A far as male pants/trousers go, your choices are basically jeans, corduroys, or khakis (chinos). Corduroys are uncomfortably warm, IME, and of the remaining two jeans are a clear winner for convenience: they don't need to be ironed (chinos look terrible as soon as they get even slightly wrinkled, jeans do not), and they better conceal small spills and stains. Not much more to it than that, for me.
Huh, these look like they might actually stand up around the farm. Which is something I can never seem to get "city" jeans to do.
Normally you have to trade off how often you have to replace them with how much they cost. For me, Levis red tabs (when found at Costco) are still pretty much right at the price point where the frequency of replacement works out the best value for money.
Of course, like everything, it depends on what you're using them for - for city life, your $200 fashion jeans will last much longer than they do on the farm where they're done in 10 minutes. With the amount of time they last, the idea of spending hundreds of dollars on a pair of jeans that will be destroyed quickly just makes me cringe.
I've settled on black jeans and black tennis shoes for my usual outfit. Makes wearing bright shirts easy, maintenance is trivial, still looks nice enough to wear on stage if I'm giving a presentation at a conference.
Those are pretty much what I wear (except straight leg instead of boot cut), and the best I've found so far are at Buckle. All the Levi's I tried seemed weirdly high-waisted, and stuff at other stores didn't fit so well either.
> All the Levi's I tried seemed weirdly high-waisted
This is surprising to me. Most contemporary Levi's I've tried seem quite low-waisted, so I'm forced to buy vintage for a more traditional high-waisted fit.
It's interesting but sad that you're being so heavily downvoted for suggesting options outside the subcultural norm. When I was a young hacker coming to work in jeans was frowned upon and I had to put up with a lot of hassle for looking too casual. I've been surprised and disappointed to see the emergence of 'casual conformism' which encourages comfort but retains hostility to anything too different from the common tribal signifiers.
Right - west-coast tech companies have a dress code as strict as old fashioned companies - it just has different things on the list.
In reality, no work place or social event has no dress code. We've just made it even harder by not having names for any of it.
When I worked in a very traditional industry the dress code was always clear - semi-formal, informal, planter's, etc all had clear specific meanings and you could not make a mistake. When I go to a Google office, or a fashionable wedding they say 'wear whatever you are comfortable in' but if I wore a suit to Google or jeans to the wedding I'd be doing it wrong, so it's not honest.
Was speaking of lycra blends (with cotton, wool etc) for pants (were lycra is minimum just to give them elasticity), but sure, why not lycra itself too...
I wash my jeans every 6-12 months, with occasional febreezing after I wear them. This is way more convenient than having to wash and iron my other pants.
> Last year a microbiology student at the University of Alberta, Josh Le, wore the same pair of raw denim jeans for 15 months without washing them and then tested their bacterial content.
He tested them again two weeks after washing them and found the bacterial content to be much the same.
> "This shows that, in this case at least, the bacteria growth is no higher if the jeans aren't washed regularly," said Rachel McQueen, a professor of textile science, who worked with Le on the informal scientific experiment.
I've done basically the same thing. Definitely passes the sniff test - somehow there's not much of a difference. Not sure if oil from the skin ends up becoming a antimicrobial agent over time?
FWIW mine need a wash after ~4-6 wearings or they smell. I haven't tried the vodka-spritzing trick I've read about, though, which may let them go longer.
How they're stored probably affects it some. I have better results hanging them up rather than letting them sit on the floor, even if I'm just going to put them back on the next morning.
Once you stop caring about appearances and go mainly for comfort, the "tactical" clothing (of a more lightweight variety, usually marketed as "duty" for security guards etc) becomes a surprisingly good choice. You get durable cotton/polyester or cotton/nylon blends, plenty of pockets that are actually designed to hold useful things in a comfortable way (like a phone pocket that can fit a Nexus 6P), generous cuts that do not constrict your movement or feel tight when you sit down, often with an elastic waistband that's not noticeable on the outside.
Japan is at the pinnacle of denim these days (although the US is catching up again). If you want to go off the deep end, take a look at SF based Self Edge [http://www.selfedge.com] or NY based Blue in Green [https://blueingreensoho.com/]
The quality difference would have to be substantial. I bring in a very high income for my area, and the thought of spending $300-$400 on a single pair of jeans is pretty out there.
An $80 pair of jeans, which will often be on sale for $40-$50 will last me for 2-3 years and are of average quality.
It seems to me like one would have to justify these jeans on the fashion/novelty aspect, and not quality/value as it just isn't there imho.
If you take a pair of unwashed 501s and compare them to a pair of unwashed Iron Heart denim, you will see that the quality difference is substantial. Whether that matters is something you have to decide for yourself
Since I wear denim almost everyday, the quality difference and the attention to detail matters to me. It reminds me that attention to detail matters in my own work
I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes
I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes
Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themselves, while will in turn give an idea of how much work you can pile onto them before they figure it out or change their personality.
For those who don't 'get' clothes (as a former sufferer): you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free.
There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.
Oh please. Virtue signalling is a useful topic, but it gets really tiresome to see people who just discovered the concept run around and excitedly apply it to everything, like a child with a new toy.
The downside of higher quality clothing (money) is obvious: it's the upside that needs explaining. Fashion is the prototypical example of signaling, and quality as held separate from fashion has a couple minor advantages like being long-lasting and marginally more comfortable that many people feel aren't worth the price.
I dress moderately well, but that's largely against my preferences. I do it because I'm aware that people treat you differently based on how you look and how you dress, and I've decided that the cost and annoyance of putting together a good wardrobe is worth the benefits. To be clear, I've got a pretty low opinion of those who judge others based on their attire, but I'm realistic (and cynical) enough to get that that's the world I live in.
I've worked with a lot of incredibly smart engineers at places like Google, and the people I know pretty much ran the gamut of caring about the quality of their clothing. The only difference is that they tended to have their work performance judged on productivity instead of fashion so, relative to others, their calculus for how to dress included one less variable in favor of dressing up.
I think there are other reasons to dress well other than just signaling.
