What a suit shouldn't do.

[Marc Chevalier]

For example Sean Connery's suits in the early Bond films feature high trouser waistlines and relatively slim cuts.

Yes. And Brioni's first 'continental suits' had this very silhouette.

 

[Edward]

^^ My vote is up for Harry's suit!

I agree. It's altogether narrower than I would chose, but I think he works it, and the trousers don't look so bad - at least in that shot. I think younger and/or thinner guys can really work the skinny, mod/Mad Men look, just not more corpulent fellows like m'self.

That's still silly of him to say that, because trousers don't have to be "baggy" to be high waisted. Whilst we on the FL may have a preference for wide-legged trousers, narrower trousers can still look good providing they're high waisted. For example Sean Connery's suits in the early Bond films feature high trouser waistlines and relatively slim cuts. I do however think that wide lapels like those on Ford's suits require wider trousers to look more balanced.

Yes, I have the impression waists dropped in the later sixties, the up a bit, then down again in the.... nineties?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yes, I have the impression waists dropped in the later sixties, the up a bit, then down again in the.... nineties?

MEN'S NON-DENIM TROUSER WAIST

Later '60s-early '70s: down.

Mid '70s: up a bit.

Late '70s-mid '80s: up more, then down a bit.

Later '80s-early 2000s: up and up.

Mid 2000s-today: down and down.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Even at very traditional place, like Brooks Brothers for example, if you tell them you're looking for trousers with a 12" rise, they look at you like you're mad. There's a fellow selling off his work wardrobe on eBay right now, all of which very high end including a number of Savile Row suits. One of his selling points was how fashionable they all were -- with 6" - 7" rises!

 

[scottyrocks]

Hip-huggers!

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I agree. It's altogether narrower than I would chose, but I think he works it, and the trousers don't look so bad - at least in that shot. I think younger and/or thinner guys can really work the skinny, mod/Mad Men look, just not more corpulent fellows like m'self.



Yes, I have the impression waists dropped in the later sixties, the up a bit, then down again in the.... nineties?

I don't like slim fit trousers either. I think I would really stupid in them. Maybe the point of wearing skinny low rise trousers is to show that the wearer is thin and young? Timberlake might like it for that reason. He is a popstar after all. Most of them are afraid to look outdated and old.

 

[AntonAAK]

I don't like slim fit trousers either. I think I would really stupid in them. Maybe the point of wearing skinny low rise trousers is to show that the wearer is thin and young? Timberlake might like it for that reason. He is a popstar after all. Most of them are afraid to look outdated and old.

Then one might ask why he is wearing a three-piece suit at all. [huh]

Actually I think that he could improve the appearance of that suit just by wearing it better. Hiking the trousers up a bit would hide the waistband under the waistcoat and get rid of the creasing at the bottom of the leg. Better posture would help too. He looks like he just isn't comfortable wearing a suit and doesn't know how to do so.

 

[Phineas Lamour]

This is supposed to be the guy who is responsible for bringing sexy back?

 

[Edward]

MEN'S NON-DENIM TROUSER WAIST

Later '60s-early '70s: down.

Mid '70s: up a bit.

Late '70s-mid '80s: up more, then down a bit.

Later '80s-early 2000s: up and up.

Mid 2000s-today: down and down.

Ah! Thanks! I think The UK timeline is running maybe two years or so ahead of this, but the trend still seems to be downwards, alas. At least on the high street. In Roderick Charles and some other Jermyn Street places in which I would shop, waists are up. Not Thirties-high, but very similar to trousers I have from the Fifties.

Even at very traditional place, like Brooks Brothers for example, if you tell them you're looking for trousers with a 12" rise, they look at you like you're mad. There's a fellow selling off his work wardrobe on eBay right now, all of which very high end including a number of Savile Row suits. One of his selling points was how fashionable they all were -- with 6" - 7" rises!

Jinkies, that's low. I'd be forever trying to pull 'em up (and wedgying myself, no doubt, in the process).

I don't like slim fit trousers either. I think I would really stupid in them. Maybe the point of wearing skinny low rise trousers is to show that the wearer is thin and young? Timberlake might like it for that reason. He is a popstar after all. Most of them are afraid to look outdated and old.

I doubt it's as thought out as that, on his individual part, anyhow, maybe on reflection you're right, and it's a stylist has done it. He may or may not himself be somebody who is really interested in clothes, so may not even notice. It's far from uncommon.

