# Buzz Rickson khaki review



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

As I become exposed to new things I get interested in them. Recently, through internet message boards, I've been exposed to the world of Japanese reproduction jeans. Fascinating stuff, true craftsmen. It really makes me want to own a pair. Only one problem, I'm not a jeans guy, I'm a khaki guy. I own jeans and wear jeans but I love khakis. So when I leaned that a company by the name of Buzz Rickson in Japan was making a pair of khakis that were supposed to be faithful reproductions of WWII khakis I was intrigued. Buzz Rickson is known in the US for making the best WWII fighter jackets available. They also make (or are affiliated with) Sugarcane Denim which makes very highly respected jeans. So I found a gentleman on a message board who lives in Japan and was willing to help me get a pair of these khakis as they're not available through any US retailers. After a few e-mails, a paypal payment, and a weeks waiting, the mail lady brought me this. 









Which was very exciting. I opened it up to find this. 









Another envelope. Not exactly hard work to open the mail but sure exciting. Opening the second envelope revealed this. 









The fabric felt hard and unwashed, just the way clothes should be when new. I'm not a fan of having a company pre-wash the first 2-5 years of life out of clothes for me. Another reason I was interested in these pants. Opening them up revealed a very full cut pair of pants. 









And a wonderfully finished button fly. This is another one of the reasons I purchased these pants. I really wanted a button fly. There are very few options out there for button fly khakis, Bills being the prime one. Bills cost about the same but right now then appear to only be available in a very heavy wash. No thanks, if I'm spending over a C-note on pants I don't want them nearly worn out already. 









I spent some time looking at the amazing attention to detail on these pants. The stitching is perfect, on the hems the sewing goes all the way around and finishes in the exact same holes it started in. The finish on the interior seams is as high quality as the outseams. These pants are the nicest constructed pair of pants I think I've ever seen. Here's a picture of the inside of the pants. 









Here a photo of the inside pocket and the tag. 









Sizing on these pants is pretty restrictive. They make them only in waist sizes 28-35 and you get what inseam you get, no choice. My waist size is 32 so I got inseam 34. Now, my normal inseam is about 30 and because these are a high rise pant I take a hemmed length shorter than that. Here's a couple of pictures of the pants on me before they were washed. They're still cardboard stiff. You can tell they're quite roomy.


















I'm a happy camper. All that's left to do is compare them with the standard for really good khakis, Bills. The fabric weight is similar, I'm betting Bills is a bit heavier. It's always hard to compare fabrics when one is brand new and the other has been softened through washing. As far as fit, they fit very similar as I'll show below through measurements. The Buzz Rickson's have pockets that are slightly off seam though and this a a big advantage for me. Because of the shape of my hips on seam pockets tend to pop have a very bad look on me. The BR's don't do that so I feel (and my wife agrees) that although both are very full cut pants the BR's look slimmer on me. As slim as a pant like this can anyway. As far as measurement comparisons, I measured my Buzz Rickson's and my Bills (M1 flat front waist size 32) It's not a perfect comparison but it's fairly instructive.

Buzz Rickson, waist size 32
Rise 15 ½
Waist 32
Across hips 23
Leg at thigh 13 ½
Leg at knee 11 ½
Leg at my ankle 10 ½

Bills M1 flat front waist size 31
Rise 15 ¼
Waist 31
Across hips 22
Leg at thigh 13 ½
Leg at knee 11 ¼
Leg at my ankle 9 ½

Here's a couple of pictures of these pants next to each other. They are very similar in cut as one would expect them to be as they both claim to be copied from WWII khakis. 

















My final comment on these Buzz Rickson khakis is that they're incredible. They are exactly what I wanted. A full cut button fly khaki that hasn't been pre-washed by a factory. They were expensive ($137 shipped to my door) but if they last as long as I suspect they will then they will have been worth it. 
If anybody has any questions or wants me to take any other photographs just let me know. I hope this has been informative or at least entertaining.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

I'm an idiot. I spelled the title to the thread wrong. It should read "Buzz Rickson khaki review" If a mod could change it that would be great. Otherwise just realize that without spell check I can barely write a literate sentance.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Great thread*

thanks for the detailed report.

Markus


----------



## spinlps (Feb 15, 2004)

familyman,

Excellent, intriguing post. Thanks.

