• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Benjamin Lucente Suit: Fit Pics

kmdsimpson

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,402
Reaction score
90
Originally Posted by amplifiedheat
"Waist" is not a subjective term. It is the narrowest part of the torso. You can find yours easily. There's really no relation between the navel and the waist, except that they happen to be in roughly the same area. Here's a diagram: Waist in red, navel in green, hips below navel.
First, can you repost your picture - not working? Second, can you explain where the pants should sit? Are you saying at a point above the navel? That seems really high to me. Or is just that we never see pants cut that way these days? I'm confused on this...
 

amplifiedheat

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
11
Originally Posted by kmdsimpson
First, can you repost your picture - not working? Second, can you explain where the pants should sit? Are you saying at a point above the navel? That seems really high to me. Or is just that we never see pants cut that way these days? I'm confused on this...
Fixed. (Apparently, ImageShack's policy on nudity is stringent enough to cover the Voyager plaque.) I'm saying, once again, that the waistband of the pants should sit on your natural waist. This simple truth seems unusual because low-rise trousers, unflattering though they may be, are in fashion. The other part is that ready-to-wear trousers are usually only stocked in one rise, though men come in many proportions. The logic requires no comment. The waist is the logical dividing point between upper body and lower body. When the jacket buttons at the waist, maximal waist suppression becomes possible. The trousers lengthen the leg line without unduly diminishing the torso. Consider these old drawings:
Easterdress.jpg
The gents in morning dress look fantastically tall and slender, because correct proportions are observed.
 

kmdsimpson

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,402
Reaction score
90
Originally Posted by amplifiedheat
Fixed. (Apparently, ImageShack's policy on nudity is stringent enough to cover the Voyager plaque.)
That is funny. OK, here is an example of modern-day usage of "at the waist" that I believe does not conform to your definition. I just went to the Banana Republic site and found a random pair of pants that they describe as sitting "at the waist". This is clearly below the true, defined waist. I would say "at the navel" is a more appropriate description. I have seen similar descriptions used at almost every common casual clothing store. http://bananarepublic.gap.com/browse...scid=702965012 Where would you even find pants that are properly at the waist these days, other than custom made? Edit: Thom Browne
 

amplifiedheat

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
11
Banana Republic is notoriously poor with language. For instance, every tailored jacket they sell, odd jacket or suit jacket, is labeled as a "blazer." Many stores are weak in knowledge--we've all seen the three-button notch-lapel tuxedo advertised as "classic."

Besides, labeling pants as "sits on the waist" is silly. Common sense would dictate that no single cut of trouser will sit on every man's waist--some men have higher or shorter waists and longer or shorter legs, even if they share inseam and waist measurements.

As for finding pants with a decent rise, it's hard. Vintage is one option. One more reason to go custom, I suppose.
 

Quatsch

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
600
Reaction score
13
Originally Posted by amplifiedheat
The waist is the logical dividing point between upper body and lower body. .

Do you mean mechanically or with regards to clothing? I'm not sure I agree in either case, but especially not mechanically, speaking as an athlete. I think most people find low rise pants much more comfortable, and I would predict they'll not be going out of style any time soon.


I just pulled the trigger on a navy blue Lucente, and I'm pretty excited to get it. I was very torn between the navy and the navy pinstripe.
 

amplifiedheat

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
11
Originally Posted by Quatsch
Do you mean mechanically or with regards to clothing? I'm not sure I agree in either case, but especially not mechanically, speaking as an athlete. I think most people find low rise pants much more comfortable, and I would predict they'll not be going out of style any time soon.

Not mechanically so much as geometrically. That's the relevant approach when considering attractive proportions.

Low rise pants are not more comfortable--that's a silly notion. Natural-waisted trousers simply feel different, and anything different takes some brief acclimatization.
 

james_timothy

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
2,491
Reaction score
94
Originally Posted by amplifiedheat
This simple truth...


And once again, this "simple truth" is merely one persons context dependent opinion, not a objective truth that exists outside of the head of the speaker, regardless of how confidently it is spoken.

It hasn't been widespread in 50 years; it was widespread (in certain narrow circles) for perhaps the 100 years prior, and wasn't widespread in history before that.
 

amplifiedheat

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
11
Originally Posted by james_timothy
And once again, this "simple truth" is merely one persons context dependent opinion, not a objective truth that exists outside of the head of the speaker, regardless of how confidently it is spoken. It hasn't been widespread in 50 years; it was widespread (in certain narrow circles) for perhaps the 100 years prior, and wasn't widespread in history before that.
If it isn't meant to sit on the waist, why call it a waistband? We don't need to make this semantics, though--experts like Flusser agree that waist is classic and hips the fad. Your history is also sketchy. Low-rise trousers were faddish in the late 60s and 70s, and again lately. Before Pierre Cardin et al, men had worn trousers on the waist as long as they had worn trousers. Before that, they wore breeches, also on the waist. This wasn't limited to dandies, either. I suppose you could go back to the time of codpieces and such to prove your point... You can do what you want, but history's well-dressed men have worn their trousers on their waist.
 

foggy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
73
Reaction score
9
So the suit arrived, all nicely bagged and boxed, and a little creased right where it buttons. Which of course is where it was folded.

