Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

High waist Trousers / Pants: Keeping them up with a belt? Solutions/Rants anybody?

MikeBravo

One Too Many
Messages
1,301
Location
Melbourne, Australia
One factor is tummy size.

At Mt Vernon there are life-sized wax replicas of George Wahington, who had a dickens of a time getting clothes that fit. Mainly because he would order from England via letter, asking for clothes that would fit a man of "average size." General Washington was anything but average size. And in researching costumes for the replicas, which are painfully accurate, scholars brought out the General's surviving clothes for careful study, and learned that George had a beer gut, which shoved the (high) waist of his his pants down and bunched them up. The wrinkles from it are still there.

That's new, "forensic tailoring"
 

TrenchGuy

One of the Regulars
Messages
123
Location
Finland
That's weird. High-waist pants should stay up pretty good with a belt as they are worn on the natural waist, which is the narrowest point on your body. Thats means they shouldnt fall down, because the area below the waist gets thicker(only if the pants are properly sized, ofc).

Atleast this is the case for me.
 

PhantomKnight

New in Town
Messages
25
Location
Australia
I just think they must not be tailored to fit that high. Which is annoying because they are too long to sit on my hips without just looking baggy but too short to sit on my waist without being uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just my body shape. I'll have to visit a tailor one day and be done with this.
 

resortes805

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,019
Location
SoCal
That's weird. High-waist pants should stay up pretty good with a belt as they are worn on the natural waist, which is the narrowest point on your body. Thats means they shouldnt fall down, because the area below the waist gets thicker(only if the pants are properly sized, ofc).

Atleast this is the case for me.

Perhaps it's presumptuous, but I'd wager the majority of FL members are wider around the navel (the "vintage" natural waist) than around the hips. Belt wearers will need to cinch tight a la Fred Mertz.
06-fred-mertz.jpg
 

Widebrim

I'll Lock Up
I prefer suspenders with Hollywood-waisted trousers; as Matt pointed out, the trousers hang better, and there's no having to re-adjust a belt. High-waisted trousers can look good with a thin belt (see Bogart in The Big Sleep, and Powell in Murder, My Sweet), but often the top of the trousers curl a bit and flip over, a real pain in the neck.
 

TrenchGuy

One of the Regulars
Messages
123
Location
Finland
Perhaps it's presumptuous, but I'd wager the majority of FL members are wider around the navel (the "vintage" natural waist) than around the hips. Belt wearers will need to cinch tight a la Fred Mertz.
Natural waist is higher than navel on most people. This is the case for me and I think the "vintage" natural waist is higher than navel. Atleast all my dress pants go up to my natural waist.
 

The Good

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,361
Location
California, USA
While we're on about what is considered the "natural waist," throughout the course of the decades, what was considered the most common or "proper" point in which the trousers sit? Was the natural waist always at the naval (belly-button), or was there a point in which that was at the bottom of the ribs? Even higher? When it comes to the general public (of the United States at least), when exactly did most individuals opt to wear their pants below the naval, even if just an inch, was it the 1980s?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
108,957
Messages
3,071,556
Members
54,012
Latest member
Nikolaus23
Top