Trousers at the Waist

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by J. Cogburn, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. GBR

    GBR Senior member

    Messages:
    7,789
    Likes Received:
    551
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    But it's silly to call something that sits at the waist "high waisted." As refers to human anatomy, the word "waist" has only ever meant one thing in the history of the English language. It is the narrowest part of the torso. The only logical classification of trouser rise is this:

    *low-rise=below waist
    *at waist
    *high-waisted=above waist

    Trousers more than slightly above or below the waist are about as good as a jacket that buttons more than slightly above or below the waist. If people don't want to wear trousers at the waist, they should stop calling it the waistband.


    This is far from helpful and not strictly accurate. The term 'waist' in this context refers to the waist band of the trouser, not where it sits on the human body. Thus 'high waisted' trousers can be above,m at or above the human waist: It is their relationship with other trousers that is being compared.



    Just to add to this I normally wear mine pretty low by older standards although I do have two pairs with 'high' waists one at my body waist and one two inches above. I like both but they are too much like costume to be worn regularly.
     


  2. Threadbearer

    Threadbearer Senior member

    Messages:
    2,761
    Likes Received:
    653
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Location:
    Outside the Beltway but still in the Danger Zone
    I own 2 pairs of high(ish)-waisted slacks. (NOT above my navel, though, as I think that looks ridiculous.) I almost always wear these slacks with suspenders because they quickly fall down to my hip bones when worn with a belt. I like them a lot, not only because they look great but because they feel comfortable and stay where I put them. Both pairs came from Jos. A. Bank, which -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- sells nearly all their slacks with several options for rise length.

    [​IMG]
     


  3. amplifiedheat

    amplifiedheat Senior member

    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Both pairs came from Jos. A. Bank, which -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- sells nearly all their slacks with several options for rise length.

    Incorrect. Short rise is available only for even sizes 32-40. Long rise is available only for even sizes 36 and above. Typically confused, they recommend a short rise for people 5'7'' and under. At 5'7'', their regular rise is well short of my waist.
     


  4. Threadbearer

    Threadbearer Senior member

    Messages:
    2,761
    Likes Received:
    653
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Location:
    Outside the Beltway but still in the Danger Zone
    Incorrect. Short rise is available only for even sizes 32-40. Long rise is available only for even sizes 36 and above. Typically confused, they recommend a short rise for people 5'7'' and under. At 5'7'', their regular rise is well short of my waist.
    I stand corrected. Thank you, heat. So you're saying that my JAB slacks, which are 33" at the waist, must therefore be regular rise? That's interesting because they sit quite a bit higher than any of my other slacks (provided that I suspend them with braces, that is).
     


  5. Manton

    Manton RINO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,574
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    The only thing that looks worse than low rise trousers with suspenders is low rise trousers with a vest.
     


  6. amplifiedheat

    amplifiedheat Senior member

    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    I stand corrected. Thank you, heat. So you're saying that my JAB slacks, which are 33" at the waist, must therefore be regular rise? That's interesting because they sit quite a bit higher than any of my other slacks (provided that I suspend them with braces, that is).
    They must be. Perhaps JAB has a higher standard rise and/or more room in the seat.
    The only thing that looks worse than low rise trousers with suspenders is low rise trousers with a vest.
    +1.
     


  7. Nicola

    Nicola Senior member

    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    43
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    The only thing that looks worse than low rise trousers with suspenders is low rise trousers with a vest.

    Oh I'll say a crop top with low rise pants can look even worse [​IMG]
     


  8. KingOfTheForum

    KingOfTheForum Senior member

    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Firstly, I don't use cartoon charcters and drawings as "evidence." Along with that, I've found that much of the most cherished sartorial rhetoric here is based on articles from DECADES ago. I take it all with a grain of salt. With that said, I do wear my pants at my waist. I DON'T wear them at my stomach, which seems to be what the OP is describing. Two to Three inches above the belly-button is in mid-ab territory (or three-quarter keg for the "portly" bunch). Regardless of how you swing it, that doesn't look good on anyone in 2010, though it may be overlooked on the elderly.

    Some will justify the high "waist" location by stating "the waist is the most slim part of the torso." Well, if you don't have an extra slab of fat hanging around, then your waist will be much lower. Like many things, the location of the natural waist seems to change as people get fatter.
     


  9. amplifiedheat

    amplifiedheat Senior member

    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Some will justify the high "waist" location by stating "the waist is the most slim part of the torso." Well, if you don't have an extra slab of fat hanging around, then your waist will be much lower. Like many things, the location of the natural waist seems to change as people get fatter.

    Quite incorrect. Thin people often have a high waist, too--the waist is defined by underlying anatomy, not overlying fat. If you look at a photo of an emaciated person, the waist is right below the ribcage. On obese people, the waist is where the fat folds when one bends to the side.

    Also, what do you have against the Vitruvian Man? It's a sketch of ideal proportions, which is exactly what we're talking about.
     


  10. card_richelieu

    card_richelieu Senior member

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Location:
    US
    I own 2 pairs of high(ish)-waisted slacks. (NOT above my navel, though, as I think that looks ridiculous.) I almost always wear these slacks with suspenders because they quickly fall down to my hip bones when worn with a belt. I like them a lot, not only because they look great but because they feel comfortable and stay where I put them. Both pairs came from Jos. A. Bank, which -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- sells nearly all their slacks with several options for rise length.

    [​IMG]


    I quite like the look & me thinks you pull it off well.
     


  11. Scoundrel

    Scoundrel Senior member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    I'm setting this matter straight in my new book. Many "experts" give misleading advice on where a pair of pants should sit (i.e. "always on the natural waist"). The truth is, the ideal rise is different for each individual. The whole point of deliberately wearing a certain rise is to achieve the appearance of having a perfectly proportional body.
     


  12. amplifiedheat

    amplifiedheat Senior member

    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    I'm setting this matter straight in my new book.

    Do tell.
     


  13. Scoundrel

    Scoundrel Senior member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    I haven't decided on a title yet, but it's more-less written. Basically, it's a contemporary guide for the young professional based on my experiences and knowledge. The "rules" of dress are considered, but also generously interpreted. It needs editing and to be translated into (at least) one other language. I'm happy to share everything I've learned on my own and through participation on AskAndyAboutClothes.com and Styleforum.net. George Frazier and Alan Flusser are nice people to reference. Film Noir Buff has also helped make some things clear to me, especially putting dress in context. As far as the pants issue, this fellow is on the right track:
    I prefer higher rise pants because I have short legs.
    If one has short legs and is bothered by appearing short, then high rise pants will do the trick.
     


  14. Plestor

    Plestor Senior member

    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010


  15. Plestor

    Plestor Senior member

    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Quite incorrect. Thin people often have a high waist, too--the waist is defined by underlying anatomy, not overlying fat. If you look at a photo of an emaciated person, the waist is right below the ribcage. On obese people, the waist is where the fat folds when one bends to the side.

    Also, what do you have against the Vitruvian Man? It's a sketch of ideal proportions, which is exactly what we're talking about.


    This. I have a waist above my belly button (2") and I'm 28-9" there at 6'7". I also wear all my mtm there otr is not going to happen at that height ~14" rise .

    Also when wearing jackets don't you lose the lovely symmetry of the waistband and the buttoning point meeting if you don't wear the trousers at the waist?
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by