I think I've been writing mainly for menswear-obsessed guys for so long that it had not occurred to me that high-rise trousers could still be controversial in 2023. So let's run through some points. 🧵
First, if you're wearing a tailored jacket (e.g., suit jacket or sport coat), you should wear high-rise trousers. Low-rise trousers create this ugly shirt triangle below the buttoning point. High-rise trousers create a more coherent, streamlined look between jacket and pants
Some people think that high-rise trousers look old-fashioned and out of date. First, I think you should dress for your body type, not according to trends. Low-rise jeans and trousers are best on stick-thin models, who they were created for.
A lot of stick-thin guys though are not wearing them in that edgy, cool way. They are wearing them in this really bland way, and the effect ends up making your torso look weirdly long and your legs weirdly short.
High-rise trousers lengthen your leg line and bring the proportion between your torso and legs into better balance. It had not occurred to me that some people could still think they're categorically bad, so let's run through some stereotypes:
"High-rise trousers aren't cool."
"High-rise trousers are for older guys."
"High-rise trousers don't work for bigger guys."
In the summertime, when it's too hot to layer, it's even more important that your shirt and pants are on point. One way to create a more flattering, stylish silhouette is to wear higher-rise trousers. Pair with a tucked linen button-up shirt or a camp collar shirt. Super easy.
Of course, as ever, people can wear what they want. I am only presenting my views. But this summer outfit is cool as hell, and the trousers add a lot to the look. If you haven't yet considered higher-rise trousers, I think you should give them a chance.
Some people have asked for options. I'm tweeting this with great trepidation bc anytime I mention something over $50, ppl get mad. The following spans a large price range, so if you encounter something out of your budget, keep going down the list (they are, however, above $100)
For trousers (in no particular order):
Dapper Classics, O'Connell's, Rota selection at No Man Walks Alone, The Armoury, Spier & Mackay, Besnard, Scott Fraser Simpson, J. Press, The Andover Shop, Casatlantic, and Berg & Berg
When shopping, check measurements and return policy.
For jeans, you don't want an actual high rise. You want just something a little higher than the low-rise stuff. So check:
Levis Vintage Clothing 1947 501s, Drake's, The Armoury, 3sixteen CS cut, Orslow 105 and 107, and Blackhorse Lane N3. I would also contact @selfedge for recs
i didn't want to say it, but yes. I still don't think you should dress according to trends, but the reality is that young people are into wider fits and higher rises, while older people are the ones in the slim fit, low rise silhouette of the early 2000s
every counter argument in this thread uses photos that literally look nothing like the examples that i've posted (which, by the way, are of real people in normal settings, not professional photoshoots). whereas i use real examples of how actual ppl look in low rise pants
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One day, "It" will happen, by which I mean sudden and unexpected news that you want to celebrate. In such cases, you will want the right outfit. 🧵
What do I mean by "It?" I mean that joyous moments are not always something you can plan for. Perhaps you received a pay raise or got accepted at a waitlisted school. Perhaps a loved one is now cancer-free. Such moments can be sudden and unexpected — and you want to be prepared.
Of course, you can always celebrate in the same clothes you wear to bed. But IMO, this diminishes the moment. Thus, it's nice to special outfits for "It," even if you don't wear them all the time. It's similar to toasting a special glass of champagne and drinking water.
In the 1950s, Irving Penn traveled across London, Paris, and NYC to take portraits of workers in their work clothes. These clothes at the time were not considered glamorous — they would not have shown up on fashion runways — but they demonstrate a simple aesthetic principle 🧵
Consider these outfits. How do you feel about them? Are they charming? Repulsive? Stylish?
If you consider them charming and stylish, as I do, then ask yourself: what makes them charming and stylish? Why are you drawn to the outfits?
As I've mentioned before, I think outfits look better when they have "shape and drape." By shape, I mean the outfit confers a distinctive silhouette. If these men took off their clothes, we can reliably guess their bodies would not be shaped like this:
If you're just dipping your toes into tailored clothing, start with a navy sport coat. This is something you can wear with a button-up shirt and pair of trousers, or something as casual as a t-shirt and some jeans. It's easily the most versatile jacket.
Key is to get something with texture so it doesn't look like an orphaned suit jacket. Spier & Mackay has great semi-affordable tailoring. Their navy hopsack Moro is made from pure wool and a half-canvas to give it shape. Classic proportions and soft natural shoulder
There's a pervasive belief that we no longer produce clothes in the United States. This is not true. In this thread, I will tell you about some great made-in-USA brands — some that run their own factories, while others are US brands contracting with US factories. 🧵
I should first note this thread focuses on well-made, stylish clothes produced in ethical conditions. For me, producing in the US is not enough. It means nothing if the clothes are ugly, crappy, or produced in sweatshop conditions. My article for The Nation below.
JEANS
Gustin produces MiUSA jeans using raw Japanese denim. "Raw" means the fabric hasn't been pre-distressed, allowing it to naturally fade with use, reflecting your actual body and lifestyle. I like their fuller 1968 Vintage Straight fit. They also do lots of other stuff.
Let's first establish good vs bad ways to think about style. The first pic is correct — style is a kind of social language and you have to figure out what type of person you are. The second pic is stupid bc it takes style as disconnected objects ("this is in" vs "this is out").
I should also note here that I'm only talking about style. I'm not here to argue with you about ergonomics, water bottle holders, or whether something accommodates your Dell laptop. I'm am talking about aesthetics.
Watch these two videos. Then answer these two questions:
— Which of the two men is better dressed?
— How does each come off?
I think Carney is better dressed, partly because his clothes fit better. Notice that his jacket collar always hugs his neck, while Pierre Poilievre's jacket collar never touches him.