- Were the measurements taken before or after washing? Any noticeable shrinkage after the washing? Curious to see if the BR's act like shrink-to-fit Levi's.

- Seven belt loops or eight? Your 'tail might be covering up #8 on the backside shot.

- You mention these are high rise pants. Where exactly do they sit on waist / hip for you?

- Would love to see post hem/cuff (Have you decided?) to see how they drape at proper length.

Thanks again!


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

VERY interesting. Thanks for the info. Based on the price tag, shipping must be very costly! 

10290 Japanese yen = 86.1736873 U.S. dollars


Please post pics when you get them hemmed.


How did they feel after the wash?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

The measurements were taken after a warm soak and a trip through the dryer. I measured before as well but measurements were virtually the same. They only losts half an inch in length. Will they shrink more? I bet they will, at least a bit. I'm going to hold off on hemming them for a little while. I'll just cuff them and wear them. I may just start a new trend. 
7 belt loops. 
They are high rise, I can wear them anywhere from above my belly button (which is where they are probably designed to fit) all the way down to blue jean level. This is the other reason I'm not hemming them now, they have about a 4 inch range where they fit well and I'm not sure where I'm going to wear them. I think I'm going to go cuffless on these but I haven't decided. 

PC, yes, shipping is a bugger. First I have to pay shipping from the store to the guy, then I pay him a nominal fee (I think it's 10% of the cost of the pants, $9 very fair) and then something like $25 to get them over the ocean. It's not a perfect system but I know from others that have gone this route that one can get Sugarcane denim and Buzz Rickson jackets cheaper than buying them from History Preservation who is the US importer for these articles of clothing. They take a BIG markup.


----------



## jeph (Feb 16, 2006)

Thanks for an interesting review. The Buzz Rickson khakis look like a genuine quality product.

jeph


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Thanks for the review! With a 36" waist, I can't help but feel slighted by the fact that they don't make 'em bigger than 35". I guess I'm a lardass (at least by Japanese standards). 

And what's with the standard inseams? I knew Japan was a homogeneous culture, but I didn't know their legs were all the same length.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

KentW said:


> Thanks for the review! With a 36" waist, I can't help but feel slighted by the fact that they don't make 'em bigger than 35". I guess I'm a lardass (at least by Japanese standards).
> 
> And what's with the standard inseams? I knew Japan was a homogeneous culture, but I didn't know their legs were all the same length.


It's a very limited run product. Just one of those scales of production things. You find it a lot in the botique level Japanese denim, very few if any options for inseams, they make them all longer than most anyone would need and just have you hem them if you need to. Why not just sell them unhemmed you ask? I think it goes against the aestetic of the product to sell something finished so beautifully with a raw edge at the bottom.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

OK, I sorta feel like a schmuck for even asking this, but here 'goes.

So...what's the deal with your hair? You've gotta realize that we're probably all wondering, even if most people aren't as obnoxiously forward as myself. Mea culpa.

Your clothing is so trad, yet your hair is telling a different story. Is this a statement on the duality of man? Enquring minds want to know!

By the way...in case you're wondering, I have an all-over buzz cut, not by choice, but due to a lack of other alternatives (mother nature hit me with the bald stick). Perhaps I have ponytail envy?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

KentW said:


> So...what's the deal with your hair?


The bald stick strikes very heavy in my family. My mother's two brothers are shiny headed men. Looking at family pictures they were shiny headed men in high school. The bald stick struck heavy and early. I have a brother who is two years older than me (and one younger) When he was 17 and I was 15 it became clear that when he slept someone was sneaking into his room with the bald stick and whacking him hard. I knew my time was running out so I decided that rather than calmly let my forehead get longer and longer I would go out in one last hurrah of full haired glory. I would shun barbers until the very moment when it became obvious that I had lost the battle then finish it all with a blazing razor of glory. 
That was 15 years ago. My forehead has stayed in the same place. Both of my brothers have followed my uncles lead and taken what they used to spend at the barber and invested in hats and sunblock. 
At this point I could go back to getting hair cuts I suppose but I'd feel just as weird with short hair as most posters here would feel with long hair. This is just who I am. Almost noone outside my family that I come in contact with has ever seen me with short hair. At this point it's just way easier to go with the status quo. And I like it. I've liked it for a long time. 
My hair doesn't match my clothes? Just something for people to wrap their heads around when they meet me. I think it gives them a bit of a pause that leads to a question of who I am instead of just assuming they know who I am by my look. 
I hope that explains it. Now you know why I always look at the camera when I do the What are you wearing pictures.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