This is supposed to be the guy who is responsible for bringing sexy back?

lol BURN! lol

I concur wholeheartedly (as, might I add, many fine ladies of my acquaintance!).

 

[Tomasso]

There's a fellow selling off his work wardrobe on eBay right now, all of which very high end including a number of Savile Row suits. One of his selling points was how fashionable they all were -- with 6" - 7" rises!

That is bizarre for Savile Row. Have you a link to the auctions?

 

[SteveAS]

That is bizarre for Savile Row. Have you a link to the auctions?

I came across two recent Chester Barrie suits in about my size in a thrift store recently. I was briefly excited at having found them for $50/suit, but my excitement was fleeting. When I tried them on, I found them to be very low-waisted and generally too slim fitting for my taste.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Ah! Thanks! I think The UK timeline is running maybe two years or so ahead of this ...

My timeline refers to mainstream fashion, not cutting edge stuff.

 

[Lexybeast]

There's a fellow selling off his work wardrobe on eBay right now, all of which very high end including a number of Savile Row suits. One of his selling points was how fashionable they all were -- with 6" - 7" rises!

Er... how is this even possible for men's trousers without violating public indecency laws?

 

[Guttersnipe]

That is bizarre for Savile Row. Have you a link to the auctions?

Savile Row has a long history of catering the whims of fashion. The designs of Tommy Nutter and Edward Sexton for Nutters of Savile Row in the 60s and 70s is a classic example of this. Current establishments/personalities like Ozwald Boateng continues with tradition non-traditional designs.

Er... how is this even possible for men's trousers without violating public indecency laws?

It's possible because the way most people measure rise -- by measuring from the seam bellow the fly to the top of the waistband -- isn't the way rises are measured with the rise measuring contraption tailors use. A way to better approximate that measurement is by subtracting the inseam from the outseam.

The difference comes from taking a measurement essentially on a diagonal rather than a perpendicular angle.

 

[Tomasso]

Oh, so it's not an accurate measurement........

 

[Qirrel]

A way to better approximate that measurement is by subtracting the inseam from the outseam.

I am pretty sure that you would have a hard time finding a cutting system where the rise does not equal the difference between the outseam and the inseam. This is the correct way of measuring the rise.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I am pretty sure that you would have a hard time finding a cutting system where the rise does not equal the difference between the outseam and the inseam. This is the correct way of measuring the rise.

Yes and no. Depending on the cut of the trousers, there can be a significant dip in where on the waist trousers sit from front to back. So measuring at the halfway point of the "downhill" slope (outseam - inseam), will not alway exactly approximate the actual rise length.

 

[Qirrel]

Yes and no. Depending on the cut of the trousers, there can be a significant dip in where on the waist trousers sit from front to back. So measuring at the halfway point of the "downhill" slope (outseam - inseam), will not alway exactly approximate the actual rise length.

I don't quite follow you there. Do our definitions of rise differ? I am no expert, but I have drafted and made quite a few trousers, and without exception, the rise was the difference between the sideseam (that is from the top of the waistband, past the pocket and along the seam down to the hem), and the inseam (from where the seam running along the seat intersects the seam that goes along the leg, down to the hem).
Like this: (If the pattern means anything to you)

(From the drafting instructions: "O [point with the circle around it] to 1 equals the rise...". Point one is on the same line as point 8, and these make a parallel line to 9-O-4, which is in line with the crotch and the top of the inseam. The sideseam (outseam) runs from 8 to 13. If you then, on a finished pair of trousers, lay them down flat with the sideseam aligned on top of the inseam (that's the way they are creased) and then measure as described, and then subtract the two measures, you will get the correct rise.)

 

[Guttersnipe]

I think it's quite possible that we're having a confusion over definitions, or maybe I should say contexts.

It's common for tailors to determine the length of rise a customer wants by using a t-square or straightedge. The t-square is placed upside down, so that the t is at the bottom of the rise (the crotch). The customer then points to where he wants the waist to fall in the front. Depending on the build of the customer, and the particulars of how he wears his trousers, that measurement can vary from the rise length determined by subtracting the inseam from the outseam.

In my experience, tailors don't explain the differences between physical measurements taken and how they are adapted to making or altering a pattern, so when I referenced those auctions for someones trendy bespoke and MTM work wardrobe, I was quoting the 7" figure given by the seller, who was likely referring the measurement quoted to him by the tailor/cutter who measured him.