# best khakis?



## simpsona (Jan 10, 2008)

is there a consensus on what the best every-day khakis are for the buck? i didnt even know LL Bean and Lands Ends sold khakis until going through this site. how do those brands stack up against Brooks Brothers, Jcrew, Gap, etc. Thanks in advance. ideally i would like to spend $50 or less per pair.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

I really like Polo Ralph Lauren and RLX chinos, they fit me the best and there are a wide variety of colors too.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

Dockers. Easy to find, they come in 4 different fits - and they are priced < $30. They wear well and look good.


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

While not in the under $50 range, the Brooks Brothers Advantage chino is perfect for me. They wear well, wash well and look very nice!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

srivats said:


> Dockers. Easy to find, they come in 4 different fits - and they are priced < $30. They wear well and look good.


:crazy:


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> While not in the under $50 range, the Brooks Brothers Advantage chino is perfect for me. They wear well, wash well and look very nice!


They were marked down to $40 at one point over the summer. I still have four pair I haven't taken the tags off yet...


----------



## Memphis88 (Sep 10, 2008)

My vote is for the j crew essential chinos in the classic fit.


----------



## scl10 (Jan 21, 2009)

+1 for the jcrew classic fit chinos. They can be had in a variety of colors and are almost always on sale. A nice way to bridge the gap between dockers and a more dressy (and expensive) BB chino.


----------



## HistoryDoc (Dec 14, 2006)

LL Bean for under $50.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

For a rugged look, I really dig the Orvis rhinohides. Very hefty, very sturdy.


----------



## gtsecc (Mar 25, 2008)

BB Vintage chinos

The BB Advantage chinos, non iron, don't look correct because
They are creased
The non iron treatment makes them fray


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Recently got my first pair of Bills and there's just no comparison with lower priced khakis. I suspect they'll last twice as long, at least, as cheaper ones. I typically wear thrifted khakis--there are plenty of like-new J. Crews, Ralph Laurens, LL Beans and the like for $5 or less. But if I was buying new, I'd spend a bit more and go with Bills. The old saw you-get-what-you-pay-for holds true here. The OP lives in a fairly affluent area. I should think he would have no trouble finding top-notch second-hand trousers, which are infinitely better than cheaply made new ones.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> While not in the under $50 range, the Brooks Brothers Advantage chino is perfect for me. They wear well, wash well and look very nice!


+1 and if you catch them on sale, they can be had for less than $50 per pair!


----------



## hbs midwest (Sep 19, 2007)

HistoryDoc said:


> LL Bean for under $50.


^+1.:icon_smile:

I have had several pairs of LLB Dress Chinos for over ten years; still presentable (you frequently see them in my posts as "LLB twills" or "LLB khakis").

hbs


----------



## Redsrover (Mar 23, 2009)

The LL Bean "Double L" chino, flat front, classic fit. $32.50 for a long time and I have at least a dozen pair. They wear very well. The Bill's Khakis are excellent in construction and attention to detail. However I find them to fit VERY large. In your regular waist size, the pant legs are huge, like 18" at the hem and 22" or more at the thigh.

The last pair I bought several years ago cost me $98, and then I had to have them tailored to slim the legs. When I wear them now (for yard work) my wife calls them my jodhpurs.

I'm 6'3" with 38" waist and 33" inseam, so I go for the classic fit / traditional fit in trousers. Suit pants I don't worry too much about, but casual pants I stay away from the gangsta stovepipe look at all costs.

And yes, I wear black penny loafers with khakis and a black alligator strap belt....:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think they are actually 20" around at the hem. 18" is a pretty standard contemporary measurement and was fashionably narrow back when the pattern was first made... in WWII.


----------



## Memphis88 (Sep 10, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Recently got my first pair of Bills and there's just no comparison with lower priced khakis. I suspect they'll last twice as long, at least, as cheaper ones. I typically wear thrifted khakis--there are plenty of like-new J. Crews, Ralph Laurens, LL Beans and the like for $5 or less. But if I was buying new, I'd spend a bit more and go with Bills. The old saw you-get-what-you-pay-for holds true here. The OP lives in a fairly affluent area. I should think he would have no trouble finding top-notch second-hand trousers, which are infinitely better than cheaply made new ones.


