|
| No Pocket Sweatpants Heavy Blend 7.75 oz. by Gildan (Style# 18200) | 
enlarge
| Brand: Gildan Category: Apparel Department: Mens
Buy New: $8.40 - $12.45 (On sale from $14.00)
Avg. Customer Rating: 5 reviews Sales Rank: 2222
Fabric Type: Polyester
ASIN: B0007PRMRM
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Features:
| • | 7.75 oz., 50/50 sweatpants | | • | Made from Air Jet Spun Yarn | | • | Offers a soft feel and no pill, wash after wash | | • | Drawstring waistband | | • | Elastic cuffs, Sized as Mens and Boys |
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description 50% cotton, 50% polyester, 7.75 oz. Drawstring waist, no pockets, elastic cuffs.
|
| Customer Reviews:
GOOD PANTS August 12, 2006 16 out of 17 found this review helpful
WONDERFUL PANTS FOR THE PARALYZED PERSON BECAUSE IT HAS GOTTEN HARDER TO FIND SWEAT PANTS WITHOUT POCKETS.
Sweats Like Back in the Day February 1, 2008 3 out of 3 found this review helpful
These are like the sweatpants you loved a long time ago and could never find anywhere after 1992. The Fab Five from Michigan completely changed nearly every uniform and sweat style that has been produced since. Try finding sweatpants without pockets, without piping, without sheen, without various logos and bling, in the mall stores. You can't do it. The big-box discounters don't stock anything close to these in quality, and everything is pocketed. These are just plain, durable, and comfortable and happy to have found them.
Not happy April 15, 2008 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Not sized comparably to other brands (too small to be a large), not what I call Heavy. I have given them away.
Very comfortable traditional sweatpants April 23, 2008 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
These sweatpants are very comfortable and hard to find in this traditional style. They are made of soft yet durable material and I hope to have them around for a long time. I'll definitely buy more :-)
Gildan sweatpants August 25, 2008 too baggy...i thought a small would be a regular small but this is way too baggy...wouldn't buy it again. they should have a XS.
|
|
| Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |