Front Rise vs. Back Rise

[JohnM]

I've enjoyed this forum for a number of years and have purchased a wide variety of jeans, from makers such as Samurai, Warehouse, Iron Heart, Fullcount, 3Sixteen, and others.  As you all know, it sometimes takes a while (time and money) to figure out what works, what doesn't, and why.  As we know, measurements matter, especially when buying over the Internet.

 

What it has taken me longer to realize than I'd wished is that the back rise is an absolutely critical measurement for me, despite the fact that this measurement is often not provided, readily available, or talked about much.  We all know our waist size, of course, and inseam, and knee and thigh measurements, and then the rise, but often the focus is on front rise only.  I tend to be a high rise guy but I wondered why some 'high rise' jeans (e.g., FR of 12 to 12.75" in size 34 or 36) are comfortable and some aren't.  I learned that the front rise, while affecting how the jeans look (e.g., old school or not), is much less important (to me) than the back rise in terms of how the jeans feel, whether they sit properly, and stay where they should.

 

This 'epiphany' came when I measured various pants (not jeans) that are really comfortable, including an old pair of cords, as well as a pair of Kuhl's.  I expected 'the rise' to be high but, in fact, the front rise is barely over 11" (28 cm).  The back rise, however, on both pairs is around 17" (43 cm).  This is a huge divergence, as you know, compared to how many of our favorite (modern) jeans fit.

 

Since every body is different this information may have no or limited relevance to you.  But I point it out because it's not something that I considered early on and it may also be something for some of you to more seriously consider before shelling out your hard earned money.

 

The challenge for me now is to find jeans that mimic this moderate front/tall back rise fit.  One contender is The Real McCoy's Lot 003 -- quite expensive but a (modified?) WWII cut that may work for this old, almost 60 year old body ;-)

 

John

[somatoform]

Despite having a front rise, upper thigh, and waist measurements that were not out of the norm for other jeans I wear, I could never figure out why my my APC Rescues always felt tighter.

 

Then, for some reason, I'm not sure why, I flipped the jean over and measured the back rise. Well, it's a full 2" lower than most other jeans I wear with the same front rise, waist, and upper thigh. Never dawned on me before to check that measurement.

 

At first, I was always a waist and upper thigh guy - in terms of the critical measurements to be taken when ordering online. Then I realized, no, front rise makes all the difference. Then I realized back rise can make alot of difference as well.

 

Just goes to show how 'wholistic' you have to be to determine fit.

 

Still, even now I don't tend to check back rise often because I assume that most jeans I'm interested in don't have the APC Rescue 'anomaly' thing going on.  

[fre-co]

Oh man this place used to cool. Now it is a place where 60 year old men discuss the rise of their old corduroys....

[edmond]

I've enjoyed this forum for a number of years and have purchased a wide variety of jeans, from makers such as Samurai, Warehouse, Iron Heart, Fullcount, 3Sixteen, and others.  As you all know, it sometimes takes a while (time and money) to figure out what works, what doesn't, and why.  As we know, measurements matter, especially when buying over the Internet.

 

What it has taken me longer to realize than I'd wished is that the back rise is an absolutely critical measurement for me, despite the fact that this measurement is often not provided, readily available, or talked about much.  We all know our waist size, of course, and inseam, and knee and thigh measurements, and then the rise, but often the focus is on front rise only.  I tend to be a high rise guy but I wondered why some 'high rise' jeans (e.g., FR of 12 to 12.75" in size 34 or 36) are comfortable and some aren't.  I learned that the front rise, while affecting how the jeans look (e.g., old school or not), is much less important (to me) than the back rise in terms of how the jeans feel, whether they sit properly, and stay where they should.

 

This 'epiphany' came when I measured various pants (not jeans) that are really comfortable, including an old pair of cords, as well as a pair of Kuhl's.  I expected 'the rise' to be high but, in fact, the front rise is barely over 11" (28 cm).  The back rise, however, on both pairs is around 17" (43 cm).  This is a huge divergence, as you know, compared to how many of our favorite (modern) jeans fit.

 

Since every body is different this information may have no or limited relevance to you.  But I point it out because it's not something that I considered early on and it may also be something for some of you to more seriously consider before shelling out your hard earned money.

 

The challenge for me now is to find jeans that mimic this moderate front/tall back rise fit.  One contender is The Real McCoy's Lot 003 -- quite expensive but a (modified?) WWII cut that may work for this old, almost 60 year old body ;-)

 

John

 

 

john not all ww2 jeans have a high rise. i suggest looking into a pair of deluxewear ww2. or rather also a 50's cut jeans .

[aho]

Just want to say, I hope I'm as cool as John when I reach that age...

[JohnM]

59, almost 60, isn't that bad.  And as they say, rise still matters ;-)

[garden gnomes in space]

Oh man this place used to cool. Now it is a place where 60 year old men discuss the rise of their old corduroys....

are you longing for the days of APC's sized down 4?

