# Bill's M2 fit question (w/ pictures!)



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

Good evening,

I recently purchased my first pair of M2s (driving twill) from STP since they were on sale and I'd been anxious to see what all the fuss was about. Before ordering I did try on both M2s and M3s at a local place and really felt the rise on the M3 was a deal breaker for me. Since the M2s seem to fit and drape so nicely from what I've seen throughout WAYWT, I was excited to give them a shot.

What I'm looking to get an idea of is whether I am swimming in these pants or not. I've never owned trousers with quite this generous of a cut so it's hard for me to gauge.

Please note, I have not had the pants hemmed yet, so I did my best to fold the excess fabric inside and add a cuff (it's a mess, I know). Does the overall fit look reasonable? Should I have more done than a simple hem (Tapered? From the knee?) Just hem 'em and enjoy?

The waist fits perfectly and the fabric feels great. At 5'-11" and 150lbs, I'm hoping this isn't simply too much pant for me.










































Cheers!


----------



## MDCEMII (Apr 4, 2010)

Others will have much more informed opinions than mine, but I think there's just too much pant there for your frame. They won't touch the quality of Bill's, but I'd recommend picking up a pair of Brooks Brothers' Clark fit chinos, J. Crew's regular fit. You could also try having the leg on the Bills narrowed a bit, I think.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Pretty decent first fit for Bills - you'll need to pull the front up so that it sits on your natural waist, which will improve the drape and eliminate some of the appearance of sagging. Everyone's natural waist is at a different level, but generally speaking when Bills are buttoned they will be covering your belly button. I would also recommend having the legs tapered a bit from the knee down (something like 17.5" opening) and adding the cuffs. Just remember to wash and dry the pants a couple of times before having them tailored to avoid later shrinkage.


----------



## kevinbelt (Dec 2, 2007)

I think those look great. 

Disclosure: I like baggy-ish pants. 

-k


----------



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

I _really _like how they look from the side, but the front view seems too baggy.

Maybe pulling them up more would help this.


----------



## Pugin (May 15, 2010)

If it feels strange to let these sit at your natural waist (as Cards recommends), then you might want to reconsider the M3.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

I agree with Cards: They look pretty good and can be improved as he suggests. I don't mind a baggy pant, and I find such a fit more comfortable. But they don't seem too baggy to me.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

same here: but if you're not happy with wearing them a little higher, they might be a little shorter to eliminate some of the appearance of volume; but they're nice and trim through the hips, that's just the way they're cut to fit.


----------



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

Thanks guys. I remember thinking that I could comfortably wear them a little higher than they were when I snapped the pictures. I'll take them in this week to be cuffed and likely tapered a bit from the knee.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

Their fine, IMO. You'll get used to them once hemmed. I don't think you need to get the width altered at all.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

I would advise you to reconsider the m3's as well. I am 5'8" and 140 lb and my m3 driving twills sit about 1/4 inch below my navel. They do not look or fit like low rise trousers. The seat on the m2's pictured above is just too baggy. The m3's will fit you so much better.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Quite a range of opinions. Mine's not included because you didn't show the front or the back. A Hyundai can look good if you only see it when it's passing you.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

They look good as they are. Pull them up a bit in the waist and get them hemmed and you're good to go. 
Don't get them tapered because then, you'll just look like MC Hammer circa 1989.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

For my own reasons I would have liked to have seen the waist of the trousers rather then having them hidden by your sweater. Overall I find them slightly too baggy for my taste. (but not much!)

Given your height and weight I'm guessing they're 31" or 32" waist?

Best wishes,


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

They look good, particularly the way you're wearing them (very casually, and with a sweater.) 

Gratuitous mini-essay: For me there's no single model of khakis that covers all bases. I wear everything from J. Crew urban slims up to Bills M1s depending on the look I'm going for that day, the season, and what shoes I'm wearing. Bills won't ever give you that early-60s Ivy look. On the other hand, J. Crew Essential Chinos don't ever look right with gunboats.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 19, 2010)

It really comes down to preference. Those look fine from the sides and will probably look fine from the front and back when worn correctly. I prefer a slimmer fit and would feel uncomfortable in such a fit (and that's really what matters, whether or not _you_ like them).


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Good-looking pants with a great, relaxed fit. After you get them to your "real" waist, check and see if you need the seat taken in a bit. The rest is your personal preference.


----------



## MDCEMII (Apr 4, 2010)

Joe Beamish said:


> They look good, particularly the way you're wearing them (very casually, and with a sweater.)
> 
> Gratuitous mini-essay: For me there's no single model of khakis that covers all bases. I wear everything from J. Crew urban slims up to Bills M1s depending on the look I'm going for that day, the season, and what shoes I'm wearing. Bills won't ever give you that early-60s Ivy look. On the other hand, J. Crew Essential Chinos don't ever look right with gunboats.


