Jump to comment form
July 26, 2007 at 9:46 am
love that pink on the first guy – classy and hot.
July 26, 2007 at 9:48 am
I definitely agree with this one with you Sart.But-how many men and ladies too do have a waist nowadays?The pink shirted guy looks quite cute!
July 26, 2007 at 9:54 am
F-ing BRILLIANT! Sart, thank you for pointing this out. It’s so true. They are such strapping young men.
July 26, 2007 at 9:55 am
while i agree that it looks slimming on these two, i am not liking the fact that their torso is shortened.
July 26, 2007 at 9:57 am
I agree with your lesson. What if you’re really short? Pulling your pants up will shorten your torso and make you look like Ed Grimly. I think it really depends on your height and size. Just a thought Sart.
July 26, 2007 at 10:17 am
Interesting topic. The exact position of the waist is, for many men, rather fluid. I think that selecting the appropriate rise for men’s trousers is more a matter of body proportion. The most suitable rise is that which presents the torso and legs in best proportion to one another. IMHO, Gentleman #1 got it right (proportional) and Gentleman #2 did not (legs appear overly elongated and torso appears shortened, especially with the rather absurdly short tie length).
July 26, 2007 at 10:20 am
It also helps to have a shirt that fits properly, rather than those big blousy ones that so many men wear.
Question for sartorial experts: what if a guy has a bit of a belly, or a swayback, where his belly naturally sticks out a bit? Should he wear his pants a bit lower on the hips?
I completely agree with you. It does seem much easier for the slimmer men, though, to get this concept. When some men get a bit of a potbelly the pants go below the stomach and then comes the saggy rear look. Even if you’re a larger man, the “Fred Mertz” style is better than the barely staying on look! Do these guys mentally need to hang on to the thought that they can still wear a 34″ belt, no matter where that belt might be?
July 26, 2007 at 10:38 am
Am so loving these looks, especially the first guy, whose colors are just perfection.
And ditto whyioughtta’s question!
July 26, 2007 at 10:43 am
I agree with anonymous — the first guy did it right, the second guy didn’t. To make matters worse, his pants are too short. The hair makes him look like a hipster who is thinking “I’m too cool for school, so I’m going to dress like a tool”
July 26, 2007 at 10:44 am
Truer words were never spoken!
July 26, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hip-hugging trouserss on men is a plague. I’m glad you bring this up. There are many reasons to wear one’s trousers on the natural waist.
1) Comfort, especially when pleated and worn with braces.2) Drape, higher-waisted trousers hang better…again, especially when worn with braces.3) They provide slimming and heightening illusions on some men, since the legs appear longer and your belly isn’t hanging out.4) Of course, it also insures that one’s shirt will not show beneath the buttoning point on one’s coat
That said, I don’t believe the first gentleman’s trousers are being worn at his natural waist, but rather a few inches below. But the proportion is about right. Of course, this would matter a lot less if they just kept their jackets on!
July 26, 2007 at 10:58 am
I think the “pants on hips” thing is a very recent idea. Pants from the 30′s 40′s 50′s and 60′s all had high rises, some even 12in rises, and pants were ment to be worn around the waist. Even if a man had a gut, the pants were worn OVER the gut. This is why those familiar with older vintage suits are not surprised to find size 38 jackets with size 36 pants. People who think that higher pants are some sort of “new” development are ill informed. as are people who think it is “incorrect.”
July 26, 2007 at 10:59 am
pant placement allows one to play with a body’s proportion. pants at the waist don’t always look best on a very long legged guy…
July 26, 2007 at 11:00 am
Ow love men in pink!!! I try to persuade my husband to wear pink shirts more often, but he resists so hardly…=/
I agree on what you say here, it looks far more refined the pants on the waist area. But what about men with a round figure..? They couldn’t ever make it.
July 26, 2007 at 11:02 am
I’m 5’7″ tall and have a naturally high waist. I simply will not wear pants at my waist because it DOES make me look like Ed Grimly!
I think these two guys look great and if I had their body proportion I prob would too.
Fortunately I have a nice collection of slim fitted shirts that go very well with my low- to medium-rise pants/ jeans. Just a thought!
July 26, 2007 at 11:05 am
Hooray for the Miller brothers!
anonymous @ 10:17, this is a topic that has come up before, and I will say now what I said then — a short tie must be worn with trousers that are worn higher on the waist. That is a classic feature of 1930s menswear. In my opinion, a tie hanging over the waistband looks a bit sloppy.
