or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Quality in Pants
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quality in Pants

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
What determines the quality and thus price of pants. For suits and sport coats I can more readily see the differences. What makes a Brioni pant better than a Incotex? And both better than Brooks Brothers? Also what differeniates $800 Brioni pants from $500 Brioni pants? I would assume the brand name gives Brioni a boost, but Incotex holds none of the cache yet still demands high prices.
post #2 of 33
The difference in Brioni pants appears to be the fabric and the detail work. Cotton Brioni pants are usually less than wool, especially the finer wools. Both Brioni and Kiton does a "sport" line that tends to be cotton and is less.
Many on the Forums find Borrelli or Barbera to be better or the best. Kiton seems to have the most hand work for Italian rtw, but of course Oxxford has the most hand work.
It is my experience that Kiton has the finest fabrics and the best fit for my silhouette.
http://whatareyouwearingtoday.blogspot.com/
post #3 of 33
I was just thinking about this same question today. Pants, for me, are an article of clothing that I just basically overlook. I'll wear really nice expensive shoes, and nice expensive custom shirts and expensive suits, but when it comes to odd trousers, I just wear whatever. Today I wore a pair of Kors trousers that I picked up at Macys for about $20. Looked great too.
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
but when it comes to odd trousers, I just wear whatever.

Ignorance is bliss
post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
I was just thinking about this same question today. Pants, for me, are an article of clothing that I just basically overlook. I'll wear really nice expensive shoes, and nice expensive custom shirts and expensive suits, but when it comes to odd trousers, I just wear whatever. Today I wore a pair of Kors trousers that I picked up at Macys for about $20. Looked great too.
Seriously. I have one pair of Gap pants, pretty much a flat front dress trouser cut in a wool herringbone that I have literally worn 100+ times (in trying conditions, i.e. work, getting under desks, I've worn them like jeans) and there has been absolutely nothing that has gone wrong with them; they always look great and get compliments, they are soft, comfortable and in looking around the construction (I did alter them a bit myself when I got them) there is really nothing to say it isn't a pair of much higher-end pants. I was examining a pair of Barbera pants I picked up to sell and yes, the fabric is a little nicer (though more delicate) and there is a lot of handwork but really, I don't see the point, at least not for a $270+ premium. I'd say the construction, in the parts that matter most anyway, is nearly on par with the Corneliani pants from Polo, and these fit me better. Ignorance really is bliss sometimes
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by j
Seriously. I have one pair of Gap pants, pretty much a flat front dress trouser cut in a wool herringbone that I have literally worn 100+ times (in trying conditions, i.e. work, getting under desks, I've worn them like jeans) and there has been absolutely nothing that has gone wrong with them; they always look great and get compliments, they are soft, comfortable and in looking around the construction (I did alter them a bit myself when I got them) there is really nothing to say it isn't a pair of much higher-end pants. I was examining a pair of Barbera pants I picked up to sell and yes, the fabric is a little nicer (though more delicate) and there is a lot of handwork but really, I don't see the point, at least not for a $270+ premium. I'd say the construction, in the parts that matter most anyway, is nearly on par with the Corneliani pants from Polo, and these fit me better. Ignorance really is bliss sometimes

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather spend $50 (or less) on pants rather than $270 and put the difference towards a new pair of shoes. I think I'm going to go on a shoe buying respite for a while and make my next pair of shoes a pair of EGs (unless something good comes along, of course), so I'd rather just save the money up. Shoes are more important, so are shirts, and jackets.
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather spend $50 (or less) on pants rather than $270 and put the difference towards a new pair of shoes. I think I'm going to go on a shoe buying respite for a while and make my next pair of shoes a pair of EGs (unless something good comes along, of course), so I'd rather just save the money up. Shoes are more important, so are shirts, and jackets.
True, and IME, though I don't particularly like wearing pants with bad fabric, it doesn't bug me as much as any other garment being bad. Not to mention that pants seem to take more damage than other garments, and damage to pants doesn't add character like it does to shoes.
post #8 of 33
A well made trouser is one of the few joys in life. The real mark of quality workmanship is in the waistband.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
A well made trouser is one of the few joys in life. The real mark of quality workmanship is in the waistband.

I agree - with my Raphael suits - the jacket is stunning, but what really makes a difference is the pants. The details and fit are just perfect. This is even more important as everyone in my office takes off their jackets immediately upon arrival. So the pants is the part of the suit that I wear and people see 90% of the time.
post #10 of 33
IMO, I think trousers are more important than shirts. I can get away with an uninspired shirt cut from, say Banana Republic, and it looks ok....but I don't think the same can be done with trousers, say also from BR, as they just look *off* and the faults I can see bother me moreso than any faults in the shirt.

I'm sure it's open to debate but I had always understood the hierarchy of clothes being 1: Shoes, 2: Trousers, 3: Shirt
post #11 of 33
Where's jacket? I think shoes, trousers, and jackets are at the same level of importance, as they cannot be covered up in most weather.
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by countdemoney
A well made trouser is one of the few joys in life. The real mark of quality workmanship is in the waistband.

post #13 of 33
[quote=whoopeeI think shoes, trousers, and jackets are at the same level of importance, as they cannot be covered up in most weather.[/QUOTE]

True, I guess shoes get the nod because you can wear a contextually great pair of shoes with jeans and a plain tshirt and the outfit can still look exceptional. But a phenomenal shirt with poor trousers and good shoes just looks awkward
post #14 of 33
i still beleave you get what you pay for, some brands might suite a look that you have or not! esp if you are of a non modal figure!
post #15 of 33
Here's me in the trousers that I wore today: a pair of medium gray Michael Kors that I bought for $20 at Macys. I think they look pretty good on me even though they were cheap and I don't think anyone notices the difference.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Quality in Pants