High waisted trousers w/ short inseams

[JDCrockett]

I've seen this statement made quite a few times on Ebay:

Inseam: ~27" (extremely high-waist trousers are much longer than the inseam would imply - PLEASE go by the 'overall length' measurement below)
Overall length: ~39-1/2"

Can any one explain the logic of this statement to me? I think it's an attempt to sell short inseam trousers! I need 29" or 30" inseams measured from the top "inside" seam of the leg to approximately my ankle bone or a little farther
no matter where the waistband sits. Am I missing something here? I agree
that the overall length of the "outseam" will vary but that won't make a 27"
inseam any different.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

To know if trousers are long enough for me, I need to know my own inseam measurement and to stick to it. Any trousers with an inseam that is less than mine, will be short on me. This is a rule of thumb which is almost always right.

.

 

[herringbonekid]

i've come across the above quote too, and i assume it is intended for people who have never purchased a pair of 40s/50s trousers before and are unprepared for the height of the waist.

you're right, the high waist doesn't mean you can add 2 inches to the inseam by dropping the waistline....you're not meant to wear them with a saggy crotch.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Technically, the overall length is the "Out seam," but no one goes by that.

If I were to buy them, I would ask whether there was any material to be let down.

 

[Tomasso]

Technically, the overall length is the "Out seam," but no one goes by that.

Right, not at RTW but MTM/Bespoke tailors use the out seam measurement regularly. Outseam-Inseam=Rise.

 

[Brad Bowers]

Inseam: ~27" (extremely high-waist trousers are much longer than the inseam would imply - PLEASE go by the 'overall length' measurement below)
Overall length: ~39-1/2"

Hey, those will fit me! If the waist is big enough.lol

Brad "Stubby Legs" Bowers

 

[BellyTank]

Out-seam minus in-seam equals height-of-rise.
Front and rear rise are different.

B
T

 

[fluteplayer07]

I'll give this thread a good bump...

Why is it that most vintage trousers I find always seem to have incredibly short inseams? I wear about a 32-33 inseam, but most everything I see is around the 27" to 30" range. Not even close to what I wear, and usually with nothing to let out unless the cuffs are sacrificed (and even that is a negligable amount). Now, I'm not that tall of a guy (around 5'10" or so), and I don't have disproportionally sized legs either. So why do vintage trousers almost always seem to have short inseams? Were people of the time just shorter than today, or were pants legs worn higher (on or perhaps slightly above the ankle)?


Cheers,

 

[Mario]

Why is it that most vintage trousers I find always seem to have incredibly short inseams? I wear about a 32-33 inseam, but most everything I see is around the 27" to 30" range. Not even close to what I wear, and usually with nothing to let out unless the cuffs are sacrificed (and even that is a negligable amount). Now, I'm not that tall of a guy (around 5'10" or so), and I don't have disproportionally sized legs either. So why do vintage trousers almost always seem to have short inseams? Were people of the time just shorter than today, or were pants legs worn higher (on or perhaps slightly above the ankle)?

I need an inseam of at least 34"...go figure! :

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

I'll give this thread a good bump...

Why is it that most vintage trousers I find always seem to have incredibly short inseams? I wear about a 32-33 inseam, but most everything I see is around the 27" to 30" range. Not even close to what I wear, and usually with nothing to let out unless the cuffs are sacrificed (and even that is a negligable amount). Now, I'm not that tall of a guy (around 5'10" or so), and I don't have disproportionally sized legs either. So why do vintage trousers almost always seem to have short inseams? Were people of the time just shorter than today, or were pants legs worn higher (on or perhaps slightly above the ankle)?

I'd guess it's a couple of things. Trousers were generally worn shorter — typically with no break, so they'd sit at right about your ankle. The guys who owned these pants were probably just pretty short. Seems to me that a lot of these pants are still on the market simply because they have such unpopular measurements. I always like seeing the short inseams coupled with a 40" waist. Must have been some rotund fellows.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I've seen this statement made quite a few times on Ebay:

Inseam: ~27" (extremely high-waist trousers are much longer than the inseam would imply - PLEASE go by the 'overall length' measurement below)
Overall length: ~39-1/2"

Can any one explain the logic of this statement to me? I think it's an attempt to sell short inseam trousers! I need 29" or 30" inseams measured from the top "inside" seam of the leg to approximately my ankle bone or a little farther
no matter where the waistband sits. Am I missing something here? I agree
that the overall length of the "outseam" will vary but that won't make a 27"
inseam any different.

Yes, you are right, inseam should not vary. As has already been stated, the notion that you can go by the "overall measurement" (outseam) is TOTALLY specious. Usually I see that statement made either shady sellers trying to make short pant seem more desirable or obviously ill informed novice/non-specialist vintage sellers. The only exception I can think of, when it comes to mens pants, is dropped rise/dropped crotch pants (e.g. zoot suit pants). Those do tend to have an extremely long outseam in comparison with the inseam since the baggy seat, ultra high waist, pegged ankles is part of that silhouette.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Firstly - I don't buy the "they wore them at their ankles" argument. Period film would suggest otherwise.

I've always imagined that many inseams are so short (good thing for me!) because they had been repurposed to fit someone else - handed down to fit the son, maybe. My grandfathers suits from the 40s were repurposed to fit my uncle, then my father. Though they were quite close in size, the suits got thoroughly trashed, helping to explain the number of trashed suits we find.

bk