We bring the run of khaki-themed posts to a close with info on a US-made brand doing khakis the old-fashioned way. Some of you may have received an email blast last week from O’Connell’s plugging pants that looked strangely familiar. Similar to another brand, except that the monosyllabic name behind them is Frank.
I reached out to O’Connell’s, which connected me to Frank Herbert, proprietor of Frank’s Apparel. “We are a bit different,” he says, “and have much updated fabrics with stretch and movement, use interiors with wicking properties and stretch, have introduced updated traditional styling in five-pocket trousers, as well as wool like microfiber in our pant model called the Heritage, which is a full make alterable five-pocket dress pant, and we offer this particular trouser in the traditional fabrics as well.”
The khakis run $175 for the classic model. Below are some snapshots Mr. Herbert took of his latest wares. — CC
That seems like a lot of money for a pair of khakis. Just sayin’
“Stretch, woollike microfiber,” does not sound like they are all cotton, a requirement. Yes, $175 plus NY tax sounds a little steep!
Where to find slim fit khakis?
The website is inadequate in not including a matrix
for each model which gives exact measurements,
for thigh, leg opening and crucially rise. As for “updated”
stretch fabrics, my own experience with a pair of jeans in a brand
which have been buying for some years that now had this type of
fabric is that they don’t hang right and are warm for 200 bucks!
They lost me with “stretch”.
I share the hesitation on the price along with the unease over the fabric description. I should be in good shape on khaki supply for some period of time and may check out Jack Donnelly or stick with the O’Connells house offering.
At $175, those khakis aren’t going to fly out the door. I don’t understand entrepeneurs. Does Frank think everyone is a millionaire?
Pay yourself an huge salary with the borrowed start up money, and file bankruptcy when the money runs out. The American way.
Hate to be negative. Just some of these guys seem to lose touch with reality.
Being in touch with reality, I get my khakis from LL Bean o Lands’ End.
Being positive, I am perfectly pleased with them.
I’m an LL Bean customer too when it comes to khakis (their Double L). I’m sure you can spend more but I’ve been quite happy with the ones I buy for under $40 a pair on sale.
When I read “wicking, “stretch” and “wool-like microfiber” I immediately turn away whatever the cost may be. Cheap polyester by any other name is still crap, and marking it up to luxury prices does not make it new and better.
I like my $20 khakis from Amazon. $175 for khakis is like asking someone to sell their kidneys. Ouch.
Another satisfied LLBean customer.
About 10-12 years ago I got some microfiber khakis at Stein Mart, Izod branded as I recall. They were comfortable, draped well, were fairly stain resistant and no bag or sag over four-five years. Cost about $30.
The description of the fabric sounds like something Herb Tarik might wear. Also, sweat wicking fabrics, no matter how clean, get stinky and should only be used for running clothes.
The very last line of Frank’s quote is: “and we offer this particular trouser in the traditional fabrics as well.” The khakis being sold by O’Connells and discussed here are 100% cotton.
@David See Jack Donnelly Khakis, covered on this site in the last week.
Sounds like Made In America only matters to some guys to a point…so what happens when O’Connell’s and Press switch to all Made in China for cheaper?
How is the rise on the LL Bean and Lands End chinos?
Why not order a pair from both firms (LLB and LE), try them on and see for yourself. Both firms have no-questions-asked return policies, and you’ll probably get an apology that their products weren’t up to your expectations.
Missing second sentence: If you’re not pleased, you can always return them for a refund.
In my experience the rise on Bean, LE and Jack Donnelly is low. (O’Connell’s are high rise of course.)
74 years ago today, guys who would soon be entering the Ivy League and other schools on the GI Bill, many wearing their old army khakis, were storming the beaches of Normandy. Thank you to the gentlemen who remain, and may those who are gone rest in peace.
Thank you for reminding us.
Where would be be without their sacrifice? I shudder at the thought.
This obsession with rise is tiresome. No offence, but a perusal of the pics on the purported ‘Ivy’ sites on the interwebs illustrates, too, that ‘tiresome’ soon morphs into comic.
@ George Fulop
$3000 for three pair of khakis? Surely you jest.
Don’t call him Shirley. But seriously– that’s ludicrous.
To each his own.
Haha! When I get them, if they look as good as the ones on the shop model I’ll be a happy camper!!
What you call an “obsession” with rise is a concern with propriety, with tradition, with preferring trousers that are cut to fit a gentleman.
George, my good man, J&F have already double-billed you!
As to the rise on LL Bean’s Double L khakis, it depends on the cut. I get them in their Classic fit and the pants sit at my waist, just where I want them. Their two trimmer cuts sit lower.
BTW, I was very skeptical of the 100% cotton “wrinkle-free” material but it’s very nice and pretty breathable considering the 8.6 weight. I find they’re easy to care for. I wash them on warm and dry on low. I never iron and they have a nice bit of rumple while maintaining a decent crease. As long as LLB doesn’t screw these up, they work for me and are a great price, especially on sale (like the upcoming Father’s day weekend).
Re: Lands’ End khakis’ rise: just the other day I measured the rise on mine for a potential online purchase an it was just over 11.5″ I bought the traditional fit, long rise model.
O’Connell’s khakis come in regular,long ,and short rise and are $125. Made in America
@ Down Tradden
‘This obsession with rise is tiresome.’
This website is called ‘Ivy Style’. I made reference to one of the most important elements of ivy style. If you find that tiresome then perhaps you’re reading the wrong website. Are you suggesting we should avoid referring to certain aspects of ivy style because one comment-leaver finds such posts obsessive and tiresome? What a bizarre suggestion.
‘No offence, but a perusal of the pics on the purported ‘Ivy’ sites on the interwebs illustrates, too, that ‘tiresome’ soon morphs into comic.’
No offence but again I cannot see anything constructive or even coherent in this comment. The online ivy sites are not genuine ivy in your opinion – so the answer is to wear low rise trousers? Another bizarre suggestion. I can’t help but suspect that you’re just trolling.