I personally find psychological benefits to dressing nicely -- I feel much more industrious and "ready-to-work" when I wear a nice outfit to work compared to tshirt/jeans/sneakers, plus I get a nice "switch" effect when I get home and can take it all off. Similarly, I feel more prepared to exercise when I switch into my exercise clothes, even though those DO have "real" benefits thanks to their cut and material.
Beyond that, the signaling can be extensive. Not all signals are "quality" -- you can dress to show off your creativity or as a means of expression (I personally love to thrift/vintage shop and learn about fashion trends from other eras). You can dress to emphasize/de-emphasize various aspects of your face and body, presumably for sex appeal. And sure, you can dress to show that you've got money to spend.
But a lot of times, people dress to fit in. This can apparently get venomous in certain professions (finance, for one). In tech, there's often a dress code, as described in this comment[1], and "dressing like you don't understand why people care about nice clothing" is realistically pretty close to it.
Sure I agree with you on this, and I didn't intend for my comment to sound like there's no case for dressing nicely beyond signaling. When I said that the side requiring justification is that of dressing nicely, personal explanations like yours are exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.
What I was arguing against is the maximizing impulse on the _other_ end: the notion that it's so self-evidently universally valuable that the primary reason to not dress well would be Virtue signaling.
That comment you linked to is just flat bullshit. People who desperately try to justify strict old-fashioned dress codes somehow conflate "you can literally lose your job if you don't dress this way" with "I feel awkward being the only person dressed this way, even in the absence of anyone else's reaction". It's insane to me that so many people uncritically parrot this utter nonsense.
It may different by local culture, but I have tech colleagues who take care about how they look and are pretty stylish. Not really suits, but officially looking shirt. I did not noticed any discrimination against them.
There is also big difference between formal rules you can be fired for not following and informal ones - informal are still limiting but people cross them once in a while and you often finds it is actually ok in the long term.
People like to generalize tech as if everything would be stereotypical frat like start up, but it is not the case.
> really tiresome to see people who just discovered the concept
Curious, were you wearing your higher quality clothing when you made this comment ?
For some, more expensive clothes increases their sense of superiority. I, for example, am less polite and less patient when I have to dress well. It isn't so much of a problem now that I am aware of it.
I don't think describing a common thought pattern has much to do with an increased sense of superiority. Have you never spoken about a behavior or activity that you think is bad? Were you exhibiting a superiority complex each time? Give me a break.
I don't feel the psychological effects of dressing well particularly strongly, but I acknowledge that others do and I don't think there's anything wrong with those feelings.
That's a very different position from being small minded enough to universalize one's own attitudes towards attire to "explain" the behavior of those who may not feel the same way as you. _That's_ what I was arguing against, the idea that virtue signalling must be the reason for putting less money and time into attire because people couldn't _possibly_ have different preferences.
Sorry, I looked back at the comment and realize that some of it was unnecessary to say. I've got a pretty nasty cold and I'm home sick bored put of my mind so my mood probably wasn't the best when I made that comment.
> There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.
Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in.
Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car.
Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.
Fussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class folks intentionally dressing down" -- educated, urban, corporate-employed, well-to-do young people dressing "down" in streetwear or workwear like Carhartt (this one really confused my parents). Obviously they will not be construed as a member of the rural working class, as they live in a city, and the racial dimension also plays a (fairly disgusting, if you think about it) role.
Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
I think it's still fairly useful. It provides an interesting framework for understanding Trump's tastes—or, maybe, the taste he projects in order to market specifically to prole and middle (not upper-middle or higher) people who've moved into higher wealth brackets—for instance. I think it's also useful for understanding which class is being targeted by advertising—the class markers and attitudes it covers, and others that one might infer, are everywhere in advertising.
His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.
If you have time would you mind expanding on your point about the racial dimensions of workwear? Aren't most urban "hipsters" white, as are most rural working class people?
Streetwear is where the racial dimension comes into play, not as much with workwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like.
Ah yes, I could definitely see it coming more into play with streetwear.
I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like.
It's not a topic I know much about, so yes, I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
> [The] hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans...
> The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. Broyard focused on the password language of hip slang.
> The return of the term after 1999 reframed the knowledge question. Hipster, in its revival, referred to an air of knowing about exclusive things before anyone else...
The rest of the article is sort-of a history of various trends in "hipsterism" over the period from 1999 to 2009. But this is quite a digression from the dominance of jeans...
Yeah I was thinking specifically of outdoorsy aristocrats who prefer the stables to the stately home, and have no need to dress up because everyone knows they own half the land around the village. Europeans will probabl be more familiar with this type.
> you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free.
Some people (me) genuinely are oblivious to the differences - shopping is annoying chore and it just does not make enough difference. You basically want to be done with it and wear whatever is generally socially appropriate as long as you can.
A huge chunk of that price is because these guys are importing them from Japan, and selling in brick and mortar stores in the US. You are paying a significant sum for the convenience of ordering them. If you know what you want, you can order them from rakuten with a bit of google translate directly. Also, the law of diminishing returns and all that. The sweet spot is generally $75-$150, even for fancy raw denim jeans if you look out for deals etc.
I see that makes a lot of sense. The jeans I am wearing now were originally ~ $80 so $75-$150 is much more reasonable to me. They do look really nice, I was just slightly shocked by the $300-$400 prices.
How does one nail down sizing on stuff like this? I imagine returns to a Japanese-only store from a US address, for someone who doesn't speak Japanese, and crossing a cultural barrier for how sales/service should work, are nightmarish, so you'd want to get it right the first time.
Yeah, that's why I said 'if you know what you want'. It's not that bad though. The listings have accurate measurements. You do need to have a general sense of what would work for you though. The only variable that you are choosing really is waist size. Jeans are not hemmed anyway.
At $200 you can buy Outlier pants (or Mission Workshop, no experience with those though). At $400 you can buy freaking Arc'teryx Veilance pants. That's way too much for something that is just cotton (and not even etaProof or anything interesting).
Tell that to someone who'd buy a pair of Vetements pants for $1200[1]. And it's standard Levi's denim! But hey, the fly goes all the way around...
