# Review of Bill's Khakis M3



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Just came back from Tysons Corner, I found M3 Bills in Nordstrom. I was sooooo excited to try them on, but:

they suck

a lot.


I'm a skinny man (waist size = 30), and I can't even pull those pants up to my true waist, rise is not long enough. the rise is significant shorter than M2, which I love. Also, the pants were very restrictive, almost skin tight, no room to breathe at all. 

What was Bill Thomas thinking?

BTW, they had lots of Bill's shorts on sale like 40 bucks, call and ask.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

They also have quarter-top (angled) pockets. Yuck.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

KentW said:


> They also have quarter-top (angled) pockets. Yuck.


Chums,

to be fair, there is Trad Precedent for quarter-angled pockets.

Cheers,

Bingo


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Bills M -3*

Thanks for the feedback, Howie. You have saved us a lot of time and aggravation.

As you and I have discovered by PM exchanges, we are almost exactly the same size. There can't possibly be much of a market for the M3.

There just aren't that many people out there that are smaller and thinner than we are, that have drivers lisences.

The Board here, is full of Bills enthusiasts. To many of us, the four seasons are, Bills - poplin, standard, corduroy, and flannel lined.

However, there are occasionally some disasters that come from the Thomas clan.

A couple of years ago, Bill was probably on vacation, and turned the operation over to his trusted lieutenants. After Happy Hour one Friday, someone apparently came up with the idea "Why don't we cut a bunch of denims, on the M -1 pattern? We don't need to bother Bill with this idea."

Well, a couple of years later, none were sold at retail, STP couldn't sell them, and they were donated to the State of Pennsylvania to be used as uniforms in the prison system.

As I understand it, the ACLU successfully brought suit claiming that forcing inmates to wear these would be cruel, and unusual punishment.

Thanks again for this valuable feedback!

All the best


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I thought the standard way to buy Bills was waist size + 1. Perhaps you should have tried a 31 waist? Of course, that wouldn't change the rise issue, etc.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I thought the standard way to buy Bills was waist size + 1. Perhaps you should have tried a 31 waist? Of course, that wouldn't change the rise issue, etc.


Chum,

have you measured the waist on your Bill's khakis? The M2s always appear to be larger than the tagged size.

Cheers,

Bingo


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I can't imagine the M3s are _that_ bad, but they probably won't sell unless they get them into Crew and Banana Republic stores, the retail stores of the correct target market. But they won't, because those stores already have their own wares.

DD


----------



## Countertenor (Mar 21, 2007)

Untilted said:


> Just came back from Tysons Corner, I found M3 Bills in Nordstrom. I was sooooo excited to try them on, but:
> 
> they suck
> 
> a lot.


I'm actually surprised you were excited to try out the M3. I thought it was clear that the M3 was never meant to be worn on the waist, rather at the top of the hips.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

Benjamin.65 said:


> Chum,
> 
> have you measured the waist on your Bill's khakis? The M2s always appear to be larger than the tagged size.
> 
> ...


That most definitely has not been my experience.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I thought the standard way to buy Bills was waist size + 1. Perhaps you should have tried a 31 waist? Of course, that wouldn't change the rise issue, etc.


My standard: "I need some khakis, Wm."

"When?"

"When ever, no rush"

The only problem is that sometimes they're pleated.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

Thornhill said:


> That most definitely has not been my experience.


Chum,

are you certain? I've set down two pairs of unaltered M2s and measured the waist and get close to 35.5 or so on a 34 inch waist (tagged size).


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Benjamin.65 said:


> Chum,
> 
> have you measured the waist on your Bill's khakis? The M2s always appear to be larger than the tagged size.
> 
> ...


Hmm. I have 5 pairs of Bill's M2s, 3 in standard twill, one in poplin, and one in chamois. All are size 34, all fit the same, and all fit me just like all of my size 34 pants and jeans.

So on your planet, Bills size up, and shell cordovan doesn't stretch. Am you live on Bizarro Planet? Me want visit. Funny must be live you where.

Peter


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

The Continental Fop said:


> shell cordovan doesn't stretch.


It doesn't stretch as much as calf. That's my experience and the experience, insignificant though it may be, of Alden.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

Benjamin.65 said:


> Chum,
> 
> are you certain? I've set down two pairs of unaltered M2s and measured the waist and get close to 35.5 or so on a 34 inch waist (tagged size).


