22 April 2009

Frankenpants

I don't follow high fashion, but I do pay attention to what is being offered to men of average means and tastes. I do this for a number of reasons: I just like to shop, I care about my appearance and I like to know what's out there, I like to observe how trends make their way into the culture, and I like to have some advance warning about things that are horrible and wrong and should not be suffered by any man.

It's that last part that leads me to today's example of What Not to Wear: The Guy Edition (with apologies to Clinton and Stacy, but I suspect they wouldn't mind). For more than four decades, Lands' End has been dressing men (and women) who want to look presentable at work but don't want to put any effort into thinking about it. There's really nothing wrong with that. They serve a need, and their clothing tends to be fairly priced and decently made.

But a while back I noticed something in the Lands' End catalog called "trouser jeans." Basically these are pants that combine the front half of a pair of khakis (a flat front with pockets on the side seams) with the back half of a pair of jeans (a seamed yoke below the waist and sewn-on back pockets). This is the sartorial equivalent of a mullet (business in the front, party in the back), and an answer to a question that never should have been asked.

As soon as I realized what I was looking at, my first thought was, Why? I can't help but wonder what the designers were thinking. It's so wrong on so many levels. Jeans may be a little more comfortable than khakis, but it's not like the typical pair of khakis is constricting; if yours are, you are either buying the wrong size, or you're shopping in the wrong place. If you work somewhere that doesn't allow you to wear jeans, how is this any better? The only difference is that these are made out of twill or canvas, but it's not difficult to find jeans that are made that way. They could be worse, but only if the front was pleated.

The more I thought about it (and I couldn't stop thinking about it, although I certainly tried), the more I felt that if anything, this unholy hybrid pant should have been done the opposite way: jeans in the front, khakis in the back. Why? I think the front pockets of jeans are easier to use because the opening is horizontal instead of vertical, and the set-in rear pockets are neater and more presentable. Then I decided I was nuts for thinking about it so much.

If you clicked on the link above, you may have noticed that these pants are now on sale. We can only hope that Lands' End has learned its lesson and is getting rid of them for good.

4 comments:

toast said...

I've long followed men's fashion more than women's, as I find men's fashion more classically creative than women's, if that makes any sense. I mean, women's fashion can get away with a lot of things, but then again, a lot of things in women's fashion become trendy when they really shouldn't have been.

That aside, sometimes men's fashion takes severe missteps as well. Those khaki/jean hybrids you found are a perfect example. Those are frightening. WHY were these even thought up? How are they more functional than regular khakis or jeans? You know, as separate entities? I'm thinking the design team at Land's End must have run out of ideas.

A Proper Bostonian said...

Frightening? PATCHWORK pants could be frightening. Men's ankle pants are frightening. Women's tight-fitting jeans without ANY back pockets, if worn by most of the adult female population, are tacky and frightening.

People of my approximate age who shop Land's End for anything except boring fleeces and shells are a bit frightening to me, too!

But back to the topic: These pants don't bother me at all. Women have been wearing hybrids of jeans, khakis and dress pants with all sorts of side pockets, front and back patch pockets, or no pockets, forever. We're over it. Your turn.

If anything, back patch pockets look better when stuffed with a wallet, a handful of keys, and/or a phone than the inset kind. Patch-pocket fabric expands better, I guess. Also, if the pants are the least bit fitted, you won't see the lining-fabric of inset pockets revealing its ugly, bumpy outlines. This is a common problem on women's slim-fitting pants with inset pockets.

You also get a bigger, better pocket in the front with the side-seam variety. The shallow pockets on jeans tend to make cell phones pop out and go smash when men sit down.

These may not be as dressy as regular khakis, but they seem way more practical for men who stuff their pockets in lieu of a man-purse or cargoes, i.e., most men I know.

Some Assembly Required said...

I don't know what sort of jeans you're buying Mr. PB, but my jeans pockets are plenty deep enough, and I have never had a phone escape (but then the iPhone is somewhat bigger than a folding phone). I don't like to carry my phone in my front pocket, but sometimes it's too warm for a jacket.

Anonymous said...

As a child (5th or 6th grade maybe???), my mother foisted something on me that was similar, except it was basically a pair of military style fatigue pants made of denim. Basically the patch style front pockets with the quartered openings. Can't recall if the back pockets were flapped or open, but does it really matter? This would have been in the late 70's or certainly by 1980, so we are right on time on the 30 year cycle of awfulness. If I wore them twice, it was a lot. Let's not even talk about what the shirt might have looked like.