In other words, the fashion aspect does matter to people, oftentimes more than any practical aspect. (I think sometimes people take it to a silly degree...)
I don't think Vetements is a fair comparison though as they're based around that sort of hype and designer fashion. There's really no reason for such high prices aside from exclusivity and who the designers are. If some people like that, that's fine, but they're not being bought specifically for quality and looks you can't find elsewhere.
Even the founder/designer jokes that he wouldn't pay full price for his own designs.
> My friends very often can’t afford the clothes. Like myself, I wear prototypes but I don’t think I’m crazy fashion enough to go and buy those things. I’d rather go on holiday. I feel like it brings more use. Holidays are important. Holidays and quality time on your sofa.
Heh, yeah, that was sort-of what I wanted to emphasize. I feel like some of the appeal of high-priced denim is for the fashion aspects, even if the quality is a little better than Levi's or similar mass-produced stuff.
> Even the founder/designer jokes that he wouldn't pay full price for his own designs.
I really don't blame him. A lot of it seems like jokey conceptual art stuff. Cute to look at/think about but I probably wouldn't wear.
So long ago that it seems like another life, I used to work at Barney's New York. The people who think nothing of dropping $1,200+ on a pair of jeans, or $500 on a T-Shirt don't even remotely take practicality into consideration.
Agree! I have several pairs of Outliers from 4-5 years ago, still look new. Price to value of something like Outlier or Ministry of Supply speaks to me, pay more but it will last. You also get benefits like water resistance and strechability for things like cycling.
Tripling the Outlier comment. They are current the best pants on the planet and I challenge any HN commenter to show me better technical biz casual slacks. I basically only wear Outlier, Duluth Trading Co, and Uniqlo. And nice shoes.
I'm partial to Bluffworks personally. I've sat in an office for 8 hours a day in them, hiked, ran, bouldered, rode motorcycles through the mountains of Vietnam, swam, the gamut. Anything I do in any other specialized pant(jeans, sweatpants, khakis, Carhartt work pants, etc), I've done in them to see how they take it. They've held up beautifully.
The main appeal of high-end raw denim is not its utility or technical performance. In fact, denimheads cherish flaws in their jeans. For example, fabric with yarn unevenness and imperfections is prized as "slubby", and the objectively weak chain-stitched hem is highly sought after. These flaws add character and uniqueness.
What is exciting about raw denim is that it develops highly personal wear patterns that reflect your life over a long period of time. Picture a beat-up pickup truck, or a pair of boots. You've had it for years, taken it everywhere, it's full of stories. That's the idea.
Prices aren't always so high. I think $150-200 is more common, and there's even ones like Unbranded that run $80-120 (and go on sale too). It's still a bit more than regular jeans, but I like jeans a lot, and I spend more time wearing jeans than I do playing Xbox or something, so I don't mind spending more on my favorite pair of jeans.
Another particular reason people love raw denim is the high contrast fades that match your body because you faded them.
Here's a picture someone posted to reddit.com/r/rawdenim a little while ago, 1 year heavy wear with an $120 pair of Unbranded:
I wonder how this picture (captioned "Daily wear riding motorcycles") works with the common american attitude of washing their clothes after wearing them just once?
I know some people will wear jeans two/three times before washing them, but changing clothes daily is still expected in the office environment. So you will need at least 5 different pairs to cycle through each week. At the end of the year each pair is worn ~60 times, and washed about < 20 times.
I personally buy cheap $30 jeans, have ~10 in active rotation, only wear them on workdays and wash them all once a month. They last for years. I throw them away not because they are worn out, but because my preference changes. So for me all this talk about quality of the more expensive jeans doesn't ring true.
> 2-3 washes I think? And. 2 soaks in a hot bath tub. But also multiple, uncountable amounts of getting caught in the pouring rain riding a motorcycle. I remember riding during hurricane Hermine wearing them
With raw denim (and especially on the subreddit and other internet forums) not washing it is almost a badge of honor. Months or longer in some cases. Because you're right, you don't need to wash them very often, and also washing them causes them to fade overall, so you lose some contrast.
> I personally buy cheap $30 jeans, have ~10 in active rotation
Ah, but that's the difference, this is often someone's only pair of jeans. So you're comparing $300 of jeans to a $122 pair of jeans. I rotate between a few pairs because I need the variety, but some people may end up wearing a single pair of jeans over 300 times in a year and washing it once or twice.
In the kind of office where jeans are allowed/expected, does anyone actually notice or care whether they're a different pair every day? (Different shirt every day, definitely, but jeans?)
Reasonably priced. Exceptional quality. And you get to support a community of jeans makers in Wales.
Also — free repairs for life. I've sent a couple of pairs back a few times because I wear the hell out of my jeans, and they return with repairs almost more beautiful than the original fabric.
Truly one of those rare companies that does one thing extremely well.
I don't wear expensive jeans, but I've found that often with expensive things, you don't realise what you're missing out on until you try something better.
Binoculars is a good example. You've probably only ever looked through a $50 pair of binos, and thought that looks good enough. But compare it to a $500 set, and the difference will seem like night and day.
These are jeans you only have one pair of, that you wear EVERY DAY. They are worth it but it's like buying a nice sports car or nice purse. It's the same thing. Invest in what you use all the time.
Not washing them is actually pretty reasonable. I wash my raw denim jeans roughly every 4 or 5 months; this does coincide with how often they actually get dirty.
Do you wash ever piece of clothing after wearing it once?
Most pants (in the American sense, not British) should last you at least a couple of days. I'm not going to wash a nice pair of woolen trousers every day.
Japanese companies bought most of the US denim weaving equipment after the US textile industry collapsed. Now Japan seems to produce the highest quality denim the way we used to do.
It's surprisingly difficult to find a pair of jeans that I really like, and I've taken to altering my own to make up for the shortcomings.
Nearly all have reduced the number of belt loops to 5, so I always add 2 more in the back on either side.
I've started seeing really short zippers, which is unfixable and best to avoid.
I've noticed a lot of ill fitting jeans bunch around the crotch or suffer from being a "cheap hotel". Also unfixable.
Most are not lined inside around the waist and pockets.
