# Rise for various trouser fits at Brooks Brothers?



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Does anyone know what the approximate differences in the rise of Brooks Brothers dress trousers are?

There are four different fits but it's not clear to me if the rise varies on them either. My problem is that a lot of styles are online-only or are tough to find in the two stores near me, so I'm stuck guessing and then waiting around only to return them.

I think that my body shape is just not a good match for their Regent stuff -- I'm getting a lot of "puffing" and I suspect it's because the rise is too low. It also feels a bit snug in the thighs, so if I have anything in my pocket it looks odd.


----------



## cellochris (Dec 14, 2015)

I tried to figure this out a while back and the rise of the fit varies depending on the specific trousers. Your best bet is to pick out a few pairs that you're interested in and call BB customer service. They can look up the rise for each trouser in each fit. Good luck!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Pretty sure the Madison fit has the longest rise.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

dparm said:


> . I think that my body shape is just not a good match for their Regent stuff -- I'm getting a lot of "puffing" and I suspect it's because the rise is too low. It also feels a bit snug in the thighs, so if I have anything in my pocket it looks odd.


In that case, don't screw around with Brooks Brothers. Get your trousers from O'Connell's and be satisfied. They have a proper rise and a full fit.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> Pretty sure the Madison fit has the longest rise.


I figured as much, but when I have tried those on the fit is just not flattering to my body type. Even the sales associate instantly said, "No, that cut doesn't work for you."


----------



## ThomGault (Oct 6, 2016)

dparm said:


> There are four different fits but it's not clear to me if the rise varies on them either. My problem is that a lot of styles are online-only or are tough to find in the two stores near me, so I'm stuck guessing and then waiting around only to return them.


This information won't directly solve your problem, but if you decide to pursue more BB trials, you can sign up for Shoprunner which gives you free 2-day shipping and returns for BB. I've found it very helpful.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

ThomGault said:


> This information won't directly solve your problem, but if you decide to pursue more BB trials, you can sign up for Shoprunner which gives you free 2-day shipping and returns for BB. I've found it very helpful.


Good to know, thanks. I hadn't considered it. It still ends up being a frustrating process of constantly buying, returning, waiting, etc, even if it's only a 2 day wait versus 5.


----------



## ThomGault (Oct 6, 2016)

dparm said:


> Good to know, thanks. I hadn't considered it. It still ends up being a frustrating process of constantly buying, returning, waiting, etc, even if it's only a 2 day wait versus 5.


 Yes, you're totally right. Have you considered getting a salesman to order quite a few options for you to try on in store?
I'm not trying to push you back toward BB---in fact, Charles' suggestion of O'Connells may be best for you---but even with O'Connell's you run into shipping delays while trying to find the right size. (And neither O'Connell's shipping nor returns are free.)


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

So here's a follow-up question: if I am having problems with pants "puffing" between my waist and thighs, does this signify I am buying something with too low of a rise? Similarly, if they fit too snug in the thighs, is this a symptom of the same problem, a sign that particular cut just doesn't work for my legs, or a sign I need to size up slightly and just get the waist taken in?


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

dparm said:


> So here's a follow-up question: if I am having problems with pants "puffing" between my waist and thighs, does this signify I am buying something with too low of a rise? Similarly, if they fit too snug in the thighs, is this a symptom of the same problem, or is it a sign that particular cut just doesn't work for my legs?


The difficulties you are experiencing with your trousers have nothing to do with the rise. (A low rise can cause fit as well as aesthetic problems, but the "puffiness" above the thighs and snug fit around the thighs such as you are having are not among them.)

It's impossible to diagnose the cause(s) of your dilemma without seeing you wearing a pair of problematic trousers. Any chance you can post front-, side-, and back-view photos of yourself wearing a pair of trousers that are causing you grief? It would help if we could see how your body is shaped and if you have large thighs relative to your waist.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Charles Dana said:


> The difficulties you are experiencing with your trousers have nothing to do with the rise. (A low rise can cause fit as well as aesthetic problems, but the "puffiness" above the thighs and snug fit around the thighs such as you are having are not among them.)
> 
> It's impossible to diagnose the cause(s) of your dilemma without seeing you wearing a pair of problematic trousers. Any chance you can post front-, side-, and back-view photos of yourself wearing a pair of trousers that are causing you grief? It would help if we could see how your body is shaped and if you have large thighs relative to your waist.


Ha, when I was taking the photos, I noticed there is some puckering in the crotch. I didn't notice that until now. Admittedly, I haven't worn these for a while.

