Not sure how wide trousers should be-ETA update--all going back!

After wearing s lot of AT trousers for years with 20" wide legs at hem, I found them more stump ifying snd then AT also made some " straight" styles that were a couple inches narrower, which seemed like my sweet spot for, not trendy but versatile , classic wardrobe essential.
Then this fa I tried the Talbot Windsor pant because I found it in an interesting subtle plaid flannel. It seemed not too wide to my eye.
I was thinking of duplicating since there's a dark burgundy color, and maybe black, but when measuring, these are all 20" at hem! Yet something about the fit through the seat is neater than my old AT's ( which are gone, so comparing from memory).
The other thing is that for flannels, it's winter wear, meaning boots with slight heel and sleeker style than my old comfort shoes, so that may be why my eye doesn't register them as clunky, and in fact makes them
Less so.
Still, I'm concerned that I'm not a good judge and these may be too wide ( these are not exaggerated wide) to be " modern" and will later feel
fr____!
I haven't taken for hemming yet for this reason.
Is anyone else measuring their pant widths as a guide to staying on track, or using it as reference points for what is likely to look at least Classic in style?

ETA: So good to get the feedback and psycho-support! I took the black ones back but had kept one pair to ponder. Then on reflection it's, hello! these are okay but not fab, and the color is such a dark maroon they almost read as black (meaning, don't actually expand pants-bottoms options as much from a color standpoint, and now I can see, not from a style standpoint; this color would be more important as a "face color" for a jacket or coat because it is softer than black).

I had been tempted because the fit on these is looser and I have had to set a few items aside due to snug fit. But, I also know that there are better ways to get the less snug fit or to wear other items (skirts and dresses) and I need to just narrow my current wardrobe and look or wait for pants that tick all the boxes--fit and style.

This also fits into my biggest pitfall. The more items I have that are okay but not great, the more they dilute the items I like more and also keep me searching for an upgrade--what Diana said.

Thanks for YLF wisdom!

10 years ago

dashielle (Ann)

(website)

Veteran

A very interesting question, that I don't have an answer for. I'm am similarly focused on trouser length and width at the moment, so will be following this thread closely. To my eye, trousers can easily fall into the frumpy/ outdated category, so can be tricky.

Anonymous

It may be that you have slim legs. Often pants and jeans marked Skinny are my Straights. Straights are my Flares. If I want Skinnies, they need to be leggings or ultra skinnyto get a skinny fit.
Another thought is that the ATs were more stiff and didn't drape well. They could also be different widths higher up than the hem.

Diana

I have two pairs of BR Martin trousers, one "trouser" cut (20") and one "straight" (18") and I have to say I feel FAR better in the 18". Just that measly 2" somehow matters a lot. And I do not by any stretch of the imagination have thin legs. Anyway I think it has as much to do with the width of the leg as the width of the opening, namely, on my non-thin legs, the straights show the curve of my upper legs better (although they're still not tight) whereas the wider ones make them look tree-trunky. Something with SUPERB drape (like a silk blend maybe) would also work in a wider leg, of course. Another thing that would help is if they were slightly bootcut/flare style, I.e.cut to be more fitted in the upper leg. Heel height matters too. These days I am much more likely to wear 1-2" heels and I feel the wide legs need a higher heel to mitigate the tree trunk effect.

unfrumped

Diana you are in my head exactly. I also have BR 20" black. And an AT flannel that's 18" and I like that better. And, some AT " trousers" from last year that were not advertised as " Bootcut" but in fact are an inch or so narrower at the lower thigh than at the hem, and that seems to make a difference.
I think that means, don't get black, because I want ones that are the best rather than lots of okay ones splitting wears.
I'm a little conflicted on the black currant color because it's so hard to find nearly- neutral colored trousers in
my colors, but may need to be wise and hope more turn up.

I think it's a good idea not to get black. Everyone makes black trousers so it's a lot more likely that you'll find the perfect 10 fit in black than any other color.

I guess the question with the currant is: is it a HEWI color for you? And assuming you found a better pair, say, next year, would you be ok with passing these on then?

Ha, Joy, no slim legs here!
Diana, that's it. I've tended to buy a lot of black regardless of "10" but have gradually weeded some of them out and realized, hey, I can repeat wears! Also, I have other pants, and skirts, to make enough outfits for sure.
I've already returned the black! I may cogitate on the other and make a final decision after Christmas. I could hem them with my highest heeled boots, which are a gray suede and a cognac-ish brown. The black currant color is a HEWI in terms of workwear pants.. And they're very dark, so that tends to be forgiving, but are not gray, so I can wear any shade of gray with them.

retailgirl

I hadn't thought about this until I read your post, Unfrumped. But I measured most of my pants and they're 20 inches. ( Brooks Brothers Caroline fit.) But I do like narrower pants. I have some Brooks Brothers Lucia fit which have a very narrow leg. I never wear boots; I usually wear a ballet flat or a smoking slipper, or a loafer with pants. But if you feel the 20" is not flattering, a tailor can narrow them for you. I'm tall with long legs so it probably isn't a big issue for me. But as always it's all about proportion.

retailgirl, that's interesting. I definitely think long legs help a lot for any kind of wider leg pant. For example, I dearly love some of the wide-leg, pleated pant looks that have come back around, but I can tell it doesn't work as well on me now as on a tall model. Kate Hepburn I am not. I added one pair this year that are especially drapey (what Diana said) and I wear them with my highest chunky heeled boot or with some slightly pointy footwear as well, to add as much length as I can tolerate for comfort. But a slightly tapered pleated pant works better (not skinny, but skimming).

Also there is a sweet spot for pant hems to be wide enough to fit over average ankle boots. With too-narrow pants, they won't fall over the boot shaft. That's alright for ones that I specifically target for loafers so slipper flats as well--then a narrow or tapered leg can look especially good.
So "winter pants" can often be wider, for me, if targeted for boots with a slight heel, whereas summer looks have more leeway. I do have some warmer, tapered long pants that work with some high-vamped shoes but that's because I'm willing to show a bit of thin sock or underlayer tights (for warmth) with some of my oxford or monkstrap shoes in winter for a few pant-shoe combinations I especially like together.

Angie

Fashion Stylist

Wide legs can feel VERY stumpy because they are wide all over. Flares on the other hand - with a similar hem width - are much easier to wear because they are fitted or semi fitted on the thighs. Bootcuts are slimmer all round, and also easier to wear.

Angie, so true!
I got some AT pants this fall called something like Modern Trouser and they are bootcut but not very extreme. These plus some wool blends from last fall that have an even more subtle, but definite, Bootcut style( a little looser on the thigh but with a definite taper there), have become my go-to pants, along with some straighter styles.
I think these are my target styles along with a few trends here and there.

Update on pants decision and noodlings added to original post. Yeah, I know y'all were holding your breath!

Category