Yes, I am certain. Experiences can and do vary. Believe it or not.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

A.Squire said:


> My standard: "I need some khakis, Wm."
> 
> "When?"
> 
> ...


But you like pleats, right?

Wm. King seems to have something for everyone, and I look forward visiting the shop again.


----------



## tntele (Apr 12, 2007)

I really like the M1, the thought of the M3 makes me think of Kenneth Cole. I have really wanted to try a pair of these for awhile.



Does anyone have a pair? BTW, I did look at the J. Crew button fly chinos, but sadly none in my size.


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

tntele said:


> I really like the M1, the thought of the M3 makes me think of Kenneth Cole. I have really wanted to try a pair of these for awhile.
> 
> Does anyone have a pair? BTW, I did look at the J. Crew button fly chinos, but sadly none in my size.


I near about live in them. The pre-wash can be a little cloying and in spots aggressive, but lovely pants never the less.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*You guys are not seeing the strategy*

Bill's needs to find new markets if it hopes to thrive. So, the thinking is clear: Let's try for pre-pubescent boys and/or junkies who can afford to spend a lot of money on cotton trousers.

It makes a lot of sense if you stop to think about it.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Making my standard plea*



A.Squire said:


> My standard: "I need some khakis, Wm."
> 
> "When?"
> 
> ...


Squire: Beg the man to put up a Web site, please!


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Maybe it's a Yuk?*

There was a guy that lived in the fraternity house who got a new car. He would check the mileage meticulously, and brag incessently about the great mileage.

It seemed like a good idea to sneak his car out a couple of times a week and fill it up, unbeknownst to him. He became euphoric about getting "75 miles to the gallon". For the next couple of weeks,we'd sneak it out and siphon out about half of the remaining gas. Poor guy almost flunked out that semester, trying to figure it out. Seemed a lot funnier then, than it does now.

In any event, each time I buy Bills, 30 waist, they will range from 29" to 32". Could be people working for Thomas, sending these out after happy hour; and rolling in the isle thinking about what customers will do when they think that they have gained or lost a bunch of weight.

Could be the deal with the M - 3.


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

It's disappointing to hear this about the Bill's M3s. I'm constantly looking out for a trimmer cut chino. I'm 56 years old and I am quite slim. I have a pair of Bill's M2 that are just too baggy in the thighs, not to mention that it practically comes up to my neck. The best chino I found was the Brooks Brothers Hyannis cut. It's a trim cut with a regular rise. Too bad it's been discontinued.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

I would say that just because the pants can't be worn at a person's true waist doesn't mean that they are "hipster" or "Kenneth Cole" pants or anything. My advice is that if you are looking for a slimmer cut pair of khakis, try the M3, maybe even try a size up or down, and see how they work for you.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*They aren't pants*



tripreed said:


> I would say that just because the pants can't be worn at a person's true waist doesn't mean that they are "hipster" or "Kenneth Cole" pants or anything. My advice is that if you are looking for a slimmer cut pair of khakis, try the M3, maybe even try a size up or down, and see how they work for you.


If they can't be worn at the true waist, then they aren't for adults. I don't mean to sound argumentative. I just think that the size on the waist should correspond to the true waist.


----------



## undarted (Jul 5, 2005)

Thank you farther, I was not aware I was wearing children's clothes.

Stuman: the M3's have a shorter rise, but the legs were still surprisingly roomy. I think they should have gone all the way and made the legs slim to fit the shorter rise. But oh well, look at the indignation they've caused already.

I'm not sure what the problem is. If some of you don't like the M3's, don't buy them. Buy the M1s and M2s. The pants have different model names for a reason. And the websites give a pretty clear description of their differences. Oh, the outrage, how dare a manufacturer make another model of pants and give them a name for clarity.

Unless one buys Bills Khakis for their brand name, representing some trad fantasy jealously guarded, who cares?

Get the pants you want. 

Can't believe grown men are upset at a clothing manufacturer for rolling out a new model of pants.

No, they should make pants only for this select group, and hopefully they'll go out of business so Bills Khakis can be retired among the hallowed ranks of the trad mantle.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

GMC said:


> Squire: Beg the man to put up a Web site, please!


You know, Wm. King's place is really something special that could not be captured with a website. In fact, not having a website I think adds to its charm. The merchandise is great, certainly, but the man has a great presence, passion for clothing, and customer service that simply has to be experienced. Squire's thread from last Christmas (something about the Golden Piggy?) really captured the essence of what the place, and I guess Bristol, is all about.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

milesfides said:


> Thank you farther, I was not aware I was wearing children's clothes.
> 
> Stuman: the M3's have a shorter rise, but the legs were still surprisingly roomy. I think they should have gone all the way and made the legs slim to fit the shorter rise. But oh well, look at the indignation they've caused already.
> 
> ...