The waist feels fine but the thighs do feel snug when I sit and that causes some weird bunching. If I put anything in my pockets, like a smartphone, the same thing happens. The pockets appear to be flaring out a bit and are showing weird wrinkles, as you can see. Also, as I start to spread my legs apart or place my hand where the inseams meet at the crotch, it's pretty tight. Basically, the entire area from my thighs up to my waist feels really snug and it's worse when I sit or move.

Apologies for the weird pics, best I could do with an iPhone in the office. FWIW these are Brooks Brothers gabardine dress trousers, Regent fit. They're a few years old at this point.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Thank you for the photos.

Well, you're definitely not overweight, nor do you have a weirdly-shaped physique. I really don't know why the trousers are puffing out over your abdomen. 

I think you should experiment with an entirely different brand. I'm now convinced that you should give the O'Connell's trousers a shot. Yes, you will need to pay the shipping charge should you need to return them, but at least the price of the trousers will be refunded if you order them unaltered. I believe it's a risk worth taking. 

Frankly, I suspect that trousers with a full rise and double-FORWARD pleats would solve your problem, but I know a lot of people hate pleats. At least try a flat-front pair from O'Connell's.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

I have the exact same fit pants from BB but with a single pleat which looks superior to their flat front in that cut.

I swore off pleats and cuffs years ago but I find myself circling back these days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Charles Dana said:


> Thank you for the photos.
> 
> Well, you're definitely not overweight, nor do you have a weirdly-shaped physique. I really don't know why the trousers are puffing out over your abdomen.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I would not call myself slim, but at 6' and 175lbs I am within the "healthy" range for BMI and everything. I have always noticed that pants fit me tight in the thighs, even jeans. I suspect they're just bigger than average. All of these "tailored" or "trim" pants with the slightly tapered legs might be the problem.

I did put on a pair of older Lands' End trousers this morning and noticed they fit much better in that area. I might try ordering another pair to see if these work.

I just noticed that Lands' End has a "long rise" fit for their dress pants. Would something like that perhaps work better? Their regular rise is almost identical to the Brooks Brothers ones I have. The long rise is a roughly extra 2.75" of additional combined rise (front + back).


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit (Feb 11, 2015)

Based on how the pockets flares, I would suggest the followings:

* check with a looser fit like Madison or so with the same waist. The hip size for this cut is simply too small for you
* go just one size larger waist of the same cut so that the pockets do not flare and thighs not snug. Then reduce the waist from the back to fit
* check with something else with larger hip size and fuller cut

IMO, this pair of pants is just too tight across your hip with pocket flares too much. Remember, even if you can zip up and button it does not mean it fits. For trousers, pocket flares indicates it is too tight on the hips.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Searching_Best_Fit said:


> Based on how the pockets flares, I would suggest the followings:
> 
> * check with a looser fit like Madison or so with the same waist. The hip size for this cut is simply too small for you
> * go just one size larger waist of the same cut so that the pockets do not flare and thighs not snug. Then reduce the waist from the back to fit
> ...


I ordered a few pairs of Lands' End trousers since those have historically fit me well in the past. I ordered both the tailored and traditional fits in two different sizes to see how they stack up. Returns are easy (Sears store or just a flat $7 shipping charge) so I figure I've got very little to lose. It also looks like they will start offering a more premium gabardine trouser soon so I'd be anxious to check those out once I can get sizing and fit correct.

Thanks for the guidance.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

dparm said:


> I ordered a few pairs of Lands' End trousers since those have historically fit me well in the past. I ordered both the tailored and traditional fits in two different sizes to see how they stack up.


God thinking. Trial and error is the only way to go.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

I am slim and find the BB pants to fit very oddly. Always pulling across the same area as on you. The Lands End Tailored and Traditional Fit as well as LL Bean pants just fit so much better. Can't really explain, it just is...

QUOTE=dparm;1819367]Does anyone know what the approximate differences in the rise of Brooks Brothers dress trousers are?

There are four different fits but it's not clear to me if the rise varies on them either. My problem is that a lot of styles are online-only or are tough to find in the two stores near me, so I'm stuck guessing and then waiting around only to return them.

I think that my body shape is just not a good match for their Regent stuff -- I'm getting a lot of "puffing" and I suspect it's because the rise is too low. It also feels a bit snug in the thighs, so if I have anything in my pocket it looks odd.[/QUOTE]


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Received the Lands' End pants yesterday. Not sure I'm really thrilled with these, but the fit is an improvement over the above BB ones in some ways.

