3 ms·
They're good pockets, aren't they? But the ones I've owned seem to be sized and proportioned for a stanley knife or similar, not a phone or wallet. I think the
by rm445 6y ago
They're good pockets, aren't they? But the ones I've owned seem to be sized and proportioned for a stanley knife or similar, not a phone or wallet.
I think the author is onto something, though I'm still not convinced these pockets give a nice line with much in them, which people generally care about. Dickies-type trousers tend to have a looser fit than the pictured trousers. The article photos with a phone held partly in the pocket aren't definitive.
- diiq 6y agoI suppose I didn't include photos with the phone fully in the pocket because you genuinely can't tell it's there. There's a slight bulge from the welt of the pocket itself, which I'm still experimenting with, but with-phone is truly indistinguishable from without-phone when I'm standing up. Seated, there's a bulge at the side of the thigh if you really look for it.
- rm445 6y agoI think a photo with the phone 'disappeared' would actually be a valuable addition to the article. Good work by the way, and I hope you change the trouserial (?) world.
- vngzs 6y agoFor pockets to look good with items in them, they need to be big. For pants to look good when the pockets are big, the articles themselves need to be designed to be worn big. Most modern clothing is designed to hug the body and constrain movement, not enable movement. Hence most pants look bad with objects in their pockets. I know of a few brands that buck this trend, but they're basically constrained to wealthy aestheticians.