For the most part, I agree. Though I find that the J. Crew Essential Chinos in regular fit (as opposed to Urban Slim or even Classic) do ok with a pair of gunboats. I'm curious about why the combination looks wrong to you.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

So what's the story with Bill's Driving Twills, sounds like they are sort of wrinkle resistant?


----------



## CaptCrunch (Dec 8, 2007)

I bought those khakis too. When you wash them (please do so prior to hemming) they will shrink a touch in every direction. For what it's worth I think they look a bit baggy right now but nothing that I would be ashamed to wear. They will look great once they're shrunken and hemmed.

As for the other poster's question about wrinkle resistance, etc., I believe they are touted to be wrinkle resistant. So far I have not found that to be the case. They are not quite 100% cotton, rather 2% "Elastane" (I don't know what that is). They seem slightly softer than standard-issue Bills and are functioning nicely in my casual rotation.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree with the technical suggestions that have been brought to bear thus far. I would offer a recent story as input as well:

My wife has basically threatened divorce if I proceed to wear M2s. She's been tolerant on every other trad endeavor giving only mild criticisms here or there, but after about 2 weeks of biting her tongue she told me to take the pants off. And not in the way I usually like to be confronted with that command. They are, apparently, intolerably baggy.

So it's back to the slim cut and while I can't quite let go of the M2s yet, they'll almost certainly roll onto the exchange in the coming weeks.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

It must be gratifying to know that she cares, Trip - by all means, accomodate her, but how about getting them tapered? I've had that done to a couple pair M2s and like the result, though I can't say that my wife noticed.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I thought about that, and may yet consider it, but since I've been lovingly shoved back toward my slimmer slacks (which are bountiful), I figure I might offer them up to an eager trad and make back a coin or two instead of parting with more. We'll see what happens. Their construction and fabric certainly make it an appealing prospect, but work will likely need to take place in the seat as well*.

*That's what she said.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> It must be gratifying to know that she cares, Trip - by all means, accomodate her, but how about getting them tapered? I've had that done to a couple pair M2s and like the result, though I can't say that my wife noticed.


Rambler, how much did you get them tapered. I saw where someone suggested an opening of about 17.5". How much does that differ from the standard M2 opening? Do you start the taper at the knee? I'd like to give this a try--but don't have easy access to a true tailor and would need to give fairly precise instructions.


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

No offense but you did ask.

Those look terrible. Way too baggy. Are they flat front? They look pleated they are so baggy. Life is too short to wear ill fitting clothes. I'm skinny like you so I know the challenges. Look for tailored fit from BB, Lands End or JosaBank instead.


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Going to vote too baggy. I would also second the notion of BB Clarks and J.Crew regular fit which, I believe, you can order unfinished now or have J.Crew cuff them for you. I have a several pair of M2s that don't appear near this baggy, but I am 6'4 also.


----------



## Acacian (Jul 10, 2007)

The tough part is that while they are baggy, the question of whether they are _too_ baggy can't really be answered until you see someone walking in a pair of pants.

Not that I'm saying you should post video, but if the pants are billowing in the wind around your legs as you walk along, which it looks like they might, I'd say they are too baggy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I see you've added front and rear shots. They do seem a mite full. Think I prefer the Hyundai. But I've looked carefully at the pics, and of course I could be wrong here, but there's a Night At The Museum vibe going on; you look like a teeny tiny person standing on top of a bathroom sink. Probably just me.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> But I've looked carefully at the pics, and of course I could be wrong here, but there's a Night At The Museum vibe going on; you look like a teeny tiny person standing on top of a bathroom sink. Probably just me.


You have a keen eye.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Rambler, how much did you get them tapered. I saw where someone suggested an opening of about 17.5". How much does that differ from the standard M2 opening? Do you start the taper at the knee? I'd like to give this a try--but don't have easy access to a true tailor and would need to give fairly precise instructions.


I do about 17", Salty, but mainly have her (the Korean lady at the drycleaners, and no master tailor) start the taper well above the knee, since I have skinny, age-shrunken thighs. She pins it, and says "like this?" and it's easy to tell. She's just an average alterations type tailor, and this presents no problem for her. Just make sure the tailor does both seams on each leg. She charges me 20 bucks.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

I am curious what size waist red sweatpants has. The reason I ask is I would venture to say that Bills and other manufacturers biggest problem is they don't scale their pants. I am going to guess and say that the OP has some where around a 32, and I would like to know how many people with a 32 inch waist need or could wear without looking foolish a pair of pants that baggy, and those are m2's, imagine what a pair of M1's would look like. Likewise, how many people with a 42 inch waist can get away with wearing a pair of Bills M3's. Anyway, that's my 2cents.