Traditional Fit 34: still too tight in the thighs and crotch, waist is good, legs seem fine
Tailored Fit 34: didn't even bother trying these on since the fuller-cut traditional fit didn't work

Traditional Fit 35: possibly too roomy in the thighs and crotch, waist would need to be taken in, legs look baggy
Tailored Fit 35: borderline snug in the thighs and crotch, some weird pulling/creasing just below the waist band, legs seem okay, tricky to get my hands in/out of the pockets

So basically the traditional fit looks too baggy and full (like I'm wearing the wrong size pants) but the traditional fit doesn't have much room in the thighs/crotch. What also bugs me about the LE pants is that the front pockets are extremely deep -- they go 2/3 of the way down to my knees. If I put my phone in there, it looks awkward if I reach in there to pull it back out.

I'm still thinking I need a higher rise pant but would appreciate any additional advice. I'm also fairly certain my thighs are just really big. One thought I had was to go with the traditional fit 35 since they are fine in the thighs/crotch, and just have my tailor taper the legs a bit. Still, that feels like a lot of modifications -- probably $50 worth of tailoring for a $60 pair of pants.

FWIW, my jeans are the Levi's 541 "Athletic Fit" which have a fuller-cut seat and thighs. They fit me really well versus 501s that look like jeggings.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Again: Try O'Connell's trousers, both pleated and plain front. Order them unaltered in case you need a refund.

Yes yes yes--the shipping charges. Consider them as minor tuition in exchange for finding out what you need to find out. The trousers are relatively pricey, but worth the cost if they fit properly, thereby putting an end to all this frustration.


----------



## cellochris (Dec 14, 2015)

Also LE has 50% to 60% off sales a few times a year which helps reduce the cost of the pants.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

cellochris said:


> Also LE has 50% to 60% off sales a few times a year which helps reduce the cost of the pants.


LE's prices are fine, it just kinda bugs me that I'd be spending nearly the cost of the pants themselves on alterations. Their "year rounder" stuff is more of a 3 season trouser -- lighter wool that the wind would no doubt cut right through on a winter day. Fortunately, they sell flannel trousers, too.


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit (Feb 11, 2015)

Just for some clarification; what was the size of the BB trousers shown in the picture?

Another question: did you observe the pocket flares when you tried these LE trousers?

Personally, I like deep pockets. That ensures the contents stay there without worrying things will fall off, especially a hard, rectangular, piece of thing called cellphone. 

Speaking of carrying a cellphone with tight-fit trousers, it is inevitable that if your trouser is tight fitted anything you carry inside the pockets will show. If you do not want to show the contents inside your pockets, you need room in the thigh and legs. That mean, the clothes must not be touching the skin to leave some room for pockets. That also means that there will be some billowy when you walk. Furthermore, if there is some looseness on the thigh, there must be some looseness on the calf to balance the overall look. Therefore, in order to fit a hard, rectangular thing inside your trouser pockets, you need looser fit trousers. It is simple physics.

Or simply just carry your phone with your jacket, especially with the current smartphones with big screen. IMHO carrying a large phone with fitted trousers where it shows the outline of the phone is just not a preferred choice.

I am not sure if higher rise will help in this case. However, if a high-rise *and* looser fit trouser, the looser part of the fit will help in your case, not the high rise.

Furthermore, the pleats should help to alleviate the tightness on crotch and thigh, but you should try it in person to see if you like the look.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Searching_Best_Fit said:


> Just for some clarification; what was the size of the BB trousers shown in the picture?
> 
> Another question: did you observe the pocket flares when you tried these LE trousers?
> 
> ...


 BB trousers shown above are 35 waist that have actually been let out slightly. No pocket flaring on the tailored fit LE trousers, but they just feel snug in the thighs/crotch. When I sit or walk, you can feel and see them pulling on my thighs. I don't have that on the traditional fit, but they are much roomier -- I think too roomy. I can grab about 1.5-2" of excess fabric at my thighs. I should take a photo when I get home tonight.

I do not like the look of pleats. I understand that they are more forgiving, but they just aren't my style.


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit (Feb 11, 2015)

Thanks for the clarifications. Just based on your description, I would think the traditional LE trouser should fit you better. IMO those 2" extra fabric is needed to provide comfort and ease. Dress trousers should never be skin-tight for fit.


----------



## T_Packer (Mar 23, 2012)

dparm,

We're roughly the same size -- I'm 6' and 190lbs. I have three pairs of BB Madisons in 36Wx30L. I could perhaps use an extra half inch to an inch in the inseam. But they are otherwise a good fit for me. The Madison fit is marketed as the most full. That said, I do not find it to be too big in any way. It is just normal, as opposed to the skinny stuff that is awful and in. 