FM,
A few years ago I found an old army duffel filled with WW11 uniforms from a man who was evidently my size. I was able to keep four khaki shirts and two pairs of pants, needing no alteration. The rest I tossed. The shirts are unbelievably well made and I'll probably be able to keep them the rest of my life. The pants are well made too but I've just never figured out the full-cut thing. I mean... why? Yes, they're about the same dimensions as Bill's M1, meaning they balloon on me. Consequently I don't wear them much. But here's my point in writing... your khakis, when compared visually to my WW11 khakis are indeed very similar, including the narrow belt loops. I'm glad you like yours.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

familyman said:


> The fabric felt hard and unwashed, just the way clothes should be when new. I'm not a fan of having a company pre-wash the first 2-5 years of life out of clothes for me.


This is SO true. I get sick and tired of sellers acting like they're doing a favor by "aging" my khakis - I don't want my khakis aged or sanded or given some other bogus "faded in" look or a "soft hand" and damn near almost frayed at the pockets and cuff, etc. I want stiff, hard wearing twill - I'll put the "wear" in my khakis, than you very much.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

well-kept said:


> FM,
> Consequently I don't wear them much.


Well, if they're about a 32 or so I can imagine a situation where they could find a home where they would be loved and appreciated and worn. Just something I could envision. Hypothetically.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

familyman said:


> I hope that explains it. Now you know why I always look at the camera when I do the What are you wearing pictures.


Well, if it makes you feel better, it's very Colonial Williamsburg...how much more "trad" can you get? 

For anyone who's aghast that I would ask such a personal question in a public forum, you should know that I originally PM'd familyman about it privately, but he asked me to post my inquiry in the thread so everyone could read his answer. He is now entitled to ask me the prying question of his choice (anyone remember "Truth or Dare?")


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

KentW said:


> Well, if it makes you feel better, it's very Colonial Williamsburg...how much more "trad" can you get?
> 
> For anyone who's aghast that I would ask such a personal question in a public forum, you should know that I originally PM'd familyman about it privately, but he asked me to post my inquiry in the thread so everyone could read his answer. He is now entitled to ask me the prying question of his choice (anyone remember "Truth or Dare?")


Excellent. Thanks for posting this explanantion. I must admit that I was taken aback by your question.

As I said in the Allen secretary thread - Family, you are a good sport.

Truth or Dare, wasn't that a horrible Madonna movie?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

paper clip said:


> Excellent. Thanks for posting this explanantion. I must admit that I was taken aback by your question.
> 
> As I said in the Allen secretary thread - Family, you are a good sport.
> 
> Truth or Dare, wasn't that a horrible Madonna movie?


I did ask Kent to bring it forward in the thread, he's a good sport for doing so. 
Because of the pictures I posted I thought it was probably time for an explination to you guys. I sort of felt like I was in a room full of people staring at me and only one guy speaks up and asks why there's a jellyfish in my pants. Better to tell the whole group about the jellyfish and set everyone at ease. 
(this last part isn't biographical by the way)


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

Rocker said:


> This is SO true. I get sick and tired of sellers acting like they're doing a favor by "aging" my khakis - I don't want my khakis aged or sanded or given some other bogus "faded in" look or a "soft hand" and damn near almost frayed at the pockets and cuff, etc. I want stiff, hard wearing twill - I'll put the "wear" in my khakis, than you very much.


yes, yes, yes. well said. in fact, that's one of the greatest appeals of these BRickson pants.

And thanks, Familyman, for posting all this info. A couple things based on the photo: the rise looks long (not short) because of how long the fly placket looks -- is it an optical illusion because they're high-waisted? And you mention the twill being a slightly lighter weight than Bills. I ask for clarity because I don't think the twill on Bills is anything that special and to think these are lighter weight is slightly disappointing. Then again, if it's a tighter weave twill ... never mind.

The other thing that might prevent me from ordering -- aside from the price and my allegiance to Bills -- is the back pockets. Are they both slits without a button closure ... or does the right rear pocket have a button?