July 26, 2007 at 11:11 am
Not to be totally pervy, but I would make out with top guy (ha!) in a heartbeat.
On topic: my issue with pants on my waist is that I’m tall (6’5″) and am pretty much all legs. When I wear pants on my waist up that high, it looks like I’m a neck on stilts. Ideas? It sucks, because the issue of the blouse-out shirt is very real.
July 26, 2007 at 11:28 am
I agree wholeheartedly that gentlemen should wear trousers that fit correctly. That said, not all trousers fit exactly the same. The two well-turned-out chaps pictured here are wearing trousers with a rise (the measurement between the groin seam and waistband) that should be worn at or near the waist. The problem for many men who would wear such trousers incorrectly slouched about their hips seems to be that they are unused to identifying the subtleties of fit.
Choosing correctly fitting trousers requires 1) a true reckoning of one’s waist size 2) good posture and 3) an accurate appraisal of whether the cut of the trousers is suitable and flattering. Many men seem to take the attitude that “Pants is pants and I’ll buy the first ones I see in the colour I need.”
Off-the-peg trousers are mass produced in cuts and sizes that may not suit every body type. It usually takes a bit of effort in finding the right fit among the available ranges in the shops and then fine-tuning with a tailor to get a correct fit. Sadly, many men simply do not make the effort.
Those who are concerned about the rise of trousers shortening the torso must look for trousers with a shorter rise. These can be more difficult to find.
One last word about length – The gentleman in the second photo is wearing his somewhat slim trousers a bit short, with a cuff that just touches the top of the shoe. I think it looks great. He looks cool and of the moment, rather than as if he has borrowed clothes from a much shorter man or Alfalfa Schweitzer.
I’m fairly tall (1,88 m / 6.3) and unfortunately I have disproportionately long legs (or at least it seems like it). If I pulled up my pants that high, I’d look a bit scare-crowy (a new word…HA!)
July 26, 2007 at 11:33 am
I think it really depends. Some people have a much greater leg length to torso length ratio. Pulling the pants up too high just accentuates the legs to the wrong effect. I also think a flat front versus a pleated front as well as gut size makes a difference as well. I personally wear mine in between.
July 26, 2007 at 11:45 am
The Harlem-Gentleman in the red suit surely doesn’t belong to the club of ANY guys…:-)))
The guy 1 in pink shirt is a nice example for representing the topic.
July 26, 2007 at 11:49 am
Both gentlemen look sharp, particularly Mr Pink Shirt. I think the key is the fit of the shirt. A fitted shirt, as opposed to a ‘blousy’ shirt, looks good. Waist or hips don’t matter as much as the streamline-effect of the whole ensemble.
July 26, 2007 at 11:50 am
Way to go! Thanks for bringing this subject up. In my opinion wearing dress pants on the hips, resulting in a baggy butt, is as classy as loose cargo shorts. It is time to move on.
If you want a lower rise waist AND a tailored look, you can find it (Cucinelli or Prada for example) and still have a great trim fit. I think wearing pants too high will make you look like you have been hanging around retirement communities.
July 26, 2007 at 11:53 am
July 26, 2007 at 11:56 am
Can you and I get married, please?
July 26, 2007 at 11:58 am
The guy in the pink shirt is a woman’s dream!
July 26, 2007 at 12:01 pm
A man with a bit of a belly should still wear his pants at his waist, BUT should wear braces instead of a belt. They look 100x better.
July 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm
True, but you’ve shown only relatively slim and well-proportioned men. Hip-slung pants help define larger behinds and extend shorter torsos. Also, well-fitting pants worn on the hips give a fresher, more modern look. =)
July 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I love this blog, mate – I really do. But stick to what you’re good at and spare us the style advice – especially when your judgement’s clearly rather shakey . The fella in the second pic could give Simon Cowell a run for his money in the high strides stakes. It’s not a good look on him.
July 26, 2007 at 12:46 pm
The slim and tall guy can really benefit from applying this ‘rule’ to his dresscode. I’m doubting that a bit more short and curvy man would gain anything – maybe Sart can prove us wrong?
July 26, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I don’t agree at all, you really have to have the right body for this, as the first guy does, plus those are great pants. The second man, however, looks way too hippy even though he is slim – a larger man would look even worse.
Laguna Beach Trad
July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Nice photos of the Miller brothers! I particuarly like the shade of pink on Miller #1. And Miller #2′s sockless look made me smile. Great pics as usual, Sart!
