Top critical review
163 people found this helpful
Silly cost-cutting has diminished what used to be a good product
on 3 May 2013
It's not actually a bad pair of trousers but, compared to what they used to be like, just not as good. Still the same "generous" cut as the old version.I certainly wouldn't pay full price for it! so, what's changed?
* Wider belt loops. Makes it easier to insert and remove belt; makes it easier to use a wider belt if required -- and it is!
* Light-weight belt webbing. This means that, under tension, it distorts so it is like a piece of cord; uncomfortable.
* The bars on the "male" bit of the belt buckle are inadequate and break under tension.
* Shallow pockets. They've reduced the depth of the hip pockets (as measured from the bottom of the slit opening) from 14cm to 8cm. Even handkerchiefs fall out just from normal walking around. This renders the unzipped pocket worse than useless; the zipped one is just about tolerable.
Frankly, given that the cost of an item like this is mostly in the labour, not the fabric, it is royally idiotic to reduce the quality of what was once a very good product just to save a few square centimetres of fabric. Irritating decision!
Edit, 2014 Jan 01: The stitching on the cargo pocket is beginning to come undone. This is unacceptable for something that is only 8 months old and is probably a consequence of cheap manufacturing and poor quality control: I have two other pairs of Craghopper trousers, both of which I have had since 1999; one of them has been really badly abused (caving, sailing, etc), but the pocket stitching is still intact.