# Is Bills Khakis the New LL Bean?



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Just got the Bills Khakis Fall Catalog ("Product Line Manual") in the mail. If you can get past the prices, the breadth of items and the country-inspired selection reminds one of what LL Bean has been doing for a long time...except that every item in the BK catalog is US made! No shoes, but otherwise a very solid lineup. 

I guess LL Bean left this space a while back, but it's very impressive to see that BK is filling the vacuum no-holds barred.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Wow, I just took a look at the website. Aside from the sticker shock, they're really making some nice pieces. A Made-in-USA Shetland crewneck with saddle shoulders? Yes please! Not to mention that killer Woolrich wool Blackwatch duffle coat. But all the items are priced out of my reach, which is where the similarities with Bean of old cease.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

No sizes for fat guys like me.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

rwaldron said:


> No sizes for fat guys like me.


You might check big and tall shops. Westport Big & Tall (their site is down tonight) has a basic selection.

Can't seem to get at it throught the selected merchants page, but here it is: 
https://www.westportbigandtall.com/Brands/Bills-Khakis.aspx

Usually, something is on sale...


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I hate to be negative, but think the answer to the opening question is no. Bean was never, IMO, a premium product. It was good value, good quality, good price. I Would expect to pay more, eg at Brooks Brothers than at Bean. The Bills site shows jackets at Brooks Brothers prices. I can live with that. But it also shows shirts at $150 to 250. I only buy the US made must-irons from Brooks, where the regular price is $69. I recently bought 3 at $55 each. While I realize these companies can't survive on their sale prices, at times like these I'm not going to go past an authentic BB shirt for a Bills at triple the cost.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

P Hudson said:


> I hate to be negative, but think the answer to the opening question is no. Bean was never, IMO, a premium product. It was good value, good quality, good price. I Would expect to pay more, eg at Brooks Brothers than at Bean. The Bills site shows jackets at Brooks Brothers prices. I can live with that. But it also shows shirts at $150 to 250. I only buy the US made must-irons from Brooks, where the regular price is $69. I recently bought 3 at $55 each. While I realize these companies can't survive on their sale prices, at times like these I'm not going to go past an authentic BB shirt for a Bills at triple the cost.


Point well taken. The price point at BK is a huge hurdle, and there are certainly USA-made items (like the BB OCBD) that compete favorably with the similar BK item on quality and price. I get that.

I disagree about LL Bean not ever being "premium". There are a couple of iconic items at LL Bean that are/were "premium". For example, thirty years ago, the LL Bean Maine Hunting Shoe was as good as it gets for that particular item. The chamois shirt was as good a chamois shirt as there was. The field coat was very well made. In fact, I still have a pair of LLB hunting boots and a LLB field coat from my college days...25 years ago. Conversely, I suspect that not all of the items in the BK catalog live up to the iconic status of the M1 pants. But that's a side issue.

What is really interesting (and this is what I was getting at in my OP) is that BK looks to be going out of their way to do what LL Bean's founder did way back when: *producing quality items at a price that ensures a (presumably) fair profit*. He's adding a fair amount of degree-of-difficulty by making all of the items in the USA. Don't know if it'll work since the US consumer likes to complain about foreign-made items but doesn't want to pay made-in-USA prices, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Point well taken. The price point at BK is a huge hurdle, and there are certainly USA-made items (like the BB OCBD) that compete favorably with the similar BK item on quality and price. I get that.
> 
> I disagree about LL Bean not ever being "premium". There are a couple of iconic items at LL Bean that are/were "premium". For example, thirty years ago, the LL Bean Maine Hunting Shoe was as good as it gets for that particular item. The chamois shirt was as good a chamois shirt as there was. The field coat was very well made. In fact, I still have a pair of LLB hunting boots and a LLB field coat from my college days...25 years ago. Conversely, I suspect that not all of the items in the BK catalog live up to the iconic status of the M1 pants. But that's a side issue.
> 
> What is really interesting (and this is what I was getting at in my OP) is that BK looks to be going out of their way to do what LL Bean's founder did way back when: producing quality items at a price that ensures a (presumably) fair profit. He's adding a fair amount of degree-of-difficulty by making all of the items in the USA. Don't know if it'll work since the US consumer likes to complain about foreign-made items but doesn't want to pay made-in-USA prices, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.


Interesting point. Its definitely good to see Bills increase their range. I agree with PHudson that BK is targeting a slightly more luxury/premium than LLB did in the day. You say you still have LLBean gear from college days, but I doubt many people are buying BK for their college age children, even those who dress preppy.

