So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[LizzieMaine]

All right, a question for the gentlemen here --

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level, usually, with a long T-shirt hanging over them? Is the resulting silhouette -- a torso that takes up 2/3 of the total body height and legs that take up only 1/3 -- something that's being deliberately sought? If so, what message or image is this silhouette intended to convey? I'm not talking about teenage boys here, I'm talking about 50-60-70 year old men, nearly all of whom around here follow this fashion.

I couldn't care less about what other people choose to wear from a fashion point of view, but every time I see this look on the streets it strikes me as out of proportion and unbalanced, causing the wearer to look like an overgrown Charlie Brown type figure, with a giant torso and little stubby legs. Am I missing the message?

 

[Turnip]

I could imagine that comfort might be a reason for not too few, sporting some impressive beer guts from their beginning 40s on latest.

 

[tonyb]

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level …
…

None I can think of.

 

[Turnip]

On the other hand side I couldn’t see an aesthetic reason for wearing pants that reach up to slightly underneath the sternum as well, at least as long as Charlie Chaplin‘s tramp look doesn’t celebrate it’s revival.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I could imagine that comfort might be a reason for not too few, sporting some impressive beer guts from their beginning 40s on latest.

Yeah, and I think, too less stair climbing is an important point.
Maybe that's one of the main reasons, why I'm much more trim than the average 35+ guys, here. I climb the stairs in my apartment block very often, bringing stuff into the cellar (empty glasses, yellow bag waste) or hanging out the wash in our attic or take it down.

 

[Edward]

All right, a question for the gentlemen here --

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level, usually, with a long T-shirt hanging over them? Is the resulting silhouette -- a torso that takes up 2/3 of the total body height and legs that take up only 1/3 -- something that's being deliberately sought? If so, what message or image is this silhouette intended to convey? I'm not talking about teenage boys here, I'm talking about 50-60-70 year old men, nearly all of whom around here follow this fashion.

I couldn't care less about what other people choose to wear from a fashion point of view, but every time I see this look on the streets it strikes me as out of proportion and unbalanced, causing the wearer to look like an overgrown Charlie Brown type figure, with a giant torso and little stubby legs. Am I missing the message?

I've always found it odd from an aesthetic point of view - I agree, the proportions are unflattering. I first became aware of the issues of waistband height in my teens. Back in the 90s, Lee Jeans had a factory in Northern Ireland, with a factory store where you could buy at reduced prices. At a time when a new pair were GBP25-30 in the shops, you could buy a pair of seconds for a tenner, and likely never find the fault. Problem was, no matter what pair I tried on, they were too low in the rise for me. I didn't have the vocabulary at the time to put it technically, but I knew the waistband was too low - well below my actual waist, and needed to be higher for the sake of comfort alone. Around twenty years ago it seems this also spread to all forms of men's trousers. I've been buying my trousers almost entirely online for over a decade now as the only way to find them with a rise in which I am comfortable.

As to what men choose.... TBH, I don't think most men do choose that look so much as they buy what is available and don't really think about it. The general thrust of contemporary men's fashion in terms of what most actually wear in the real world seems to be more about blending in than anything else, so fashion norms for men can kick in hard in terms of quelling any actual objection to the norm - for most likely to be about comfort rather than the aesthetics. I'm also told by those with tailoring experience that men's trousers - aside from the material saving per pair by making the "waist"band three or four inches lower than the wearer's actual waist - are much easier to pattern if you don't come close to dealing with things like the small of the back. I keep hoping fashion will swing round again - men's trousers have been skinny and hip level for so long, surely fashion must swing back to high and wide for the sake of finding something different to sell alone, but here we are, twenty-five odd years on and no sign of that...

This is consistently the most frustrating part of wardrobe for me. Almost anything else with men's clothing you can fake a day to day, reasonably facsimilie of a vaguely mid-fifties look with the right contemporary pieces, but trousers are a nightmare. Even when you find reproductions from a good pattern, all too often you're being invited to pay double for what would, pattern aside, still be a cheap, fast-fashion level pair of trousers, made from a synthetic textile that doesn't have the body to hang right and so still looks all wrong. It's not all bleak, though - the irony is that as wearable, affordable originals recede into history, we're finally beginning to see more places doing decent, reproduction men's trousers. I do wish, though, a couple of select vintage cuts would come back into fashion just long enough for me to stock up....

 

[Hercule]

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level ...