Question is, it perfect ot an inch or two too perfect? Do I prove the arguement, and the buttoning point is a little too high for me? Or do I just need the next size up? Feels a fraction nippy under the arms.

Comments welcome as I need to make my mind up tonight as I away for 3 weeks from tomorrow.

Lovely material and build by the way and great service from Ben. In the post within an hour and a half of ordering.











 

PatriotsFan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by foggy
So the suit arrived, all nicely bagged and boxed, and a little creased right where it buttons. Which of course is where it was folded.

Question is, it perfect ot an inch or two too perfect? Do I prove the arguement, and the buttoning point is a little too high for me? Or do I just need the next size up? Feels a fraction nippy under the arms.

Comments welcome as I need to make my mind up tonight as I away for 3 weeks from tomorrow.

Lovely material and build by the way and great service from Ben. In the post within an hour and a half of ordering.






Looks pretty good but there seems to be a bit of tightness around the chest. I would probably size up if it causes any discomfort.

What size did you get and what is your height/weight btw?
 

foggy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
73
Reaction score
9
Thats a 38. I'm 5 11" 170lb. 40" chest. 32 waist.

Suits sizes are; chest 41", shoulders: 17.6", Sleeve length: 25.5", Length from bottom of collar: 29.5, Trouser waist: 32", Hem Inseam: 36" Unfinished, Rise: 10.5", Leg width at bottom: 8.3"

I do like a fitted suit, but perhaps I'm pushing it. It does'nt feel uncomfortable though.
 

kmdsimpson

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,402
Reaction score
90
Originally Posted by foggy
Thats a 38. I'm 5 11" 170lb. 40" chest. 32 waist.

Suits sizes are; shoulders: 17.6", Sleeve length: 25.5", Length from bottom of collar: 29.5, Trouser waist: 32", Hem Inseam: 36" Unfinished, Rise: 10.5", Leg width at bottom: 8.3"

I do like a fitted suit, but perhaps I'm pushing it. It does'nt feel uncomfortable though.


I think the suit is a little too small for you, and not just because of the buttoning point - I think that is a feature of the suit's style. It just looks maybe a little tight in the chest and short in the arms. Also possibly the shoulder, but it's hard to tell for sure.

The shoulders should be the starting point for fit. If it feels constricted there and in the upper chest when you lift or cross your arms, it is too small.

Also, going by your measurements, there's no way you should be able to fit into a 38. I am almost exactly the same, with a slightly bigger waist, and I am a 40. The jacket needs to be a little bigger than your chest measurement to allow for movement, which is why a 40 suit measure an inch or two larger in the chest.

You can probably try a 39, but I'll bet you really are a 40.

Also, try sending Ben an email and asking him to look at your post. He'll know.
 

kmdsimpson

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,402
Reaction score
90
Off topic, but this picture gives me an opportunity to ask a question. You can see a "belt keeper" loop at the front of the pants, right above the fly. How do those work, exactly?

Originally Posted by foggy


 

foggy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
73
Reaction score
9
Originally Posted by kmdsimpson
I think the suit is a little too small for you, and not just because of the buttoning point - I think that is a feature of the suit's style. It just looks maybe a little tight in the chest and short in the arms. Also possibly the shoulder, but it's hard to tell for sure.

The shoulders should be the starting point for fit. If it feels constricted there and in the upper chest when you lift or cross your arms, it is too small.

Also, going by your measurements, there's no way you should be able to fit into a 38. I am almost exactly the same, with a slightly bigger waist, and I am a 40. The jacket needs to be a little bigger than your chest measurement to allow for movement, which is why a 40 suit measure an inch or two larger in the chest.

You can probably try a 39, but I'll bet you really are a 40.

Also, try sending Ben an email and asking him to look at your post. He'll know.


Think your probably right, my MTM are larger in the chest, but for some reason I get the odd 38 from Carolina Herrara and others that works. Just not this one. The 40 will work, but the trousers with it may need something out the waist. The sleeves are on these are unfinished though and they could come down a 1/2 inch.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,164
Messages
10,579,138
Members
223,885
Latest member
Jones&co
Top