This is a very interesting discussion. My first reaction, pre-comments reading, was that you should return them for something perfect given the price point and the less than ideal fit. But I absolutely agree in principle to Gaylene's point that there can be a subtle but crucial difference between two apparently similar essentials that make the extra cost of the better option well worth it. But you, Suz, don't have a closet of EF. (By the way, I have been wearing longer tunics/short dresses with short leggings and skinny long shorts all summer as a change of pace that I am really enjoying.)

Here are a couple of side-zip pants, one by J Crew Factory and one by Vince Camuto. I think it's worth holding out for a pair that works in all the ways you want them to.
On the fly-front bulk issue, I have one or two close-fitting short dresses or tunics that I won't wear with pants for that reason.

Sounds like a style shift is in the air --- I'm having much of the same feelings. As for leggings, I am looking instead for a lightweight skinny trouser --- perhaps with a Hollywood waist or a side zip.

Needless to say, I haven't found them yet! I love the way you've styled them here, but I wouldn't keep the EF pants if they are too big in the waist. Leggings that slide are so annoying!

I totally understand where you are coming from, Suz. I feel completely frumpy in this kind of stretchy pant, which skims but doesn't hug and tapers then gets a little wider at the ankle. I don't SEE frump on you but I feel it MYSELF. I have this problem with EF generally although I love her clothes on others here. The pants feel like gear to me and not like I'm really dressed. I think this will bother you over time.

And can I again recommend the Spanx faux leather leggings? Or did you find something that fit this hole?

Suz, they look good but if you don't feel good in them, send them back. I am probably repeating others comments, but as you know leggings are a winter staple for me. I have a couple of pairs and the are all a firm ponte. They are substantial and while there is no question they are leggings, I almost consider them pants... I always wear something long over them (I don't wear legging like pants if you know what I mean). The are firm and thick so they provide good coverage. Some ponte leggings are so thin and tight they just look like you are wearing thick tights. Mine are actually from Target and so far they are the best I have found. Metalicus do excellent ponte too but I haven't ventured there yet. I can't recommend an alternative but I hear you and think these need to go back.

Okay. Thank you for all your comments and suggestions!

I am going to send these babies back. At the price point, even the sale price point, I can probably find two better options. And if I acquire a closet of EF layers, I can buy these again next year.

ONWARDS!!

But I do hope I find a charcoal ponte or side zip eventually. Black is great....but....

Some specific comments:

Deborah, that is really interesting about the composition of your fab leggings, and helpful to me to hear. I think I might have found something that will work on me, but more soon.

Una, I had no idea you felt the same about soft leggings! Yet you wear leggings so well! Now maybe I know why -- yours are more substantial.

Beth Ann, great idea to try a side zip -- and it is so cool that you and Shevia and I might be on the same wavelength re silhouettes!

Sharan, thank you! Items collected and I'll investigate further today!

Shevia, high five!! (And THANK YOU, but more on this in a post today or tomorrow!)

Diana, I LOVE CoH jeans so you might be onto something with your suggestion. I'm going to look into those.

Smittie, yes, having muscular legs is a plus and a minus. It does make the wearing of leggings more challenging, although it doesn't seem to prevent me from wearing snug jeans and I don't feel self-conscious in those at all. I do agree that the sweater might be too short -- yet it feels fine with skinnies. Weird.

Caro, that is really interesting about the harems. I don't think they'd work for me due to the need to tuck into boots -- somehow the look isn't quite right, in my mind, plus the fullness on the bottom will make it harder for me to layer over on top, I suspect. But I hear what you are saying and feel supported in my confusion over how to make leggings work!

Ah Suz I see you've come to your conclusion. I appreciate your analysis, since you articulate so well how I feel as well. Granted, I gave those navy leggings a good go last year, but it was work. I find myself defaulting to structure on the bottom and wear a very similar formula to you. I have a very old pair of black jeggings with zip and fly that seem to be my "go-to" for certain looks. They have back pockets and feel most certainly like a pant. I have my eyes open for something similar in charcoal. I really wish I could have tried the Kuts that were recommended here during NAS, but I neither saw them in store when I was briefly in the Newport Beach store, nor was I willing to gamble on ordering the wrong size online. I'll be following along as you search. We wear similar colours and I am hoping to find something not black that will fit the bill. Onwards, indeed

I just saw these in Garnet Hill.

http://www.garnethill.com/pont.....value=main

Thinking about this dilemma more, I think I tend to look for "faux structure" in these kinds of pants. So not too thin or loose. I especially hate when pants fit like leggings on the thighs but pants from the knees down - too me that is the frumpiest feeling on earth. Remember, I'm on team calf-sucking for a reason!

