• 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.
  • 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.

pants fit

JeffB

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Since it seems that getting a good "fit" with clothing in general often involves giving the illusion of accentuating more "positive" aspects of a person's build while minimizing the more "negative" aspects of a person's build (for example a somewhat "baggy" look would make a heavy person look even heavier, whereas on a skinny person it probably won't look as bad), I have the following question. How does this relate to the fit of a pair of pants, especially concerning the "rise" in a pair of pants, and where the legs of the pants break?

Specifically I have a build that is unfortunately longer in the trunk and shorter in the legs. So with this is mind would a pair of pants with a short "rise" (say 8-9")accentuate the shorter proportion of my legs? And therefore I would probably want pants with a longer rise (say more like 10-11")? Mind you I don't like pants with say a 12" or higher rise. Makes me look like Fred Mertz from "I Love Lucy"...

And though I tend to like the look of pants that don't reach the shoe, should I probably avoid this look for the same reason?

Thanks!
 

Aluan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
What you call "fit" is what I think of as styling.

To me, proper "fit" is ultimately concerned with having no folds or pulls or tight spots or overly excess parts of fabric. So you can have something that fits but with the wrong styling, and it'll still look wrong.

A longer rise will make your legs look longer. Cuffs are generally accepted to shorten the legs, and so will pants that don't reach the shoe.

So I'd suggest getting a pair of pants with a higher rise, no cuffs, and just a slight break.
 

mensimageconsultant

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
4,600
Reaction score
145
Pretty classic example of why people opt for consultations. No pictures, little sense of your style or proportions. Let's assume you tuck your shirt in. Aluan gives advice that probably will work to a point. The rise issue would better be described as wear pants at the natural waist and avoid excess fabric below the crotch. Stick to straight leg pants. Also, slim fit (relative to your legs) probably would help.
 

Featured Sponsor

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

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 92 37.4%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 90 36.6%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 27 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 41 16.7%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 38 15.4%

Forum statistics

Threads
506,971
Messages
10,593,138
Members
224,351
Latest member
Embroideredpatch
Top