I agree that one's "natural waistline" is where your trousers naturally fall. The problem with that is so many of us have some mid-truncal fat that this naturally ends up being lower and sometimes on our hips. Probably accounts for the popularity of low rise trousers. This of course leads to a less than favorable appearance. You can find some mid rise trousers. I think higher rise trousers are going to be mostly bespoke. I have done all iterations of trousers (OTR,MTM,Bespoke). I still like my trousers more mid to lower rise (1 to 2 inches below my umbilicus). For me, it's a comfortable spot and frankly I need braces to keep it higher up since I don't have a wasp like waist. On the other hand I don't have a big gut either so I don't have them riding down on my hips. I guess if if I were skinnier I might wear them closer to my umbilicus but I am not going braces all the time to get my trousers up there.

 

Several years back I bought an NOS suit that had very high rise trousers compared to what you see today at mall stores and the like. In order for the pants to look right, I had to wear them with the waistband going through the center of my navel. The pants were zoot-suit high but definitely needed to be worn a bit higher than what we are used to these days.

If you look at old photos of men in the 50s and 60s, they'll often look like Steve Urkel to anyone under 40. On the other hand, you had guys in the 30s and 40s with high waisted trousers worn with suspenders that gave off a totally different vibe. At this point, I'm convinced that suspenders and maybe side tab adjusters are the way to go if you want higher-waisted trousers, especially those worn with a suit. At some point, wearing a belt with them just isn't that comfortable for longs periods of time, IMHO. Matter of fact I just had suspender buttons installed on 3 pairs of suit pants recently, and those pants aren't even that high waisted.

 

....
In doing research about this, I've come to learn that anatomically your waist is located midway between your lowest rib and your iliac crest (top of pelvis).

What you have described is the waist region where the trousers waistband should sit. Anything higher is too high; anything lower is exposing yourself unnecessarily.

Your natural waistline is defined as either the narrowest part of your torso or where your torso naturally creases when you bend your spine to the side, depending on who you ask.

Unfortunately, the bold text is where it starts the confusion. Where is your narrowest part of your torso? Different people with different body fat percentages can give you different answers. Some say this is just right below the rib cage, whereas others with a gut will say this is below the gut just above the hip bone. This statement only works with a body without significant gut around the waist. One needs to go back to the anatomical waist.

In these two tailoring books*, natural waist is defined at just below the rib cage. This location may or may not align with elbow joints, but they are closed. The trouser waist is further defined as 4 cm or 2 inch below the natural waist. This is where the trouser waistband should be located *in the current fashion* pattern.

For tailors and cutters, that is a pretty clear definition. There is no need to re-invent or re-assign new or strange names to the *natural waist*.

On the other hand, one can use one's elbow joints as a guide line to determine one's natural waist. As said before, elbow joints generally align with one's natural waist so you can use this line to check if the buttoning point is on or below the natural waist. If the buttoning point is higher than your elbow joints the stance is too high to give you a good look on jacket.

Next, what is the difference between the rise that is measured outseam minus inseam, and the rise that is measured from waistband to crotch? I figure it's the same number (it is), but people reference it like it's different things?

In tailoring terms, the distance between crotch to waistband at the front is called front rise; similarly from crotch to waistband at the back is called back rise. The term "rise" is defined as the difference between outseam and inseam. Having said that, when people referring to the rise of the trousers, they typically use the front rise as the rise of the trousers because that is something they can measure easily and quickly.

Lastly, in the two threads I've linked above, many were talking about wearing their pants/trousers at or around there navel. For these people, where do you buy such pants/trousers? OTR or MTM? Any brand names to start my search would be appreciated.

It is not hard to find OTR trousers that sit at or just below your navel. Typically, if you go with traditional cut (no slim-cut, trendy cut or whatever) you should be able to find the waistband that should sit at your navel based on your waist. Oh, here I have to clarify one thing: when you wear trousers, you should ensure that the crotch area of the trousers should be closed to your own crotch, not 2" below it. Remember the front and back rises mentioned before? Those numbers are designed with the assumption that one will wear the trousers properly with crotch area of trouser closed to one's own crotch. It does not need to be like a wedgy, but it should never be so far off. So even if the trousers is cut properly for that waist, if the wearer decides to let the them dropped for no reason, the waistband can never sit at the right location and all the weird fit happens.

