FastFreddy2

'Wet look' or shiny leggings?

290 posts in this topic

Let me pre-empt any possible debate about men/women wear immediately.

I wear leggings sold as womenswear ALL the time, save a couple of weeks during high summer, if we get one. I use them to keep my skinny legs warm, and I wear them all the time at home too. They are worn under jeans or trousers. Plastic coated versions are even warmer, since they are more 'wind-proof'. I carry no fat on my legs, and they can get 'bone' cold in a couple of hours.

Long-johns have been around for centuries, leggings have not. I wear leggings because they are a third of the price of long-johns, and available everywhere. Mens trousers/jeans don't fit my anatomy very well either, whereas women's leggings tick a lot of boxes, but they are not used to feminise my look. They are cheap at £6 (ASDA) and they fit.

I've always liked shiny stuff (as does Mrs Freddy) and the opportunity to indulge in shiny leggings, 'leather-look' or faux-leather, is just too tempting if it's available at sensible money. This thread continues on from another, as to detail more specifically what was almost a complete thread hijack, although the original thread was pretty much an all-singing-all-dancing thread anyway. ;) (Open minded discussion, is always going to wander?)

 

This was the starter: (in summary)

 

55f75d000b14e_HM_leather_look_-_leggings

Details >> here <<

 

563d54e8a2554_MSfauxleatherleggings-Autu

 

Details >> here <<

 

5643e388b35c7_Allthreepairs-sml.jpg.b653

 

Background and provisional report >> here <<

 

Further review >> here <<

 

That pretty much identifies the 'investigation' thus far. 

More pictures, and a further review of the M+S product to follow shortly. B)

 

 

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by your photos. The M&S pair look the best. Nice and smooth but could do with being an inch longer. Then The Primark pair followed by H&M  My pair look like the Primark ones.  Did just noticed the M&S legging has made your bum smooth and the other two pairs didn't.

Edited by Heels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2015, 13:37:51, Heels said:

Going by your photos. The M&S pair look the best. Nice and smooth but could do with being an inch longer. Then The Primark pair followed by H&M  My pair look like the Primark ones.  Did just noticed the M&S legging has made your bum smooth and the other two pairs didn't.

 

I would say that from the 'shiny'point of view, the M+S leggings are currently the winner. (More on that to follow). The reason why they look better on the photo's shown, is the pose. You will notice the right leg is outstretched? It produced a better effect, as did a rear ¾ view with the 'model' leaning forward.

At the moment I am completely baffled about some missing leggings I'm sure I bought from New Look a couple of years ago. They were shiny, and black with little bits of silver fleck in them. I just can't find them? Most of the current range of 'shiny' is described as faux leather, and more a very dark grey than black...

 

So, the M+S leggings .... 

The previous pairs tried, were 12L and 14L with the 12 producing a better fit. If the pair shown look a little short, it's because they had been turned up. They were actually a good inch longer. A 12R was then purchased, thinking that a slightly shorter leg would remove the surplus length and sharpen the look.

12 Regular:

P1040210a.thumb.jpg.8e682b2d546195626d90

 

They look nice, but felt tighter than the previous two pairs purchased. That makes sense because a Long size might be a little more generous all over, not just the legs? (But not enough to change the fit to the next size up.)

Marks has a discount weekend, so a 12R and a 14R were purchased at £20 each, in the expectation at least one pair would be kept. HA!

Firstly, both (newer) pairs seemed slightly darker than the 12R already bought at the £25 price, both seemed to have more stretch, and more shine? When trying on the two newer pairs, a familiar problem raised it's head. While pulling the leg of the garment up (so tight garment up skinny leg) the threads started to 'pop' on the leg seams as they had done on the waist of the original 12L. This time, the threads popped on both pairs. Rather annoying, since the 14R was a 'perfect' fit, and the 12R deliciously tight.

Interim conclusion....

There must be at least two material types used in this style; 1: An ultra stretchy version that may be too stretchy for the thread used in making them; 2: A lighter in colour, more leather look shade of black, that is less stretchy and doesn't suffer from the thread snapping problem. The ultra stretchy type came up an inch longer too. At the moment, I'm hoping to find a 14R in the less stretchy material, that won't come with the thread snapping problem. My thinking is that a 14 will come with a slightly longer leg as they do with M+S jeans, and they'll feel more fitted because there'll be less stretch?