Also, the introduction of mail-order business at Bills is pretty recent. I think they mostly supply independent retailers. Probably, sticker prices are with some allowance for end of season discounts.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

I think that LL Bean of 20+ years ago was not necessarily a 'premium' product, but good quality for the price. When you purchased from Bean you knew you were getting a durable, reliable product, or you could return it. I think Bills Khakis' niche, especially now that the basic M2 twills are well over $100, is premium American made for those who want to pay that sort of money. For items like shirts, for example, how can he justify those prices? Quality of the fabric, stitching? Is it really worth that much more? I think his khakis were worth the added premium when they cost $89 and it was difficult to find well made chinos.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

If Bills became the new LLBean it would reflect a wholesale change in American consumer attitudes. We have become accustomed to buying lots of cheap stuff at cheap prices, instead of a few high quality items at high prices.

For example, I suspect many AAAC readers have a closet full of $60 khakis from places like JCrew and Brooks Brothers. Would you rather have one pair of Bills (made in America) or 2/3 pairs of cheaper pants made overseas? There is no easy answer.

But the Bills catalog is aimed squarely at the middle-aged, upper middle class demographic. Most Americans simply aren't going to pay Bills prices.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

Orsini said:


> You might check big and tall shops. Westport Big & Tall (their site is down tonight) has a basic selection.
> 
> Can't seem to get at it throught the selected merchants page, but here it is:
> https://www.westportbigandtall.com/Brands/Bills-Khakis.aspx
> ...


awesome, thanks.


----------



## indigo73 (Apr 19, 2008)

I first ordered clothing from LL Bean in the late 60's. I always found the product quality to be good, but not great, for a reasonable price. On the other hand, Bill's Khakis are a great product but at a premium price. I have several pairs of the M2 plain front which presently retail for $125. I think this price is reasonable. To the poster who asked whether one would prefer 1 pair of Bill's to 2/3 pairs of a lesser brand: Three or four years ago I bought 4 pairs of LLB khakis and one pair of Bill's. After two years, all the Beans had been consigned to the rag bin. The Bill's are still going strong...they look nice enough to wear with a blazer. I don't understand the prices for shirts though. Bill's sells an OCBD for $145 in group sizing(S, M, L, etc). You can buy an OCBD in your size from Mercer and Sons for $107.50. I refuse to pay more than $50 for a shirt offered only in group sizing unless it is for some specialty application like hunting.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

I love Bill's Khakis. Worth the price IMO as they last much longer than anything else I have tried. Brooks, J. Crew, LE, etc wear through in under a year. 

The Shetland is stupid over priced. For half that you can get the same Shetland made in the UK that Hillary wore to conquer Everest shipped to your door. Authentic and still well made. I'll pass on American made as long as the quality and authenticity are there. Pendleton's shetlands are also very nice. 

Gloverall is still the only duffel, got to love pic of Monty wearing one. Same price but you can always thrift decent ones if you are patient.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Not to get sidetracked, but I'm still having trouble with the perception that some LLB items were never premium. The items I described (the LLB Maine Hunting Shoe, the fieldcoat, and chamois shirt) were all well-built, functional, comfortable, timelessly stylish, and durable. Qualities that I associate with "premium". The fact that they were not priced to gouge the consumer shouldn't figure into the calculation of premium or otherwise.

Also, let's consider the issue of prices at LL Bean. When I was in college, I wasn't ordering things willy-nilly from the Bean catalog...as I recall them being rather expensive. As I remember, the prices were reasonable when compared to similar items from Polo RL, Brooks Brothers, or Lacoste, but the prices were higher than items from Duckhead, Tretorn, or Woolrich at the local Army/Navy Store. LL Bean was not the low cost purveyor back then, but I grant that they weren't the most expensive either. BK is definitely not the low-cost purveyor now, and it may be near the high end. So in that metric it is definitely in a different league than Bean...then and now. 

If we adjust for inflation rather crudely, the cost of a pair of M1s today, about $125, is equivalent to about $38 in 1982 dollars. I think that would be a little cheaper than a pair of Polo RL khakis at that time, but considerably more than the $12-15 dollar range for a pair of Duckheads back then. I think the LLB Double L chinos (were they called Rangelies back then?) were less than $20. 

So maybe the apt comparison is to Polo RL instead of LLB...any which way, neither PRL nor LLB make all or most of their stuff in the USA anymore...and unfortunately (if one cares about such things) that's not going to change soon.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Not to get sidetracked, but I'm still having trouble with the perception that some LLB items were never premium. The items I described (the LLB Maine Hunting Shoe, the fieldcoat, and chamois shirt) were all well-built, functional, comfortable, timelessly stylish, and durable. Qualities that I associate with "premium". The fact that they were not priced to gouge the consumer shouldn't figure into the calculation of premium or otherwise.
> 
> SHP, don't forget that the items you list were fairly original hunting gear that go back many decades, goods that had to be made well to satisfy the 'sports' who put LL on the map. When you speak of premium it suggests luxury to me, and that would not be appropriate, no matter how well made they were. The boots and the shirts remain good quality, never owned a field jacket though yearned for one when I couldn't afford one.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Great stuff but the prices make me feel like I just got run over by a Cable Car...