--------------------------

Now, armed with this new information, you can simply do the followings to find your ideal fit:

* get a soft plastic tailor's tape rulers that can be rolled or bent. You can find this any many stores, including dollar stores for cheap
* measure your waist at your navel with said ruler. Be honest with yourself as no one is judging but yourself
* go to a department store with the tape ruler and find a pair of trousers to try on.

Now is a good time to introduce the idea of vanity sizing. There is a trick that brands and clothing manufacturer use when they put the numbers on the label. A size 36 trousers will have waistband at 37.5"-39"+ depends on its cut. This is due to:

a. there could be some manufacturing discrepancy.
b. the maker intended to under-label the size, hence called vanity sizing.

If you do not believe me, simply take any pair of trousers that you have and measure its waistband with tape ruler. Measure from the closing point inside the waistband from one end around the back to the other end. Then compare that with the labelled size.

AFAIK there are some Asian brands who claimed they are true to size: That is, the labelled size matches to the actual size. Most of the brands I encountered in North America all have vanity sizing built-in. Some with 1.5", some with 2" - 3". The most I encounter is 4" on a pair of jeans.

So when you try on trousers, knowing your actual waist measurement, minus it by 2" and start with that size. If you can fit it properly with crotches points aligned and waistband closed and zipped, observe when the waistband sits at your waist. Measure the "front rise" of this pair. If it sits at your navel, you know that a pair of trouser with this front rise and waist work for you. If it does not fit, try up or down one size to find a better fit.

If you are in-between size, ie, 36 is too big but 34 is too small, try the larger one and clinch the back seam a bit. A dress trousers should have split waist band that can be easily reduced at the waist back for 2" or less.

With a soft tape ruler and some measuring exercise, you can quickly determine what front rise works for you. Have fun.

----------------------------------

* Metric Pattern Cutting For Menswear 4th ed, 2005 by Winifred Aldrich and Pattern Making for Menswear, 2013 by Gareth Kershaw

 

Now is a good time to introduce the idea of vanity sizing. There is a trick that brands and clothing manufacturer use when they put the numbers on the label. A size 36 trousers will have waistband at 37.5"-39"+ depends on its cut. This is due to:

a. there could be some manufacturing discrepancy.
b. the maker intended to under-label the size, hence called vanity sizing.

There's a third reason for this. With low-rise trousers the size is still meant to fit one's waist, but because the trousers sit on the hips the waistband is much larger. If we disregard vanity sizing, size 32 trousers are meant to fit someone with a 32" waist no matter where they wear them. If the trousers have a high rise, they will measure 32" at the top. If they have a mid rise, they will have a 33-34" measurement at the top but are still meant to fit someone with a 32" waist. If they have a low rise, they may measure 35-36" at the top so they can sit around the hips of a man with a 32" waist. These trousers have different waistband sizes but are all meant to fit a man of the same size depending on where he wants his trousers to fit.

 

Next, what is the difference between the rise that is measured outseam minus inseam, and the rise that is measured from waistband to crotch? I figure it's the same number (it is), but people reference it like it's different things?

This is not true. The measurement between the crotch seam and the waistband can differ greatly based on the cut of the pants. Both the front and back of the pants from crotch to waistband have a curve to them. The amount of curve can vary greatly among different cuts.

 

So I propose that maybe we call our anotomical waist the 'true waist' and the other "waist" our 'natural waist' or 'fashion waist'.

Woe is me, I was only given one waist.

 

^^ LOL...
life can be as stressful as we are inclined to make it!

 

True waist? Natural waist? I don't bother with that useless terminology.

If I'm buying trousers in person, I try the things on and see where the waistband hits. I know where I want the waistband to be (not Urkel high, not hip-hugger low). I let my eye decide if the rise works for me. (It works great in my case if the front rise measures between 11 and 12 inches--the closer to 12 the better.)

