First of all, take everything I say with a grain of salt because I am a fitting fanatic when it comes to pants. I've been known to alter seam allowances by 1/8" just to get the fit exactly right, so it's my equivalent of Angie's PPL.

Judging from the pictures (which is always hard because you don't see the 3D body shape) these pants are ALMOST perfect except for the pooling around the back which others have noted. Part of the problem to my eye is that the crotch (we are using that word a lot around here these days!) does not drop down low enough to keep the fabric from bunching around the seat and upper thigh area. Slouchy is good, but, in my books, bunching looks bad.

If this was a fitting muslin, I'd be adding an extra 1/2"-1" to the FRONT seam to allow the crotch point to drop a bit further so the extra fabric at the back could drape without bunching. Women with flat abdomens can sometimes get this extra length by belting in such a way so the pants will hang lower in the front. If neither of these options are realistic, you have to adjust the back seam so that the curve of the centre back seam is more shallow and less pronounced. The usual way to take out just enough fullness to get a straighter seam so there is less fabric to bunch up at lower portion of the back seam. You don't want a tight fit here; you are just looking to eliminate some of the extra fabric that is pooling around the upper thigh area. Another, more expensive, alteration would be to split the amount you take in between two areas: the lower back seam and the back part of the inner thigh seam. Even a 1/4" in both places would make an enormous difference. If these were my pants, that's probably what I'd do but I wouldn't stitch anything until I had undone the seams, pinned and basted the new seams, and tried on the pants to make sure that I was hitting the sweet spot between slouchy and baggy. It's not a hard tailoring job, but one that requires fitting on your body.

Fitting pants on a woman's body is always interesting because our bodies are so much curvier than a man's body. To me, a good "slouchy" look means a dropped crotch with enough fabric to hide enough of our curves to tease the eye. These pants have that look from the front, but could use just a little tweaking in the back to move them into the fabulous category. If the pants are pricey, it's worth the effort, in my opinion.

Thank you, Gaylene. That is very helpful. I have an excellent seamstress. But...(there is always a but)....she is very good at executing work *if* she understands the effect that is desired. She is not always fashion forward and may not understand the intended effect.

Example: When I took a dress to her last year to be narrowed, she showed some consternation that I was not also wanting it shortened. I was wearing it below the knee as a midi and she thought it should go higher.

Hmmmm. I think I will try ironing, then pinning just a bit to see what happens. Also, I am going to try different footwear. One issue with the Marcies is that the pants get a bit caught up in the laces and on the wedge. They may work better with a more delicate shootie. Fortunately I have a bit of time to consider (and reconsider) this purchase.

They look fantastic in the front. I'm not liking how they look in the back. At least it's a dark color so may not be too inconspicuous, but they just look droopy to me.

One thing it would be interesting to investigate....how many of us have actually seen the models wearing slouchy trousers? Do any of us really *know* how they are supposed to look from the back? Not questioning anyone's judgement on this, by the way. Not in the least. It's just that, with this still being a bit of a fringe look, I, for one, don't really *know* how the back looks, ideally.

Visuals would be great!

The drape and fabric look divine! But the back view also struck me as not draping properly. The front, I like. Hopefully it can be worked out through tailoring.

ETA: From what I've noticed about the rear view is that slouchy pants typically fit well across the bottom -- no saggy fabric, no wrinkles. The fabric kind of falls from the "shelf" made by the buttocks and starts draping at the upper thigh (this is also how my harem pants fit). Not like I'm a slouchy pants expert by any means, though, so you might find other types of fits.

ETA again: Some links:
http://youlookfab.com/2012/03/.....tructured/
http://www.shopbop.com/suekey-.....rg-4165214

That's a good question, Suz. I also hate to say it (and it applies to me as well) but maybe if you're a 5'10" model with four-foot legs, the bunchy fabric doesn't look as pronounced in the butt as it does on us shorter women? It could be a proportion thing? Maybe we should go on sites wherever they're selling these slouchy trousers and see what they look like in the rear. (ETA: then again, the clothes catalog models are wearing probably can't be trusted for accurate fit...maybe you'd need to see more street fashion looks....)

This would be a first for me....having to take in the bum of a pair of pants. Hilarious. My dad is probably snorting in his grave over this one.

Hey, I'm not thin and I often don't fill out the back of a pair of pants. Some of us just aren't endowed there But seriously now that i think about it, maybe you're just not supposed to think too much about how your butt looks in slouchy trousers? Maybe it gets sacrificed for the cool slouchiness elsewhere. So then you'd just have to decide whether it was okay or not. As we've all agreed, in the front it looks great.

Well I think they look terrific with the fabulous blouse ;-), the sweater and with the last outfit. I see what you mean about the back being less perfect, but I am not sure I would let it bother me that much. But I am team side focus so may not be the best adviser on rear view issues.

I am pretty clueless about fit, so I will just say how Killer you look in an androgynous look! It was made for you. You look like a sci-fi city dweller in the first and third looks, with a kind of Blade Runner vibe mixed with David Bowie and channeling Annie Lennox! Who knew you had a rock star inside you?!? Even if the pants don't stay, please keep that vibe coming!

Thanks, JulieJohn. Still laughing here, but believe it or not I have indeed been told that I look a bit like both David Bowie and Annie Lennox. I'll take it! (Be nice if I could sing like them, too...)

Hi Suz --

I can feel your love for the fabric coming through my screen but I am not in love with the rear view either. Could absolutely be a personal bias but to me, slouchy pants look best when they droop/drape in the front but are smooth over the rear.

Photos 1 and 2:
http://thestylesample.com/2010/10/11/modest-me/

Photos 3 and 4:
Mara Hoffman catalogue shots

ps I think the pants aren't up to your styling yet -- it's making them look better than they deserve! (sorry)

Yeah, I'm not bothered by drooping in the rear, but I prefer a more drapey droop rather than a bunchy droop, if that makes any sense...

So are Vix's images what Angie calls slouchy or are they baggy (no dropped crotch point), as I think? Both of those are gorgeous but I'm not sure they are "slouchy". So maybe, Suz, what you are looking for is not really slouchy by Angie's definition?

*so confused*

I like both slouchy and baggy so it's all good to me!