July 26, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Is the 2nd guy Derek Miller? Love the style very much!
July 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm
good tip, sart – making men look good one post at a time! the girls appreciate it! i like the pants on the first guy. the pants on the second guy look a little awkward, no?
July 26, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Blousing is more of a function of the width of a shirt. Those guys, while wearing their pants at their natural waist, are also wearing slim-cut shirts. More men should wear slim-cut shirts, but a tent of a shirt is going to be a tent of a shirt wherever your pants end up.
(That said, if you’re at or above average height, your shirt might stay tucked in better, especially in back, if your belt is higher.)
July 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm
A very sexy look on the right man, especially the top fellow (yum). But the bottom man, where I do think he could have pulled it off, they appear, in this photo, to be borderline mom jeans.
July 26, 2007 at 2:15 pm
If you’re pretty thin it can be quite hard to keep your pants at your waist – even with a belt … thus, my pants are always worn at my hips & i look good & classy!
July 26, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Good thought. Many friends complain about that bot belly look, now I have examples… and cute guys for them to emulate.
July 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I totally agree. It’s a much more pulled-together look.
July 26, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Second guy is Derrick Miller of Barker Black. Great summer look and at home in NoLita. Any idea where his frames are from?
July 26, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Agreed, at least as a general recommendation, and for “traditional” suits, which are meant to hang.
But other considerations–one’s height, the relative slimness of the pants, their length, etc.–need to be taken into account. Best fit is always an individual, case-by-case matter.
July 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm
great lesson, keep ‘em coming, also i really dig what looks to be the socksless leather loafers thing going on with homeboy in the navy pants
July 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm
isn’t the first guy kirk miller, also of barker black?
absolutely stunning, the two of them. their parents must be so proud [and stylish].
July 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm
At least part of the slimming factor comes from the fact that both of these gentlemen are very, very slim. I’ve started wearing my pants higher and I do like the look, but I think there is still a place for pants that hang low.
July 26, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Thank you Mr. Sartorialist.
A much needed section.
Greetings from London,
July 26, 2007 at 3:56 pm
But isn’t it the same for women ? longer legs, less bulky hips ????
July 26, 2007 at 4:05 pm
both those guys look great.that’s such a great tip!
July 26, 2007 at 4:08 pm
But what about tall slim people? I’m six-foot-seven, and it’s hard enough to find clothes in the first place; clothes that sit that high up (and I agree it’s a far better look) are even few(er) and further between.
July 26, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I own a Men’s Only Vintage store in Williamsburg, Brookyln (www.houndstoothnyc.com) and I’m always trying to converte those “sagging/untucked boys. It gives men a much leaner silohuette. But I don’t think guys understand that until you explain it to them. Thanks for bringing it up!
July 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I think this rule is only true for certain body types. If, for instance, you are self-conscious about being short-waisted, this will only make things worse.
July 26, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The pink on the first guy…the diagonal tie pin on the silver tie, the pants, beautiful
July 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm
is the second guy the dude from Barker Black?
July 26, 2007 at 7:11 pm
This look is great but it falls apart for many guys who can’t be bothered to get their shirts, pants tailored.
July 26, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Agreed! And Mr. Pink-shirted Guy is quite delicious.
July 26, 2007 at 7:17 pm
i’m baffled by the amount of negative comments regarding guy 2. a more classic, timeless pair of trousers is hard to imagine. and they look youthful and cool too.
July 26, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I am not that tall and I definitely look better with my pants at my waist – it does not make my torso look any shorter but it makes my legs look longer.
I think the bigger issue is that our eye has become so accustomed to seeing guys in jeans that the standard for torso proportion
Watch any movie from the 30′s – those guys always look more “put together” not just because they are wearing suits but because they are wearing them correctly.
July 26, 2007 at 9:14 pm
the tie clip is beautiful. oh how i love accessories. and i wholeheartedly agree with this post. younger guys especially tend to wear their pants much too low, when it clearly looks fantastic on both young men here.
i don’t mind the short(er) pants of the second, as he was very appropriately wearing loafers without socks. however, i’d love to hear opinions of the lack of pleats despite the cuff. i personally would have preferred that they weren’t cuffed, which may be why some have had a more negative reaction the lack of length…?
July 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Oh man, this means I have to loose another 50 lbs before sporting this look….
July 26, 2007 at 9:23 pm
The guy in the pink looks amazing. Beautiful fit, and I love that he’s not wearing a belt.