----------



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

This thread has really taken off. About the pictures, I promise I'm just a normal-sized man with a very large bath.

The pants are plain front and my waist is 31". I think you're probably on to something, Charles Saturn. Does anyone here with a 31" or 32" waist successfully wear M2s?

Trip - My girlfriend has given me similar friendly suggestions to abandon this and stick with what works. As you mentioned, the fabric and construction are hard to part with.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

I am dying for someone to try the Jack Donnelly khakis and report back on rise and bagginess. Looks liek you coudl be the perfect candidate. They offer free shipping both ways, so why not take a gander. Also, take a look at the BB cavalry twills / clark fit, that might work for you. Others have commented favorably on them.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> I do about 17", Salty, but mainly have her (the Korean lady at the drycleaners, and no master tailor) start the taper well above the knee, since I have skinny, age-shrunken thighs. She pins it, and says "like this?" and it's easy to tell. She's just an average alterations type tailor, and this presents no problem for her. Just make sure the tailor does both seams on each leg. She charges me 20 bucks.


Thanks Rambler. I've got a situation very much like yours with a lady at the cleaners. Should work. (I've got the same "pipe stem" leg problem myself.)


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

I have a 31" waist and I just realized how long it has been since my Bill's M2s have left the closet. I always felt uncomfortable in all that excess fabric. What I do wear are my Banana Republic Gavin flat front chinos, which I have in several colors. The quality doesn't nearly match Bills but they actually fit very well. On the evidence, fit is what wins the day.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> I've got the same "pipe stem" leg problem myself.


I'll bet mine are skinnier than yours. :icon_smile_big:

An even bigger problem with me is that as I have aged what little weight I have has re-distributed itself. What this means is that I now have a 33 inch waist even though I'm 5'9" and only 145 pounds. Any pants that I get with a 33 inch waist simply swallow me up unless I get one of the "skinny" fits which I don't like because of the pronounced taper in the legs. All I want are pants that look on me like ordinary pants look on ordinary guys who have normal sized legs.

When it comes to khakis I found the solution in Dockers Signature Slim Fit. They are slim through the seat and thighs but still have a leg opening in the vicinity of 17-18 inches. Here my skinny legs in a pair with said 33 inch waist. They aren't Bills, but then again I can buy three pairs of these for the cost of a pair of Bills and I've been pleasantly surprised by their durability.



















Cruiser


----------



## jfkemd (Jul 11, 2007)

I think the pants on the OP look okay.
They probably just need to be tailored appropriately. I'd recommend having them hemmed without a break. Having the legs tapered in a very subtle way would also work in my opinion.
Do refer to a couple of old posts on the WAYWT thread done by Kingsfield (page 37).


----------



## red sweatpants (Jun 19, 2010)

Thanks for the heads up, jfkemd. The posts by Kingsfield are encouraging. 

Mine are at the tailor right now. Going to see how they look cuffed, no tapering, this time around.


----------



## tsweetland (Oct 2, 2006)

Definitely too baggy for my taste. I too am tall and thin (6' 165 lbs) and I took mine to the tailor and had them slimmed down significantly. They look great now, and still have that hefty Bill's feel. 

People in this forum tend to talk about how the traditional fit for khakis is somewhat baggy but if you look at old photos of guys in the '60s (a la Take Ivy or the thread in this forum) their pants always look trim and fit. 

Fitted clothes, as a rule, just look better.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

tsweetland said:


> People in this forum tend to talk about how the traditional fit for khakis is somewhat baggy but if you look at old photos of guys in the '60s (a la Take Ivy or the thread in this forum) their pants always look trim and fit.
> 
> Fitted clothes, as a rule, just look better.


I think clothing generally fit trimmer in the 60s, but if you go back earlier you can find evidence that a looser fit was more prevalent. I think a case can be made for either being traditional, it just depends upon the time period used as a reference.

I would agree that "fitted" clothes generally look better. However, I find that a prefer a looser fit in my khakis and other trousers. I have tried a slimmer cut and have received compliments from my wife, but they are not comfortable to me. I am constantly pulling them up since I am not used to the shorter rise.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

^ Ivy is one of the _two_ dominant traditionalist chino aesthetics, the other being the fuller look inspired by WWII. There's room in our lives for both.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

What I find interesting is that there doesn't seem to be any consensus among retailers on what "classic" means in terms of fit, for polo its roomy, for jcrew its the opposite.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Joe Beamish said:


> ^ Ivy is one of the _two_ dominant traditionalist chino aesthetics, the other being the fuller look inspired by WWII. There's room in our lives for both.


I do believe JB has spoken the definative word on the subject.


----------

