# Slim Fit Trousers?



## midtownmainer (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi All,

I am fortunately of adequate height and width (i hope) to be able to wear reasonably slim fitting trousers with dress shoes and a collared shirt (i work in consulting). Where are some of the best places to find slimmer fitting dress pants/trousers? Any good spots besides JAB (the only major retailer I know of so far)? I like the BB fabrics and colors, but would like something a tiny bit more fashion forward...

Thanks in advance

Cheers


----------



## saiyar1 (Feb 18, 2010)

You can try your luck with Burlington Coat Factory and TJ Maxx. Their inventory varies a lot by location, but in some nicer areas these stores carry nice quality wool pants. You can come across all sorts of cuts. The only problem is you need to rummage and come back every so often to see what they currently have. A lot of money can be saved this way.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

LE sells trim fit trews as well, and they have a custom service that might help on the fashion-forwardliness front (more choice of fabrics, IIRC).

But what is "fashion forward" when it comes to trousers, anyway?

I would urge caution when departing from classic lines and sober colors, etc.--there are few sartorial fates worse than being caught in a pair of the dreaded "clown pants" or "jacka$$ slacks" (especially if you paid extra for them).


----------



## juffman (May 19, 2010)

Banana republic? https://www.bananarepublic.com/products/mens-slim-fit-pants.jsp


----------



## ExpertiseInNone (Nov 5, 2008)

Brooks Brothers and JAB slimmer pants are probably going to be still slim when it comes to your taste. I assume.

Banana Republic and J. Crew will offer slimmer stuff as well, but it really all depends on what you are looking for. You need to be honest with yourself and ask where do you want it slim, as in seat, thighs, or legs. If it's the whole thing then you are better off going into some of those fashion forward brands at any department stores.

Everyone has some version of slim in their line up these days because it is a profitable venture, but not all slims are created the same.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Decided to be the last person to jump onto this tired trend, eh?


----------



## midtownmainer (Jan 12, 2010)

haha. thanks for the responses gents. I knew I'd get a few cracks.
To caveat my original post (and to go on the defensive), by fashion forward I simply meant a trouser that fit along the lines of these suit pants (i.e. nothing too billowy and more form fitting around the leg). certainly not trying to stray too far along the sartorial bell curve...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Decided to be the last person to jump onto this tired trend, eh?


Whew! I'm proceeding with caution when I narrow chinos to 16"...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah, see, I don't know why you'd want a pair of pants that fit like that. Notice that the fabric can't fall straight at all, can't maintain a crease for more than a couple of inches, etc. Everything is bunching and pulling, and the dude is just standing still.

What's more, I'm increasingly confident that the trend is nearly expired. David Reeves, a poster who is also a bespoke tailor in NYC, recently posted that suddenly his clients were all demanding pleated trousers, etc. That's probably because the racks of clothing at Wal-Mart and Target are now full of "slim fit" pants... when _everyone_ is in on a trend, that trend can't stay hip for much longer.

If you like the look, go for it. But I have the feeling that in a pretty short period of time, it's going to look about as current and modern as a Member's Only jacket. "Slim fit" are the parachute pants of the 00's.


----------



## midtownmainer (Jan 12, 2010)

Sage advice cuffdaddy. Much appreciated. As a young professional in New York I am just a bit tired of seeing so many guys in ill-fitting wide slacks, loose fitting sack suits, and square toed monstrosities. Now, while these pants may not fit this gentleman, in the ways you describe, I am looking more at the overall 'tailored' look that he is sporting. Perhaps I just favor a more European cut. This gent is another example of the style I [somewhat] aspire to (as you can tell i enjoy perusing webuomo):


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

midtownmainer said:


> Sage advice cuffdaddy. Much appreciated. As a young professional in New York I am just a bit tired of seeing so many guys in ill-fitting wide slacks, loose fitting sack suits, and square toed monstrosities. Now, while these pants may not fit this gentleman, in the ways you describe, I am looking more at the overall 'tailored' look that he is sporting. Perhaps I just favor a more European cut. This gent is another example of the style I [somewhat] aspire to (as you can tell i enjoy perusing webuomo):


It looks like he is wearing his girlfriend's leggings. I fear the i-gentry has taken the notion of tailored clothing to shocking extremes. No thank you.