July 26, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I knew that this post would garner a lot of comments. I totally agree with Sart. I work in corporate America (not in creative design, or emerging marketing, or technology services so it’s not ok for me to wear jeans everyday) and it’s a must that I wear my trousers about my waist. It gives a clean, sleek look that you can’t get with some of the lower rises. I have come to hate to see the wearing of Banana Republic distressed khakis and driving loafers to work (and it’s not even Friday). This is a look that we should bring back to the forefront!! Press on well-dressers!!
Oh yeah, do I have to say that I do wear my jeans with a rather low rise? Didn’t want you to think I was a geek or anything…
July 26, 2007 at 9:48 pm
But your new rule goes against yesterday’s Valentino man posting. Hips or waist, Mr.Schuman, what is the lesson??
July 26, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I totally agree! My Custom Clothier has been giving this advice for years! Check out his web-site for his design illustrations on this subject.http://www.IIIEDWARD.com
July 26, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I don’t know, I’m not a guy and I guess each one may be different, but at least you’ve got people thinking about where their waistline should/could be, which is a step forward.
July 26, 2007 at 11:38 pm
This is kind of a dowdy look, isn’t it? High-rise pants. I don’t get it yet. But if that’s where wer’re going, that’s where we’ll all end up.
July 27, 2007 at 12:15 am
I’d agree if only there were pants that I could find that don’t go in(tamper) at the belt-line. medically defined the waist is in the hips not the abdomen. if your body is completely straight, hips to arms, this can work for some
July 27, 2007 at 12:37 am
I agree with Sart, both these gents look great, but where can a man find a reasonably priced pair of trousers with a high enough rise to wear at the waist? It seems most off-the-rack pants these days have a minisclue rise making pants worn at the waist look awkward. Any insight?
July 27, 2007 at 1:40 am
Really enjoy these analytical postings – and the discussion they create.
PS The guys look great – I love the mix of casual, formal, classic and modern.
July 27, 2007 at 1:54 am
i started doing that lately all the time. i agree,it looks much better and i like shorter pants look.the problem though is : i have a belly and it makes an “old man look”.any suggestions?
July 27, 2007 at 2:34 am
sarti sadly have to disagree with youwhen i look at men from the 30′s i always think “wow, those pants look so high that their torsos look short and end up looking wide waisted”plus, it’s just not a modern look. with all that fabric, we end up looking like tamales. with a lower rise, a man’s v shape is more accentuated. that all being said, it also depends on the man’s physique…and let’s get serious, fashion does not look good on a person who looks out of shape. part of fashion is to keep the body looking it’s best so that clothes can drape it to flatter the body not correct the flaws. EVERYONE needs a tailor and a gym membership!
July 27, 2007 at 3:07 am
I forgot to mention that I especially like the ´pink man´, cause he has kept his accessories to the minimum.Only the silver or hopefully platinum tiepin or clip.
July 27, 2007 at 3:17 am
I can´t agree more with Anon 10:17 AM. “I think that selecting the appropriate rise for men’s trousers is more a matter of body proportion”
The greatest things about this blog were showing new frontiers in fashion and the celebration of diversity. Now after Lesson #1, will it start celebrate uniformity?
Oh, besides, may be the best way to visually drop those 10 pounds, it´s not to have that extra 10 pounds already, specially with that italian fit in mind…
July 27, 2007 at 6:36 am
If you’re short, then wearing your trousers at your waist will not make you look shorter because it “shortens your torso”, but makes you look taller because it “lengthens the legs.”
People always look taller with longer looking legs — what do people think the aesthetic point of pinstriped trousers, pleats and high heels are? (Not all worn at once, of course.)
If you have a belly, then you wear your trousers to cut the belly in half. NOTHING shows off a belly like wearing your trousers at your hips. Trousers at a waist disguises it, just like a jacket.
The modern uniform of jeans (on hips) and tight t-shirt stops looking particularly flattering on men when their bodies are not at their absolute prime. Jackets and trousers at the waist were developed over a century for good reasons.
July 27, 2007 at 7:01 am
Good lesson but I think as general rule,you muist dress to suit your build.My torso in relation to my legs is slightly disproportionate.I tend to wear my trousers slightly below my waist as that works for me,without looking like a teen rapper.
July 27, 2007 at 8:41 am
For Anon 9:48this is not a new rule but one that has not been taught to the past two generations.
of course not every “rule” works for every body type but it works more often than not.