This forum is largely about dressing properly, which does not include wearing one's trousers on the hips. Simple enough. Sometimes one has to make exceptions in order to purchase clothing that fits, but a man is entitled to his opinion.

I'm not one to do so, but there are multiple members here who can give you plenty of reasons why a company maybe shouldn't starting "rolling out" new wares. I'm not old enough to know the difference, but I hear that Brooks Brothers used to be much better at what it did until it started this rolling that you speak of. Of course, a company starting something new doesn't mean that it has to abandon its old ways, but all too often, it seems, that isn't the case. I imagine that may be behind some of the negative views/reviews of the M3.

And if everyone else is supposed to just get the pants they want and not worry about what else is being made, perhaps you should tweak that advice and stop worrying about what others think about a particular make of chinos. Just a thought, and I wouldn't bring it up if there weren't so much apparent hostility in your post.


----------



## undarted (Jul 5, 2005)

wnh said:


> This forum is largely about dressing properly, which does not include wearing one's trousers on the hips. Simple enough. Sometimes one has to make exceptions in order to purchase clothing that fits, but a man is entitled to his opinion.


Dressing properly? According to you.

And yes, you even contradicted yourself by pointing out fit: men are not created physically equal. For some men, low-rise pants fit infinitely better, and no, just because they sit lower than the natural waist doesn't mean one wears them on the hips.



> I'm not one to do so, but there are multiple members here who can give you plenty of reasons why a company maybe shouldn't starting "rolling out" new wares. I'm not old enough to know the difference, but I hear that Brooks Brothers used to be much better at what it did until it started this rolling that you speak of. Of course, a company starting something new doesn't mean that it has to abandon its old ways, but all too often, it seems, that isn't the case. I imagine that may be behind some of the negative views/reviews of the M3.


How many assumptions did you make there? Maybe 5 or 6? And has anybody experience a decline in their M1's, now that the M2 and M3 have been released?



> And if everyone else is supposed to just get the pants they want and not worry about what else is being made, perhaps you should tweak that advice and stop worrying about what others think about a particular make of chinos.


Then perhaps you should tweak that advice and stop worrying about what I said? In fact, why worry about what anybody says? Might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyways, just because I think men should know how to choose the right pair of pants doesn't mean I can't question those who refuse to do so.



> Just a thought, and I wouldn't bring it up if there weren't so much apparent hostility in your post.


There's no hostility in my post at all. In fact, I find it humorous that:

1) the OP complained about the M3, despite having knowledge of alternatives from the same company, which makes clear distinctions between the models. That's like somebody going to McDonalds, ordering a filet-o-fish, getting the filet-o-fish, then complaining that it isn't a big mac. Isn't that funny? Well, it is to me.

2) somebody asserting that pants that don't reach your waist aren't for adults. That didn't make me angry, that made me laugh. "High-waisted pants are for _real _men."

3) your efforts to defend these ideas.

Look, I know what you're trying to do, but come on. This is ridiculous. Pick a different model. It's not that hard. And you don't have to bash Bills. They make good pants, and the M3 is still a chino, with a fit that some people prefer. It might help the company stay in business, and last time I checked, there aren't too many companies like Bills around.

So, it's self-defeating. Why not buy M1s for yourself, and hope Bills sells a lot of M3s, and stays in business for a long time to come?


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*You are most welcome ...*

sarn.

And, no, I did not say that only real men wear pants on the waist. All men should only wear pants on the waist. Period. Pants aren't meant to be worn anywhere else. There's a reason the waistband has the word "waist" in it. Tough guys, not-so-tough guys and everyone in between: That's where they are supposed to sit.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

milesfides said:


> Dressing properly? According to you.
> 
> And yes, you even contradicted yourself by pointing out fit: men are not created physically equal. For some men, low-rise pants fit infinitely better, and no, just because they sit lower than the natural waist doesn't mean one wears them on the hips.


I think there are certain standards for dressing properly, though I doubt that everyone here agrees on all of them. For some, this includes wearing trousers on the waist, not at the hips (or wherever). And I don't think I contradicted myself. I was just try to point out that, while one may not be able to have his cake and eat it too, he's still entitled to his opinion on what is and what is not correct or proper.



