The WAYWT Discussion Thread

[KitAkira]

Originally Posted by c00kz

Not necessarily, jeans with a low rise and jeans with a high rise if worn properly should both have the crotch in the same spot, the difference is how high up the wiastband goes. What you're describing occurs when you try to wear high/inappropriate rise jeans on your hips. Wearing higher-rise jeans will mean your pockets and details etc will all be located much higher on your body than with low-rise jeans which, because of belt, waistband, pockets, etc, visually divide your body at a way lower point which can decrease how long your legs look.
By that logic all low-rise jeans need to be sagged and all high-rise jeans need to be worn high? I wear my jeans different ways for different cuts, my 1980s are looser so I wear them at my hips while my PBJs are low-rise and I wear them at my waist (and this is where they sit naturally, if I tried wearing them lower they'd just climb up to the same spot unless I oversized them)

 

[mystillwater]

hat & jacket - levis
shirt - gitman for burberry
tie - ucb
belt - rlp
pants - varvatos
socks - pantherella
boots - orvis
tie bar - thrifted

 

[KitAkira]

That mirror is so uselessly massive I can't help but like it

 

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

That would be "high waisted" (when the jeans are meant to be worn above the waist) which does lead to a higher rise, but the rise can be changed without changing where the jeans sit on the waist Not necessarily. While the untucking of the shirt could benefit the look, higher-rise pants would do the same. Strangely enough, 1980s aren't a low-rise cut so maybe he's just wearing his jeans too high.

Originally Posted by otter

valid points, but i have jeans with a rise over 11 inches, compared to most of my other jeans which are between 9-10, i just wear my higher rise jeans on my hips, just gives me a more relaxed look
Wearing the higher rise jeans on the hips where lower rise jeans usually sit gives the "sagging" appearance, which some people go for, but i personally don't like. The 1980s actually seem fairly low-rise to me - lower rise than my rockers. If i tried to wear them lower, they'd just ride up to that height anyway, as my butt curves out quite outrageously (damn squats).

Originally Posted by otter

the problem with hendrix is that he is going for the ''eason'' look, but the difference imo is that eason has got near perfect proportions, even though some of his jeans tend to give him that dreaded carrot look

Originally Posted by KitAkira

By that logic all low-rise jeans need to be sagged and all high-rise jeans need to be worn high? I wear my jeans different ways for different cuts, my 1980s are looser so I wear them at my hips while my PBJs are low-rise and I wear them at my waist (and this is where they sit naturally, if I tried wearing them lower they'd just climb up to the same spot unless I oversized them)
This is what i mean. The looser jeans slide down to your hips because that's where the circumference swells out. If you'd sized down on your 1980s, they'd probably sit at the same height as your PBJs.

 

[c00kz]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

By that logic all low-rise jeans need to be sagged and all high-rise jeans need to be worn high? I wear my jeans different ways for different cuts, my 1980s are looser so I wear them at my hips while my PBJs are low-rise and I wear them at my waist (and this is where they sit naturally, if I tried wearing them lower they'd just climb up to the same spot unless I oversized them)

I guess you're right, I'm kind of speaking under the assumption jeans with lower rises are intended to be worn lower than their higher-rise counterparts. Their are exceptions like the ones you mentioned but isn't this the connotation of "low-rise"?

 

[Eason]

coming soon today, carrot top jeans with a tucked shirt.

 

[Kent Money]

Originally Posted by DLester

lol kent I am going to buy you one for your birthday k?

October 30th, PM me for my address. Can't wait DLester!!! (please no bordering, however)





I wear the band of both my low-rise and high-rise jeans in the same place. This makes my higher-rise jeans have a lower crotch for a saggy look without actually sagging.

 

[Listi]

Originally Posted by ppllzz

guys upper body is suppose to be the same length as the lower body. legs are NOT suppose to look long on a guy. you are a GUY. not a GIRL.

This is so true. I don't even mind femme sort of looks, but super long legged dude = nonono

 

[m00ba77]

H&M Jacket Vintage Pendleton Flannel Warehouse 660 Jeans Frye Harness Boots

 

[Listi]

Nice Moomba, love the belt. You've got a really solid aesthetic there and are doing it right. All the pieces work with each other, I always have trouble with that

 

[AlSailor]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

That would be "high waisted" (when the jeans are meant to be worn above the waist) which does lead to a higher rise, but the rise can be changed without changing where the jeans sit on the waist

There is no difference in the meaning of the terms "high waisted" and "high rise". Both refer to the rise measurement.
Neither description takes into account where in realtion to your own waist or crotch you CHOOSE to wear your jeans.

 

[KitAkira]

I don't see how high-waisted would refer to drop crotch if it's worn at hips. It's all semantics anyway

 

[scott.m]

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Ha! You're anything but. This is great, per usual.

truth is i'm so charming

get to ny so you will and i can grab lunch

 

[JoelF]

Originally Posted by m00ba77

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...GP0013-1-2.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...GP0016-1-1.jpg

H&M Jacket
Vintage Pendleton Flannel
Warehouse 660 Jeans
Frye Harness Boots

Basic, well done.

 

[AlSailor]

Originally Posted by KitAkira

I don't see how high-waisted would refer to drop crotch if it's worn at hips. It's all semantics anyway

Neither refers to "drop crotch", which could be a separate design element or a person simply choosing to wear jeans low on his hips.