Pants for the end of the world
November 8, 2017 1:37 PM Subscribe
The Radical Vision Behind One Company’s Unstoppable Pants - "
Outlier started nearly a decade ago making pants to bike to work in. Now they’re making weirder, exaggerated, occasionally dystopian gear, too. What happens when a company that makes pants for the future finds itself living in a darkest-timeline present?Does everyone have the same inseam in the future?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:00 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:00 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
I am sad that I am inherently too much of a producer of human body odor to make any of this work. Merino undershirts help a bit but I'm scared to get too optimistic about anything like this these days. The concept is a good one though and I'm sorry to hear that about female pants, the wife and I are on a "buy nothing that comes from a country that treats workers in miserable ways" and it's always hard to add that in to the other aspects that we look for (quality and durability) so.. well I don't really know where I'm going here except to say that this is interesting and I'm just jaded but thanks for the post.
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:01 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
But also, that interview was great. Even though it's going to make me even more bitter, I'm super interested to see what they do with the warp knit weft insertion fabric. I managed to find out where to buy Lumatwills but not the Schoeller dryskin, which the original Outlier pants I have are made of; I wonder if it'll be possible to find suppliers for the warp knit weft. Though retail yardage is killer expensive.
posted by crush at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2017
posted by crush at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2017
*Reads a few articles and gets excited about said clothing*
*Checks Outlier's website*
*Sees $175 pants and $225 hoodies*
Tooooo bad we can't stay.
posted by skullhead at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2017 [24 favorites]
*Checks Outlier's website*
*Sees $175 pants and $225 hoodies*
Tooooo bad we can't stay.
posted by skullhead at 2:02 PM on November 8, 2017 [24 favorites]
Does everyone have the same inseam in the future?
One of the men's pants models comes in 32.5 or 36 inch inseams which is crazy town. And nary a word on getting them altered.
posted by GuyZero at 2:03 PM on November 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
One of the men's pants models comes in 32.5 or 36 inch inseams which is crazy town. And nary a word on getting them altered.
posted by GuyZero at 2:03 PM on November 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
36" inseam. Yay! Smallest waist is 40". *Droopy Dog face*
posted by haileris23 at 2:08 PM on November 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by haileris23 at 2:08 PM on November 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
One of the men's pants models comes in 32.5 or 36 inch inseams which is crazy town. And nary a word on getting them altered.
And the only ones I found on the site that actually came in long only came in a 40 waist. Which combines big and tall in ways that are unnecessary for a certain 6'9" husband of mine.
posted by teleri025 at 2:08 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
And the only ones I found on the site that actually came in long only came in a 40 waist. Which combines big and tall in ways that are unnecessary for a certain 6'9" husband of mine.
posted by teleri025 at 2:08 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
$110 for a plain t-shirt. In what world? Who are these for?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 2:10 PM on November 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 2:10 PM on November 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
One of the men's pants models comes in 32.5 or 36 inch inseams which is crazy town.
You missed a trick, there: it's not crazy town, it's crazypants!
I'll see myself out.
posted by Dysk at 2:10 PM on November 8, 2017 [22 favorites]
You missed a trick, there: it's not crazy town, it's crazypants!
I'll see myself out.
posted by Dysk at 2:10 PM on November 8, 2017 [22 favorites]
If you're paying $140+ for a pair of pants, you're going to get them hemmed. Hell, even Uniqlo offers only 34" inseam on their $30 pants. The reason they offer two options for inseam is that 36" won't be cut right in the lower leg if they have to take it down to 28".
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:15 PM on November 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:15 PM on November 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
It was inevitable that somebody would split the difference between Wallace & Grommit's Wrong Trousers and SNL/Peter Dinklage's Space Pants.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you're paying $140+ for a pair of pants, you're going to get them hemmed.
But that's not an ordering option (is it?) and there's not even a FAQ on if they need special treatment when getting hemmed. For nearly $200 you'd think they'd reassure you that getting them hemmed will work out OK. This is stretch technical fabric that I wouldn't feel comfortable getting hemmed just anywhere. Lululemon offers in-house hemming to get their yoga pants to the right size presumably for this reason.
posted by GuyZero at 2:24 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
...or how about Chicken Drumstick Pants?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
After seeing the prices, I decided that these were in fact postapocalyptic pants, because civilization falling before the credit card bills came due would be about the only way that I could afford them.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:33 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:33 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
This reads rather differently to someone from a country where pants = underwear.
I can imagine needing special pants for the end of the world...
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 2:42 PM on November 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
I can imagine needing special pants for the end of the world...
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 2:42 PM on November 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
Yes, I do get the strong impression that the utopia in question doesn't include fat people or people who are either too tall or too short.
posted by wotsac at 3:31 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by wotsac at 3:31 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
Or you can just buy your pants from Duluth Trading for similar durability at 1/4 the price. Plus they make a wider variety of sizes and even have options for women.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:39 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 3:39 PM on November 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
I mean, am I the only one not surprised, nor appalled, at the pricing? I feel like people are a bit too used to the pricing model of Walmart, Target, or *insert botique store here that still has garbage clothes that fall apart*.
I am NOT saying stuff needs to be designer and/or expensive to be good but I mean this stuff, and I'm no expert but the wife and I have been (as I said above) restricting ourselves to buying USA (or at least non-slave labor countries) made goods and this price point isn't at all unreal considering the following givens, which I assume to be true based upon a cursory look and, ya'know, the OP's post itself:
1) Made in USA (NYC no less in many cases) I think. There seems to be some exceptions but I respect the fact that it's hard to find/produce things, doubly so specific ones, in the USA these days. I hope it's not me being naive to think that decisions to produce selective things elsewhere would include human rights concerns but it is what it is.
2) Intelligently designed and (I assume) tested goods. These are not clothes that are simply wishful thinking tank tops that just have to look good in the office for 6 - 8 hours and then get washed on delicate cycle, air dry, no detergent. These are, again purported and reviewed as, performance gear that has to be both sturdy, comfy, long wearing, durable, and not look like an astronaut in the meantime. Not to mention that they have additional features like functional pockets and real stitching that's made to last, which leads me to...
3) Materials that aren't flimsy and/or garbage. Merino wool stuff, from experience, isn't cheap. I"m less clued in on their synthetics and particular weaves but I'm sure that's not cheap either, doubly so for....
4) A non huge (or am I wrong) shop with margins that have to be self sustaining so that they can, again I hope, pay their employees a living wage.
I mean, if it's truly as good a garment as they purport it to be then I'm more than willing to give them the beneift of the doubt a la the Terry Pratchett theory of boots/economics:
A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that folks should feel bad for not spending X amount of dollars on a single article of clothing. If I'm saying anything it's that I'm sad that folks are forced/cornered into the idea, nay reality that buying less than serviceable clothes for low, low prices is the only option out there.
/soapbox
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:43 PM on November 8, 2017 [35 favorites]
I am NOT saying stuff needs to be designer and/or expensive to be good but I mean this stuff, and I'm no expert but the wife and I have been (as I said above) restricting ourselves to buying USA (or at least non-slave labor countries) made goods and this price point isn't at all unreal considering the following givens, which I assume to be true based upon a cursory look and, ya'know, the OP's post itself:
1) Made in USA (NYC no less in many cases) I think. There seems to be some exceptions but I respect the fact that it's hard to find/produce things, doubly so specific ones, in the USA these days. I hope it's not me being naive to think that decisions to produce selective things elsewhere would include human rights concerns but it is what it is.
2) Intelligently designed and (I assume) tested goods. These are not clothes that are simply wishful thinking tank tops that just have to look good in the office for 6 - 8 hours and then get washed on delicate cycle, air dry, no detergent. These are, again purported and reviewed as, performance gear that has to be both sturdy, comfy, long wearing, durable, and not look like an astronaut in the meantime. Not to mention that they have additional features like functional pockets and real stitching that's made to last, which leads me to...
3) Materials that aren't flimsy and/or garbage. Merino wool stuff, from experience, isn't cheap. I"m less clued in on their synthetics and particular weaves but I'm sure that's not cheap either, doubly so for....
4) A non huge (or am I wrong) shop with margins that have to be self sustaining so that they can, again I hope, pay their employees a living wage.
I mean, if it's truly as good a garment as they purport it to be then I'm more than willing to give them the beneift of the doubt a la the Terry Pratchett theory of boots/economics:
A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that folks should feel bad for not spending X amount of dollars on a single article of clothing. If I'm saying anything it's that I'm sad that folks are forced/cornered into the idea, nay reality that buying less than serviceable clothes for low, low prices is the only option out there.
/soapbox
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:43 PM on November 8, 2017 [35 favorites]
On lack of preview, not that it was directed at me or my comment but because I think it's a fine example of the difference in the products: Duluth Firehose pants indeed cheaper but also Imported (whatever that means, good luck finding out, not that you can't but it's never easy and rarely signifies good things).
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:45 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:45 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I have and love a pair of firehose work pants, but wouldn't consider them a competitor to the outlier stuff.
posted by flaterik at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2017
posted by flaterik at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2017
"Outlier" seems to be referring to your salary range.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:09 PM on November 8, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by lumpenprole at 4:09 PM on November 8, 2017 [14 favorites]
They look like a pair of jeans, only they’re lined with a double layer of a cool-to-the-touch space fabric called Dyneema (“simply the world’s strongest fiber”).
Space fabric, huh? *googles* Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. Well, it's basically a highly performance version of the plastic in your grocery bags. Which is significantly better than, say, a perfluoropolymer like teflon, from an environmental standpoint.
posted by Existential Dread at 4:23 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Space fabric, huh? *googles* Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. Well, it's basically a highly performance version of the plastic in your grocery bags. Which is significantly better than, say, a perfluoropolymer like teflon, from an environmental standpoint.
posted by Existential Dread at 4:23 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I am seriously disappointed that once again women are invisibled.
posted by suelac at 4:29 PM on November 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by suelac at 4:29 PM on November 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
I've owned a pair of the Outlier slim dungarees and their og pants for about ... four years now. They're the only pants that I've owned which have survived more than two years of year-round bike commuting. Usually at some point eighteen months in the crotches get blown out from abrasion with the saddle or other forms of wear and tear, and, yes, you could patch them, but the patches also get blown out as well. So, as one pair of pants they're rather expensive, but if they last me for five or ten years and save me from having to buy 5 pairs of jeans, they're actually pretty worthwhile.
This is the same argument around how buying $75 work shoes that wear out in a couple of years is going to cost you more than buying one pair of $200 shoes that can last for 10 years with an occasional re-soling.
With all that said, I do find most of the Outlier tops and outerwear stuff a bit too precious and not part of my personal style, but I don't regret their pants at all.
posted by bl1nk at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is the same argument around how buying $75 work shoes that wear out in a couple of years is going to cost you more than buying one pair of $200 shoes that can last for 10 years with an occasional re-soling.
With all that said, I do find most of the Outlier tops and outerwear stuff a bit too precious and not part of my personal style, but I don't regret their pants at all.
posted by bl1nk at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Those fabrics are expensive. If I could find a non EU retail supplier (and could find a pant pattern that worked), I could probably not buy enough yardage at retail to make the pants for what it costs to buy the pants. Which is not including labor. Or design. Or sewing space. Or notions.
Retail cost for the Schoelle dryskin fabric (which my Outlier pants are made of) is about $85/yard. I've never seen a wholesaler for technical fabrics who will divulge their prices to the public. Most wholesale fabrics are 20 yard minimums, which is more than a retail bolt (usually 15 yards), but I would expect a technical fabric like this to be a 50-100 yard minimum because of the narrow market that wants it and is able or willing to buy for the retail goods. Like the man said in the article, you don't get venture capital for inventory and wholesale yardage of your fabrics is inventory.
So a men's 38 waist pant, cut from a 45 width fabric takes about 2 3/4 yards (2 1/8 if it's 60 inch--the Schoeller retail I linked is roughly 50 inches, which means you'd probably need 2 1/4 or 2 1/2, depending on how you lay it out, but you need to run with the grain, especially with technical stretch). For a women's cut in the same middle-of-the-road size, you need about 1/2 yard more because of the difference in how you cut men's pants from the waist through the butt and hips and women's. Even if wholesale is 50% of retail, you're looking at more than $80 in fabric alone, before you add in notions or labor.
The finishes on the pants--the type and placement of the seams and the hardware --is high quality as well as carefully placed and well-inserted. The patterns are thoughtfully designed too, with regard to placement of seams and pockets (IIRC the first iteration of women's pants had bad front pockets, which were corrected). If you're responding to customer feedback, or adapting to style changes, or expanding your size ranges, that's costing time and labor, too.
