Dockers K-1 or Bills's Khakis or Buzz Ricksons' to wear?

[BellyTank]

I don't but I've heard that they're no match for the original WW2 khakis. I have some originals and they're pretty kool. Really loose and wide in the leg and of course flat-fronted. Still plenty of them on eBay. Aero leather clothing sell a few different types but I think they're the ones you have mentioned. Of course you can get repro WW2 khakis from WW2Impressions, WPG, et al.
BellyT.

[Matt Deckard]

I have not seen the button fly Bills Khakis in person, not the K-1, though I am curious to know if they have the correct flat felled seams along the legs like the original WWII issue pants had.

[wharrell]

Matt:

I have been wearing the Bill's Khakis for about 6 years now. The M1 Model is definitely the most comfortable fitting trousers you will ever wear. My advice is to wear them with full cut boxer shorts.

I do have some of the button front also.

On the Dockers K1: I did get one pair during the short period they were in production.

I'd be glad to help with any other info on them.

Information on the Bills Khakis:


http://www.billskhakis.com/shop/auth_buttonfly.htmlBill's Khakis

[Matt Deckard]

I have a friend with a pair of original Army Khakis. what I want to see is if the Bill's or the Dockers have flat felled seams olong the sides of the legs like the originals.

Flat felled seam is flat and folded over like in the attached photo. The seams on the originals were like this all the down the leg on both sides.

If you have a pair of levi's 501's the seam on the outside of the legs is flat felled and the seam on the inside is not.

[Wild Root]

I have looked at some of Bill's at a Nordstoms department store and they don't have all the details of the original khakis made
for the service men in WWII.

Matt and I have been looking for a correct repro, just haven't found any as of yet. I have also heard that originals are all dryed up and that don't sound right to me. But, just to play it safe, I'm not wearing my originals as oft as I have been.

Root.

[wharrell]

Matt:

I checked both my Bill's and my Docker K1's. Neither have the flat felled leg seam.

Back in college, I was fortunate to have gotten some of the original Cramerton Army Cloth Khakis and the Galey & Lord Khakis, they were the way you described. Unfortunately, I have long worn them out primarily with the cuffs due to regular starching and pressing at the laundry.

My general advice:

The Bill's are much more right on with the original cut you are looking for. I have also found the unwashed M1 Bills Khakis to seem to be even a bit fuller cut.

The Dockers K1 have good features, but the cut is not the fullness of the original Cramerton Army Cloth Khaki.

[Matt Deckard]

Thank you for the informations... Nice to know they are incorrect reproductions.

Darn!

I'll keep Bill's in mind, though I am disparaged that they are not correct.

[BellyTank]

As I mentioned- if you want a good repro of the Khakis, then get them from a military repro maker- the reenactment guys...
WWIIImpressions, Whatpriceglory, etc.
They're better than any commercial, Mall copies.
I have a few pairs from these vendors and for a vintage cut and fit in a new product, you simply can't do better.
BTank.

[Fuente]

A little history as I know it...The WWII khaki's were alot trimmer than the prewar pleated trousers. Check out the Zoot Suits.

Corbin Trousers were the 1st to see the need for a plain front pant with the fit of the WWII khaki's. They started with 4 fabrics and called them "Natural Shoulder Trousers" as they looked great with the soft shoulder (Brooks Bros.) sport coats. As time went by the original pants trimmed down even further and they had a long run making both pleated and nonpleated trousers. The 3rd generation Corbin lost the business last year and it is no longer made in the original family owned factory in West Virginia.

Bill Thomas (Bill's Khaki's) went to the same prep school (The Hill School) as David Corbin (Corbin Trouser Co) and may have heard the Natural Trouser Story from Corbin or another Alumnus Jeff Mennen (Mennen After Shave). Jeff was a consultant to both companies.

I could have the originals manufactured in the US if a protype is available to measure. Minimums, would however be 250 pair. I don't know what the interset level is for a pant fuller than Bill's. We are currently making a garment enzyme washed and silicon treated Khaki that is a bit smaller than Bill's.

Rich

[Fuente]

That should be interest not interset above. A chap that makes some trousers for us does have the ability to flat fell the side seams.

Rich

[wharrell]

I would be in line as a customer.

If someone has these manufacturered, keep me on the list.

