Friday, August 22, 2014

Maqsad Reflects: on the boyfriend jeans trend

I've been watching BF jeans gain steam for a while. I think the first blogger to wear them was Atlantic Pacific's Blaire Edie, who rocked her Current Elliotts with heels regularly. She wore those slouchy-thigh-low-crotch things with the wide straight legs rolled just so and made them look amazing.

So now that everyone's hopped on the bandwagon, I decided to test the waters myself. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors!)

I am disappointed in both Madewell and JCrews BF jeans. Their main problem is that they do not taper at all in the leg and look very unstylish when cuffed. They are also too loose in the thigh for me (I'm thinking of the Eastwood jeans, the boyfriend jeans, the classic jean in Abbott wash and even the point sur denim).  While this easy-thigh, wide-leg business is true to the original boyfriend jeans worn by the likes of Blaire Edie way back when, I think they've become passé now. 

Here's my nugget of wisdom: if you have a slim and/or petite figure, you will likely look and feel better in a *slim* boyfriend fit. This has the distinction of being fitted in the thigh, despite being cut in the hips and crotch to mimic a boy jean. The leg is not overly tapered but it is tapered just enough in the designer brands to make it look great rolled up (rather than having it's cuffs hanging out like ears). Madewell and J.Crew slim BF jeans are still a disappointment to me bc they have stick out ear things at the ankle. There's no subtle tapering in the leg. The Eastwood jeans have a twisted seam, but a super wide thigh, so I feel like crying when I put them on.

So: if I am to get a BF fit, being petite and slight in build, I will be getting a slim BF jean from a designer brand. And at J.Crew, I will only go so far as the Reid jeans, which are fitted in the thigh, with a higher rise, and a straight-but-tapered leg. 

In fact, I'm excited to see the Reid out in many new washes and lengths, and even selvedge this fall! I'll be on the lookout for a % off promo.
Pictures, you say? See below:
1. Rag and Bone slim BF jeans, the Dre in Bradford wash (sized down one size to a 24" waist & they fit perfectly)

No distressing, but lots of fading.

2. Wearing my old matchsticks like BF jeans to show you it's really about the fit at the thigh and a taper of the leg that does the trick. Don't they look a lot like the slim BF jeans from Rag & Bone?

Rag and bone, "the dre" jeans for comparison.

3. Eastwood jeans (sized down one to a size 24; still awfully loose)

I lay the Rag &Bone jeans on top of the Eastwood to see how much wider the latter are in the thighs. See for yourself: a good inch across!

4. Point Sur stacker jeans in Klutey wash, sized down one size to a 24" waist.
I did love the feel of the point sur denim, very soft, and the wash. But they're really long. I have to cuff them to the knee, showing off the selvedge seam, yes, but also wondering whether I'm looking shorter, or ridiculous, or both.

Point Sur jeans lying on top of Eastwood: the Eastwood is still a little wider in the thigh (see where I'm pointing...)

And here the point sur is lying under the Eastwood: see how much longer it is! That's all meant to be cuffed. 

Phew! That was a long post. Hope I didn't lose you! I find that sizing down one size in the BF fits is standard. I didn't believe people at first, so I have a beautiful pair of JBrand BF jeans in my standard 25, which are too loose on me. I never wore them, so they're up for sale (see my other blog). 

Would love to hear about your take on the boyfriend jeans trend!

1 comment:

  1. Ironic that I was just thinking about "boyfriend" jeans. Seems to me that any jean that is not "skinny jeans" are labeled boyfriend jeans.