Ask the "Style Doc" . Wanting my trousers to "rise" to the occasion!

[Doc4]

Today's question for discussion:

Well one trend I am seeing more and more that I am curious about is the rise length in slacks, or the lack thereof

My jeans, I wear low rise due to my build and comfort, so I naturally gravitate to lower rise khakis for work. What should I try to find, and how should they fit for a more formal outfit of say, sport coat and tie affairs. Does a wide belt overpower a lower to mid rise length pant?

I am fit, 6' 188#, 33" waist (in jeans, so hip measurment I guess), when I look for slacks and such the mid rise styles seem to start at about 38 waist, does a lower rise look aweful and too juvenile?

Trouser "rise" ...

... ever watch an old-timey black and white movie and find yourself thinking "hey, what gives with the pants being pulled up so high?" Nowadays we've become accustomed to seeing pants that sit on the hips ...

... and while that look can be flattering on a fit young lady, for 95% of the population it's not ideal. But it's "cool" ... you don't want to be "grandpa with the pants pulled way up" ...

... which is about as sexy as "station wagon" nowadays. But grandpa isn't doing something strange in his old age, he's just dressing the same way he did as a hip young lad back in the ice age or something. "Um, like, whateverrrr!"

Traditionally, trousers came up higher than they normally do nowadays. Think "close to the belly button" for how high your grandfather's pants came up back in the day. And they were baggier too. You don't see Fred Astaire dancing the Shortie George in low-rise slim-cut jeans.

... all of which is a longwinded way of introducing the decline ... er, downfall ... er, lowering, yeah, that's it, lowering of the trouser rise in the past few decades. (Blame the sixties, blame the eighties or nineties or whenever ... it happened.)

One of the great things about style nowadays, compared to yesteryear, is there is more latitude for personal preference (IMHO), so if you like a high rise or a low rise, you can probably find it somewhere and not look TOO out of place regardless. IMHO (again) a higher rise looks better on more formal clothes, so a suit ought to have a higher rise than casual jeans or khakis (or more precisely, the latter will look better with a low rise if that is your wish.)

Now, the original question raised the issue of "body type" and low-rise pants fitting him better. Hey, that's cool. Wear what makes you look stylish and feel comfortable. He also asked if low-rise would make him look "juvenile". Well ... a bit. Low-rise is a modern trend to begin with, and the young seem to gravitate toward it ... and (somewhat contradicting what I said before) the older men seem to gravitate toward higher rises. So I'll let you make the call ... are you just looking "youthfull" or are you stuck in "little boy pants".

(To clarify the apparent contradiction noted a moment ago ... until about the 1960s and the "Mod" movement, high-rise baggy trousers were normal and stylish. A man who was young in the 1950s and set his stylistic compass then would always gravitate toward that style. The middle-aged man of today probably wore lower-rise pants in his heyday, and now that he's no longer chasing 18-year-old co-eds ... right guys? ... he's much more interested in sensible trousers that fit well rather than ill-fitting "cool" clothes.)



... all of which is a longwinded way of saying ... if you really like low-rise pants keep wearing them if you can "pull off the look" (harder or easier depending on the actual pants" but ... be honest with yourself as to whether or not you are pulling off the look, or looking like Mister Midlife Crisis.

 

[john parker]

Very nice discussion, Doc4. But for the most part aren't we subject to the manufacturer? Given a waist size, is there that much latitude on what one can get off-the-rack? I think I have seen a bit of an option, but not much. I was horrified to find that Levi just changed their 505 jean cut (my jeans of choice) to a lower rise, but found (to my relief) when I tried on a new pair that the change was almost not noticeable.

 

[Doc4]

Very nice discussion, Doc4. But for the most part aren't we subject to the manufacturer? Given a waist size, is there that much latitude on what one can get off-the-rack?

Of course we are subject to the manufacturers, but ... there's lots of different options out there and different manufacturers.

 

[ArNav]

Manufacturers suck these days. You have no choice. I like higher-sitting pants but have to live with pants that are probably made for 16yo rappers from the ghetto. When I try to raise the belt, the pants cut my butt.

 

[ChefJohnBoy-ardee]

Manufacturers suck these days. You have no choice. I like higher-sitting pants but have to live with pants that are probably made for 16yo rappers from the ghetto. When I try to raise the belt, the pants cut my butt.

16 yo from the ghetto wearpants that have no rise. the pants are lucky if they hang onto the back of their rear...Now a 16 year old from suburbia will have the tighter fitting, no rise jeans.

 

[Kazeryu]

I'd say Doc's assessment is spot-on.

There has been a slow evolution over the last few decades towards lower rises, with a recent spike. However, formalwear, being full of inertia as always, tends towards higher rises than modern casual wear. Since the "change in amount of rise" has accelerated in the last ten years or so, I would say that at the moment there's a fair amount of leeway in what can be considered 'normal' - while there are indeed some people with their pants just barely covering the, err, 'subject matter', there are probably an equal number for whom pants still hover at a more modest height.

