Men's fashion icon of the 20th century, the late great Duke of Windsor.
Seems he didn't like his pants all bunched up at the hems either.
That's the last I'll say about it, promise.
24 November 2008
3 comments:
An Affordable Wardrobe strives for an open discussion of all the topics presented here. All opinions, whether in agreement with the author or not, will be considered for publication. Please present your points in a clear and adult fashion. Negative comments of an overtly crass nature will not be published. Besides dressing like grown ups, let's behave like them as well.
I couldn't agree more with his choice of hem length.
ReplyDeleteGood work
If only local tailors would take note and stop arguing with customers about the 'proper length' of trousers. I find this particularly true for those of us under six feet tall. Several tailors I have visited around Boston insist pants should reach the heels of my shoes - so that I tread on the hem when I change in to slippers.
ReplyDeleteThe Duke chooses a mild break -- see the slight indentation just above the hem. He usually did this because of his fine taste in hosiery -- one not shared by most mere mortal dressers. When you "show sock," like the Prince or Fred Astaire, you'd better get it right.
ReplyDeleteWe of the black- brown-and-blue-sock club know our limitations. We play it safe with the stockings and choose a longer hem and greater break just as an added measure of safety.
Of course, things can get ridiculous with the uber-break hem, though Sir Winston Churchill often pulled it off. I suspect that, fitting with his reactionary disposition, he considered socks to be underwear not to be seen, ever. But, like the Duke of Windsor, he was sui generis.