The first time I bought khakis long distance from O'Connell's, I phoned Ethan there, told him I was interested in size 31, and asked him to measure the front rise for me. He did and said "11.5 inches." Perfect. I deliberately avoided uttering the words "natural waist" because that wouldn't have gotten me anywhere. I knew that my only course of action would be to try on the khakis. I put in my order and I've been satisfied.

Where should the waistband be? Where your eye wants it to be. Trial and error, not terminology, will enable your eye to get what it wants.

 

Far be it from me to poo-poo such erudite and useful information, and I'm grateful to have been educated, -

but I'm with Charles on this. If I were a tailor or maker, perhaps such precision would have consequence, but for me, the definition, somewhere around my navel serves me well. I'm in some version of khakis 90% of the time, and which I wear without suspenders. Khakis start out perhaps an inch above my navel, and usually wind up around my navel. And so do any other trousers if worn without suspenders.

I'm fine with this. They're comfortable worn in that manner, and I'm happy with the way it looks.

 

Whatever you want to call them, if you go this high,you have gone too far:

 

Thank you, Flanderian.

When I look at rise, I look for balance. And I know it when I see it.

If the rise is too low, then the wearer's torso generally looks disproportionately long (although if one has a very short torso relative to his legs, a low rise might behoove him). Also, pragmatically speakng, a low rise leads to an unacceptable consequence: if you put on a jacket (suit jacket, sport coat, or blazer), you'll get the infamous "Triangle of Death."

Paxonus' memorable post (immediately above) notwithstanding, I don't see really long rises these days. However, were I to see them, they could make the wearer's torso look truncated. (This sort of imbalance would be moot if a vest or jacket were deployed.)

I never look at a man's outfit and think, "OK now, does that look good? Let's see, I need to imagine where his belly button is. Then I have to discern where the bottom of his rib cage is, then try to determine the narrowest part of the section between his rib cage and his iliac crest. Maybe I should take an anatomy course before I can decide if I like how his trousers fit."

Forget that. Does the overall outfit, given the wearer's height and shape, look balanced to my eye? That's what matters.

 

Granted, this is a niche brand, but I think this is a great look:

 

that extended waistband is a bit ridiculous with how high it goes, and I'd prefer a fuller cut from the thighs down.

otherwise I dig it.

 

When I bought off the rack Lauren Ralph Lauren Green Label suit
separates late three years ago, I had to buy 42R pants instead of the 38R pants I normally wear just so I could wear them as high rise pants (they're cut to be low rise). I had an offsite alterations tailor remove the belt loops (with little damage that miraculously healed itself over a short time-a month or two, to be exact) and install suspender buttons so I could wear suspenders instead of a belt.

The pants are vastly more comfortable and I never have problems with my shirt coming untucked (not even close).

 

I haven't had a waist for about twenty years. Now that I'm getting laid off maybe I'll go back to the gym...

 

Diet! Diet is more important that exercise to reduce body fat. Keep a consistent and healthy diet with moderate exercise you can achieve your goal.

 

First off. ATailor is a real tailor. He might still be a live. If he had been born 20-30 years earlier what would his lessons have been?

The picture of the high waisted pants the way they were made gives an appearance of longer legs. If you have short legs that is something to consider, but they don't have to be that high.

The proper way to measure rise is to measure from the waistband to the hem at the outseam. Then measure the inseam from crotch to hem. Subtract the short from the long and you have rise.

Elbows are not at the exact same place on every person. Nor are the knuckles. These measurements are unreliable.

What should be bought. Waist measure? Or, fit at seat level? Either are changeable. The tailor that will do the alteration should make the decision.

With a suit coat low rise trousers don't look as good. In fact, sometimes, down right silly. If you are trying to make a million dollar sale dress correctly.

Large waisted people usually need a higher rise to engulf the belly. Or, cut to go below.

 

Trial and error. Then go with what looks pleasingly balanced to your eye.

 

It turns out that i did not reply to this. Better late than never.

Hmmm.. industry standards. Based on what you saw on the street or how you wear? OK, here we go.

