# Chinos



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I need new chinos. Basically, all of my chinos right now are Ralph Lauren, but every one of them fits differently, so I'm looking at ditching them all and going with one fit from one brand (I need consistency). I'm looking at the Bills M3 or the Lands End Tailored Fit- I know the Bills are made in the US and are nicer, but I can get 3 Pairs of LE for $100 with the sale LE is having right now. Also, per the M1 and M2- way too baggy on me, I'm going to need both of mine slimmed down to fit. The M3 seems to have the same dimensions as my best fitting pair of chinos. Also, these will be cuffed.

Thoughts/opinions appreciated.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I have no experience with Lands End so I can't advise on that. I do own some Bills, in M2 fit, which works well for me--while they're a generous fit, they're not baggy. I like the construction of Bills. They feel solid and well made, and they have some nice features, such as big deep pockets.

I've been making do with my J. Crew classic fit chinos, which I cuff to 1 3/4. I'd like to rotate those out and someday replace with more from Bills.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I was fortunate enough to happen across my first pair of Bill's ,thrifting, this fall. I have several of the LE version (new) and several of the Banana Rep version (thrifted). There is no direct comparison, Bill's are far better.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

If you're really on the hunt for "The One" where khakis are concerned, I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about a deal from LE. The tailored fit isn't terrible, depending on what you like, but the pants aren't that great when compared to the heavier, higher quality stuff. Bill's is good quality and workmanship, but for me, the M3 was a bit too low in the rise and too loose in the lower leg. I've owned plenty of Bill's (because I wanted the "best") and way too many LE tailored fits (because I wanted a "good deal") and I now only own one fit: Jack Donnelly slims. They're a perfect fit for me right out of the box, come in beefy 8.5oz twill, are well-made in the USA and the service is awesome. I'm not saying that's what you should get, but I'd probably invest in one pair of higher quality khakis at a time from each of the top manufacturers and see if they work for you before deciding on replacing your entire pants wardrobe. Finding that perfect pair of khakis is a journey, not a mad dash to fill the closet.


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

Not sure which LE model you are looking at, but I am very happy with my recent purchase of the LE "Lighthouse" chinos - this is their current not-non-iron offering, I guess replacing their previous "original" chinos. I really like the new fabric they are using for these Lighthouse trou. Curiously, they offer these in "Traditional" fit and "Straight" fit, but NOT Tailored fit. 

I think the main difference between Straight and Tailored is the rise....Straight "sits slightly below the waist" whereas Tailored "sits at the waist." I decided to go with Traditional fit over Straight because I don't like a low rise, but I'm tempted to try Straight to see if maybe the rise difference isn't too bad and I'll get a slimmer leg. That said, LE definitely has slimmed their Traditional fit over the past couple years and I find this fit pretty agreeable, not overly baggy, just a touch of extra width in the leg that I could give or take.

EDIT: With the Bills I've handled, I haven't seen anything that super special about them. The M3 fit does suit me pretty well and I have a few pair I like, but I don't see what is so special to command a big premium. My only pairs are from STP and from their seconds sale in Reading, PA, so it is possible I just haven't encountered their best stuff.


----------



## RT-Bone (Nov 12, 2013)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I want to love the Jack Donnelly chinos, but I just can't. I personally don't find the material that impressive, though people often chirp about it. Also, the button enclosure is super weak (I expect mine to need a repair sooner than later), and with the weak button, it's all a bit awkward under the belt.


----------



## Bin'Zev (Sep 19, 2014)

I only have the regular fit(or whatever it's called) from lands end, but they have been my favorite pairs for a while, in comparison to RL, Bills, Brooks and J.peterman (last and most certainly least). If the slim fits are anything like the regular fits, go for it.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

RT-Bone said:


> I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I want to love the Jack Donnelly chinos, but I just can't. I personally don't find the material that impressive, though people often chirp about it. Also, the button enclosure is super weak (I expect mine to need a repair sooner than later), and with the weak button, it's all a bit awkward under the belt.