Sometimes the pocket hole is cut too high, making it awkward to put your hand in the pocket. Or worse, theres not enough give on the pocket to fit your hand in.
Buttons and buttonholes don't always match well, especially on a button fly. I think it's easier to enlarge the holes, but sometimes the buttons can be oddly small.
And of course measurements are unreliable, but that's true of all clothes.
These are nitpicky things, but I notice them all the time at all price ranges. I expect they're decisions made out of carelessness, or to save costs, or because that was the intend result. Cynically, I believe carelessness is the most common cause.
I would suggest a modicum of caution. That price point is impressively competitive with Levi's while promising extensive customization. That's a potential warning sign.
Or maybe Levi's is just "comparatively overpriced" to pay for the brand/image, their extensive advertising and their world-wide dealer/distro network, whereas the other you pay for a website and .. the customization? Who knows, two ways of looking at such things =)
as someone who has been obsessed with clothing and its manufacture (especially denim) for more than a decade - Levis is far from that. they aren't the best quality for your dollar at full price, but they are by far the best quality at their price point.
you can spend a bit more ($~150) and get a pair of jeans that are way better than a pair of Levis at ~$60, but if all you want to spend is $60 you really won't find a better quality*. Uniqlo, however, comes very close.
[1] - There are some brands that do business via preorder that will provide better quality at a similar price (Gustin comes to mind). They are covering their risk up front though (which is very different than retail and even more different than custom) and even then those companies will often end up losing money on their cheaper pairs.
You're absolutely right! That's completely possible! Maybe made-to-measure can be done for a higher quality at the same price point by cutting out distribution, logistics, and branding to make up for the lack of economies of scale.
That said, there may also be some room to doubt this interpretation. I'm passingly familiar with the costs that go into producing quality jeans. The very short version is that while made-to-measure at high quality is absolutely possible, it cannot reliably be done at this price point. The labor and materials costs alone at low volumes will blow out the budget.
You're right! There are two ways of looking at such things. But as it happens, I'm someone who knows. When a market player diverges very significantly from every other player, it's very possible that they're simply outperforming everyone to a shocking degree... and it's also possible that they're dealing with the same tradeoffs as everyone else.
$79 USD for a pair of Levi's is far too much. I routinely buy Levi 501s for under $40 in the US at outlet stores. It's still less than $79 CAD at a Canadian outlet store.
Any alteration at that site is not included, it's tacked on to the $79 USD base price.
You're completely right! Levi's can be had for less.
That said, it's possible that your comment - and that of your sibling - picking on the price of Levi's may run the risk of missing my point. Which is not that Levi's are overpriced, but rather that it's not reasonable for the site in question to deliver on its promises at an acceptable quality at the volumes they claim to be doing.
Some brands "knockoff" themselves by selling a lower quality product of the same name at outlet stores.[1] I have no idea if this is true of Levi Strauss.
Levi's seem obscenely cheap in the USA compared to use here in Australia and New Zealand. It's $110 AUD for Levi's bought online from Australia, and even more to buy them here in New Zealand.
American online retailers that have good, affordable shipping to New Zealand won't ship Levi's to NZ (or at least last time I checked, they didn't).
What surprised me in USA was the poor quality of jeans. If you go to low end places like Target or Wallmart you will find less variety and bad fitting and no attention is paid to the cloth quality either. The stores like Levis etc. have only the latest fashion and everything else would be in a corner. If you know what you want then it is really hard to go to Levis and buy a jeans.
For example I like double seam on side, ideally shining buttons on the pockets and classic blue color.
I always buy jeans in India. Places like Shopper Stop seem to have insane variety of jeans and all styles are available throughout the year.
I wear duluth trading jeans. The model I buy [0] is made in the usa, although there is also a less-expensive model. It's nice especially because I'm pretty short, and it's nice to find 30" inseam pants without having to dig and dig. They even have 28" in some models.
I also typically buy about three pairs of shorts from them every so often, since I know they fit and that way I don't have to decide about which shorts to wear. They tend to run a bit small (or other pants run a little big), so I add 2" to the waist size when I order from them.
I just counted: 7 belt loops. Also a nice crotch gusset.
EDITed to add: I've been informed that these are "dad jeans" and in no way fashionable.
I'll second the recommendation for Duluth Trading Co. I've been wearing these [1] for a while and they're great. Every pair of jeans I owned before that wore through at the knees and the crotch within a couple of years; these are still going strong with no signs of thinning or fraying. They're also super comfy, not confining or restricting at all, and they come with giant pockets.
Can't comment on the fashion, but I've gotten compliments about them before. That may just be because the heavy-cargo-pants form factor works well for my frame, however.
I can't vouch for, but I've heard (and read) decent things about Brave Star Selvedge Jeans --however I think they only do button-flies. I dunno about the next person, but I'd rather not fumble around trying to get the thing buttoned. I don't think I know of anyone having zipper accidents.
By-the-by, they recommend not washing too often, as little as once per year... just don't mix them with your regular washing.
I'll be honest and say I haven't bought any in a while, but I always had a lot of luck with Carhartt jeans.
They had inseams 29" and up (maybe 28 but never saw them in store) and they were built to last. I still have some from 15 years ago and except for some color fading, still hang in tough. They also have different styles so you don't have to be stuck into 'dad' jeans!!!
LL Bean jeans aren't too bad, but they have thin pocket material.
I really wish I could have the old Levis 505s back. No, the new ones aren't the same. No, the 550s are not a good alternative. I just want "regular fit" jeans with a normal rise, not the low-rise jeans everyone else seems to want.
I disagree, jeans had significant cultural significance. As well as being associated with The West and the gold rush in particular, jeans were a strong signifier of working-class origins for a good while, and I bet if I were to show you a bunch of different jean logos you'd easily distinguish between those that are sold for fashion and those that are 'work wear'.
I stopped wearing them 2 years ago and don't miss them at all. Of course I still have some and will put them on sometimes when its practical, but modern denim just doesn't seem to be as hard wearing as it used to be, and I'm also sick of the weight and poor fit.