The attached body_measurement_2.gif was taken from the book Pattern Making for Menswear, by Gareth Kershaw. The no. 2 and 3 shows the where the "natural waist" and the "trouser waist" (defined as 2 in below natural waist.) Just to show what I was referring in this post and others about where the natural waist and trouser waist are, and to show where I got the info. In this picture, the natural waist sits at the same place as the elbow joints vertically, and thus there is a theory about using elbow joints to identify natural waist. However, that is not universally true as people may have long or short arms, but generally that should be closed unless your have a bit strange proportion.

In another thread, or maybe this one, I mentioned that to wear the trouser properly you should align the crotch of the trouser to your own so that trousers can be worn according to its specification. Normally, a decent rise dress trouser will reach at the low end at just blow No 3 line. a mid rise should reach navel, and a high rise should reach above navel, w.r.t. this diagram, and maybe closed to natural waist. No. 19 defines the crotch length, and that will defines the rises (front and back) from line No. 3 front to back.

So in my mind a properly designed and worn dress trousers, no matter it is the classic high-rise or the trendy skinny low rise trousers, the waist band of the trouser should reach at least to line No. 3 and on or below No. 2. A trouser with wider waist band can reach line No. 2 (natural waist), but that is too high to my liking.

This is the industry standard of where the natural waist is and where the trouser waist is. You can check other tailoring books and this is how they are defined.

--------------- now back to the real world -----------------------

I should have pointed out what rises mean per industry standards these days. I thought it was assumed that only high-rise trousers sit at the among the waist area. Nonetheless, I thought it would have been assumed that low-rise trousers sit around the hips since that's most of the trousers that have been for sale in almost the past decade. You should pay more attention to the clothes around you if you're going to participate on a menswear forum. Experience is more important than theories when talking about clothes.

OK, now that I know how you define your high and low rise, I can see where the discrepancy. Your high rise, to me, is just regular rise trousers. Most of the dress trousers, by your definition, should be high rise because they should be able to reach to line No. 3 according to the graph. Some low rise, skinny dress trouser may reach just below line No. 3 but we know that is just low rise trousers.

I understand some low rise jeans for women are worn on the hip, or really low on the hip. But that is lady's wear, not menswear. When I first dived into menswear world one of the advice about wearing trousers is to wear your trouser at the proper waist (between line No. 2 and 3), not on your hip so wearing trousers at the hip never come as proper, nor do I care to define it as *low rise* trouser. I recognized that wearing dress, or even jeans, at your hip is just not a good look.

Then you may ask, how come many people wear their dress trousers at the hip? As shown in the past decade? Well, are you sure they wear their trousers *properly*? Did they hike up their trousers properly so that there is no extra space below *their package*? or do they leave a 2 inch drop from their actual crotch to show they have larger than normal *package*, yet when they walk the crotch area is filled with emptiness and their stride is limited because of that? I would even guess that is the origin of jogger pants.

I never find the appeals of jogger pants, and I am properly too old for that. Furthermore, I will not wear my dress trousers like jogger pants. Heck, I would never wear any jeans like that.

I thought it would have been assumed that low-rise trousers sit around the hips since that's most of the trousers that have been for sale in almost the past decade.

Even with the skinniest dress trousers (extra-slim fit) of a fashion brand and low rise, I can still wear it at just below line No. 3 with no discomfort. Can I make it drop to my hip? Yes, of course. But why would I do that? To make myself look bad? No, thank you.

In other words, I do not believe the low-rise trousers should be worn at the hip, according to your definition of trouser waist made larger than its label size so they can fit at the hip, but they are improperly worn by their bearer.

You should pay more attention to the clothes around you if you're going to participate on a menswear forum. Experience is more important than theories when talking about clothes.

Oh, I have paid more attention to clothes way before I join the forum. I also know where and how I got my knowledge from and how I come to the reasoning, and I explained it. And I don't just spew out tidbit response without reasoning nor theory about why and how something is wrong. And that requires experience to solidify your statement.

 

It turns out that i did not reply to this. Better late than never.

Hmmm.. industry standards. Based on what you saw on the street or how you wear? OK, here we go.

The attached body_measurement_2.gif was taken from the book Pattern Making for Menswear, by Gareth Kershaw. The no. 2 and 3 shows the where the "natural waist" and the "trouser waist" (defined as 2 in below natural waist.) Just to show what I was referring in this post and others about where the natural waist and trouser waist are, and to show where I got the info. In this picture, the natural waist sits at the same place as the elbow joints vertically, and thus there is a theory about using elbow joints to identify natural waist. However, that is not universally true as people may have long or short arms, but generally that should be closed unless your have a bit strange proportion.