 

I had mentioned River Island previously. I thought I would try  their current offering at £30..

 

P1040195b.thumb.jpg.2861d7232a15470eacd8

 

Notice how the position of the right leg, affects the cheek crease on the leggings.

 

This style from RI come with a rear zip. They are very well made and were a comfortable fit. I might have kept them but for that zip as it wasn't a locking zip, and could undo itself if it wanted. Otherwise, very nice to wear. B)

 

P.S.

In all these photographs, the legs of the model seem to be fairly 'normal' in proportion, to even a little 'stout'? This may be because the camera is so close to the subject. As a reference, those heels are 5½ inches high, but don't look it. :(

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He (or she) who hesitates, is lost. Part I.

 

56585eb0a69b6_MSleggings.jpg.d4365dbd7fb

 

He (or she) who hesitates, is lost. Part II.

56585ee932601_ASOS-DaisyStreethighshinel

 

The Daisy Street leggings look(ed) spectacular. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another offering, this time a PU 'jean' (jegging) from New Look.

56677594183c3_NewLookjeggingstyle.thumb.

 

They look 'ok' in the pictures here, but were horrible to wear. You really don't get much thinner legs than mine in an adult, but these puckered up around my legs. The waistband was in a funny place too. I spotted someone wearing a pair, and you can see what they look like on a person with a reasonable amount of gear in their trunk;)

 

56677a4633bcf_Beingworn.thumb.jpg.05593b

 

And finally, the NL promo shot ...

 

56677f86c4ef1_NLpromo.thumb.jpg.0b248216

 

Yeuk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While trawling through various sites for shiny leggings, I'd stumbled across some PU/leather look flared trousers from Zara. While not fitting the bill of 'leggings', these had the prospect of being worn out, as trousers.

The first pair I bought were a medium. So tight on my thighs I struggled to get them on, and the waist so small, I daren't try to pull the zipper up. I guessed these as a size 8, since I can usually get a 10 on, be it an uncomfortable fit. As these were soooooo small, my next pair were an XL. Waaaaay too big. This time around, they felt like a 14/16. It's not shown, but I'm actually having to hold them up with a hand out of shot. :huh:

 

 

P1040221a.thumb.jpg.00e578594806660c0ade

 

So the next attempt was at a Large. Here is the result:

 

566785b88a329_ZarasizeLflaredtrouserinPU

 

A good length, to being up to an inch too long depending on the heel height (those worn here are 5½" high), but some snipping and a little glue would resolve that. So why did they go back? Weeeell, the waist was a little too big. There's no belt loops, so a belt couldn't be used. The thighs were comfortably tight, and wanted to pull the loose waistband away from the waist.

I was/am really disappointed these didn't fit. They looked good, and felt great. Wasn't overly struck by having a zip, especially since the waist lining was elasticated, but there was no danger of the zip being broken as these were so loose.

This style has been taken off the racks in the shops, probably in preparation for the January sales, which are REALLY popular at Zara stores. If I ever see another medium, perhaps I'll give them another go. Did I say I was disappointed? :D

 

  

  

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would expect that if anyone can score a pair, you can. You seem to know all the places to look. Although I get the idea that these PU or faux leather jeans and/or jeggings are always going to be tricky to fit, since they are supposed to be snug and everybody's legs are different. Too many contours for an off the rack item to fit unless you are lucky. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

i would expect that if anyone can score a pair, you can. You seem to know all the places to look. 

 

 

 

That's very kind of you to say. B)

I'm wondering what the shape of the person might be, who would fit the Zara PU Large.... 

34" waist, no backside, and very skinny legs for their torso size? :o I hope I don't meet them. ;) :D

 

Had another look in an M+S store tonight for the elusive 12L. Found a 14L (so far found to be too big) and a 10L which tempted me ... but stayed in the store.

