Critique My Pants

[odoreater]

I kind of felt like I was hijacking that guy's thread on the "Pants Quality" thread, so now that you guys got me thinking about pants I thought I would post some pictures of pants for you guys to critique. All comments, no matter how harsh (or good

) are welcome. I'm trying to think about what areas in my pants I need to focus on to get a better fit.

Here's me wearing a pair of trousers from that Macys house brand:

Here's me wearing the Kors trousers I have on in the picture from that thread:

Looks to me like in the first picture the trousers have too much break. The trousers in the second picture just look like they might be a bit too baggy. What do you guys think?

 

[Stu]

Agree with you on both counts. The second trousers look almost like a boot cut, which is kind of funny looking for a dress trouser. JMHO.

Those first trousers, I think they are charcoal, right? If so I would wear them with cordovan shoes, or chesnut. Black is OK, but cordovan is smashing with charcoal, as is chesnut.

 

[Tomasso]

IMO, you would be better served with a fuller cut, higher waisted(just a bit), pleated trouser. Alas, you do not have the physique for(currently fashionable) fitted, flat front trousers.

 

[old dover trad]

The Second Pair Look Good. This Is A Versitile Color And The Fit Looks Comfortable.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Tomasso

IMO, you would be better served with a fuller cut, higher waisted(just a bit), pleated trouser. Alas, you do not have the physique for(currently fashionable) fitted, flat front trousers.


Why do you think that is? I don't disagree with you, but I'm just wondering what about my physique does not agree with flat front trousers?

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Stu

Those first trousers, I think they are charcoal, right? If so I would wear them with cordovan shoes, or chesnut. Black is OK, but cordovan is smashing with charcoal, as is chesnut.

Reason I wore black shoes was because those trousers are actually striped!

For some reason, I think striped trousers are a little more fashion forward while brown shoes are a little more classical style and putting the two together would create a culture clash right at my feet. So when I wear striped trousers (again

) I usually wear black shoes.

 

[minimal]

All IMHO:

Yes, I agree the first pair looks a touch too long, but that's easy to fix.

More seriously, on both pairs, it looks like the pockets are flaring out quite a bit. That tends to accent your hips on the first pair more than it should, because they seem to fit you better everywhere else. If the pockets lay flat (like they should) I think the first pair would be a far better fit. The second pair has too much cloth *everywhere*.

Again, on both pairs: the waist looks too big. Are they "cinching" under your belt, or is the waistband flat? The reason I say this is twofold: 1) there is noticable horizontal wrinkling of extra fabric in the front of both pairs, along the fly about 2 inches below the belt, and 2) the beltloops are far from vertical. If the waistband fits, you can wear the pants without a belt, albeit a little gingerly. If the pants fall off without a belt, you need to visit the tailor!

You seem to be able to wear flat-fronts with no problem (the first pair are, right? My monitor is a little dark), I disagree with the others who, er, disagree with me.

You also seem tall enough to be able to wear a cuff: I know currently flatfront/nocuff is more "modern", but odd trousers with cuffs are nice with a heavier shoe (like a derby).

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by minimal

Again, on both pairs: the waist looks too big. Are they "cinching" under your belt, or is the waistband flat? The reason I say this is twofold: 1) there is noticable horizontal wrinkling of extra fabric in the front of both pairs, along the fly about 2 inches below the belt, and 2) the beltloops are far from vertical. If the waistband fits, you can wear the pants without a belt, albeit a little gingerly. If the pants fall off without a belt, you need to visit the tailor!


Yeah, about this actually...I lost about 25-30 lbs since I purchased those pants, so I do think that they are a little big in the waist (maybe "little" is an understatement actually). In fact, I lost about 3 inches off of my waist (went from a size 38 to about a 35). So those pants are up to 3 inches to big on me! Those pants were actually taken in about a half inch by a tailor after I bought them so I'm not sure what taking them in even more will do to their [insert whatever the word is right here]. I might just have to get rid of them when I get a chance to buy more pants.

Either later tonight when I get home or tomorrow, I will post a picture of myself wearing pants that are actually the right size in the waist to get some more comments on the fit, but you are definitely right about these pants.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

That explains another aspect of the photo, I believe. In the first picture, your shirt really seems to be "pooling" around the top of your waistband. That could be in part from the different shirt materials, but in my experience that tends to happen when you've had to cinch up your belt really tight to compensate for too-big pants. I see much less of that in the 2nd pic.

Wow, good observation, I didn't actually notice that. I think I might have been wearing my belt 1 hole tighter on the first picture than I was wearing it on the second picture because (I think) the pants in the first picture are a little big longer so I wanted the pants to stay a little bit higher.

 

[Tomasso]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Why do you think that is? I don't disagree with you, but I'm just wondering what about my physique does not agree with flat front trousers?

Flat front trousers work best with a slim hip/thigh and a diminutive buttocks. You have rather pronounced hips/thighs and back, well suited for athletics but problematic for tailoring. If you could divorce yourself from fashion, there are classically styled trousers that would suit you well. Oxxford comes to mind.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Tomasso

Flat front trousers work best with a slim hip/thigh and a diminutive buttocks. You have rather pronounced hips/thighs and back, well suited for athletics but problematic for tailoring. If you could divorce yourself from fashion, there are classically styled trousers that would suit you well. Oxxford comes to mind.

I didn't really get these for fashion - I needed a bunch of pants in a hurry and these are what Macys had (only store that's really close to my house). I actually have a bunch of pleated trousers too. I'll post a picture when I get a chance so you can see how that looks on me and give me some input.

 

[bch]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Why do you think that is? I don't disagree with you, but I'm just wondering what about my physique does not agree with flat front trousers?

Pleat with crease would elongate your leg. You also seem to have a wide hip relative to your waist, so pleats would look better, I think.

 

[odoreater]

EDIT: Moved to next page.

 

[raley]

I'm curious as to how exactly pockets are supposed to fall. Are they supposed to be completely closed when standing still? How about when walking - is it natural for the pockets to bulge when one takes a step forward?

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by raley

I'm curious as to how exactly pockets are supposed to fall. Are they supposed to be completely closed when standing still? How about when walking - is it natural for the pockets to bulge when one takes a step forward?

I'm not sure, but I've found that my pockets lay a lot flatter when wearing pleated trousers. For some reason, I think they bulge with just about all of my flat front trousers no matter how well the trouser fit.

Ok, I got a picture of me wearing some pleated trousers. Any thoughts?