Author Topic: Calling on the ladies - leggings?  (Read 6303 times)

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« on: November 03, 2016, 08:20:10 AM »
Hey ladies, I need recommendations for places to buy leggings, since they seem to be the thing you can't find in local thrift stores at all.

I am looking for thicker leggings (really thick jersey, or ponte knit - not super-thin wannabe tights that highlight every bulge, thanks, Gap) that don't have a waistband that is super huge and digs into your skin (AKA: like the Old Navy ones). Someone I know recommended the NYDJ ponte leggings, but they are 130$CAD and I am NOT paying that for a pair of leggings, no way, no how.

Basically, you guys - basic black leggings thick enough that I can wear a tunic and not a dress with them, ideally affordable. Where the hell does one find this???

shusherstache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2016, 08:26:22 AM »
Costco has good leggings at a reasonable price.

I'm a fan of the thin (read: not opaque at the top) Felina leggings they carry for under dresses and for sleepwear in winter, but lots of people like the Matty M ones that are thicker as well.

FrugalFan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2016, 08:34:45 AM »
Was going to say Costco as well! They are not thick but definitely suitable for under long sweaters and tunics. They come in a two pack for like $14. Bonus for me, they the only ones long enough for my legs.

Rezdent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Location: Central Texas
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2016, 08:36:52 AM »
I was gifted leggings from foot traffic and they have really held up well.

Here's a link:
https://www.foottraffic.com/prod_detail_list/Leggings_Footless_Tights_for_Women?gclid=CLuRk5zmjNACFQQoaQodTG8F8Q

mskyle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2016, 08:46:21 AM »
You might want to check out Uniqlo - they have leggings and also "leggings pants." I have several pairs of the leggings pants (they have a faux fly and little pockets on the back like jeans and will even wear them with non-tunic shirts, and they're often on sale for $19.90(USD). The "leggings" come in various weights. Not sure if they have Canadian stores though.

CNM

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2016, 08:49:03 AM »
I have a pair of Hue brand leggings that were inexpensive and not at all see through. 

Dee18

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2016, 09:07:14 AM »
TJMaxx had a large selection last time I looked

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4953
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2016, 10:45:32 AM »
Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)

I like my heavy knit ones from jcpenneys.


Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2016, 11:16:19 AM »
Thanks for the recs and links! :) I will totally check out the ones that are available in Canada. I hadn't even thought to check Costco!

Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)

Haha. Leggings are the middle ground between tights and pants. As in, pants-like enough that I don't need a knee-length dress or longer over them, but tights-like enough that I need at least a tunic (for me, anyway, no judgement).

Specifically, I'm preparing for maternity leave, and I refuse to spend the entire year in the house dressed in yoga pants and a sweatshirt and a jacket or scarf and feeling like a schlub (and that's when self-esteem starts going downwards, sex drive crashes, minor depression over the state of my life in general hits, etc. I know myself, ok). Black leggings + black tunic + colorful scarf + cute booties + bright lipstick is EXACTLY as comfortable an outfit, and exactly as wearable, and takes as long to pull on, and is comfortable for being stuck under baby on the couch (no jeans, please) but leave me feeling cute and put-together and not like I've given up on life. It's just finding comfortable leggings that's a challenge, and proving to be more challenging than I like!

FrugalFan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2016, 11:37:09 AM »
Sounds like a great maternity leave outfit. I felt nicer the second time around with leggings and any kind of tunic or sweater than I did the first time around in yoga pants or sweat pants. Though I will say that the midrise Rockstar jeggings from Old Navy with the elastic waistband are *almost* just as comfortable and feel a bit more dressed up when I go out.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2016, 12:04:33 PM »
Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)

I like my heavy knit ones from jcpenneys.

No, leggings are WAY better than pants 😃

I like Zella brand leggings from Nordstrom (they are thick, last forever, and you can get them on sale for around $30 a pair).  I also really like Athleta's selection of high waisted leggings,  but it's best to wait for a sale on these too, as they're more expensive than Zella.

Lis

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2016, 03:26:10 PM »
I bought these guys last year - 6 pairs for $30 and still have *most* of them.

Pros: warm but not overly so, fitted and tight enough that it does help press some extra fluff in (if you have any), but not so fitted that you feel like you're dying in spanx, and they come high enough that they definitely won't roll under extra fluff in your hips or belly (again, if you have any).