In another thread, or maybe this one, I mentioned that to wear the trouser properly you should align the crotch of the trouser to your own so that trousers can be worn according to its specification. Normally, a decent rise dress trouser will reach at the low end at just blow No 3 line. a mid rise should reach navel, and a high rise should reach above navel, w.r.t. this diagram, and maybe closed to natural waist. No. 19 defines the crotch length, and that will defines the rises (front and back) from line No. 3 front to back.

So in my mind a properly designed and worn dress trousers, no matter it is the classic high-rise or the trendy skinny low rise trousers, the waist band of the trouser should reach at least to line No. 3 and on or below No. 2. A trouser with wider waist band can reach line No. 2 (natural waist), but that is too high to my liking.

This is the industry standard of where the natural waist is and where the trouser waist is. You can check other tailoring books and this is how they are defined.

--------------- now back to the real world -----------------------

OK, now that I know how you define your high and low rise, I can see where the discrepancy. Your high rise, to me, is just regular rise trousers. Most of the dress trousers, by your definition, should be high rise because they should be able to reach to line No. 3 according to the graph. Some low rise, skinny dress trouser may reach just below line No. 3 but we know that is just low rise trousers.

I understand some low rise jeans for women are worn on the hip, or really low on the hip. But that is lady's wear, not menswear. When I first dived into menswear world one of the advice about wearing trousers is to wear your trouser at the proper waist (between line No. 2 and 3), not on your hip so wearing trousers at the hip never come as proper, nor do I care to define it as *low rise* trouser. I recognized that wearing dress, or even jeans, at your hip is just not a good look.

Then you may ask, how come many people wear their dress trousers at the hip? As shown in the past decade? Well, are you sure they wear their trousers *properly*? Did they hike up their trousers properly so that there is no extra space below *their package*? or do they leave a 2 inch drop from their actual crotch to show they have larger than normal *package*, yet when they walk the crotch area is filled with emptiness and their stride is limited because of that? I would even guess that is the origin of jogger pants.

I never find the appeals of jogger pants, and I am properly too old for that. Furthermore, I will not wear my dress trousers like jogger pants. Heck, I would never wear any jeans like that.

Even with the skinniest dress trousers (extra-slim fit) of a fashion brand and low rise, I can still wear it at just below line No. 3 with no discomfort. Can I make it drop to my hip? Yes, of course. But why would I do that? To make myself look bad? No, thank you.

In other words, I do not believe the low-rise trousers should be worn at the hip, according to your definition of trouser waist made larger than its label size so they can fit at the hip, but they are improperly worn by their bearer.

Oh, I have paid more attention to clothes way before I join the forum. I also know where and how I got my knowledge from and how I come to the reasoning, and I explained it. And I don't just spew out tidbit response without reasoning nor theory about why and how something is wrong. And that requires experience to solidify your statement.

You clearly have too much free time. You should use this free time to try on all sorts of clothes at all kinds of different men's shops so you can write based on experience, not theories. The world has changed, so go out and see what it is.

 

You clearly have too much free time. You should use this free time to try on all sorts of clothes at all kinds of different men's shops so you can write based on experience, not theories. The world has changed, so go out and see what it is.

So you did not prove me wrong with any further information but the snark remark on one's personal choice. OK.

I am seeking the truth with rationale and reasons, not just some hearsay and personal preferences stated as rules.

The world is indeed changing, and going for 1940's fashion of high-waist to one's natural waist is not coming back, to your dismay.

 

The world is indeed changing, and going for 1940's fashion of high-waist to one's natural waist is not coming back, to your dismay.

Women's fashions have gone back to high-waisted after the low of 15-20 years ago. At that time when women's pants were worn low, men's were as high as they were in the 1940s. You only have to go back 15 years to find men wearing trousers at their natural waist. Even jeans at that time were cut to be worn at the natural waist (though the young people were buying them oversized so they would drop down below their bums). If women's high-waisted pants could come back, so will men's. Wearing trousers at the natural waist has the most benefits for comfort, visual balance and functionality. If the low-rise trousers so common today were all that great, men would have been wearing them 100 years ago, not just for the last 10 years. Fashions always return, especially reasonable ones.

