Pant Rise

try o'connells or brooks brothers

Low rise was a mistake. Some faggots started wearing girl pants and ruined pants for a decade.

>>11810428
skinny jeans only look good on skinny people, and skinny jeans look retarded with high-rise

Plus if you're very skinny, low-rise can show off your v-line and hip bones

All other body types should not wear low-rise, however. You're correct there

>>11810438
bad post

>>11810438
kys

File: Screen-shot-2012-07-02-at-20.17.04.png (458KB, 687x520px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 687x520px

>>11810458
Fattie fattie fat fat

>>11810362
Looked at both, look a bit too formal. Might give some from BB a try, and have no idea how the O'Connell's fit, got pics of them being worn by any chance?

>>11810428
Right. Low-rise pants objectively look like shit.

http://www.landsend.com/products/mens-comfort-waist-yearrounder-wool-trousers/id_145702_589?cm_mmc=139971614

beware, wool.

>>11810617
With a nice taper these could make some seriously sick fits.

>>11810617
Beware?

>>11810458
>>11810466
Poor little fox

You'll get those grapes some day, I'm sure

File: 1463832225727.jpg (161KB, 1044x1584px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1044x1584px

>>11810617
a little too formal too. I looked through their casual chinos and unfortunately they only offer longer rise for waist sizes 34 and above.

>>11810660
oof. that hurts to read

>>11810438
>skinny jeans look retarded with high rise
Please provide evidence, I think pockets melting off your ass looks much worse

>>11810641
wool usually means warmer, ideal for colder climates.

>>11810996
That look essentially belongs to short fat latinas. It screams "LOOK AT MY ASS, LOOK AT MY ASS, KEEP LOOKING AND PLEASE DON'T STARE AT MY STOMACH OR HEIGHT"

Putting that much emphasis on your butt is usually horrendous looking on men, unless you're covering it with a jacket in which case what does the rise matter anyways?

Normal rise is always preferable but low is much better than high when it comes to skinnies

>>11810428
>ruined pants for a decade
Ah but nein mein brodank, one decade implies this shit started in 2005-6, low rise has been a problem since at least... 60s youth culture? Think about it, haven't you ever heard your parents refer to "grampa pants" and meant high risers, gags about "pants pulled up to the armpits" and shit like they were just wearing them wrong, like you could pull any pair up arbitrarily high but you shouldn't because it looks dumb?

I'm telling you mein brohaus, this shit has ruined pants for more than half a century

>>11810806
desu anon, you will probably have better look finding what you want at a goodwill. I find nice trousers there now n then, way cheaper.

>>11810617
>beware, wool.
>watch out! Quality

?????
?
???

>>11811032
better luck, rather

>>11811038
>>11811007

>>11811010
It belongs on girls in general.

File: 3e7680156a5f5fa7cdc8502ec5d9320e.jpg (283KB, 705x1069px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 705x1069px

>>11811010
how can one man be so wrong

>>11811060
It's the sixth time he's been wrong and he is getting exceedingly efficient at it

>>11811060
Are you implying this is high rise?

>>11811116
joey and dee dee's jeans can be considered high rise, yes. are you implying they're not?

>>11811125
Don't be too hard on him, Dee Dee Ramone is invisible to retards. Known problem -- rest of the band kept losing him and he couldn't shave right.

>>11811125
Okay maybe the garment itself is high rise, but they're wearing it well below their hip bones

File: IMG_2065.gif (27KB, 192x333px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 192x333px

>>11811125
>implying that even looks good whether it is high rise or not

>>11811030
Mein faggot

File: THIN-LIZZY-Whisky-In-The-Jar-LP-1983.jpg (248KB, 1092x900px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1092x900px

>>11811147
nobody's wearing their jeans below their hip bones in that photo, but the other two are sporting a mid rise. is that what you're referring to?
>>11811150
no accounting for taste

File: DSC08218_shop1_235850.jpg (386KB, 1000x1498px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1000x1498px

bump

File: P1000696-683x1024.jpg (196KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 683x1024px

>>11811373
b u mp

>>11810352
Fucking cheater whore

>>11810438
>skinny jeans look retarded with high-rise
explain levis 505c

File: post-1963-0-37316300-1362723282.jpg (145KB, 596x799px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 596x799px

>>11811504
?