While I have heard Bill's are really not worth the price, my main concern is their fit. How does their slimmest fit compare to the j crew classic chino? I saw a guy about my age (21) at a local store here in Memphis getting some altered (about 5 pairs) a few months ago. He was also about my size (5'7 and 125 lbs) and he was practically drowning in all the excess fabric. He didn't seem to mind as it was obvious mommy and daddy not only paid for his clothes, but also picked them out.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*Bills "Slim" Fit M3s*

The M3s while certainly not "slim" are much slimmer than their standard M2s and larger than life M1s. I have two pair and they are about the same as a standard pair of Khakis. The others I have are BR (which have been slimmed down) and a pair by Hickey that are real sturdy (got them at Century 21 for $40).


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

I have long been a fan of Bills but the last few pairs I have bought sure did not seem to live up to the quality of just a few years ago. I have the M2 and M3 variations and I like them but for the price they don't hold up as well as they should. At least that is my opinion.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Memphis88 said:


> While I have heard Bill's are really not worth the price, my main concern is their fit. How does their slimmest fit compare to the j crew classic chino? I saw a guy about my age (21) at a local store here in Memphis getting some altered (about 5 pairs) a few months ago. He was also about my size (5'7 and 125 lbs) and he was practically drowning in all the excess fabric. He didn't seem to mind as it was obvious mommy and daddy not only paid for his clothes, but also picked them out.


I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question, owning just one pair and never in the market for slimmest fit. I never, unfortunately, drown in excess fabric. Then again, I'm nowhere near 125 pounds. Bills (there's no apostrophe) are definitely, IMHO, worth the price, although I got mine for a song. Let's say you pay $100. They're going to out-last two, even three, pairs of cheaper pants. It is, in my mind, like opting for J. Crew or the like over a BB OCBD. The Crew shirt might sell for less, but it ends up costing more because it doesn't last as long. At the risk of being long-winded, a poster awhile back, I forget whom, said he never buys anything on sale. Over time, he's figured out what he likes, what works, and when those things wear out, he goes out and replaces them, buying exactly what he wants. If you can afford it, I think that's a good strategy. If you can't afford it, then thrift the made-in-China J. Crews, LL Beans, etc. and use the savings for new Bills or BB OCBDs or Aldens down the road. Most of us have way more clothes than we need and would be better off with fewer things of higher quality.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Memphis88 said:


> While I have heard Bill's are really not worth the price, my main concern is their fit. How does their slimmest fit compare to the j crew classic chino? I saw a guy about my age (21) at a local store here in Memphis getting some altered (about 5 pairs) a few months ago. He was also about my size (5'7 and 125 lbs) and he was practically drowning in all the excess fabric. He didn't seem to mind as it was obvious mommy and daddy not only paid for his clothes, but also picked them out.


Can I ask a dumb question? How old are you, at 5'7", 125lbs it seems like you might still be growing. In that case I probably wouldn't spend the money on Bill's. Personally, I love them and the M2's fit me quite well - but then again I'm 6'3", 175lbs. I also have a pair of M1's and they are pretty big.


----------



## Eljo'sTrent (Jun 23, 2006)

*Bills are my favorite*

But as with anything, they are not the best for everyone. I like model two flat front.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Memphis88 said:


> While I have heard Bill's are really not worth the price, my main concern is their fit. How does their slimmest fit compare to the j crew classic chino? I saw a guy about my age (21) at a local store here in Memphis getting some altered (about 5 pairs) a few months ago. He was also about my size (5'7 and 125 lbs) and he was practically drowning in all the excess fabric. He didn't seem to mind as it was obvious mommy and daddy not only paid for his clothes, but also picked them out.


Before I switched to Bills, I wore JCrew straight fit chinos. The JCrew worked fine for about a year, but after repeated washings they began to fray at the hem and waistband. I bought my first pair of Bills in September of 2006 and wash them every 2 to 3 weeks. After 50+ washings, they look good enough to sell as a brand new pair of khakis at JCrew.

Bills are more expensive then most khakis, but most Bills loyalists will argue that they are made of far superior (thicker and stronger) fabric then JCrew or any other major retailer. I will say that the reason Bills Khakis has become so successful is not merely because they make great trousers. Bills sells the idea of products being every bit as good as they were 60 years ago. You could call it selling nostalgia or selling a lifestyle, but whatever it is, they do it better then anyone in the business. Bills are made by working class Americans in Pennsylvania. Can you say the same for JCrew chinos? Owning a pair of Bills is like being part of a club. You buy a pair and you get in. Buy another and you are hooked. Then you branch out beyond the standard twills into the other offerings like Bullard Field, seersucker, poplin, chamois cloth, cords and the list goes on and on. It's nice to know that when you want some seersucker or cords, you can get the exact same fit as your favorite pair of khakis.

