# Boxer shorts



## irishboy (Aug 18, 2005)

I just cleaned out my top drawer this weekend... well, okay, my wife forced me to throw out some of my tattered but beloved Made in the USA Brooks Brothers boxers (at least 8 years old). At any rate, I'm in need of some new boxer shorts. I went on the BB website, and noticed they've brought back a bunch of these "slim fit" boxers... Just the title makes me think this is a bad idea. I know I could buy the full cuts (which seem to be in the minority now at BB), but I'm thinking this might be my chance to try out some new brands. I have a couple pairs of the Robert Talbotts and like those, but how do the Tweed Peacocks (Peter Millars) compare with Talbotts and the full cut BB's? My local menswear store just started carrying the Tweed Peacocks. Thanks for any recommendations you guys can give me.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

If you haven't tried boxer-briefs, you should.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Mercer Boxers*

Some time ago, Harris asked for feedback on Mercers. If he hasn't received it yet, this will serve that purpose, as I reply to you.

Like you, I have worn BB oxford boxers for as long as I can remember. Get them on sale in January, and didn't realize that there was anything better. There is.

If you will go to the Mercer site you will see a description of the oxford Mercer boxers. $25, I think, and well worth it for the following reasons:

1. Same high thread count as in the OCBD shirts.

2. Covered waist band. The so what of this is that they are much more comfortable, and the covering keeps the heat from the dryer from causing the elastic to wear out.

3. Mercers are sized SML, whereas BB are exact waist sizes. My experience is that Mercer small translated exactly to BB 30, after a couple of washings.

Dave told me last week that he had made some out of pinpoint, that are a bit lighter. I don't know anything about these.

A lot for you to choose from. CEGO gets good marks here, but I am not familiar with them.

Hope that this is of help.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Go to CEGO's dapper new website at cego.com and email Carl you want some of his wondrous 3/$50 high-end dress shirting boxers. Great guy, great boxers.

Peter


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Thanks Intrepid for the report, I've wondered what the Mercer's are like too. Like you I grew up with Brooks but switched to J Press about 15 years ago. Haven't ordered any in years but hear they may now be different. Will need to check the Mercer's website again.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

I'm prepared to stick my neck out and state that Lands End makes the best oxford cloth boxer. I've recently bought some BB and J. Press and feel that they are better than the Press, now made in China, and as good, or better than the Brooks Bros, and less expensive. They're a thick material and the waistband is solid.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

xcubbies said:


> I'm prepared to stick my neck out and state that Lands End makes the best oxford cloth boxer. I've recently bought some BB and J. Press and feel that they are better than the Press, now made in China, and as good, or better than the Brooks Bros, and less expensive. They're a thick material and the waistband is solid.


I extolled the LE broadcloth boxers in an earlier thread, and stand by my review: they are a good bargain at $12.50. They're particularly nice in warmer weather, as the cut is reasonably baggy and the fabric is lightweight. As far as I can tell, however, they're no longer selling actual oxford cloth boxers, just broadcloth.

I will also amend my prior statement about JAB boxers to say that I've found the quality to be _woefully_ inconsistent: some pairs have been great, others unsatisfactory.

My next pair of boxers will come from Mercer.

EGF


----------



## farney (Oct 5, 2006)

Tweed Peacocks are the best I've tried. I'm in the process of completely switching from Vineyard Vines and BB to fully TP. I just think the quality is far and above, for not much more money. FWIW, I haven't tried Mercer's though. I'm sure they would be good too.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

farney said:


> Tweed Peacocks are the best I've tried. I'm in the process of completely switching from Vineyard Vines and BB to fully TP. I just think the quality is far and above, for not much more money. FWIW, I haven't tried Mercer's though. I'm sure they would be good too.


Where can you get Tweed Peacocks? Got a link to website somewhere? Thanks.


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Where can you get Tweed Peacocks? Got a link to website somewhere? Thanks.


Here's one source...

https://www.familybritches.com/thumbnail.php?g=men&s=21


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

Lorenzo Uomo boxers are on sale at Filenes for 7.99 a pair. Make sure to get the made in Italy versus made in China. Beautiful fabrics but the fly's a little short - - at least for me.


----------



## jlmwrite (Dec 27, 2005)

My long-suffering but stunningly beautiful wife :icon_smile_big: graciously gave me permission this past holiday season to replace all of my boxers. As a somewhat controlled experiment, I purchased three pair each from: Brooks Bros, J Press, Lands End, Eddie Bauer, Banana Republic, J Crew and Neiman Marcus. With a bit of diligent shopping beginning in late October I managed to snag every single pair of boxers on sale.

