I was at Ross recently and found this pair of great jeans shorts for $13.99. I loved it because the waist band wasn’t at the upper hip which causes that ugly bulge (maybe it's just me). And the best thing about this pair of shorts was the STRETCH!
However, what I don’t like about it are the striations on the front. I guess it’s supposed to look like worn marks when you sit. It doesn’t look natural though.
I also saw a bunch of shorts that had holes by the pockets or sides. Why? I didn’t think it even looked like natural holes. Do people actually buy jeans with holes? Is it to give the impression that they are extremely active when they’re actually couch potatoes?
Sigh... I must be showing my age.
By the way, have you ever wondered why they say "pair of pants"?
I found this answer from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
According to some, the phrase “pair of pants” harkens back to the days when what constituted pants—or pantaloons, as they were originally known—consisted of two separate items, one for each leg. They were put on one at a time and then secured around the waist. Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. The phrasing was retained even after pants were made into one complete garment. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in reference sources to support this theory.
So, I guess now we know the rest of the story. Perhaps.
I also saw a bunch of shorts that had holes by the pockets or sides. Why? I didn’t think it even looked like natural holes. Do people actually buy jeans with holes? Is it to give the impression that they are extremely active when they’re actually couch potatoes?
Sigh... I must be showing my age.
By the way, have you ever wondered why they say "pair of pants"?
I found this answer from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
According to some, the phrase “pair of pants” harkens back to the days when what constituted pants—or pantaloons, as they were originally known—consisted of two separate items, one for each leg. They were put on one at a time and then secured around the waist. Calling them a pair of pantaloons, or pants, as they were eventually known, made sense when there were two components. The phrasing was retained even after pants were made into one complete garment. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in reference sources to support this theory.
So, I guess now we know the rest of the story. Perhaps.
I'd be trying to iron the crease marks out lol
ReplyDeleteAnd 'holey' clothes of any sort just turn me off. Especially when worn by the rich and famous :)
It's not a style I like, but the young people like it.
ReplyDeleteFinding unfaded jeans is an exercise in futility -- at least for me. I went with the pair that I could put up with best.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 'pair of pants' I do think I believe this theory. I am sure that I've come across it previously.
I do remember soaking new jeans in a tub of water and bleach to get the "brand new" look off them, much to my mother's horror. People today just don't have that DIY spirit. But if it's a well-worn look you're after, how about thrift stores where the wear is natural, the clothing is cheaper, you are generally supporting a local cause, and reuse benefits the planet.
ReplyDeleteThe pair theory is not such a big deal, but I really like the way you model question the source. The world would be a better place if everyone gave critical thought to exactly where their information is coming from.
I can't wait until the 'fake distressed' fad goes away. I think dark blue, plain jeans are due for a fashion return, don't you?
ReplyDeletewow, learned something new so early in the morning...lol!
ReplyDeleteI agree on those allegedly pre-worn jeans. Holes are meant to look cool if you're younger. I think it looks stupid. And, the more pre-worn holes, the more expensive the jeans. Yep, I like plain, solid jeans. Linda in Kansas, where some folks wear bib overalls, and really wear them out working hard.
ReplyDeleteYou pay a lot of money for someone else to rip your jeans - I have avoided that trend for myself! HA!I had no idea about the story behind "pair of pants"...thanks for sharing! Annster's Domain
ReplyDeleteThanks for the history lesson. As to buying ripped, torn jeans, I'm with you. Why in the world? Some designer's great idea gone wrong.
ReplyDeleteI like my jeans shiny and new. I do enough gardening that wearing my garden jeans would scare people.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming that you bought neither pair of pants? I noticed that the kids at the nearby high school are wearing the light, acid washed jeans again. George found me a pair at a local thrift store. They fit perfectly, but they have no stretch at all.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the pant lesson too.
DeleteThe thrift store pair sound like pre lycra. Hard to find.
Deletethanks for the 'pair of pants' info, interesting!
ReplyDeleteI made granddaughters buy jeans at the thrift store to put under the scissors.
ReplyDeleteWell, I’ll be. I remember asking my mom why they were called a pair many, many years ago, and she didn’t know. Now in the age of Google I forgot i always wanted to know!
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the "pair". Funny what we accept at face value and rarely question.
ReplyDeleteRipped and worn jeans remind me of perfectly good furniture that is beaten with chains to look antique. Neither are my idea of a great look.
I remembah small kid time, shame for wear puka puka clothes - but these days darn kids PAY to wear puka puka jeans, some so ripped and short that the white inside pockets are hanging out. So must be 'cool' to look poor but spend $$$$ on puka clothing. I no understand -BB
ReplyDeleteI have wondered why "pair of pants". Now I know. Thanks. I frequently quietly scoff at jeans with artificial holes. Some are missing most of the front of the legs. I think those cost more. :-)
ReplyDeleteThey've been doing that for years.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that about the phrase! Thanks for enlightening me. And I have also wondered WHY I don't get to put my own holes in pants. I think the fashion is silly.
ReplyDelete