Now not everyone can afford Bills and not everyone looks good in them. There's nothing wrong with either of those reasons for not purchasing them. But before you say they aren't worth the money I recommend buying one pair of the regular twills. Wash and wear a few times and tell me you don't love them. You might not, but I doubt it. You'll probably be like me, wishing your parents had bought you 5 pairs of Bills when you were 21.


----------



## Redsrover (Mar 23, 2009)

Hmmm, in my climate, I wear a pair of khaki pants one day, and into the wash they go. Dress gabardines and twill trousers get to the dry cleaner about once every two months.

I'm going uptown to my clothiers and check out the Bills styles they have. My last Bills purchase was several years ago.


----------



## Memphis88 (Sep 10, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Before I switched to Bills, I wore JCrew straight fit chinos. The JCrew worked fine for about a year, but after repeated washings they began to fray at the hem and waistband. I bought my first pair of Bills in September of 2006 and wash them every 2 to 3 weeks. After 50+ washings, they look good enough to sell as a brand new pair of khakis at JCrew.
> 
> Bills are more expensive then most khakis, but most Bills loyalists will argue that they are made of far superior (thicker and stronger) fabric then JCrew or any other major retailer. I will say that the reason Bills Khakis has become so successful is not merely because they make great trousers. Bills sells the idea of products being every bit as good as they were 60 years ago. You could call it selling nostalgia or selling a lifestyle, but whatever it is, they do it better then anyone in the business. Bills are made by working class Americans in Pennsylvania. Can you say the same for JCrew chinos? Owning a pair of Bills is like being part of a club. You buy a pair and you get in. Buy another and you are hooked. Then you branch out beyond the standard twills into the other offerings like Bullard Field, seersucker, poplin, chamois cloth, cords and the list goes on and on. It's nice to know that when you want some seersucker or cords, you can get the exact same fit as your favorite pair of khakis.
> 
> Now not everyone can afford Bills and not everyone looks good in them. There's nothing wrong with either of those reasons for not purchasing them. But before you say they aren't worth the money I recommend buying one pair of the regular twills. Wash and wear a few times and tell me you don't love them. You might not, but I doubt it. You'll probably be like me, wishing your parents had bought you 5 pairs of Bills when you were 21.


They seem like great pants to me. I know that they are likely much roomier than I like, though. That's my only personal issue and really why I never have bought any. If they had a fit like they j crew classic fit, then I would get them in a heart beat.

And Bradford, 
No I am cursed with short genes and unfortunately do not see any more growing in my future. Although, some muscular weight gain is definitely in order.


----------



## d'Artagnan (Mar 18, 2009)

Take a look at Eddie Bauer Performance Classic khakis. I like the fit, and I've found them to be very durable.


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

I can't confirm that they're the best chinos, but LE Premium chinos now are on Overstocks and are marked down to $39.99. I just ordered a pair.


----------



## mattdebord (May 20, 2006)

Bills have been my everyday khakis since 2000. 

First pair, M1 buttonfly, lasted 7 years. Recuffed and repaired twice, for various frays, holes, etc. Still suitable for lunch at Le Bernardin.

Second pair, also M1 buttonfly, damaged/marred by student art project, solid as a rock nevertheless.

Golf pair: M1, pleated, purchased 2001. No visible signs of wear, whatsover.

Current pair: Purchased 2007, on sale at a golf shop in Pasadena. M1 zipper. Only just beginning to show noticeable wear. 

First and last were bought on sale, and also the golf pair. Second pair full price. Call it $225. Divided by nine. $25 per year. Just south of $0.50 per week. Four pairs of pants in a decade. Value, people.

And I still count the first pair because I turned them into shorts and wear them all the time.

There's no finer pant on this fair Earth than Bills Khakis.

(Also, for those who worry about the "full fit"--it does provide the added benefit of nice deep pockets that can swallow up keys, cell phones, pocket knives etc. and still not seem overloaded.)


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Matt - excellent post and I completely agree about Bill's.

The only caveat I would have is that the OP is 21 and could conceivably gain weight in the next 9-years.

Cool tennis blog as well.


----------



## mattdebord (May 20, 2006)

Bradford: Good point on the waistline. I have a mentor of sorts who told me that at some juncture you have to pick a waistline and...hold the line. I guess this could get painful, but it's also motivating. And it means more mileage from the pants.

The tennis blog will see more action as we head into the French Open--that's how it usually goes.


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

But isn't one of the virtues of Bill's the adjustable waist?