I was especially annoyed a few years ago to find my favorite brand had slightly shortened the zipper, thus eliminating the whole benefit of being able to pee standing up because it was difficult to get my hand inside the smaller opening and uncomfortable to have it pinching me while I use the toilet. I'm sure the small savings on shorter zippers add up in the corporate accounts, but why would you make it more difficult for half the population to do something they need to do multiple times a day? They do the same sort of things with women's jeans by making the pockets too small to fit anything into (not to mention all the problems of getting a good fit since women's body shapes seem to vary more than men's).
Economically jeans are an interesting example of commodity fetishism systematically making the product worse, as the emphasis shifts to fashionable display over comfort and functionality, and eventually the latter begins to be sacrificed in pursuit of the former. The oddest example I've seen of this was a UK startup that proposed to give people free jeans for 6 months or a year so that they'd wear them in and then ship them back for sale at a high price to fashionistas who wanted an authentically distressed look rather than one inflicted with a power tool at the jean factory. In other words, people will pay money to look poorer than they actually are.
I must be in a tiny minority in that I don't even own a pair of jeans. I wear khakis/chinos mostly, don't really care if they look a bit lived in sometimes (though some hold their shape better than others), and turn them into work pants when they start getting a bit frayed.
> I was especially annoyed a few years ago to find my favorite brand had slightly shortened the zipper, thus eliminating the whole benefit of being able to pee standing up because it was difficult to get my hand inside the smaller opening and uncomfortable to have it pinching me while I use the toilet.
Button fly is the only way to fly. Started as a skeptic, now a total convert.
I don't think its weird. I went from jeans to khakis and now I'm back to jeans. I do think the production process changed and newer jeans seem cheaper and itchy. Weirdly, when I went back to jeans I switched from Levis to Wranglers and some of those seem decent and some really suck.
When 90% of the people around you are all wearing some shade of blue jeans, its a bit the same as everybody driving around in cars in some shade of grey (which they do at least in Belgium).
That is, it's just really boring. Colour is one of the few things we've got to express ourselves, so it's a shame we don't use it more.
That does sound boring... I see black jeans, all shades of blue jeans, white jeans and gray jeans on a v regular basis. High waisted, cut off, slim, baggy, "jorts" & their modern, slimmer variants etc
A few years ago there were even lots of very loud turquoise, red and yellow ones around for a time, and honestly I think we're all a little glad that's ended :)
> Colour is one of the few things we've got to express ourselves
Oh people find all other sorts of mildly yawnworthy ways "to express themselves", from oddly-placed piercings to full-face tattoos to half-baldshaved-half-manbun hairdos to oh-so-snowflake band t-shirts to rainbow-colored socks... among all the noise and clutter, "more colorful pants" wouldn't particularly stand out to me as expressive, whereas by now an unadulterated unmutilated well-nourished clear-eyed non-screen-zombified come-as-you-are face, nowadays, would. In fact, the blander and minimal the clothes and peripherals, the more one's face and head will stand out on its own! That's today's ultimate self-expression, allowing your natural self to shine through in full glory absent all the countless "customization options" people go through to carve out their "unique" avatars =)
I remember my anthropology teacher saying that people assert their uniqueness in culturally constrained ways: tattoos, piercings, dyed hair, etc. You never see someone rebel against mainstream culture by, say, slicing off their nose, scarring their face, or putting a stick through their cheeks. (The latter two, at least, are done in some other cultures.)
No, thank you. I'll take my clothing in shades of black, grey, and blue. Everything matches everything else, and it is freaking fabulous. I'm rarely too over/under-dressed. Even in a rush, my clothes look decent. Not only that, but I find I don't need so many clothes now and definitely don't need as many shoes.
Color? I can save that for my hair, which tends to have blue or green shades. I can save it for a bit of makeup when I wear it. I can save it for paintings and artwork and making nice-looking food.
Back when I was a kid (born in 1960), jeans were called dungarees and you could wear them after school but not at school. This was in the northeastern part of the US, in a middle-class, public school environment. It was definitely not acceptable to wear jeans to a professional job until much later. In fact, I had to wear a tie at some of my first jobs as a developer.
I felt that way as a kid (wait, can I please just wear my "dress clothes" all the time? These jeans suck!) through my early 20s, but I'm back on jeans now and they're not uncomfortable. Might be a body shape thing (that certainly changed—I got much skinnier) or maybe a body type/brand mismatch; I know I had the cheapest thing readily available as a kid—usually Lee or Wrangler—and now I wear mid-range ordinary Levis, not their cheaper department-store targeted sub-labels.
For all the guys (and gals) out there, let me introduce you to the Diesel JoggJeans. They look like jeans, coming in various washes, cuts and styles, but they are sweatpants. May you never go back.
And when global warming kicks in hard, the ice caps melt, and the coastal cities flood, the cuffs of your pants won't get wet! At least according to the pictures on the product site. Is it no longer fashionable for your cuffs to reach your shoes?
And, personally, as one who wears 501s at every opportunity, I wouldn't be caught dead in those things outside my house. But that's just personal taste.
The thing that bothers me about buying jeans in the U.S. is the near-universal product segmentation based on 2-inch intervals for waist and inseam (32", 34", 36", etc.). It's rare to find jeans with a 33-, 35-, or 37-inch waist, or a 31" inseam. Because my measurements don't fit what's available in the stores, I often restock when traveling overseas.
I used to wear jeans 100% of the time. Then I had kids and as they grew up they hated jeans, said they were uncomfortable, that their school uniforms (cotton) pants were more comfortable. After having trouble finding good jeans I decided to give pants a try and haven't looked back. They are so much more comfortable than jeans and wear better than the jeans I was getting, plus they look nicer in a professional environment. I just got rid of my last pair of jeans a few months ago and don't plan on buying them again.
154 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 216 ms ] threadNormally you have to trade off how often you have to replace them with how much they cost. For me, Levis red tabs (when found at Costco) are still pretty much right at the price point where the frequency of replacement works out the best value for money.
Of course, like everything, it depends on what you're using them for - for city life, your $200 fashion jeans will last much longer than they do on the farm where they're done in 10 minutes. With the amount of time they last, the idea of spending hundreds of dollars on a pair of jeans that will be destroyed quickly just makes me cringe.
