Columnist pants - attempt #2 (K/R) - YouLookFab Forum

Category

Dressing

Columnist pants - attempt #2 (K/R)

Tanya

Veteran

A couple of weeks I have purchased a pair of colored Columnist pants but unfortunately they were too tight http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....-too-tight

I have sent these back. In the meantime, the tomato red color was sold out so I exchanged them for a cobalt pair in a size up. In all the honesty, even though I was very excited about tomato red, my wardrobe is in cool colors so cobalt would fit much better in. So, here they are, a size up. How is the fit this time around? They are falling a bit of my hips so I needed a belt.

Also, in case they are keepers, can the long-waisted me wear this tucked in look, since the rise is lowish? I normally only tuck into high waisted bottoms.

This post has 3 photos. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Dressing

46 replies

Latest reply was from LoP

rachylou

Veteran

They look nice on you. Maybe you could get a dart at the waistband - I think Angie has talked about this before. I have this problem as well, pants that slide because the waist just doesn't nip in enough for my shape.

K. Period.

Veteran

They look great! I think as long as you wear them with heels, to lengthen your leg line, you can tuck in. Tucking in with a lower rise will never look as good as tucking in with a higher rise, but why make "ideal" the enemy of "very good"? Tucked in is nice and fun for variety.

JennyAnne

(website)

Veteran

The fit looks perfect, and I very much like the tucked-in blouse with them. Great outfit, really!

Transcona Shannon

Veteran

These look absolutely fantastic on you Tanya. As Rachylou suggested, you can have the waist taken in to fit better.

Diana

Veteran

I think the fit is great from the hips down, but I really really want the waist to be more nipped in. I'm also not crazy about the color as it appears in the photo... the blue looks quite muted to me here and not a true cobalt. A little too close to denim, and I know that you already have a fab denim collection! Of course if it's just the photo, then ignore my comment!

Jem

Veteran

I love those one you! It makes me want to go get some. I really love those! (did I say I love them?)...

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

ignore this.

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

The waistband does not look too big in these photos. Diana, where could the waist be *more* nipped in? (If there is gaping at the back, Tanya - you know all to well that's an easy alteration :))

They look great, Tanya! (Mine are loose on the waist, and perhaps even loser all over, and a belt keeps them from sliding down. I did not want to alter them at all. Personally, I like the boyish fit).

I have seen these in real life and the colour is bright and divine. Perfect for you, Tanya

This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Tanya

Veteran

Thank you all very much!

Diana, the blue is actually very bright, for some reason my camera washes out all the colors. Here is the stock photo, truer to life:
http://www.express.com/ultimat.....pro#jsLink

Angie, it is exactly as you describe, they are a bit loose all over, and the belt keeps them in place. I am happy with this fit for a change, most of my pants are very fitted. I have even tried one more size up, but that was clearly huge. There is no real gapping at the back though, so I guess no alteration (happy sigh).

Jonesy

Veteran

I think I'm an outlier around here because I prefer trousers without any whiskering around the crotch area, and a looser fit through the thighs, pretty much as Angie is showing with her red ones. I sound like a broken record whenever anyone posts their dress pants :). Just my two cents, of course--it's all personal preference!

Deborah

Veteran

Angie has already spoken biput I was going to say yours seem to fit like her red ones and I think yours (and Angie's ) look perfect. Love these on you.

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Interesting...Jonesy. Would that be a question of the rise? If so, Tanya (and I) would probably have trouble wearing ANY trousers. Ever. Truly...I know this issue so well. Generally I agree with you about avoiding the whispering where possible, but you know, it's TOUGH with any trousers that aren't waist high, if you've got this kind of figure. (Gorgeous figure, Tanya...just tougher for finding the right pants, as you know!)

Personally, I like these a lot and feel very tempted to try a pair myself! But maybe I'm not to be trusted. After all, I was ready to go with super dated baggy butt fuchsia silk...LOL!