----------



## fairway (Sep 23, 2006)

LL Bean's have provided me with good looking long lasting service. Price is right too.


----------



## msphotog (Jul 5, 2006)

Bills...:aportnoy: 11 pairs and counting. Bills for life, Bills forever:icon_smile_big:

Mark S.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, or at least my high school, you could go to the work clothes department of Sears or any other common-folk department store, or to specialty stores that also carried jeans, when jeans were work clothes, and get a pair of very sturdy, cheap khakis. They were made in the USA, all cotton, shrank to fit, and had big pockets. One kid at my school who came from a rich family wore nothing but work khakis and a white t-shirt through all of high school. Bills approximates that format, but now at a price and with an elite clientele, as if that kid had multiplied. And, yes, I wear them, right now. Like the work khakis of old they're comfortable -- jeans look cool if you're young, but some brands are tight in the crotch, no wonder some of those Old West hombres were desperadoes -- and if cuffed can be topped with jacket, OCBD and tie, tipped with good shoes, and they'll take you anywhere.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

For many on this board, including me, the available khakis today are distinctly unsatisfying, and in this respect they're a unique item of apparel. Most posters have found their favorite make of OCBD, navy blazer, and so on. Not so khakis.

I love my M2's from the waist to the thigh, but from that point down, they're just too baggy. I suppose I'll go back to my tailor and have them tapered one day, although he dissuaded me first time around, asserting that this would be a waste of my money. (I don't think so now.) M3's have received a pretty poor rating among those who have tried them. 

All models of Bills, however, can be found new on eBay at a bargain for the patient buyer. For what that's worth.


----------



## Reds & Tops (Feb 20, 2009)

My favorite khaki has to be the . Say what you will about the label, but I find the fit and construction to be top notch. At $69.50, a little on the pricey side - but sales are common.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

^ That looks worth checking out. Thanks for posting.

First I'll try Uniqlo, then J. Crew, then Rugby.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

"It's our University fit you love, with a slim fit that *sits lower on the waist*..."

I don't get why slim fit has to always equal low rise. Regular rise has a more slimming effect anyways.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Posting photos might help illustrate some of these points (such as "regular rise is more slimming", and so forth)


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Just curious - how skinny are some of you guys who are "swimming" in Bill's M2's?

I'm 6'3", 175 lbs and while the M1's are big, I think the M2's are just right.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> Posting photos might help illustrate some of these points (such as "regular rise is more slimming", and so forth)


A low rise, unless you have the flattest stomach ever, often gives a muffin-top effect. It also doesn't look very good unless you're really short as it makes the torso look long and legs small. Not very attractive. Just my opinion.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm 5'8" and 165 lbs (largely concentrated in my upper body; I'm shaped like a salamander or a newt: big neck, shoulders, chest, all of which dwindle into a pathetically atrophied lower body). I wear a 32 waist, but the M2's look like big stove pipes on me. Except for the billowing thighs, that is. Those slap another 15 lbs. on me visually.

Part of this is personal preference, part of this is body type. Clothes fit different people differently.

Don't get me wrong. I love the M2's down to the thigh. The rise, everything.



Bradford said:


> Just curious - how skinny are some of you guys who are "swimming" in Bill's M2's?
> 
> I'm 6'3", 175 lbs and while the M1's are big, I think the M2's are just right.


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

The best khakis I have ever worn are JC Penney vintage. I bought two pair a couple years ago and they feel just like the ones I wore when I was in the Army. I have not seen them in the stores since I bought the ones I have. If you are lucky enough to score some, you will love them.

Danny


----------



## TommyDawg (Jan 6, 2008)

*Bill's khakis*

Can someone please give me a brief overview of the various Bill's khakis? What are general differences in M1, M2, and so on? Thanks.
Tom


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

The website should help, but till then it's simple enough

M1 = giant tent. The right size for holding a circus in
M2 = large tent. The right size for relocating a manta ray with a helicopter
M3 = medium large tent. The right size pants for looking baggy in

Many different types/weights of material. I prefer the poplin, but all of these pants are enormous. You either like enormous or you don't.


----------



## TommyDawg (Jan 6, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


> M1 = giant tent. The right size for holding a circus in
> M2 = large tent. The right size for relocating a manta ray with a helicopter
> M3 = medium large tent. The right size pants for looking baggy in
> 
> .


:icon_smile_big: excellent! cant get that from the website!


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

Bradford said:


> Just curious - how skinny are some of you guys who are "swimming" in Bill's M2's?
> 
> I'm 6'3", 175 lbs and while the M1's are big, I think the M2's are just right.