If you are a big guy, wear your pants at your waist and try a vest – think Mr. Ferre, he was always refined and you never saw his tummy hanging over his pants.
July 27, 2007 at 8:47 am
The first guy – purrrrfection!
Neat and stylish – love it.
July 27, 2007 at 10:21 am
To fantastic fellows, Kirk and Derrick. I challenge anyone to pop into Barker Black and not see these guys well dressed!
If you fancy some fantastic shoe polish, pick some of theirs up. Never used a better polish.
Great style, hands down. Ive got frames similar to Derricks as well, a little less round though.
July 27, 2007 at 10:52 am
Could you define waist v. hips?
July 27, 2007 at 11:43 am
Agreed. They are both perfect.
July 27, 2007 at 11:45 am
the barker black guy has some serious style. like bespoke punk. not too costumey though. i think that the natural waist look is fine if you’re thin, reasonably tall and are wearing fitted clothing. it’s a fine line between elegance and camel toe.
July 27, 2007 at 11:48 am
m @ 2:34:I completely disagree. “Fashion” goes way beyond narrow notions of body and body flattering. Sure, being fit is great– but I’ve seen some sexy, sexy folks who rock good clothes on a less than “perfect” bodies.
July 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Wow, that guy knows how to pull off pink well. He looks amazing.
Love the new tip! Doesn’t work for all, but when it works, it works.
July 27, 2007 at 1:18 pm
It has to do with age and posture too. Older guys who are short waisted and beginning to lose height usually look pretty bad with pants-at-waist. It emphasizes all the wrong features and makes them look older. Show me a guy in his 60′s who’s trying to look good, and I’ll show you a guy who looks better with pant’s-toward-hips.
July 27, 2007 at 1:24 pm
another great shot Sart
July 27, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Why is everyone dissing on the second dude, from Barker Black? I think he looks great. The guy in the pink, though, shouldn’t be wearing a shirt with a pocket.
July 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm
UGH… Pink-shirt guy is HOT. Love the fitted clothing and the classic style. YUM.
July 27, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I agree completely, pants should be on the waist, especially trousers, and jeans too. However these days most new pants,modern cuts like Prada, Gucci, Balenciaga, etc. are cut lower making it a difficult to wear them properly. The decision for guys between looking good and the unattractive, uncomfortable ball crunching difficult with todays cuts. Hugo Boss does well with its James Brown, slim, modern, inexpensive comparatilely, and enough room to wear it high without the pain. Thanks, designers here me loud and clear, more crotch, pleeeassse.
July 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm
i think if the dress pants are supposed to be that way (high waist) then that should be done. Otherwise, i wont look right. But, if one wears those european brands with super low cust (which are my favortites), and have the physique to pull it off, go for it.
PS does anyone knows how i could get tickets/entrance for New York Fashion Week????any show???let me know please!it’d be awesome
July 27, 2007 at 8:47 pm
#1 most played- justin timberlake
July 27, 2007 at 9:35 pm
oh, and I heard these guys made some sweet shoes too, but you know let’s keep talking about hips and waists. seriously, move the cuff up 4 inches or the waste up 3 and everyone flips out
July 28, 2007 at 9:32 am
I wear mostly flat front pants, and I wear a good amount of high-waisted ones too. What I find is that sitting, such as at my desk, really wrinkles/whiskers the pants, which i think you can see some of on barker number 2
July 28, 2007 at 1:40 pm
July 28, 2007 at 2:47 pm
AGREE! bigtime. so tired of the baggy look on a man. wish my handsome man would hike ‘em up but he won’t budge :(
July 28, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I agree with “m-”. Also, never liked pink on men, sorry.
July 29, 2007 at 1:10 am
I love the crisp pink shirt that the first guy is wearing.
For Gian, it isn’t so easy unless you’re connected with the industry or it’s for a class (Example, sometimes Pratt will send some of its fashion students over to the tents).
July 29, 2007 at 6:32 am
yeah!let’s ban the big belly’s and show us more of this,,it looks so… smoothbut in a good way!
July 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m surprised no comments on the length of the tie on the pink-shirted guy… Is it ok for his tie to be well past his belt? I’ve always been told that the tie should come to just above the belt buckle. I’m 5’8″ and always have a bit of a hard time getting the length to work well – it usually requires a fat knot (not my preference for most collars). Thoughts?
July 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm
My husband wore suits for his corporate job. Because he couldn’t afford decent new suits (and, well, he’s a bit of a rebel, too) he bought vintage and had them tailored. They sit on his waist.