I started by washing and drying each pair three times, then -- to my bride's dismay -- scribbled notes on each pair as I wore them with a vague notion of later writing a comparison on AAAC. I've now gone thru washing/drying/wearing each pair a minimum of 4 times.

The big surprise: Banana Republic. Heavy cotton, covered waistband, well-covered fly and absolutely no sign whatsoever of pilling or fraying. These also have the v-notch in the legs, and fit as well if not better than anything else. I liked these so much that I went back to a local BR store a few weeks ago, only to find totally a different style from these. <heavy sigh>

No surprise with the Brooks Bros; they are exactly the the ones I've worn for years. Somewhat thinner cotton, but nice covered waistband and the same VERY full cut they've always had. I like 'em, and love the selection of patterns but will only buy more on sale.

J Press are also as I remembered, with great construction and VERY full cut. Under Levi's 501s these are almost too big, but otherwise no sign of pilling or fraying. Again, I'd only buy these on sale, and I get rather annoyed dealing with their website but these are still staples that I expect to last and last and last.

The Neiman's were their house brand, purchased at the NM outlet in Denver. I don't think I'd pay full price for them, but at $12.50 they are well made with soft if very thin cotton and covered waistbands. Full cut, with a pronounced balloon seat effect that I remembered my granddad's boxer always having. The fly coverage was adequate, but just so. Nice... boring... And then material is very, very thin.

Eddie Bauer was a mixed bag. I picked up 1 pair of logo'd ones and two pairs of brushed cotton (not quite flannel) on sale, plus an extra 15% off day. At $6 and $9, these were the best bargain by far. The logo'd pair is well made, but were absolutely huge; they tend to peek out from 7" inseamed shorts. The brushed cotton ones (one with hunting dogs) fit much better. All have held up very well, with no signs of wear. The salesgirl told me that my local outlet store always has these on sale, but the fit variance makes me wary of buying more unless they are on super-duper sale.

The J Crew ones weren't much better than the Old Navy ones my teenage son loves. All three pairs were of a different fit -- one with obviously shoddy construction -- and two of the three have uncovered waistbands that tended to roll immediately from my burgeoning tummy. To their credit, the only signs of wear so far are in the elastic waistbands. Even at the 3/$30 sale I scored (normal sale is 2/$28) I wouldn't buy these again.

I cheated with the Lands End, and only bought flannel boxers due to the unseasonably cold and snowy winter we were having. With that said, the flannel is wonderfully smooth and soft, and they have not shown the slightest inclination to pilling. Even at their normal price, they are an incredible bargain, and I'm almost sorry to see spring coming and having to pack them away.

To add a postscript: my RL boxers (the ones exact-sized, and sold in single packs vs the boxed knit ones or the ones sold on hangers with the 2" logo'd waistband) are still going incredibly strong. I'd purchased 6 pair a month or so before the wife gave me permission to buy new boxers, so I did include them on the wash/dry/wear cycle in addition to the fact they'd already been in my regular clothing rotation. They are still incredibly soft, fit well but with a full cut, and except for a tendency to wrinkle still look brand new.

OK, Consumer Reports I'm not but that's the way the boxers crumple. And sweetie, if you're reading this please note that I did NOT buy the $40+ pair of Burburry boxers...


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

My own underwear drawer was replenished this past Christmas with three pairs of BB oxford cloth boxers and three pairs of LE broadcloth ones. I'm not much of an underwear connoisseur, but they seem quite comparable. I do enjoy that little extra heft that the oxford cloth offers, but my preference may in fact simply be that the Brooks version just _seems_ a little more luxurious, merely by virtue of being Brooks. I'm new to this whole quality clothing thing, and perhaps get a little too excited over certain things. All that to say, the LE broadcloth version does work quite well. And if the regular price isn't bargain enough for you, you can pick up a pair or two of ones at the overstocks.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I wish someone could clue me in about boxer shorts. Every time I've tried wearing them it's been a very uncomfortable and usually painful experience.

Boxer briefs are great though.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

JLMWrite, hey, I knew you on the style forum (Sam in Memphis). I agree that the Banana Republic boxers are surprisingly good for the money. When we are in Nashville or Destin, Florida, I go by the BR Outlet and pick up 5 pair for $20, so I have new boxers on standby. I also agree that the Tweed Peacock boxers are a step above in styling and in material. They run like $65 for 3.

I have seen some English and Swiss boxers where the waistband is not elastic but has a button like a pair of dress pants and the boxers seem to have the choice of knit or shirting fabric.

Sam


----------



## jlmwrite (Dec 27, 2005)

hey sam, good to see you again! and yup, the br thing truly surprised me, as i've never purchased anything before...