M2's are way too baggy for me - can't imagine how the M1s will be. I am close 5'10", 150 lb with a waist size between 31" and 32".


----------



## cbird (Oct 27, 2006)

Filson's shelter cloth are the best I've had. I've had Bill's in the past and have preferred the Filson's - they seem more durable and a little more comfortable. My favorite pants overall, outside of cold weather or dress type situations. No special care required, either.


----------



## mattdebord (May 20, 2006)

RE: The bagginess of Bills issue. Yes, they are ample. But I'm 5'7", 145, and I like the roominess. I have another pair of khakis, from APC, that also borrow a military design and are far slimmer than Bills, but I just don't wear them as much. They are to khakis what Diesel Jeans are to... jeans. All well and good, but khakis should provide durability and room to breathe. Think about air travel. I always wear Bills for flight. Unlikely to edge into discomfort, even on a long haul.


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

cbird said:


> Filson's shelter cloth are the best I've had. I've had Bill's in the past and have preferred the Filson's - they seem more durable and a little more comfortable. My favorite pants overall, outside of cold weather or dress type situations. No special care required, either.


How much do they shrink? It looks like they are not preshrunk. Also, what about the "treated with durable water repellent and stain resistant finish"? I would guess this would wash out but it might be a bit odd at first. Funny, the plain front are $45 cheaper than the pleated.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

As someone with abs of meal, I'd like to clarify this "Bill's = baggy" issue.

If a fuller-cut pant like Bill's Khakis make you look fat, it's because you _are_ fat. Trust me on this -- you do not look slimmer in slim-fit khakis, or jeans, or tights. Your brain is just interpolating data in an attempt to make you feel better about yourself, which is all well and good, except it's making you make bad decisions about your pants.

Slim, fit guys look great in Bill's, even the M1. The fuller cut drapes nicely, and harkens back to a time when men dressed well and comfortably, and didn't feel the need to advertise the size and/or number of their testicles to the world.

When I was younger, I fell into this slim fit pants = slimmer looking me trap. My jeans had to be tight, and khakis were a fail precisely because they were roomy. Having grown up a bit, and made peace with the fact that I'm not an underwear model but a regular looking guy with a regular body, I find that fuller cut pants like Bill's don't make me look any fatter than jeans or dress slacks do.

Slim fit pants are a marketing gimmick targeted to insecure guys chasing an impossible dream. Nobody, not even the slim and fit guys, look as good in them as they think they do. Trust me.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm pretty trim. M2's make me look heavier, not that I particularly mind sometimes. But they don't drape in some lovely flattering way any more than stovepipes or tin cans or Dickeys. 

Bills are, in fact, glorified Dockers. Much better constructed, sure. But overall it's the same look, the same profile. Most people can't tell the difference.

Marketing scam or not, the ivy league trim khakis in the 50's/60's appeal to me. "Slim" is a relative term. I'm not advocating testicle bas-reliefs. Just something smaller than what you'd use to airlift a whale shark.


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

Those looking for something slimmer than Bill's but not skinny might consider the "clean straight fit" pants from GAP:

https://www.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=11889&pid=620172

I recently tried on a pair and liked the fit a lot. Fabric is light (for better or worse). I will probably buy a pair once they go on sale.

I am also a fan of the LE tailored fit. I have the poplins and the no-iron (I know, I know......) twills.

I also have a pair of the Bass Premium Chinos. 100% cotton, but obviously treated so as to be non-iron. Still, not bad for a cheap pair of khakis. I would compare the cut to LE tailored fit.

FWIW, I find both the J.Crew and LL Bean khakis too tapered.


----------



## cbird (Oct 27, 2006)

In response to Speas' questions about the Filson shelter cloth pants:
They do shrink a little. I usually order the correct waist size, but have the pants hemmed half an inch longer than the what the correct length would be.
I hadn't realized they have a water and stain resistant finish (maybe this is something new). Mine haven't stained and are OK in wetter weather, but I wasn't aware of any coating.


----------



## Vespa (May 16, 2005)

I like the Bill's M2s a lot...but hard to get in Canada and STP size range have not been great for a while. 

I wear the Polo Prospect pant a lot. Nice fit with deep pockets. Would like if I could get unfinished and cuff but for 34.99 at the outlet can't complain


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I've tried most if not all the brands mentioned above, and the best "slim" fitting khakis/chinos that I've worn have without a doubt been the GAVIN model sold at Banana Republic.