Cons: if you wear with knee high boots, you really need to wear socks over them or they start to pill (or, just wear boots all the time), and the seam in the crotch splits faiiirly easily. You can stitch it back together with the most basic stitch (if I can do it, anyone can), but ye be warned.

elaine amj

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5548
  • Location: Ontario
Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2016, 07:54:27 PM »
I love the ones I bought from the No Nonsense line in the Walmart stocking section. They add up fast though.

This year, I started finding leggings in thrift stores and am slowly building up a supply.

Am still trying to figure out what to do over the winter as I am still cycling to work. Leggings have been great so far - i can wear it to ride my bike and its decent looking enough to wear in the office. I'm worried that as it gets colder, they won't be warm enough. Since I have to worry about pants getting caught in bike chains, I pretty much HAVE to wear leggings or slim fit pants to ride my bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 07:56:34 PM by elaine amj »

patchyfacialhair

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 34
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2016, 08:25:16 PM »
Marshalls, Tjmax, Ross, etc.

Source: Pregnant wife just bought a couple for 5 bucks + tax a piece.

Penny McSave

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2016, 09:13:26 PM »
I like the fleece lined leggings from Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Definitely cozy.  think they are around $10.

letired

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Location: Texas
    • Needs More Glitter
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2016, 09:28:20 PM »
+1 for athletic leggings. I splurged on a pair from REI that were 'for yoga', and they are the nicest. I was dubious at first, but they are not see-through at all, and I like how there is no opportunity for them to pill or anything. Cons: It is  (more) difficult to find any in solid black and full length.

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2016, 09:40:04 PM »
I like J.Jill leggings, but they're not the cheapest. I get the black, cotton, full-length ones. They've lasted forever, and are great with tunics and boots.

smilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2016, 09:44:30 PM »
I have found good thick leggings with a wide but not digging waistband at The Bay in the stockings section. Also I've seen even thicker leggings in their women's clothing department, more like very fitted stretchy pants and very comfy although too much to wear under a skirt which is what I was looking for. They'd work under a tunic though.

tthree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2016, 10:44:14 PM »
Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)
Don't laugh.  I pretty much had to write exactly this in a volunteer policy manual.

And for the love of all things good in the world, please never wear gaudy, printed leggings to work.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2016, 12:20:16 AM »
Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)

This post was a reminder to me all right, but not quite in the way you intended. Specifically, you reminded me of your August 15, 2015 post where you asserted that "the least professional thing women can do is have long hair that they wear down". I thought that post was absurd when I read it some 14 months, and I still think it was and is absurd. I have long hair that I wear down, as do the majority of "professional" women that I know, most of whom are earning at least $200,000 per year, and some of whom are earning seven figures per year (which I mention just to cast doubt on the proposition that violating your hair rule has any material effect on career development).

Your present post rubbed me in the same way as the one from August 2015. According to the ordinary use of English words, leggings are clearly pants, provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick (which is how most people demarcate "leggings" versus "tights", anyway; tights are thinner). The meme that "leggings are not pants" is not based on any common English meaning of the word "pants", nor is it based on a functional analysis of the garment in question; the tired refrain is merely a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to regulate other women's bodies and to shame other women for not complying with the dictates of patriarchal rules that tell us that women are supposed to be dressed in certain ways in order to be "professional".

So, I reject your reminder. And I propose that you might want to reconsider whether your reminder served any purpose other than body shaming and reinforcing extant patriarchal narratives. My advice is to stop judging other women for how they present themselves.


Don't laugh.  I pretty much had to write [that leggings are not pants] in a volunteer policy manual.

I would likely decline to volunteer anywhere with a manual containing such a policy, basically for the reasons given above. Volunteers are doing you and your organisation a favour, which is all the more reason to treat them with respect.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 12:50:13 AM by Cathy »

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2016, 05:43:30 AM »
Leggings are not pants!

Just a friendly reminder. :)

This post was a reminder to me all right, but not quite in the way you intended. Specifically, you reminded me of your August 15, 2015 post where you asserted that "the least professional thing women can do is have long hair that they wear down". I thought that post was absurd when I read it some 14 months, and I still think it was and is absurd. I have long hair that I wear down, as do the majority of "professional" women that I know, most of whom are earning at least $200,000 per year, and some of whom are earning seven figures per year (which I mention just to cast doubt on the proposition that violating your hair rule has any material effect on career development).