Yet ... still when I need to find a pair of trousers, it can take me half a day of shopping.
Online shopping is no good either, because I can't just write "low waist boot cut jeans, size 32/34" in any search engine. Even Amazon can't grok it.
Seriously, somebody should fill that market gap.
This is surprising to me. Most contemporary Levi's I've tried seem quite low-waisted, so I'm forced to buy vintage for a more traditional high-waisted fit.
Why, what happened to cotton lycra, herringbone, linen, traditional business suit trousers etc?
In reality, no work place or social event has no dress code. We've just made it even harder by not having names for any of it.
When I worked in a very traditional industry the dress code was always clear - semi-formal, informal, planter's, etc all had clear specific meanings and you could not make a mistake. When I go to a Google office, or a fashionable wedding they say 'wear whatever you are comfortable in' but if I wore a suit to Google or jeans to the wedding I'd be doing it wrong, so it's not honest.
My other alternative are my Outlier pants https://outlier.nyc/
> Last year a microbiology student at the University of Alberta, Josh Le, wore the same pair of raw denim jeans for 15 months without washing them and then tested their bacterial content. He tested them again two weeks after washing them and found the bacterial content to be much the same.
> "This shows that, in this case at least, the bacteria growth is no higher if the jeans aren't washed regularly," said Rachel McQueen, a professor of textile science, who worked with Le on the informal scientific experiment.
The research they reference: https://www.ualberta.ca/news-and-events/newsarticles/2011/01...
> Do you never sweat? Are the jeans antimicrobial or something?
apparently cares.
I also am in the smell + "does it look bad" camp in terms of "will I wear it."
How they're stored probably affects it some. I have better results hanging them up rather than letting them sit on the floor, even if I'm just going to put them back on the next morning.
These denim stores are mostly focused on raw denim, which is generally a much higher quality garment than available normally.
An $80 pair of jeans, which will often be on sale for $40-$50 will last me for 2-3 years and are of average quality.
It seems to me like one would have to justify these jeans on the fashion/novelty aspect, and not quality/value as it just isn't there imho.
Since I wear denim almost everyday, the quality difference and the attention to detail matters to me. It reminds me that attention to detail matters in my own work
I don't understand why engineers tend to care so little about the quality of their clothes
Virtue signaling. It says you're focused on your intellectual pursuits rather than material things (in contrast to 'the suits'). This is actually great from a hiring manager's point of view, because you can also guess (guess, not know) from someone's appearance whether they are single and to what degree they take care of themselves, while will in turn give an idea of how much work you can pile onto them before they figure it out or change their personality.
For those who don't 'get' clothes (as a former sufferer): you may not be able to readily distinguish expensive clothes from cheap ones, or see the point of wearing them. But other people do, and if you look like money, you will be able to get more money in negotiations. If you look or say that you don't care about such things, you'll get lots of affirmation and less money, because affirmation is virtually free.
There's also a kind of signaling by people who are rich enough not to care about these things and dress accordingly, which is a way of reminding other people that you have so much money you don't care about what impression you make. This only works when people already know you're wealthy, though.
The downside of higher quality clothing (money) is obvious: it's the upside that needs explaining. Fashion is the prototypical example of signaling, and quality as held separate from fashion has a couple minor advantages like being long-lasting and marginally more comfortable that many people feel aren't worth the price.
I dress moderately well, but that's largely against my preferences. I do it because I'm aware that people treat you differently based on how you look and how you dress, and I've decided that the cost and annoyance of putting together a good wardrobe is worth the benefits. To be clear, I've got a pretty low opinion of those who judge others based on their attire, but I'm realistic (and cynical) enough to get that that's the world I live in.
I've worked with a lot of incredibly smart engineers at places like Google, and the people I know pretty much ran the gamut of caring about the quality of their clothing. The only difference is that they tended to have their work performance judged on productivity instead of fashion so, relative to others, their calculus for how to dress included one less variable in favor of dressing up.
I personally find psychological benefits to dressing nicely -- I feel much more industrious and "ready-to-work" when I wear a nice outfit to work compared to tshirt/jeans/sneakers, plus I get a nice "switch" effect when I get home and can take it all off. Similarly, I feel more prepared to exercise when I switch into my exercise clothes, even though those DO have "real" benefits thanks to their cut and material.
Beyond that, the signaling can be extensive. Not all signals are "quality" -- you can dress to show off your creativity or as a means of expression (I personally love to thrift/vintage shop and learn about fashion trends from other eras). You can dress to emphasize/de-emphasize various aspects of your face and body, presumably for sex appeal. And sure, you can dress to show that you've got money to spend.
But a lot of times, people dress to fit in. This can apparently get venomous in certain professions (finance, for one). In tech, there's often a dress code, as described in this comment[1], and "dressing like you don't understand why people care about nice clothing" is realistically pretty close to it.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14404413
What I was arguing against is the maximizing impulse on the _other_ end: the notion that it's so self-evidently universally valuable that the primary reason to not dress well would be Virtue signaling.
That comment you linked to is just flat bullshit. People who desperately try to justify strict old-fashioned dress codes somehow conflate "you can literally lose your job if you don't dress this way" with "I feel awkward being the only person dressed this way, even in the absence of anyone else's reaction". It's insane to me that so many people uncritically parrot this utter nonsense.
There is also big difference between formal rules you can be fired for not following and informal ones - informal are still limiting but people cross them once in a while and you often finds it is actually ok in the long term.
People like to generalize tech as if everything would be stereotypical frat like start up, but it is not the case.
Curious, were you wearing your higher quality clothing when you made this comment ?
For some, more expensive clothes increases their sense of superiority. I, for example, am less polite and less patient when I have to dress well. It isn't so much of a problem now that I am aware of it.
I don't think describing a common thought pattern has much to do with an increased sense of superiority. Have you never spoken about a behavior or activity that you think is bad? Were you exhibiting a superiority complex each time? Give me a break.
I don't feel the psychological effects of dressing well particularly strongly, but I acknowledge that others do and I don't think there's anything wrong with those feelings.
