[Searching_Best_Fit]

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.

 

[215339]

Agreed on this point.

In your case, you are implying that a man wearing size 32 can have high waist (natural waist) of 32" while at mid waist (navel) with 33-34" and hip of 35-36" so that depends on how one wears the trousers at these locations the sizes of waistband are different.

Unfortunately, I have not found the case where one's natural waist is 2" smaller than the waist at navel. There could be a case if one man has a more X shape figure but that kind of built is hard to find.

I wouldn't think it's that tough in younger men. I'd describe myself as skinny, but I do have some belly fat.

I measured my natural waist by the elbows, the narrowest part of my torso, and it is 29".

My waist at navel is 33" and I generally wear size 32 pants.

 

[215339]

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.

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

I wouldn't think it's that tough in younger men. I'd describe myself as skinny, but I do have some belly fat.

I measured my natural waist by the elbows, the narrowest part of my torso, and it is 29".

My waist at navel is 33" and I generally wear size 32 pants.

In your case, wouldn't you be wearing a size 29 with 29" at the waistband of trousers at your natural waist, and size 29 with 31" at waistband of trousers at your navel if we follow Matt_S' logic? Yet you are wearing size 32 (with 33"-35" waistband) to fit at your navel of 33". What you are describing your case is just what I said about carrying some belly fat to achieve that > 2" difference between one's natural waist and waist at navel.

One thing to clarify: it is possible to have > 2" of difference between natural waist and waist at navel, whether young or old. However, in order to achieve that, one needs to carry some belly fat, whether he likes it or not. However, intentionally reducing the waist size of the trousers' waistband to claim this fit this waist size is the vanity sizing.

BTW, given that your size at navel is 33", wouldn't a size 31 trousers (although not easily found) fit you better?

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

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

Although not my cup of tea, the waistband looks pretty good and vertically equal between natural waist and waist at navel.

 

[Matt S]

I believe I was not ignoring what you said. The idea that a size 32 pair of trousers has its waistband at 32" if made in high rise form, and 33-34" in mid rise form, and 35-36" in low rise form is purely absurd because this pair of trouser will never fit on any body shape or form of a men. If this was true, this form of body must be at 32" at natural waist, 34" at navel, and 36" at top of pelvis. That would be pretty strange and can only be achieved with some gut at navel, thus shown in the picture of different bodies with different body fat percentage.

Yes, you can have a pair of trouser label size 32 with 32" of waistband. However, can you confirm that it has not been altered before? Can you confirm that the manufacturer actually made it TTS? Using one pair of trousers to support your argument of theory is just too weak to convince people.

But if that is what you believe, I have no way to convince you otherwise, nor would I want to do any further.

Mid rise is not at the navel, and low rise is not at the top of the pelvis. You're talking about something totally different than I am.

 

[prunenoveggie]

Yes, you can have a pair of trouser label size 32 with 32" of waistband. However, can you confirm that it has not been altered before? Can you confirm that the manufacturer actually made it TTS?

I've always wondered about this. I have several pairs of size 34 trousers, unaltered, from different brands, and they all measure very close to 34" (34.25-35"). Granted, my jeans are all marked 32 and I would guess they measure around 35". In my admittedly limited experience, vanity sizing in dress slacks seems rather insignificant, at least compared to casual pants or women's clothing.

On a possibly related note...I need a 34 belt (measuring 34 inches from the end of the belt to the middle hole) instead of the recommended size-up (36) from my pants size. Is that because most pants are significantly larger than marked, whereas mine are pretty close to the marked size? I've always been confused by the advice of ordering a belt a size up from your pant size. Vanity sizing would seem a logical explanation.

Sizes confuse me. Measurements I understand, but all these sizes...

 

[215339]

In your case, wouldn't you be wearing a size 29 with 29" at the waistband of trousers at your natural waist, and size 29 with 31" at waistband of trousers at your navel if we follow Matt_S' logic? Yet you are wearing size 32 (with 33"-35" waistband) to fit at your navel of 33". What you are describing your case is just what I said about carrying some belly fat to achieve that > 2" difference between one's natural waist and waist at navel.

One thing to clarify: it is possible to have > 2" of difference between natural waist and waist at navel, whether young or old. However, in order to achieve that, one needs to carry some belly fat, whether he likes it or not. However, intentionally reducing the waist size of the trousers' waistband to claim this fit this waist size is the vanity sizing.

BTW, given that your size at navel is 33", wouldn't a size 31 trousers (although not easily found) fit you better?

I've no idea, I've never even had the opportunity to try trousers that would even go to my natural waist.

Yeah you're absolutely right, a size 31 trouser would likely fit me better, never found them before.

Most of my casual pants have had to be taken in, even the ones with a higher rise, dress trousers seem to fit me better in the waist with no alterations.

 

[16412]

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.

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

Mid rise is not at the navel, and low rise is not at the top of the pelvis. You're talking about something totally different than I am.

Ha, typical Internet argument. If you want to talk about your definition of mid or low rises, spill it out in the previous post rather than hiding from ambiguity.

