I saw this ad on another website just now and had to chuckle: “Bonobos – Better Fitting Pants.”
Better fitting than what, pray tell? They appear to be simultaneously too tight in the crotch (thus the bunching) and too wide in the leg (thus the billowing) and about three inches too long (thus covering the entire back half of the shoe).
About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of a DC think tank. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor. He has a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama.
{ 3 comments }
Those pants are UGLY! There are worse things, though: recall Renaissance Italy when men wore these stupid capes atop stockings. That said, getting good trousers is an exercise in expense: getting the perfect fit requires a tailor; going RTW means you’re going so sacrifice on one region of the pant: seat, crotch, hip, it doesn’t matter. A part of you will always be unflattering as a result.
True ’nuff. Still, you can avoid having three major things wrong with the fit! If you’re going to go too tight, then it should at least fit in the legs. If you’re going for comfort, it might be a little baggy. In either case, you’re pants shouldn’t be more than 1/2 inch or so off in length, since inseam lengths are variable off-the-rack.
Great moments from late middle age.
My wife and I went to Macy’s (I think) to buy me a new pair of pants. Still resisting the idea that I’d, ahem, somewhat expanded as the years had rolled by, I selected a pair of a waist and inseam size suited to my still rosy view of my stoneage. Of course, when I put them on, the result was less than optimal for that rosy view. I came out of the dressing room holding them and said, “Gee, they’re not cutting these pants they way they used to.” She just looked at me.
Comments on this entry are closed.