Ordered these acrnm p20-s pants last week. They should be arriving tomorrow.
What do I wear with them?
disgusting
>>11116456
Disgusting and embarassing
>>11116456
full techwear only
>>11116456
These are indeed discusting, bought only olive P10's this season, everything else nah. Waiting for FW1617 pants though.
>What do I wear with them?
you should not
>>11116545
op here. I picked up some raf p10's too and a pair of p10-ds. Wish they offered the ds in other colors besides black.
I really don't know what it is about the p20's, but I really like the layered tapered silhouette. However apparently the rest of the community here thinks they are disgusting.
>>11116573
-DS are great, i own a pair from previous release, very stretchy and pretty much indestructible (no fading), however i still prefer Stotz though. The only thing I hate about P20 is this 'layered' knee articulation, everything else is cool.
>buys +$400 pants
>what do I wear with them
1. those arent pleats
2. those are garbage
3. dont buy shit you dont know how to wear
>>11116691
How long have you had the ds? Have they frayed or pilled? I've heard that can be an issue.
I think the knee layering would look a ton more weird without the detached pocket layering, but I think the geometry makes it all come together.
>>11116847
nigga they were $600+
>>11116857
according to the designer, they are pleats.
I do have a general idea of what to wear with them. Came here looking for some alternative ideas.
>>11116456
sick cops, OP
t. jelly
>>11116884
More than 6 months (from FW1516), still like new, however i don't wear them daily.
Knee layering is awkward already, pockets don't do any difference for me, i hate P23 for the same reason, i don't like this 'shorts on pants' look. Easy pass for me.
>>11116957
Also, you should never use Acronym styling as reference, since it's pretty much impossible to pull off exact same fit. Look at Haven or End and you will get better idea about the garment.
>>11116884
>nigga they were $600+
even worse. kys
>>11116456
>spending this much money on clothes
>asking how to wear them
kek
>>11116963
Perhaps for some, but I find End's fits to be extremely misleading and unflattering. My body shape is almost exactly Errolson's + an inch in height, so I can almost always order a medium and get the exact look from Acronym's site.
>>11117110
Dude, even erlsn doesn't look as good in real life as he looks on lookbooks.
>>11117153
What I mean - End's pictures feature a model that's 6' and wearing a size S p10 pant. That just looks straight up weird. Zero stacking.
Meanwhile over on acrnm you see Errolson is wearing a size M and he's 5'8" and the p10's stack like they're supposed to. End is fuckin clueless.
>>11117213
>he's 5'8"
Errolson is 180cm (~6') and the other dude (Lenny) is 176cm, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>>11117251
from acr support "Errolson Hugh is approx. 5,8 feet tall"
I've heard other sources say he's 5'10 and 5'11, but never 6'
Even 180cm is under 5'11", so I'm pretty sure you have as little a clue as I do.
If you have other sources of info, I'd be interested in seeing.
>>11117352
rekt
>>11117352
He is 180cm, convert that shit yourself to your countries metric system.
>>11117426
I will admit I have no clue how tall he actually is. If he's 180cm, that would roughly be 5.8 feet (not 5 feet 8 inches), so that would make sense that I read the message from acronym support incorrectly. However at 5'9" myself and similarly built, I can still easily use his frame as a template... and my point about End's comparably shitty fits is still just as apt.
bump for interest
>>11116456
mow the lawn or paint your house with them
>>11117213
Id on shoes?
>>11119516
I think those are Nike free hyperfeel
they look like pants/shorts hybrid that you're supposed to unzip at the knee as its "functionality"
techwear fuck boys save up and get those weird tapered ones with the big knees or whatever
>>11117451
You are literally retarded. 5.8 foot isnt 5"8'
>>11121852
yeah if you read it again, I was saying that 180cm was APPROX 5.8 feet and NOT 5'8".
I'm not saying that 5.8 feet is 5'8".
Even if that were what I was saying it wouldn't come even close to qualifying as retarded. Those two heights are pretty damn close to one another no matter how you look at it.
also
>literally retarded
>5"8'
>>11117451
180cm is 5'11
>>11122424
Right. And 5.8 feet is about 5'10".
180cm and 5.8 feet are approximately the same height.