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Just to add to the frustration, didn't Anderson Little just say that they could have produced the RL Olympic duds in the US for basically the same price as the Chinese suppliers who made them? Surely made-in-America is not the reason a sweater costs a couple hundreds dollars. My Rancourts are hand made. I don't picture granny knitting that sweater. Hand made, excellent shoes, shouldn't cost the same as a sweater.

Considering price, I have clothes that I bought in 1982. I have a very nice Gant heavy thing sort of like a letter sweater. It was not cheap in 1982, but I am sure I did not pay $38. My guess is I paid more like $25, on sale. I also had a Lacoste jacket from that same era. It was probably also closer to $25, and at that time you definitely paid a premium for Lacoste.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I think we lose track of the fact that Bean was producing goods at a time in which it was decidedly harder to cheap out on production processes. If loafers were made here on a budget, it was because it was the most cost effective place to do it, not some overriding American loyalty. Bean used to be considerably better because clothing ITSELF in earlier decades was considerably better. Once industry figured out how to cheap out AND make more money, the slide was a collective through the industry I think. Now we have companies producing a premium product that in the 60's would have been medium to high end, but mostly medium.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Not to mention that killer Woolrich wool Blackwatch duff...


That's how far I got reading this thread before going to the site. It's bright, and they didn't use rope, but it's _beautiful_. Then, quite literally, I choked on my diet coke at seeing the price. I'm just not going to take out a loan for this, no matter how beautiful.

If someone here tries it and doesn't like it, I'd appreciate you donating it to my local thrift shop.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Pink and Green said:


> I think we lose track of the fact that Bean was producing goods at a time in which it was decidedly harder to cheap out on production processes. If loafers were made here on a budget, it was because it was the most cost effective place to do it, not some overriding American loyalty. Bean used to be considerably better because clothing ITSELF in earlier decades was considerably better. Once industry figured out how to cheap out AND make more money, the slide was a collective through the industry I think. Now we have companies producing a premium product that in the 60's would have been medium to high end, but mostly medium.


I agree with much of this. I've been trying to not buy anything that I don't expect to last at least 10 years. It won't work with socks, and that's fine. I am however appalled at the marked decline in recent iterations of Jockey and Stafford underwear. In the past, 10 years was possible, but I doubt that I can get that anymore. It was easy to get 20 years out of a basic pair of khakis, eg the Polo Philip pant, and most shirts, and all jackets (I'm not hard on clothes). I wonder what the future holds.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

xcubbies said:


> [
> SHP, don't forget that the items you list were fairly original hunting gear that go back many decades, goods that had to be made well to satisfy the 'sports' who put LL on the map. When you speak of premium it suggests luxury to me, and that would not be appropriate, no matter how well made they were. The boots and the shirts remain good quality, never owned a field jacket though yearned for one when I couldn't afford one.


Point taken...I guess I've been in the mountains too long, where luxury is, well, a luxury!


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

I find that Bills get frazzled at the cuffs much sooner than I think they should for the price. I love the feel and fit of Bills but it seems they just don't stay nice for more than a year or so. 

I've purchased most of mine either from STP or eBay, NWT, and haven't paid more than $60 but if I had paid retail I'd be pretty unhappy.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

mhj said:


> I find that Bills get frazzled at the cuffs much sooner than I think they should for the price. I love the feel and fit of Bills but it seems they just don't stay nice for more than a year or so.
> 
> I've purchased most of mine either from STP or eBay, NWT, and haven't paid more than $60 but if I had paid retail I'd be pretty unhappy.


I've always worn the premium ones (Cramerton, etc.) that are _even more_ expensive but last decades. The standard ones I'm not as impressed with, though nothing else seems as good at their price either.

My secret -- li'l bro and sis used to work for a men's store, so I got discounts (and a lot of great gifts).

Even discounted, this stuff is expensive. But I've easily wasted several times as much on cheaper pants I wasn't happy with, when I could have just bought Bills and been perfectly happy.

Like my 501s, which I buy one of and wear to death. I had some Cramerton-like Bills from the 80s that I actually wore out, eventually -- my all-time favorite pants.

But we never learn, do we? I really am that guy who uses fewer, better things. I should be buying them that way, without compromise.

"My name is.... and I am a crap-consumer..."