There is a happy medium between the way too small "fashion forward" trend and the wide ill-fitting pants you encounter daily. My guess is the pants you reference in everyday life are most likely worn way too low on the hips and have had the length properly tailored.

The ugly sack suits you mention is generally someone wearing a suit two sizes to big for them. Going to the opposite extreme is no better.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Allow me to suggest that what is off-putting to you about the "ill-fitting wide slacks, [and] loose fitting sack* suits" is not the looseness of fit, but the lack of shape. A bit of ease, properly shaped, is far more appealing than a too-small fit that clings and binds, destroying the line entirely. Consider, for instance, this old drawing - though the clothes are "loose" by the standards of many retailers today, and the pants "wide," they have an appealing shape:










* Incidentally, there are _very_ few sack suits seen today. Sack suits have no darting. A darted jacket worn two sizes too large to allow it to accomodate a burgeoning gut does not thereby become a sack suit.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

Clothes with a bit more slack may be more beautiful, but if you have the physical shape to take advantage of them, the slim fit makes the WEARER look better.

We must never forget that at least a subset of the forum are studying clothes to better our appearance rather than out of a desire to display beautiful clothing.

I don't think the two are incompatible they can have different priorities for different men. The same cut of garment can make one man look great, and another like a mess.

Perhaps most importantly, attitude does wonders for presentation - If one is wearing even mediocre clothes that makes them feel like they are dressed great and look like a million bucks, they will look better in person than if they are wearing impeccably tailored bespoke garments of the best fabrics which make them uncomfortable or insecure.

Honestly all other arguments aside, I think slim is here to stay just because skinny becomes more and more a status symbol as first world nations average waist line continues to grow.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

David E: nonsense. The styles that _endure_ are those that make the majority of men look good. Styles that flatter only a small a minority come and go, and constitute fleeting fashion.

"Slim" fitting trousers flatter _nobody_. They merely refrain from outright humiliating about 20% of men. Unlike women, a man's anatomy does not permit trousers to be truly form fitting without some substantial stretch in the fabric (e.g., spandex). Unless men are going to accept wearing tights, the choice will always be between vertical folds (i.e., creases, pleats, and/or drape) and horizontal lines (radiating crotch lines, folds around the knee, etc.). There is _nobody_ who looks _better_ with horizontal snagging of the fabric around their legs. Nobody.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37557883/ns/health-behavior/


----------



## midtownmainer (Jan 12, 2010)

Cuffdaddy - I agree wholeheartedly that shape is much more important than anything TOO small or slim. Those old-time gents certainly look well-polished (albeit in a very classical, almost country style- since I am only 23, the thought of myself trying to pull off that look is already an eyesore). I myself do not subscribe to the most recent trend of blazer and suit jackets that look too tight, stretched, or clingy (like those found in recent j.crew catalogs). The same goes for trousers. The intention of the op was to find a pair of pants that found the happy medium that 46L describes (After examining the 2nd picture I supplied it does become obvious that those trousers are too tight in the thigh). I am simply trying to find a modern look for myself that highlights my modernity and youth while still making me come across as well put together and professional.

I believe I will end up buying a couple pairs of these pants, which, in my opinion, fit the model exactly as I'd like them to: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ITISH-TAN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=

To further my thinking about the general state of new york menswear, I think that tailoring is at a premium in New York and that many men simply do not take the time to ensure that their clothes "fit" according to their particular body shapes. I see many slimmer men walking around midtown with jackets that could show much better waist suppression (or any at all) that would truly flatter their particular body types, without ruining the drape or fit of the garments in question.

ps- thanks for the note on sack suits. I was clearly unsure of what they describe and will now make sure to look out for darting and fit more than simply a wider shape.

