|
|
|
|
|
|
HomeMENS JEANSLee JeansLee Jeans Women's Missy Plain Front Pant with Stretch |
|
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
 faded already Jun 29, 2010
nice pants but looked faded already. disappointed with the look of the material. Lee Jeans Plain Front Pant, Navy Stretch, 16 Medium
 They are okay by me. Dec 17, 2009
They were an excellent fit. Legs aren't wide nor flare, trim enough that they give the illusion of slimness in she who wears them. I have washed them several times and they have not shrunk which amazes me..Almost all garments tend to shrink today so you never know if you should buy a bigger size and then hope they shrink.
Nice pants for work Feb 21, 2009
I'm not sure what to say about these pants. The description says they're tapered leg, but the label on the pants says they're straight leg. I compared them to some tapered khaki pants I bought at LL Bean and the LL Bean pants are a couple inches smaller at the bottom hem. I wish these Lee Jeans pants were more tapered.
They fit well and the length is good. Penneys and Kohls sell Lee Jeans straight leg khaki pants, but the waist is lower on them. It was nice to try those pants on for size before buying these pants on Amazon.
I think I'll go back to ordering from LL Bean. Their pants are:
Original Bayside Twill Pants, Wrinkle-Resistant All-Cotton Plain Front.
Description
100% wrinkle-resistant cotton fabric is washed for softness. Trim, smooth-front silhouette. Front quarter pockets, back welt pocket.
Fit
Sits above waist; slightly fitted through hips and thighs; slightly tapered legs.
Inseams: Petite 28", Regular 30", Medium Tall 32", Tall 34".
(I'm not trying necessarily to plug LL Bean; I'm just not loving it that the Lee Jeans pants are described as tapered leg, but labeled straight leg and not very tapered. And the price is the same.)
7 of 11 found the following review helpful:
These are jeans? Feb 09, 2007
They don't feel, look or in any way resemble jeans (blue or otherwise). They fall somewhere between khaki's (in appearance} and geriatric stretch pants.
To say I hate them would be an understatement. They make me look and feel 40 years older.
(but by the time I pay for round trip shipping...well, I've paid for the pants)....so consider carefully. These are stretch pants: not denim, not blue, not jeans.
This review has been edited to note that the item description has changed since I wrote the review. I likely would not have purchased them to begin with as they are currently described. I am glad that Amazon edited the description to better reflect the product.
I still do not like them and they wound up at Goodwill. Hopefully they will find a better home with someone who can see them, try them on... and not rely on a description. These might well work for some folks. they didn't for me.
4 of 4 found the following review helpful:
Comfortable, casual slacks Feb 03, 2007
These were too much to resist at $14.90 a pair, especially since they come in petite sizes. I have gained a little weight and needed a new pair of slacks. Despite some of the other comments, I would find these hard to classify as dressy unless I had an over sized cashmere sweater over them. They are very plain, and the fabric appears durable but not fancy. However, the main reason they get four stars from me is that the taupe, while the shade is correct, is noticeably darker than what appears on Amazon's site. I'm hoping that they will fade, consistent with comments made in other reviews.
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