I prefer the material on JD's to Bill's originals, but that's why khakis are such a personal thing. Regarding the closure, I had one pair I sent in for repair (free, of course) because the buttonhole was fraying. Gregg mentioned that they were updating their design and manufacturing process to avoid this in future production. I do wish they had a two button closure. When I find a pair that does, and is otherwise identical to JD slims, I will have found my grail khakis.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I like hardline's advice. As long as you don't need to fill the closet, i.e., you have pants to pull on in the morning, go slow and pick up some of the heavy hitters, like Bills and OConnells, one at a time. I'm curious about adding some OConnell's chinos to my wardrobe.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

I approach it somewhat differently. 

I have my day-to-day chino which is by J.Crew - fits me perfectly, is well-made, I like the extensive color, weight and texture options and the price (bought on the regularly occurring 30% off sale and sometimes more). I probably own six or seven pairs now and am very happy with them.

Then I have my nicer "occasion" chinos - Bills and some-special Ralph Lauren editions.

Not saying this is the right way, but it works for me. 

You might want to consider - especially since you like a slimmer fit - J.Crew's "Urban Slim" fit.

And as mentioned above - approach this slowly, its worth doing your homework.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

See my "Informal Survey" on the AA Fashion Forum on the subject of finding clothes that fit/are made well. I myself have my WWII-style ones bespoke from Cramerton Army cloth or (after researching the dimensions/measurements of those wore in the 1960s) bespoke collegiate-cut ones from either 8.5 oz. cotton twill or Sta-Prest; occasionally w/a belt in the back.


----------



## bruc (Aug 1, 2012)

How long before the button frayed?
Had that happen here and the no cuffs also have frayed after about 2 years.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> If you're really on the hunt for "The One" where khakis are concerned, I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about a deal from LE. The tailored fit isn't terrible, depending on what you like, but the pants aren't that great when compared to the heavier, higher quality stuff. Bill's is good quality and workmanship, but for me, the M3 was a bit too low in the rise and too loose in the lower leg. I've owned plenty of Bill's (because I wanted the "best") and way too many LE tailored fits (because I wanted a "good deal") and I now only own one fit: Jack Donnelly slims. They're a perfect fit for me right out of the box, come in beefy 8.5oz twill, are well-made in the USA and the service is awesome. I'm not saying that's what you should get, but I'd probably invest in one pair of higher quality khakis at a time from each of the top manufacturers and see if they work for you before deciding on replacing your entire pants wardrobe. Finding that perfect pair of khakis is a journey, not a mad dash to fill the closet.


I'm with Hardline on this. The M3 is not quite right, especially the rise, and now the pants I enjoy wearing the most are my JD slims. That said, I've never tried LE chinos, although I have several of their year'rounder dress pants and like the tailored fit very much. But I know the quality won't come close to JD/Bills.

Maybe give Peter Christian a try? The quality will be there, although the fit might be more full than what you want.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Both the LE Tailored Fit and Bills M3 fit to my satisfaction. Also since the STP mothership is on my way to a frequent Wyoming destination, and the new STP retail store is actually just down the street, I have unusual access to discount M3's. When I was buying chinos and year 'rounders often from LE, they understood my inseam and could tailor both models to fit. Considering the properly different expectations according to price, I think both are good garments. A final consideration for me is that I already have a lifetime supply of chinos, at least I hope to live long enough to wear through all of those I have at my current rate of rotating pants.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

My day to day go to chino is the LLBean Double L. For $40ish I think they do quite well and I don't feel bad when they inevitably wear out. Also good, in my experience, are the BB khakis. For me, Clark fit is best. Obviously more expensive but they tend to be more substantial and long lasting than the Double L.

I have mixed experiences with LE. You definitely need to find the correct fit as I've found that the tailored fit is just too tight--and I'm a pretty slim guy. The main complaint I have about LE is that they really deteriorate with each washing, especially the first one. They never, at least for me, have the same crispness and they tend to fade and show wear around the buttons, seams, etc. I've basically come to the conclusion that I'll have to take my new LE to the drycleaners. I just bought a pair because they were the only ones offering a chocolate brown which I've been looking for. Plus, the constant sales make them tempting.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

This won't be a popular opinion, but if you do this, you will find the one.

Find a local place that stocks Hertling. Order MTO Hertling with the details you want. Repeat slowly.

