Club Obi Wan

First of all I hope I am not duplicating any other posts on this topic, though I have not found this info. elsewhere: What Price Glory is now in the 'Indy-Trouser Game!' Here is the link: http://whatpriceglory.com/shopexd.asp?id=5507&bc=no" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ....anyone seen and or ordered a pair of these, as of yet? W>

Hmm, much like their jacket offering, high potential, but a bit lacking in the initial marketing effort. A view of the back of the trousers would be helpful and whereas Indy shouldn't look like he's fresh pressed from the tailor, the picture posted looks like those trousers have been rolled in a ball in the bottom of a steamer truck for a trans-Atlantic trip.

Still, with Todd being out of the trouser game, it's nice to see another offering.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

This is exciting considering that Todd's perfect trousers are no longer an option.... with the great reviews of their shirts, I certainly hope that these will pan out.

Agreed! Looking forward to reviews - fingers crossed these turn out good.

I have to agree about the length. For those of us over six foot they are a little too short.

Indiana Jeff wrote:Hmm, much like their jacket offering, high potential, but a bit lacking in the initial marketing effort. A view of the back of the trousers would be helpful and whereas Indy shouldn't look like he's fresh pressed from the tailor, the picture posted looks like those trousers have been rolled in a ball in the bottom of a steamer truck for a trans-Atlantic trip.

Still, with Todd being out of the trouser game, it's nice to see another offering.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Yeah....they do look a bit gamey in the wrinkle department and like the other two posts here -- yes the max length of 32" is not a good way to start this project off for many of the folks here. Again: I am certain that WPG is already aware the improvements will need addressing, as them have made clear they will work with the jacket -- so let us hope for the best here. W>

Very interesting. I wish they currently had my waist size 29-30.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK I ordered a pair of these. They are a thicker wool than the Todds and fit a bit differently. They are really thick around the waist band where the pleats are. They are also really baggy in the thighs. In general I like the fit and cut of the Todd's better as well as the weight of the wool. I will say the drop in these is better than the Todd's though (distance between the waist and bottom of the crotch). The one thing I don't like about the Todd's is how baggy in the crotch they are.

I prefer the Todd's but if you can't get a pair that fit you these would be a reasonable alternative though I might get them altered to have the baggy legs/thighs brought in a little bit.

One side note, I generally wear a 32-34 waist depending on cut. I ordered WPG's in 34 and they are snug. A 35 would fit better but I don't think they sell them in odd inch sizes.

Tundrarider wrote:Legs are finished at a 32" inseam. That's too bad for those of us with longer legs.

Michael

How bout 28" Simon Birtche 's like me!


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.

Can we see some pics?

Eundercoffler wrote:OK I ordered a pair of these. They are a thicker wool than the Todds and fit a bit differently. They are really thick around the waist band where the pleats are. They are also really baggy in the thighs. In general I like the fit and cut of the Todd's better as well as the weight of the wool. I will say the drop in these is better than the Todd's though (distance between the waist and bottom of the crotch). The one thing I don't like about the Todd's is how baggy in the crotch they are.

I prefer the Todd's but if you can't get a pair that fit you these would be a reasonable alternative though I might get them altered to have the baggy legs/thighs brought in a little bit.

One side note, I generally wear a 32-34 waist depending on cut. I ordered WPG's in 34 and they are snug. A 35 would fit better but I don't think they sell them in odd inch sizes.

Obi Sean Kenobi wrote:Can we see some pics?

Eundercoffler wrote:OK I ordered a pair of these. They are a thicker wool than the Todds and fit a bit differently. They are really thick around the waist band where the pleats are. They are also really baggy in the thighs. In general I like the fit and cut of the Todd's better as well as the weight of the wool. I will say the drop in these is better than the Todd's though (distance between the waist and bottom of the crotch). The one thing I don't like about the Todd's is how baggy in the crotch they are.

I prefer the Todd's but if you can't get a pair that fit you these would be a reasonable alternative though I might get them altered to have the baggy legs/thighs brought in a little bit.