> How many assumptions did you make there? Maybe 5 or 6? And has anybody experience a decline in their M1's, now that the M2 and M3 have been released?


Is there an inherent problem with making assumptions? My point was that people, I think, are justified in being wary of a manufacturer coming out with a product that's geared more towards the masses than towards tradition (or towards fashion rather than style, if you wish). Bills Khakis has done nothing to decline the M1 and M2 since the release of the M3, but from the knowledge I've gained reading this forum, all too often a decision such as this changes the way a company does business. In other words, the M3 hasn't brought the downfall of the M1 and the M2, but I can understand why certain forum members with more experience than I might believe that could happen eventually. And that's not to say that any of them were making that point, just that I wonder if that's not in the back of some people's minds.



> There's no hostility in my post at all. In fact, I find it humorous that:


It's difficult to tell with text only. Still, the tone appeared rather harsh. I apologize if I was mistaken.



> 1) the OP complained about the M3, despite having knowledge of alternatives from the same company, which makes clear distinctions between the models. That's like somebody going to McDonalds, ordering a filet-o-fish, getting the filet-o-fish, then complaining that it isn't a big mac. Isn't that funny? Well, it is to me.


One can have a head knowledge of the differences between the models but still not know how that plays itself out once the pants are tried on. I think that was the case here. Untilted knew the M3 were cut differently than the M2, but appears to have been disappointed that the difference was more severe than he thought. You seem to think that this was an error in judgment, that he should have known better. I'd lean more toward the idea that he didn't know for sure, and was disappointed when it wasn't what he was expecting. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## undarted (Jul 5, 2005)

how noble of you, how base of me. How could I not give my fellow poster the benefit of the doubt?

First of all, I'm not taking this so seriously. These are just pants. I wouldn't dare to make this an issue of giving or denying posters the benefit of the doubt. That's a little too heavy for me, but I have noted your solidarity, and it is admirable, sir.

But what the hey. Why didn't I give him the benefit of the doubt...well after complaining about the fit of the M3 (certainly he's entitled to this right of expression, after all, I'm not thrilled with the M3 either), but this is where he got me: after comparing the M3 to the M2, which he loved, he went ahead and asked, "what was Bill Thomas thinking?"

Now, the M2 aren't the originals. I've read on this very forum people complaining about the M2. And now, somebody who likes the M2, beholds the M3, and asks, "what was Bill Thomas thinking?"

I guess Bill Thomas was thinking that not all men's bodies are shaped the same, and some prefer a trimmer fit, some prefer a relaxed fit.

I have no problem with complaining, but not when there are clear and accessible alternatives, and especially not when somebody attacks the manufacturer itself for providing options and alternatives.

But anyways, I'm just explaining my own reaction. I certainly don't think the OP deserves to be placed under a microscope.

These are just pants right? Well, hopefully all of mankind will learn to wear pants that reach the waist, and thus be proper and adult, and curse be the nefarious companies that dare provide alternatives.

[meant to be read with a little humor, just in case]


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

regarding the on going argument in respect of the m3`s .
I think part of the reason some forum members are dissapointed with the newer pants and their, shall we say more modern cut is that the original Bills khakis were launched with the implicit statement that they were styled like ww2 khakis and therefore a more traditional cut with a high rise that sat at the waist. 
A god send to those who prefer more traditional clothing , then for the sake of consumerism the company strays from there original ethos and statemnent and launches a new pant with a modern cut just the same as availlable at gap or bannana republic etc.

personally I don`t have a dog in this fight, as my prefrence is for the RM williams khakis, which have a rise that sits at the waist and they don`t have a voluminous leg , imho, the quality of the rmwilliams and weight of fabric make the bills look shoddy and yes ,I have both. for those dissapointed with the m3 try getting hold of the RM Williams, sure there not made in the US , but they are made in Australia and the quallity control is superb.

www.rmwilliams.com.au


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Spot on*



Tom Bell-Drier said:


> I think part of the reason some forum members are dissapointed with the newer pants and their, shall we say more modern cut is that the original Bills khakis were launched with the implicit statement that they were styled like ww2 khakis and therefore a more traditional cut with a high rise that sat at the waist.
> A god send to those who prefer more traditional clothing , then for the sake of consumerism the company strays from there original ethos and statemnent and launches a new pant with a modern cut just the same as availlable at gap or bannana republic etc. www.rmwilliams.com.au


This is 100% correct.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Boy, this got silly.