Thanks. They look like an awesome product. And I can already tell you're going to love 'em for a long, long time.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

zignatius said:


> yes, yes, yes. well said. in fact, that's one of the greatest appeals of these BRickson pants.
> 
> And thanks, Familyman, for posting all this info. A couple things based on the photo: the rise looks long (not short) because of how long the fly placket looks -- is it an optical illusion because they're high-waisted? And you mention the twill being a slightly lighter weight than Bills. I ask for clarity because I don't think the twill on Bills is anything that special and to think these are lighter weight is slightly disappointing. Then again, if it's a tighter weave twill ... never mind.
> 
> ...


The rise is within 1/4 inch of Bills M1. The fly is longer but the pants really fit the same. 
The fabric feels tighter. If you've ever taken a pair of pants from brand new all the way to worn out you know how the feel of it changes over time. This makes it really hard sit down and compare a new pair of BR's with my Bills. At this point I wouldn't give the advantage to either one on fabric. The bills feels like it's slightly heavier but the Ricksons feel like a tighter weave. 
Both rear pockets are slits, no buttons. I like it better this way. Symetry and all that.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

FM,
i'm very intrigued. i'm definitely not going to rule out a pair. thanks!


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

these are awesome khakis!:icon_cheers: I like the detail of the close together belt loops in the front. Looks very authentic to me.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Great looking pair of khakis...thanks for posting, familyman. As observed by a few others, the maximum 35" waist pretty much eliminates any further consideration of a pair of Buzz Ricksons in my future. Guess I'll have to stick with Bill's, if I want khakis with a button front, prewashed or not.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

When taking photos of un-hemmed pants, simply turn them up on the outside to the right length. It will look like you are wearing 12" cuffs, but the pants will hang right.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

I like them a lot.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

family,

Those look like kick-a** pants.


----------



## jeph (Feb 16, 2006)

Familyman,

You look great! 

jeph


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Hmmm. Have you found the model for vendors who want to sell expensive khakis?*

Familyman,

I've eaten up your photos of the buzz ricksons. All of them. What a treat, the cool package in the mail from Japan, with the cool Rakutan bag. Very evocative. And I totally follow your logic through which you have made the expenditure of $130 US on a pair of khakis seem completely reasonable. Where do I sign up? I think I'm saved from this possibility by the fact that I require a 37 waist. That, plus I'm too, mmmmmm thrift conscious (and wife conscious) to be comfortable following your lead.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you're not far off. After all, didn't we read earlier this year about makers wanting to figure out a way to charge more for khakis? Certainly the interior finish of those BR's has got to count for something. Lovely.

So, to any of you manufacturers out there who are lurking on this board (Misterman?) take notice of the attention paid to these ne-plus-ultra khakis. And what it is (not being pre-washed, for one thing, thank you very much) that has so many of us interested, curious and waiting, with baited breath, for the next report. (I suppose it will be post hemming, post washing & drying. And I suppose you may need to discuss the exact dimensions of the cuff here, before finalizing your instruction to your tailor...) :>)

And your hair and spirit of individual self expression? I wouldn't have it any other way: Pure Trad.

Sign me,

Curiouser and curiouser


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Markus said:


> (I suppose it will be post hemming, post washing & drying. And I suppose you may need to discuss the exact dimensions of the cuff here, before finalizing your instruction to your tailor...) :>)


FamilyMan,

If you want to stay truly authentic to your reproduction and carry the ethos of those post-war co-eds that wore army surplus you should really go uncuffed on these. The Army in WWII never cuffed issue pants for enlistedmen and still hasn't/doesn't for Class A or B uniforms.

I say uncuffed.

Regards,

R.B.W.

p.s. I will try and photo some of those original trousers in the next few days. - r


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

I'm probably going to hem them uncuffed when sitting at the designed for near navel height. I'm going to do the hems long though so when I'm just wearing them around with a sweatshirt all casual like I can do turnups that still look nice. Thanks for your advice Squad, your knowledge of the real deal is useful. Also looking forward to the pictures.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

*Update?*

Hi Familyman,

We are missing you around here!

Wondering if you have any kind of update or new pics of those awesome Buzz Rickson Khakis you bought back in October.

Kindly favor us with an update!