One side note, I generally wear a 32-34 waist depending on cut. I ordered WPG's in 34 and they are snug. A 35 would fit better but I don't think they sell them in odd inch sizes.

Yeah... and this is coming from me, who never sends photos... but I would like to know what the color is like in comparison to Todd's and Wested's offerings. Thanks. W>

It wouldn't be until Monday at least until I could take some.
E

Ok, some comparison photos -

Here are the two pairs together. Todd's on the left, WPG on the right. They are pretty close in color, the WPG's are just slightly lighter. (picture taken indoors near a window with no flash).



Here you can see the waist bands. Note how thick the WPG's waistband is compared to the Todd's. The WPG's are definitely made with a thicker wool which is probably fine for some people in cooler climates but the waist band is a little crazy. Again Todd's on the left, WPG on the right.




Neither pair has been hemmed yet (I had to order the Todd's in a longer size than I need because they didn't have my length).
Todd's-


Note the super long crotch on these. I know it doesn't look to bad in this picture but seriously, the crotch on these is a good 2-3 inches below my "normal" crotch.



And now the WPG's



Note the super baggy thighs on these- (and I'm not a guy with skinny legs).



Maybe I just need skinnier legs and more crotch


All in all, if I only had the WPGs I would probably be happy with them. I think the details of the Todd's are better and I definitely like the weight of the wool on the Todd's better, they re a nice light weight wool. But the baggy crotch is a little silly looking. The WPGs are much heavier wool and very baggy in the legs but have a smaller drop (I believe that is the technical term for the distance from the waist line to the bottom of the crotch). I think the perfect pants for me would be the Todd's pants overall with a drop closer to the WPG pants. In the end I am keeping the Todd's and sending back the WPGs for what that's worth.

E

Great review, Eundercoffler! I'm still considering a pair, but was wondering about the sizing. If I wear a "36 waist, is that what I should order? As you know, some of us were a little ...uh.. disappointed to find out we were a bigger in the waist than we thought..due to his 'true measurement' sizing. Or should we treat them like Wested's and order the same size as we would normally? Thanks in advance

TenuredProfessor wrote:Great review, Eundercoffler! I'm still considering a pair, but was wondering about the sizing. If I wear a "36 waist, is that what I should order? As you know, some of us were a little ...uh.. disappointed to find out we were a bigger in the waist than we thought..due to his 'true measurement' sizing. Or should we treat them like Wested's and order the same size as we would normally? Thanks in advance

I assume you are asking about the sizing for the WPG? I normally wear a 32-34 depending on the cut. In jeans I can sometimes get away with a 32 but usually a 33. In dressier pants like dockers or dress slacks I am almost always a 34. I ordered a 34 in the WPG and they are snug. Still wearable but snug (I wouldn't want to wear them on a daily basis but would be fine for a costume).

I just measured the waist on them and they are 17" across the front (so 34" in total). I guess that means most people should size up 1 or 2 from what they normally wear.

E

Excellent! Thanks just the info I needed. Yep, I meant in comparison to Todds pants. I normally wear 35 ish and had to order 38 with them . Appreciate the feedback. Can't have too many Indy pants as far as I'm concerned

Nice write-up, thank you!

Very helpful comparison. Thanks.

For what it's worth, the pictures of the WPG's don't look any more baggy than the Todd's. They may feel different and from other angle may look different, but they look loose without being overly baggy.

With Todd no longer making trousers, these look like a solid contender for the Indy crowd.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Indiana Jeff wrote:Very helpful comparison. Thanks.

For what it's worth, the pictures of the WPG's don't look any more baggy than the Todd's. They may feel different and from other angle may look different, but they look loose without being overly baggy.

