In the collections of almost the designers and not national, there is a ‘well-established tendency to shorten the hem of the pants and squeeze the bottom below the classical canons of good taste and elegance.

Now, beyond judgments of merit, I dwell on compare what was and what is. I do not cite any bibliographies or academic study, so either you trust or patience … until a few years ago it was said that the hem of the pants had to “lean” on the shoe to cover it up even for 2-3, and consequently the width of the bottom of the trousers was well in excess of 20 cm, just to allow the pants to cover the shoe. And I’m not referring to the 70s and fashionable pants “bell” but I place myself in this observation, in the mid 90s.

Today the concept of pants “tailoring” is, in my view, a bit ‘confused with pants “tight”. The fees would retain today (the conditional is a must) still some “dignity” and save exaltations of some “designer” is still the good old tailor, we recommend not to dare too much both in terms of length of the legs. At least mine is fond of saying so … with the addition “then you do …”, and that there wrong!

However, if we look at fashion magazines (look? Magazines? Old as I am!) The pants do not touch the shoe even more, even in the best of cases, the worst sfiora..nel also leaves a couple of inches of heavy stocking (when c ‘is) in the beautiful view.

2014-06-07 19.21.43milangvfq34 DSC00813 DSC00123 2014-07-13 17.07.03 ??????????????????????????????? IMG_4643 cropped-image11.jpg

In addition, the width of the bottom of the trousers down to the eye, and if, up until a couple of years ago a fund 17,50 / 18,00 cm was “ok” now seems likely off. In fact, needless to say, but now the bottom “sails” to 16 cm and have to be careful at night, when we ride pants, in that there is no one around, because the operation may become difficult and dangerous …

Now, I will not go into the merits, because if I say take off the pants becomes difficult is because I tried it on my skin! Then, in these cases recommend a tight bottom (just under 17 cm) only if the pant has a percentage of “elastane” that allows a certain ease, in the use phase. As regards the length of the board remain at least flush with the shoe in all those formal occasions where there are aunts, grandmothers and so on, in order not having to give too much explanation, however, in their poorly understood, or perhaps to a job interview ..

Despite these recommendations here as I walk around … I .pantalone above the ankle with the bottom 16 cm..tanto I had job interviews or family gatherings;-)

??????????????????????????????? DSC02097??????????????????????????????? DSC01868DSC01752

Last point concerns the cuff of pants that I always prefer to do in the formal ones (except for the smoking), leaving freedom of choice in the most casual. The other side I do it by 4 cm but much depends on the height of the person; the more you fold up the bass shortens the figure. In any case, regardless of the height would not go beyond the 4 cm.

I do not want to open the speech “sock, sock no” because it will be the subject of another post..per now I will just say … we respect the seasons please! Let’s put the socks in the winter, unless we run away from home to a fire or an earthquake …

See you soon!


One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s