>tfw hike my weekday warriors to my liking but but cock bulge

I'm waiting patiently for links

File: image.jpg (130KB, 801x1024px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 801x1024px

The way high rise pant was kill is blood boiling. It has pretty much ruined 3/4 of men's fashion since the early 90's.

Some designers are bringing back higher rises like Giorgio/Emporio Armani but I fear the general public is too far gone.

OP here. I chatted up an LL Bean representative and was told that the rise on the "natural fit" khakis is 11 5/8 inches for size 31 waist. Sounds good to me so I've ordered a pair. The rise on their "classic fit", which is slimmer, is also relatively high with about 11 inches.

Will see how they fit once they get here.

>>11811060
?
Joey's jeans look like fucking shit here, look at that fucking mooseknuckle.

>>11813924
have you considered the fact that we're talking about skinny jeans here

unless you sag you're going to get a mooseknuckle

>>11813934
I hope for your sake your skinny jeans don't look like that lmao.

>>11813982
desu it's not even really that prominent of a bulge. it probably only appears that way due to the position he's put himself in (legs crossed)

File: 1460020923526.jpg (63KB, 800x603px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x603px

bump

>>11813867
I just bought a pair of Standard Fits today, and even those have an acceptably high rise. Never going back to sub 9 inch rises

>>11814864
Heh, I think I might have gone too far with the Natural Fit, but I'll see. I'll have to try the standard fits if the natural and classics fail me?

>>11814923
>Heh, I think I might have gone too far with the Natural Fit
When it comes to the high rise, there is no too far.

File: 140103-her-e1388768346761.jpg (37KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x320px

I want trousers like Joaquin Phoenix in Her (2013).

>>11814933
whats the name of the button shirts he wears?

File: Her_2013.jpg (77KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1280x720px

>>11814949
Seems to be a grandad collar/collarless shirt.

>>11814949
band collar. you can cut the collar off of any shirt and make it look like that

what are some decent jeans with a higher rise? Saw this and checked my most comfortable pair, rise is about 11 inches even though they are levi 511's.

>>11815082
wrangler cowboy cut

>>11814923
Classic fit has the same rise as the natural IIRC, just thinner legs. Unfortunately, the lakewashed pants (untreated ones) don't seem to come in classic. Standard is like an 10.5 inch rise anyway, so it's fine for me

>>11815782
never mind I'm a retard who can't read your post right

>>11815782
>>11815787
sorry, there wasn't even supposed to be a question mark there actually haha

>>11815522
dont fall for this meme

unless you're looking for work jeans for the farm, wranglers are shit.
stiff, baggy, uncomfortable, can't even reach the pocket, sizing is never consistent, and unless you wear big-ass boots have fun looking like you wear pseudo-bell bottoms from the 70s

>>11817654
>pseudo-bell bottoms from the 70s
is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>>11817692
of course not, if you want to look autistic

>>11817725
do all straight leg pants look like bell bottoms to you?

>>11817743
of course not. have you actually tried wranglers, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? the leg opening is exaggerated. bigger than levi's straight fits. unless you're wearing work boots, it looks goofy. that's because wranglers are work jeans, unlike levi's which is mostly geared towards casual fashion now.

>>11814949
It's a mandarin collar.

>>11818179
no, its not

>>11817766
levi's straight fits for the most part aren't actually straight

i have no idea what you're even arguing. they're a basic straight cut, fashionable people have been wearing these for centuries now.

File: 080917wed.jpg (21KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 360x480px

ba bump

>>11818550
>i have no idea what you're even arguing
have you tried reading?

>fashionable people have been wearing Wranglers for centuries now
literally what

>>11818739
so far you've tried arguing that straight cuts look like bell bottoms... which they don't, because they're not.

i was referring to straight pants as a whole

>>11818693
If I just take a larger size of low rise pants, can i belt them at the waist and have them look like this? I can't find any good high rise pants where I'm from

>>11818805
no, and i'm sure you can find alright high waisted pants on thrift stores and then all you gotta do tailor them

If you can get your hands on them you should try the Uniqlo U wool pants, they have a higher rise than any other Uniqlo pants I've tried. Really like how they fit on the waist, still send mine back because they fit too lose on my skeleton legs.

>>11818753
>have you tried reading?
so basically your answer is no, you have not been reading my posts, so you have no idea what I'm even arguing about?
retard

>>11820096
k you can go back to your high quality minimalism thread now