 

Recognize that I am pulling up the drawbridge and manning the parapets with cauldrons of boiling oil at the ready after I hit the "Post Reply" button - purely as a defensive move.

I completely understand the anatomical logic and am aware of the long sartorial history of men wearing their pants at their natural waist - the reasons are physically sound / the evidence plentiful.

And for most men, when wearing a buttoned suit jacket or vest, the look is outstanding. But when the shirt is visible - the jacket isn't buttoned or is off altogether and there's no vest - for many men, I think the "divide -" where their natural waist hits - is so high up on their body that the aesthetic of the visual is less than ideal.

Early on, a very thoughtful tailor recognized that my natural waist hit a bit high and tailored my pants to fit "slightly lower on my hips." It was not extreme like the fashion of today, but a modest adjustment to do what good tailoring is supposed to do - improve the sartorial look of the wearer, many times, through artifice and visual deflection.

Ever since that early experience with the tailor (and having argued with other tailors to replicate it), I've been acutely aware of how other men address this. Until the last ten or so years, most just wore their pants at their natural waist, which looked good only for a subset of the entire population.

It looks best on "long" waisted men - those whose waists hit "low" on their torso - thus providing a visually more balanced divide between the "lower" and "upper" body. On those with a "normal" waist, it is okay, but, IMO, a bit awkward; however, for those who are really "short" waisted - those whose waists hit "high" on their torso - the look is awkward and off.

Hence, I'm not against or for the modern low-rise look as the decision should not be a "fashion" statement but a personal clothing-aesthetic adjustment. The same with narrow versus wide lapels. My dad was a big guy - 6'4", 230lbs, size 50L chest - he needed wide lapels to balance his visual. I'm 6'1", 150lbs, size 40L, narrow lapels look better on me as wide lapels can overwhelm my narrow frame.

One of my favorite things about the '30s is that, while there were a lot of companies pushing fashion, the reality is - from the pics I've seen in movies and books - that men wore a wide variety of styles with the freedom to choose what worked best for their frames. That's where I wish we'd return. But of course, to get there, we'd actually have to return to a world where men dressed in classic attire and not hoodies, puffers and athleisure.

(In loud imperious voice) "Drawbridge up, stoke the fires, man the parapets!"

 

Recognize that I am pulling up the drawbridge and manning the parapets with cauldrons of boiling oil at the ready after I hit the "Post Reply" button - purely as a defensive move.

I completely understand the anatomic logic and am aware of the long sartorial history of men wearing their pants at their natural waist - the reasons are physically sound / the evidence plentiful.

And for most men, when wearing a buttoned suit jacket or vest, the look is outstanding. But when the shirt is visible - the jacket isn't buttoned or is off altogether and there's no vest - for many men, I think the "divide -" where their natural waist hits - is so high up on their body that the aesthetic of the visual is less than ideal.

Early on, a very thoughtful tailor recognized that my natural waist hit a bit high and tailored my pants to fit "slightly lower on my hips." It was not extreme like the fashion of today, but a modest adjustment to do what good tailoring is supposed to do - improve the sartorial look of the wearer, many times, through artifice and visual deflection.

Ever since that early experience with the tailor (and having argued with other tailors to replicate it), I've been acutely aware of how other men address this. Until the last ten or so years, most just wore their pants at their natural waist, which looked good only for a subset of the entire population.

It looks best on "long" waisted men - those whose waists hit "low" on their torso - thus providing a visually more balanced divide between the "lower" and "upper" body. On those with a "normal" waist, it is okay, but, IMO, a bit awkward; however, for those who are really "short" waisted - those whose waists hit "high" on their torso - the look is awkward and off.

Hence, I'm not against or for the modern low-rise look as the decision should not be a "fashion" statement but a personal clothing-aesthetic adjustment. The same with narrow versus wide lapels. My dad was a big guy - 6'4", 230lbs, size 50L chest - he needed wide lapels to balance his visual. I'm 6'1", 150lbs, size 40L, narrow lapels look better on me as wide lapels can overall my narrow frame.