Best wishes,


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

I've just been wearing them off and on. My spreadsheet shows 8 wearings so far. I still haven't hemmed them, I'll get around to it eventually, for now I just cuff them and wear them with my Russells. I would have worn them more but I didn't take them deer hunting or on vacation because they're still my 'good' khakis and I'm trying to be a bit gentle as far as getting them very dirty.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Does anybody recall the Bean chinos of yore?*

They made them the same way up through the late 80s, if memory serves: Military cut, thick, big belt loops. They were actually a bit like the old Brooks chinos, except the latter were a closer fit. Anyway, the Beans were the real deal, I thought. How come nobody makes a nice $30 chino these days that actually looks like those? I know about Bills, but given the money at home these days I'd feel bad spending money on them. If money were no object I'd buy the Japanese repros that Familyman now sports.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

GMC said:


> How come nobody makes a nice $30 chino these days that actually looks like those?


Actually, somebody does. It's just not a store that anybody thinks very highly of. That store is...Old Navy.

Right now I'm sportin' a pair of their so-called super khakis or ultimate khakis. Purists will disdain these because the cotton is treated so they don't wrinkle and don't stain. Oh well. I really like them. They are only $25. The oppty to pull them straight from the dryer, not have to fuss over them, worry about excessive shrinkage or needing to iron 'em up is too much for me to pass up.

Markus
-------
The connoiseur of mainly cheap khakis.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

GMC said:


> They made them the same way up through the late 80s, if memory serves: Military cut, thick, big belt loops. They were actually a bit like the old Brooks chinos, except the latter were a closer fit. Anyway, the Beans were the real deal, I thought. How come nobody makes a nice $30 chino these days that actually looks like those? I know about Bills, but given the money at home these days I'd feel bad spending money on them. If money were no object I'd buy the Japanese repros that Familyman now sports.


I truly apologize to those who must think I am a broken record on this subject, but ebayed Bills Khakis (search your waist size + 1 and the word "Bill" in the pants section of ebay) run from $30-40 per pair, plus shipping and alterations, you're looking at $45-$55 for a fantastic pair of khakis in your exact size.


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

More accurate than Bill's from what i have seen... they even have the flat felled seams along the legs.


Now how do I get a pair in the US?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Not sure the wide belt loops are authentic, see the thread on military chinos. If anything, the pants described in the OPH are more accurate.

DocD


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I've seen the Old Navy "Super Khakis" and while an impressive chino for 25 bucks the slant front pockets are a deal breaker for me. I'm sure I don't have to apologize for being a moldy fig on an OCD forum, but to me, chinos have on-seam pockets or else they're not chinos, they're jean-like pants made of chino material.

Peter



Markus said:


> Actually, somebody does. It's just not a store that anybody thinks very highly of. That store is...Old Navy.
> 
> Right now I'm sportin' a pair of their so-called super khakis or ultimate khakis. Purists will disdain these because the cotton is treated so they don't wrinkle and don't stain. Oh well. I really like them. They are only $25. The oppty to pull them straight from the dryer, not have to fuss over them, worry about excessive shrinkage or needing to iron 'em up is too much for me to pass up.
> 
> ...


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

The Continental Fop said:


> I've seen the Old Navy "Super Khakis" and while an impressive chino for 25 bucks the slant front pockets are a deal breaker for me. I'm sure I don't have to apologize for being a moldy fig on an OCD forum, but to me, chinos have on-seam pockets or else they're not chinos, they're jean-like pants made of chino material.
> 
> Peter


That may be how you feel, but if you look at military chinos you'll find a slash to the pockets. At least on many of them. There's a big difference between the top of the pockets being one inch off the seams and jeans pockets which are 5 inches off the seams and curved to boot.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Thanks for bringing up military chinos, good point. But personally, I am less concerned with slavish WWII period detail than I am in having pants that look good, and I prefer the way on-seam pockets look on chinos. To me, off-seam pockets on pants other than jeans just looks weird. But what do I know? I have literally cried laughing reading some of the ascot threads. To each his own. I was just pointing out that the aforementioned Old Navy Super Khakis are distinctly different from Bill's/Rickson/etc. high-end chinos in that they have slash pockets, so before guys rush to the site to order them they should consider this.

Peter



familyman said:


> That may be how you feel, but if you look at military chinos you'll find a slash to the pockets. At least on many of them. There's a big difference between the top of the pockets being one inch off the seams and jeans pockets which are 5 inches off the seams and curved to boot.


----------