I have some photographs done already, that will probably the last in this series. I have settled on a 14R in the absence of an alternative. I just need to edit them before posting, which is never a 2 minute job.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am editing over 1300 photos at the moment, home for 48 hours before going to Central America tomorrow. It is surprising how difficult M&S can be to get good things in the right size. I do not shop there but my wife does and their quality control and sizing seems to be totally random. It is almost like you have to forget whatever is on the label, try on every individual garment in the shop and see - on spec - if any of them fit! Good luck with your search!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1300 photo's? You wouldn't have so many if you had to use film;) :P :D

 

Going to Central America? I'll tell you what, I bet your travel insurance company loves you. Your premiums alone probably pays the yearly bonus for several of the company directors. :D Good luck, and of course, stay safeB)

 

Your wife is right about the sizing. I take a 12 in their trouser. I can get into a large 10 and a small 14 (I have all three.) For heels, I need a Long. The company "spec" for an L is 33 inches. I have to check each pair, and consequently carry a tape measure almost always. 32½" is typical, as is 33" obviously. 32" is about one in ten, and 34" about one in twenty. I wear my trousers/jeans around my waist, not my (non-existent) hips, so length is VERY important when it comes to hiding a heel ~ especially a slim one. Consequently, anything less than 33" in length is a no-no. Only yesterday I had to return two pairs of TU branded 'kickflare' jeans to Sainsbury, that felt really good to wear (very stretchy). Because they had a "mid rise" (that made them almost hipsters), when pulled them up to my waist - which is better for muffin top avoidance, the advantageous 34" leg became a 32½" leg. They weren't overly expensive either at £16 a pair.

With a 34" leg on a trouser/jean, I can wear a 5" heel out, and the heel is usually covered. I walk like I'm wearing heels (as would a girl in shoes that high), but the cause isn't immediately obvious. As 'hipster' jeans (aka low rise, aka mid rise jeans) don't have hips to sit on when worn by men, they have a tendency to fall down. Waisted with a belt works for me anyway. Finding a style with a higher rise (aka 'classic' rise) with 34" leg and a slight flare in a stretchy jean has proved quite a task. Has literally taken years, and has culminated with M+S going back in time to make a style that would have been commonplace 10/15/20 years ago. Even then, finding 2 pairs made correctly (first batch had a left leg sewn on a curve - if you can believe it) was quite a struggle, though finding the 34" leg in that style proved less of a problem for some reason. Almost every other pair of 12L's had a 34" leg, the main problem was finding pairs with straight left legs. I must have looked at 40-50 pairs to find potential purchases over a period of months, and bought/tried on at home, around 8 pairs before deciding to keep the ones I have. :rolleyes: (And one of those two pairs has a slight manufacturing fault on the hem.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I would have that many images were I shooting film -  1300 is not that many, just enough to keep me out of mischief in the couple of days that I am home. It is of course quicker with digital since there is no lab time, just downloading. But 1300 images is less than 35 rolls of film equivilant, not all that much in the circles I run in.

you clearly know vastly more about fitting a pair of jeans than I do and obviously put a great deal if effort into your searches. It is a real pity the clothing manufacturers - ue: the Chinese garment makers - do not take the trouble to make sizing consistent.

my trouble is skinny calves and sturdy thighs from much hiking and cycling. Trousers are just nit shaped that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

my trouble is skinny calves and sturdy thighs from much hiking and cycling. Trousers are just nit shaped that way!

Unlike 98/99% of mens jeans, and 100% of mens trousers, "ladies" leg wear, almost always comes with stretch these days. Try some. ;)

Although I have been compelled to wear a ladies jean most of my life (and loose trousers for formal wear) mens jeans are an appalling fit when compared to the multitude of ladies versions. Once you get past the 'which section did they come from' hurdle, there is no looking back. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right - in fact, I am sure you are. You clearly know more than I do about these things. I will have to give this some thought. Certainly all the jeans I buy end up being quite ill-fitting. Funnily enough I never considered going over to the distaff side of the shop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

... I must have looked at 40-50 pairs to find potential purchases over a period of months, and bought/tried on at home, around 8 pairs before deciding to keep the ones I have. :rolleyes: (And one of those two pairs has a slight manufacturing fault on the hem.)

 

 

3 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Unlike 98/99% of mens jeans, and 100% of mens trousers, "ladies" leg wear, almost always comes with stretch these days. Try some. ;)

Although I have been compelled to wear a ladies jean most of my life (and loose trousers for formal wear) mens jeans are an appalling fit when compared to the multitude of ladies versions. Once you get past the 'which section did they come from' hurdle, there is no looking back. 

 

If M&S employed a 'Mr Humphreys' in its branches, he (at least) would have great pleasure in measuring your inside leg so frequently.

I can see the appeal of women's jeans (I've not yet tried any) but are they not usually fairly obvious, i.e. because the fly is the wrong way round?   (Or is that not the usual convention?)   I would wear a 36" waist, 32" inside leg (without allowance for heels) so not sure what woman's size I should try.   (If you say WXOS I shall sue ..!)