Your present post rubbed me in the same way as the one from August 2015. According to the ordinary use of English words, leggings are clearly pants, provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick (which is how most people demarcate "leggings" versus "tights", anyway; tights are thinner). The meme that "leggings are not pants" is not based on any common English meaning of the word "pants", nor is it based on a functional analysis of the garment in question; the tired refrain is merely a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to regulate other women's bodies and to shame other women for not complying with the dictates of patriarchal rules that tell us that women are supposed to be dressed in certain ways in order to be "professional".

So, I reject your reminder. And I propose that you might want to reconsider whether your reminder served any purpose other than body shaming and reinforcing extant patriarchal narratives. My advice is to stop judging other women for how they present themselves.


Don't laugh.  I pretty much had to write [that leggings are not pants] in a volunteer policy manual.

I would likely decline to volunteer anywhere with a manual containing such a policy, basically for the reasons given above. Volunteers are doing you and your organisation a favour, which is all the more reason to treat them with respect.

I can see both sides of this discussion--but Cathy, I have to say (very gently) that I think you are over-reacting a bit. Let's face it, not all women realize that their hind ends exposed for all the world to see can look, frankly, ridiculous, stupid, and in bad taste. Leggings can look nice, and they can be super-comfortable, but how they are worn and where they are worn...and what is shown off when they're worn...can be something of a judgement call. I see many, many rear ends in leggings as I am walking my dog in the park every day--I mean no body shaming to say that I think women don't always realize what they look like from the back when they are wearing leggings with a short top that doesn't cover their rear end. And I don't think it's body shaming to say that they may not be professional in the workplace. Hey, if you want the job, follow the dress code. And then dress the way you want on your own time--doopa hanging out or not.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2016, 09:32:06 AM »
Your present post rubbed me in the same way as the one from August 2015. According to the ordinary use of English words, leggings are clearly pants, provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick (which is how most people demarcate "leggings" versus "tights", anyway; tights are thinner). The meme that "leggings are not pants" is not based on any common English meaning of the word "pants", nor is it based on a functional analysis of the garment in question; the tired refrain is merely a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to regulate other women's bodies and to shame other women for not complying with the dictates of patriarchal rules that tell us that women are supposed to be dressed in certain ways in order to be "professional".

All the big topic discussions aside, I have to say that I used to be anti-leggings (considering them not professional and not pants). With so many women wearing them, I have accepted that leggings are pants. That said your line about leggings being alright "provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick" has me needing to disagree with you. People don't wear sufficiently thick leggings; the difference between leggings and tights has dissolved.

The big name Felina, Lysse, and Lululemon all make leggings thin enough (i.e. translucent enough) to see the wearer's underwear in detail and any characteristics of their legs. I've never seen any leggings thick enough to not see through them. I live in a frigid part of Canada so this surprised me for years that women would walk around like that. I think it is an issue to do with seeing contrast because I've, embarrassed, told girl friends that their leggings are see through. In doubt they question me and I answer "polka dats, pink, with a red line at the top". They were shocked.

I have no issue with pants being see through but as a pragmatist, I'd really prefer if people were allowed to not wear pants. And since I have no issue with pants being see through, in all honesty women wearing only tights is alright in my books too.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 09:33:40 AM by kayvent »

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2016, 09:42:03 AM »
That said your line about leggings being alright "provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick" has me needing to disagree with you. People don't wear sufficiently thick leggings; the difference between leggings and tights has dissolved. ... I've never seen any leggings thick enough to not see through them. ... And since I have no issue with pants being see through, in all honesty women wearing only tights is alright in my books too. ...

It wasn't my intent to suggest that only thick leggings should be worn as pants, and I didn't say that. What I said is that, if the leggings are thick, then it is clear that they are pants within the ordinary English meaning of the word. The thickness was a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. I didn't say anything about the case where they are not thick. In fact, my post contained no prescriptive comments about how women should dress at all.

That said, I disagree that all leggings are see through, if you intended to suggest that. You say you've "never seen any leggings thick enough to not see through them", but I'm not sure whether that is an exaggeration. I've certainly seen leggings are that not see through.




As for lizzzi's post, I may or may not analyse it in more detail later, but suffice it to say that I found it more offensive than MayDay's original post in this thread. Although lizzi presumably did not intend to do so, I think she actually provided support for my arguments.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 09:49:48 AM by Cathy »

ptobest

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2016, 09:46:21 AM »
I have an amazing pair of black leggings I got from a shop in a mountain town in Colorado, extremely thick and warm and great for winter (well, non sub-zero winter at least), too bad there was no discernable brand on them to order more.

