Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,511
Registered: ‎07-26-2019

Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

Been noticing alot of  pants  in Regular  inseams listed as 31 inches instead of  30 inches as most pants offered  used to be.  Petite is 28 inches . I think petite  used to be 26 inches ?

  For me this change is a problem as 30 inches were perfect . Now, I'd have to hem the pants 1 inch . I don't care for the 28 inch on me as I don't like that  "high water " look .

Don't know as to why the change , since so many pants now are being offered in  Tall, Regular , Petite  inseams .

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,877
Registered: ‎01-27-2014

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

@skatting44 @I completely agree with you! 31" inseam is a deal breaker for me.....it used to be easier to find inseams of 29" and 30". 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,358
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

And 31 is perfect for me.  30 is just a tad too short, and tall is way too long.I guess they can't please everyone.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,155
Registered: ‎09-07-2014

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

[ Edited ]

I think it depends more on the brands @skatting44 . In WWC and Susan Graver, her petite's are much too short at 27" and sometimes shorter. My sweet spot is 28". I can also wear 29" with a small heel so I appreciate both. I am only 5' 2 3/4". I have shorter legs. 

 

I think if you really are wanting to purchase pants there are all inseams. I do wish QVC would allow you to search by inseam.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,142
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30


@Krimpette wrote:

And 31 is perfect for me.  30 is just a tad too short, and tall is way too long.I guess they can't please everyone.


@Krimpette 

Same here. I can get by with 30" if I'm wearing flats, but I really prefer 31". I like a 32" inseam when I wear heels. 

Have a good weekend! 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,816
Registered: ‎01-10-2013

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

I'm petite, so, 28 is fine, but, 26 is too short!

Snowy Wave By Imakheeper Stay warm - Gifyu

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,257
Registered: ‎09-07-2014

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

I agree that a 31" inseam is too long to be considered a "regular". The 30" is perfect for me and 29" is a tad too short for my liking.(This  reminds when a 7" bracelet was considered a regular length, but now it's 7 1/4". I prefer the 7").

Honored Contributor
Posts: 44,347
Registered: ‎01-08-2011

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

Since boots are more popular than they ever were.  With longer pants, you can hem them to your length.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,708
Registered: ‎12-01-2023

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

[ Edited ]

Maybe I'm just built odd or something because I'm around 5'7-5'8  and I have to have at least a 32 inch inseam just to wear with flats.  If I order pants in talls  the crotch is too long.  I guess this means I'm short waisted??  But a 31 1/2 inseam was the regular on the last NYDJ I ordered and they look like high waters on me?

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,350
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Regular legnths 31 " instead of 30

It depends on the brand and the cut for me. I am 5’6” and long waisted, so I have bought petite length if they were 28 or 29 from Laurie Felt’s line and NYDJ. Other brands, I need the 30 inch inseam. I think if the cut is generous in the hip and thigh, I need the shorter length because I am an apple and I get more length from the leg.