• I'm happy to introduce the Styleforum Happy Hour, our brand new podcast featuring lively discussion about menswear and the fashion industry. In the inaugural edition, a discussion of what's going on in retail today. Please check it out on the Journal. All episodes will be also be available soon on your favorite podcast platform.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Sucker Jeans

back30

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello to all. I have been a viewer of this forum for some time, and finally decided to join and get everyone's opinion. My wife saw a write up for Sucker Jeans (http://www.suckerjeans.com/) in a recent magazine, and thought I might like to have a pair. Before she decides to order a pair, I thought I would see if any of you had any experience with this brand. (They seem like they would be rather comfortable in the steamy nights of Charleston SC.) Thanks to all back30
 

wEstSidE

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
16
have you actually had the chance to check it out? i like non-denim jeans (and i am the proud owner of a seersucker suit) but a lot of the time they have a shortcoming.
edit: apparently they sell these in richmond. next time i am there i will "write a review" of the product.
 

Makeshift_Robot

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
55
Originally Posted by MSSneaker
Jeans are trousers or pants made from denim. If it's not denim, they're not jeans. They may call them jeans, but they are technically not.

I think this is pretty dubious. If I saw a pair of corduroys with rivets, pentagonal back patch pockets, horizontal front pockets with inlaid coin pocket, broad belt loops, and an additional fabric piece between the yoke and the back, I'd call them jeans, because, you know, they'd be constructed exactly like a pair of jeans. Obviously there's grey area.

At some point you have to step back from what Wikipedia tells you and think about what terminology conveys information in the best way.

And if you have a finicky terminology response to a thread, the best course of action might be to repeat it to yourself a few times, feel a warm glow of smugness, and then go make a sandwich without posting anything.
 

cioni2k

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
7
Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot
I think this is pretty dubious. If I saw a pair of corduroys with rivets, pentagonal back patch pockets, horizontal front pockets with inlaid coin pocket, broad belt loops, and an additional fabric piece between the yoke and the back, I'd call them jeans, because, you know, they'd be constructed exactly like a pair of jeans. Obviously there's grey area.

At some point you have to step back from what Wikipedia tells you and think about what terminology conveys information in the best way.

And if you have a finicky terminology response to a thread, the best course of action might be to repeat it to yourself a few times, feel a warm glow of smugness, and then go make a sandwich without posting anything.


Hmmm.... I have a pair of Mabitex constructed exactly like this (w/ exception for the back pockets) with even a button fly in 100% Flannel Wool. Would you call these jeans? Whatever they are I think theyre pretty sweet
 

notwithit

Pullup laureate
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
6,504
I'd probably call them five-pockets. Maybe that's splitting hairs.
 

Master-Classter

Distinguished Member
Spamminator Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
8,508
Reaction score
1,243
there are 5 pocket styles and 4 pocket with a slanted side styles.
There's denim, curdoruy, khakie, etc...

there are many 5 pocket (jean STLYE) pants not made with denim, and then (for example rag and bone) there are denim pants in a khaki style.
 

Makeshift_Robot

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
55
^ Exactly. There's a lot of grey area. I'm not trying to impose my own definition to replace the other guy's, I'm just saying that it's dumb to jump in and try to correct someone when the "right" answer is ambiguous or unimportant.

Those sucker jeans though... hmmm... I wouldn't buy without handling them in person first. If they don't fall the way jeans fall, they won't really be a good replacement for jeans. If they do look good in person, that's awesome.
 

MIKE_JE

Distinguished Member
Affiliate Vendor
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
2,096
Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot
^ Exactly. There's a lot of grey area. I'm not trying to impose my own definition to replace the other guy's, I'm just saying that it's dumb to jump in and try to correct someone when the "right" answer is ambiguous or unimportant.

Those sucker jeans though... hmmm... I wouldn't buy without handling them in person first. If they don't fall the way jeans fall, they won't really be a good replacement for jeans. If they do look good in person, that's awesome.


Hmm...I'd say it's possible you overreacted as well and took my response as smugness when I was just trying to add my two cents to the conversation. Look, I personally think it is dumb to make pants without denim and call them jeans. If they are not denim just call them what they are, trousers or pants. That's not a grey area to me.

I stated it because the other guy said "non-denim jeans." To me that is a non sequitur. So maybe instead of telling me to stop and go make a sandwich before I add a definition which is truth, and take my addition of logic to the conversation as smugness, you should go make a sandwich. Or maybe we should both go make sandwiches.

I'm sorry I said anything at all. The Sucker "jeans" look fucking horrible anyway.
 

wEstSidE

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
16
Originally Posted by MSSneaker
Hmm...I'd say it's possible you overreacted as well and took my response as smugness when I was just trying to add my two cents to the conversation. Look, I personally think it is dumb to make pants without denim and call them jeans. If they are not denim just call them what they are, trousers or pants. That's not a grey area to me.

I stated it because the other guy said "non-denim jeans." To me that is a non sequitur. So maybe instead of telling me to stop and go make a sandwich before I add a definition which is truth, and take my addition of logic to the conversation as smugness, you should go make a sandwich. Or maybe we should both go make sandwiches.

I'm sorry I said anything at all. The Sucker "jeans" look fucking horrible anyway.


what i mean by "non-denim jeans" are pants made with the same pattern and similar or same hardware as jeans but using different fabric. if you have a better term to use for such things, please tell me it so that i can avoid having this type of blowup occur in the future. i'm sorry that you're mad.
 

Featured Sponsor

How many pairs of shoes do you own?

  • 1 - 4

    Votes: 16 3.3%
  • 5 - 10

    Votes: 81 16.8%
  • 11 - 20

    Votes: 159 33.0%
  • 21 - 30

    Votes: 79 16.4%
  • 31 - 40

    Votes: 41 8.5%
  • 41 - 50

    Votes: 30 6.2%
  • 51 - 60

    Votes: 18 3.7%
  • 61 - 70

    Votes: 9 1.9%
  • 71 - 80

    Votes: 13 2.7%
  • 81 - 90

    Votes: 4 0.8%
  • 91 - 100

    Votes: 4 0.8%
  • 100+

    Votes: 28 5.8%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
427,582
Messages
9,201,131
Members
193,201
Latest member
tyheuhhrow

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Top