Bill Thomas is in business to make money, not to ensure that a group of hobbyists can always look like Gen. MacArthur wading ashore in the Philippines.










If he can continue to do both, fine. I suspect he can.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

But didn't Gen. MacArthur wear pleats?


----------



## JamesR (May 23, 2006)

Bill Thomas is indeed in business to make money, but the conundrum, which plagues all businesses, not just clothing manufacturers, is determining how far you stray from the brand and original vision/mission statement to achieve your financial goals, or in the case of publically held concerns, increase shareholder value.

Remember when Banana Republic used to make safari clothing circa 1920s/1930s/1940s ala Indiana Jones? It's funny to think that younger folks nowadays may be wondering how that store got its name in the first place.

In a similar respects, some here may think that Bill Thomas has crossed the line with the M3s.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

Well, anyone who doesn't like it is free to do as Thomas did and start manufacturing khakis that satisfy what they believe to be the ideal standard. Or, perhaps, try another maker of khakis.


----------



## Andy S. (Mar 27, 2007)

I just bought 2 pair of M2s. They fit me the best. They are awesome.

That is all.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

A man with a grave expression on his face walks into Bill Thomas's office.

"Bill, I've got some very bad news for you. For all of us, really."

"Well, what is it?"

The man pauses, and looks down at the floor.

"Some of the guys on AAAC are dismissive of the new M3 khakis. The threads are getting ugly. Looks like a serious down-with-Bill's Khakis backlash is brewing."

Bill Thomas looks at the man, bewildered. "I thought you said you had bad news for me?"

"Oh right, I nearly forgot. We're all out of non-dairy creamer in the kitchen."

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!'


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*This is fairly amazing*

Y'know, let the record show that no one -- no one -- is more of a free-market supporter than I: For all I care Brooks can start selling blunt-toed disco boots if the newish owners think it'll bring in the coin.

BUT: All I've said here is that the reason many people got with Bill's in the first place is that it it/was different: It's a throwback to the kind of trouser that's all but impossible to find now.

AND MORE TO THE POINT: Fully three-quarters of the people on this forum (including me) ***** and moan every time one of the classic places changes the formula even a little bit. But for some reason we're not allowed to comment a little on Bill's? Is Bill an untouchable? So it's OK to have this discussion about B2, J. Press, etc? But not Bill's? Has Bill's put some of you guys on the payroll?

FURTHER: If we aren't supposed to be talking about our likes/dislikes of the clothing then what the hell are we doing here?

For the love of Mike. No one is going to make me feel bad, small or stupid on this one: I think there are plenty of slim-fit choices for chinos. The differentiator at Bill's was the old style and the quality, although from what I've read here the quality control -- as relates to waist sizing -- may not be 100% what it was.

I'm gonna go jump in a lake.


----------



## Thornhill (May 14, 2006)

There is nothing amazing about the discussion because it is simply that: a discussion. I respect each opinion offered and certainly mean offense in my posts and hope that none is taken. I'm just of the opinion that no "formula" change has taken place, certainly not in the same way that the BB OCBD, suits, tie width, etc. has changed. It appears that Bills has simply added something to the lineup that doesn't appeal to certain individuals on this board, which has set off a pessimistic rant about Bills inot being what it used to be. Well, the company is less than twenty years old, so I'm not sure that there is a "used to be" just yet. I'm just not ready to call it a day with Bills Khakis because Untilted cannot fit the M3 model in his designated waist size. Besides, weren't the "original" khakis supposed to be full-cut? That's what Bills offers in the M1. They offer a slightly narrower cut in the M2. J. Press trousers are too narrow, which eliminate its suits as a viable option for me. However, I've dealt with that disappointment and moved on. Like J. Press suits, maybe Bills isn't for everyone.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I don't think anyone, not least of all me, was aiming their comments at you or trying to make you feel bad for what you said. As you say, voicing one's opinion on clothing and the industry is the primary function of this forum.

That said, it's clear many of us decide what we want to wear for very different reasons. I wound up wearing Bill's M2s after being unhappy with everyone else's khakis over the years, till finally I bit the bullet and ponied up for some Bill's. They're the first khakis I've been completely pleased with, so I bought more. Unlike some of the posters I've read here, I don't buy Bill's or any other brand because I'm in love with its image, tradition, politics, or other periphera. I buy Bill's because it's a damn fine pant, and I like the way it fits.