Bill

[BellyTank]

I've seen some 1917(?) pattern US Army trousers and the same which were repro'ed by Levis Vintage, Japan a while back and by comparison to the WWII khakis, yes they are much baggier- they absolutely hang off the hips/but.
It would be hard to call the WWII khakis "trim" due to their loose/wide fit though, although the immediate post-war model ones became much trimmer.
I have a pair dated 1946 which are still the '42 date pattern and nice and wide legged. They continued post-war for a few years then the pattern('46?)
was altered, slimmed.

This is what I know-
BT.

[Michaelson]

I've owned Bill's Khaki's for several years now....good points...VERY comfortable, and have a HUGE watch pocket for those of us who carry our monster 18s Pocketwatches....bad point? Watch when you hem them, be sure you leave plenty of length, as they can (and do) shrink if you toss them in a hot dryer after washing. Mine did. Regards. Michaelson

[Wild Root]

Original Post by Fuente: A little history as I know it...The WWII khaki's were a lot trimmer than the prewar pleated trousers. Check out the Zoot Suits.

Well, military clothes were a lot trimmer and fitted then any civilian clothes. I wouldn't even compare a uniform's fit to Zoot suit pants. Zoot suits were an outward rebellious statement to the war time fabric rations. They were way baggier then what was made by Sears, Wards and most other major Department stores. WWII pants whether wool or cotton had the same cut. They all were flat front! Military pants never had pleats as far as I know it. Bellytank is right; the full cut pants were changed just after 1946. I have a pair of khakis from about 1949 and they fit snug.

I see WWII Khakis some times and they go cheap. Big sized ones can get up to 60 or 70 bucks though.

The WWII Impressions khakis are great! I don't own a pair, but I have seen them and they are as close to the real deal as one can get with out buying an original pair. Plus, they're cheaper then Bills Khakis!

Root.

[The Mad Hatter]

Bill Thomas (Bill's Khaki's) went to the same prep school (The Hill School) as David Corbin (Corbin Trouser Co) and may have heard the Natural Trouser Story from Corbin or another Alumnus Jeff Mennen (Mennen After Shave). Jeff was a consultant to both companies.

Where did you hear this? (I'm a classmate of Dave Corbin's at Hill)

[BellyTank]

Do you actually have an original pair of 1940s khakis to compare with?
I didn't see where you mentioned that...
BT.

[wharrell]

I do not have an original pair now, but did back in the late 70's in college.

[The Wingnut]

I'm probably coming into this conversation late, but I'll add a few notes:

There is a considerable range in 'khaki' material, even in WWII issue uniforms. I've owned myriad WWII khaki shirts and pants, and the ones I've hung onto are all wool, not cotton. True tropical khaki uniforms are actually made from a very lightweight worsted wool, which, when held up to sunlight, has an almost transparent quality. Many women's uniforms were made from the same material. The commonly seen heavy cotton uniforms are too heavy for tropical use, and were mostly stateside as summer uniforms. These are more easily found because moths preferred the wool, the cotton was a simple machine-wash affair(whereas wool needs to be dry-cleaned), and they lasted much longer due to the heavy fabric weight. I'd personally not want to wear the heavy cotton uniforms in any sort of high heat at all, since the fabric is too heavy for my tastes, has a tendency to be stiff, and is nowhere near as breathable as its wool counterpart.

As for cut, there were a large number of contractors, all of which had their own ideas of how pants and shirts should be cut. Dye lots will differ, fabric lots will differ, cut will differ. If you're going to pick nits about cut, search out one of the originals and wear it, or buy the modern equvalent. I'm loathe to spend any more than $20 on a shirt or pair of pants of ANY kind...my 'work khaki' uniform came from Sears' work clothing line, which has the correct mitre-corner pockets, flat-front pants, and a halfway decent color. The evil polyester figures in, however, and I don't wear it often. Dress uniform cuts are more my style, and for that, I use a vintage worsted wool officer's shirt and pants.

[Biltmore Bob]

I have to agree with you Wingnut. I cant see parting with a C note for a pair of trousers. I.ve been lusting for a pair of Bills for awhile now and would love to have some. But the price, ya know... Only I would know the difference between Bills and Dickies or Roebucks and my wife would kick my butt.

[The Mad Hatter]

I have to agree with you Wingnut. I cant see parting with a C note for a pair of trousers. I.ve been lusting for a pair of Bills for awhile now and would love to have some. But the price, ya know...

Sierra Trading Post offers Bill's Khakis for $40 to $60.

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/EUI...17D300251A617F