One of my favorite things about the '30s is that, while there were a lot of companies pushing fashion, the reality is - from the pics I've seen in movies and books - that men wore a wide variety of styles with the freedom to choose what worked best for their frames. That's where I wish we'd return. But of course, to get there, we'd actually have to return to a world where men dressed in classic attire and not hoodies, puffers and athleisure.

(In loud imperious voice) "Drawbridge up, stoke the fires, man the parapets!"

It's true that we can't all look as good in high-waisted as Cary Grant.

On the other hand, I find heavyset men to also look best in trousers of this height as well, though they necessitate braces. The ubiquitous look of large men with trousers sitting below their gut is far less flattering.

For most people, mid-rise generally looks best when not wearing a suit. With a suit, I think that high-rise, when the trousers are approximately at the same level as the primary button of the jacket creates the most harmony, even with the jacket unbuttoned.

 

As a large-ish, short-ish man (as one can probably tell from another thread on another site with pictures), I was planning to get a suit or even just trousers made in this style. I am not sure what instructions to give the tailor regarding where it should sit on the waist. I thought this may be a concrete example to discuss where this trouser actually sits. As an aside, also the minute I ask them to pleat a high-waisted trouser, they make the hips so baggy that the pant blooms at the hips, which I hate. I have no idea how to avoid this and perhaps an experienced tailor can suggest a solution.

 

As a large-ish, short-ish man (as one can probably tell from another thread on another site with pictures), I was planning to get a suit or even just trousers made in this style. I am not sure what instructions to give the tailor regarding where it should sit on the waist. I thought this may be a concrete example to discuss where this trouser actually sits. As an aside, also the minute I ask them to pleat a high-waisted trouser, they make the hips so baggy that the pant blooms at the hips, which I hate. I have no idea how to avoid this and perhaps an experienced tailor can suggest a solution.
View attachment 24910

A link to this picture on the other thread also help you get help?

As for pleats, the more you have the more extra fabric. How about a shallow single pleat?

They should make a slopper so can be adjusted to your desire and unique physique.

Hope this helps.

 

I am not replying to pants sizing, don't want to get mired in there, so please consider seems an epiphany moment here.

Used to wear 32 vanity size low rise on the hips (41" outseam), then I found mid to high rise (the latter being a late '40s suit of Opa's that has been taken in so no sizing).

Now that I expanded suits, found VERY hard to fit my size. I am 37" chest, 32" at the navel, 34.5" at the navel, and 36" hips. Now that you say I am strange, the light upstairs goes on and now get why this difficulty!

I don't feel comfortable showing bare skin but will if requested to prove I don't have any gut. I am 6'-2", 62" to the collar, 42 to 43" outseam, and 165 pounds on a bad day. I have been told by doctors need to put on weight, but once hit 170 I been on a diet to avoid ballooning over Winter (been fat once and NEVER again). Just saying to your point since don't have a gut, am an outlier and further why VERY difficult to find suits that fit (if anything have thick thighs that take a moment to get into skinny jeans). Guess need to make my own clothes.

Thanks. :beer:

It turns out I did not reply to this, and I am not claiming that your proportion is weird or not. My original remark to MattS was his claim of how the trousers waist is labelled. One can have perfectly lean body with three sizes from natural waist, navel, and top of hip. I do not need your picture to prove your statement.

Based on your height (6'2", 37" chest, and 34.5" at navel) it seems that you can swing a 38L suit with 31 or 32 trouser. Now, when you say 36" hip, are you referring to your seat size, that is, the largest size at your buttocks? When I was referring the three sizes, I was referring to the three sizes of *waist*, not the hip/seat size. Hopefully there is no confusion there.

If your thigh is too large to fit into the trendy skinny things, just find trousers in classic/regular cut and skip the anything slim at all.

 

Okay, thank you for taking the time to clarify.

Good to know what the right size suit is. I got it wrong the first one or two times (can't remember), ended up 38L was right. However, that can mean the pants are sometimes as much as a 35 inch actual waist, which I can easily do, easiest task out there. Worse, shoulders can vary from 15 inches to 19 IIRC (been a while).