But I know that I don't represent the majority here, who seem to revel in the past glories of certain brands like Brooks even when said brands aren't the merest shell of their former selves. The power of marketing is strong, even over the assuredly obdurate.

I could care less if Bill's adds a trendier model of khakis to its lineup, so long as it continues producing the M2. Personally, I think it's going to be very hard for them to compete with Banana, Crew, Gap, and Navy in the slim-fit trendy kid khaki category, but that's beside the point. Bill's can start selling leather sensory deprivation hoods for all I care, as long as a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now, they're still selling M2s and the pants are still as good as they are now. Which they won't be, of course, but that too is beside the point.

Everyone has the right to buy clothing based on the qualities they project upon the brand image. But in doing so, your heart will be broken every time. Because brands, even the most hallowed, all move toward the suck eventually.

Peter



GMC said:


> Y'know, let the record show that no one -- no one -- is more of a free-market supporter than I: For all I care Brooks can start selling blunt-toed disco boots if the newish owners think it'll bring in the coin.
> 
> BUT: All I've said here is that the reason many people got with Bill's in the first place is that it it/was different: It's a throwback to the kind of trouser that's all but impossible to find now.
> 
> ...


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

The Continental Fop said:


> I don't think anyone, not least of all me, was aiming their comments at you or trying to make you feel bad for what you said. As you say, voicing one's opinion on clothing and the industry is the primary function of this forum.
> 
> That said, it's clear many of us decide what we want to wear for very different reasons. I wound up wearing Bill's M2s after being unhappy with everyone else's khakis over the years, till finally I bit the bullet and ponied up for some Bill's. They're the first khakis I've been completely pleased with, so I bought more. Unlike some of the posters I've read here, I don't buy Bill's or any other brand because I'm in love with its image, tradition, politics, or other periphera. I buy Bill's because it's a damn fine pant, and I like the way it fits.
> 
> ...


As far as I'm concerned, this post summarizes the discussion most succintly. Well said, Peter. I particularly agree with the final line.

After all, people who identify with the clothing discussed on this forum are the exception rather than the rule. At least Bill Thomas knows where he, and his company, comes from. Where they go from here is anyone's guess but it is his perogative to do with it as he chooses. Considering that I don't know anyone--not one person--outside of this forum who even own's or knows what Bills Khakis are, I personally find it hard to believe that the development of the M3 will make or break the company. Is it better for a company to have many options or few?

TT:teacha:


----------



## jwmnbl987 (Apr 3, 2007)

TradTeacher said:


> As far as I'm concerned, this post summarizes the discussion most succintly. Well said, Peter. I particularly agree with the final line.
> 
> After all, people who identify with the clothing discussed on this forum are the exception rather than the rule. At least Bill Thomas knows where he, and his company, comes from. Where they go from here is anyone's guess but it is his perogative to do with it as he chooses. Considering that I don't know anyone--not one person--outside of this forum who even own's or knows what Bills Khakis are, I personally find it hard to believe that the development of the M3 will make or break the company. Is it better for a company to have many options or few?
> 
> TT:teacha:


I think this brings up a great point. Do those who prefer slim khakis even know of Bill's (In my experience, no)? If not, what or who would introduce the new khakis to them? Moreover, why would they choose the M3 (from a brand they've never even heard of) over Banana or Gap anyways? I understand they are just trying to bring in more money, but I'm not sure the demographic is even there.


----------



## Philip12 (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Untilted. I ordered a pair of M3s, too. I like the look and feel of my M2s, but being kind of skinny, I would have liked a pair of Bills that would not look so baggy on me. 

The M3s are not an alternative, though. They are very narrow in the seat, but the legs are still quite roomy. The proportions are just not right. The most incredible thing is that my M3s are wider at the cuff level than my M2s.

I will never wear these pants. I thought the M1 and M2 models are very similar in design, with only a different width, so I was confident when I ordered a pair of M3s. This M3 has nothing to do with the M1 or M2 models.


----------



## Philip12 (Aug 24, 2005)

Why are the M3s not advertised on the website of Bills Khakis? It's like they're not proud of them...


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I thought the standard way to buy Bills was waist size + 1. Perhaps you should have tried a 31 waist? Of course, that wouldn't change the rise issue, etc.