I wouldn't try wearing pants at the top of my hips anymore, though.

 

[Doc4]

http://billskhakis.com/Help/Size-Fit.aspx

 

[john parker]

But not sure what all is involved since "fuller cut" is mentioned for the M1. From my experience I believe the M1 is meant for someone with a bit of belly that the higher rise is meant to cover.

 

[Phog Allen]

Well count me as one who prefers a higher rise. Even when I was young I preferred them. My body shape does not play well with low rise trousers. Even when I was young and quite thin. If you took all the fat off me like when I was thirty or so, I would be shaped like the golfer on the right. Low rise simply won't feel "right" to someone who keeps(and needs) their trousers above the hips. As one poster put it, it feels like you are being cut in half up the middle of your bum. And heaven help you when you when you hit the middle aged spread. If you have ANY backside to you at all you know what I mean. I guess those chaps with the no-keister build can wear them but I cannot. I have been unable to find normal rise trousers at any of the brand stores around here.

Cheers, Todd

 

[john parker]

Low rise simply won't feel "right" to someone who keeps(and needs) their trousers above the hips. As one poster put it, it feels like you are being cut in half up the middle of your bum. And heaven help you when you when you hit the middle aged spread. If you have ANY backside to you at all you know what I mean. I guess those chaps with the no-keister build can wear them but I cannot. I have been unable to find normal rise trousers at any of the brand stores around here.

I have middle age spread AND no keister! And wearing a belt tight enough to hold my trousers above my hips wore raw spots in my hip bones! Which is why I turned to wearing braces and have never looked back! Can keep my trousers up where they belong, no raw spots, and the trousers drape very nicely. Any rise on me quickly became no rise until I went to a braces.

 

[Boro62]

I have middle age spread AND no keister! And wearing a belt tight enough to hold my trousers above my hips wore raw spots in my hip bones! Which is why I turned to wearing braces and have never looked back! Can keep my trousers up where they belong, no raw spots, and the trousers drape very nicely. Any rise on me quickly became no rise until I went to a braces.

Do you use the clip on bracers or the ones where you need buttons sewn into your pants? Also what kind of pants do you usually wear and what kind of shirt??

 

[john parker]

Do you use the clip on bracers or the ones where you need buttons sewn into your pants? Also what kind of pants do you usually wear and what kind of shirt??

I wear braces that require buttons. Tried clip-ons for a short while, but they kept pulling loose. My daily wear (working) are blue jeans. For these I use Carhartt "nail on buttons" available through Hank's Clothing (among others). And I attach these such that the button is to the outside of the jean for comfort's sake. Dress slacks and khakis have regular buttons sewn to the inside of the waistband. As to shirts, I almost exclusively wear long sleeved ones winter and summer (sleeves rolled up in the summer). Somehow I don't think the braces look quite right with short sleeved shirts, but that is perhaps just me. Also I do not hold to the old school conception that braces, like underwear, should always be covered (by a waistcoat or coat). I view braces as a comfortable way of holding up your trousers.

 

[Doc4]

My daily wear (working) are blue jeans. For these I use Carhartt "nail on buttons" available through Hank's Clothing (among others). And I attach these such that the button is to the outside of the jean for comfort's sake. Dress slacks and khakis have regular buttons sewn to the inside of the waistband.

Somehow I don't think the braces look quite right with short sleeved shirts, but that is perhaps just me.

Also I do not hold to the old school conception that braces, like underwear, should always be covered (by a waistcoat or coat). I view braces as a comfortable way of holding up your trousers.

Braces used to be fastened on the outside of pants as a normal way of doing it, until the 3-piece suit became uncommon, and then the buttons tended to be on the inside. IMHO if one is not wearing a vest, "inside" looks better for dress clothes, but I'd still go "outside" for jeans.

I agree about the short-sleeve-and-braces look being "off" a bit. Personal preference of course.

If you are wearing your braces with jeans, there's a long and noble tradition of those braces being well-seen in public, so don't worry. I'd be more concerned with braces "showing" in terms of formal wear (tuxedo &c). For "regular suits" ... meh. (When I wear a suit, I almost never take the jacket off anyhow, as for me the "bare shirt and tie" look is "off", braces OR belt, either way. I know I'm in the minority there, so don't get too worked up about what others do.

 

[john parker]

Doc4, don't get me wrong. Actually, when I wear a tie I almost never take my jacket/suit coat off either. I agree that "bare shirt and tie" look a bit off. But with jeans or khakis without tie, I rarely wear a coat unless it is cold.

 

[Doc4]

But with jeans or khakis without tie, I rarely wear a coat unless it is cold.

Agree. I'd probably opt for a sweater if it's cold, for jeans or khakis myself.

 

[gegarrenton]

Trouser rise is actually on the upswing (I really wanted to say rise again there ). The nadir of rise was either the 70's or 90's depending on how you looked at it, and a lot of manufacturers are heading north at an ever increasing rate. So I think that it's get "safer" as it were to sport more rise. I usually go for at least 12" on 32" waist myself.