These pants are not cheap but I don't think they are overpriced for what they are. These pants are highly durable and made of a truly high performance fabric. They are very thoughtfully designed and well-manufactured. I don't know anything about whether their employees earn living wages, or get paid time off, or help paying for health insurance.
I have a Kickstarter women's shirt made from a fabric manufactured to shed water and coffee and be non-stainable. And it is complete shit compared to the Outlier stuff, both in terms of the thoughtfulness of the design and the quality of the fabric. Compared to lots of things out there, it's a nice shirt and has held up to wash and wear better than a lot of things at its price point. But for the claims of technical future fabrics, the women's shit does not measure up to the Outlier pants I have.
I've heard that wholesale merino is $20-36/yard, depending on the ounce weight of the wool. That''s not actually much cheaper than you can buy retail, but most retail merino yardage is a jersey knit cut with a significant amount of spandex or cotton. Merino jersey actually does not need spandex to behave like a jersey made of a modern stretch textile. It just has to be spun and woven properly.
posted by crush at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2017 [29 favorites]
Retail cost for the Schoelle dryskin fabric (which my Outlier pants are made of) is about $85/yard. I've never seen a wholesaler for technical fabrics who will divulge their prices to the public. Most wholesale fabrics are 20 yard minimums, which is more than a retail bolt (usually 15 yards), but I would expect a technical fabric like this to be a 50-100 yard minimum because of the narrow market that wants it and is able or willing to buy for the retail goods. Like the man said in the article, you don't get venture capital for inventory and wholesale yardage of your fabrics is inventory.
So a men's 38 waist pant, cut from a 45 width fabric takes about 2 3/4 yards (2 1/8 if it's 60 inch--the Schoeller retail I linked is roughly 50 inches, which means you'd probably need 2 1/4 or 2 1/2, depending on how you lay it out, but you need to run with the grain, especially with technical stretch). For a women's cut in the same middle-of-the-road size, you need about 1/2 yard more because of the difference in how you cut men's pants from the waist through the butt and hips and women's. Even if wholesale is 50% of retail, you're looking at more than $80 in fabric alone, before you add in notions or labor.
The finishes on the pants--the type and placement of the seams and the hardware --is high quality as well as carefully placed and well-inserted. The patterns are thoughtfully designed too, with regard to placement of seams and pockets (IIRC the first iteration of women's pants had bad front pockets, which were corrected). If you're responding to customer feedback, or adapting to style changes, or expanding your size ranges, that's costing time and labor, too.
These pants are not cheap but I don't think they are overpriced for what they are. These pants are highly durable and made of a truly high performance fabric. They are very thoughtfully designed and well-manufactured. I don't know anything about whether their employees earn living wages, or get paid time off, or help paying for health insurance.
I have a Kickstarter women's shirt made from a fabric manufactured to shed water and coffee and be non-stainable. And it is complete shit compared to the Outlier stuff, both in terms of the thoughtfulness of the design and the quality of the fabric. Compared to lots of things out there, it's a nice shirt and has held up to wash and wear better than a lot of things at its price point. But for the claims of technical future fabrics, the women's shit does not measure up to the Outlier pants I have.
I've heard that wholesale merino is $20-36/yard, depending on the ounce weight of the wool. That''s not actually much cheaper than you can buy retail, but most retail merino yardage is a jersey knit cut with a significant amount of spandex or cotton. Merino jersey actually does not need spandex to behave like a jersey made of a modern stretch textile. It just has to be spun and woven properly.
posted by crush at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2017 [29 favorites]
Such snide dismissiveness here.
This may be for you. These may not be for you. You don't need to be a rich capitalist to buy these clothes. 200 dollars for pants is not crazy. Not when they last you a long time, are high quality, made in the USA, etc.
Also re: the inseam. It costs money to produce pants with different inseams. Cuff your pants. It'll do and looks good.
Also these clothes sell on the second-hand market. So you can buy with less risk, and get cheap used clothes!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:05 PM on November 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
This may be for you. These may not be for you. You don't need to be a rich capitalist to buy these clothes. 200 dollars for pants is not crazy. Not when they last you a long time, are high quality, made in the USA, etc.
Also re: the inseam. It costs money to produce pants with different inseams. Cuff your pants. It'll do and looks good.
Also these clothes sell on the second-hand market. So you can buy with less risk, and get cheap used clothes!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:05 PM on November 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
Also clothes are a hobby and its kinda not cool to make fun of peoples hobbies.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Gently) adding to the anti-backlash-backlash. I work in the apparel industry and these are completely reasonable prices given the considerations already named. Another factor to add to the list is the quantities being made per style, which seem to be low. Mass production is where the savings really comes in, hello $5 t-shirts at Walmart.
"Reasonable" ain't affordable, though. For many reasons, clothes with these characteristics aren't financially available to most of us, including most of us working in my industry, and that sucks. Nor do most people *cough*women*cough* have lives that allow them to be the software dude with three T-shirts and two pairs of pants. But if you do have access to clothes that perform well enough to your needs that you don't need a lot of them, it's pretty easy for the cost-per-wear to become practical.
Spot-checking items on the Outlier site, it seems that a lot of their production is being done in Portugal which could in effect be subsidizing the cost of the US labor (admittedly I don't know specifics about labor in Portugal). And of course all the materials are imported because US-made materials would double the cost of everything if we even made textiles in the US anymore. Schoeller is a Swiss company, though I couldn't tell you offhand where most of their stuff is actually woven, not Switzerland. Their fabrics are truly awesome, and I've recommended them to some of my clients. And most of them have chosen cheaper materials because they know the price point their customer will accept.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of these dudes particularly. They definitely seem to be pulling a "We finally fixed fashion, all we had to do was get rid of all the woman stuff!" conveniently not acknowledging the majority of the current workforce, the thousands of years of woman-driven apparel history their work is inevitably built on, the comparisons between stereotypically feminine shopping behavior and men's fashion Redditing etc etc.
I don't necessarily begrudge them not making women's clothes too, though. Interesting that they did it briefly and then stopped, I'm curious what happened. Women's bodies are (big generalization/oversimplification ahead) more difficult to fit. To do it properly they would have to hire a bunch of new people and spend a lot of time and money developing fit standards and stuff. I think if they were smart they would be directing their "radical vision" toward doing just that instead of searching for the Whitest of Whites and developing the "openweight merino thing" but maybe they're not that smart.
posted by doift at 5:44 PM on November 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
"Reasonable" ain't affordable, though. For many reasons, clothes with these characteristics aren't financially available to most of us, including most of us working in my industry, and that sucks. Nor do most people *cough*women*cough* have lives that allow them to be the software dude with three T-shirts and two pairs of pants. But if you do have access to clothes that perform well enough to your needs that you don't need a lot of them, it's pretty easy for the cost-per-wear to become practical.
