doctorow at August 5th, 2013 14:49 — #1
jardine at August 5th, 2013 14:53 — #2
They’re also cooler than jeans in the summer, and though they’re thin, they’re about as warm as jeans when it’s cold out.
How's that work?
glitch at August 5th, 2013 14:54 — #3
I've long thought it a shame that denim pants, originally the clothing of laborers who needed a rugged, sturdy material to work in, ended up as these acid-washed, flimsy, impractical garments with not enough and too small pockets, and just generally not enough utility all around.
kartwaffles at August 5th, 2013 15:01 — #4
They still make work pants with generous pockets, they're just usually brown or tan. I'm wearing my biz-cazh Carhartts right now. They cost about twenty bucks.
bryan at August 5th, 2013 15:06 — #5
Denim is actually surprisingly bad when it comes to thermal properties. Overheats you in the summer, but a cold wind cuts through it like a 40w soldering iron through a hobo's eyeball.
stephen_schenck at August 5th, 2013 15:14 — #6
They run about $200
Do they come with four extra pairs of pants?
nemryn at August 5th, 2013 15:22 — #7
They 'stretch in four directions'? That's pretty impressive, I can only think of three.
xzzy at August 5th, 2013 15:23 — #8
The fourth direction is time.. as you age and pack on the pounds, these pants will continue to fit.
fireshadow at August 5th, 2013 15:26 — #9
Pants for women that have real pockets?!? OMG!!!
kmoser at August 5th, 2013 15:26 — #10
You're thinking of dimensions. Never eat shredded wheat.
dloburns at August 5th, 2013 15:32 — #11
I've pretty much have replaced all of my jeans with Dickies duck canvas pants, since they have side leg pockets that can fit pencils plus a phone, easy to reach while sitting, and don't puff out like cargo pants. I get them typically for about $20 at outlet stores. The only really bad thing about them is that the color fades from them pretty quickly and they absorb oil vigorously.
eggytoast at August 5th, 2013 15:34 — #12
I really like clothes with some technical element. I was surprised to see on the Outlier website that "riding" for them meant "bicycle riding," since "riding pants" already exist and the riding involved is atop horses. What I also found interesting is that these seem to be very similar to the usual jodhpur stretch pants without the additional styling and stitchwork specific to horse riding, which gives them a less horse-centric look.
Still, if the idea behind these pants is that one can wear them on a rainy commute without being drenched from the waist down for the next 3-4 hours, that's a pretty nice feature. The price on these pants is the same as other "designer" or "low-production" pants, but these offer a few more benefits compared to the typical fancy jeans. As is typically the case with nicer clothes, what you usually pay for are higher quality fabrics, higher quality stitching, clothes that can be altered if needed without destroying the item, and production facilities that are acceptable to most westerners.
You can get cheap, stiff work clothes that you can beat up, but the idea behind more expensive items of clothing (ignoring the premiums on purely designer clothes) is that they will last longer, look good, and be more comfortable. For the nerds, this is like Vimes boots theory.
daemonworks at August 5th, 2013 15:36 — #13
galaxies at August 5th, 2013 15:40 — #14
lol.. $200.. even for women's designer pants thats a complete & utter joke.. seriously kids, if you're going to spend such a stupid amount of money on PANTS go get yourself some diesel's or something. even the most bourgeois stretch-twill pants from AA will run you $85. only an author at Ars would be so amazed by pants with pockets that stretch for your phone!!! woaaahh!! apparently she only shops at marshalls?
edit: also please do not wear three shades of blue nor tuck your DENIM SHIRT into your DENIM(look-alike) PANTS. common sense.
fuzzyfungus at August 5th, 2013 15:44 — #15
It has been said that the workers of the world have nothing to lose but their jeans. So we appropriated those too!
tavie at August 5th, 2013 16:05 — #16
Oh look, another clothing company that doesn't recognize that women above a size 14 have money to spend.
pierrebalian at August 5th, 2013 16:10 — #17
Wow, I totally spend $200 on jeans all the time!
Actually, now that I think about it the most expensive pair of jeans I've ever bought in my life cost $30.
rattypilgrim at August 5th, 2013 16:27 — #18
Is that your iPhone or are you just happy to see me?
jardine at August 5th, 2013 16:40 — #19
I've never noticed that in the winter. Maybe I'm just hot-blooded.
tofagerl at August 5th, 2013 16:41 — #20
In fairness, neither do men over size 36 apparently. (Note: not same sizing system!)
next page →