----------



## boatshoes (Aug 21, 2005)

The CEGO boxers are way too tight in the legs for me, same for Press -- to the point of restricting my movement.

How does the Mercer cut compare?


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I don't usually say this to guys, but you might consider going commando, Hoss.

If the CEGO boxers (which for the record aren't any narrower in the leg than any other boxer I've ever worn) restrict your leg motion, I'm curious as to what pants you're able to freely move around in. You're not one of those MuuMuu Trads, are you?

Peter



boatshoes said:


> The CEGO boxers are way too tight in the legs for me, same for Press -- to the point of restricting my movement.
> 
> How does the Mercer cut compare?


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Does anyone besides BB still sell nonelastic boxers?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

katon said:


> Does anyone besides BB still sell nonelastic boxers?


I've seen some on the Vermont Country Store's website but don't know anything about them.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*?*



FrankDC said:


> I wish someone could clue me in about boxer shorts. Every time I've tried wearing them it's been a very uncomfortable and usually painful experience.
> 
> Boxer briefs are great though.


Only thing I can think of is that your trousers are too tight, causing the shorts to bunch up. If you truly move beyond discomfort into the realm of pain, maybe there's something more going on there.

Me? I haven't worn briefs since back before I started shaving regularly. I can't stand having elastic bands right up underneath my particulars. I distinctly remember the binding and chafing from childhood. Ugh. To me, the requirement for form-fitting shorts is that your equipment is internal.

Here's my admittedly harsh heirarchy:

1. Briefs: For girls and women, and young boys who are just learning to dress themselves. (Little guys outfitted with boxers often pull them every which way, resulting in a look that is part gangsta, part 90-year-old street bum.)

2. Boxers: Men and young men.

3. Boxer briefs: fit for no one, although they may serve a purpose for men who like others to see their underwear.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

GMC said:


> Only thing I can think of is that your trousers are too tight, causing the shorts to bunch up. If you truly move beyond discomfort into the realm of pain, maybe there's something more going on there.


Sorry, nothing else is "going on there". Loose pants makes the problem much worse, not better. Boxers provide zero support, so the only logical explanation is, people who think they're comfortable don't have much or any need for support. (I'll spare y'all the final conclusion about 'nad size here.)


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> (I'll spare y'all the final conclusion about 'nad size here.)


Now wait just a minute, I wear boxers (as if anyone would care) and I am a Moderator (again - as if ....) and I have the biggest....ego around. Let's not go in the direction of size - please.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Now wait just a minute, I wear boxers (as if anyone would care) and I am a Moderator (again - as if ....) and I have the biggest....ego around. Let's not go in the direction of size - please.


Ok, but please explain it to me. How on earth does the slapping around of one's private parts all day qualify as comfortable?


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Does not happen.*



FrankDC said:


> Ok, but please explain it to me. How on earth does the slapping around of one's private parts all day qualify as comfortable?


That doesn't happen.

Moderators: I am thinking of a joke about sack suits here, but I promise I won't make it.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

GMC said:


> That doesn't happen.
> 
> Moderators: I am thinking of a joke about sack suits here, but I promise I won't make it.


LOL - and I won't ask 'How's it hangin'?' - :devil:


----------



## interestedinclothing (Feb 8, 2007)

I like boxer-briefs; though boxers are traditional I prefer the hybrid of boxers and briefs, because for me boxer-briefs stay in place, don't move around, and never create bulges of fabric around the thighs or crotch of my pants. In the morning I don my boxer-briefs (Jockey) and for the rest of the day forget about them. In the end, it doesn't matter what a gentleman chooses for his undergarments, because a gentleman's underwear should _never_ be visible to another.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, but please explain it to me. How on earth does the slapping around of one's private parts all day qualify as comfortable?


Unless you jog for a living or are abnormally endowed, I don't see how this would ever really occur. Perhaps you shake your hips too much while walking (and sitting, if this problem occurs "all day").


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I once left on a trip and forgot to pack any underwear, so I hit a local Target near my hotel and decided a 3-pack of cotton "boxer briefs" was the lesser evil than coarse poly-blend novelty boxers or tighty whiteys. I was wrong. 

I cannot fathom why some guys prefer these things. "The security of a brief with the comfort of a boxer!" More like "You thought briefs rode up your ass? Get ready for the ride of your life!"

You can't have the security of a brief AND the comfort of a boxer. Your boys are either hugging or swinging. It's either or. 

Peter


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

wnh said:


> Unless you jog for a living or are abnormally endowed, I don't see how this would ever really occur. Perhaps you shake your hips too much while walking (and sitting, if this problem occurs "all day").


