Skip to main content

carhartt force

the leggings that believed they could.  long ago and far away, i had a "lifestyle" blog - recipes, fashion, sewing, tutorials, all the old lady activities i love to do, written about in a tone and language that offends the greatest generation.  much like my very existence, but as usual, i digress.  when a friend recommended these leggings as "work pants" i thought back to my rants about leggings as pants, and how i would never; but times change, opinions grow, and for $60, i tried carhartt's "utility" leggings, as previously and briefly reviewed in my tools of the trade article.  solid 8/10 for these bad boys.  website deets:



oh.  pig farming.  cool...  i did voice my internal debate regarding leggings at work, albeit a construction site, and my boss in his dulcet tones, noted "i used to have a guy that wore sweatpants everyday, so i dont give a fuck what you wear".  i took this to mean, as long as i was meeting osha's loose requirements regarding clothing, all the better; aka no dresses and flippy flops. 

but again, leggings.  in my mind, meant to be a base layer under a dress, skirts, the occasional shorts depending on the style; a warmer alternative to tights/pantyhose, generally opaque, sleek and pocketless like a seal, highest functionality as thigh chafeage prevention, meant to be present but not visible.  carhartt has other ideas.  ponte knits are typically thicker fabric with 2 way stretch, that hold their shape.  the force leggings, generally holdfast for a full workday, although the pants-pull-up-dance begins after a few hours.  as with most leggings, the underwear line shows, and the front crotch area can be considered vaguely safe for work. 


the introduction of pockets takes these leggings light years beyond any leggings previously worn, save one failure - they are sewn onto a stretch knit.  once you add more than a phone and pencil to the pockets, they sag dangerously.  add a tape measure, weighing about the same as these leggings, and either it falls off due to stretch, or the pants leggings seek out their natural gravitational pull to the ground.  in the same vein, the force leggings lack a hammer loop for obvious reasons.  as far as pocket functionality goes - phone, yes.  pencil/pen/6" square, yes.  speed square, maybe.  hammer, no.  prybar, no.  tape measure, risky.  drill/driver, definitely not.  nailgun, weeeeell maybe one of those brad nailers or a tiny staple gun, but definitely nothing heavier than 18 gauge. 

do i often don these durable paint-speckled "pants" in all of their bulgy stretchy panty-line showing glory?  yep.  they are incredibly comfortable and when my stomach pooches over the wide waistband, i shrug and hope my toolbelt isnt adding 2 more lumps to my torso.  to quote my mother "its not a goddamn fashion show".  but if it is, i'm readyish. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

carhartt slim-fit crawford

oh carhartts.  when i first moved to maine, i had only ever seen carhartts as farm outerwear.  on old men.  welp, stick with what you know, or actually listen to your customers.  i digress.  of course i bought these full price, $50, and a size larger than usual.  6/10   website description : where do i even begin?  generally i wear a size 12, across the board.  fortunately i went into an actual carhartt store to try on pants, and out of vanity, only sized up to a 14.  turns out, this style/cut runs the gamut of inconsistencies.  i vaguely remember checking the website post-purchase, and seeing most recommendations for sizing at least 2 sizes larger than your norm; now half the reviews say everything is too large.  back to sizing.. the "contoured waistband" somehow allows for gapping at the small of my back, while the front and sides are cutting into my internal organs.  regular inseam is a joke, and the 32" is b...
Post a Comment
Read more

dickies double-front carpenter

the dickies double-front duck carpenter pants.  the poor working woman's alternative to carhartts, with much the same failings, but at half the price!  $35 for your choice of 3 colors, and no inseam options.  6/10  the deets: ok.  so they're pants.  ostensibly, they're not hateful; they have functional pockets, a real hammer loop, a tool loop, multiple side pockets, and doublefront knees for when you have 45 minutes to try and cram a kneepad in there.  and they make my ass look pretty ok.  but those are the extent of the plusses.   upon initial donning of the pants, one leg at a time mind you, the front is somehow too tight while the back gaps out away from the body.  throughout the day, the crotch sags and bags in only the way duck pants can, but ... they function as pants.  my standards get lower day by day.
Post a Comment
Read more

dickies heritage stonewashed duck carpenter

where to begin with these pants.  the website  shows a model donning the pants with some rather hideous open-toed stack heeled boots cos you know, women amirite?  thats all we care about.  but sexist pandering aside, these pants are pretty alright, especially given the cost - originally $45, now on clearance.  7/10 the stretch canvas isn't overly-immediately-fall-off stretchy, but it is a bit thin.  i don't know that they'll last very long, but they do allow for full range of movement, with actual functional back and front pockets and a hammer loop.  no pencil/tool pocket on the side though, which is a downfall.  as i continuously bake and eat during quarantine, i predict the visible bulges in the front waist of these pants will be more and more apparent, but through no fault of the manufacturer's.  the legs aren't awkwardly tight or twisty, and the inseam is accurate. as these are more fashion than function pants, they aren't re...
Post a Comment
Read more