As for the "pants/not pants" thing, I think it's context? I will wear leggings under a skirt, and in that case they function as tights. But, I will also wear leggings with just a shirt, and then they function as pants. I'm pretty glad for the "leggings as pants" trend, to be honest, especially considering women's jeans are often meant to be worn skin-tight, with pockets so small they are basically useless. If I'm gonna be wearing something tight and non-functional for carrying things, might as well be comfortable in them (versus jeans, where I gain 3 lbs and they don't fit anymore).

Unrelatedly, I wish cargo pants would make a comeback - they had the best pockets!

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2016, 09:53:51 AM »
Unrelatedly, I wish cargo pants would make a comeback - they had the best pockets!

I started gaining a fashion sense (so, like... start looking around you and noticing what people are wearing, say 10ish) during the grunge era. You will pry my flannel and stompy boots from my cold dead hands. (And seeing as I'm in Quebec, and there's currently snow coming down, I WILL be cold and dead should my flannel and stompy boots be removed).

No joke, though, and only semi-OT: leggings for toddlers are the BEST pants. My daughter has like 8 pairs of Old Navy black leggings, bought on sale for 4$ each, and they're amazing. They go with every shirt and every dress she owns, they're thin and clingy enough to slide under snow pants easily, they're thick enough to be worn as pants in warmer weather, and they're stretchy and provide full mobility (jeans seem to cut off how her legs stretch so she can't do a lot of things she can do with leggings on, like climb fences and whatnot). Cheap, cute, functional, promoting physical ability: kudos, leggings. ++ parental review.

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2016, 10:57:30 AM »
Wow, Cathy, you are one tough poster. I certainly did not mean to be offensive, and was just calling it how I see it...really do not care or judge how people choose to look or what they wear. It's what's inside that counts, and the older I get, the more strongly I believe that.

Kitsune, I agree totally that leggings on toddler girls are excellent--for all the reasons you said.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2016, 01:27:51 PM »
That said your line about leggings being alright "provided of course that the fabric is sufficiently thick" has me needing to disagree with you. People don't wear sufficiently thick leggings; the difference between leggings and tights has dissolved. ... I've never seen any leggings thick enough to not see through them. ... And since I have no issue with pants being see through, in all honesty women wearing only tights is alright in my books too. ...

It wasn't my intent to suggest that only thick leggings should be worn as pants, and I didn't say that. What I said is that, if the leggings are thick, then it is clear that they are pants within the ordinary English meaning of the word.

My apologies. I was merely trying to say that even tights are pants so the differentiation is not useful. I say "tights are pants" because I see as many women, if not more, wearing only tights as there are only leggings.

Quote
That said, I disagree that all leggings are see through, if you intended to suggest that. You say you've "never seen any leggings thick enough to not see through them", but I'm not sure whether that is an exaggeration. I've certainly seen leggings are that not see through.

I think this may honestly be a eyesight issue because as mentioned, all my girl friends have been baffled and surprised when I explain that their leggings are see through. A few years ago there was a big shock with Lululemon leggings, that had been out for years, being found to be see through. The CEO made some very inappropriate comments but that aside, that is one of the reasons I think this is something most people can't see but some can. See through pants don't get sold for years and not noticed for awhile unless most people can't notice.

tthree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2016, 05:43:30 PM »
Don't laugh.  I pretty much had to write [that leggings are not pants] in a volunteer policy manual.

I would likely decline to volunteer anywhere with a manual containing such a policy, basically for the reasons given above. Volunteers are doing you and your organisation a favour, which is all the more reason to treat them with respect.
For clarity the volunteer position is a sport official position where there is a clearly outlined uniform. All volunteers are aware of the uniform before signing up.  Up until last year, stating uniform requirements was sufficient.  Now due to the popularity of leggings and sheer material, the list of what to wear is now accompanied by a list of what not to wear.

For OP, in my area leggings parties are a thing.  Look around on social media and see if there are distributors in your area.  The ones here always have a large selection and there are some heavier knit options available.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2016, 07:03:11 AM »
A bit OT, but I find the heavy fuzzy long johns in black make great indoor pants in winter.   They make crummy long johns*, because they stick to the pants they are under, but are great on their own.  Mine are made by McKinley.

