Top positive review
40 people found this helpful
Decent alternative to Levis 569's
on June 3, 2011
To give a little background on the type of jeans I prefer, I have always liked the Levis 569's because they had plenty of room in the seat/thighs and were very comfortable because they gave me room to breath. No awkward hugging of my butt or thighs, no annoying tapering on my calves and they sat loose, which is how I like it. I am a pretty big guy and I have thick legs, so finding the right type of jeans is a pain in the butt (pun intended).
Recently, Levis decided to ruin the 569 line by making them all look pre-worn, bleached, no standard colors but instead only ridiculous looking designer colors and are made with low-quality cheap thin materials. Every now and then I could get ahold of a standard blue pair of Levis 569's, but it was becoming almost impossible to find a straight-up simple 569 that isn't all fancy looking or pre-worn out. Seriously, what is wrong with people nowadays, can't they wear out jeans themselves anymore??
Needless to say, I am done with the 569's, and I think I have found one of the best alternatives. Carhartt mens loose fit jeans. These are REAL jeans people, they are thick, no pre-worn out look, no bleaching, and they have STANDARD jean colors. I got the darkstone color, which is a dark blue (looks darker in the picture than they really are). Overall I am impressed, these are straight leg jeans so no annoying tapering, they are also nice and wide, just about as wide as my 569's are. No awkward hugging of my butt, and my thighs have plenty of room.
However, there is a few downsides, which is why I gave these a 4 star instead of 5. For starters, the pockets are much smaller and tighter than my 569's. I like to keep my cell phone in the tiny 'watch' pocket in my jeans, however the watch pocket on these jeans is very small and tight, right now my phone cannot fit in the slot with it's protective cover on like it could on my 569's. The regular pockets are also more shallow, tighter and not as wide as the 569's. The wallet pocket is also not as deep, however they are tighter than my 569's, which is actually a good thing when it comes to holding your wallet securely in place. I'm sure once I start to break these in the pockets will loosen up a bit, after all I am comparing the pockets of these to my long-time broken in 569's.
The last downside is that the crotch on these sits up much further than the 569's, so if you like to wear baggy boxers (or even loose fitting boxer-briefs) your boys might get jumbled around a bit by the top of the inseam. From what I have seen so far with these, it's probably a safe prerequisite to wear tight fitting briefs or boxer-briefs until the jeans get broken in.
Overall I am happy with the jeans, I haven't worn them much because I sized the waste down for when I lose some more weight (dieting right now) but even with the tight fitting waste I can tell these are very close in comfort and feel to my 569's. So if you can deal with a slightly higher crotch and smaller/tighter pockets, these are a great alternative to the once great Levis 569 line of jeans.
Quick-list of pros/cons.
- Straight leg (as straight leg as the 569's)
- Plenty of room in the seat and thighs like the 569's
- Comes in standard non-fancy non-designer jean styles and colors
- Very wide legs, bottom leg opening while laying flat measures at about 9-3/4" (size 36x32) where my 569's are at about 10-1/2" (40x32)
- Material feels strong and thick
- Decently priced, much cheaper than 569's
- Pockets are tighter and smaller (not as deep or wide) compared to my 569's
- Crotch sits up higher than 569's