# RL Polo "Prospect" pants



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

This is part rant, and part request for reassurance soooo...


Is it just me, or are these really, really oddly constructed pants?
I bought a pair in RLs post-Christmas sale, and picked up another on ebay by accident (the 100th time I learned the lesson "ask tons of questions and double-check measurements on ebay).

They have an acceptable, high waist, and are fairly full in the hips, but taper to an extraordinarily tiny ankle.
I understand if maybe Ralph wanted to make a trimmer, more "skinny" pant, (as is apparently the trend), but surely you wouldn't put a regular waist on them would you?
(You'll notice ALL the models wearing these pants on the website have their hands in their pockets to obscure this bizare feature)
And then to make it your signature flat front pant?

Am I just crazy? 
Does anyone here wear these pants with satisfaction?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

The "Prospect" I believe was supposed to be the successor to the "Philip" pant, perhaps the most supreme and excellent chino ever created.

The Philip fits me perfectly, while the Prospect is good for lawn mowing and oil changing. Unfortunately this isn't easy to always tell until after a few wears.

Over the last few months I've lost some weight, nearing 30 lbs now, and I uncovered a treasure of "as new" Philip pants (about 5 pair) that I had stashed as I was getting fat in the hope of better times.

I'm so happy. If you're a Philip pant fan then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

-spence


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Love the Phillip, hate the Prospect. The Prospect is just to slim thru the thighs/legs for me.

Brian


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

vwguy said:


> Love the Phillip, hate the Prospect. The Prospect is just to slim thru the thighs/legs for me.


Ditto that. Even the newer "Philip" pants that I've found in places like Stein Mart don't compare to the older model. They're much closer to the Prospect pant in terms of fit.

I don't get it...America's getting fatter, but Ralph's pants are getting slimmer? WTF?


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm a bit round at the midsection, but love the Prospect pant. It fits comfortably up top and the taper down below makes me look and feel a bit slimmer. I will say that they fit far differently from most other RL pants, which could be unnerving if other styles fit you very well.


----------



## nringo (Oct 5, 2007)

Yeah I received a pair of these for xmas from my fiancee and after trying them on, she agreed that they had to go back. I have no idea what sort of person those pants fit and look good on. Like you said, it would be one thing if they were just generally slim, but they are so full in the seat and then slim in the legs....its just odd. Too bad b/c at the outlet they had a bunch of the cords cheap around the holidays.....though I guess that is why.


----------



## msphotog (Jul 5, 2006)

I tried on a pair a few months ago at Dillard's and found that the pair I tried were lower in the rise than the other pairs I have owned. They were also cut quite a bit slimmer than my old ones, and the leg openings were very small. I passed on them and bought a pair of the pleated ones, Hammond I think, but they are really big in the pleat area. I regret buying the Hammonds, but I noticed they now have an alterable waist band, which is an improvement.
Why did they have to screw up some of the best khakis ever made! No telling!

Mark


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Northeastern said:


> I'm a bit round at the midsection, but love the Prospect pant. It fits comfortably up top and the taper down below makes me look and feel a bit slimmer. I will say that they fit far differently from most other RL pants, which could be unnerving if other styles fit you very well.


Care to share a picture?


----------



## PittDoc (Feb 24, 2007)

Prospects work for me but only b/c I have short legs and a bigger waist than I should. Since the shortest anyone makes pants these days is 36x30, I hemmed to 36x28, which makes the ankle opening just right. Most other off-the-rack chinos look like bell-bottoms after they're altered for me.

While we're on the subject, I've noticed subtle differences b/t Propects at Macys and Marshall's versus the pair I bought at Saks (at 50% off). Retail tags on the former are $65, Saks is $99. Inside waistband detail has a strip of madras on the Saks, plain on the others. Are they the same otherwise or are there diffusion line Prospects?


----------



## msphotog (Jul 5, 2006)

PittDoc-I noticed on the Hammonds that I bought there was a tag indicating that the pants had been re-designed with an alterable waistband, and I think the seams are taped w/madras. Perhaps the one pair of your pants were bought before they changed the details, and one afterwards. BTW, the pants I saw at Dillard's were $79.50, I think.

mark S.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I'm going to hazard a guess that "Prospect" is simply current RL-speak for "flat-front chinos," and that the exact pattern/fit/details may vary somewhat depending on where the pants were sourced. This might explain some of the oddness that we're seeing with regard to fit.


----------



## RallyJon (Apr 6, 2006)

Depends how you are built, obviously. The Prospects fit me perfectly where with Bills I end up with a size smaller and let out the waist. Not too trim, not too baggy.

But then, unlike many here, I'm not looking for pants where if I turn around very quickly, the pants are still facing in the same direction.  And I do put my shoes on _after_ my pants, so the Bills #1 leg opening is not needed.

One thing to look out for: the department store version of the Prospect is fully constructed, with a split, alterable waistband and many more high-end details. The outlet version (which is also the version you see on Ebay usually) is very cheaply made, with a one-piece waistband.


----------

