|
Posted by The Wanderer on February 8, 2008, 10:47 am
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:09:43 -0800 (PST), Cheryl wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:48:36 -0800 (PST), Cheryl wrote:
>>> I'm wearing some dressy slacks to an evening affair. My shoes have 2"
>>> heels. How long should I hem the slacks?
>>
>> If a mere male might offer an opinion, when I mark the length of my wife's
>> trousers or slacks, I reckon to get the front just comfortably brushing the
>> front of the shoe, so the back of the hem should be about 1/2" below the
>> top of the heel at the back, IYSWIM. Go any longer and you risk stepping on
>> the back of the hem, or worse, finishing up with ragged bottoms so beloved
>> of today's youngsters. Shorter and, well, looks like an ill-fitting pair
>> you've bought from a charity shop.
>>
>> --
>> Richard
>>
>> the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
>
> Thank you Richard. So, you are saying that the hemline should be
> tapered front to back with the back 1/2" lower that where the top of
> heel joins the shoe?
Err, I don't think so, not really.
I was trying to visualise the ankle height, with a 2" heel, but I guess it
also depends on the style of the front of the shoe. A fairly low cut court
shoe or strappy sandals would make a nonsense of what I was trying to
describe. The danger of trying to put down what *I* was thinking instead of
taking account of what you might be wearing!
What I *should* have said was that I usually turn under the hem so that the
back looks more or less level with, perhaps just a tad lower than, the join
at the back of the shoe between upper and heel.
To some extent I think it also depends on how wide the bottom of the slacks
are, a fuller width will naturally tend to sit a little lower at the back
than a less full hem.
Hope that makes sense. Knew I should have kept my nose out of this thread!
:-)
--
Richard
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap