# Casual Clothing Length



## djvtech (Sep 11, 2011)

I've read a lot of fashion books and havent really found out what is to short for shirt and sweater length. I know not to go long enough that it covers your entire butt or crotch, but what would be to short/tight? Are the lengths of these ok, and is it ok to have hoodies/cardigans shorter than your T shirt so the shirt hangs out a little? Thanks! :icon_smile: I'm also 21.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Go to G3 and ask Jeremy to fit you properly for shirts. Expect to spend over a hundred dollars on a shirt, but once you've determined your size, you can take advantage of sales and cheaper shops.

Might I also suggest that you invest in a few ties. Kids our age can wear them "ironically" and even with dark wash jeans and a short sleeved shirt, one looks better with a tie than an open collar.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Please don't wear ANYTHING ironically. You either wear the real deal with confidence or you don't.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Perhaps ironically is the wrong word. I meant it is worn as an item of fashion, not a requirement for his business life.

Tom


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Short sleeve shirt with a tie and jeans though? :crazy:


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

This may mark me as a crotchety old curmudgeon, but I can't imagine that anyone considers this look to be attractive. Shirt tails or bottoms hanging out below sweaters or jackets just look sloppy to me. Wearing a shirt untucked is fine, but wearing it so short that there's skin or an undershirt between it and the top of the pants is downright ugly.

Everything is shorter today than it was 5 years ago - suit and sport jackets, sweaters, shirts, pants etc. Pant rises are shorter than a list of sensible politicians, too. In fact, almost every article of clothing I've seen on retail racks and shelves in the last year has been too short and too tight.

I'm certainly not complaining because they don't fit me - they do. I'm 6'2" and wear a 42 long jacket with 33" or 34" pants (depending on style and cut). If a jacket doesn't cover the back pockets on my jeans, it just looks bad to me. Seeing a patch of shirt beneath the closed buttons of a sweater or jacket looks sloppy. And age is irrelevant - it looks as dumb on a 21 year old as it does on a 61 year old.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Agreed. Every time I see someone in a suit with their shirt tails flapping about beneath a tie... just... grrr. It ruins an otherwise good look. And short sleeves with ties are for '60s NASA employees (who'd ditch the tie if it weren't required), not men who want to actually look good.

I'm all for a _trim_ look but they've taken the _skinny_ look to a ridiculous extreme now.

No worries though. I'm here to illustrate the relative terms with the help of this handy pictorial guide!

Trim










Slim










Body Paint


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Its ok to have your T shirt come out below your sweater/ hoodie. It looks more layered. Colors need to blend/match though. This works to your advantage if your heavy. There's a certain age when this doesn't work anymore, individually, but by then you should be wearing suits and jackets. 

It's also ok to have your dress/bd shirt come out below your v neck sweater if you are very young and not wearing dress pants (wearing denim). A shirt is always tucked into the pants when wearing a suit, or when wearing a tie or bow tie IMO. 

Otherwise you end up looking like a young accountant on his third binge day during teambuilding in Vegas.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Its ok to have your T shirt come out below your sweater/ hoodie....
> It's also ok to have your dress/bd shirt come out below your v neck sweater if you are very young...


Who says it's OK? Commonality does not confer acceptable status on things that wouldn't deserve it otherwise. The "layered look" refers to concentric layers, not vertical ones. Wearing an outer shell over an unconstructed jacket over a v-neck over a t-shirt is layered - wearing pants and shirts that are so short as to prevent a lasting relationship between them at the waist is not.

Letting your innermost layer (and especially, as illustrated in this very thread, one side of your innermost layer) hang out between your top and your pants looks somewhere between unkempt and slovenly to me, depending on the components and the wearer. I worry about those who can't even take the time and expend the energy to keep their shirts tucked in.

BTW - I believe that everything has recently become shorter and tighter because there's a 2 to 3% savings on raw materials for the manufacturer. And everybody under 40 is "very young".....:biggrin:


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Its ok to have your T shirt come out below your sweater/ hoodie. It looks more layered. Colors need to blend/match though. This works to your advantage if your heavy. There's a certain age when this doesn't work anymore, individually, but by then you should be wearing suits and jackets.
> 
> It's also ok to have your dress/bd shirt come out below your v neck sweater if you are very young and not wearing dress pants (wearing denim). A shirt is always tucked into the pants when wearing a suit, or when wearing a tie or bow tie IMO.
> 
> Otherwise you end up looking like a young accountant on his third binge day during teambuilding in Vegas.


Bjorn, seriously? Wow. The only age at which this is appropriate is probably younger than 5, when constant running and rolling around in the dirt makes it hard to keep your shirt tucked in. Otherwise, having an undershirt stick out from below a layer is about as bad as having your underpants stick up above your trousers.

If you're curious about whether or not a shirt should be tucked in, just take a look at the hem. If it's a straight hem, feel free to go untucked. Chances are, it'll be a short-sleeved, warm-weather shirt and won't require any layering, thus voiding the OP's question about peeking shirts. If the shirt has tails, tuck it in. No exceptions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1. Agreed!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

bluesman said:


> Who says it's OK? Commonality does not confer acceptable status on things that wouldn't deserve it otherwise. The "layered look" refers to concentric layers, not vertical ones. Wearing an outer shell over an unconstructed jacket over a v-neck over a t-shirt is layered - wearing pants and shirts that are so short as to prevent a lasting relationship between them at the waist is not.
> 
> Letting your innermost layer (and especially, as illustrated in this very thread, one side of your innermost layer) hang out between your top and your pants looks somewhere between unkempt and slovenly to me, depending on the components and the wearer. I worry about those who can't even take the time and expend the energy to keep their shirts tucked in.
> 
> BTW - I believe that everything has recently become shorter and tighter because there's a 2 to 3% savings on raw materials for the manufacturer. And everybody under 40 is "very young".....:biggrin:


I wasn't referring to layering as a concept but simply that the shirt sticking out of the sweater let's that layer be shown.

I view it as 'casual' rather than slovenly but ymmv, especially if over 25.

Worrying about the way younger guys dress is a sign of aging, I try to avoid that 

Would you prefer a 16 yo in a slim fit italian dress shirt coming down 3 inches below a v neck wool sweater, slim jeans and brown suede monks, or the same guy in hoodie and jeans that are too big?

I commend young people for using classic quality clothing items in a drastically younger approach than I do, wearing a tie without buttoning the shirt, having good dress shirt tails 'sticking out', wearing bow ties with short sleeved shirts, wearing distressed denim (or denim with paint on it), etc.

I also want them to wear a wool charcoal, dark grey or navy suit for funerals, with a black silk tie, black shoes with proper polish and a proper white dress shirt (with proper spread or point dress shirt collar, not BD), combed hair, be shaved and be silent. If there's a dress code, conform. If it's casual, have fun with it.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Bjorn, seriously? Wow. The only age at which this is appropriate is probably younger than 5, when constant running and rolling around in the dirt makes it hard to keep your shirt tucked in. Otherwise, having an undershirt stick out from below a layer is about as bad as having your underpants stick up above your trousers.
> 
> If you're curious about whether or not a shirt should be tucked in, just take a look at the hem. If it's a straight hem, feel free to go untucked. Chances are, it'll be a short-sleeved, warm-weather shirt and won't require any layering, thus voiding the OP's question about peeking shirts. If the shirt has tails, tuck it in. No exceptions.


Most well made Italian shirts targeting a younger clientele are straight. So I think you just argued in favour of my thesis.

Also, although i brought up dress shirtd as well, the original question seems to be about 'T shirts'. And they are straight...

I'm not saying let your white hanes stick out, rather the nice T shirt that matches the rest of your outfit in color and fabric.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Bjorn, seriously? Wow. The only age at which this is appropriate is probably younger than 5, when constant running and rolling around in the dirt makes it hard to keep your shirt tucked in. Otherwise, having an undershirt stick out from below a layer is about as bad as having your underpants stick up above your trousers.
> 
> If you're curious about whether or not a shirt should be tucked in, just take a look at the hem. If it's a straight hem, feel free to go untucked. Chances are, it'll be a short-sleeved, warm-weather shirt and won't require any layering, thus voiding the OP's question about peeking shirts. If the shirt has tails, tuck it in. No exceptions.


This right here pretty much sums it up.

I will also add that the guy in the first set of pictures is wearing his jeans ridiculuosly low (leave the low rider jeans to hot girls please), and "Skinny suits" guy looks like he's wearing his considerably shorter and smaller younger brother's suit.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Most well made Italian shirts targeting a younger clientele are straight. So I think you just argued in favour of my thesis.
> 
> Also, although i brought up dress shirtd as well, the original question seems to be about 'T shirts'. And they are straight...
> 
> I'm not saying let your white hanes stick out, rather the nice T shirt that matches the rest of your outfit in color and fabric.


Bjorn, I'm 30 so, technically, I'm in the old-guy-complaining-about-the-way-young-guys-dress camp. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. The prevailing attitude among the average guy when it comes to dress is that "Casual is always better, and more casual is more better." Most guys have no idea why shirts have shirt tails. Most guys think that dressing well means wearing a "nice T shirt that matches the rest of your outfit in color and fabric."

I'm all for younger guys experimenting with "classic" items but, for heaven's sake, teach them the rules before patting them on the back for breaking them. The last thing we need is a slew of posts asking whether a spread or BD collar is best for layering under an ironic graphic tee and a slew of responses saying "at least he's wearing a collared shirt."


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Worrying about the way younger guys dress is a sign of aging, I try to avoid that


Ummm, ahhhh, they'll actually sell this stuff to me too. I don't care how old you are - sloppy is sloppy. Physicians, lawyers, bankers and accountants of all ages loosen their ties and unbutton their collars regularly - this isn't innovation, it's comfort. But if we also pulled out a shirt tail, we wouldn't look younger, just sloppier.

Classic quality items in a drastically younger approach? That would be buying a top quality jacket at a thrift shop and wearing it with jeans and a long sleeved T-shirt, or wearing a traditional top coat with cargo pants and a hoodie.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Bjorn, I'm 30 so, technically, I'm in the old-guy-complaining-about-the-way-young-guys-dress camp. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. The prevailing attitude among the average guy when it comes to dress is that "Casual is always better, and more casual is more better." Most guys have no idea why shirts have shirt tails. Most guys think that dressing well means wearing a "nice T shirt that matches the rest of your outfit in color and fabric."
> 
> I'm all for younger guys experimenting with "classic" items but, for heaven's sake, teach them the rules before patting them on the back for breaking them. The last thing we need is a slew of posts asking whether a spread or BD collar is best for layering under an ironic graphic tee and a slew of responses saying "at least he's wearing a collared shirt."


Well, I think in view of the OPs question, I took a measured approach.

I googled a little, and I don't think the following is abysmal:

Or even:

And also, for the kids, I think that's exactly what we need.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

This thread does a nice job of illustrating the difficulties people have when they speak entirely different clothing languages. Various clothing elements - their appearance- have different meanings in different clothing languages, just as various sounds have very different meanings in different spoken languages.

Bjorn, djvtech, the pictures you've posted all say "duhr, herp-derp duh," in my clothing language. They presumably say something different in yours. I couldn't possibly begin to opine as to precisely how long or short those incoherent-to-me elements should be to best communicate in the clothing language you speak.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> This thread does a nice job of illustrating the difficulties people have when they speak entirely different clothing languages. Various clothing elements - their appearance- have different meanings in different clothing languages, just as various sounds have very different meanings in different spoken languages.
> 
> Bjorn, djvtech, the pictures you've posted all say "duhr, herp-derp duh," in my clothing language. They presumably say something different in yours. I couldn't possibly begin to opine as to precisely how long or short those incoherent-to-me elements should be to best communicate in the clothing language you speak.


To understand the subtleties of any language, one should learn at least one additional language. 

As for the 'duh comment', that's a little bit like asking a trad guy if he's in a barbershop band, or stating the positive aspects of the lowered waistline to him (from Wikipedia):

"Drop waist: A low, horizontal waistline that usually falls near the level of the upper hips. Balances the upper and lower bodies, and adds to the visual impression of height by lengthening the torso."

As opposed to the 'Natural waist':

"Natural: A horizontal waistline that falls at the natural waist and tends to make the wearer seem shorter by visually dividing the figure in half."

Young people frequently say "duhr, herp-derp duh" or something to that effect, but they do get older with time.

The natural waistline however, will always make us look short.

*waits for forum riot to really kick in*

Seriously, I don't think anyone posting like the op is really looking for advice in the category of 'tuck in BD shirt, wear a jacket, and get some proper bluchers'. Fashion forum?

In casualwear, there's no rule being violated by untucking.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

There are no rules for dressing - it's my sensibilities that are being violated. To test the hypothesis that better clothing and a bit more style might make this look more acceptable, I did a little Googling.....and there's definitely a difference. These guys just look sloppy to me:










These look well put together, even if I'm still not wild about untucked shirt tails beneath a sweater:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn, please re-read my post. You seem to have missed the point rather thoroughly, which is to acknowledge that you and the OP are just trying to do something very different than what I try to do. If you were trying to do the same thing as me, then your photos would be evidence of monstrous incompetence. But you aren't. I don't understand _what_ you guys are trying to do/say, but I don't pretend to. So, as you will notice, I *refrain* from advocating for things that would make sense in my clothing language.

In short, I am acknowledging your diversity and differences, and refraining from judging them by the standards that are relevant to me. I make the same concession to guys wearing hip-hop clothes with coordinated athletic and faux-athletic wear. It makes no damn sense to me, and looks awful IMO, but they've got a whole different culturally-contingent aesthetic than I do, so I'm sure the feeling is mutual. Anyway, live and let live. (But don't come to my office for an interview speaking some other clothing language!  )


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn, I just looked up the Wikipedia article you quoted. There are no citations whatsoever. That alone makes me question their authority on the subject. It also seems like they're talking about women's dresses rather than clothing as a whole.

Drop waist is not the same thing as low rise. This is a drop waist.










I see what you were trying to do, but must refute it. Almost any costume designer or clothing expert you'll talk to will say trousers at the natural waist make the wearer look taller and slimmer. By visually extending the longest part of your body, your legs, you will look taller overall. Additionally, by covering any gut or shirt fabric around the waist -- rather than letting it go over the waistband of low rise trousers -- you'll actually look a few pounds lighter. Just look at any black and white movies for proof. Most of those guys wouldn't look half as good if they were wearing the fashions of today.

Andy Gilchrist will tell you this, Janie Bryant will tell you this, heck even my girlfriend (a theatre costuming major in her 20s) will say the same thing. It's proven throughout centuries of clothing history. For example: Is it any surprise that a regular rise started coming back into fashion in the late '70s? Not really. I'm pretty sure that's going to happen again when they get tired of the current trend for short and tight.

But, you know, don't listen to me if you don't want to.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

These came from H&M autumn collection. Not what I would wear but for younger people I think there's nothing wrong with it:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, please re-read my post. You seem to have missed the point rather thoroughly, which is to acknowledge that you and the OP are just trying to do something very different than what I try to do. If you were trying to do the same thing as me, then your photos would be evidence of monstrous incompetence. But you aren't. I don't understand _what_ you guys are trying to do/say, but I don't pretend to. So, as you will notice, I *refrain* from advocating for things that would make sense in my clothing language.
> 
> In short, I am acknowledging your diversity and differences, and refraining from judging them by the standards that are relevant to me. I make the same concession to guys wearing hip-hop clothes with coordinated athletic and faux-athletic wear. It makes no damn sense to me, and looks awful IMO, but they've got a whole different culturally-contingent aesthetic than I do, so I'm sure the feeling is mutual. Anyway, live and let live. (But don't come to my office for an interview speaking some other clothing language!  )


I did sort of intentionally miss it


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Bjorn, I just looked up the Wikipedia article you quoted. There are no citations whatsoever. That alone makes me question their authority on the subject. It also seems like they're talking about women's dresses rather than clothing as a whole.
> 
> Drop waist is not the same thing as low rise. This is a drop waist.
> 
> ...


I was only having a little fun...

I'm not sure that the higher rise actually visually extends you, though it works to that effect if you're wearing a jacket. If not, I think Joshua McGuire as Isaac Wengrow in the Hour is a case in point. He wears no jacket and high rise trousers and thus looks short as a stub.

Higher rise pants are better as long as you don't see the whole vertical line of them. Then you're cut short. Just my 5c.

Otherwise, I do agree. However, there is some point with current fashion, in a casual setting. They don't cut the trousers with low rise because they are all stupid, contrary to common belief.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> ...there is some point with current fashion, in a casual setting. They don't cut the trousers with low rise because they are all stupid, contrary to common belief.


No, they make them all low rise because their careers depend on making something that is different from the previous trend and then convincing everyone that the "new" is better than the "old." In other words, they cut the trousers with low rise because _we_ are all stupid.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I did sort of intentionally miss it


Ah. Delightful.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Ah. Delightful.


I do try


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> They don't cut the trousers with low rise because they are all stupid, contrary to common belief.


This is certainly true. But I suspect they don't do so with protuberant bellies in mind either. The wearer's build is as important a determinant of appearance is the cut of the cloth. Other factors include leg length and gluteal prominence (ooh - I like that euphemism). At 6'2", my legs are relatively short with a 32" inseam - so even a long rise doesn't put my belt in my armpits (although I prefer a short rise for comfort).

The choice of long or short rise can be made for style, comfort and/or personal preference by those in good general shape. But a belly that's hanging over low rise pants looks even worse to me than it would if constrained by belt and waistband. An untucked shirt beneath a jacket or sweater struggling to cover the body beneath it adds nothing but extra yuck to the appearance of the wearer. And most of us are not built like the models we're using to illustrate our points.

The one thing all the models pictured in this thread have in common is a BMI between 20 and 22. The contribution of a well maintained body to appearance is far more important than that of any designer or tailor. Together, they can minimize and camouflage excess poundage and other such problems. But poor choice of design and/or poorly fitted clothing can make a great body look less great and keep the best clothes from looking their best on anybody.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Plus, even most "slim fit" shirts are going to blouse a bit over the waistband on a thin guy. Wearing your trousers at the waist or close to it minimises this effect. I can attest to this as my Tailored Fit Legacy Chino (11" rise) has problems keeping shirts tucked in, be they slim fit or more classic in proportions. It tends to make me look heavier than I really am.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

bluesman said:


> This is certainly true. But I suspect they don't do so with protuberant bellies in mind either. The wearer's build is as important a determinant of appearance is the cut of the cloth. Other factors include leg length and gluteal prominence (ooh - I like that euphemism). At 6'2", my legs are relatively short with a 32" inseam - so even a long rise doesn't put my belt in my armpits (although I prefer a short rise for comfort).
> 
> The choice of long or short rise can be made for style, comfort and/or personal preference by those in good general shape. But a belly that's hanging over low rise pants looks even worse to me than it would if constrained by belt and waistband. An untucked shirt beneath a jacket or sweater struggling to cover the body beneath it adds nothing but extra yuck to the appearance of the wearer. And most of us are not built like the models we're using to illustrate our points.
> 
> The one thing all the models pictured in this thread have in common is a BMI between 20 and 22. The contribution of a well maintained body to appearance is far more important than that of any designer or tailor. Together, they can minimize and camouflage excess poundage and other such problems. But poor choice of design and/or poorly fitted clothing can make a great body look less great and keep the best clothes from looking their best on anybody.


I see your point.

I think that any youthful look requires a pretty low BMI to work, but I do think that the 'untucked' look, as viewed in the HM pictures above, does work for a younger slimmer person. Which goes to the OP:s original question.

As you state that "[a]n untucked shirt beneath a jacket or sweater struggling to cover the body beneath it adds nothing but extra yuck..." I wonder a little how fat you're picturing that person to be? You can put a lot more flesh on those models before those clothes that they are wearing will start to struggle.

I also maintain that (as stated) a higher rise trouser will not work for short person if that high rise is shown, as it normally is without a jacket, and that he will have to get pretty fat before it's better to have a high rise than a lower. Also, fat people need clothes that fit them precisely (that are cut just right for them) with no excessive blousing or fabric, sleekly fitted. Thus, they should avoid 'classic' cut in favour of slimmer ones, but in their size. Its very hard to get good clothes for fat people OTR.

Sometimes, for let's say a 'slightly heavier' young guy, letting the T show beneath the sweater will in fact not add to girth but subtract from it, in comparison to tucking the T in.

As to if it's fashionable right now letting your T show like that, I couldn't really say.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I also maintain that (as stated) a higher rise trouser will not work for short person


It's impossible to generalize, as the proportion of leg length to overall height affects this significantly. On short people with relatively long legs, a longer rise can put the belt line too high on the torso. You have to balance the rise with waist size, overall height, general body shape etc. Thin people can look painfully thin with too long a rise, and too short a rise can make a modest belly look like Wimpy -


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Let me be clear: I'm okay with untucked shirts over jeans and shorts in warmer weather. I do it all the time. But when you're layering up and suddenly have shirt tails around your crotch and butt beneath a sweater, it breaks up the body in a bad way. Functionally, more body heat is kept in by tucking as well.


----------



## Petrus (Sep 17, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Well, I think in view of the OPs question, I took a measured approach.
> 
> I googled a little, and I don't think the following is abysmal:
> 
> ...


Egad! That's the Justin Biever 'tween look.


----------



## Petrus (Sep 17, 2011)

bluesman said:


> It's impossible to generalize, as the proportion of leg length to overall height affects this significantly. On short people with relatively long legs, a longer rise can put the belt line too high on the torso. You have to balance the rise with waist size, overall height, general body shape etc. Thin people can look painfully thin with too long a rise, and too short a rise can make a modest belly look like Wimpy -


The question of rise is not new. The rise depends on the distance between your natural waist and crotch. there have always been men who need a shorter or longer rise depending on their proportions to make the trousers fit correctly.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Petrus said:


> The question of rise is not new. The rise depends on the distance between your natural waist and crotch. there have always been men who need a shorter or longer rise depending on their proportions to make the trousers fit correctly.


It also depends on the relative positioning of the waistline to the natural waist, since not all trousers are made to sit at the natural waist.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> It also depends on the relative positioning of the waistline to the natural waist, since not all trousers are made to sit at the natural waist.


Correct. Some trousers are defective.  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Indeed. Can't wait until this trend passes. I'm okay with mid-rise (roughly 12") but this whole 10-11" business needs to stop!



Petrus said:


> Egad! That's the Justin Biever 'tween look.


Don't you mean Bieber?


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Petrus said:


> The rise depends on the distance between your natural waist and crotch. there have always been men who need a shorter or longer rise depending on their proportions to make the trousers fit correctly.


But it's also a matter of taste and preference - most of us can comfortably wear pants with rises that span at least a 2 or 3" range. Those of us with unusual proportions might do well to limit themselves to the most flattering dimension(s). Tall men with longer torsos and shorter legs generally seem to look better in higher rise pants, as do portly men. Men with relatively longer legs and shorter torsos do well in shorter rise pants, unless they like the Ed Grimley look. A good tailor can help choose the most flattering combo.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'll point out to any new members reading that a traditional tailor isn't going to put someone in trousers that sit on their _hips_ regardless of height and build. Someone I know who will remain nameless purchased an Indochino suit and insists to me that the trousers sit on his waist. Unless his waist is at crotch level, they actually sit quite low on his hips. He's 5'7 and they do him no favours, frankly speaking.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

This post is about casual clothing length. Rarely bought at the tailors, and these days rarely sits at the natural waist.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

If you keep yourself well muscled the lower rise on today's clothing accentuates the v-taper and makes for a much more desirable silhouette in my opinion. Personally, I wear my jeans on my hips and my chinos/cords/etc near my natural waist. 

I would categorize the models pictured here as skin and bones except for two from the H&M ad


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Does it? I don't think even Daniel Craig made it work in his two Bond movies.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Does it? I don't think even Daniel Craig made it work in his two Bond movies.


Daniel Craig's physique is greatly lacking in the width department. He is shaped like a stump, straight up and down.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You must be smoking angel dust.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

You must have low standards.



Straight up and down. No width in the back at all. 

Compare to another celebrity who makes the front page for his physique:



Obvious width in lats and much more of a v-taper despite his wider hips.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I also prefer a lower rise, near hip, on jeans. I prefer a higher rise otherwise. 

Again, this is a casual clothing thread. There's not much point with a higher rise with casuals, IMO.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

There's nothing wrong with something in the middle of that with casuals either. You seem to imply that proportion doesn't matter at all and the only thing acceptable is the low rise junk being pushed by everyone now.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> There's nothing wrong with something in the middle of that with casuals either. You seem to imply that proportion doesn't matter at all and the only thing acceptable is the low rise junk being pushed by everyone now.


No, just that it's quite acceptable in a casual setting to wear jeans at the hip.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> No, just that it's quite acceptable in a casual setting to wear jeans at the hip.


It is right now, but it's only a trend. I know I'm not the only one complaining about how hard it is to find pants with a decent rise. A lot of my friends don't care about clothes at all, but they do like to be comfortable. And they can easily feel a difference with low-rise jeans. It's just not natural for men to wear such pants.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Matt S said:


> It is right now, but it's only a trend. I know I'm not the only one complaining about how hard it is to find pants with a decent rise. A lot of my friends don't care about clothes at all, but they do like to be comfortable. And they can easily feel a difference with low-rise jeans. It's just not natural for men to wear such pants.


Maybe you are being just a tad conservative here 

One mans natural is another mans unnatural. I grew up with jeans ending around the hip... I don't like jeans that rise much higher, I don't think they are very comfortable and they don't look as good.

But ymmv very much as far as jeans are concerned.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Maybe you are being just a tad conservative here
> 
> One mans natural is another mans unnatural. I grew up with jeans ending around the hip... I don't like jeans that rise much higher, I don't think they are very comfortable and they don't look as good.
> 
> But ymmv very much as far as jeans are concerned.


You contradict yourself, Bjorn. Just as you say that "one man's natural is another man's unnatural," the same can be said for your definitions of "comfortable" and "good looking." You may have grown up with jeans worn at the hip but that doesn't make it "natural." Besides, some of us grew up when jeans had a normal rise. Denim in general is less comfortable than other fabrics, but combined with a low rise I find them unwearable.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I grew up when jeans were still worn at the waist. It started changing rapidly when I entered high school (around 2001). Low rise jeans were available as a separate option around that time, rather than the default as it is now. They were also mainly marketed to women.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I grew up when jeans were still worn at the waist. It started changing rapidly when I entered high school (around 2001). Low rise jeans were available as a separate option around that time, rather than the default as it is now. They were also mainly marketed to women.


It's funny you mention that, Jovan. Back in the late 90s and early 00s, I was working part time at the Gap while I attended college. I remember when the Gap introduced a bunch of new fits in their denim line and had a "fit workshop" where the employees had to try on the jeans to better know the product. About half of the female employees wouldn't leave the fitting rooms to model the then-new low rise jeans because they weren't wearing underwear low enough to keep from sticking out above their pants. I don't remember any low rise fits for the men.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah, low rise wasn't that big with men at first, but I do remember a few ads for some jean company or another (was it Levi's?) that tried to make them seem sexy and appealing to women. At some point it must have caught on!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> You contradict yourself, Bjorn. Just as you say that "one man's natural is another man's unnatural," the same can be said for your definitions of "comfortable" and "good looking." You may have grown up with jeans worn at the hip but that doesn't make it "natural." Besides, some of us grew up when jeans had a normal rise. Denim in general is less comfortable than other fabrics, but combined with a low rise I find them unwearable.


The difference is, I'm not saying that high rise is unwearable, simply that both low and high rise are suitable for casual clothes like jeans, and that I prefer low. I don't say it's natural, just no more unnatural than high rise. How natural is wearing trousers anyway?

I'm well aware my definitions of good looking are completely relative.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Yeah, low rise wasn't that big with men at first, but I do remember a few ads for some jean company or another (was it Levi's?) that tried to make them seem sexy and appealing to women. At some point it must have caught on!


This is also a fact, women do find lower rise sexier, in my experience. Unfortunately not only for casual trousers but also for suits.

The really low rise, at the hip, is deplorable in lounge suits. But in lounge suits only. IMO.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

But how many guys can actually wear it? Honestly, I don't think it's flattering on anyone.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> The really low rise, at the hip, is deplorable in lounge suits. But in lounge suits only.


Please explain lounge suit. Dictionary.com says it's "...a man's suit appropriate for informal occasions". But all I can think of is Murph and the Magic Tones...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

bluesman said:


> Please explain lounge suit. Dictionary.com says it's "...a man's suit appropriate for informal occasions". But all I can think of is Murph and the Magic Tones...


In the context of this dictionary definition, "informal" is used to describe something other than "formal" or "semi-formal" occasions to which one would wear white or black tie in the evening, or morning suit or stroller during the day.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It's mainly a British term. It can describe any suit from business (solid worsted wool) to seasonal (tweed or linen) and anything in between.

Dictionary.com is essentially correct, but unfortunately many modern people think of "informal" as equating to "casual" -- anything that doesn't require a coat or tie. But yes, it has nothing to do with garish _leisure suits_ from the '70s.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

bluesman, "lounge suit" is the archaic-in-America term for what we call a "business suit." Back in the interwar years, you see, strollers and morning dress were still used for serious business, and matched suits were suitable for "lounging." The term now evokes something very different than its meaning, so few on this continent use the term anymore.

Those are _leisure_ suits. As hideous as most of them were, they were actually designed to fill the role that the lounge suit had vacated in its upward migration.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The lounge suit being used for its original purpose:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

A suit by definition is a lounge suit. As opposed to frock coat, white tie, black tie and morning wear.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> "lounge suit" is the archaic-in-America term for what we call a "business suit."


