Trouser leg circumference

[s_crumb]

I'll probably be buying another suit from Magnoli very soon. I'm wanting a more accurate trouser. Obviously trouser legs had a larger circumference in the Golden Era. Is there a good rule of thumb to go by when determining a measurement? My last suit was close but I held back a bit and they are closer to modern trousers. I'm fully committed this time and want to get as close as possible.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

If you browse the stickies for Catalogue scans you can read the texts too. There were many different styles. Some are more conservative and some for the wild young men.

Have a look at THIS and make sure you view the original size.

 

[s_crumb]

Wow! Those are great scans. Very nice descriptions of the clothes. Thanks much.

 

[Tomasso]

I would recommend balancing the trouser hem/cuff/bottom/opening/ etc... (trying to cover all bases for the pedants out there) circumference with the size of your feet, which is what was commonly done with bespoke in the golden era (as well as today).

 

[Twill]

I would recommend balancing the trouser hem/cuff/bottom/opening/ etc... (trying to cover all bases for the pedants out there) circumference with the size of your feet, which is what was commonly done with bespoke in the golden era (as well as today).

Good point. Also, balance it with the size of your body. A 20" leg opening will look a lot different on a 50"-waisted fellow versus a 30"-waisted fellow. Same consideration with inseam ( 28" vs 34" inseam). Granted, if you're in the average bracket it probably won't make a difference, but if you are one of the extremes, keep it in mind.

 

[Two Types]

I'll probably be buying another suit from Magnoli very soon. I'm wanting a more accurate trouser. Obviously trouser legs had a larger circumference in the Golden Era. Is there a good rule of thumb to go by when determining a measurement? My last suit was close but I held back a bit and they are closer to modern trousers. I'm fully committed this time and want to get as close as possible.

I found a cuff about 23/24 inches is ideal. They give a really good swing as you walk without being so wide as to look ridiculous. Mine are cut from a 1930s pattern and measure 23 inch at the cuffs. I have just posted a couple of suits on the 'Show us your suits' thread. Have a look at those trousers (bear in mind I wear a size 11 shoe).

 

[Matt_the_chap]

Personally I like to go for between a 23" and a 26" circumference, wearing a UK size eight shoe. I quite like the extreme nature of it and the bagginess is very comfortable when paired with a high-waist.

 

[Edward]

I love wide legs. As long as it's not wider than the length of my foot, it's grand.

 

[Matt_the_chap]

Preferably I like the toe-cap of my shoe to be almost entirely swallowed by the trouser. Maybe half an inch of toe and sole poking out at most. I don't know why, it just appeals to me. It's probably one of those things that falls down to the period and personal preference like many aspects of vintage/tailored clothing.