Jaime

(website)

Veteran

I like these and think they give you a different and nice alternative silhouette from some of your other jeans and trousers.

Jonesy

Veteran

I'm no expert about the specifics of fit and crotch whiskering and body type :). I do get that it's really hard sometimes to find pants that fit right, and fit issues with pants can be so complicated and frustrating! And I am certainly not trying to be hyper-critical (I wouldn't even say anything if Tanya weren't posting and asking for opinions!). I know that different places do make pants with different cuts, so some are cut more straight through the hips and thighs, while some are cut with smaller waists and allow for more curve through the hips. I think this is great news because of course we all have different body types! For example, I don't have much of a waist and it's very high, so my issue tends to be a waistline that is too tight if the hips and thighs fit. So a curvy fit would be a nightmare for me and my large waist.

I did try on these exact pants in two sizes, my regular size and one size up. I tried on my regular size, which had whiskering at the crotch and were snug but not tight through the thighs. The SO and I both thought they looked too tight (he said in a millisecond, "Oh, those are way too tight"), so I went with a size up, which was loose and almost slouchy. But some people might think these look too baggy on me, you know? And not flattering at all, or ill-fitting. So I think it boils down to personal preference.

Sorry for the derail, Tanya :)!

Tanya

Veteran

Jonesy & Suz, no problem at all I enjoy these discussions.

I do think that it is the body type issue though, as Suz says. I really dislike whiskering and will do anything to avoid them, but it is almost impossible for me. The only true whisker-free pants have been 70's style super high waisted ones. Anything else, there is some kind, even if minimal, of whiskering. Sometimes, if I stand straight it looks ok, but as soon as I start moving, some whiskering appears. I have tried these pants one more size up, and even though they were falling of me, there were the whiskers I bet Suz is right and it has something to do with the rise, but I do not know who is too short/long in the rise, myself or pants.

So what I usually tend to so is make sure that the pants are not too tight - e.g. avoid pulling. I would on purpose try them one or more sized up just to see that the lines are still there. And I guess I have learned to live with small amount of them. Maybe there are some magic pants out there for me - I just haven't found them yet. I have tried many mid-price and even pricey brands, and the all itt was all always the same. For example, Theory's Max C are as close to whisker free as it gets, but even they have some small amount.

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

Tanya, Jonesy and Suz - I hear you all! Great discussion.

To Jonesy's point, I was originally going to suggest *another* size up here in order to create a more boyish fit because my trousers fit more loosely around the thigh area than Tanya's do. My Theory trousers fit the same way as my red trousers. However, I am familiar with how Tanya prefers things to fit after shopping with her - and I think that the less loose option will make her happy

AND, to Sue's and Tanya's point, it's hard to eliminate all whiskering on certain body types - curvy thighs and bottom will cause some creases, even after alteration, whether you are a size 00 or 18.

This is not a reflection on anyone in particular: Generally though these days, I seem to be suggesting to clients, forum members and friends to size up and lengthen their wardrobe items and purchases. This was the opposite to say 4 years ago when I seemed to be saying "size down because you're drowning in that garment". I wonder whether the exposure to hectically body conscious fashion has played a role in this shift?

Tanya

Veteran

Thank you for chiming in on the whiskering discussion Angie! I really appreciate your input.

As I mentioned, I did try these pants in one more size up. To Angie's point, I did like the fit around the thigh area better, but the waist was huge and it would have required an alteration, belt or no belt. At this point when I am on a very tight budget, that is something I would rather avoid if possible. Plus, the whiskering lines were still there, so that issue would have not changed. When I compare the fit on Angie and myself, I think the difference is that I have significantly curvier thighs/hips, and longer waist. I am not particularly happy with any of these, but it is what it is.

