Is this waistcoat too short ?

[FlyingLotus]

Just received a waistcoat in the mail.. Never worn one before really, i am 6'4 so often have problem with lengths, most of my shirts and jackets are a bit short in the sleeves, so im used to it and have to compromise on certain pieces..

So is this waistcoat way too short, or livable short ?

I know the color clashes with my pants, i wouldnt wear them together..

 

[aizan]

the waistcoat is not the problem. your pants are low rise.

 

[UrbanAesthetics]

I think the length is fine. Just over the belt is timeless. Although please remember to never button the top and bottom buttons...
http://urbanaesthetics.tumblr.com/

 

[GoldenTribe]

Originally Posted by UrbanAesthetics

please remember to never button the top and bottom buttons...
I'm sick of people saying this. "Never do up the top button on your cardigan. Never do up the bottom button on your cardigan." Cardigans and waistcoats (at the very least like his as worn with casual pants, I don't know about formalwear) are not subject to the same buttoning rules as sportcoats. Turning the sprezz thing into an ultra-strict rule defeats the whole purpose.

 

[dasai]

Originally Posted by UrbanAesthetics

I think the length is fine. Just over the belt is a look that was until recently considered bad form, but you have no choice unless you buy trousers that come up to your waist. Although please remember that many men, but not all, consider it proper to leave the bottom button undone...
FTFY.

 

[chloeh]

From a woman's perspective (and please feel free to ignore me!), I do have to say that I think it's a little too short?

The low rise trousers, obviously, aren't helping - but it's still an inch, or two, too short, anyway, IMHO.

I think the collar also ends a little too high? So it's not just a hemline issue, IMO; the whole thing's just made for a shorter man.

If you particularly like this waistcoat, would it be possible to buy it in a size larger, for the length?

Although you clearly have plenty of room around the waist, in this size - to me, it looks as though it may also be a little close-fitting in the shoulder area? So perhaps the larger size wouldn't be such a bad idea, from that point of view, either?

Of course, traditionally, if the waist was too big in a larger size, you could just adjust it, via the strap at the back; although, I'm guessing that the fashion, ATM, is to just leave that loose?

 

[FlyingLotus]

I don't believe it in style to leave it loose, I was planning on getting it tailored to fit me perfectly and just get rid of the cinch, or leave it- but not need it.

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by Sator

The British tend to say 'waistcoat' and the Americans 'vest'. If you read Charles Dickens he will only write 'waistcoat'. The only exception is in tailoring parlance, where the British also say 'vest' eg 'vest maker'. The word 'vest' is actually a bit older and dates to around the time of Henry VIII IIRC. The waistcoat need not match the coat. In fact, a bit of contrast can be interesting. I like odd waistcoats with a bit of pattern such as an understated check with a base colour a bit lighter than the coat. If the waistcoat has a pattern, you must ensure that shirt, tie and coat are plain solids to avoid it looking too busy. The more versatile waistcoats for wear with a lounge coat include cream, and dove grey. For a more informal look a more prominent check can be attractive. When worn with a sports coats you may mix patterns more - if you know how. Waistcoats may be single or double breasted. The later is much more formal. They may or may not have lapels. If they do, they can be shawl collared or else have a form matching that of the coat. Double breasted waistcoats with a horse shoe shaped front are particularly formal and are worn only with formal and semi-formal dress (both morning and evening dress). As for form and fit, it is by far and away preferable that the trousers be brace trousers so that the bulge from the belt underneath is not visible under the waistcoat. The waistcoat should be long enough to fully cover the waistline of the trousers. If bespeaking the waistcoat and trousers, a shorter waistcoat and brace trousers with a higher rise will also give the illusion of a longer leg-line.
As far as buttoning goes, I've heard and seen both recommended.

 

[landshark]

That vest would look fine with higher rise trousers.

I've always found it funny that companies make pants with a lower rise, shirts with a shorter tail, and jackets with a shorter length. It's a disaster at the waist just waiting to happen.

 

[chloeh]

^^ Oh OK, well, in that case, I would definitely buy the larger size, personally, as then they'll have more to work with, won't they?

After all, I'm assuming they can't add fabric(?), but they can obviously take it away.

As I say, though, please ignore me, if you like - as I hate it when know-it-all men try to lecture women on how to dress, so wouldn't want you to feel that I'm doing the female equivalent, here!

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by landshark

That vest would look fine with higher rise trousers. I've always found it funny that companies make pants with a lower rise, shirts with a shorter tail, and jackets with a shorter length. It's a disaster at the waist just waiting to happen.
And not helped any by the rather large middle section for the majority of the middle aged male populace.

Originally Posted by chloeh

^^ Oh OK, well, in that case, I would definitely buy the larger size, personally, as then they'll have more to work with, won't they?
I'm not sure buying the larger size here would work -- a longer one, perhaps. But even so, I think the problem is with the OP's pants and not the waistcoat.

 

[FlyingLotus]

Thanks, yeah i dont want to buy a larger size, it first perfectly other than being a bit short for me..

I do agree about the low rise of the pants, it seems all the trousers i buy, that i like the fit of, are low rise.

 

[landshark]

Originally Posted by FlyingLotus

Thanks, yeah i dont want to buy a larger size, it first perfectly other than being a bit short for me..

I do agree about the low rise of the pants, it seems all the trousers i buy, that i like the fit of, are low rise.

This has been a problem for me as well. Now I've been looking for higher rise trousers without pleats to slim down.

 

[Hans Cater]

Originally Posted by FlyingLotus

Thanks, yeah i dont want to buy a larger size, it first perfectly other than being a bit short for me..

Ok so what do you want?

I do agree about the low rise of the pants, it seems all the trousers i buy, that i like the fit of, are low rise.

And please loose the pants they are not even helping at all.

 

[chloeh]

Originally Posted by FlyingLotus

Thanks, yeah i dont want to buy a larger size, it first perfectly other than being a bit short for me..

I do agree about the low rise of the pants, it seems all the trousers i buy, that i like the fit of, are low rise.


No problem!

No I agree that you don't need a larger size around the chest, or waist - it just looks, to me, as though the fabric is straining, slightly, around the shoulders?

Could just be the way you're standing and/or the photo, though, I suppose?

A lot of trousers (for men and women) have been low rise, for ages, now, haven't they?

I think that is starting to change, again, now though? So, maybe there'll be a better selection of slightly higher rise ones around, soon?

If you're still at all concerned about the waistcoat, perhaps you could ask your tailor what he thinks?

I don't know how it normally works for menswear(?), but with designer womenswear, one size up is normally about 1" longer.

I know, because I'm fairly tall, too!