[Dhaller]

some have a high bb some have a low bb. so where is the waistline really.
most men have no idea really. hand a man a tape measure and he will get it wrong.
put your fingers on your hip bones run them up till they pass the prominent high points and then sink in at that indentation,thats it. hopefully there is an indentation not a roll of fat.
thats where your tailor measures your true waist. thats where patterns are cut to fit.
if your belt is not in that position its not on your waist.
but anyway thats your waist regardless of where your belly button is at.

mother nature in her infinite wisdom created the waist and the hip bone
for the purpose of holding up our trousers. so lets honor her and do it right.

That's the working definition of "waist" I use; in my case, it puts my trousers about an inch below the navel.

Not sure of the OP's somatype, but if you're fairly lean, Zanella's "Todd" trousers allow the trousers to rest on the waist naturally while having no "droop" to speak of - they are very trim fitting.

DH

 

[El_Abogado]

A discussion about high rise trousers?

​

A most excellent thread, I must say!​

 

[Mr. Tweed]

Dear all,
I personally like the British flat front cut with a reasonably high rise for my trousers. Traditionally cut to stay on your natural waist, slightly above the hips, they increase the perceived length of your legs. Flat front and not to wide legs without turn-ups gives a slim (and, dare I say, almost modern) impression. Here is a link to some old scribblings of mine on that topic:


Yours,
Mr. Tweed

 

[WouldaShoulda]

...or overpriced real estate in 2007.

Now that you mention it, there just aren't enough fake boobs in this day and age!!

 

[Cardcaptor Charlie]

The reason why some people think that high-rise trousers look odd is because they are meant to be worn with a waistcoat (and braces). With a shorter waistcoat and a higher rise to match it creates the illusion of longer legs thus looking more elegant.



Without a waistcoat, it then looks a bit Simon Cowell-esque...

 

[Dhaller]

I must agree that I find high-waisted pants looking a bit silly if not worn with some kind of jacket and/or vest (or a sweater) - especially in my case, as I have quite long legs and the whole effect is somewhat spidery.

It's a problem I grapple with a bit since I prefer to remove my jacket when I lecture; if it's cold, I'm usually wearing a sweater or sweater-vest, so it's not an issue, but when it's warm it can be a challenge to get the proportions right.

My "fix" nowadays is to wear pretty slim-fitting, correctly-waisted trousers (mainly Zanella "Todds") with a pretty trim-fitting shirt (so there's no "mushrooming" at the waist") which doesn't contrast "too" much with the trousers. I'm pretty long and thin (6'1", 158lbs) so it's a challenge to not appear, as I say, spidery (or like some character from a Tim Burton animation )

The advantage of pairing high waisted pants with a sportcoat OR medium-rise pants with a shirt is that both of those offer 50/50 proportions between upper and lower body - high-waisted (or let's call it "correct" waisted) trousers with a shirt will be more like a 60/40 proportion between lower/upper body... which CAN look odd.

DH

 

[Cardcaptor Charlie]

On the other end of the scale, you would look like this:

 

[Valhson]

You must be joking. It is almost impossible to find pants that have even a moderately high rise. You are obviously wearing your pants on your hips, rather than your waist.

But if you insist on looking like a fool with your pants practically on the ground, JAB has ludicrously low rise pants available.

yes obviously