Or have a pair made by Hertling. Then send them to Luxire to be copied.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

There are tailors better at duplicating a garment than Luxire.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> I'm with Hardline on this. The M3 is not quite right, especially the rise, and now the pants I enjoy wearing the most are my JD slims. That said, I've never tried LE chinos, although I have several of their year'rounder dress pants and like the tailored fit very much. But I know the quality won't come close to JD/Bills.
> 
> Maybe give Peter Christian a try? The quality will be there, although the fit might be more full than what you want.


The rise on the M3 has been a concern for me, which is why I've passed them up. A little too close to the "modern" low risers for me, which is all too common.

I've found the M2 to be very close to my preferred cut, but a slight taper would make them perfect. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has experience with Peter Christian chinos and how they stack up to Bill's.

The JDs sound enticing, but I'm not sure which fit (Regular or Hybrid) would be more close to the M2 for comparison. Unless their slims aren't super form-fitting?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

For me, I find the best combination of fit, quality, and styling in Bill's M2, BB Clark, and Mountain Khakis Teton Twills. Between those three, all of my khaki needs are met.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

aucociscokid said:


> There are tailors better at duplicating a garment than Luxire.


No argument here. Just first name to pop in my head.


----------



## Fenster (Jun 25, 2013)

Why does being made in USA automatically make them a high quality item?


----------



## nibo (Jan 17, 2014)

In the case of chinos I only wear j crew in either the urban slim or even slimmer 484 slim fit. They're great quality and I own multiple rainbows of them.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Fenster said:


> Why does being made in USA automatically make them a high quality item?


This is a very important question.


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

Get a pair of PRL from Macy's when sale for about $50. Best value outside of Bill's.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Fenster said:


> Why does being made in USA automatically make them a high quality item?


It doesn't. Being made in USA is simply an indicator that usually suggests a particular manufacturer is interested in more than just profit at the expense of a quality garment. Conversely, if an American company chooses to offshore their manufacturing and take on the quality control, shipping and other logistical challenges it entails just to save labor cost, it's likely they've taken other shortcuts that result in a lower quality garment.


----------



## lct01 (May 13, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> It doesn't. Being made in USA is simply an indicator that usually suggests a particular manufacturer is interested in more than just profit at the expense of a quality garment. Conversely, if an American company chooses to offshore their manufacturing and take on the quality control, shipping and other logistical challenges it entails just to save labor cost, it's likely they've taken other shortcuts that result in a lower quality garment.


I don't mean to offend but the explanation is rather simplistic. I work for a very large US medical devices manufacturer in the my native country, the Dominican Republic. The goods we produce were formerly manufactured in the United States (8-9 years ago), No increase in customer complaints have been registered since the operations were transferred to the Dominican Republic. We did receive a complain a while ago where a US customer, who did not find any particular flaws in the product, wrote a very passionate statement indicating that it was a shame that such a respectable company was making product in a third world country. To this day we are assuming it as a joke.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

I think there are two separate ideas that get conflated when "made in the USA" is discussed.

One is political or ideological: some people passionately believe that it is patriotic to support goods being made in your own country, in part, so that the jobs stay in their country. Also, some believe that it is exploitation to use oversees factories because labor conditions - wages, worker protections, etc. - aren't the same as in the US. 

The counter point is a free trade argument where each country does what it does best and more goods are produced for all (the fancy economic term is competitive advantage and argues that, while jobs are lost where they once were, the overall gain is greater as more is produced for less as everyone devotes its resources - people, capital goods - to making the thing they are competitive at). Furthermore, goes this argument, this helps less developed countries move up the economic ladder. 

I am not touching this argument and, hope, I presented those two views reasonably objectively (I know I did not present them comprehensively).

The other argument seems to be that goods made in the US are of better quality. I think this comes out of the fact that there was a time when (especially after WWII) many (not all) foreign made goods were inferior. Also, unquestionably, some companies have - over the years - shifted manufacturing over sees and consumers have seen a diminution in quality. 

I will touch this one. When manufacturing moves abroad, I have seen quality go down, stay the same and go up. I've seen value (the price-quality trade-off go down, stay the same and go up). I don't think there is a blanket statement that captures this. I have bought from Ralph Lauren for decades and seen quality go up and value go up when they shifted oversees and I've seen quality go down and value go down when they've shifted oversees. I have bought from the same salesman for all that time and he will talk about production moving here and there. Sometimes he'll say, it is better look at this stitching, or they've cheapened this, etc. Away from him, I have felt the various outcomes using my own judgement. 