Edited by Puffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zip isn't always a problem. I know I have one pair with a lefthand zip, but I don't remember them all being like that...

A 12 is supposed to be a 32" but as I've indicated, that could be 30-33" in my experience. I'll wear whatever fits as long as it isn't loose. That said, I have some M+S jeans that are a loose 14L but were the first pair I found with a 34" leg.

I would suggest a 16L which in theory might get you a 36 waist  x 33 leg. If you are set on a 32" leg, you might have to find one of the 'intermediates', meaning a Long, that is somewhere between Medium (31") and the Long. Mindful these things have stretch, I always buy 'snug' where possible in case the waist loosens up. I am mindful of my waist, despite having a sweet tooth. This means I would start to eat less if I felt my waistline was growing. I have in the past eaten volumes of cake (doughnut) etc. that would make others physically ill. Because of this, I stay away from obvious temptation. We almost never have cake in the house, and at £4 a pop I almost never eat it while away from home. Profiteroles are my only 'official' allowance. I can easily eat a portion declared suitable for 4 people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chocolate is my weakness. Cycling usually compensates for it but this year I have not ridden much, and been on the road a hell of a lot. Off again tomorrow morning, in fact. My weight has ballooned and I now wear a 34" waist instead of my usual 32. Not sure what size that would be in various makes of jeans you are talking about. I can't see myself in leggings other than cycling tights...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing time in Heathrow and decided to be daring and pretend to shop for shiny pvc jeans on the web. Mostly they seem to be something called pu or faux leather - not sure if that is all the same. One thing seems clear: sizing is problematical. I see size 14 converted from everything from 30" waist to 33-34". I would want, I think, a 32" if they were to be properly slinky but I guess the deal is you just buy and see? 

Could be fun - could also be a big headache...

anyway, an imaginatve use of time at Terminal 4...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the perennial problem of clothing sizes for women. Almost every brand differs from every other, meaning the 'standard' is quite flexible.

Some tips:

'Young shopper' sizing is likely to be 'true', meaning a size 10 might actually have the 26/27" waist it should, a 12, 28/29" waist. Places like Top Shop, River Island, Dorothy Perkins, Miss Selfridge being typical, though they too are getting a bit flexible .... Zara is a Spanish outfit, with European sizing. Their Medium would likely compare to most brands XS (Extra Small). 

'Intermediate' shops, like H&M and Primarni, who have a foot in both camps, can be a bit hit and miss but tend to be a little more generous. I would take a 12 in Primarni, but a 14 in H&M sometimes. Primarni shoe sizes for example, are generous compared to every other retailer.

'Ladies' shops, like M+S, BHS, and most supermarkets, are quite generous. A size 12 is generally somewhere between a 30" (though more likely a 31") and a 32" waist. The word 'on-the-street' is that flattering customers, brings in sales. Women don't tend to do measurements, rather dress sizes. And, "I'm a size 12", sounds a lot better than "I'm a Top Shop 16". (Although I'm probably a T/S 12-14 in a trouser as I don't have hips ..... )

Other considerations ..... "Rise". This is, -in case you don't already know- is the measurement from the crotch to the waistband. For the past 10/15 years, 'waists' on womens jeans/trousers have been set low, probably for commercial advantage. Less material=more profit. Thankfully, the tide is turning. A "classic" rise, the sort we men grew up with, is currently referred to as a 'high waisted' product. It isn't, but compared to a mid or low, it is high. "High" should mean touching ribs ... Mrs Freddy has some truly high waisted trousers she wore to a wedding some years ago. It showed off her small waist and made her legs look as long as Shirley Maclaine's. The height of the heel on her shoes helped. She looked stunning, :wub: and I wasn't the only person to notice. If I can find a photo .... 

For me, anything less than a 10 inch rise is pointless. 11 inch rise is okay, and is typical. 11½ to 12 inches, ideal but almost unheard of. I have an 11 year old pair of straight legged (stretch) jean from M+S with an absolutely classic cut that couldn't fit me better if they had been made for me. B) M+S are pushing their waist position upward as this can be more flattering, though a "mid-rise" (at circa 10 inches) can help hold in a loose belly. On a lady, her hips hold the jeans up on a low or mid rise. As with most men I don't have hips or a backside to speak of, so I need a rise that will tolerate a belt to hold them in the right place - on my waist.

