# Dress Pants Rise



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

What is the standard rise on modern suit dress pants? I have a boss passolini suit and the rise is a little over 11", which is pretty high imo for a modern suit. Maybe I am just slim in the seat so it rises further? Is it normal to wear a suit above the belly button? Also, how far down your ankles do you normally wear pants? (Inseam?) thx


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

the bellybutton is not the point to use when measuring.
put your finger on the protruding hip bones. move just above, to where your sides indent.
thats your waist line. thats where the trousers waist should be worn. if the trousers crotch sags down too deep. then the rise is too long for you. 
each manufacturer makes what they feel is an average rise.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

High rise is good. The modern penchant for low-rise is sloppy and robs the figure of height. As for the ankles, a slight to moderate break is the best bet, i.e. resting atop the shoe and creasing slightly.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

11" is about a standard rise. That's about what you'll find on trousers from Brooks Brothers or Jos Bank. Fashion forward cuts go a bit lower, more traditional (Polo Ralph Lauren for instance) go a bit higher. Rise shouldn't matter on whether the suit is modern or not, but rather on your body. Your waist is the natural place for your trousers to sit, and it is also the place that looks best on most men. For me it happens to be just above my navel. a tailor describes it well. Rise length isn't determined by your overall height. I'm about 5'9" and I need a long rise to be comfortable. I need a rise no shorter than 12 inches for my trousers to comfortably reach my waist.


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

Does everyone agree that the waistline is usually just above the hip bone? I was told it is the narrowist part of your torso, which for me, is 2 1/2" above my belly button and is 29.5". But just above my hips, I am 32 1/2 or 33". I'm skinny as a rail, and normally buy 30/33 low rise jeans for reference. But I know jeans give extra room on the number. If pants are advertised as low rise (suit pants that is), is the waist true to size? Like 34 would be like 36 or 37 on jeans for low rise because they take into account the hips?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

What amplifiedheat said. Higher rise trousers look better, wear better, and are more comfortable.


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

I'm almost 6 foot and weight about 145, don't you think it would be better for me to wear low rise to emphasize my torso instead of my narrow legs?


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Nope.



tman87 said:


> I'm almost 6 foot and weight about 145, don't you think it would be better for me to wear low rise to emphasize my torso instead of my narrow legs?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

There is no man for whom low rise trousers look better. 

If you're concerned about being tall and thin (after crying me a f***ing river), get your trousers cut a little fuller. Your pants should be hanging straight down from your hips. The shape of your legs should not be obvious to an observer.


----------



## pkprd869 (Jul 7, 2009)

Rise in trousers is based on height and body shape. I'm on 5'7" and wear regular rise trousers, because I have a large rear and thighs from when I had to play sports. For me, I wear my trousers just bellow or right across my navel. (Using the rule *a tailor* suggests)

*tman87*, if you're concerned about your torso or legs, I think it would be more about cut of the trousers. If you want to create the classic "column" on the lower body, go with straight cut trousers. This would emphasis you upper body more. Skinny cuts emphasis your lower body, which it appears you do not want.

ETA: CuffDaddy must have beat me by seconds on his reply


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

lol, it's my burden


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

It is definitely necessary to know your overall height, before being able to comment on the appropriate level of rise.

At 6' tall, an 11" rise is certainly an average measurement. However, not all man are 'average'.

This is one of the major cases for buying tailored clothing. At least then, your trousers will fit like a dream, and will never trouble you in the 'rise'.


----------



## Bernard T. McManus (Sep 23, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> There is no man for whom low rise trousers look better.


Some very attractive, thin women look good in low rise trousers.

Otherwise, it's the cultural equivalent of trying to ape an ape. The low rise trouser gives the man of today a "trousered ape" look. Evolution in reverse, I guess. Or too many of our designers like the look of buttcracks.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bernard T. McManus said:


> Some very attractive, thin *women *look good in low rise trousers.


Key word bolded. Briliant post, sir.


----------



## Jiddle (Aug 7, 2005)

Be careful of semantics here. The classic terms for a rise are "long," "short," and "standard." The term "low rise" is an artificially created term primarily by manufacturers of jeans to indicate they are worn significantly below the waist. In other words, "low rise" and "short rise" as applied to dress pants are not interchangeable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jiddle, I don't get your post. Can you elaborate further on what you understand the difference between short-rise and low-rise to be?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

tman87 (and others). Check out Jimmy Stewart's look. By his own admission, he had some thin legs. No short rise even dismounting from "Pie".

Longer rise to balance his figure and full cut on the trouser legs.


----------



## MF177 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bernard T. McManus said:


> Some very attractive, thin women look good in low rise trousers.
> 
> Otherwise, it's the cultural equivalent of trying to ape an ape. The low rise trouser gives the man of today a "trousered ape" look. Evolution in reverse, I guess. Or too many of our designers like the look of buttcracks.


i disagree about the ape...need a big torso and knuckles that scrape the ground, no?

seriously--i am short torsoed and have realtively long legs low rise - true low rise no, but a semi lowrise looks better on me.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

MF177 said:


> seriously--i am short torsoed and have realtively long legs low rise - true low rise no, but a semi lowrise looks better on me.