David E - Thank for your thoughtful response. What you have said in your first paragraph was what I should have iterated at the beginning of my original post. I am only trying to accentuate my own look and not necessarily trying to play into any sort of trend or movement. I too believe that slimmer fitting clothing is here to stay (read: slimmer, not tight, too tight or hipster slim), as the younger generation searches for clothes that have a more tailored and form-fitting style. The fact that a frightening amount of children and adolescents are overweight will only provide a backstop for this trend, imho.

cheers


----------



## juffman (May 19, 2010)

Great discussion! Someone at my college reunion showed up in a tight suit with very tight trousers. It's difficult for me to describe exactly how it looked.... the pants actually tightened up as they went down to the point that you could actually see the contour of his leg. The trousers were almost like loose fitting tights! The fabric bunched at the knee quite horribly and pinched and created horizontal lines everywhere. I don't have the fashion sense of many on this forum, but I knew it looked very feminine and quite awful. I'm all for clothes fitting, but I like my trousers to hang a bit and not cling to me. I just took some quite large trousers in for a complete tailoring and I can't wait to get them back, they looked great when the tailor pulled them in during the fitting. I feel like part of this fad is overly advertising that you had your entire suit tailored to fit you, and the rest of it is showing off your frame, but I'd prefer the comfort and decency of a regular fit. 

What do you all think of Ryan Seacrest suits this year on american idol? Too tight, or just right? My wife says too tight...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Sure, the fabrics in the old drawing are country, but there's nothing inherently city or country about the cut. Nor is there anything inherently young or old about tight versus loose clothing. Plenty of old men waddle around in tight pants. The "sag" style of clothing was invented by juvenile delinquents. Shape and line are no respecters of age.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> "Slim" fitting trousers flatter _nobody_. They merely refrain from outright humiliating about 20% of men.


That isn't true at all. First we must differentiate from "slim" or "tailored" fit and "skinny" fit. For example, I wear slim fit Dockers khakis and they are just about as full cut on me as regular ones are on most folks. Their full cut pants literally swallow me. I recently bought a pair of JAB "tailored" fit dress pants and still had to have them altered further just to make them fit like regular cut pants fit other guys.

Many "slim" or "tailored" fit pants are nothing more than full cut pants with a smidgen taken out of the seat and thigh areas. Even though I am only 145 pounds at 5'9" tall, at age 61 my waist is 33". When I was 25 years old and weighed ten pounds more at 155 pounds, my waist was only 30". Age has a way of distributing things in odd ways. Not only that but hair also starts growing out of your ears, but I digress. I need slim or tailored fit pants so I can make the seat and thighs match the waist and look like regular pants do on everyone else.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cruiser, obviously slim is a relative term. But when I say "slim" (with the sarcastic quotation marks) I mean the stuff shown in the photos in this thread. Of course old men with chicken legs may want pants with a touch less room in the thighs.


----------



## TEL (Nov 13, 2009)

46L said:


> It looks like he is wearing his girlfriend's leggings. I fear the i-gentry has taken the notion of tailored clothing to shocking extremes. No thank you.


Ha! These pants are terrible. They are not "trim" or "slim" - they are too tight. Period. I actually think that the jacket and shirt fit well though.

I ran into a similar situation getting measured for and trying some RL Black Label last month. The lady that was helping me just kept going tighter and tighter and shorter and shorter on the trousers and jackets. Even my girlfriend said I looked ridiculous - like I was trying on "youth" clothes! This was my signal to leave - and the lady actually gave me her card and commented that if I didn't go with these styles I would be "way out of fashion" and "to see her when I was ready to be fashionable!" Hope she's not holding her breath...


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

TEL said:


> Ha! These pants are terrible. They are not "trim" or "slim" - they are too tight. Period. I actually think that the jacket and shirt fit well though.


I can not see enough of the shirt to be able to tell how it fits, though the multiple open buttons just beg for the collar to be worn out over the jacket collar... and two or three gold chains to fill the opening. (A chest rug wold definitely help complete the look!)

The jacket, on the other hand, fits terribly. What "waist suppression" there is, is above the waist, suppressing the chest, instead. And it is far too tight at the button, causing the jacket to gape open below the button, giving a reasonably slim man the appearance of having quite a belly. (And what is going on with all of those wrinkles and folds on the chest?)

The trousers, as noted by others, are a frighteningly terrible fit.

I wonder when the notion arose that "tailored" means cut skin-tight. 
A well tailored garment should have a pleasing form and drape, accentuate the positive attributes of a man's shape, and de-accentuate those aspects which are not so attractive. It should also maintain good proportions overall, with visual balance between upper and lower body, and not cause any part of the wearer to appear too large or too small.


----------



## sdjordan (Oct 29, 2008)

*J Crew Classic Fit.*


----------



## sdjordan (Oct 29, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> "Slim" fitting trousers flatter _nobody_. They merely refrain from outright humiliating about 20% of men.


