Classic Straight-fit jean in five-year wash

I was wary when the colors for the pictures in the online catalog varied. I should have acted on that. My stylish wife did not conceal her laughter well when seeing them still in the clear plastic envelope on the kitchen counter, concerned as she was for their color. She called them "Dad Pants" right off the bat. Their cut is full--and I use that word generously: they're flat-out baggy and look little like they did in those online photos. And this belies a problem I've recently experienced with both J.Crew tops and bottoms: the same size varies over orders. I regularly order large size shirts, but recent purchases had them too form fitting on me; so I gave those two shirts to friends. (This is not a matter of my gaining weight, mind you.) I wear a 34 waist trousers, but I ordered a 35 for these, and they are as described above, big in the waist, in the legs, and seeming long, too. These are already my only-for-gardening and only-for-brush-clearing pants. I won't buy them again.

I see some reviews mentioning vanity sizing when these jeans are simply not size labeled correctly. First off, no retailer in their right mind still uses so called vanity sizing. That approach may have worked when most people were still buying from physical stores, where they can try items on but definitely does not work when most people shop online. Having said that, a size 30 / 30 pair of jeans should measure 30” x 30” not 32” x 30”, which was the case with the pair I purchased. J Crew was great about taking the return on this final sale item, because they clearly recognized the sizing error. Great looking jeans but be forewarned that they will likely be about 2 sizes too big in the waist.

Website says these run "slightly large"; reviews mentioned "runs slightly large" as well. I normally wear a 33/32 in the famous maker jeans. After washing and a little shrinkage a good fit ...... so I ordered a 32/32 in these jeans, based on the website description. OMG, these things are WAY larger in the waist than the website has them inaccurately sized as. I could have probably ordered a 30/32, maybe even a 29/32. This is just crazy, especially since the product is an "all sales final/no exchanges and no returns". I can understand being off an inch in the fit, but 3 to 4 inches? ........ Not good :-(

I’m 5’9, 155lbs. I heeded the others warnings about these running large so I sized down one size in the waist. They arrived today and they fit perfectly. I was trying to get away from the skinny look and these fit the bill just right. They’re not too loose, but a true 90s retro jean. J. Crew, if you’re reading this, please don’t stop making these.

Waist is a little big, can’t fit my hands in front pockets - otherwise perfect and classic

This classic straight cut is an 80s/90s type of cut, which I'm glad to see coming back, in contrast to low-rise slim. The denim quality and construction are very good. I was worried about the fit in the seat of the pants, as it doesn't look flattering in many of the model pics. However, the seat is fine/normal in real life. The Five Year Wash is about as expected color-wise...it presents as light blue - not a bleached out white-ish. You may need to size down in the waist. Vanity sizing in mens casual pants typically adds 2 inches to the marked waist size. I tried three different waist sizes and all had an actual waist circumference that was about 2.5 inches bigger than the tag size. That is with the waist band flat and pulled taut, but not forcibly stretched. Inseam lengths were all consistent and accurate to the marked size. On a size 34/32, I measured the waist as 36.5 inches, the front rise as 12.0, the leg opening just barely 8 across, and the inseam accurately at 32.0.