Don't be so quick to blame men for this, or think it's necessarily a fashion choice. Men, just as women, are hostage to the whims of clothing designers and the most recent profitable trends. Low waisted pants being one of them. That being said, the '60s and '70s have had a far reaching effect where that's concerned.

Such is the plight of all us full-figured men.

 

[GHT]

It helps when you have your own personal tailor, my wife has always made most of my trousers. High in the waist, wide down to the ankle and always with a turned up cuff.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Wait, until the girls start again with low-rise jeans, thongs and the whale tail and the boys want that, too.

 

[Edward]

It helps when you have your own personal tailor, my wife has always made most of my trousers. High in the waist, wide down to the ankle and always with a turned up cuff.
View attachment 395047

Do let us know when your good lady wife starts taking orders! Great outfit, btw - I love that combination of earthtones. The blazer is really striking, too - where did you come by that one?

Wait, until the girls start again with low-rise jeans, thongs and the whale tail and the boys want that, too.

Oddly, it seems that the high waist has come back to a fair extent for women's clothing over here; I wish it would for men's. If all I ever wanted to wear were jeans, it'd be easier, but I actually prefer a decent trouser most of the time now...

 

[GHT]

Do let us know when your good lady wife starts taking orders!

Praise indeed, Edward, be sure that I will pass it on.

Great outfit, btw - I love that combination of earthtones. The blazer is really striking, too - where did you come by that one?

It came from a trader on the outskirts of Bournemouth, about a forty-five minute drive from where we live. The trader goes by the name of Clobber, a name that was once a popular slang term to describe the outfit that you were wearing. They trade in vintage wear, they also buy large wardrobes of period clothing from television and film companies. The blazer is actually a mutation of period fabric design with the more modern lapels and without the classic boxed and belt of the jacket that would have been in fashion in the period of the fabric.

Oddly, it seems that the high waist has come back to a fair extent for women's clothing over here; I wish it would for men's. If all I ever wanted to wear were jeans, it'd be easier, but I actually prefer a decent trouser most of the time now...

Well it is, sort of. I saw these jeans on line,

and commented on them on the The Ultimate Denim Trouser Thread, Page 14, #280. From the responses and my subsequent purchase of said trousers, it's fair to say that whilst they are yet to reach mainstream, they certainly are aesthetic enough to garner interest.

 

[Harp]

Nicely turned out. Those shoes, trousers definitely the goods.

And fedora.

 

[GHT]

Nicely turned out. Those shoes, trousers definitely the goods.

And fedora.

Kind of you to say so, thank you. You omitted that the belly sort of detracts from the overall look, most civil of you, much appreciated.

 

[martinsantos]

All right, a question for the gentlemen here --

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level, usually, with a long T-shirt hanging over them? Is the resulting silhouette -- a torso that takes up 2/3 of the total body height and legs that take up only 1/3 -- something that's being deliberately sought? If so, what message or image is this silhouette intended to convey? I'm not talking about teenage boys here, I'm talking about 50-60-70 year old men, nearly all of whom around here follow this fashion.

I couldn't care less about what other people choose to wear from a fashion point of view, but every time I see this look on the streets it strikes me as out of proportion and unbalanced, causing the wearer to look like an overgrown Charlie Brown type figure, with a giant torso and little stubby legs. Am I missing the message?

I would suggest three reasons. Maybe all correct, maybe a bit of each, perhaps only one.

1- aesthetics. We have good taste but other can like ugly clothes. Jokes apart, it’s the “beautiful” of this era so people will wear it.

2- “bad boy” figure. Not exactly aestetic reason but the idea to look like a crap. I have met quite a few. Wear, speak and, worse, act like real bad guys. Usually cry and call for mama when in front of a police officer.

3- they want to look younger.

 

[Edward]

What Hoffman brought to the role that, through no fault of his own, Redford couldn't is the surprise of an average-looking guy being propositioned for sex from a hot older woman. We all know a guy that looks like Redford has had plenty of women offer themselves up to him, but for Hoffman, it's like he just won the lottery and can't believe it.

It came from a trader on the outskirts of Bournemouth, about a forty-five minute drive from where we live. The trader goes by the name of Clobber, a name that was once a popular slang term to describe the outfit that you were wearing. They trade in vintage wear, they also buy large wardrobes of period clothing from television and film companies. The blazer is actually a mutation of period fabric design with the more modern lapels and without the classic boxed and belt of the jacket that would have been in fashion in the period of the fabric.