That's a very different position from being small minded enough to universalize one's own attitudes towards attire to "explain" the behavior of those who may not feel the same way as you. _That's_ what I was arguing against, the idea that virtue signalling must be the reason for putting less money and time into attire because people couldn't _possibly_ have different preferences.
Fussell notes this in his Class. The group he categorizes as "top out-of-sight" (mostly old money) is genuinely beyond caring about appearances and are where you get a lot of "eccentric" rich-person behavior like wearing really cheap clothes. Upper-class folks, especially younger ones, may very carefully and deliberately dress way down, especially when traveling (for some reason), though they will not, and will not intend to, actually blend in.
Separately but somewhat relatedly, he claims that higher classes will tend to buy unexceptional things where spending more is seen as primarily a status signaling thing, and especially when the thing is in any way technological—so buying a flashy, expensive, new car belongs to the sensibilities of the upper-middle classes and lower (regardless of their income—talking about socialized class, not income) while the comfortably rich might just own a beat-up Chevy, or an old luxury car.
Where you do not see people do it is when there's a risk they might actually be mistaken for belonging to any part of Fussell's "prole" category—so, upper-middle and, especially, middle.
Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).
His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.
I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like. It's not a topic I know much about, so yes, I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
The crux seems to be:
> [The] hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans...
> The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. Broyard focused on the password language of hip slang.
> The return of the term after 1999 reframed the knowledge question. Hipster, in its revival, referred to an air of knowing about exclusive things before anyone else...
The rest of the article is sort-of a history of various trends in "hipsterism" over the period from 1999 to 2009. But this is quite a digression from the dominance of jeans...
but ... it is supposed to be meritocracy :)
You can buy SF / NC made denim for around $100. I think that fair for a higher quality product made with fairly paid labor [http://www.tellason.com/tellason-stock-straight-leg-fit/]
If you want denim of the same quality of Japanese selvage, made in the US, then it is back to the $200+ range [http://www.tellason.com/ankara-straight-leg-selvedge-jeans-1...]
In other words, the fashion aspect does matter to people, oftentimes more than any practical aspect. (I think sometimes people take it to a silly degree...)
1: http://www.barneys.com/product/vetements-zip-around-straight...
Even the founder/designer jokes that he wouldn't pay full price for his own designs.
http://www.complex.com/style/2016/05/vetements-designer-demn...
> My friends very often can’t afford the clothes. Like myself, I wear prototypes but I don’t think I’m crazy fashion enough to go and buy those things. I’d rather go on holiday. I feel like it brings more use. Holidays are important. Holidays and quality time on your sofa.
> Even the founder/designer jokes that he wouldn't pay full price for his own designs.
I really don't blame him. A lot of it seems like jokey conceptual art stuff. Cute to look at/think about but I probably wouldn't wear.
What is exciting about raw denim is that it develops highly personal wear patterns that reflect your life over a long period of time. Picture a beat-up pickup truck, or a pair of boots. You've had it for years, taken it everywhere, it's full of stories. That's the idea.
Another particular reason people love raw denim is the high contrast fades that match your body because you faded them.
Here's a picture someone posted to reddit.com/r/rawdenim a little while ago, 1 year heavy wear with an $120 pair of Unbranded:
http://imgur.com/GtoC42V
And here is a picture of what UB221 jeans look like brand new.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0810/7201/products/Taper_-...
I know some people will wear jeans two/three times before washing them, but changing clothes daily is still expected in the office environment. So you will need at least 5 different pairs to cycle through each week. At the end of the year each pair is worn ~60 times, and washed about < 20 times.
I personally buy cheap $30 jeans, have ~10 in active rotation, only wear them on workdays and wash them all once a month. They last for years. I throw them away not because they are worn out, but because my preference changes. So for me all this talk about quality of the more expensive jeans doesn't ring true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rawdenim/comments/6ci52s/ub221_dail...
A comment written by the OP of that post:
> 2-3 washes I think? And. 2 soaks in a hot bath tub. But also multiple, uncountable amounts of getting caught in the pouring rain riding a motorcycle. I remember riding during hurricane Hermine wearing them
With raw denim (and especially on the subreddit and other internet forums) not washing it is almost a badge of honor. Months or longer in some cases. Because you're right, you don't need to wash them very often, and also washing them causes them to fade overall, so you lose some contrast.
> I personally buy cheap $30 jeans, have ~10 in active rotation
Ah, but that's the difference, this is often someone's only pair of jeans. So you're comparing $300 of jeans to a $122 pair of jeans. I rotate between a few pairs because I need the variety, but some people may end up wearing a single pair of jeans over 300 times in a year and washing it once or twice.
https://hiutdenim.co.uk/collections/mens
Reasonably priced. Exceptional quality. And you get to support a community of jeans makers in Wales.
Also — free repairs for life. I've sent a couple of pairs back a few times because I wear the hell out of my jeans, and they return with repairs almost more beautiful than the original fabric.
Truly one of those rare companies that does one thing extremely well.
Binoculars is a good example. You've probably only ever looked through a $50 pair of binos, and thought that looks good enough. But compare it to a $500 set, and the difference will seem like night and day.
These are jeans you only have one pair of, that you wear EVERY DAY. They are worth it but it's like buying a nice sports car or nice purse. It's the same thing. Invest in what you use all the time.
Most pants (in the American sense, not British) should last you at least a couple of days. I'm not going to wash a nice pair of woolen trousers every day.
Nearly all have reduced the number of belt loops to 5, so I always add 2 more in the back on either side.
I've started seeing really short zippers, which is unfixable and best to avoid.
I've noticed a lot of ill fitting jeans bunch around the crotch or suffer from being a "cheap hotel". Also unfixable.
Most are not lined inside around the waist and pockets.
Sometimes the pocket hole is cut too high, making it awkward to put your hand in the pocket. Or worse, theres not enough give on the pocket to fit your hand in.
Buttons and buttonholes don't always match well, especially on a button fly. I think it's easier to enlarge the holes, but sometimes the buttons can be oddly small.
And of course measurements are unreliable, but that's true of all clothes.