[fre-co]

pfft size down five for sufu fit!

[JohnM]

john not all ww2 jeans have a high rise. i suggest looking into a pair of deluxewear ww2. or rather also a 50's cut jeans .

 

ed,

What I'm looking for is a high back rise (e.g., 17") with a mid-high front rise (11.5 to 12.5").  Other than Deluxeware WWII, anything particular come to mind (e.g., RMC 003)?

John

[mpukas]

Good point to bring up. I always measure the back rise as well. I think it's also important to note the ratio of front rise to back rise. Some jeans, like SG2150, have a low front rise and moderate back rise, and it's on the verge of being a weird fit. To me there's a sweet spot of about 3" +/- difference. 

 

@JohnM - check out Imogene + Willie's Willie Rigid. They have a high back rise. I have a pair in size 33 and the back rise measures 16" from inseam, not fold, to top of back waist band. They run large - I could have gone with a size 31 (trying to sell them now). However, they are not Japanese denim. 

 

Other jeans that I know of with a higher rise are Samurai 510 (love this fit) and IH 1955. 

[mpukas]

While on the topic of measurements, and maybe deserving of another thread, I think another measurement warrants becoming a standard - hip width. Some jeans I have have a wide waist and narrow hips (SG5105) and some have a normal waist and wide hips (Samurai S510xx 25oz) and some normal all around (IH 634 SExIH13). I have large thighs and a small waist and I prefer the 510/634 fit. 

 

Vari Jeans Shop on Rakuten is the only store that I know of that posts these measurements and shows a how-to in their fit guide. This method seems reasonable to me, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be adopted more widely. 

http://www.rakuten.ne.jp/gold/vari/size/waist.html 

 

Yeah, sure I can already hear the nay-sayers saying it's too complicated and unnecessary, why bother, the standard waist-thigh-front rise measurements are all that's needed, don't muck things up any further. I say it's hard enough to find jeans that fit how you like them with so many different brands and cuts. This is a crucial measurements that no one pays any attention to, or even bothers to acknowledge. 

[Doogan]

Back rise is very important. Nothing worse than sitting down and feeing like your arse is hanging out.

I don't understand how some jeans can have a rises of around 14.5" or less (and that's on a size 34).

[edmond]

john what size are you looking for?

[JohnM]

john what size are you looking for?

 

Raw waist at 35.5-36" -- PM me if you have something ed.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JohnM

[beautiful_FrEaK]

What abour WH Ranch Dungarees?

They have quite a high rise IMO

[jyoni]

A 35.5-36 with 11 front and 17 back would be tough, as you've said.  I know what you mean though.  There is a synergy between the two rises.  For my particular body it's not a matter of comfort or discomfort.  Nothing I have is uncomfortable.  It's more like, every old school repro I've tried fits like a mid rise haha.  Then again I'm a lunky dude so that leads to wondering about upper size carding.  *****edit, not that I am unhappy with it.  In fact I am quite happy with it.

Edited February 17, 2015 by jyoni

[setterman]

Before this becomes a "what should I buy" thread, I'll add to the discussion that measurements aren't the end all be all and they don't stand completely on their own separate from each other.  Example, a wider thigh can let a you comfortably wear what you would normally consider too short of a rise.  Measurements are a start and can get you close, but there's things going on in the shape and cut you're not going to know until you have the garment on.  And, I don't think you should just assume a measurement that works in one pair of jeans, will work in another.   

 

As for the measurements you're looking for John, I wouldn't expect to find them.  A 5"+ difference in front and rear rise is rare, as is a 17" rear rise on anything other than a size 36 or 38.     

[JohnM]

i hear ya setterman -- measurements don't tell the whole story and 5" difference between front and back rise may not exist (nor even be desirable).  For the heck of it, I looked back at the original, raw measurements of a few jeans I already have and found that a 4" difference (in size 34) is not uncommon (Fullcount 1101, Samurai 0510XX, Warehouse 800) but none were 5".

 

The reason for the original post was just to point out that back rise measurements, while often not available or talked about much, are good to know.  When I first starting buying Japanese denim, I thought that front rise was the key in terms of fit and feel in the top block but have learned since that back rise is equally, if not more important.

[setterman]

With experience, we all find dimensions that work for us.  For me, rear rise is almost irrelevant, while front rise, waist, and thigh are usually deal breakers.  

 

The 4" rise difference you're seeing is probably pretty standard in vintage inspired jeans.  Anything more extreme than that will probably be part of a more modern fit.    

 

While I can't recommend paying full price for them, and there aren't consistent measurements online, you might want to a look at LVC.  Other than their '78 501, the rest of the 501 line up has a fairly high rise.  And the '47 501 will be very similar in shape to your Warehouse 800.     

[apba1166]

John, one old guy to another, here's your answer.

Keep in mind I'm a 34, though most wind up 35, 36 after wear.