*Which is why I own 2 pairs, the second pair are warm and slippery and do the job they were intended to do.

AshStash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2016, 07:53:35 AM »
First, I'd like to say that I have tried on leggings at every price point and I do a very rigorous bend test while wearing striped underwear in various lighting conditions to check that they aren't see through. That said, my recommendations are:

The thick ponte style leggings from White House Black Market. You can usually combine sales and coupons here for a good deal.

More costly are some double-paneled leggings I have from both Lululemon and Lorna Jane. These leggings have two layers of fabric through the seat, which is completely genius. The only Lululemon leggings I've found that pass the bend test without having two layers of fabric are their brushed "full on luon" wunderunders, which are wonderful and warm but if you have pets that shed, steer clear. I used to like Zella leggings but I think they are thinner than they used to be (or were as of last year) and no longer pass the bend test.

Athleta is hit or miss for me, I have two pairs that are great and I have bought two pairs additional pairs of the same style, different color that were see through. They do have a "black elastic" in their fabric which helps a lot with appearance.

I will second the Uniqlo jeggings and add that Marks & Spencer (very reasonable shipping costs outside the UK) has a line of "5 pocket super skinny jeans" that are great jeggings and cost $31. Also M&S has some jeggings that are even more leggings like with just two pockets and a big, flat elastic waistband but the fabric doesn't look like activewear. They often have sales and coupon codes. Buyer beware, the lovely rose pink color seem to have a problem with the dye running in the wash, but the 3 other colors I own have had no issues.

My mom has had a lot of luck at J Jill in the past.

To weigh in on the leggings as pants issue, the only way I'm giving up leggings as pants is if you pry them off of my cold, dead thighs. :) I don't wear them everywhere for every occasion but (especially when jeggings are included), I wear them most places and always for working out, unless it's shorts weather.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2016, 08:10:16 AM »
First, I'd like to say that I have tried on leggings at every price point and I do a very rigorous bend test while wearing striped underwear in various lighting conditions to check that they aren't see through. That said, my recommendations are:

The thick ponte style leggings from White House Black Market. You can usually combine sales and coupons here for a good deal.

More costly are some double-paneled leggings I have from both Lululemon and Lorna Jane. These leggings have two layers of fabric through the seat, which is completely genius. The only Lululemon leggings I've found that pass the bend test without having two layers of fabric are their brushed "full on luon" wunderunders, which are wonderful and warm but if you have pets that shed, steer clear. I used to like Zella leggings but I think they are thinner than they used to be (or were as of last year) and no longer pass the bend test.

Athleta is hit or miss for me, I have two pairs that are great and I have bought two pairs additional pairs of the same style, different color that were see through. They do have a "black elastic" in their fabric which helps a lot with appearance.

I will second the Uniqlo jeggings and add that Marks & Spencer (very reasonable shipping costs outside the UK) has a line of "5 pocket super skinny jeans" that are great jeggings and cost $31. Also M&S has some jeggings that are even more leggings like with just two pockets and a big, flat elastic waistband but the fabric doesn't look like activewear. They often have sales and coupon codes. Buyer beware, the lovely rose pink color seem to have a problem with the dye running in the wash, but the 3 other colors I own have had no issues.

My mom has had a lot of luck at J Jill in the past.

To weigh in on the leggings as pants issue, the only way I'm giving up leggings as pants is if you pry them off of my cold, dead thighs. :) I don't wear them everywhere for every occasion but (especially when jeggings are included), I wear them most places and always for working out, unless it's shorts weather.

I am fine with leggings as pants. I'm fine with tights as pants. Heck, I am even ok with no pants. But jeggings are atrocities on mankind. Even Double-U-Necks are more appropriate than jeggings.

AshStash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2016, 08:51:17 AM »

I am fine with leggings as pants. I'm fine with tights as pants. Heck, I am even ok with no pants. But jeggings are atrocities on mankind. Even Double-U-Necks are more appropriate than jeggings.

We may be using "jeggings" differently--I'm using it in the sense of a skinny jean type pant with pockets and a zip fly, just with much more elastic. I have some J Crew black skinny jeans and I have some M&S black jeggings (they literally stamp the word jegging in the waistband) and the pocket/zipper styling of both is the same to look at but there is waaaaaaay more comfy stretch to the jeggings. I do have some M&S leggings that they categorize as jeggings that have pockets but a fully elastic waist. They are great leggings but you have to wear a longer top with them, so I dispute their "jeggings" categorization on the M&S website.