I have seen it in other products at other companies too: Sometimes better, sometimes not. But humans (I'm guilty of this) remember the bad outcomes with more passion than the good ones, so I think we might have a behavioral bias that causes us to think "made in the USA" is better quality all the time.

If your reasons are political or economic - then, I believe, that is a Interchange appropriate topic. If your reasons are purely about quality, then, IMHO, there is no blanket statement that fits - it is a case by case discussion.


----------



## lct01 (May 13, 2007)

Yours is, in my opinion, a very balanced approach to the subject.


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> It doesn't. Being made in USA is simply an indicator that usually suggests a particular manufacturer is interested in more than just profit at the expense of a quality garment. Conversely, if an American company chooses to offshore their manufacturing and take on the quality control, shipping and other logistical challenges it entails just to save labor cost, it's likely they've taken other shortcuts that result in a lower quality garment.


I don't really disagree - but a lot of assumptions being made here.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I like LE even though they're are hit and miss w/ the fit, even among the same style. I have the advanatge of free shc and returns at the Inlet here in town.

Brian


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

You get that for which you PAY. As most of the machinery from America's "Golden Age" (post-WWII - America going off the gold standard) is now dispersed worldwide - but, to a large extent in India, China, and Japan and good tailors can also be still be found there: I'd say if one wishes to PAY for it - a designer, retail customer, etc. - garments equal to those produced in America's Golden Age can be produced abroad.


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

Duvel said:


> I'm curious about adding some OConnell's chinos to my wardrobe.


I have been wearing JD Daltons. Love the fit. The combed cotton is nice and comfortable. Ordered some O'Connell's the other day. Same price as JD but the construction blows the JDs out of the water. The inside construction and reinforcement make them (hopefully) bombproof. Rise is high (12 in), which the same as the Daltons. Ordered size 35 and waist measures 36 and has not shrunk with multiple cold washes and line dry. The SA said it wouldn't shrink but I didn't listen. I'll be putting them on the exchange tomorrow and ordering a smaller size.


----------



## seanm440 (Feb 28, 2008)

JackFlash said:


> Ordered some O'Connell's the other day. Same price as JD but the construction blows the JDs out of the water.


Which O'Connell's did you order? Link?


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

seanm440 said:


> Which O'Connell's did you order? Link?


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

JackFlash said:


> I have been wearing JD Daltons. Love the fit. The combed cotton is nice and comfortable. Ordered some O'Connell's the other day. Same price as JD but the construction blows the JDs out of the water. The inside construction and reinforcement make them (hopefully) bombproof. Rise is high (12 in), which the same as the Daltons. Ordered size 35 and waist measures 36 and has not shrunk with multiple cold washes and line dry. The SA said it wouldn't shrink but I didn't listen. I'll be putting them on the exchange tomorrow and ordering a smaller size.


Don't the O'Connell chinos have an alterable split-back waistband that can be taken in an inch or so?


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

Charles Dana said:


> Don't the O'Connell chinos have an alterable split-back waistband that can be taken in an inch or so?


Yes. Of course I take a hit altering them or selling them at a discount.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

WillBarrett said:


> I don't really disagree - but a lot of assumptions being made here.


Yes of course there's a lot of assumption. I think my language made that pretty clear. I've come across some made in U.S.A.items that were absolute garbage and just as many, if not more, items made in developing countries with solid construction and build quality.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

JackFlash said:


> I have been wearing JD Daltons. Love the fit. The combed cotton is nice and comfortable. Ordered some O'Connell's the other day. Same price as JD but the construction blows the JDs out of the water. The inside construction and reinforcement make them (hopefully) bombproof. Rise is high (12 in), which the same as the Daltons. Ordered size 35 and waist measures 36 and has not shrunk with multiple cold washes and line dry. The SA said it wouldn't shrink but I didn't listen. I'll be putting them on the exchange tomorrow and ordering a smaller size.


O'Connell's have honestly never even been on my radar but I'm intrigued by your comparison. Which JD fit do you wear and how does it compare to the OCs?


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

A good deal with hemming & cuffs included, which can cost $10-25 elsewhere.

Are the O'Connells otherwise similar to the standard fit JDs? How's the leg width (at the cuff, for example)?


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

Himself said:


> Are the O'Connells otherwise similar to the standard fit JDs? How's the leg width (at the cuff, for example)?