I've never met you. I've never seen a picture of you. I have no idea what your measurements are.

Yet I know that you are wrong.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

MF177 said:


> seriously--i am short torsoed and have realtively long legs low rise - true low rise no, but a semi lowrise looks better on me.


Fred Astaire. Short torso, long legs. High rise. You lose.


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

Question (think Dwight from the Office): Do you'll prefer normal rise in nice jeans or pants with tucked in shirt without a sport coat or jacket?


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> I've never met you. I've never seen a picture of you. I have no idea what your measurements are.
> 
> Yet I know that you are wrong.


+1 :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MF177 (Jun 10, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I've never met you. I've never seen a picture of you. I have no idea what your measurements are.
> 
> Yet I know that you are wrong.


No im not---but
you may think im talking about low rise like lowriders (jeans)
not that low....

but semi-low....everyone as well as myself tell me i look better


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

I feel a little weird if my pants aren't at least an inch and a half below my belly button. I feel like a body builder or something, except with no chest lol. Arnold sported pants high like that in kindergarten cop (it was on tv!)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

MF177 said:


> but semi-low....everyone as well as myself tell me i look better


The other children are teasing you. It's a sign of affection, no doubt, but you cannot take them seriously.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

tman87 said:


> Does everyone agree that the waistline is usually just above the hip bone? I was told it is the narrowist part of your torso, which for me, is 2 1/2" above my belly button and is 29.5". But just above my hips, I am 32 1/2 or 33". I'm skinny as a rail, and normally buy 30/33 low rise jeans for reference. But I know jeans give extra room on the number. If pants are advertised as low rise (suit pants that is), is the waist true to size? Like 34 would be like 36 or 37 on jeans for low rise because they take into account the hips?


people come in many different shapes. if we were all alike there would be no problems in fitting. but the very precise spot varies.
notice i said "where the sides indent". some tailors will tie a string around the customers waist to be sure of its location. 
a rise is a vertical measure from the level of the crotch to the level of the waist.
trousers are short, regular, and long rise. worn at the waist.
jeans come in a "low rise" meant to be worn at the hip not the waist. but they still call them as waist sizes. why? because the public know the waist as the top of the jean. they would be confused if the top of the was called something else. or would it? 
but then its moot because you cant depend on jean measurements.
or should jeans be sized by the hip measure, and not call it the waist.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

tman87 said:


> Does everyone agree that the waistline is usually just above the hip bone? I was told it is the narrowist part of your torso, which for me, is 2 1/2" above my belly button and is 29.5". But just above my hips, I am 32 1/2 or 33". I'm skinny as a rail, and normally buy 30/33 low rise jeans for reference. But I know jeans give extra room on the number. If pants are advertised as low rise (suit pants that is), is the waist true to size? Like 34 would be like 36 or 37 on jeans for low rise because they take into account the hips?


people come in many different shapes. if we were all alike there would be no problems in fitting. but the very precise spot varies.
notice i said "where the sides indent". some tailors will tie a string around the customers waist to be sure of its location. 
a rise is a vertical measure from the level of the crotch to the level of the waist.
trousers are short, regular, and long rise. worn at the waist.
jeans come in a "low rise" meant to be worn at the hip not the waist. but they still call them as waist sizes. why? because the public know the waist as the top of the jean. they would be confused if the top of the was called something else. or would it? 
but then its moot because you cant depend on jean measurements.
or should jeans be sized by the hip measure, and not call it the waist.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

tda003 said:


> tman87 (and others). Check out Jimmy Stewart's look. By his own admission, he had some thin legs. No short rise even dismounting from "Pie".
> 
> Longer rise to balance his figure and full cut on the trouser legs.


That is one ugly avatar, Sir.


----------



## jst (Oct 22, 2008)

Jiddle said:


> Be careful of semantics here. The classic terms for a rise are "long," "short," and "standard." The term "low rise" is an artificially created term primarily by manufacturers of jeans to indicate they are worn significantly below the waist. In other words, "low rise" and "short rise" as applied to dress pants are not interchangeable.


Thanks. Very interesting for us with different mother language.


----------



## tman87 (Oct 23, 2009)

I agree, jean sizes are totally unreliable. My real waist is 29.5, but a few inches lower where I like to wear them, I'm 32.5-33 and I still wear 30 low rise jeans. I don't know if they take into account the wider hips, or if they just make the waist 3-4 in bigger than the size indicates.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

I find it is less confusing to think in the correct terms for rise, short,regular and long. Some men think low and high refer to where the waist is or is it the crotch? Thats why these terms can lead to the wrong conclusions. The jeans folks don't help matters.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Rise in trousers has only one meaning, AFAIK: the difference between the inseam and outseam of the pants.* Low rise means that difference is small. High rise means the difference is large. The end.

Jeans are BS anyway, but the definition remains the same, regardless of what the jackass marketers of jeans say.

* I suppose it's theoretically possible that a pair of trousers could have a _very_ wide waistband, thus leading to a higher functional rise than the rise number would indicate. Other than that, rise is rise.


----------