My definition: If I sit down and I have to adjust the waistband over my stomach, it's a skinny jean. If I don't have to make any adjustments, it's a jegging.

I'm not talking about the pajama jeans of a few years ago when I talk about jeggings, as the category has moved waaaay past that :D I also thing the word jegging is horrible, but it's how they are sold in stores and on websites, so I've come around to using it.

K-ice

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 982
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2016, 09:20:55 AM »
I know this is not in the price range you want but there is value in "made in Canada"

http://voilaandreanne.com/collections/pants-leggings/products/bamboo-fleece-leg-pant-catherines-vine-hi-rise-bamboo-leggings

Have a pair of these I got 2y ago as a Christmas gift while shopping w my mom.

I really love them & a few other peices I have from Voila!

They are long, & curve friendly. They have a wide waste band but it doesn't cut in. They do not look at all worn yet.

I first tried them on at a craft sale, here are their next shows:

http://voilaandreanne.com/pages/where-to-buy

Confession, I bought a $10 "george" Walmart pair the other day. They are not even close but I'm pretty happy.

I challenge readers to find affordable "made in Canada" or "made in the USA" products.

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2016, 09:22:18 AM »
A bit OT, but I find the heavy fuzzy long johns in black make great indoor pants in winter.   They make crummy long johns*, because they stick to the pants they are under, but are great on their own.  Mine are made by McKinley.

*Which is why I own 2 pairs, the second pair are warm and slippery and do the job they were intended to do.

+1  Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who does this. I have black wool long johns from LL Bean, and often wear the bottoms with a long tunic sweater on top, and Uggs on the bottom. Very warm, very comfortable, and I don't think there's any way to tell that I'm out purchasing groceries in my underwear.   : D  (Especially with a big, knee-length down parka on top of the whole ensemble.)

K-ice

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 982
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2016, 10:52:13 AM »
I was wrong, I bought the all season pair.

http://voilaandreanne.com/collections/pants-leggings/products/catherine-vine-bamboo-leggings-aboriginal-designer

But they are quite warm for Canadian winters & too hot for summer.

Did I say how much I love them?

I pull them on & they just fit. No squats, pliés or pelvic thrusts required to get them on. No tugging during the day. 


kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2016, 01:53:42 PM »
I have tried on leggings at every price point and I do a very rigorous bend test while wearing striped underwear in various lighting conditions to check that they aren't see through.

As someone who takes such methodical scientific tests, are your findings similar to mine that a lot (at least a majority) of purchased leggings are see through under some real world situations?

Lis

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2016, 02:41:33 PM »
You will pry my jeggings from my cold, dead hands.

(They technically do have a fly and button and even belt loops, but I'm pretty sure I could shimmy into them without undoing either.)

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8186
  • Location: United States
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2016, 04:15:54 PM »
They were just too long (I'm 5'0") for me but Viv Collection on Amazon are opaque and comfortable and cheap.

AshStash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2016, 06:59:18 PM »
I have tried on leggings at every price point and I do a very rigorous bend test while wearing striped underwear in various lighting conditions to check that they aren't see through.

As someone who takes such methodical scientific tests, are your findings similar to mine that a lot (at least a majority) of purchased leggings are see through under some real world situations?

Yes. Most leggings leave the wearer one untied shoelace away from bending over and flashing the world!

I have tried on and returned SO MANY LEGGINGS over the years. In terms of athletic wear, I'm almost exclusively down to leggings with 2 layers of fabric through the seat except for my magical Athleta leggings (their fabrics are so hit and miss though but the few that are pass the test are excellent and they have good sales).

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2017, 08:05:00 AM »
Okay, this is clearly a spam post that revived this thread, but I do want to find good tights and leggings, so... Posting to review later.

MrsTuxedocat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Location: Canada
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2017, 01:38:17 AM »
Is it just me, but I find leggings pill incredibly easy? Is there cheap and no pill leggings or is that a unicorn?

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8186
  • Location: United States
Re: Calling on the ladies - leggings?
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2017, 04:27:01 AM »
Is it just me, but I find leggings pill incredibly easy? Is there cheap and no pill leggings or is that a unicorn?
I have two pairs of Circo leggings that are more than a decade old that cost $7 and haven't pilled. But they are kids sized.

It's hit or miss. I've found expensive leggings pill as much as cheap.