Angie, that is very interesting about your Theory pants, as mine also fit similarly to the way Columnist fits me. I guess it is all about body type at the end. And Angie, again you are right, I do prefer a closer fit to the body. There is something about the change in fashion perspective as well. You are a very wise lady

I really like the muted light grey color these pants come in, and the matching blazer. I intend to stalk them, and if they ever go on a really big sale, I might get that whole suit. In that case I would get the pants in the extra size up, as I prefer looser fits in lighter colors.

Jonesy

Veteran

Tanya, your thoughts about fit and body type make perfect sense! Angie, I appreciate hearing your insights on this too. I know that I am on Team Loose and always have been, so my perceptions are idiosyncratically shaped by that a lot of the time. I remember in the '90s my MIL saying "Why don't you wear clothes that fit you?" She found my baggy clothes perplexing and unflattering :). LOL.

Scarlet

Veteran

Huh, well before reading anything I just thought these pants look awesome on you. I think you can tuck, but I feel like a thicker belt would work with the proportions better. I also have the whiskering issue and it is only the stretch wool Theory Max pant that relatively avoids this issue for me. I also have a pair of thick wool trousers from Trina Turk that are pretty good (or were, back when they fit). I didn't even notice the whiskering on you because I have just had to come to accept a little bit.

Tanya

Veteran

Thank you for your input Jonesy & Scarlet!

Jonesy, I totally get where you are coming. I guess I was always in the opposite, tighter fitting camp. That is probably because for the longest time, I have needed the smallest sizes in everything, sometimes even the smallest one would be too big. So I would always be excited to find something fitting tighter, and that might have stuck somewhere in my brain.

Scarlet, you are absolutely right on both counts: my Max C pants are also the best in terms of whiskering and about the belt. he ting is that I do not own the right thickness one. Also, this one matches the pants perfectly, and that way I avoid contrast which would rob me of more leg length, if that makes sense.

Jenava

(website)

Veteran

I also have very curvy thighs and am slightly long waisted...I still wear and enjoy trousers even though the pull here and there. I think these fit you beautifully and I adore the blouse tucked. FWIW, I do prefer a pointed toe with trousers. (-:

Anonymous

I think I'm going to be the ultimate dissenter here and please take my opinion with a grain of salt. I do like the fit on the pants, however, the silhouette does not look modern to me at all. This is how I used to but my pants early in the 2000's. I know you wanted to buy some updated pieces. If that is still your goal, these are not it, IMO.
I would suggest trying the Editors or a different cut of pant, like the BR sloans. What about a pair of colored bootcut jeans? My daughter just bought a pair from Urban Outfitters. Their site is down, so I cannot link. You have an amazing figure, it is not you:)

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Fascinating discussion. First, thank you Jonesy and Angie and Tanya for entertaining my musings about whiskering (not "whispering," as I said...oops!) and explaining things more clearly for me. I really did have the sense that to some degree it comes down to body type because in this case, age has leant me a certain amount of varying experience in this. As my body type has changed a bit over the years I have found that trousers whisker less on me than they used to (because I now verge more towards a rectangle and my hips are slightly narrower hips than in the past, even though I'm still ab hourglass). Whereas in the past, there was no way, at ANY price point, I could avoid whiskering on trousers unless they were literally falling off me, and even then it would probably happen.

But the whole issue of snug vs. loose is also relevant. I am not sure which camp I fall into personally. I think I have always loved the look of slightly looser trousers (as in Angie's pic) but the question sometimes becomes, does that look look like that on YOU? Know what I mean? And sometimes we have to say, well...my body type simply won't look like that in trousers, no matter what, so in what ways does MY body type look good, and what should good fit look like to THIS body? Which might be a bit different. And might even, as per Zapotee's point, take us away from what is strictly "current." Dangerous territory, I know. In no time flat, we'll all be buying Mom jeans or - yikes! - bright fuchsia 90s suits!!! The horrors!!

Joking aside, what is "current" fit in trousers is a complete mystery at the moment. I have a very tough time distinguishing the new from the old, the okay from the fab. I mean, I have trouble knowing what is "dated" anyway...partly because I was so "out of it" in a fashion sense for about twenty years. So I recognize I'm super ignorant about cuts and such. But I don't think I am the only one here who is scratching my head trying to figure it all out.

So Zap, I'm curious...how are these trousers dated? I wish I understood all of this better! Help!

Anonymous

Hi Suz,

This is really my layman - or laygirl LOL - take on this. After I wrote my post, I realized Angie had okeyed the pants so I consider my point of very little relevance now.

To answer your question, I am not really sure why I think these are not as current. I think is the middle of the road fit - not loose enough to be considered loose (Ex: Slouchy pants, menswear inspired etc) or not tight enough to be considered tight ( Ex: Skinny and cigarette pants), and the fact that all of the remaining pieces of this outfit are so classic by nature. There is nothing wrong with that, actually. As a matter or fact, I am a pretty classic dresser myself.

As a side note, I also believe that these pants are cut to fit like cigarette pants, so it is really hard to get it right, if one is to size up, unless you are Angie. That is why I see a bit of a disconnect. I know I'm alone in this, but I actually consider the "fit" intention of the designer, before I buy a piece. For instance, I would never size up on an item to fit loose, if the intention of the piece was to fit snug and viceversa. I think this comes from the fact that I was raised by my grandma, who was a menswear seamstress. She was always very specific about this. For example: A piece cut to fit snug, will follow certain cut parameters to achieve that. Examples of that would be a more pronounced darting, a curvier cut etc. Those parameters will be distorted of one was to size up to achieve a looser fit. Then you will see the item "curving" where is not needed, the crotch will wrinkle a lot more etc.

This is a great example. Brooks Brother's illustration of their three shirt cuts:
http://www.brooksbrothers.com/.....ion_Id=302

In summary, my comment was primarily based on the fact that I recall Tanya wanting to invest in a few pieces to infuse her wardrobe with some current trends, but I might be wrong. I think for these to be more current, she needs to either go slimmer, which is probably not going to work, or go bigger a la Angie, but that is hard to get right too.

Tanya

Veteran

Zapotee, I really respect your opinion. Hopefully we can agree to disagree

You are absolutely right that I wanted to choose new pieces very carefully, and for me these are updating. First, they are in the bright color, and bright pants are currently very on trend. Second, about the cut, they are slim bootcuts, not cigarette pants. Slim bootcuts are are also much newer compared to classic trouser cuts, such as Editor ( I have a couple of pairs of Editors and do not really want more). I had no intention for them to be especially slouchy or anything like that. I originally got them in size down, but everyone here agreed that they were too tight in the thigh area and that fit looked like 90s. Angie mentioned that wearing trousers a bit looser is the more updated version.

Either way, I am pretty happy with them - I already have classical trouser like Editors and cigarette cuts like BR skinny Martins, so this shape is new for me. It could have to do that I think that because slim bootcuts are quite new in jeans, and jeans shapes I am usually quite aware of when it comes to trendiness.

Anonymous

Hi Tanya!
Thanks for the correction. You are right, they are slim bootcuts. I call those cigarette, which is incorrect, since they do not have a tapered leg.
I am glad they have worked for you and as I said, Angie had okeyed them. That fact overrides any and all of my opinions, since she is the expert here!

Tanya

Veteran

Hi Zap,

Well I jus wanted to tell you that I still very much appreciate your opinion. Angie is indeed the expert here, but I love hearing different opinions and takes on things.

mscooks

Hi Tanya

I know I'm sooo late to this discussion but just wanted to throw in my 2 cents - love the trousers on you, both colour and fit! Tucking in works as well in my opinion, now off to the Express website to see what catches my fancy!

Diana

Veteran

Angie, you're right, the waist can't really be more nipped in. What I meant was that I prefer a bit more waist definition, which would mean the waist would have to be higher. With the lower waistline, I prefer the pant to be slouchier, like your red ones. (But this is more my own personal preference, Tanya, and I do think the fit is great!)

12