As for hips by the way, understood it to be the widest point of your pelvis where low rise pants would sit. Then the next point down be your seat. Is this not correct?

I only wear skinny jeans, and only jeans, now and then when need to feel sexy because I am down or not feeling good. Honestly, my favorite suit pants are the ones from Opa's DB that is by best guess from the late '40s. They are high rise, no pleats, and come strait down, almost no taper at all (23 to 20 inches at the cuff). I love how it hides my thick thighs and makes a sleek look.

Just a fun fact, my thick thighs are from when younger used to have a leg press maximum of 700 pounds when 180 pound body weight in High School plus when at University used to commute by bicycle (until my life was too valuable to risk anymore).

 

As a large-ish, short-ish man (as one can probably tell from another thread on another site with pictures), I was planning to get a suit or even just trousers made in this style. I am not sure what instructions to give the tailor regarding where it should sit on the waist. I thought this may be a concrete example to discuss where this trouser actually sits. As an aside, also the minute I ask them to pleat a high-waisted trouser, they make the hips so baggy that the pant blooms at the hips, which I hate. I have no idea how to avoid this and perhaps an experienced tailor can suggest a solution.

It seems that what you are looking for is the trousers with wider legs and opening, while the seat stays put and not baggy. I would think that with less tapering (the default cut of trouser come with a certain degree of tapering), the thigh and cuff opening can be made wider even for a flat-front style for your need. The seat area can remain tight and fitted.

Therefore, to achieve this, simply ask for less tapering when you have the trouser made. Having a pleat, or multiple pleats, will have more fabric from waist down to knee. That increases the chances that the hip becomes larger, which may or may not work for one's desire.

 

Here is what one tailor wrote in his book (Poulin).

The young craftsman should also know what a proportionate man or woman measures, and should work on the propor- tionate figure before attempting to deal with abnormalities. As regards male subjects, it is useful to bear the following data in mind: Measurements taken on a large number of males in the military service show the most common chest measure to lie between 39 and 40. Waists, on the average, measure 5 in. less than chests, and seats 1 or 2 in. larger than chests. The tailor therefore conceives the proportionate male figure as about 40 in. around the chest, 35 in. around the waist, and about 42 in. around the seat. Coats designated as "regulars" in the ready-made trade are designed close to these proportions. Of course, many young men have waists 6 in. or more smaller than their chests, and seats the equal of or smaller than their chests, but it is best to have a too-loose coat in the waist and seat regions than one too small. We can always easily re-duce garments in these sections.
The average woman's proportions maybe summed as follows: Her chest measures between 35 and 36 in. Her breast (or bust) is 2 in. or more larger than her chest. Her waist is 5 in. or more smaller than her chest. Her seat is 6 in. or more larger than her chest. We may therefore conceive of the average female figure as 36 chest, 38 breast, 31 waist, and 42 seat. There are, of course, many women with smaller waists and seats than this in proportion to their chests, but again it is best to favor the larger measurement

 

ATailor, who wrote here years ago, and maybe dead now, said to buy according to fit of the seat. That's because the waist is easy to adjust. Seats and hips are many sizes and shapes, so the waist is anything but accurate.
Generally, 2 inches of ease is a good extra for the seat measure. So, seat measure plus two more inches.

 

ATailor, who wrote here years ago, and maybe dead now, said to buy according to fit of the seat. That's because the waist is easy to adjust. Seats and hips are many sizes and shapes, so the waist is anything but accurate.
Generally, 2 inches of ease is a good extra for the seat measure. So, seat measure plus two more inches.

I tried that after I read that post, and it didn't work. I brought my trousers to a tailor recommended here, and it didn't work well because the different between my waist and seat was too large. When a man has a 9-inch difference between the waist and seat, it doesn't work if the trousers weren't made with that difference in mind.

 

I have now changed my view on trousers because of this image:

Apparently in the '30s and '40s, one could have no pleats and cuffs, as my late '40s suit is. One sees all the vintage pictures, though never with the coat off. Also, take note of the waistband buttoning center of the trousers.