 

Although it's effectively a fetish/sex shop, I would look at places like Honour for things like PVC trousers. I have looked on the world's leading auction site for shiny stuff, and it isn't simple by any means. Anything from China, about 80% of what's on offer, will only ever be making a one way trip. If it doesn't fit - tough. That said, even items from the UK that might arrive at £5 posted, might be uneconomic to return.

Chinese sizing comes up small to very small - no surprise there. A great deal of the shiny leggings I have seen advertised on the auction site, come with an undeclared mid rise waist, and some even with a (declared) low rise. Using reverse logic, a high waisted product is more unusual rather than usual. Finding the right shaped article is a struggle, much less size, and then just how shiny is shiny? Going up about 10 or 12 posts, the Daisy Street High Shine PU leggings are ideal, and one I've yet to see elsewhere. (So far.) I expect to try some from the auction site, but I'm not yet satisfied I've found an adequate product. I also expect to order from both ASOS and Boohoo, as they have garments that might be suitable. I believe Daisy Street is either an ASOS brand or part owned by them? 

"PU" (polyurethane) and "faux leather" are synonymous for meaning - not real leather. Leather leggings worth considering typically start at around £150 and go upwards. I'm sure they are about for less, but I would doubt the quality, and the cut will likely be awful.

Edited by FastFreddy2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for such an informative reply. This is very useful information. I had come across Honour in my idle shopping and wondered if they were good. They had some PVC slinky jeans that looked kind if like what I was thinking of. Their 14 was a 31 waist, their 16 a 33 and a half. A big gap. I'd be in the middle.

i am guessing PVC doesn't stretch?

be funny if I actually ended up buying a pair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shyheels said:

i am guessing PVC doesn't stretch?

be funny if I actually ended up buying a pair!

 

I doubt anyone sells clothing made of PolyVinyl Chloride these days, as there are much better materials to be had. 

The two advantages the material had were ... 1: Cheap. 2: Fairly robust compared to rubber. I have twice seen expensive rubber dresses split after being used, not very many times. (I nearly cried both times, but we got the first one repaired, the owner of the second had two, so ,,,,.) Leather stretches, and is expensive. Rubber is cheaper, but damages easily and doesn't last. PVC comes in 'shiny' and looks like treated rubber. As I've mentioned, shiny is very sensual. Rubber and leather have smells that can produce additional eroticism. PVC and other less expensive materials don't seem to have any odour, at least not one I've noticed.

I flatter myself that I can tell the difference between PVC/rubber/leather materials accurately, even from a picture, provided there is enough detail to make a determination.

Rubber is usually shiny-ish. It's only truly shiny when it has product on it, (like oil) that then makes it produce a reflectant surface, 'wet look' without the water. Seams are often/should be glued. Overlapping joins are a dead give away.

Leather is now almost impossible to spot against 'faux' as the man made product is so realistic. I know two adults on separate occasions who parted with good money, buying PU jackets sprayed with "Eau de Leather". Not long ago (weeks) I picked up a pair of leather trousers believing them to be 'faux' until I saw the price. Leather vs rubber vs PVC is an easier thing to spot.

PVC cloth feels stiff, and used to be a soft shiny coating given to a base cloth. To prevent the coating being stretched too much and then breaking the coating, the material didn't lend itself to being that flexible. Todays coated materials, like the ones used for the samples shown on this thread, are very stretchy. Not many carry the same level of 'shine' however. Garments fit significantly better than PVC would, especially if you were trying to shape it around a womans chest, for example. In PVC, the garment would need many panels to get a smooth shape. While promo photo's always made the garments look well fitting, I think these had garment shaped people selected to model them. I had 3 outfits made with a newer slightly more flexible material back in the early 1980's, by an outfit called Midnight Lady over in Luton. No longer trading, though their signature(d) iconic title appears on a web site with their name, now located in the wilds of Yarmouth.       

PVC samples:

 

566e245d3e1a1_PVCexamples.jpg.084d86511c

 

Both are shiny, but 'stiff', most ably demonstrated by the skirt shown above.

Modern variants in high street shops are referred to as 'coated materials' or PU.

The truly high shine associated with PVC, is difficult if not impossible to find in high street shops, hence my interest in the M+S product.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The final instalment of the M+S shiny leggings.

I'm within easy travelling distance of 3 M+S stores. I've said a couple of times the 12L went out-of-stock online very quickly. Although I have looked in my 3 local stores several times, and 2 London stores too, I've yet to find another 12L after the first pair with the snapping thread problem. There is some residual stock floating about in stores, but availability is a bit hit and miss.

I found a 14R in store, and bought that having first checked it didn't have the snapping thread problem. I got one of the last 10 pairs of 12R online, which was also the last size in stock. Having tried on the 14R once and decided they came up a bit big, I found myself buying a second pair to reference the first. As I said earlier, M+S sizing is flexible. The second pair were shorter, and smaller around the waist. The first pair were more of a 14 Long when compared to the second pair.

 

Photo's ...

566e2d9192baf_14R12R14RC.thumb.jpg.a62fd

 

The first pair of 14's were labelled as a Medium, but fitted as a Long. They are turned up in the photo.

The 12R's were short. I could either have the waistband on my waist, or the ankle hem on my ankle, I could not have both. They were very tight on my legs, which was quite pleasant.

The second pair of 14R's, fitted very well on length and overall fit. Not as tight as the 12's obviously, but then not as 'sticky' on my legs either. Of all the pairs I've tried, these are the keepers.

I may try some others, but the review/adventure with the M+S product, is concluded. B)

While these are not PVC shiny, they are still the shiniest garment tried for this review. They are possibly the best fitting too. While wearing them, it was possible to forget I had something on my legs. They are surprisingly comfortable to wear. 

 

 

The photo's - taking of. :rolleyes:

These are done in an upstairs bedroom, in an area that doesn't measure greater than 6'x6'. There is a window 2 feet away on the right, and I use a large reflector on the left. (These are always cropped out.)

Lighting is natural. Best lighting would be bright hazy or bright sun through thin continuous cloud cover. Direct sunlight is no good. Heavy clouds, no good. On the day the last three images were created, there was sunshine with broken cloud .... Nightmare.

The camera has a timer, set to 10 seconds, then 'click'. Since doing these, I found there's another setting, 10 second wait then click, another second click, another second, then click. That would have been useful to know. I can't count the times I got to 11 seconds and finally got the right position, after I'd heard the 'click' of course. With the 10 seconds AND 3 click option... Much fewer misses. Not that it could stop the light levels changing at 7 or 8 seconds. Grrrr.

This time around, both focussing and exposure were set manually. With clouds moving away, or eventually getting too thick, exposures were again, very hit and miss. The central photo in the set above, has had to have the brightness boosted so more detail is visible, because it was taken as the cloud cover darkened. I have priced up a remote for my camera, and one of these should make life simpler when doing this type of shot. I also need more room, and an even bigger reflector. ;) I used to keep a large sheet of polystyrene for just that sort of job. I must try to remember to buy .... 

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did it. With too many hours to kill in Heathrow and nothing to do but surf the net, I actually found and ordered a pair of slinky high street PVC jeans! Still marvelling at my own daring...

 

thanks, Freddie, for taking the time and trouble to advise. 

Would have thanked you earlier but I have been on a 12 hour flight!

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

Well, I did it. With too many hours to kill in Heathrow and nothing to do but surf the net, I actually found and ordered a pair of slinky high street PVC jeans! Still marvelling at my own daring...

 

 

Welcome to the slippery slope of jeans/leggings/trouser buying. :huh:  I think travelling to your current location is significantly more daring than anything you are likely to do with the internet and a c/c. ;) :D

Well done. I look forward to reading a report on the outcome. B) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I'm quite chuffed really. They will be waiting for me on my return. Always wanted a pair of PVCs - and wished I dared. Now I have. Odd that this seems more daring that travelling into a remote and rather dangerous pocket of Central America. But then I am accustomed to that - not ordering up shiny PVCs

 

Just lobbed into my next airport...no driver waiting. Swell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Thanks! I'm quite chuffed really. They will be waiting for me on my return. Always wanted a pair of PVCs - and wished I dared. Now I have. Odd that this seems more daring that travelling into a remote and rather dangerous pocket of Central America. But then I am accustomed to that - not ordering up shiny PVCs

 

Just lobbed into my next airport...no driver waiting. Swell...

Good luck with your daring purchase - we look forward to learning how you get on with them (and get them on!).

As to the missing driver (abducted?) ... don't forget the golden rule: take the THIRD taxi in the rank outside.

Watch out for anacondas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now