Obtuse


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

You're going to have to be more clear than that, if you want me to understand what you're getting at.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

TEL said:


> This was my signal to leave - and the lady actually gave me her card and commented that if I didn't go with these styles I would be "way out of fashion" and "to see her when I was ready to be fashionable!" Hope she's not holding her breath...


Usually I find dumb people annoying, but I find this lady almost amusing.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

A well done '60s cut trouser can look really good. They have some ease in the seat and thigh and taper from the knee. I'm talking about Mad Men/Take Ivy/JFK rather than the too-tight mod look of the late '60s. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of fashion designers are interpreting in this supposed '60s revival. I don't like the two trousers pictured in this thread, especially the second. All the bunching and pulling looks really bad.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Just curious. Those who are against the the slim look: What are your waist sizes?


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

3holic said:


> Just curious. Those who are against the the slim look: What are your waist sizes?


32. Don't make this about weight.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)




----------



## KenAF (Apr 23, 2010)

Wear whatever you want while out on the town, but don't wear slim-fitting pants for an interview where you care about the outcome. Those that do hiring and promoting tend to have more traditional tastes.

For formal and business attire, the upper and lower body should be as proportional as possible. If you are very slim with a 28" waist, no gut, no chest, and slim shoulders, then slimmer pants fit can put both your upper and lower body in proportion; in that case, such pants may make sense. On the other hand, if you have a 32+" waist, gut, large chest, or wide shoulders, then slimmer pants put the lower body out of proportion as seen in the picture above.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

David_E said:


> Clothes with a bit more slack may be more beautiful, but if you have the physical shape to take advantage of them, the slim fit makes the WEARER look better.
> 
> We must never forget that at least a subset of the forum are studying clothes to better our appearance rather than out of a desire to display beautiful clothing.
> 
> ...


Agree! We wear clothes to improve our appearances, not to display beautiful clothing. To do otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

I believe in the saying "you wears clothes, don't let the clothes wear you."

As long as there are no horizontal crease lines due to pants being too tight, the slim look can be quite stylish if it is done right.

That said, I hate the Thom Browne school boy look, because it is way over-done with its shrink-wrap cut. It is gimmicky and ridiculous.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The next pair of "slim look" pants I see in real life that _don't_ have horizontal stress lines, star-crotch, and/or a lousy fall/crease will be the first.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

amplifiedheat said:


> 32. Don't make this about weight.


You may be thin. But I have a suspicion there are some sour grapes.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Your suspicion is misplaced. There are no "sour grapes" being falsely declared. I have eaten the grapes, and they _are _sour. I am not "thin," particularly in the legs. I do not for the life of me understand why a man would want to ensure that his pants bind and snag his legs - that is exactly the look that those of us with more robust legs fear. *When a normally-proportioned man buys "slim look" pants, he is buying the same fit problems that a fat or muscular man always has!!!*


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Your suspicion is misplaced. There are no "sour grapes" being falsely declared. I have eaten the grapes, and they _are _sour. I am not "thin," particularly in the legs. I do not for the life of me understand why a man would want to ensure that his pants bind and snag his legs - that is exactly the look that those of us with more robust legs fear. *When a normally-proportioned man buys "slim look" pants, he is buying the same fit problems that a fat or muscular man always has!!!*


Slim look does not = sausage look.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

3holic said:


> Slim look does not = sausage look.


Ah, here's the disputed fact. I have yet to see the "slim look" tackled in such a way as to not become the "sausage look," or at least the rumpled, clinging, just-shy-of-sausage look. Look at virtually any picture of a man "pulling off" the "slim look," and you will see pants bunching, pulling, folding, etc., _against_ the grain of the crease. Even if they can momentarily create a decent trouser line by standing still with legs together, it is destroyed the moment they walk... and the wrinkles persist when they come to rest.


