1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net


    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Difference in waist size only?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by keys, Aug 25, 2004.

  1. keys

    keys Well-Known Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    When shopping for dress pants I often purchase a size 34w and have the waist taken in slightly in order to fit more comfortably. On some occasions I have been known to purchase a size 32 and have had to let the waist out a bit. My question is this:

    With the exception of the waist are all other measurements the same in a 34 vs. 32 size dress pant?

  2. Brian SD

    Brian SD Well-Known Member

    Feb 5, 2004
    I always assumed that less material was used in the legs if the waist is smaller. The extremes are obvious, a pair of 40W pants has much wider legs than a pair of 30w, but as far as 32-34, I would bet that the real difference is going to be dependent on who makes the trousers.
  3. matadorpoeta

    matadorpoeta Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2003
    i wear a size 33 and have never had a problem finding them. and yes, assuming you're talking about the same model from the same maker, a size 34 will be slightly bigger in the hips and thighs than a 32.
  4. wicozani

    wicozani Active Member

    Jun 7, 2004
    The Black Hills of South Dakota
    I am in the exact same predicament. My actual waist measures 32, but from years spent playing football and cycling I have very large thighs and, correspondingly, hips. Because of this I've always preferred pleated-front pants. However, largely because of information I've become aware of from this board and several books, I now realize that although a 32 waist may technically fit, too often the pleats are pulled open in front and there is tension on the side pockets.

    Because of this I have started buying pants in 33 waist size and just living with the extra waist room, because nearly everything else is better and the pleats stay closed. However, many fancy slacks I'd like to get (on the 'bay) are usually only available in a 34. But, I've been getting those and just having my tailor take the waist in a bit. I can also plan to add suspender buttons if appropriate.

    It's certainly not as convenient as fitting a 32 perfectly off the rack, but it's somehow nice to work a bit for the best fit and presentation.

  5. MilanoStyle

    MilanoStyle Well-Known Member

    Apr 22, 2004
    Croach length will be about an 1inch longer on size 34 compared to 32.

    I think your upper thigh will be silightly larger too. Which in turns, will make more fabric at the seat of the pants.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by