I can't perform an exact comparison to the JD Daltons (standard fit) because my JDs and O'Connell's are different sizes. That said, rise is the same (12) and leg opening is the same (9). I imagine that the thigh and knee measurements are in the same ballpark, but can't be sure due to the sizing. I'll take out my tape measure later today or report back if I decide to get another size for the O'Connell's. If you or anyone has a 36 waist (measured, not tagged) send me a PM as I have a new unheeded pair.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

If you do decide to go with Lands End, and you find one that fits right, buy a dozen pairs, because they will be different when that run sells out.

After much fiddling around I have found Bill's M2 to be about as close as I am ever going to get to the old LL Bean Double L (before the Non-Iron Age). I still have a couple pairs of those Double Ls, but they are getting pretty frayed. I hate to relegate them to the status of fish pants, but that's where we're headed. 

I have seen a few posts about having Bill's tapered in the leg. The leg opening is somewhat voluminous, I will concede. Fine with gunboats but they do tend to swallow up a loafer.


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

JackFlash said:


> I can't perform an exact comparison to the JD Daltons (standard fit) because my JDs and O'Connell's are different sizes. That said, rise is the same (12) and leg opening is the same (9). I imagine that the thigh and knee measurements are in the same ballpark, but can't be sure due to the sizing. I'll take out my tape measure later today or report back if I decide to get another size for the O'Connell's. If you or anyone has a 36 waist (measured, not tagged) send me a PM as I have a new unheeded pair.


A brief comparison of new out of box JD Dalton fit in size 34 to O'Connell's in size 35, cold washed and hung dry about 5 times. Both are advertised as being ~8.5 oz cotton twill. The JDs, however, are a combed cotton that is very soft, casual, and drapes nicely. The fabric on the OCs is a lot hardier, though, I would assume would relax over time. Fit appears to be very similar. JD waist is 34, 12 rise, and 13.5 thigh. OC waist (keep in mind that these are a size 35) is 36, 12.25 rise, 13.5 thigh. Leg opening at 32 inseam both 9. As I mentioned earlier, I like the construction of the OCs a lot better, particularly the metal clasp (and optional button) to secure the waist and reinforced front and crotch. Interior fabrics including waistband, reinforcements, and pockets are a lot hardier on the OCs.

Some pictures: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/77id2p6kmaih17c/AADxjfa5ygxImgZFhErazFFLa?dl=0


----------



## HerrDavid (Aug 23, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to provide this information, Jack Flash. Although I've been aware of O'Connell's chinos, like hardline_42, they were never fully on my radar for some reason. The quality-to-price ratio seems fantastic, even more so when one considers the free hemming. (Thanks to Himself for pointing that out.) Besides the savings, the free hemming is especially attractive to me as I've recently moved to WI for the year and have not yet found a local tailor.

Thanks again.


----------



## JackFlash (Sep 5, 2013)

HerrDavid said:


> Thanks for taking the time to provide this information, Jack Flash.


No problem. I plan on exploring the $99 cotton dress gaberdine and poplins as well. I suspect they are made by the same maker, if not better.

Just want to stress again that the JD fabric feels like a super soft pillow while the OCs are quite study and rigid. I'll continue to buy JDs for more casual settings.


----------



## JakeBworth (Sep 14, 2014)

Brooks Brothers Clark Chinos have been my go-to for about a year now. Easily my favorite pair of pants as far as quality and fit go.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

JackFlash said:


> No problem. I plan on exploring the $99 cotton dress gaberdine and poplins as well. I suspect they are made by the same maker, if not better.
> 
> Just want to stress again that the JD fabric feels like a super soft pillow while the OCs are quite study and rigid. I'll continue to buy JDs for more casual settings.


Yes, thanks for providing the info on the OCs. Unfortunately, my fit of choice is the slim and the cost of recutting a pair of OCs to match would be prohibitive.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

JakeBworth said:


> Brooks Brothers Clark Chinos have been my go-to for about a year now. Easily my favorite pair of pants as far as quality and fit go.


They've been a go-to for me too, for "neatly pressed" occasions, and look pretty good. But to me the fabric doesn't breathe and is like cardboard with no give, unlike Bills or especially JDs. And the rise is a bit low.