Spot-checking items on the Outlier site, it seems that a lot of their production is being done in Portugal which could in effect be subsidizing the cost of the US labor (admittedly I don't know specifics about labor in Portugal). And of course all the materials are imported because US-made materials would double the cost of everything if we even made textiles in the US anymore. Schoeller is a Swiss company, though I couldn't tell you offhand where most of their stuff is actually woven, not Switzerland. Their fabrics are truly awesome, and I've recommended them to some of my clients. And most of them have chosen cheaper materials because they know the price point their customer will accept.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of these dudes particularly. They definitely seem to be pulling a "We finally fixed fashion, all we had to do was get rid of all the woman stuff!" conveniently not acknowledging the majority of the current workforce, the thousands of years of woman-driven apparel history their work is inevitably built on, the comparisons between stereotypically feminine shopping behavior and men's fashion Redditing etc etc.
I don't necessarily begrudge them not making women's clothes too, though. Interesting that they did it briefly and then stopped, I'm curious what happened. Women's bodies are (big generalization/oversimplification ahead) more difficult to fit. To do it properly they would have to hire a bunch of new people and spend a lot of time and money developing fit standards and stuff. I think if they were smart they would be directing their "radical vision" toward doing just that instead of searching for the Whitest of Whites and developing the "openweight merino thing" but maybe they're not that smart.
posted by doift at 5:44 PM on November 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
real talk I actually like the openweight merino thing, it's got two hoods! I'm a tiny lady and I would rock that thing. Thank goodness it's sold out so I'll never know how much it cost.
posted by doift at 5:48 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by doift at 5:48 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Also re: the inseam. It costs money to produce pants with different inseams. Cuff your pants. It'll do and looks good.
Will cuffing the pants make the 33.5” inseam any longer? Because my problem isn’t that they’re too long.
Also, Metafilter: the crotches get blown out from abrasion
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:06 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Will cuffing the pants make the 33.5” inseam any longer? Because my problem isn’t that they’re too long.
Also, Metafilter: the crotches get blown out from abrasion
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:06 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
The issue with $200 pants is this: You have to be able to front $200 at one time at the time that you need pants. And you have to work in a place where they won't mind you having a very, very small wardrobe of almost exclusively casual clothes, which is not most places, especially for women (if you can get women's pants). The jobs where you can own like three casual outfits and wear them repeatedly and afford $200 for a single piece of clothing are almost exclusively in the tech sector. That's who these clothes are for - tech bros with finer sensibilities and a year-round commute on a coast. They are not for, eg, union workers in the Midwest.
TBH, it's not that I think that rich people should buy environmentally disastrous sweatshop products, but it does make me sad the way this country keeps getting nicer and nicer for the $200-pants brigade and worse and worse for everyone else.
I add that for the vast majority of millenials that I know personally, coming up with $30 for a piece of clothing is a significant challenge - J Crew, where pants run ~$70, is seen as super-pricy. I think that it's easy for a lot of mefites (including me, up to a point, since I have a full-time job with benefits) to think that $200 for something is just a matter of scrimping a little bit, but I know people for whom $200 is more than the year's clothing budget.
(Although honestly, I recommend Everlane if you are a women's 12 or smaller or a men's 38 waist or smaller - they appear to do US-made or fairtrade clothes at prices lower than full-price JCrew and their stuff is much, much nicer than full price J Crew. I keep hoping that their success is going to lead to offering more sizes, since IMO they could be a bigger company than JCrew if they could scale up the way they're going. Their clothes are office casual/dressier than these, but their pants have stretch and I have biked in them a lot.)
On another note:
Usually at some point eighteen months in the crotches get blown out from abrasion with the saddle or other forms of wear and tear, and, yes, you could patch them, but the patches also get blown out as well.
Okay, how much do you bike and how many pairs of pants do you have? I bike year-round but fairly short distances and probably have ~4 pairs of pants for late spring-early fall and ~4 for winter, wearing each ~2 times a week, and I hardly ever destroy any pants unless they are pretty terrible pants. I was worried about my Everlanes, because they are pretty lightweight, but they look really good after fairly heavy rotation over about four months.
posted by Frowner at 6:19 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
TBH, it's not that I think that rich people should buy environmentally disastrous sweatshop products, but it does make me sad the way this country keeps getting nicer and nicer for the $200-pants brigade and worse and worse for everyone else.
I add that for the vast majority of millenials that I know personally, coming up with $30 for a piece of clothing is a significant challenge - J Crew, where pants run ~$70, is seen as super-pricy. I think that it's easy for a lot of mefites (including me, up to a point, since I have a full-time job with benefits) to think that $200 for something is just a matter of scrimping a little bit, but I know people for whom $200 is more than the year's clothing budget.
(Although honestly, I recommend Everlane if you are a women's 12 or smaller or a men's 38 waist or smaller - they appear to do US-made or fairtrade clothes at prices lower than full-price JCrew and their stuff is much, much nicer than full price J Crew. I keep hoping that their success is going to lead to offering more sizes, since IMO they could be a bigger company than JCrew if they could scale up the way they're going. Their clothes are office casual/dressier than these, but their pants have stretch and I have biked in them a lot.)
On another note:
Usually at some point eighteen months in the crotches get blown out from abrasion with the saddle or other forms of wear and tear, and, yes, you could patch them, but the patches also get blown out as well.
Okay, how much do you bike and how many pairs of pants do you have? I bike year-round but fairly short distances and probably have ~4 pairs of pants for late spring-early fall and ~4 for winter, wearing each ~2 times a week, and I hardly ever destroy any pants unless they are pretty terrible pants. I was worried about my Everlanes, because they are pretty lightweight, but they look really good after fairly heavy rotation over about four months.
posted by Frowner at 6:19 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
Given the sort of market we're talking about--you know, it's not like anybody thinks they're reasonable precisely, but nobody would react quite this way to the idea of NYC finance or BigLaw guys wearing $1k suits. It seems inevitable--more casual workplaces for well-off people means there's going to be more high-end casual clothing. American-made clothing is pretty low on the list of stuff I'm outraged about rich city boys spending their money on. I will say, however, that it's hard to read these articles that go into loving detail about cool stuff and then discover, whether for budget or size/fit reasons, the cool stuff isn't For You.