60 floors worth of guys in suits and men in eleavators always singled him out for compliments. They often asked where he’d bought the suit. Secretaries smiled. Kids on schooltrips to the nearby museum often shouted out their praise.
I don’t think it was strictly nostalgia. He just looked hot!
July 30, 2007 at 9:39 am
Actually, I think that if a guy has trim abs, then wearing trousers at the hips won’t make much of a difference. In fact, if the shirt is tucked in snugly, then wearing trousers at the hips is a great way of showing off those abs.
Your suggestion works great with guys who have a paunch, though. :)
July 30, 2007 at 9:51 am
Re: length of tie on “Mr. Pink”…
It’s about 2 to 3 inches too long. The tie should end between the top and bottom of the belt. People are missing this bit of criticism. Whether it’s because the pants is the issue or because they find him cute and give him a pass, I cannot say.
July 30, 2007 at 10:18 am
Have you ever read American Psycho? Patrick Bateman’s character is forever giving out really detailed fashion advice and he says that the tie pin should be wore at a downward sloping 45 degree angle. This guy has is spot on!
July 31, 2007 at 7:01 am
Earlier Sart had a comment about a man “calling attention to his waist” as a man “who has a lot of confidence.”
Most people, today, associate low-rise trousers with a kind of sexual confidence. They were taught this, in part, by ad imagery.
Not everyone has the body for the look, of course.
And while that may be the “stupid” reason for the popularity of low-rise trousers, it’s not the only reason.
The principle of proportion, mentioned early in this thread, is a good one. Back in the old days, high-waisted trousers did not mess with a man’s top/bottom symmetry so much. Why? He also wore a jacket, and the jacket, when worn buttoned (as it was then), does much more to define the balance of the body. Many men also wore vests.
Sart, you can’t post pictures of the Miller brothers and then recommend that portlier men dress like Ferre. It’s not consistent. In the fat-man example, the trousers have nothing to do with the visual definition of his waist. They only drape a little better beneath his vest, and his jacket covers his rear.
That said, the higher rise should be another option. But to make it a “rule” is not wise. It is an affectation these days.
Comparisons to the old days are not persuasive, either. Back in the old days, men wore jackets with dress pants. Dress pants are more often cut like jeans because they are more often worn without a jacket.
We do not spend much time outdoors, in the elements. The vest and jacket are not likely to make a strong comeback. So the dress shirt and dress pants look will not go away. Trousers will not return to the waist, though this may become a less unusual option if we get more choices going forward. Too many people regard the look, instinctively, as affected. And on a lot of bodies, it will look affected.
These men look good because they have nice smiles and good bodies. Hot is as hot does. The trousers have little to do with it.
August 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m kind of surprised by the number of people here who don’t understand this basic fact about trousers. The same is true for women – a higher rise makes for a taller looking person.
Yes, there are going to be exceptions to this rule, but I generally believe they are few and far between.
As Sart said earlier, we have become so accustomed to these longer torso figures from all the low rises — but just because we’ve become accustomed doesn’t mean it looks better.
September 16, 2007 at 2:09 am
As a young guy, i agree with you, however, there are really nice pants that are meant for the hips. These hip pants i am talking about are not messy or rediculous looking either. They seem to have been given a bad reputation by those who wear them in a bad way. i like both looks
January 13, 2009 at 7:44 am
i agree with this only in any of the following sotuations- 1. you are overweight and wearing pleated pants. 2. even if you are not overweight wear only pleated pants at the waist. flat fronted pants are for the hips ONLY
April 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm
It's amazing the divisiveness amonst people on this "trouser rise" topic. Also amazing is the number of people who seem absolutely positive that their opinion on the matter is the correct one. Without stating my personal opinion, I can tell you that this much is true. The "natural" waist line is preferred by most if not all of the classical menswear professionals and tailors including Alan Flusser, Bruce Boyer, Will, Manton and every tailor on Savile Row for all good reasons stated in other posts above. The "hips" waist line is favored by young progressive fashionistas and is commonly called "the fashion waist" in various style circles. It boils down to personal preference and personal style. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone. Thanks Sart. Love your blog.
June 7, 2012 at 4:31 pm
WRONG! If I wore my pants like that I would have a short body and long legs. Clowns also dress like that. When pants are at the hips, they stay. If I pull them over that, they fall down. Not all bodies are the same. Much more comfortable at right above the hips.