----------



## midtownmainer (Jan 12, 2010)

As this thread has strayed a bit from my original intentions I just want to try and clear things up by re-interpreting what I meant by 'slim.' I was by no means searching for a pair of pants that would produce horizontal creases, or appear rumpled, clingy, sausagey (God-forbid), or the like (apologies for the misleading photos- the second is quite bad looking back on it- the first is closer to what I was looking for). Simply put, I wanted a pair that would accentuate my figure, without making myself look completely out of proportion. As previously noted, I believe this to be the pair that most accurately fits my intended description: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ITISH-TAN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=

That being said, thanks to all for the responses and spirited discussion.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Ah, here's the disputed fact. I have yet to see the "slim look" tackled in such a way as to not become the "sausage look," or at least the rumpled, clinging, just-shy-of-sausage look. Look at virtually any picture of a man "pulling off" the "slim look," and you will see pants bunching, pulling, folding, etc.,


Here are some pictures of me wearing a pair of Dockers "Slim Fit" khakis. I don't know what the "sausage" look is but I fail to see how making these pants more full cut, or baggier, would decrease the lines or wrinkles.




























Like I said, "slim fit" or "tailored fit" doesn't necessarily mean skinny or skin tight.

Cruiser


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

midtownmainer said:


> As this thread has strayed a bit from my original intentions I just want to try and clear things up by re-interpreting what I meant by 'slim.' I was by no means searching for a pair of pants that would produce horizontal creases, or appear rumpled, clingy, sausagey (God-forbid), or the like (apologies for the misleading photos- the second is quite bad looking back on it- the first is closer to what I was looking for). Simply put, I wanted a pair that would accentuate my figure, without making myself look completely out of proportion. As previously noted, I believe this to be the pair that most accurately fits my intended description: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ITISH-TAN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=
> 
> That being said, thanks to all for the responses and spirited discussion.


I have all four colors of the regent fit plain front gabardines, and they fit me very well. I, or anyone else for that matter, have yet to notice any bunching or stress lines. The BB regent pants actually fit much less closer to the body than other slim-fit brands. In fact, their Madison line appears too baggy on me, and makes me look shorter than I already am.

If you like these, you may also want to try BB's Clark fit pants (chinos). Good luck.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cruiser, those pants are only slim in the sense that a marketing exec decided to sell pants marked slim that would fit fairly ordinary to overweight people to make them feel good about themselves. A common practice these days.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Bog said:


> Cruiser, those pants are only slim in the sense that a marketing exec decided to sell pants marked slim that would fit fairly ordinary to overweight people to make them feel good about themselves. A common practice these days.


No, they are trimmer through the seat and thigh with a slightly shorter rise than the regular Dockers khakis and any other regular cut khakis that I've ever worn. Dockers only recently came out with this "Slim Fit" line and prior to that I had a heck of a time finding khakis that fit me. The regular cut Dockers literally swallow me up.

When these came out I ordered one pair to try them out. As soon as I put them on I was so happy to find pants that actually fit that I promptly gave all my khakis to Goodwill and ordered eight more pairs of these. Keep in mind that I'm 5'9" and only weigh 145 pounds.

Cruiser


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Bog, 

While marketing guys often do make unsubstantiated, or even false, claims (e.g. new and improved, lite, etc), slimmer clothing can be easily verified with measuring tape.

Just measure slim-fit pants and shirts and you will see they are indeed slimmer than those from the recent past. Or just look at the sizing charts of retailers that sell slim-fit clothing.

P.S. those pants look good on you, Cruiser.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

Bog said:


> Cruiser, those pants are only slim in the sense that a marketing exec decided to sell pants marked slim that would fit fairly ordinary to overweight people to make them feel good about themselves. A common practice these days.


I think you may be on to something there, but I suspect it goes the other way. I suspect (only from anecdotal and superficial observation - no tests run) that in the last few years many brands have been indulging in size inflation that has caused sizes to drift upwards. In women's cloths this has been going on for a long time since if someone can fit into a size 3 instead of their normal size 5 they feel thrilled and want to buy the product.

I think a lot of the "slim" and "tailored" fit lines are just closer to actual measurements, or original patterns while the "traditional" normal have frequently drifted upwards to avoid bruising the ego of men with expanding waistlines. (As one of the stereo-types of men is that they like to find the size/brand/cut they like and then keep buying it forever). After enough time the normal doesn't fit anyone who hasn't moved along with the trend....

I would welcome a refutation of my hypothesis though


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

David_E said:


> I think you may be on to something there, but I suspect it goes the other way. I suspect (only from anecdotal and superficial observation - no tests run) that in the last few years many brands have been indulging in size inflation that has caused sizes to drift upwards.