With Todd no longer making trousers, these look like a solid contender for the Indy crowd.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Ya, you are right Indiana Jeff, I took some measurements for reference this morning before I send the WPGs back. Measurements displayed below are given Todd's first then WPG

Drop (top of waistband to crotch seam-
14" (with a 10" fly) / 12" (with an 8" fly)

Thigh (taken 15" down from the waistband with pants laying flat)
14 1/2" / 14 1/2

Ankle (taken 6 inches up from the bottom of the cuff with pants laying flat)
10" / 10"

After looking at those measurements it seems that the WPG's are almost a clone of the Todd's with the only major difference in dimensions being the drop. I think the reason Todd's don't feel as baggy to me in the legs is because of the lighter weight wool, they tend to drape better. I bet after the WPG's got washed a couple of times they would soften up and drape better too. Of course there are other differences as well. As stated earlier, the Todd's have better details (like the angled dart seam over the back pockets) and seem to be better made (did you notice the waistband on the WPG's doesn't line up when clasped in the photo?). But again, a good alternative if you can't get a pair of Todd's that fit.

E

The WPG's don't look too bad. A bit on the full cut. How does the waist fit, true to jeans? Sounds like they do not add the extra 2" to the width. The lower rise WPG makes all the difference in fit. If too low, it rubs.

It has always seemed odd to me, that strange diagonal cut in the back of the trousers that runs from the waist to the pockets...? Could it be that they took considerable slack out of the pants to fit Ford?

Texan Scott wrote:It has always seemed odd to me, that strange diagonal cut in the back of the trousers that runs from the waist to the pockets...? Could it be that they took considerable slack out of the pants to fit Ford?

I (and Lord knows, I could be wrong here) think this is the same cut as many British-style officer pants from that period. I have seen this in other pants/trousers (usually military in nature) from those times. Again, I could well be wrong and this could have been an consideration regarding Ford in sizing or something. Shoot , who knows? I certainly don't. W>

ps: Just an add on here. I have also seen this type of cut in the back of many English Riding breaches, both Jodphur's and standard 'fit-to-leg' riding breaches. W>

Looks like WPG added ANOTHER set of Indy trousers. This time they are a lighter weight material.

http://onlinemilitaria.net/products/589 ... ion/?bc=no" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now if only I could find a pair of reproduction Officer Pinks without pleats for around $75.

I like these new ones, but the back pockets look like they are placed too far to the sides.

I just got a pair of the light weight pants, and I haven't even tried them on yet. But I'm already pretty sure I have to exchange them. There's some very poor stitching on these pants. One area near the front pocket isn't even completely finished, and several belt loops are wonky!

Anybody else have such issues with these (or WPG clothing)? Is this common enough that I'd be better off having a tailor fix them, or do I just have an isolated bad pair? I don't want to waste time and money on an exchange if I might get something back that's just as bad or worse.

I just got my order my order yesterday...

I'm 5'7 and 225lbs... I've lost about 70 lbs recently and working toward another 40 or so... I seem to be wearing XL or L shirts... so I went with an XL to be safe... it fits great in my belly area, but SNUG at the collar (but who buttons that?!) My only critique is the length.. I'm short...and it still didn't seem long at all... so if you are under 6 foot- or have a belly, you may want to consider the longer size!


I've been wearing size 40 pants, but they're pretty loose...so I figured I'd snag 38s and as I lose they'd be ideal... sadly, they are WAY WAY WAY too small... like I probably need 42s... so that was just depressing.

I will say I was expecting better craftsmanship for the price... I may return them and get mignollas.

Chewbacca Jones wrote:Anybody else have such issues with these (or WPG clothing)? Is this common enough that I'd be better off having a tailor fix them, or do I just have an isolated bad pair? I don't want to waste time and money on an exchange if I might get something back that's just as bad or worse.

WPG is hit and miss with their shirt stitching as well. I'd go with a tailor like I did with my shirt.

I ended up exchanging them, as I felt the issues really should not have gotten out the door. The replacements were better, and those I had tweaked by a tailor.

I have always disliked the shirts. Too heavy, too short, poor stitching, and the fabric literally breaks in the stress areas of the stitching, making repair difficult to impossible. On the other hand, the thread itself is almost as tough a steel wire!