These are a flat front with a straight leg/no cuffs. These have a slim fit and come in a variety of colors including several different "khaki" shades from light to dark and also come in black and blue.

They wear very well and the list price is $49.50, though they recently had a great promotion of 30% off.

I highly recommend these khakis, I've been wearing them for years, though they recently changed the material to a softer "brushed" cotton.


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

cbird said:


> In response to Speas' questions about the Filson shelter cloth pants:
> They do shrink a little. I usually order the correct waist size, but have the pants hemmed half an inch longer than the what the correct length would be.
> I hadn't realized they have a water and stain resistant finish (maybe this is something new). Mine haven't stained and are OK in wetter weather, but I wasn't aware of any coating.


Thanks - I may see if I can find a pair to try on. I'd bet the finish is more of a Scotchgard type that would come off in a wash or two.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

The Continental Fop said:


> As someone with abs of meal, I'd like to clarify this "Bill's = baggy" issue.
> 
> If a fuller-cut pant like Bill's Khakis make you look fat, it's because you _are_ fat. Trust me on this -- you do not look slimmer in slim-fit khakis, or jeans, or tights. Your brain is just interpolating data in an attempt to make you feel better about yourself, which is all well and good, except it's making you make bad decisions about your pants.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. I like my M2s, but I have found I look better in khakis less full cut (I have not tried the M3s) and my wife agrees.

I wish I could find a link, but Tucker posted a side by side picture on his former blog with a picture of him in a regular fit polo and M2s and then a slim fit polo with BB Clarks. He looked like a different person. Much better in the slim fit polo and Clarks.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Women seem to prefer, on men, khakis smaller than Rhode Island, but that's just my experience.


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

Joe Beamish said:


> Women seem to prefer, on men, khakis smaller than Rhode Island, but that's just my experience.


Touche!! LOL!!


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Bills M1 are near perfect, especially for winter. Great fabric and a distinctive but classic cut. Maybe not GQ fashionable right now, but pair'em with a trad. cut Brooks OCBD or a shetland crewneck sweater, maybe some boots or heavy bluchers for a healthy, proportioned look.
Bills M2 I like but could be so much better. They took an inch or so out of the thighs of the M1, but left the bottoms stove-piping down. I probably wont buy more of the M2 in twill, but (properly tapered) the Bills M2 in poplin is a must have for summer. Especially after a laundering or five, the Bills poplin almost develops a crisp softness and an almost marbled coloring (like a Rothko). The M1s dont really work with summer type moccasin shoes.
J.Press (Made in USA by Berle) are my favorite slim fit kind of khaki. Taut across the hips and slim across the thighs w/o a tight crotch is exactly what I'm looking for with a tailored type of shirt. Straight legged unfortunately, but can be easily tailored for a better shape. Fabric could be better and doesnt really develop the Bills kind of softness after washing. A crisper, more busines style appearance.
Brooks Advantage in Clark. Great cut, but teflon coating makes my leg hair itch. Its pretty wet where I live and I dont think these breathe that well in humid air. YMMV. Havent laundered enough to see the impact. These face relegation.
Uniqlo Vintage Khakis Surprisingly good and almost free. Great tapered legs. Uniqlo fabric, in general, has a cheap ticky-tack feel, but these do not, though of course, nowhere near Bills quality. Rise is too small but not as extreme as a lot of Uniqlo pants which are cut for teenagers in a country where 26 is an actual size for men.
Filson Cover Cloth pants. GREAT cut. They should cut every khaki made. However, these are more rugged outdoors pants than actual khakis. Fabric is great for the purposes for which they are intended, but not that soft.
Lands End. Hit or miss. Could be great value today, and be awful tomorrow or the reverse.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AldenPyle said:


> Bills M1 are near perfect, especially for winter. Great fabric and a distinctive but classic cut. Maybe not GQ fashionable right now, but pair'em with a trad. cut Brooks OCBD or a shetland crewneck sweater, maybe some boots or heavy bluchers for a healthy, proportioned look.


This is to the point; if you wear all your clothes Trad-to-baggie (Mercer or BB traditional fit shirts) the M1 is your aeroplane.

Try to keep things proportioned. I wear slim-fit shirts and the M2P&C.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I concede that the full vs. slim pants issue is a matter of taste. The Ramones would've looked silly in Bill's M1s instead of their stovepipes, though I bet they would've been more comfortable hitting those high notes on "Beat On The Brat". 

But I still believe that most men who think they look better in slim fit pants, whether jeans or khakis, don't look as good as they would if they wore a roomier cut like Levi's 501 or Bill's M2. But that's my taste of what looks best.