I'm even a software developer with a little money, but there isn't anywhere I'm aware of that I can go that will provide for me some kind of vaguely fashion-equivalent cool nerd clothes but cut for a plus-sized woman. Like, I even totally have the life that would allow me to only have two pairs of pants! I currently only own one pair of $90 jeans and that's most of what I wear, alternating at home with cheap sweats. But I spent $90 on those because they're the Holy Grail of jeans for me... which just means that they vaguely fit, are well-constructed, and have front pockets. The bar for women's clothing is just so, so low, even if you've got the budget. Guys in this market are getting space pants, and I'm over here squeeing because I can carry my phone now without sitting on it.
posted by Sequence at 6:27 PM on November 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm even a software developer with a little money, but there isn't anywhere I'm aware of that I can go that will provide for me some kind of vaguely fashion-equivalent cool nerd clothes but cut for a plus-sized woman. Like, I even totally have the life that would allow me to only have two pairs of pants! I currently only own one pair of $90 jeans and that's most of what I wear, alternating at home with cheap sweats. But I spent $90 on those because they're the Holy Grail of jeans for me... which just means that they vaguely fit, are well-constructed, and have front pockets. The bar for women's clothing is just so, so low, even if you've got the budget. Guys in this market are getting space pants, and I'm over here squeeing because I can carry my phone now without sitting on it.
posted by Sequence at 6:27 PM on November 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
The issue with $200 pants is this: You have to be able to front $200 at one time at the time that you need pants
I highly recommend buying from some place with a return policy or trying expensive shit online and then buying gently used stuff on ebay. Saves a fortune. Its work, but I like it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:28 PM on November 8, 2017
I highly recommend buying from some place with a return policy or trying expensive shit online and then buying gently used stuff on ebay. Saves a fortune. Its work, but I like it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:28 PM on November 8, 2017
The other thing about betabrand and Everlane and so on is that their clothes are almost all designed for the West Coast - a narrow range of temperatures, neither insanely hot nor insanely cold, all year round. There's an awful lot of stuff that they sell that just makes zero sense for the midwest, because it's either way too hot to wear it or so cold that you need fifty layers over it. And suede shoes and bags - everything is suede, suede, suede. I can't buy suede boots, because there's approximately three weeks a year when it's cool enough and dry enough to wear them, but not so cold that unlined suede means my feet will freeze.
And the reason that this stuff gets complaints where $1000 suits don't is because this stuff is heavily moralized and $1000 suits usually aren't. You buy a fancy suit because you're a rich guy who likes to dress to impress. Notionally, you buy special space bike pants made by artisans out of environmentally sound materials because you care. One of the affective harms done to low income people is that many of the social marks of caring require money.
In re the secondhand market: Almost all my stuff is fancy stuff that I bought secondhand. But the thing is, the more people are looking for fancy secondhand stuff, the more the prices go up. Just tonight I was looking for a shirt on eBay and noticing that the kind I wanted was more fashionable now and the prices were about $10 more per shirt than last year. The secondhand market is a great individual solution if you have access to it, but it doesn't solve the basic $200 pants problem, which is our old friend inequality.
posted by Frowner at 6:36 PM on November 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
And the reason that this stuff gets complaints where $1000 suits don't is because this stuff is heavily moralized and $1000 suits usually aren't. You buy a fancy suit because you're a rich guy who likes to dress to impress. Notionally, you buy special space bike pants made by artisans out of environmentally sound materials because you care. One of the affective harms done to low income people is that many of the social marks of caring require money.
In re the secondhand market: Almost all my stuff is fancy stuff that I bought secondhand. But the thing is, the more people are looking for fancy secondhand stuff, the more the prices go up. Just tonight I was looking for a shirt on eBay and noticing that the kind I wanted was more fashionable now and the prices were about $10 more per shirt than last year. The secondhand market is a great individual solution if you have access to it, but it doesn't solve the basic $200 pants problem, which is our old friend inequality.
posted by Frowner at 6:36 PM on November 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
Also, I have to say that it feels great to argue about space pants rather than about in which Trump-induced form our doom will come. Feels like 2015 in here, and my cortisol levels are drifting gently down.
posted by Frowner at 6:45 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 6:45 PM on November 8, 2017 [16 favorites]
metafilter: I have to say that it feels great to argue about space pants
posted by lalochezia at 7:04 PM on November 8, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 7:04 PM on November 8, 2017 [10 favorites]
I have a suit that cost almost $1k after having it tailored. It's comfortable as hell, fits like a glove and I look great in it. I'm a home-based employee but I wear that suit just about every time I go into the office and I look for excuses to wear it.
posted by VTX at 7:07 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 7:07 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Gibson zeroed in on this, what, 7 years ago? He’s slipping.
posted by valkane at 7:30 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by valkane at 7:30 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Arguably Gibson's idea started with Cayce Pollard Units in Pattern Recognition, which is from 2003. He might be not so much slipping as taking his time.
posted by fedward at 7:36 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by fedward at 7:36 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Gibson’s Blue Ant trilogy is specifically set in the past though- each novel takes place about a year before it’s publication, so we’re the slow ones. He is all about Acronym/Errolson Hugh these days though.
posted by rodlymight at 7:53 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 7:53 PM on November 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Or you can just buy your pants from Duluth Trading for similar durability at 1/4 the price.
Yeah, but they aren't Apple.
posted by Beholder at 8:31 PM on November 8, 2017
Yeah, but they aren't Apple.
posted by Beholder at 8:31 PM on November 8, 2017
Usually at some point eighteen months in the crotches get blown out from abrasion with the saddle or other forms of wear and tear, and, yes, you could patch them, but the patches also get blown out as well.Umm, more or less everyday year round in New England with both snowy winters and thunderous summers. 6.3 miles each way, maybe 20 mile average days? I rotate through 5 pants year round (Levi's or Uniqlo jeans, j crew or banana republic khakis, etc.). I wouldn't have been interested in Outlier pants if I didn't have an actual problem of wear and tear. I wouldn't buy a second pair if I didn't think that they worked.
Okay, how much do you bike and how many pairs of pants do you have? I bike year-round but fairly short distances and probably have ~4 pairs of pants for late spring-early fall and ~4 for winter, wearing each ~2 times a week, and I hardly ever destroy any pants unless they are pretty terrible pants.
Is that enough for you to believe my lived experience?
posted by bl1nk at 9:05 PM on November 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
I understand the market and the price for these kind of goods. What I find strange is that they are usually locating their business in NYC, LA, or the Bay Area. I know people there need to work too, but it seems like if some of these people were serious they'd set up shop somewhere much cheaper. But maybe that's not a big part of their costs.
posted by bongo_x at 9:58 PM on November 8, 2017
posted by bongo_x at 9:58 PM on November 8, 2017
What I find strange is that they are usually locating their business in NYC, LA, or the Bay Area.
It's because that's where they want to live?
posted by GuyZero at 10:12 PM on November 8, 2017
It's because that's where they want to live?
posted by GuyZero at 10:12 PM on November 8, 2017
That's what I'm saying. They're basing their business on where they want to live.
posted by bongo_x at 10:16 PM on November 8, 2017
posted by bongo_x at 10:16 PM on November 8, 2017
Or they are basing their life on where they want to live.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 11:27 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 11:27 PM on November 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
You don't need to be a rich capitalist to buy these clothes. 200 dollars for pants is not crazy.
That's about my entire monthly budget for literally everything. So yeah, from where I'm sitting, you sure do need to be a rich capitalist to spend a month's budget on some fucking trousers.
posted by Dysk at 12:00 AM on November 9, 2017 [7 favorites]
That's about my entire monthly budget for literally everything. So yeah, from where I'm sitting, you sure do need to be a rich capitalist to spend a month's budget on some fucking trousers.
posted by Dysk at 12:00 AM on November 9, 2017 [7 favorites]
You being broke or poor doesn't make anyone with 200 dollars for trousers a "rich capitalist".
posted by thedaniel at 1:50 AM on November 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by thedaniel at 1:50 AM on November 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
From where I'm sitting, it sure does.
posted by Dysk at 2:49 AM on November 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 2:49 AM on November 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
Anyway, as someone that used to occasionally wear head-to-toe Outlier (including the exceedingly dope outlier x vans shoes) that is currently in pajames including a six-year old Outlier merino tee, I gotta agree with the commenters above that if you can afford the pants and the style fits your work / lifestyle they are actually a good value. The merino stuff, eh, t-shirts are disposable for someone that eats as messily as i do, but the pants are very well made with high quality materials. I had mine hemmed at the corner alterations/dry cleaning place and when I burnt a hole in a pair by accident, they sent me a patch of the schoeller fabric in the mail for free so that i could have someone repair the pants.
posted by thedaniel at 3:58 AM on November 9, 2017
posted by thedaniel at 3:58 AM on November 9, 2017
It's purely theoretical for me because lady, but I could get on board with these pants of they last as long as purported. But I'd have to exist on nothing but Soylent because I cannot eat or cook without staining every article of clothing I'm in irretrievably. I have only just very very recently arrived at an income bracket where I can very occasionally purchase something more expensive and longer-lasting/higher-quality, but I still eat like a toddler. I frequently joke that what I really need is a white t-shirt subscription service that will just send me a new one every month.
I did just shop the fall sale at Eddie Bauer, and: dresses made out of technical fabrics, guys. Miraculous. Expensive, but miraculous.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:29 AM on November 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
I did just shop the fall sale at Eddie Bauer, and: dresses made out of technical fabrics, guys. Miraculous. Expensive, but miraculous.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:29 AM on November 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
And I looked, and sure enough, they're a member of the "fat guys don't need decent clothes" movement that means that, even having lost 70 pounds since February, I need to go to the Fat Guy Shop for clothes.
Fuck 'fashion' in the nose with a cactus.
posted by mephron at 4:32 AM on November 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
Fuck 'fashion' in the nose with a cactus.
posted by mephron at 4:32 AM on November 9, 2017 [5 favorites]
Is that enough for you to believe my lived experience?
Perhaps that came across as more hostile than I intended! I apologize - I was thinking of it more like a "we're all sitting around shooting the shit about biking and pants" question, but I see that it came across as "justify the destruction of your possessions". I was genuinely interested, for what it's worth, because I wear out various things biking but seldom pants. Even when I rode as much as you, I didn't seem to have a lot of trouble, and I wonder why - different body configuration, different bike styles?
In any case, I apologize that it came across as accusatory - I genuinely wanted to know.
posted by Frowner at 4:57 AM on November 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
Perhaps that came across as more hostile than I intended! I apologize - I was thinking of it more like a "we're all sitting around shooting the shit about biking and pants" question, but I see that it came across as "justify the destruction of your possessions". I was genuinely interested, for what it's worth, because I wear out various things biking but seldom pants. Even when I rode as much as you, I didn't seem to have a lot of trouble, and I wonder why - different body configuration, different bike styles?
In any case, I apologize that it came across as accusatory - I genuinely wanted to know.
posted by Frowner at 4:57 AM on November 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
Frowner, I’ll actually second that genuine cyclist curiosity! I don’t have a long commute anymore, but I still bike commute every day and I only have a small rotation of inexpensive stretch denim pants that I wear. I find my pants actually wear most in the front pockets, with my unfashionably bulgy combination of keys/wallet on one side, and large phone on the other. I don’t think I’ve had a single pair of pants fail in the crotch area...
posted by Nutri-Matic Drinks Synthesizer at 5:18 AM on November 9, 2017
posted by Nutri-Matic Drinks Synthesizer at 5:18 AM on November 9, 2017
np, Frowner, and thank you for following up. I think I've just had my hackles up with some of the other backlash-y/judge-y comments on this thread. I was also thinking a bit this morning that perhaps another difference is just the simple fact that all of my bikes are conventional triangle frame bikes that require me to swing my leg high over the top tube, rather than stepthrough or mixte configurations, so there's always some degree of space pant crotch stress that wears that area out over time.
fwiw, if one wants to consider alternative brands that also have women's lines, a lot of these still fall more in the "cyclist who works in an office that expects white collars" spectrum than "white collar worker who bikes to work" but:
Ministry of Supply -- probably the fastest follower to Outlier. Same idea of taking office wear and redoing them in tech fabrics to make them work better for the frequent flier/bike commuter, but with less experimentation and more mass production. I don't actually own any of their stuff, just because I haven't had the budget to splurge on their stuff in this past year, but a brick and mortar store opened in Boston a year ago, and I've been impressed with what I've tried on.