I do not care how the term mid or low rises mean to you, nor how it is defined by the maker as there is no standard guideline in the industry about that. Hence, your definition of mid or low rises may or may not be correct. I was using the term as a simple high/mid/low rise on 3 different points at waist. However, just for discussion purpose, specify where the waistband should sit for high, mid, low rise *according to* you if you want to talk about more.

I've always wondered about this. I have several pairs of size 34 trousers, unaltered, from different brands, and they all measure very close to 34" (34.25-35"). Granted, my jeans are all marked 32 and I would guess they measure around 35". In my admittedly limited experience, vanity sizing in dress slacks seems rather insignificant, at least compared to casual pants or women's clothing.

I was suffering from the confusion about sizes before so I understand that. However, it all starts at knowing your own measurement currently at the various level of your waist: specifically, on top of your pelvis bone and below, at, above your navel. Then compare that with measurements of a pair of trousers at both the *front rise* (from crotch to top of waistband at the front) and inside waistband width from button to the end of button hole. If worn properly, the front rise will tell you where the waistband of trousers will sit on your waist and how much circumference it can provide. You can start by measuring some of your best fit pants to get an idea of how the pants can *best fit* you with front rise and waistband size. Then you have to consider the fact that how that corresponds to the label size of a certain brand.

To fit one thing (pants) to another (body), you need to know the reference points on both forms to be aligned. IMHO, for pants, this point is at the crotch for pants; nape for jackets. To wear a pair of pants properly, you need to pull-up the pants so that the crotch of pants and yours are closely met. Once that is done, then you can assess how the seat and waistband fit. Without meeting at that point, anything will look off.

On a possibly related note...I need a 34 belt (measuring 34 inches from the end of the belt to the middle hole) instead of the recommended size-up (36) from my pants size. Is that because most pants are significantly larger than marked, whereas mine are pretty close to the marked size? I've always been confused by the advice of ordering a belt a size up from your pant size. Vanity sizing would seem a logical explanation.

When you said end of belt, I would assume it is the end of the buckle rather than the end of the belt that looped the buckle. In fact, I would think one should measure it from the inside of the buckle on the end to the middle hole because that is how a belt will enclose your waist. The difference is minor but if you really want to be precise...

Back to belt. Again, this is due to vanity sizing. The trousers are vanity sized: that is, a pair of size 34 pants has 36" inside waistband. However, belts *are not* vanity sized. A size 36 belt has, give or take, 36" from middle hole to end of the buckle. Hence the common recommendation of sizing up when buying belts.

So if you measure your waist and that is 34", try a 34 belt first to see if it fit. Then you can decide whether you want to go up or down a size. If trying was not possible, you need to buy the belt at your waist size, rather than your pants size.

Sizing can be confusing at first. However, knowing your own measurement (honestly) and understanding how the sizes is done (vanity or not) should give you a good starting point. You still need to try the garment to fine tune the fitting. Nothing beats a good try-on to ensure a proper fit.

 

[Charles Dana]

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

 

[Matt S]

Ha, typical Internet argument. If you want to talk about your definition of mid or low rises, spill it out in the previous post rather than hiding from ambiguity.

I do not care how the term mid or low rises mean to you, nor how it is defined by the maker as there is no standard guideline in the industry about that. Hence, your definition of mid or low rises may or may not be correct. I was using the term as a simple high/mid/low rise on 3 different points at waist. However, just for discussion purpose, specify where the waistband should sit for high, mid, low rise *according to* you if you want to talk about more.

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.

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

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.

 

[Matt S]

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.

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

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.

 

[Matt S]

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.

 

[Searching_Best_Fit]

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.

Womens' high waist trousers were never out of the fashion as they are designed like that, similar for skirts and dresses. They are designed for the body, not fashion. The body does not very too much over the time.

Even if the trouser waist goes higher than current below the trouser waist, it would be hard sell to wear one's trouser at the *natural waist*, according to the tailoring definitions. To wear trousers at that point with a belt, you are tightening almost to your chest and abdomen. How can you define it is comfortable? Furthermore, when taking off the jacket, the shirts look too short and cause visual imbalance. That is just totally wrong in its own right.

OTOH, if your definition of natural waist is the line just top of the hip bone, then we are in agreement and everything you said here will be good.

 

[Matt S]

Womens' high waist trousers were never out of the fashion as they are designed like that, similar for skirts and dresses. They are designed for the body, not fashion. The body does not very too much over the time.

Even if the trouser waist goes higher than current below the trouser waist, it would be hard sell to wear one's trouser at the *natural waist*, according to the tailoring definitions. To wear trousers at that point with a belt, you are tightening almost to your chest and abdomen. How can you define it is comfortable? Furthermore, when taking off the jacket, the shirts look too short and cause visual imbalance. That is just totally wrong in its own right.

OTOH, if your definition of natural waist is the line just top of the hip bone, then we are in agreement and everything you said here will be good.

I am talking about trousers worn across the abdomen, not below it. Trousers should ideally be worn below the rib cage (and thus below the chest) and above the hip bones. There is a small range in here, which would be mid rise on the low end to high rise on the high end. This is how most men wore trousers from the beginning of trousers to about 10 year ago. Would you agree that this is the most natural place for trousers and not below?

 

[Fading Fast]

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!"

 

[Matt S]

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.