I too tried the LE fits. The tailored fit didn't work for me; too tight in the wrong place. I have not worn the traditional fit pants that I did keep. They are perhaps okay, but definitely fuller compared to the BB Madisons that I am used too. I am lukewarm on them at this time. They are serviceable, but I just like my BB pants better.

To summarize, try the BB Madisons. If those don't work, the LE traditional fit is the next larger option, and may work.


----------



## ROI (Aug 1, 2004)

The pants in the photo are too tight. The tip off is the way the pocket and the side seam pull in opposite directions. Also, the waist band should ideally be closer to horizontal. There should not be a wrinkle beneath the front waistband.  Though you are obviously not fat, the pants are tight enough that you have the fit problems that are more typical (and pronounced) on a guy with a gut.

The first thing to do is get a larger waist size to ease the tension between the waistband and crotch. Most credible pant makers scale the rise to increase as the waist size increases. So, simply going up a size in the waist in one pant model should bring more rise. Most of your problem, however, is likely to be resolved by getting pants with a larger waist and fuller hips.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

I finally received the new LE gabardine wool trousers in the traditional fit, size 35. Here's how they look. Ignore the weird bunching/wrinkling near the ankles, they are unhemmed and obviously way too long. Looks okay?

For those interested, they are about 20% more expensive than the standard "year rounder" wool trousers, but the fabric is definitely thicker. Not as thick as the Brooks Brothers gabardine, but a definite improvement over those "year rounders" (which are quite thin and would probably be awful in the winter).

If I keep them, I will likely have the tailor taper the legs slightly.


----------



## August West (Aug 1, 2013)

The overall fit to me looks exponentially better than the first pair of trousers. The fact that they aren't draping correctly, I'm guessing is due to the fact that they are unhemmed. If they aren't rolled up, doing so might give you a better idea what they'll look like when they are finished. The lack of a pressing I'm sure is also a contributing factor to the way they drape.

The pockets do seem to be puckering a little bit, but that might be nit picking. Lastly, IMO those trousers don't need any tapering.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

August West said:


> The overall fit to me looks exponentially better than the first pair of trousers. The fact that they aren't draping correctly, I'm guessing is due to the fact that they are unhemmed. If they aren't rolled up, doing so might give you a better idea what they'll look like when they are finished. The lack of a pressing I'm sure is also a contributing factor to the way they drape.
> 
> The pockets do seem to be puckering a little bit, but that might be nit picking. Lastly, IMO those trousers don't need any tapering.


I think the very mild puckering is more a function of how those pockets are stitched, not the actual fitment. If you look on the LE website, you can see the same effect. The pocket seams actually stop just short of the seam on the side of the pants with a small horizontal stitch.


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit (Feb 11, 2015)

I agreed that the fit of this pair is indeed better than the previous one. The pocket flare is reduced to an acceptable case. The side seam near the pocket is still not straight down. I wonder if you really need to move up one size (but then the seat may be loosen a bit... Hmmm...). 

More importantly, there is clearly some drapes under your butts and the front so that is a good sign. After a good press on pants it should look better.

To test the drapes, just roll up the hem like you are walking in ankle deep water. Let the trousers legs fall and observe the lines from your thigh to knees and calf to see if you like the way. What to look for are two straight lines front and back, preferably the front line will be in the middle of your knee cap. Then you can lower the hem to determine how much break you like. 

IMO the pants opening seems fine. However, if you want to taper the hems, do that first, and then figure out the hem length because changing the taper will result in different hem length.


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Searching_Best_Fit said:


> I agreed that the fit of this pair is indeed better than the previous one. The pocket flare is reduced to an acceptable case. The side seam near the pocket is still not straight down. I wonder if you really need to move up one size (but then the seat may be loosen a bit... Hmmm...).
> 
> More importantly, there is clearly some drapes under your butts and the front so that is a good sign. After a good press on pants it should look better.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I don't want to move up in size any further or the proportions will get way out of whack. These will already need an inch or more taken in at the waist (which makes me nervous), let alone going larger. I still can't figure out why the pockets don't lay perfectly flat; there is ample material there and it's not stretching or pulling at all.

I did try your suggestion to roll up the legs and the crease from thigh to knee is straight.

I will still ask my tailor's advice on these, but thanks for all of the tips so far.


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit (Feb 11, 2015)

^ There could be the case where you have a larger seat-to-waist ratio (strong Glutes?) so that even though the waist fits the seat will be too small for your built. You should check with your tailor about that side seam from the pocket if that is the case for you.


----------