I suspect that you might be right. At 61 years of age I've probably been wearing pants longer than most forum members (the ones who are older than me, you know who you are :icon_smile_big: ); therefore, you would think that I would know for sure one way or the other.

I do know that over the past 40 years the average American male has grown in size. In fact, if memory serves me right the Dockers brand was originally built around the more "mature" body type so they may have started out slightly larger. Shortly thereafter it became commonplace for pants to be marketed as "relaxed" fit to the point that this is about all that was out there.

I'm not sure that men are getting smaller but there does seem to be a trend toward more "tailored" or "slim" fit cuts. With most brands such as BB, Dockers, Lands End, and JAB this doesn't mean "skinny" or tight fitting but rather simply some of the "ease" that was previously put in has been taken out of the seat and thigh areas.

When I think back to the 60's, 70's, or even 80's I don't remember it being so difficult to find pants that fit me like it has been for the past 15 or so years. Everything got bigger. I for one am glad to see some trimmer fitting clothing on the market given that I'm a relatively slender person.

Cruiser


----------



## trailer36 (Jun 6, 2007)

Do yourself a favor and check out howardyount.com. i just bought 4 pairs of trousers there that fit perfectly and sound like exactly what you are looking for. not too tight but fitted. also, has a slightly lower rise than most so that there isnt too much extra material around the crotch. my favorite pants i own and i have basically stopped wearing my others.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

David_E said:


> I think you may be on to something there, but I suspect it goes the other way. I suspect (only from anecdotal and superficial observation - no tests run) that in the last few years many brands have been indulging in size inflation that has caused sizes to drift upwards. In women's cloths this has been going on for a long time since if someone can fit into a size 3 instead of their normal size 5 they feel thrilled and want to buy the product.
> 
> I think a lot of the "slim" and "tailored" fit lines are just closer to actual measurements, or original patterns while the "traditional" normal have frequently drifted upwards to avoid bruising the ego of men with expanding waistlines. (As one of the stereo-types of men is that they like to find the size/brand/cut they like and then keep buying it forever). After enough time the normal doesn't fit anyone who hasn't moved along with the trend....
> 
> I would welcome a refutation of my hypothesis though


Not so. While size inflation (i.e. vanity sizing) has been going on for a number of years for both women's and men's clothing, slim-fit trousers are truly slimmer in the pant legs. When I shop, I pay no attention to the size label. Rather, I try them on to ensure a proper fit at the waist. And I venture to say that is how most people, especially AAAC folks, buy their trousers.

I have found trousers from the newer collections -- even those that are_ not_ labeled as trim-fit or tailored-fit -- are indeed slimmer in the pant legs even though the waist sizes are the same as those from older collections.

Likewise for shirts. With same neck size, slim-fit shirts do have trimmer bodies than the regular-fit ones.

Many internet retailers post size charts on their website. Check it out to confirm.


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

I agree with Cruiser on the slim fit Dockers. These pants fit me very well though I wish the rise was a bit higher. I'm 5'10" , 150 lbs, 33" waist and all the khakis and pants I bought in the past needed to be tailored in the seat and leg.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I suspect that you might be right. At 61 years of age I've probably been wearing pants longer than most forum members (the ones who are older than me, you know who you are :icon_smile_big: ); therefore, you would think that I would know for sure one way or the other.
> 
> I do know that over the past 40 years the average American male has grown in size. In fact, if memory serves me right the Dockers brand was originally built around the more "mature" body type so they may have started out slightly larger. Shortly thereafter it became commonplace for pants to be marketed as "relaxed" fit to the point that this is about all that was out there.
> 
> ...


A good analysis of the situation.


----------



## Richard Baker (Feb 13, 2009)

Slimmer suit pants might not be good for interviews, but they look good in night clubs - and fit is indeed more important that the slimness as such.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Here are some pictures of me wearing a pair of Dockers "Slim Fit" khakis. I don't know what the "sausage" look is but I fail to see how making these pants more full cut, or baggier, would decrease the lines or wrinkles.