They say your clothes say things about you that some people hear and some people don't. When I see a guy in slim fit pants, I hear his pants telling me that the wearer is a little chunky and self-conscious enough about it to fall for the false optical illusion that skinny legs make a fat ass look smaller. I hear the same notes when I see a zaftig woman wearing tight clothes too small for her figure. Rarely does it look anything but sad.

On the other hand, when I see a guy, whether he's slim or not, wearing pants that fit properly, it always makes him look attractive and confident. Like he knows who he is and what he looks like, and damned if he's going to worry too much about it. Maybe this vibe is less attractive to you than a pear-shaped middle-ager trying to look like a club kid. I guess that's why they have chocolate and vanilla Tootsie Rolls.


----------



## Jack1425 (Sep 19, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> Bills M2 I like but could be so much better. They took an inch or so out of the thighs of the M1, but left the bottoms stove-piping down. I probably wont buy more of the M2 in twill, but (properly tapered) the Bills M2 in poplin is a must have for summer. Especially after a laundering or five, the Bills poplin almost develops a crisp softness and an almost marbled coloring (like a Rothko). The M1s dont really work with summer type moccasin shoes.


AP, I agree with your assertion. The M2 is a tad more roomy than "I" would like towards the bottom and there is certainly room (pun intended) for improvement here. Having said that, I recently picked up my first pair and love them in both fit and finish with the stated exception. I look forward to getting more in time. I'm a tall/slim guy and they are extremely comfortable nor do I find them "overly" baggy but feel they look better with a heavier shoe certainly than a slimmer one without tapering.

I have several pair of BB Clarks that look great but I find the lower rise a touch uncomfortable.. Perhaps it's just my imagination.. :icon_smile:


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Just to clarify the issue, the Banana Republic Gavin khakis I referred to in an earlier post that have a "slimmer" cut have exactly that....a slimmer cut not a tight fitting cut.

I believe that no one can tell if I'm hanging right or hanging left in my khakis, and I've still got significant leg and thigh room. However, the pants simply aren't sloppy, but do fit well.

So, I'm not showing my genitals, and I'm not wearing Spandex. Wearing slimmer fitting khakis in my case simply means that my pants don't look sloppy, and I can assure you that I still have ample room all around without anyone viewing any of my anatomical features.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Admittedly (and I'm guilty of this), both "sides" have tried to straw-man the the question of baggy/slim.

But as AP and others have pointed out, it all depends on season, body type, fabric, and personal preference -- all of which vary understandably.

For many (if not most) of us, there's no plug-and-play, magic bullet khaki for all occasions. But I offer a hearty cheer for those of you who've found it!


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


> Admittedly (and I'm guilty of this), both "sides" have tried to straw-man the the question of baggy/slim.
> 
> But as AP and others have pointed out, it all depends on season, body type, fabric, and personal preference -- all of which vary understandably.
> 
> For many (if not most) of us, there's no plug-and-play, magic bullet khaki for all occasions. But I offer a hearty cheer for those of you who've found it!


Indeed, though AP's post above is about as definitive a guide as one could want. I particularly appreciate the evaluation of the M2. There was always something about the cut of the M2 that was underwhelming to me, and I think the "stove-piping" is it. I am now very anxious to try the Press khakis. Thanks, AP!

This discussion has also shown that, as per my personal experience, pants (khakis or otherwise) are one of the hardest aspects of the trad/ivy/tnsil ensemble to get "right," requiring a significant amount of trial and error. I still don't feel like I've nailed it, but at least I am getting a sense of what seems to work and what doesn't.

This discussion has also raised the topic of, for lack of a better term, "fit and finish," which doesn't seem to get discussed as much as it should (though perhaps it is more difficult given the individual variables noted by JB above).


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm looking forward to trying Press khakis, but the "more businessy" characterization always throws cold water on it.

Has anyone else besides AP had a tailor taper their Bills? I asked mine once, and he rather scoffed at the idea. He didn't mean to make me feel wastefully fastidious and unmanly, but I'm afraid I did.

I'm wondering what to ask, of this tailor, or another. I have two pair of twill M2's that I could get tapered. Take an inch off the hem? The knee?

The M1's are perfect (but not in summer, nor with summer shoes)
The M2's are perfect (but only if you have them tapered. And only in poplin. But get them tapered!)
The Press ones are great (but businessy)
And the "slim" pants all display your jewels with hideous accuracy, your paunch spilling over the front like a landslide of middle aged fat.

and so on....ugh. It's all so, so NOT like a Brooks OCBD, or Alden pennies, or what-have-you. It's problemitized ad nauseum.