I don't think that's the case any longer, at least not with the M2. My waist is somewhere around 33", and I own two pairs of M2 (one twill, one chamois) in size 34. Both fit essentially the same as every other pair of 34" cotton trousers that I own. Pre-washing and all that, I suppose.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A couple thoughts:
First, it is perfectly sensible for trads to worry if one of their cherished brands might be at risk if they expand into non-trad fora. The concern may prove to be legit, or not -- time will tell. But the concern is reasonable and understandable.
Second, the debate as to whether the expansion is sound business practice is interesting. Again, time will tell. I don't see how this debate is any more off limits than any other abstract debate, barring offensive commentary of course. 
Third, nobody is suggesting that Bill Thomas does not have the right to expand into non-trad fora. Folks just worry that the expansion might mutate into less attention to trad preferences (this has happened to other brands) and might even serve to weaken the company enough to place it at risk (this too has happened before). Who knows? Time will tell.
Finally, I don't think anybody is about to commit hari kari over this. "What's Bill Thomas thinking?" was as passionate as anyone got. This is a trad clothing forum and the concerns raised were in keeping with trad decorum. I can understand the argument that trads shouldn't worry because the expansion is not likely to result in any reduction in trad offerings by Bill. Fair enough. But the argument that raising the concern is somehow out-of-bounds seems kind of silly to me.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

GMC said:


> t's a throwback to the kind of trouser that's all but impossible to find now.


Chum,

The reason I'm here, and the reason that I'm the most Tradly mo-fo you'll ever meet is because I know everything Trad. And I know that what you write above isn't true. You can find a classic trouser from Corbin, Majer, Berle, and the few remaining manufacturing facilities that make up special trousers for the dozens upon dozens of men's stores remaining in the US.

Not to mention all the cheap imported trousers from Johnny Knock-off like Polo GI pant, etc.

Bill's are good but they aren't unique.

Cheers,

Bingo


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

TradTeacher said:


> After all, people who identify with the clothing discussed on this forum are the exception rather than the rule.


Sure thing chum!

Cheers,

Bingo


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

TradTeacher said:


> Considering that I don't know anyone--not one person--outside of this forum who even own's or knows what Bills Khakis are,


Chums,

This is of profound interest to me. I find it amazing that one's only experience with commonality in clothing could be found on Johnny Interweb?
In the same way that I've been amazed that someone would post that "I saw a chap wearing whale trousers, it must be someone from this forum," as if our great Trad Tradition exists only on the Interweb!

Cheerio,

Bingo


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

Benjamin.65 said:


> Chums,
> 
> This is of profound interest to me. I find it amazing that one's only experience with commonality in clothing could be found on Johnny Interweb?
> In the same way that I've been amazed that someone would post that "I saw a chap wearing whale trousers, it must be someone from this forum," as if our great Trad Tradition exists only on the Interweb!
> ...


I wasn't trying to put myself or anyone else here in a bubble that seperates us from anyone else in the real (non-internet) world. Nor is it an attempt at "commonality in clothing". I'm positive that thousands of people out there who don't post on an internet forum own and love Bills chinos. The only ones I "know" post here. My point is that on the spectrum of chinos that exist to all consumers, Bills is a blip on that continum. Gap, BR, J. Crew, RL, Old Navy, etc. probably outsell him 2, 3, maybe even 5 to 1. But, he does well enough to stay in business and is trying to grow his brand. Okay by me. I don't think the M3 is a sign of a downward turn or anything rash like that. And even if it is, it won't be the first time.

TT:teacha:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

*Sure*

"... most Tradly mo-fo you'll ever meet."
Right. Trad sure has changed since the day when mo-fo wasn't in a trad's practical vocabulary and and he new how to not cross the line from confidence to arrogance.
Chum.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> "... most Tradly mo-fo you'll ever meet."
> Right. Trad sure has changed since the day when mo-fo wasn't in a trad's practical vocabulary and and he new how to not cross the line from confidence to arrogance.
> Chum.


Benjamin.65's posting style reminds me of somebody...


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Okay, time for one of you guys to call the other one gay, then that guy calls the first guy a Nazi, so we can end the thread on a high note.

Peter


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*It's The Internet*

You never, know, Doctor.

A couple of years ago there was a New Yorker cartoon, in which a couple of dogs were standing in front of a computer.

One said "It's the internet, they will never know that we are dogs."


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

LMAO @ the joke, Intrepid.


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

Well, gentlemen I think it's high time to state the obvious: you know who'd like these new fangled M3s? Brownshirts.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> You never, know, Doctor.
> 
> A couple of years ago there was a New Yorker cartoon, in which a couple of dogs were standing in front of a computer.
> 
> One said "It's the internet, they will never know that we are dogs."