Cruiser, regardless of the label, those do not appear to be "slim fit" as that term is generally used today. Those appear to be well within the historical norms for traditional pants. Of course slimness of fit is relative to one's body, and you declare that you have fairly thin legs.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Slimmer suit pants might not be good for interviews, but they look good in night clubs - and fit is indeed more important that the slimness as such.


There's some wisdom in that statement. We at AAAC often say things look "good" or "not good." But there are many different conceptions of "good," and many are context-dependent. In a sweaty, noisy nightclub filled with inebriated young single people, a look of overt sexuality is not necessarily out of place. In a professional setting, or for an adult with a stable family/home life, overt sexuality in dress is silly. If looking "good" means "ready for a roll in the hay," then that leads to one manner of dress. If looking "good" means "dignified, respectable, cultured, affluent, etc." then that leads to a different manner of dress.

All that said, pants that cannot maintain a crease because they are being pulled tight whenever the wearer moves is just not a good look ever to my eye.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, regardless of the label, those do not appear to be "slim fit" as that term is generally used today.


Actually that's my point. With most non-fashion forward brands labels like "slim fit" and "tailored fit" don't mean that they are skin tight with tiny leg openings. You are lumping the slim and tailored fit cuts from these brands with the "skinny" fit of the fashion forward brands. Many traditional brands like Brooks Brothers, JAB, Dockers, and Lands End are offering slim and tailored fit cuts that are nothing more than conservative fit clothing for slender people.

Like you suggest and I have said, the Dockers slim fit khakis look the same on me as their full cut khakis do on someone not as slender as I am, and I think that is the purpose of these trimmer cut but still conservative fitting pants.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I don't think I _was_ lumping them in. I generally put "slim" in quotation marks to try to make it clear that I was referncing the affirmatively snug style being pitched these days.

Of course, one can make even moderately cut trousers "slim" by buying them 1-2 sizes too small!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course, one can make even moderately cut trousers "slim" by buying them 1-2 sizes too small!


Which is what I've often done with wool dress pants. Of course the waist is easily let out to make them fit in the waist. This isn't possible with most off the rack khaki pants.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

And I have frequently done the opposite: buy larger sizes to get legs that will drape/hang to my satisfaction and have the waist taken in. As I mentioned earlier, I have rather robust legs (the evolutionary legacy of generations of plow-pushing farmer ancestors, I suspect).


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*For casual . . .*

. . . Dockers "D1" is the slimmest of their casual trouser lines, which go from D1 to D4. Just about anyone can be accommodated by one or another of those iterations, IMO. Other makers have a slimmer version, as well. I got a pair of Kenneth Coles at an outlet store that are a finer version of khaki.

The key here, as so many have noted, is fit. Whether the cut is trim or not, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. No, that's from another trial


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> . . . Dockers "D1" is the slimmest of their casual trouser lines, which go from D1 to D4.


The "D1" is what I had on in the pictures I posted earlier in this thread.

Cruiser


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

Blueboy1938 said:


> The key here, as so many have noted, is fit. Whether the cut is trim or not, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. No, that's from another trial


**ding ding ding ding** we have a winner!

Getting bogged down in slim/relaxed/full cut is a wild goose chase and a distraction. The important thing is to wear clothes that actually fit and that the wearer feels flatters them. We should thank the gods of fashion that at this moment we have so many options to choose from in finding OTR cuts to achieve that goal.

For the record and to avoid getting involved in future arguments about this (again and again and again), when I say "slim" or slim, I do not mean tight, 2 sizes too small, hipster style, skinny, painted on, body-paint-like, vulgarly revealing, or anything else of the type. The strawman is dead, scatter the ashes and move on.

I mean "lacking in excessive material that detracts from the fit and appearance of the garment and wearer" or "an appropriate and flattering cut for a slender, lanky, or thin body shape." Considering the type of folks who find this board, I expect most others do as well.

Now there are a number of weasel words in there that one could argue about incessantly - excessive, flattering, appropriate, etc. But once one is no longer wearing a parachute or spandex there is a big area of personal taste, opinion, and aesthetics in between - which are not objective standards but personal ones and thus have no "right" answer. Lets accept that we have our own opinions and they are nothing more than that.

Caveat:

Some ritual occasions such as job interviews for some professions require disregard for personal taste and conforming to formalized standards of attire, or (more risky) an attempt to match the taste of others. All clothes are just costumes anyway so don't stress it.


----------