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE WEAR JEANS


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

J Press khakis are good. I wouldnt say they're too 'businessy' at all. They're slightly nicer than the Berles though Berle makes them. I think they're still made in US where the Berles recently are from Mexico. 

They are slimmer in the thigh, though with the longer rise this causes me to stress the crotch seam. I wear pants on my hips (meaning I cant keep them up higher) so long rise and slimmer cut is bad for me.

Anyway, if you want to slim down a pair of khakis, just measure the leg opening on a pair you like and ask for that sizing. I have found that if the leg has too much taper, the cuffs dont fold well and twist a bit in washing.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Speas, thanks. I don't mind losing the cuffs anyway on khakis. 

I'll try having the tailor taper one of my M2's and a pair of poplin Bills "Madison" cut khakis which were a limited edition item, and which I am guessing fit a lot like M3's -- slimmer, but with a straight non-tapering stove pipe leg.

I'll let you know how it goes. I'm sure the tapering will cost less than new khakis would.


----------



## Reds & Tops (Feb 20, 2009)

Here's a good chance to try out the - the PRL Friends & Family event. The code is "RLSP2009". 

Enjoy.


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

Today I wore some old Bills M2s in British khaki. I must say they are comfortable and look great with a bit of fading and breaking in - the British khaki fades more than the regular but in a good way. I too have thought that the leg opening is too big sometimes but the pair I had on today has zero break and worked fine with regular ol' penny loafers. Perhaps its just having no break is the key to these.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

Incotex


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

The Continental Fop said:


> On the other hand, when I see a guy, whether he's slim or not, wearing pants that fit properly, it always makes him look attractive and confident. Like he knows who he is and what he looks like, and damned if he's going to worry too much about it.


Well put. Properly fitting clothes are never slim-cut (unless you specifically go and ask for that look). And this is the reason why I don't wear Bills - I used to have one pair and I looked literally like a scarecrow wearing it. I tried one pair and just could not get over the bagginess.

I have already been :crazy:'d at for mentioning Dockers, but I like them because they fit me well. I was not aware that they had changed the fits until I read about it here, and so I went and tried a couple of their newer fits (D1 to D4, slim/straight/classic/relaxed in that order). Both D2 and D3 fits me well, but they are slightly different from the older ones I currently have but not my much. D1 is the "slim fit" and I did not like it.

How many of you here have *actually* worn dockers recently? Anyone else tried their D1-D4 fits of late?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I had no idea tapered bottom khakis were so universally reviled here. Weren't a lot of Ivy Leaguers wearing them in the past?


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I had no idea tapered bottom khakis were so universally reviled here. Weren't a lot of Ivy Leaguers wearing them in the past?


I absolutely love tapered khakis, and I don't understand why they are so hated on here...oh well I have a great set of legs for them :aportnoy:


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

*O'Connell's Khakis*

Just discovered this thread on O'Connell's khakis:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85341&highlight=o'connell's+khakis

One poster describes them as lighter, slimmer and slightly dressier than Bills M2. And they are apparently made by Berle in the USA. Sounds nice. And at 69.95 a pop, reasonably priced as well.

I wonder how they compare to J.Press khakis. Anyone with any experience?

Anyone know how the waist sizing compares to Bills?


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*fit*

Its all in the fit. There is no one mfgr for all men. We are all built differently. Its a pain, but we have to just try the stuff on until we find our match. I'm about 5-9, 160. Ralph Lauren jeans fit me like a glove, but their chinos have way too much material in the rear, and not enough in the waist. The flat front pockets stick out like dogs ears. However, the classic fit JCrew chinos fit me to a T. So, good luck hunting!!


----------



## Ed13 (Mar 18, 2005)

I was at O'Connell's today looking for some khakis. I am 6'2", 200 lbs. I preferred the M1s and found they hung fine. I don't have overly thick legs but my butt is more bubble shaped and I think this helps take care of some of the extra fabric. This cut may be more problematic for this with flat behinds.

The M2's fit fine but appeared more snug on me. They would have been much better with the extra 1" of rise like the M1s.

O'Connell's brand has a curtained waist constructed more like dress trousers. Again lower waist and more slimmer than the M2s. Also not tapered if this bothers anyone. Material not as good to the touch but may be fine after a few washings. Not bad construction for the money but the fit wasn't right for me.


----------



## J.S.T (Apr 15, 2009)

I like J-press. Thinner leg; fits me well.


----------