It looks great. The more modern cut puts me in mind of some late fifties / turn of the early sixties stuff I've seen where the modern cut was emerging, but there was a distinct echo of earlier times in some of the fabrics. Really nice to see something with a bold pattern like this in earthtones, much more unusual than the more common blues, reds and such.

Well it is, sort of. I saw these jeans on line,
View attachment 395314
and commented on them on the The Ultimate Denim Trouser Thread, Page 14, #280. From the responses and my subsequent purchase of said trousers, it's fair to say that whilst they are yet to reach mainstream, they certainly are aesthetic enough to garner interest.

I did see that ,those look great. Where did they come from? I'm hoping that if it catches on with jeans, it'll catch on with other trews as well; much as we now live in an era of 'dress jeans' ("Oh brave new world..."), there surely must remain places even now where the average person doesn't always find denim desirable. Even from a purely fashion point of view (so many of the big lawfirms have now enforced a casualised dresscode, with jeans being quite normal in the office), surely...

3- they want to look younger.

I have no time for the taking of pleasure in rubbishing the contemporary world in favour of some imagined version of the past, but I have to admit I have noticed more and more in recent years what seems to be an infantalising of adult men's wardrobes. Short trousers for adult well over twenty, men dressed the same as their young sons, where it looks less like they've dressed the kid as the mini-me and more quite the reverse.... I'm all for individual choice and freedom of dress, but I've got to the point where I just don't 'get' the mainstream most of the time now. That's of course is the joy of the online world: it's so much easier to find your own tribe and feed you own interests now. I certainly wouldn't go back to the pre-streaming days were all it takes to ruin TV for a month is some big sporting event being on...

 

[Harp]

I have no time for the taking of pleasure in rubbishing the contemporary world in favour of some imagined version of the past, but I have to admit I have noticed more and more in recent years what seems to be an infantalising of adult men's wardrobes. I've got to the point where I just don't 'get' the mainstream most of the time now...

Last time I interviewed at a 'law firm' federal establishment only two attorneys were in for a casual
Friday, both spoke with me and frankly even their casual dress looked raggy. More house garage
than home wear sartorial standard.

Not to remark dumb facetious, but all this started with neuterized masculine trench coats.
Xepting Steve McQueen who could and did sport a clean basic trench, the downhill casual garb
fetish took it all too fast and too far.

 

[belfastboy]

All right, a question for the gentlemen here --

Is there an aesthetic reason why so many men today wear their pants at hip level, usually, with a long T-shirt hanging over them? Is the resulting silhouette -- a torso that takes up 2/3 of the total body height and legs that take up only 1/3 -- something that's being deliberately sought? If so, what message or image is this silhouette intended to convey? I'm not talking about teenage boys here, I'm talking about 50-60-70 year old men, nearly all of whom around here follow this fashion.

I couldn't care less about what other people choose to wear from a fashion point of view, but every time I see this look on the streets it strikes me as out of proportion and unbalanced, causing the wearer to look like an overgrown Charlie Brown type figure, with a giant torso and little stubby legs. Am I missing the message?

Must be a New England thing......don't see that here.

 

[EngProf]

Must be a New England thing......don't see that here.

Agree that it must be a New England thing...
I have never seen anything like that here in Nashville.
In fact, if you showed up in that sort of outfit here, people would think you were a David "Stringbean" Akeman impersonator:
David Akeman (June 17, 1915 – November 10, 1973) better known as Stringbean (or String Bean), was an American singer-songwriter, musician, and comedian, best known for his role as a main cast member on the hit television show Hee Haw and as a member of the Grand Ole Opry.
Akeman was well-known for his "old-fashioned" banjo-picking style, careful mix of comedy and music, and his memorable stage wardrobe (which consisted of a long nightshirt tucked into a pair of short blue jeans belted around his knees — giving him the comical appearance of a very tall man with stubby legs).

 

[GHT]

Last time I interviewed at a 'law firm' federal establishment only two attorneys were in for a casual
Friday, both spoke with me and frankly even their casual dress looked raggy. More house garage
than home wear sartorial standard.

I do hope that they don't dress down to this level. Plumbing the depths, you might say.

 

[Trenchfriend]

"I fear the day, when technology surpasses our humanity. In the world, there will be only a generation of idiots."

Albert Einstein

When was this day? Ere yesterday?? He saw the smombies coming.