These are nitpicky things, but I notice them all the time at all price ranges. I expect they're decisions made out of carelessness, or to save costs, or because that was the intend result. Cynically, I believe carelessness is the most common cause.
I've been meaning to order from them for a while, and have heard really good things about them.
You might be better served looking at http://companiondenim.com/
you can spend a bit more ($~150) and get a pair of jeans that are way better than a pair of Levis at ~$60, but if all you want to spend is $60 you really won't find a better quality*. Uniqlo, however, comes very close.
[1] - There are some brands that do business via preorder that will provide better quality at a similar price (Gustin comes to mind). They are covering their risk up front though (which is very different than retail and even more different than custom) and even then those companies will often end up losing money on their cheaper pairs.
That said, there may also be some room to doubt this interpretation. I'm passingly familiar with the costs that go into producing quality jeans. The very short version is that while made-to-measure at high quality is absolutely possible, it cannot reliably be done at this price point. The labor and materials costs alone at low volumes will blow out the budget.
You're right! There are two ways of looking at such things. But as it happens, I'm someone who knows. When a market player diverges very significantly from every other player, it's very possible that they're simply outperforming everyone to a shocking degree... and it's also possible that they're dealing with the same tradeoffs as everyone else.
Any alteration at that site is not included, it's tacked on to the $79 USD base price.
That said, it's possible that your comment - and that of your sibling - picking on the price of Levi's may run the risk of missing my point. Which is not that Levi's are overpriced, but rather that it's not reasonable for the site in question to deliver on its promises at an acceptable quality at the volumes they claim to be doing.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/outlet-stores-arent-a-good-de...
American online retailers that have good, affordable shipping to New Zealand won't ship Levi's to NZ (or at least last time I checked, they didn't).
I've noticed a lot of ill fitting jeans bunch around the crotch or suffer from being a "cheap hotel". Also unfixable.
seems an unfortunately worded critique given your username :)
For example I like double seam on side, ideally shining buttons on the pockets and classic blue color.
I always buy jeans in India. Places like Shopper Stop seem to have insane variety of jeans and all styles are available throughout the year.
I also typically buy about three pairs of shorts from them every so often, since I know they fit and that way I don't have to decide about which shorts to wear. They tend to run a bit small (or other pants run a little big), so I add 2" to the waist size when I order from them.
I just counted: 7 belt loops. Also a nice crotch gusset.
EDITed to add: I've been informed that these are "dad jeans" and in no way fashionable.
0: http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/mens/mens-pants/mens-deni...
Can't comment on the fashion, but I've gotten compliments about them before. That may just be because the heavy-cargo-pants form factor works well for my frame, however.
[1] http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/mens/mens-pants/work-pant...
By-the-by, they recommend not washing too often, as little as once per year... just don't mix them with your regular washing.
They had inseams 29" and up (maybe 28 but never saw them in store) and they were built to last. I still have some from 15 years ago and except for some color fading, still hang in tough. They also have different styles so you don't have to be stuck into 'dad' jeans!!!
I really wish I could have the old Levis 505s back. No, the new ones aren't the same. No, the 550s are not a good alternative. I just want "regular fit" jeans with a normal rise, not the low-rise jeans everyone else seems to want.
That's why they don't make them anymore, I suppose.
Buttons are where its at.
I was especially annoyed a few years ago to find my favorite brand had slightly shortened the zipper, thus eliminating the whole benefit of being able to pee standing up because it was difficult to get my hand inside the smaller opening and uncomfortable to have it pinching me while I use the toilet. I'm sure the small savings on shorter zippers add up in the corporate accounts, but why would you make it more difficult for half the population to do something they need to do multiple times a day? They do the same sort of things with women's jeans by making the pockets too small to fit anything into (not to mention all the problems of getting a good fit since women's body shapes seem to vary more than men's).
Economically jeans are an interesting example of commodity fetishism systematically making the product worse, as the emphasis shifts to fashionable display over comfort and functionality, and eventually the latter begins to be sacrificed in pursuit of the former. The oddest example I've seen of this was a UK startup that proposed to give people free jeans for 6 months or a year so that they'd wear them in and then ship them back for sale at a high price to fashionistas who wanted an authentically distressed look rather than one inflicted with a power tool at the jean factory. In other words, people will pay money to look poorer than they actually are.
Button fly is the only way to fly. Started as a skeptic, now a total convert.
Every time I wear jeans, I'd feel itching very soon, particularly when it's hot, or when I wear the same pants two days in a row.
I'm not sure if either I didn't notice this before, or did I change, or the production process of the jeanswear has changed.
That is, it's just really boring. Colour is one of the few things we've got to express ourselves, so it's a shame we don't use it more.
A few years ago there were even lots of very loud turquoise, red and yellow ones around for a time, and honestly I think we're all a little glad that's ended :)
That's basically what I was moaning about. It's just BW monochrome + blue monochrome.
Bring on the turquoise and fuchsia I say!
Oh people find all other sorts of mildly yawnworthy ways "to express themselves", from oddly-placed piercings to full-face tattoos to half-baldshaved-half-manbun hairdos to oh-so-snowflake band t-shirts to rainbow-colored socks... among all the noise and clutter, "more colorful pants" wouldn't particularly stand out to me as expressive, whereas by now an unadulterated unmutilated well-nourished clear-eyed non-screen-zombified come-as-you-are face, nowadays, would. In fact, the blander and minimal the clothes and peripherals, the more one's face and head will stand out on its own! That's today's ultimate self-expression, allowing your natural self to shine through in full glory absent all the countless "customization options" people go through to carve out their "unique" avatars =)
Color? I can save that for my hair, which tends to have blue or green shades. I can save it for a bit of makeup when I wear it. I can save it for paintings and artwork and making nice-looking food.
But jeans for comfort? Maybe I'm the only one, but I find pants infinitely more comfortable. Even wool dress pants.
And in the summer, jeans barely breath at all.
https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/men/jeans/joggers
And, personally, as one who wears 501s at every opportunity, I wouldn't be caught dead in those things outside my house. But that's just personal taste.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mom-jeans/35059...