Look how far we've come in this thread - the OP started with the latest trend and we're now discussing a bygone era and a term no one uses. I'm more than halfway through my 7th decade and not entirely without experience, yet I've not heretofore encountered the term "lounge suit". We live and learn - but it still makes me think of Murph and the Magic Tones.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

bluesman said:


> Please explain lounge suit....


Business suit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

bluesman said:


> Look how far we've come in this thread - the OP started with the latest trend and we're now discussing a bygone era and a term no one uses. I'm more than halfway through my 7th decade and not entirely without experience, yet I've not heretofore encountered the term "lounge suit". We live and learn - but it still makes me think of Murph and the Magic Tones.


But people do use it... maybe not in the States so much, but in other English speaking countries.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Jovan said:


> But how many guys can actually wear it? Honestly, I don't think it's flattering on anyone.


Low rise jeans are pretty much made for people with low body fat and broad shoulders/upper back, otherwise I don't think they're flattering at all... hellooo muffintops.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I grew up when jeans were still worn at the waist. It started changing rapidly when I entered high school (around 2001). Low rise jeans were available as a separate option around that time, rather than the default as it is now. They were also mainly marketed to women.


When I was growing up in the 60's/70's low rise pants were a big fashion rage. Back then they were called hip-huggers and it was hard for me to find regular jeans. That's when I started wearing 501's.

This is just another cycle repeating itself. When it's over, normalcy will return.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hopefully. Didn't it return to normal by the late '70s?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

You don't find high rise trousers worn casually without a jacket a tad nerdy?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Nope.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

bluesman said:


> Ummm, ahhhh, they'll actually sell this stuff to me too. I don't care how old you are - sloppy is sloppy. Physicians, lawyers, bankers and accountants of all ages loosen their ties and unbutton their collars regularly - this isn't innovation, it's comfort. But if we also pulled out a shirt tail, we wouldn't look younger, just sloppier.


It's not comfort, it's buying clothes that do not fit. Sometimes it's out of ignorance, and sometimes it's out of a refusal to admit that the size you were in 2000 is not the size you are in 2010.



> Classic quality items in a drastically younger approach? That would be buying a top quality jacket at a thrift shop and wearing it with jeans and a long sleeved T-shirt, or wearing a traditional top coat with cargo pants and a hoodie.


Wearing Madras shirts with cargo shorts and trail running shoes?


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

petro said:


> It's not comfort, it's buying clothes that do not fit. Sometimes it's out of ignorance, and sometimes it's out of a refusal to admit that the size you were in 2000 is not the size you are in 2010.
> 
> Wearing Madras shirts with cargo shorts and trail running shoes?


Wow - this is really off base, Petro. I hope you're not suggesting that I loosen my tie as I walk to the parking garage in warm weather after work because my shirt doesn't fit. I and many other men who wear properly sized, well fitted clothing do this because we like to do this and for no other reason. The breeze on my neck is relaxing and refreshing after a long work day, and stuffing a tie into a pocket does little for its appearance when next worn.

My point was that wearing a tie with an open collar button is not a fashion innovation, as was suggested by Bjorn when done by young men. Although it may be a concession to discomfort when done by those you describe, suggesting that every man with his tie loosened a bit and his collar button open is an overweight slob sadly clinging to the vestiges of his past is a bit harsh (an adjective I chose very carefully because I'm a gentleman and this is a public forum).

As for your comment about madras shirts, cargo shorts and running shoes, you describe the very opposite of the effort to which I refer. One argument offered for young men's wearing the kind of clothing that started this thread is that "good" clothes are too expensive and/or too stodgy for those just starting out. But a young man with taste and style can pick up a high end bargain at a thrift shop or outlet and combine it with less expensive pieces and the talents of a good tailor to look great at relatively low cost.

It's a long leap from a quality topcoat over a hoodie and cargo pants to madras shirts, cargo shorts and running shoes. One of the commonest reasons for attempting such is jumping to erroneous conclusions.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

The thrifting and going to a tailor, and combining clothes artfully takes the kind of dedication to clothes and detail that most young men don't have. 

If they then buy clothes at for example HM along the lines that are pictured above I don't think that is really that bad. They could do (and they do) a lot worse.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> You don't find high rise trousers worn casually without a jacket a tad nerdy?





Jovan said:


> Nope.


And here's the reason why: https://www.acontinuouslean.com/2008/05/19/take-ivy/


----------