All post-wash numbers w tagged waist size in parantheses

Pike Bros Roamer 11-16.5 (33)

Kamikaze 24oz 11-16 (36)

Jelado/IH collab gray 21oz 12-16.5 (34)

Trophy Garage Denim 11.5-16  (note sure of tag, but waist is at 36 now)

And if you really want to go young and wild, Ande Whall Mustang 11-15.5

 

There's plenty of others too.

Or, you could just stay with a pair of LL Bean flannel-lined and say to hell w/all of it.

[SF2Turbo]

i am 35 and have an athletic type of body more of a skinny athletic build if that makes sense. and of course being athletic usually means having some decent glutes. what i find is if the front rise is medium and the back rise also on the medium side,  a lot of the times the jeans don't fit as good while of the rise is a bit higher in the back the jeans not only fit better but also feel better.

Also when a casual shirt is tucked in you can still pull it off. but when done with denim that have near the same front and back rise the shirt tuck in simply does not work unless you want to look silly.

i find that levis 501 and wharehouse lot 900 have slightly higher back rise making them very versatile. it is only a bit higher in the back, which is all that's required to give the jeans that bit of extra comfort.  I have wasted alot of money on high end denim but now i have nailed it and i cannot go wrong with denim all i need to make sure is that the front rise is medium with a back rise of high/medium or just high. I find alot of the vintage style denim offer this and harder to find on modern cuts. Nudie jeans ued to do one called steady eddie which had a slightly higher back rise compared to the front not much but it made the denim a lot more comfortable. Back rise is under rated when it comes to overall fit.

[Todd Shelton]

On 3/6/2019 at 5:15 PM, SF2Turbo said:

Back rise is under rated when it comes to overall fit.

I agree that rise (both front and back) is the most under rated measurement with jeans. It's probably because brands don't generally give consumers options with rise, so we never really have the opportunity to scrutinize the rises (we just accept it). But glad to hear you cracked the code for your jean fit.   

[MJF9]

@Todd Shelton you'll find scrutiny at granular level from our Sufu fraternity! We get the microscope out here...

[Foxy2]

from a former pattern maker's perspective:

personally speaking, I always found making patterns for pants to be equally, if not more, challenging than for suit jackets/blazers.
the whole top block is a system of interdependent parameters: total rise length, ratio of front to back seam, shape and spline front rise curve, angle/tilt of hips to legs, position of inseam, spline of upper inseam/outseam, etc...
changing just one parameter can require adjustment of multiple other parameters.

it is important to have a very clean basic block that works for the specific fabrics, its' shrinkage and workmanship requirements/adjustments while covering an ideal range of the brand's target consumers' anthropomorphic features (ideal, non-ideal, measurements, posture).
there is very little that can be fixed in production/sewing if the pattern is screwed-up.

and that's even before talking about issues like sizing, size ranges and grading...

Edited March 11, 2019 by Foxy2

[Cold Summer]

It's completely crazy to me how such a massive number of raw denim companies put these tiny front and back rises on their jeans. Brands that otherwise look appealing to me are basically unwearable because in my size they'll have a front rise of 9.5" (or lower) and a back of 14" or lower. For point of reference, my waist is about 31" and I prefer a front rise of 11.5" and back rise of 15".

If I ever start my own denim company, I'll make a slim straight fit with a high rise and deep pockets you can actually insert your damned hands into. I estimate that it would take about six months to conquer the entire raw denim market.

So far, the Full Count 1108 is probably the best fitting pair of jeans I've had, and a lot of credit goes to the rise.

[Foxy2]

making pants patterns for standing upright is relatively easy.

making patterns for standing, walking and sitting can be a challenge that requires to make decisions/compromises in rise lengths.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that brand start-ups (and "newer" brands) simply copy patterns from competitor samples and/or circumvent their own pattern and fit development research.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Foxy2

[Todd Shelton]

The right rise can solve 'saggy crotch' and/or 'plumbers crack'.

[SF2Turbo]

On 3/11/2019 at 5:09 PM, Cold Summer said:

It's completely crazy to me how such a massive number of raw denim companies put these tiny front and back rises on their jeans. Brands that otherwise look appealing to me are basically unwearable because in my size they'll have a front rise of 9.5" (or lower) and a back of 14" or lower. For point of reference, my waist is about 31" and I prefer a front rise of 11.5" and back rise of 15".

If I ever start my own denim company, I'll make a slim straight fit with a high rise and deep pockets you can actually insert your damned hands into. I estimate that it would take about six months to conquer the entire raw denim market.

So far, the Full Count 1108 is probably the best fitting pair of jeans I've had, and a lot of credit goes to the rise.

Don’t know what it is with a lot of modern cuts there’s barely any space for you private parts in the front rise and to make matters worse the back rise isn’t high enough to give comfort for example the way it is on Levi’s 501 which to me has a good front rise with a decent back rise. My ideal fit is like the 501 but with slightly slimmer legs. I will be trying out wharehouse lot 800 and LVC 1966