I don't have specific brand advice, but the right kind if side-zip is a HEWI because it can't be beat for wearing untucked knit tops.
Also whatever construction allows flat elastic waist without actual gathers- the gathers are so the Mom look. Plus " that look" to me is that the wearer did not get the right fit, length, taper for body type.
And I agree with a thicker fabrics. I tried some EF pants last year in a fine will knit and I liked them but it was just too thin.
So actually I think what makes it not- Mom is not just " trend" or even modern but being very picky about all aspects of fit and proportion, and then combining the right modern top and shoes( flats or low heel for sure, but not the JJill low straight hemmed top , ballet flat combo. ) That's why leave no retail stone... Works because there are so many variations and yet it comes down to, not the hanger look but the body fit. This type of pant IS a substrate to a great degree.

I must say I LOVE the way you styled the Vince dress with the scarf... LOVE LOVE LOVE the scarf !

On the pants... no. I think that they are just not here or there. The ankle is off for a tight and the knees look a bit baggy. EF can be pricey and I think you can do more for the money elsewhere.

I am following this with great interest as my workplace is changing their dress policy to NO DRESSES. Yes that is sadly true. And for someone who has a closet of sheaths I have to step up. I am worried... really worried about how to still be myself and wear trousers on a daily basis. And what trousers ? EEk. I can't see tights every day and I don't have any jeans- don't like them.

Agree completely on the stretch pants idea. I remember my mother and her friends wearing colored stretch polyester pants and thinking... please Please Please let that not be me !!!.... and of course... now ... somedays it is ! Is it really any different ? Are my children looking at me and thinking the same ?

Sheila, you are kidding me. NO DRESSES AT WORK????

This deserves a thread of its own. Please start one so we can brainstorm and help you with this ridiculous requirement.

I have ordered the GAP side zip Sloans to try and also a navy pair with a front zip. Stay tuned.....

What has happened is that a couple of our male co-op students wore shorts to work. This inspired a management meeting where it was decided that a dress requirement needed to be set. The argument came up that if shorts were unacceptable then any leg bearing ( I do wear hose ) would not be allowed. I have to tell you that I do not wear mini skirts, I am significantly less distracting than another lady with a recent breast job that is in full display daily... however it is happening- I have no say in this.

I work in an office/ lab but I am often called to the factory floor. I sometimes wear a white lab coat around certain areas.

I just find dresses easy.. I do have to put an outfit together or think about anything. Put on a bra and hose, Zip up a dress, throw on necklace or earrings and makeup- DONE. No thought process required. I am stumped with the silhouettes of trousers.. I am short waisted... dresses without waist belt make me look balance- normal.

So that is why I find this thread so interesting now... front zips vs side zips? straight leg vs boot cut or flares ? ponte vs jersey ?

Check out Angie's blog post today, too -- it might be helpful on the issue of short-waistedness. It sounds like a draconian and plainly stupid dress code -- casual shorts are not a dressy dress!! Wowza. Again, do start a thread and we will chip ideas in to help out!

Sheila, that is a perfect example of mindless application of a rule. Are guys in your office really saying that wearing shorts is the equivalent of a dress or skirt? I can see some guidelines on decent lengths, but what the heck?!

No.. the offices are part of a factory and the issue has become not really one of modesty but somehow safety and exposed skin. It is not quite the same as a banking or tech environment.

I think the shorts are blatant hairy legs in a factory environment. It is also somehow too casual in a off way. This issue is more calls to support the floor- they would probably be OK if they were "office only" but really no one is "office only".

Suz, I think you made the right decision. The fabric composition doesn't appear to be any different than most knit pants and if you don't love them, they aren't worth keeping.

I know a few of the canadians here boycott Nygard because of his ethics and business practices, but I was at the store on the weekend and tried on a few of their "slims". This pair is a textured fabric on the front that is matte and a very fine faux snakeskin. The high waistband is comfortable and doesn't show through.

http://www.nygard.com/en-ca/pr.....42R166_001...'

I also tried this pair of jeggings which could work for your at home work clothes. I really liked them on and found them more flattering with the sheen which is counter intuitive.

http://www.nygard.com/en-ca/pr.....Y7166_001_...

Una said something really interesting earlier here about how fitted -to-the-thigh but loose from the knee down being the frumpiest thing on earth. I agree! And this is why I have never understood the appeal of a straight cut jean. Anyways, that's neither here nor there. But it's reminding me what is wrong with these EF pants - and the ones I have in my closet that I'm now trying to ignore . I also read something on a fashion blog the other by someone whose opinion I find viable about certain EF designs. I'm PM'ing you.

Will be listening avidly, Lisa!!

sorry - got sidetracked w work here it comes !

Lisa, a small correction - I said it is the frumpiest feeling on earth to me! I know that's not true of others here, either in how they look or feel... Just wanted to clarify because I think it has a lot to do with my body type and related issues.

Care to share the link here? I'm the cat dying of curiosity!

Una - I agree with you - just had never had the words for it . It was like getting hit over the head with a 2x 4 when you made that comment . The EF comment I'm referring to - I'm not getting into it here on the forum because the brand has so many lovers here. I have 5 pieces myself - likely my last though, as I'm totally over/off it.