Rapha -- slightly less expensive than Outlier. Very skinny-ist, though jeans are roomy enough for cyclist calves. Cycling specialist that branched into 'urban' lines to cater to the commuter market. They have a pair of cotton/nylon/elastene women's jeans that some of my female friends have worn and loved. Their men's dress shirt is, imho, better finished than the Outlier Pivot, but the Pivot moves better with me on my bike.
Nau -- also slightly more affordable options for urban/active/travel segment. I've never owned their pants but I've loved their jackets/outerwear. I've owned their Riding Jacket/Blazer since it first came out, and it's been a staple cold/wet weather layer for ... jeez ... a decade now, I guess.
Ibex -- this is my go-to for merino anything/whatever. Much more REI chic in aesthetic, so it isn't something I'd wear all of the time, but their base layers and sweaters are great for when the weather needs more layering
and also, of course, there's Betabrand, as mentioned by others earlier. I'll be honest and say that it took me a while to seriously consider a company that prided itself on selling dress pant sweatpants, but I do like how they play with a lot of different approaches and tackle experimentalism with more fun and less pretentiousness than Outlier. The dad bod, hoodie wearing Silicon Valley CEO to Outlier's NY scowling runway models.
posted by bl1nk at 5:26 AM on November 9, 2017 [13 favorites]
fwiw, if one wants to consider alternative brands that also have women's lines, a lot of these still fall more in the "cyclist who works in an office that expects white collars" spectrum than "white collar worker who bikes to work" but:
Ministry of Supply -- probably the fastest follower to Outlier. Same idea of taking office wear and redoing them in tech fabrics to make them work better for the frequent flier/bike commuter, but with less experimentation and more mass production. I don't actually own any of their stuff, just because I haven't had the budget to splurge on their stuff in this past year, but a brick and mortar store opened in Boston a year ago, and I've been impressed with what I've tried on.
Rapha -- slightly less expensive than Outlier. Very skinny-ist, though jeans are roomy enough for cyclist calves. Cycling specialist that branched into 'urban' lines to cater to the commuter market. They have a pair of cotton/nylon/elastene women's jeans that some of my female friends have worn and loved. Their men's dress shirt is, imho, better finished than the Outlier Pivot, but the Pivot moves better with me on my bike.
Nau -- also slightly more affordable options for urban/active/travel segment. I've never owned their pants but I've loved their jackets/outerwear. I've owned their Riding Jacket/Blazer since it first came out, and it's been a staple cold/wet weather layer for ... jeez ... a decade now, I guess.
Ibex -- this is my go-to for merino anything/whatever. Much more REI chic in aesthetic, so it isn't something I'd wear all of the time, but their base layers and sweaters are great for when the weather needs more layering
and also, of course, there's Betabrand, as mentioned by others earlier. I'll be honest and say that it took me a while to seriously consider a company that prided itself on selling dress pant sweatpants, but I do like how they play with a lot of different approaches and tackle experimentalism with more fun and less pretentiousness than Outlier. The dad bod, hoodie wearing Silicon Valley CEO to Outlier's NY scowling runway models.
posted by bl1nk at 5:26 AM on November 9, 2017 [13 favorites]
For me, the only pants I've worn out have been horrible pants that didn't fit and were really bad fabric - not particularly cheap, just very bad for the price. I've ruined pants by tearing the ankles on the gears of the bike, though, even though I try to roll or tuck them and even fairly skinny pants. Mainly I mess up shoes, because there's something about the way I pedal that puts a ton of pointy pressure on one spot on my right sole and a hole develops. (And also my right heel - I am always scarring up shoes right there because they rub against something.) I can't figure it out because it's just the one spot the size of a quarter and I can't see anything wrong with how my feet fit on the pedals. (I don't use clips - my rides are very stop-and-start city rides most of the time.)
posted by Frowner at 5:30 AM on November 9, 2017
posted by Frowner at 5:30 AM on November 9, 2017
You buy a fancy suit because you're a rich guy who likes to dress to impress.
Or because your workplace requires it. Also, a full canvassed suit jacket is a pretty complex garment to manufacture.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:31 AM on November 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
Or because your workplace requires it. Also, a full canvassed suit jacket is a pretty complex garment to manufacture.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:31 AM on November 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
You guys can have your $200 end of the world pants,* I've got my dystopia outfit 100% worked out
*End of the world dress, on the other hand? Talk to me. (I hope it's red).
posted by thivaia at 6:41 AM on November 9, 2017
*End of the world dress, on the other hand? Talk to me. (I hope it's red).
posted by thivaia at 6:41 AM on November 9, 2017
Or because your workplace requires it. Also, a full canvassed suit jacket is a pretty complex garment to manufacture.
There's workplaces that require full canvassed suits?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:19 AM on November 9, 2017
There's workplaces that require full canvassed suits?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:19 AM on November 9, 2017
Nau is interesting and sort of a case study in how this sort of company might not work long term. Their launch in 2006 was entirely this William Gibson cyberpunk new future aesthetic--mostly utilitarian designs with just enough edge to be cool. All made in highly technical fabrics or merino. Stuff you could plausibly wear to work (probably any office in the PNW, but only on the most casual days in many East coast firms) but which had thumbloops or odd hidden pockets, seaming across the body in places that don't chafe on bikes or under climbing harnesses which shed dirt and water. Here's their oldest Flickr page with some of the first designs.
I bought the Roundhouse dress when their shop opened in Chicago--the shop had a couple of demo clothes in all the sizes, but you bought from a kiosk in the center of the store and your purchase was shipped to your house. That dress is amazing. 10 years later it still looks great, sheds water like a duck and gets comments everywhere I go.
Nau went bankrupt in 2008 and Horny Toad (now Toad & Co, I believe) bought all their assets. Reportedly because the run on the close outs was incredible. I know I bought everything I could get my hands on when they shut down. All of it (except the one shirt that the moths got and hoddie which got cut in a tragic sewing room incident) in beautiful shape still. Their bike pants are one of the other three pairs of pants I actually wear, though the rise is way too low to ever be as comfortable as the Oultier Daily Riding Pant.[fn1]
Nau don't use such fabulous fabrics any more. They used to do things with exotic fibers and recycled plastics. And their designs are more ordinary, just casual clothes like you might find anywhere--more hip urban grocery store run than practical SF corporate marauding. I find that only the jackets are unique enough--in terms of great performance fabric, plus great utility, plus looking really cool--to be worth the price any more. And I don't need or even want a new raincoat every year. The story of Nau really make me sad.