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

I was disappointed by the report on the M3--I had hoped they would be a true slim fit, built to Bill's quality standard.

The classic Bill's never worked for me. Too baggy--they never seemed in balance with my jackets, and made me look 30 pounds heavier. What body type do these work best on? Are they better as a strictly casual item, not paired with jackets?

I was talking about this over at FNB--maybe this is a point at which "trad" and "Ivy" diverge. In most of the pictures of Ivy types from the 60s that I've seen, the chinos seem pretty slim-fitting, closer to jeans than anything else. Personally, I prefer this aesthetic.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

"trad" is supposed to be "ivy".

As terry lean from fnb said, the "ivy" style doesnt have as many rules as we'd like to impose. Some like their chinos baggy (like the WWII style), some like them slim (photos from "Take Ivy"). Just personal preference.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Untilted said:


> "trad" is supposed to be "ivy".
> 
> As terry lean from fnb said, the "ivy" style doesnt have as many rules as we'd like to impose. Some like their chinos baggy (like the WWII style), some like them slim (photos from "Take Ivy"). Just personal preference.


Fair enough.

Just wish I could find chinos that fit like the ones from the Gap and BR, J Crew, etc., but were well-made.


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

Untilted said:


> As terry lean from fnb said...


Good Lord. Did you really just quote Terry Lean (aka Russell Street, Miles Away, etc.) as if he's an authority on the subject? Terry Lean and his multiple personalities apparently possess a firsthand knowledge of an _English interpretation_ of American TNSIL clothing as sold by the Ivy Shop and J. Simons. Beyond that I wouldn't listen to a thing he has to say.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't agree with everything terry lean says. The part I quoted makes a lot of sense. Didn't the ivy leaguers in the past have personal preferences on how their chinos fit?


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*We've Gotten Spoiled*



Untilted said:


> I don't agree with everything terry lean says. The part I quoted makes a lot of sense. Didn't the ivy leaguers in the past have personal preferences on how their chinos fit?


There used to be two choices in khakis, take it or leave it.

Only a few sources, and no one paid a whole lot of attention to the fit.

Now, we have so much to choose from, that we have the chance to rant about the ones that don't work for us.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

Tucker said:


> Good Lord. Did you really just quote Terry Lean (aka Russell Street, Miles Away, etc.) as if he's an authority on the subject? *Terry Lean*...


----------



## ner1971 (Apr 8, 2007)

I feel like I should chime in to echo the sentiment of a couple other posters. I, too, purchased pair of M3s in the hopes of a slimmer-fitting/late-50s/early-60s/Ivy League styled khaki. I was very much disappointed in the fit as it truly is just plain odd. Even after a trip to my alterations tailor (who, not to start another flame, commented negatively on the workmanship), I am still unhappy with them. Like others I was simply looking for a classic, well-made slim-cut khaki/chino. The M3s are definitely not what I was looking for. Which begs the question: is there an alternative?


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

I was at J Press the other day and pick these up. As I mentioned previously, I'm quite slim. These pants fit me very well. Not baggy at all. Thank God.

https://jpressonline.com/trousers_casual_detail.php?ix=9


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

The Continental Fop said:


> Okay, time for one of you guys to call the other one gay, then that guy calls the first guy a Nazi, so we can end the thread on a high note.
> 
> Peter


Still waiting... 

Brian


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Brownshoe said:


> The classic Bill's never worked for me. Too baggy--they never seemed in balance with my jackets, and made me look 30 pounds heavier. What body type do these work best on? Are they better as a strictly casual item, not paired with jackets?


I like the Bills M1 (and M1P, I confess). I think the tapered shape of the legs emphasizes a skinny waist (which I'm getting vain about as my hair retreats). I have broad shoulders and scrawny legs so I think the M1 kind of evens things out. You don't get the same effect when you are wearing a jacket and I think 100% Baumwolle khakis always look a little off with a wool sportscoat, anyway.


----------



## Chris H (Oct 30, 2004)

Untilted said:


> "trad" is supposed to be "ivy".
> 
> As terry lean from fnb said, the "ivy" style doesnt have as many rules as we'd like to impose. Some like their chinos baggy (like the WWII style), some like them slim (photos from "Take Ivy"). Just personal preference.


Qudos Tilt, it takes a brave man to mention his name over here!

Authority or not......I see his Trad 101 thread is still No. 1 in The Hall of Fame.


----------