I must say though, if you need presentable pants on a moment's notice, it's easy to drop by the local BB and grab some Advantage Chinos.

On the OC's, I'll give them a try, first to replace my BB Advantage that I'm not wild about. Over time they'll wear in to become casual pants, and will age more gracefully than the formaldehyded non-irons.

Otherwise I like the JD Slim because I usually wear chinos with boat shoes or loafers, and I'm thin to begin with. I'm also active, and don't like all that cloth flapping around. Slim and full cuts each have their place. (Thanks billax for your cuff width and shoe article.)


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

I just did a pants inventory and decided I need some Lands' End tailored fit khakis, plain front. I believe these were called the "Original Chino" pants. These give me the most comfortable fit of the ones I own and are reasonably durable.

Am I missing something, or does LE now only offer tailored-fit plain-front khakis in a *non-iron* fabric?

This is ridiculous. As soon as I identify which pants fit me best, the company deletes them from its offerings. And I sure as hell ain't wearing non-iron pants.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Patrick06790 said:


> If you do decide to go with Lands End, and you find one that fits right, buy a dozen pairs, because they will be different when that run sells out.


I just learned this the hard way, I'm afraid.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

What - to me - are really being discussed here are KHAKIS and not CHINOS. All the discussion as to whether one is really a color aside: KHAKIS have their roots in the what the military wore in WWII and are meant to be STARCHED. CHINOS are what were popularized on college campuses (such as the Ivy League) in the 1960s (before the "hippie" movement took hold). The cut of KHAKIS is generally unflattering, esp. when viewed through the lenses of 21st century eyes. CHINOS are cut in a slimmer silhouette. The cloths used are different weights: heavier for KHAKIS. Lighter for CHINOS. Seams (and other detailing) differs between KHAKIS and CHINOS as well. To me (again): I haven't really encountered an authentic collegiate-cut CHINO in today's marketplace. In both cases, I (my tailor) make my own. For KHAKIS, I take the authentic Cramerton Army Cloth have it cut in a more flattering silhouette. Ditto for chinos. Ditto for "bleeding" Madras shirts. With regard to "bleeding" Madras, I went so far as locating an old dyer/weaver in a small village outside Chennai (Madras), India and commissioned him to dye/weave 500 meters of the "real McCoy": vegetable-dyed (therefore non-colorfast) and handloomed. A sample may be viewed on the Madras Appreciation thread.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

We get it, you have everything custom-woven and made by hand. Some of us plebeians are forced to buy off the rack (que horrible).


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

Well yes/no. Even on this forum, the consensus - not too mention others - seems to be is that most menswear wear is sub-standard as far as workmanship/material/fit are concerned, esp. KHAKIS. My idea is to ENCOURAGE OTHERS to make a business out of producing selling authentic (to the extent possible), well-crafted (out of authentic/excellent textiles) and fashionable Trad and Ivy League chinos, shirts, pants, etc. To further complicate the issue: Most of what is thought as being CHINOS are actually Levis 306 Sta-Prest, which Levis themselves no longer produces/markets and are every bit as iconic as their 501s. Using a vintage pair as a template, I sourced the fabric and had them duplicated for about $100-$125, including the cost (as I recall) of the vintage pair.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Spam, gotcha. Suspected as much.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

aucociscokid said:


> Well yes/no. Even on this forum, the consensus - not too mention others - seems to be is that most menswear wear is sub-standard as far as workmanship/material/fit are concerned, esp. KHAKIS. My idea to turn these ideas EVENTUALLY (Hey! I'm 65!) into a business OR ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO, if there's interest; among the reasons for these posts. To further complicate the issue: Most of what is thought as being CHINOS are actually Levis 306 Sta-Prest, which Levis themselves no longer produces/markets and are every bit as iconic as their 501s. Using a vintage pair as a template, I sourced the fabric and had them duplicated for about $100-$125, including the cost (as I recall) of the vintage pair. I have 500 meters of "bleeding" madras. Anybody want shirts?


Where are the moderators? I didn't think it was acceptable to use this forum to peddle one's own products?


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

With a tip o'the beret to gamma68 (and apologies to any offended Members): Please note the edits. Perhaps gamma68 might do the same? Otherwise, the offending commercialism is maintained Thanks.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

aucociscokid said:


> With a tip o'the beret to gamma68 (and apologies to any offended Members): Please note the edits. Perhaps gamma68 might do the same? Otherwise, the offending commercialism is maintained Thanks.


Why no pics of this fabulous stuff...?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

aucociscokid said:


> With regard to "bleeding" Madras, I went so far as locating an old dyer/weaver in a small village outside Chennai (Madras), India and commissioned him to dye/weave 500 meters of the "real McCoy": vegetable-dyed (therefore non-colorfast) and handloomed. A sample may be viewed on the Madras Appreciation thread.


Is it not enough to hawk this cloth in the madras thread? Funny how this hucksterism also appears in the chinos thread.

That's some marketing plan you've got there.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

You want pictures. I'll post pictures. The madras is on the Madras Appreciation thread. Marketing plan? What marketing plan? As far as the clothes are concerned: I'm just doing it (a) So I have something to wear. (b) For FUN. (c) So I don't annoy my better half. (In order to post pictures, she'd had to take 'em which negates c.) I actually sell anything. It sells. I don't: I'll have warehouses full of material. Do I care? Hey! I already have a business which actually has a marketing plan; despite which is very successful. You know what Eric Cartman says? Why are you guys doing the same as far as I'm concerned?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

aucociscokid said:


> Marketing plan? What marketing plan?


Exactly.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

What's your point, gamma68? I had a lot of successful businesses - and a lot of unsuccessful ones. Some have had marketing plans. Others: No. The succesful ones have often started as a lark. For fun. Besides, how do you know a marketing plan doesn't exist and I'm just not blabbing all over Ask Andy? What does this have to do with my original point? Khakis are ill-fitting. Geez!


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Anyway, getting this thread back on-track...

Since LE seems to no longer carry flat-front, must-iron tailored-fit khakiswhat would be the most comparable brand in a slim fit?

I'm not a fan of the fit from Jack Donnelly or Bills M3. Looks like LLB also appears to have nothing but wrinkle-free khakis.

Wrinkle-free non-iron is taking over the planet. :eek2:


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

gamma68 said:


> Anyway, getting this thread back on-track...
> 
> Since LE seems to no longer carry flat-front, must-iron tailored-fit khakiswhat would be the most comparable brand in a slim fit?
> 
> ...


Both LLB and Le have must-iron chinos. Not sure if the fit is what you want, but they're there.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

In any event - and to me - Khakis - given their military origin - are supposed to be wrinkle-free. Ever hear of a wrinkled Army? Chinos are not khakis. True Trad clothing is not pleated either.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Khakis = khaki-colored chinos.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

Khakis originated in the Army during WWII. Chinos on college campuses in the 1960s. Chinos are cut slimmer (much) than khakis. Khakis are made from Cramerton Army cloth which is 8.5 oz. Chinos: Lighter weight fabric. The detailing - such as the seams - differ on each as well. Khakis are meant to be starched. If - in the 1960s - one observed un-wrinkled chinos, it may have been attributable to the fact they were Sta-Prest.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

WillBarrett said:


> Both LLB and Le have must-iron chinos. Not sure if the fit is what you want, but they're there.


I didn't see any must-iron flat-front in a "slim" or "tailored" fit from either of those brands.

If someone comes across them, links will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

aucociscokid said:


> Khakis originated in the Army during WWII. Chinos on college campuses in the 1960s. Chinos are cut slimmer (much) than khakis. Khakis are made from Cramerton Army cloth which is 8.5 oz. Chinos: Lighter weight fabric. The detailing - such as the seams - differ on each as well. Khakis are meant to be starched. If - in the 1960s - one observed un-wrinkled chinos, it may have been attributable to the fact they were Sta-Prest.


You're over-thinking it. There is no standard cut for chinos, and if there was, it sure as hell wouldn't be slim. It would be a (dare I say it) TRADITIONAL full-cut, natural-waist trouser with CUFF, NO BREAK.

FYI, Cramerton Army Cloth wrinkles. The Army pressed their pants, just like everyone else. Only masochists starch their pants.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

gamma68 said:


> I didn't see any must-iron flat-front in a "slim" or "tailored" fit from either of those brands.
> 
> If someone comes across them, links will be greatly appreciated.


It's hard to tell from the description, but I think the straight fit are slimmer than the traditional fit.