Some of my crap will be on the Exchange tomorrow, but it also includes 3 nice pair of Bills, essentially new: M2 khaki standards 34x30 uncuffed, M3 khaki poplins 34x32, and I _might_ part with some nice khaki Cramertons, 34x32 cuffed. Yes you may PM me ahead of time. Why am I getting rid of them? I really should be wearing a 33 or even a 32, a lot slimmer overall than the 34. Help me fund 2 new pair!


----------



## Quorum (Oct 10, 2009)

> But I've easily wasted several times as much on cheaper pants I wasn't happy with, when I could have just bought Bills and been perfectly happy.


Well put.

Would it be nice if they were cheaper? Sure. But there really isn't anything available of similar quality (at least if the things Bill's does well--pockets, zipper, robust casual construction--are important to you) at a lower price, so I've just come to accept that that's what good casual khakis cost now. And when I end up choosing lower quality and lower cost, I almost always end up regretting it and buying the better, pricier option in the end anyway.

I have some khakis from a company in Texas called Earl's Apparel--US-made and cost me all of $40. For $40 they're great. I had a couple pair and wore them most every day for a while. But once I found my right size and fit in Bill's I don't think I've worn them once.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

hardline_42 said:


> Wow, I just took a look at the website. Aside from the sticker shock, they're really making some nice pieces. A Made-in-USA Shetland crewneck with saddle shoulders? Yes please! Not to mention that killer Woolrich wool Blackwatch duffle coat. But all the items are priced out of my reach, which is where the similarities with Bean of old cease.


I received a 52-page fall Product Manual and have looked cover to cover twice but didn't find the duffle coat. Is there more than one version of the catalog out there? What page was it on in the one you saw?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Brooksfan said:


> I received a 52-page fall Product Manual and have looked cover to cover twice but didn't find the duffle coat. Is there more than one version of the catalog out there? What page was it on in the one you saw?


I don't have the paper catalog. I saw it .


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

xcubbies said:


> I think that LL Bean of 20+ years ago was not necessarily a 'premium' product, but good quality for the price. When you purchased from Bean you knew you were getting a durable, reliable product, or you could return it. I think Bills Khakis' niche, especially now that the basic M2 twills are well over $100, is premium American made for those who want to pay that sort of money. For items like shirts, for example, how can he justify those prices? Quality of the fabric, stitching? Is it really worth that much more? I think his khakis were worth the added premium when they cost $89 and it was difficult to find well made chinos.


The prices are in line with having a shirt MTM from Brooks or Mercer and sons. Not bespoke prices by any means. Their value would be subject to the customer. If the materials used are superior like Mercers and last just as long, then yes. I think most people need to get their heads around the fact that paying a bit more will result in a shirt that lasts much longer and in the long run result in savings from not having to replace cheap shirts every two years or so.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

I think you have to be an educated consumer and be willing to exhibit some good yankee thrift as far as Bills are concerned. I have a pair that look better with age after five years now. You can get around the cost of admission if you are patient. As far the rest of his line, I'd much rather buy BB or Mercer Shirts, Gloverall duffles, and the real shetland sweater. You can get the same one Hillary summited Everest with from the same mill that most likely was around when they were introduced to the US way back when. For much cheaper shipped ex-VAT from the UK than the Bill's sweater made in the US. I love US made products, but given the choice I will still go with authentic items first, especially those from the UK. Fair Isles, Devold, Pantherrellas, cavaraly twills. etc...


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Plot thickens...now I see in addition to the Blackwatch plaid duffle there's another variant. This will get interesting as I try to justify the need for two plaid duffles. If Bill's pulls this direct sales business model off we could be seeing the dawn of a new golden age of trad.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Eric W S said:


> The prices are in line with having a shirt MTM from Brooks or Mercer and sons. Not bespoke prices by any means. Their value would be subject to the customer. If the materials used are superior like Mercers and last just as long, then yes. I think most people need to get their heads around the fact that paying a bit more will result in a shirt that lasts much longer and in the long run result in savings from not having to replace cheap shirts every two years or so.


I'm often amused when we discus clothing items and raise the issue of durability. A shirt is not like a tractor and you plan on usng it for twentyfive years. A $160 shirt will fray at the collar with regular wear. Maybe not as quickly as a polyester/cotton blend housebrand from Macy's, but if you're talking value for money you are better off buying three of those departmnt store shirts instead of the one from Bills. Muh of the discussion on quality is really a way for us to justify spending large amounts of money on basic sundrys. The whole designer racket is a manifestation of this on a larger scale. I bet most of the contributors and readers of this blog discard articles of clothing before they wear out. Not because they are so well made but because we tire of them.


----------

