Pants, Pants, & More Pants


We have a lot to unpack here in a short amount of time. We have to cover time and perception, the power of a crease, pants, and more pants stuff. Let’s get right to it.

I used to think that the chinos above were a nice balance between slim and wide. However, I feel like they look a bit too tapered these days. This is interesting to me for a few reasons, but the most interesting is that I am now gaining the ability to see how trends from the 2010’s influenced my style. It takes a little bit of time in between the past and the present to be able to recognize these trends. It’s really interesting when it becomes apparent.

These are the exact same pair of pants.

Let’s move on to the power of the crease. I was going to show the image above and let it speak for itself, but to clarify these are the exact same pair of pants. I think they look too tapered on the left, but don’t look bad on the right. The Wallabees are effecting the drape, but I also think that they are highlighting the leg opening issue. Now I am not going to throw these chinos out. They aren’t that bad. I will probably just wear them casually with no crease, but I am on the hunt for new work chinos.

J.Crew Classic Fit
J.Crew Broken in Straight Fit Chinos
J.Crew Broken in Straight Fit Chinos

The hunt for new work chinos has been going on for a short while. Not too long ago I posted about J.Crew’s classic fit. While I liked these I found them a touch too voluminous. The crease did help clean this up a bit, but I knew they weren’t the ones. I recently picked up a pair of the new J.Crew straight fit (see here). They are a little trimmer than the classic fit, but they still have a decent rise (J.Crew says a size 32 has a 12.25″ rise), and leg width (8″). These run closer to tts unlike the classic fit which run a full size large. I have only worn them twice, but these might be the ones for me. I will probably size up from these 29″ waist that I am wearing here which have a 11″ rise to a 30″ waist to get another 1/2 inch of rise. Before I go all in on these I need to wear them out a few more times and then try out some JD M1’s soon

Before I hear it in the comment section let me set the record straight. I actually think that the classic fit looks a touch better than the straight fit in these pics above. However, I think it’s more to do with the photography and you guessed it, the crease. I should have done a non-creased classic fit pic to show just how wide they really are and a creased pic of the straight fit, but I ran out of time. Also, don’t be fooled. The rise is almost identical in both pairs. I will have to follow up with more pics.

Before I head out there is one last thing I wanted to touch on which is body shape. Body shape is going to play a major role in what pants works for you. Your torso to leg ratio, height, weight, and for me my bowed legs will all inform what rise, inseam, and leg width work best. For example my bowed legs can make pants looks slimmer than they are by the way they cause my pants to drape. Especially if I am standing with my knees locked and then I have to factor in my larger than normal calves too. All that to be say that pants fit is very personal on multiple levels. That’s it for now, but I am sure there will be more pants talk in the near future.

oxford cloth button down
Jerrod Swanton is a simple man interested in simple, classic, and traditional style.

11 Comments on "Pants, Pants, & More Pants"

  1. Foot size also plays a big role in the taper and width of pant leg opening. If you have larger feet, a narrow or tight pant leg opening can exaggerate the size of your feet, potentially making them appear disproportionately large. A wider leg opening, on the other hand, can create a more balanced look. Conversely, smaller feet may look more proportionate with narrower openings.

    I agree with you Jerrod that ultimately a lot of it also just has to do with personal preference and style.

  2. John Doe says:

    Very cool. You put me onto the J.crew chinos, I love them. I’ve been wearing the classic fits and I hope they never stop making them (I should probably buy some backup pairs soon), I’ve got a pair in khaki and olive I wear basically daily alongside my denim (though I’d like a pair in brown, they don’t seem to have any this season yet…). I appreciate the higher rise in the broken-in model, but I think I’ll stick to the fuller cut. Personally anything less than an 8 inch leg opening I find too slim on myself. As for you, I think you may have just found the holy grail. Looks very good on your figure. Good stuff.

    • John Doe says:

      P.S.: ID on that sweatshirt? I think you said it was Hanes but I’d like to know the exact model, assuming it isn’t vintage. I’m a big fan of the cut.

      • oxford cloth button down says:

        Glad to hear the J.Crew have worked for you! I think you might be right about this cut on me. The Hanes sweatshirt is the Ultimate Heavyweight Fleece Crewneck. It runs wide and short fyi.

  3. Old School says:

    “Striking the right balance”.
    That sums things up nicely.

  4. Joseph says:

    Hi Ox,

    I hope you’re doing well! I wanted to ask about the rise on the new J.Crew Broken-In Straight Fit Chinos compared to the Classic Fit. I own a pair of the Classic Fit chinos, and I find the rise to be just right for me. However, I saw a comment on the Straight Fit chinos mentioning that “the back rise is 16”, which causes some awkward bunching when walking.”

    Someone else also commented on the rise of the new straight fit stating: “They aren’t much different from the “classic” cut pants that are even a little more baggy. In fact, these pants are even longer in the crotch than the classic.”

    I’m curious to hear your thoughts—how does the rise on the Straight Fit compare to the Classic Fit? I’m trying to avoid any fit issues before ordering the straight fit, so any insight would be greatly appreciated!

    Thanks so much,
    Joe

    • oxford cloth button down says:

      Interesting. My straight fit and my classic fit both have an 11″ rise on size 29 waist. The straight fit has a back rise of 16″ and the classic is 16.5″ which I think makes the classic fit look a tad higher when worn. However my classic fit are probably 1 size larger in the waist than my straight fit chinos even though they are both the same size and are way baggier than the straight fit. I’d try a size smaller in the classic fit but the 28 waist are always out of stock. Also, I don’t get weird bunching in the back which to me sounds more like a waist size issue than a back rise issue.

  5. Steven says:

    Great fits! Are those the Oak Street camp mocs in the last photo? Im thinking about getting a pair and am curious if you followed their half-size down recommendation (I’ve seen a lot of disagreement with that suggestion online haha).

    • oxford cloth button down says:

      Thanks! They are OSB, I did 1/2 size down, and probably would have been better off going true to size.

I would like to hear from you