Brian


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

vwguy said:


> It's hard to tell from the description, but I think the straight fit are slimmer than the traditional fit.


I think you're referring to the Lands' End straight fit?

The "must-iron" ones that seem most like the khakis I previously bought from them are the Lighthouse chinos. I'm not sure if I like the waist button on their Elstons or the colors of their Comers.

The best color selection that LE offers, as far as I can tell, is the non-iron plain front chinos.


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

I have Army/Cramerton khaki reproductions which are so baggy, they look ridiculous. Other posters have said they'd have so much material cut out of them another pair could have been fashioned. I WORE chinos in the 1960s. They were cut much more trim. There's also ample documentation in books like TAKE IVY - definitely not Army/Cramerton khakis. The Trad - who was in the Army (as was his father) starches his khakis, which he said was an Army practice.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

gamma68 said:


> I think you're referring to the Lands' End straight fit?
> 
> The "must-iron" ones that seem most like the khakis I previously bought from them are the Lighthouse chinos. I'm not sure if I like the waist button on their Elstons or the colors of their Comers.
> 
> The best color selection that LE offers, as far as I can tell, is the non-iron plain front chinos.


Yup, right here:

Brian


----------



## cadrad (Jun 6, 2014)

I have found good quality and fit from a variety of makers. My favorite pair is a vintage thrifted duck head khakis. I have, like most things, mostly Ralph Lauren, in the Phillip cut, which I find to be consistent an d good fitting, although I usually have them let out slightly. I also have j crew, which are a little wide legged, and banana republic, which are a little tighter than I like usually


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

vwguy said:


> Yup, right here:
> 
> Brian


Since LE has a 30% off sale going on, I ordered a pair of the Lighthouse chinos in "woodland moss." It will be interesting to see how they compare to the other LE chinos I _wanted _to buy, but apparently have been discontinued.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

"As long as you wear LE chinos no one will notice them. The point here is to wear what few would ever notice but to know yourself the origin, quality and yes, even the story behind something so everyday as khakis. Khakis in the army were starched. Heavily. Usually by Quarter Master laundry. Some vets, like myself, still starch their civilain khakis. At least those that lend themselves to the process. Wash and wear khakis with that nasty finish wouldn't starch up so well."- The Trad

https://thetrad.blogspot.com/2010/05/blind-chino-tasting-most-traditional.html


----------



## aucociscokid (Jan 17, 2006)

Thanks, John ("The Trad.) Always enjoyed the blog. Learned how to properly cook steaks (much to my better-half's chagrin); thrifted (I believe on AA) a double-vented blazer with a hacking pocket (similar to your T&A one); and became aware of the very "cool" double-buckled belt - not to mention that I read (and mentioned here- without attribution) that Army khakis were/are starched. 

I started another thread - Khakis vs. Chinos - on the Fashion Forum. The "chinos" of my youth were the above-the-ankle - "high water" - variety, which I really don't see anymore see anymore. When worn with bleached white Adler socks and the FLORSHEIM YUMA LOAFER - about which my memory was refreshed by you: They are not only what's called to mind when I hear the word "chinos" - but was - to me -was/is the quintessential Ivy League "work" uniform (together with "bleeding" madras shirts); what most of us wore back then. Me: at Woodbridge (NJ) HS. Class of 1967.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

aucociscokid said:


> Thanks, John ("The Trad.) Always enjoyed the blog. Learned how to properly cook steaks (much to my better-half's chagrin); thrifted (I believe on AA) a double-vented blazer with a hacking pocket (similar to your T&A one); and became aware of the very "cool" double-buckled belt - not to mention that I read (and mentioned here- without attribution) that Army khakis were/are starched.
> 
> I started another thread - Khakis vs. Chinos - on the Fashion Forum. The "chinos" of my youth were the above-the-ankle - "high water" - variety, which I really don't see anymore see anymore. When worn with bleached white Adler socks and the FLORSHEIM YUMA LOAFER - about which my memory was refreshed by you: They are not only what's called to mind when I hear the word "chinos" - but was - to me - the quintessential Ivy League "work" uniform (together with "bleeding" madras shirts); what most of us wore back then. Me: at Woodbridge (NJ) HS. Class of 1967.


I am not John. That was quote from him. I forgot to add quotation marks. Fixed.


----------

