Trousers at the Waist

GBR · Jul 21, 2010

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

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.

Threadbearer · Jul 21, 2010

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.

amplifiedheat · Jul 21, 2010

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

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.

Threadbearer · Jul 21, 2010

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

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).

Manton · Jul 21, 2010

The only thing that looks worse than low rise trousers with suspenders is low rise trousers with a vest.

amplifiedheat · Jul 22, 2010

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

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.

Originally Posted by Manton

The only thing that looks worse than low rise trousers with suspenders is low rise trousers with a vest.
+1.

Nicola · Jul 22, 2010

Originally Posted by Manton

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

KingOfTheForum · Jul 22, 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.

amplifiedheat · Jul 23, 2010

Originally Posted by KingOfTheForum

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.

card_richelieu · Jul 23, 2010

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

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.

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

Scoundrel · Jul 23, 2010

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&quot

. 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.

amplifiedheat · Jul 23, 2010

Originally Posted by Scoundrel

I'm setting this matter straight in my new book.

Do tell.

Scoundrel · Jul 23, 2010

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:

Originally Posted by Saltricks

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.

Plestor · Jul 23, 2010

Double

Plestor · Jul 23, 2010

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

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?

Trousers at the Waist

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

RINO

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: