the ankle, and, on the other, there is the desire to keep the pants neatly draped and out of the way.

American tradition prefers that, for cuffed trousers, the hem rest gently on the top of the shoe with no “break,” or wrinkling in the pants. For uncuffed trousers, the hem is cut slightly longer in the back (to cover the ankle better), and there is a slight break. This breaks (PUN!) from European tradition, which favors no break at all.

For the past fifteen years or so, very long pants have been favored. Men often wear pants that have considerable bunching at the ankle, even in the back. This is not just a slight “break.” This is wholesale wrinkling and scrunching of the trouser material. The even drape of the pants is completely ruined for the last 6 inches of the trouser leg. This is possible thanks to tapered pants; pants with a wide ankle opening would interfere with walking if the pants were cut too long.

Perhaps you are wondering what’s wrong with pants that are too long. You might point out the advantage that, if the ankle is narrow enough, the trouser material does not interfere with walking and the high-water problem is completely avoided. I, on the other hand really think that the excess length looks sloppy. The bunching of the fabric around the ankles creates this awkward juxtaposition of wide and narrow. It reminds me of the 80′s exercise girl look with the scrunched up leg warmers.

For another thing, a short man does himself a disservice to wear his pants bunched around his ankles. The bunching shortens the apparent length of the leg: instead of being one, long, uniform rectangle of trouser, it is a slightly shorter rectangle with another segment beneath it–divide and conquer is how one decreases apparent length, which is why vertical stripes de-emphasize width. For the man who is so tall and narrow that he wishes to de-emphasize his length, he’d probably be lucky to find excessively long pants anyway, so for him excessively long pants are a non-issue.

Admittedly, the opposite problem, high-waters, pants of inadequate length, are an extreme to be avoided as well. Steve Urkel, nerd icon of the 90′s sitcom Family Matters, wore high-waters that were a salient feature of the caricature. Generally speaking, a man’s socks should not be visible when he is standing in still air. That said, I have noticed some fashion-forward men having higher hems. Indeed, such a look was popular in the 20′s, especially among men displaying their spats. Of course, now men are displaying their hairless ankles and sock tan lines, the diametric opposite of spats. I admire these men for breaking (PUN!) from the slouchy, baggy look. I can’t say that I’m going to sport the highwaters, but I appreciate the change in direction.

Here are some pictures that I took for demonstration:

Too Much Break

Too Little Break

This picture reserved for Goldilocks

Advertisement