Trousers pt. 4: rethinking fit
It seems among the many changes in preferences that happens as our style evolves, one of the most common relates to fit. You see it all the time; whether it be a fuller cut on the jacket or leg opening width, it seems it’s not a far stretch to argue our style matures with us and usually it’s in the direction of a more timeless fit.
Personal evolution
What has probably surprised me the most since I became passionate about tailored menswear is how fast preferences can change, granted I realise that also has a lot to do with my age in addition to gradually gaining knowledge, or perhaps experience rather.
I knew all the rules and ideals from the start and what was left to know was quite intuitive to be honest. The choices I made that aren’t aligned with what I prefer today were never really based on knowledge, or the lack thereof. But, they were genuinely what I liked.
For instance, I always got jackets right. When I parted with about 70% of my wardrobe it was because my body changed, not because the shoulder or chest didn’t fit initially.
With trousers, the difference in preference between then and now was not as much of a problem because with most fabrics I could let out, whether length or width, to accommodate as my preferences changed. Unfortunately, the one preference that changed the most, which now has become a dealbreaker, is the one part that can’t be changed (or at least so I thought), which is the rise of the trousers.
General measures
With any other preference, let’s say length for instance, it has been an easy fix. As far as leg opening goes, I went from 16cm in the first part of my journey, to 17cm, then gradually moving up to about 18,5cm - which is where I find the harmony between where the cuff sits related to the upper (i.e how much of the shoe is showing), how it looks from the side, and how much/little room there is for the fabric to flap in the wind, to be the best.
The discussion regarding leg opening seems to reoccur every now and then, most recently two suggestions have been made. One was the trouser covering 2/3 of the shoe and the other suggesting the leg opening being half of ones European shoe size, in centimeters.
Objectively speaking I’m not opposed to either, they’re two opinions equally viable depending on what on prefers. Personally I lean towards the latter, but would rather say half the European shoe size minus 1-2 centimeters. But that’s the wonder of this: we all have different preferences.
Now, this is not something I really concern myself with, as stated so many times I think people should wear what they like. As far as my current trouser status goes, whether some are 17, or 18, or 18,5cm isn’t something I care too much about. Although everything I have acquired since a year ago or so is 18,5cm, the difference between 17 and 18,5 as far as how it feels goes is not enough to have me care about it. That said there’s quite a difference visually. Luckily, most of the trousers that are more narrow than 18,5cm are summer trousers and I am a lot more lenient seeing that I don’t mind a more youthful silhouette in summer.
As far as how full the cut is, especially of the upper part above the knees, I definitely have moved towards a fuller cut, while with this part my feelings about then and now is the opposite of leg opening: I still enjoy the more tapered silhouette visually, but it’s definitely less comfortable.
It’s a misconception that you can’t obtain a tapered look with a fuller cut, now obviously talking about trousers with pleats. This was a realisation that came with knowledge and experience that I wasn’t aware of earlier, but also I had no reason to be as my “size up, taper down” approach only just came about at the end of last year.
Rise
Finally returning to rise, the main topic of this article, my crusade for the ever higher rise also brought about the newly discovered knowledge mentioned in the previous segment.
Jumping one or two sizes I also discovered that the extra room, both in terms of the width around the seat area, but also the slight added space between pleats, does volumes in terms of the comfort it adds without (necessarily) taking anything away from the silhouette.
Because the trousers now rest just above the hip bone, the fuller upper cut drapes naturally (if altered right), especially the pleats since they’re less affected by any pulling that would occur with a tighter fit. Now, there is a caveat here since the belt will have a tendency to cave slightly inwards, but for instance with the bespoke trousers from Igarashi and my mtm trousers from Ring Jacket, this was more or less completely eliminated.
Obvious, but it goes to show how much good tailoring impacts fit.
Why an even higher rise?
This question puzzles even me, because I catch myself thinking it’s borderline ridiculous.
As far as opinions goes, I find some of the opposition equally ridiculous. For instance receiving feedback that suggest we invented some new standard for rise which is unheard of in tailored menswear.
The sort of high rise me and many fellow tailored menswear enthusiasts prefer has base in classic menswear and anyone familiar with Esquire would know this. The reason I admit to some ridiculousness is that I can understand why some might think it’s taking it too far considering you have to cater the tie length to it.
All I can say is, besides comfort and drape, which is unmatched, there is something about that look, especially when worn as a suit or an odd combo with any type of jacket, that just appeals to me. Additionally it’s ironic that returning to some of the roots of classic tailored wear is considered edgy, but I reckon that might perhaps also be a factor I embrace.
With regards to silhouette, the same holds true which has been stated before: you will most definitely accentuate the width of your upper body/chest when wearing such a high rise and of course, you look taller.
In the end the decision is yours, the most important preference is the one you like and feel comfortable with.
