Rated 5 out of 5 by DrewCLT Excellent fit and great shine for chinos
This is my perfect pant. They are a sturdy yet comfortable daily-wear chino that is non-iron with a nice sheen. I can wear these multiple times without signs of wrinkles and they stay crisp all day. The fit is true and better than any other pant I have tried.
March 12, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5 by eetchells Cut is more like slim fit and not tradional / relaxed
I have worn Land's End pants for years but have not had to purchase new ones in probably 6 or 7 years due to their original quality and durability.
I ordered several pairs in the "Traditional" cut that are supposed to be relaxed in the seat and thighs. These pants fit terribly! They are more like slim fit.
To make matters worse, at least one of the pairs was used. There were no tags on them, the cuffs were starting to fray and there was a hair comb in the back pocket.
I love how Land's End allows you to custom hem your pants with whatever length, with or without cuffs, for no extra charge.
I'm very disappointed with the lack of quality checks.
September 20, 2015
Rated 2 out of 5 by TBURLEY12 Cheap
I am muscular so the small fit was probably my body style. However, the material was thin, just a bit thicker than sheer. Can't imagine wearing these in winter.
September 7, 2015
Rated 3 out of 5 by Xthlegion Good Quality - Sized Small
I have bought this version of slacks for several years from Land's End. The latest version is on the small size and I will have to return and order an inch wider in the waste. My older slacks did and still do fit fine. Also other manufacturers slacks in the same size, fit fine, so my conclusion is these are sized smaller. No problem with the quality.
August 19, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5 by Bruce2015 Still not the original traditional fit or quality
I have quite a few pair of these pants that are more than ten years old and are still very wearable (cotton/polyester blend, regular rise). However the sizing and quality has gone down significantly in the past few years. These are a step up from the more recent offerings, but still not back to the originals. The rise is significantly shorter, so much so that they have to sit below the waste to not bind. Unfortunately there is no long rise in my size - 35. My 10-year-old+ pants are more wrinkle free than these are after only one washing. The more recent 100% cotton pants that I purchased showed lighter colors at crease lines and wear on the fabric at stress points after a few washings. Whether this latest version will also, I don't know as these are being returned.
August 15, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5
by Backinblack Black isn't
A couple years back I had ordered this pant in navy blue. I thought I might add a nice black to my wardrobe. Now I realize that a manufacturer mutates a product ever so slightly. The fabrics seem a little different. The new pant seems shinier. The fit was a little more snug on the new pant. But the deal breaker was that black is not black. If you want to see what black is, look at the lining inside this pant. It's black but the pant isn't; it's a blue black just a shade darker than the navy I already owned. It's so not black you can't really wear these pants with black shoes.
June 25, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5 by TFisch Pants great, hemming not so????
I have worn these pants for years and always have been very happy. The changes they have made to the pants seem to be good but the quality in the hemming has slipped significantly. I have always loved LE because of the offer of free hemming. However this time upon washing both pairs the paints puckered at the hems and the resulting wrinkles can not be ironed out. A sad slip in quality for a good product. I would recommend the product to be purchased unhemmed.
June 19, 2015
Rated 4 out of 5 by GmaBBQ Not the same trousers I bought last time
These are not the old dress twills that I purchased a couple of months ago. They are cut smaller and they do not have the sheen that the old ones had. Sorry to see that the quality has changed. They are okay but not the same.
June 16, 2015
Rated 2 out of 5 by Cataloger Skimpy
My husband has been wearing LE twill dress pants for at least 20 years. He will probably not order them again. Last year we noticed that the fabic was thinner than in the past. This year, not only is the fabric thinner, the rise is shorter, they pucker at the waist (he's the same size), and the waistband lining folds up. We're very disappointed.
June 12, 2015
Rated 4 out of 5 by GaryMichael Traditional, Classic, and Almost Perfect
The fit and look fit my criteria for a good pair of traditional and classic trousers: a rise that's higher than today's "fashionable" low-rise, quality material, a full cut, and just the right amount of nice details. The details include the watch pocket in front (although I would never use it for anything, it adds a nice touch), the French fly with hook and bar closure, and nice buttons. The cut is generous without being overly baggy, and the cotton twill feels almost like gabardine to me. The one negative criticism has to do with the limitations of size and color in the long rise version. I much prefer the long rise in these trousers, and even these are not what I consider extraordinarily high--rather, the seem like a regular rise, what a good full rise should look like. However, these trousers are offered in the long rise in limited colors and limited sizing. In my case, I am a solid 35-inch waist. I can get this size in the regular rise, but in a long rise, I have to either size down to 34, which gives a tighter fit in the waist and therefore not as high a rise as I like, or a 36, which gives me the rise I want but also means that waist bunches a little. So, I have a couple of sets of these: the 35-inch waist in the regular rise for casual wear, and the 36-inch long-rise for wearing with sport coats and blazers (as we all know, having a higher-rise trouser helps you avoid the dreaded triangle at the jacket skirt). And please, why can't we have all the same great color choices in the long rise that are offered in the regular rise? So overall, not perfect, and yet not a bad deal either. So, only 4 stars for what might otherwise be a 5-star choice. I still strongly recommend them.
May 4, 2015