I don't see how this could ever *not* occur. What else are unsupported nuts supposed to do when one is walking? Shaking hips would cause a side to side motion, I'm talking about the front-back motion caused by natural walking. I find it horribly uncomfortable.


----------



## Mel (Dec 12, 2006)

*you have to have lots of $*

Getting either BB or Mercer boxers is pretty expensive for basic underwear. Has anyone ever gotten Hanes or Jockey tartan boxers they are cheap and wear well and are very trad=full cut boxers in black watch . as if any cares. Even spending lots on a suit or shirt,that much for boxers seems a bit over the top even if the elastic band is covered. This is a sick thread. x


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I don't see how this could ever *not* occur. What else are unsupported nuts supposed to do when one is walking? Shaking hips would cause a side to side motion, I'm talking about the front-back motion caused by natural walking. I find it horribly uncomfortable.


I can't imagine how you're walking so that your boys are "slapping around." Movement is normal, but you make it sound quite vigorous. If I may, I think your problem bypasses the structure of boxer shorts entirely.

I don't know. Maybe it's just the sort of thing you get used to after a while. I haven't worn briefs in probably 10 years, with a handful of wearings of the boxer-brief variety over that time period. Perhaps I am simply immune to the slapping boys that you speak of.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Mel said:


> Getting either BB or Mercer boxers is pretty expensive for basic underwear. Has anyone ever gotten Hanes or Jockey tartan boxers they are cheap and wear well and are very trad=full cut boxers in black watch . as if any cares. Even spending lots on a suit or shirt,that much for boxers seems a bit over the top even if the elastic band is covered. This is a sick thread. x


Obviously spoken by one who has never experienced the joy of fine underwear. Order yourself a pair of the BB oxford cloth boxers (or buy three and get a discount), and you'll laugh at how much respect you just granted Hanes and Jockey. Not long ago I found cheap underwear good enough. Now I know what I was missing. Besides, they'll wear for much longer than your garden variety Wal-Mart boxers (or so I've been told), meaning they're actually cheaper in the long run.


----------



## Mel (Dec 12, 2006)

*BB or cheaper*

I have worn BB boxers for years and find them to last somewhat longer but are no different in fit etc from their cheaper counterparts.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

I may be one of a rare breed that started out wearing boxers and has since converted to briefs.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

To each his (or her) own...I've worn BB boxer briefs for quite some time now and find the BB underwear options to be unsurpassed in terms of comfort, as well as durability. The fabric has a softer hand, the seams are covered and the price, on sale, is quite reasonable.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Danny said:


> I may be one of a rare breed that started out wearing boxers and has since converted to briefs.


Actually, it's pretty common for men to transition from boxers to briefs when certain ovoid objects, usually in pairs, begin seeking a lower altitude. There are certain undeniable advantage to briefs when it comes to support.

I'm not quite there yet, but after my vasectomy, my doctor recommended I wear briefs for a few weeks while healing, and I found them to be the best friends the boys could've had int heir time of need. Now the briefs sit there, in the way back of the drawer, behind all my CEGO boxers, biding their time till the balls drop.

Peter


----------



## woodywoodson (Feb 10, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I don't see how this could ever *not* occur. What else are unsupported nuts supposed to do when one is walking? Shaking hips would cause a side to side motion, I'm talking about the front-back motion caused by natural walking. I find it horribly uncomfortable.


Believe it or not, some people greatly prefer that feeling of unsupported freedom that horrifies you. Others detest it. I don't believe that the preference strictly correlates with any single measurement. My father encouraged us boys to start wearing boxers in our teens, based on his comfort preferences. Except for a brother that converted to a religion that has a requirement in this area, I think we mainly wear "supporting" undergarments only while exercising.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Mel said:


> Getting either BB or Mercer boxers is pretty expensive for basic underwear. Has anyone ever gotten Hanes or Jockey tartan boxers they are cheap and wear well and are very trad=full cut boxers in black watch . as if any cares. Even spending lots on a suit or shirt,that much for boxers seems a bit over the top even if the elastic band is covered. This is a sick thread. x


Yes, I have the Hanes Tartan ones which were purchased just to extend the time before I needed to do laundry. While I have yet to experience the pleasure of BB boxers, I know that something has to be better than these Hanes. I find them cut ungenerously, and the thickness of the material is laughable.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, but please explain it to me. How on earth does the slapping around of one's private parts all day qualify as comfortable?


I strap "it" down against my inner thigh and, if necessary, tuck it into the top of my over the calf socks........

Sorry, couldn't resist the juvenile urge.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rocker said:


> I strap "it" down against my inner thigh and, if necessary, tuck it into the top of my over the calf socks........
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist the juvenile urge.


Jeeze....those prep school myths just live on. ic12337:


----------

