How high should 1930s-1940s era high-waisted pants be worn?

[Levallois]

I did a search finding one comment that they are worn at the level of the belly button but the photos that I've see seem to suggest that they are worn above the belly button. Is there a rule of thumb?

Thanks!

John

 

[Nick D]

They should be worn at or about the natural waist, which for most people is above the navel. I like my trousers 1.5" to 2" above the navel or so.

 

[avedwards]

Maybe it's because I'm tall or perhaps I just have a strange body but I always find it most comfortable wearing high-waisted trousers just below the naval (and on me that's still on the waist rather than on the hips).

 

[Gene]

Maybe it's because I'm tall or perhaps I just have a strange body but I always find it most comfortable wearing high-waisted trousers just below the naval (and on me that's still on the waist rather than on the hips).

I agree, usually navel or just below, but then again none of my pants fit exactly the same way!

 

[Yeps]

A trick shown to me by a professional costumer was to tilt like you are dancing to "I'm a little Tea-Pot" and put your hands at the point where you actually bend. That is your true waist.

 

[djd]

I'd say they should be worn higher than the belly button. My grandfather certainly wore his not that far below the bottom of his ribcage. It's quite possible to wear many regular, non high waisted trousers at belly button level. Just seems too low to me

 

[Mr. Mahogany]

Most during that time frame wore them high just slightly below the ribcage or just above the belly button.

 

[avedwards]

What sort of rise do you people find was the norm on vintage trousers? Most of my suits made between the 30s and 60s have a 12" rise or thereabouts.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Rise would depend how tall the person was.

The rise on all my trousers (assuming they were made for a 27.5" inseam to begin with) would therefore be less than yours Alan, or they'd be chafing the armpits.

 

[avedwards]

That's a point. Most of my trousers appear to have been made for someone 2-3" shorter than me, although I find the rise is still high enough to be worn so that there is no shirt showing between waistcoat and trousers or the top button and the trousers (in the case of my two button suits).

 

[DocMustang]

The I'm a little tea pot trick works very well to find the natural waist. I would add that it works better with a narrow band of elastic on a slight stretch fastend at the naval. Once that is in place sing I'm a little tea pot twice (once in each direction) and the elastic will have migrated to your natural waist. Or you can simply bend and at the waist in a wide circle in both clockwise and counter(anti) clockwise directions. But the tea pot version is much more fun!

 

[Tomasso]

Rise would depend how tall the person was.

Yep. In OTR suits, trouser rise increases a jacket length increases. BTW, I bet a good source for modern high waisted trousers would be a Big & Tall store.

 

[in/y]

That brings up a question that I've pondered for a while.

If I were to purchase correct waist size trousers that are sold as being for taller men having the higher rise (I'm 5'11'') and as I would have to have them hemmed to my inseam length anyway, would making this purchase net me higher waited trousers? or would the fit be off elsewhere?

 

[Tomasso]

It would depend on the cut of the trousers and how much they were shortened. If the trousers have a tapered cut you would have a larger leg opening the higher they were hemmed, while it wouldn't be that much of an issue with a straight cut. In any event, a tailor can take in the legs for a nominal fee if needed.

Years ago I bought a few pairs of orphaned suit (XLong) trousers at a Marshall Field's clearance sale. I'm 6'1" and they took off a good bit of length with no deleterious effect.

 

[avedwards]

It would depend on the cut of the trousers and how much they were shortened. If the trousers have a tapered cut you would have a larger leg opening the higher they were hemmed, while it wouldn't be that much of an issue with a straight cut. In any event, a tailor can take in the legs for a nominal fee if needed.

Personally I think the larger leg opening would be a positive side-effect of the shortening (assume it is enough to even be noticable). It looks more period accurate to have wide-legged trousers and I find it more comfortable as they're more breathable in warm weather.

 

[MikeBravo]

Don't forget the good old Sears (and other) catalogues of the era. They are basically advertising material for the latest cut and styles of the time. Search for photos of movie stars of the era in their natural environment, rather than as movie characters

Any other sources of photos?

 

[GBR]

The first pair I had made followed a photo and were about 1/2" above the navel but for the second I found an elderly tailor and took his advice. That was that trousers should be a good 2" above the navel, certainly no less and probably more. He has made me two pairs, one at 2" and one at 2 3/4" That pair is by far the best and most comfortable. I am going to try 3" for the next ones and probably have that as standard.

 

[djd]

The narrowest point of my waist is about an inch and a half above my navel. That's where I'm aiming for with my next pair