==
[fn1] The three pairs of pants I like to wear and actually wear in my closet are: the Outlier Daily Riding Pant, a $15 pair of flat front side zip trousers from H&M which are supposed to be ankle pants, but I'm just short enough for them to be long enough; and my St John wool trousers. Those are amazing.
posted by crush at 7:24 AM on November 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
I bought the Roundhouse dress when their shop opened in Chicago--the shop had a couple of demo clothes in all the sizes, but you bought from a kiosk in the center of the store and your purchase was shipped to your house. That dress is amazing. 10 years later it still looks great, sheds water like a duck and gets comments everywhere I go.
Nau went bankrupt in 2008 and Horny Toad (now Toad & Co, I believe) bought all their assets. Reportedly because the run on the close outs was incredible. I know I bought everything I could get my hands on when they shut down. All of it (except the one shirt that the moths got and hoddie which got cut in a tragic sewing room incident) in beautiful shape still. Their bike pants are one of the other three pairs of pants I actually wear, though the rise is way too low to ever be as comfortable as the Oultier Daily Riding Pant.[fn1]
Nau don't use such fabulous fabrics any more. They used to do things with exotic fibers and recycled plastics. And their designs are more ordinary, just casual clothes like you might find anywhere--more hip urban grocery store run than practical SF corporate marauding. I find that only the jackets are unique enough--in terms of great performance fabric, plus great utility, plus looking really cool--to be worth the price any more. And I don't need or even want a new raincoat every year. The story of Nau really make me sad.
==
[fn1] The three pairs of pants I like to wear and actually wear in my closet are: the Outlier Daily Riding Pant, a $15 pair of flat front side zip trousers from H&M which are supposed to be ankle pants, but I'm just short enough for them to be long enough; and my St John wool trousers. Those are amazing.
posted by crush at 7:24 AM on November 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
where "SF" in the prior comment means "Science Fiction" not "San Francisco"
posted by crush at 7:41 AM on November 9, 2017
posted by crush at 7:41 AM on November 9, 2017
I've bought about 5 pairs of bluffworks pants, which are similar in concept, but maybe not as high tech. Slightly cheaper at just under $100. The first two pairs I bought are over 4 years old and still going strong. I was disappointed to learn on my second order that they changed their sizing to stop being "inches" for waist size, so I ended up having to return/re-order which I hate doing, but was worth it for these pants.
Granted, I am only on a citibike in NYC about 15 minutes a day total, but I have yet to have any holes/damage on my pants, which is pretty great. They're definitely outlasting any pair of jeans I've ever bought.
posted by Grither at 8:21 AM on November 9, 2017
Granted, I am only on a citibike in NYC about 15 minutes a day total, but I have yet to have any holes/damage on my pants, which is pretty great. They're definitely outlasting any pair of jeans I've ever bought.
posted by Grither at 8:21 AM on November 9, 2017
Okay, a pants question: when I see "nylon" (or indeed any artificial fabric), I think "boil in summer, freeze in winter" and I'm more worried about boiling. Has anyone worn these synthetic pants when it's above 80?
posted by Frowner at 8:27 AM on November 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Frowner at 8:27 AM on November 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
I can't wear the Outlier Daily Pant above 80 degrees, especially not riding. The cheaper shirt I reference that is also water-shedding is too warm above about 70. So there's definitely variability there. But thanks to being a middle aged lady, I get too warm naked above 80 degrees lately.
posted by crush at 8:37 AM on November 9, 2017
posted by crush at 8:37 AM on November 9, 2017
Has anyone worn these synthetic pants when it's above 80?
I wore Outlier Slim Dungareees year round in LA. They were super hot in 90 degree weather, but what isn’t? The black color probably didn’t help. I felt they were more comfortable than black jeans in the heat.
posted by thedaniel at 8:59 AM on November 9, 2017
I wore Outlier Slim Dungareees year round in LA. They were super hot in 90 degree weather, but what isn’t? The black color probably didn’t help. I felt they were more comfortable than black jeans in the heat.
posted by thedaniel at 8:59 AM on November 9, 2017
my Outlier OGs are a little better in warm weather than my Slim Dungarees, which are a different fabric. The Dungarees use Outlier Workcloth, which apparently has a higher amount of nylon for extra durability, but results in a less breathable pair of pants. They're both easier in breathing than denim or canvas, but aren't quite as nice as, say, linen. But I've also never found linen pants that can stand up to more than, say, a month of riding around town.
Though on that note, Outlier once sold a linen version of their Pivot dress shirt, and I wore one while cycling around Cappadocia and it was so comfy that I honestly wished that I could've afforded to buy two when they were still in stock.
posted by bl1nk at 9:08 AM on November 9, 2017
Though on that note, Outlier once sold a linen version of their Pivot dress shirt, and I wore one while cycling around Cappadocia and it was so comfy that I honestly wished that I could've afforded to buy two when they were still in stock.
posted by bl1nk at 9:08 AM on November 9, 2017
Speaking as a relatively active overweight man, I sympathise with the blown-out-crotch problem. I'm always looking for durable dress-casual work trousers that will handle the fact that I walk and cycle for miles each day and have a significant chub-rub problem that tends to abrade away everything I've found within weeks. Lately I've settled on a particular pair of cordura builders' trousers that seem to hold out for months, but I'm always looking for better. I would pay £200 for a pair that can last me a year. That would be amazing!
And I find the weave of nylon makes all the difference. Obviously if you get a smooth and tight raincoat fabric it won't breathe properly.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:19 PM on November 9, 2017
And I find the weave of nylon makes all the difference. Obviously if you get a smooth and tight raincoat fabric it won't breathe properly.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:19 PM on November 9, 2017
I mean... the argument isn't that the pants cost too much for what they are.
It's that they cost too much for what a lot of people can afford.
Yes, you get what you pay for, you're supporting US-made products, that's great and all... but we have to acknowledge that spending $200 on a single pair of pants is a privileged position.
posted by skullhead at 1:13 PM on November 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's that they cost too much for what a lot of people can afford.
Yes, you get what you pay for, you're supporting US-made products, that's great and all... but we have to acknowledge that spending $200 on a single pair of pants is a privileged position.
posted by skullhead at 1:13 PM on November 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older “Bwahhh!” | The spectacle does not sing of men and their arms Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Those pants are awesome. If you are a person who can wear men's pants, you should buy some.
posted by crush at 1:49 PM on November 8, 2017 [13 favorites]