Finery London TSV 09/09/24

Finery London TSV 09/09/24

Finery Ponty Jersey Pinto Detail Trousers in a choice of Lengths

Finery London Shirley Ponte Trouser with Pin Tuck Detail
Item Number 412631/412634
QVC Price £49.25
TSV Price £31.92
P&P £3.95

Bring an on-trend styling essential to your wardrobe selection with these gorgeous Shirley ponte short trousers from Finery London. Combining elegance and comfort, these wide-leg trousers offer a contemporary take on classic tailoring style with a smart, pin-tuck seam detail at the front for an elongated appearance, as well as a high, elasticated drawstring waistband for a comfortable and customisable fit. Add suave style to casual and formal outfits alike with these versatile jersey trousers.

Versatile style - perfect for every day, you can team these short trousers with trainers and your favourite knitwear pieces for a relaxed casual look, or dress them up for the office or formal occasions with a smart shirt and blazer combo.

For all body types - with their wide-leg cut, short length and high-waisted design, these chic trousers will create a stylish silhouette that will make the most of any petite body shape.

Easy wear, easy care - this cosy ponte fabric design is not only an easy fit and a joy to wear, but it's as simple as can be to look after as well. Just throw it in the washing machine at 30 degrees C and they'll be ready to wear again before you know it!

Choose your colour - find the right shade to match your seasonal style from among the five block colour options available: Black, Camel, Navy, Olive or Wine.

Crafted from signature Ponte Jersey
Wide-leg trousers
Short length
Elasticated, drawstring waistband
High-waisted
Functional side pockets
Front pin tuck seam detail
62% viscose, 33% polyamide, 5% spandex
Machine washable at 30C

Colour options:
Black
Camel
Navy
Olive
Wine

Regular Length

Short Length

They're not too bad actually but the legs are quite wide. Would need to see the demo.

CC

No thanks, I'll stick with my M and S £17.50 side leg jersey trousers. And I wish that model with the headscarf would smile once in a while, she's got a lovely face but looks so unbelievably miserable. And I wish the BA would stop spouting crap about Paris fashion week - ok, that's my moan for this evening!!

I've seen similar in Bon Marche for 15.99.

Cashers said:

No thanks, I'll stick with my M and S £17.50 side leg jersey trousers. And I wish that model with the headscarf would smile once in a while, she's got a lovely face but looks so unbelievably miserable. And I wish the BA would stop spouting crap about Paris fashion week - ok, that's my moan for this evening!!

Click to expand...

They look like a pair I bought for £15. The beige pair that Claire, the+ size model was wearing didn’t look good, too short in the rise. Agree about the modesty headscarf model, she always looks as if she’s honouring us with her presence. She’s pretty but agree would look 100% better if she smiled. At least they didn’t dress her in a sleeveless summer dress with a polo neck jumper under it and leggings!

If they're going to use modesty models, at least they should put them in a size that fits. The one who never smiles was modelling a button-down denim skirt so tight it creased over the hips so the buttons gaped and when she turned sideways you could see her underwear. Absolutely no excuse for that because she's very slim and they could easily have gone up a size and put a belt in it without it looking frumpy. A shocking discourtesy to her from QVC.

But please, get her to smile or at least look happy.

Didn't like these on the models. On the bigger girls they were pulling everywhere and yes, the legs are far too wide. Not for me.

CC

I am peeing myself laughing.

Yes, short length is 29.1" inside leg. Bollocks! I have a friend who is 5'8" tall, and she would wear this length!

No! Short should be 28 or better still 27"

At 5' one and a half I buy M&S Harper which are cigarette length meaning they are meant to hit your ankle bone so on me perfect and hit the top of my shoes.

I appreciate that models need to be all heights and sizes, but common sense needs to prevail. Do those ladies who wear modesty clothing in line with their religion actually watch QVC for fashion? Because where I live they have their own fashion boutiques - loads of them, in their community high street.

Plus size gals never look good in light coloured trousers, they show off heavy thighs and excessive bums and tums to a disadvantage. I speak from experience. A lot of these so called stoilists haven't a ****** clue with regard to disguise dressing.

donna255 said:

I am peeing myself laughing.

Yes, short length is 29.1" inside leg. Bollocks! I have a friend who is 5'8" tall, and she would wear this length!

No! Short should be 28 or better still 27"

At 5' one and a half I buy M&S Harper which are cigarette length meaning they are meant to hit your ankle bone so on me perfect and hit the top of my shoes.

Click to expand...

Totally agree.
I'm 5'7 and it's a personal choice, but I hate a hem that is shoe covering. I have slim legs and look better in ankle grazers of around 26". They make me laugh that 29 is short - er by whose definition?

I recently bought a pair of cropped wide leg trousers with a 22” inside leg. I’m 5’3”, they came down to my ankles so I’m wearing them as full length trousers! Tried a pair of shorts hoping they’d be cropped on me- no they were above my knees -returned. Neither pair from QVC. How QVC can say 29” is short is beyond me.

I am glad I am not ‘on trend’ ….

I'm 5ft 2in and a 27" is a long on me. On my ankle would be about 25". I don't wear heels of any sort so I'm often chopping inches off the bottom of trousers. I just saw Claire in the camel TSV - talk about emphasising the crotch!!! No way would she ever wear them and yet there must be thousands of Q customers that have that body shape and might have bought but definitely would not when they see the way they fit on a larger girl.

CC

candycane said:

I'm 5ft 2in and a 27" is a long on me. On my ankle would be about 25". I don't wear heels of any sort so I'm often chopping inches off the bottom of trousers. I just saw Claire in the camel TSV - talk about emphasising the crotch!!! No way would she ever wear them and yet there must be thousands of Q customers that have that body shape and might have bought but definitely would not when they see the way they fit on a larger girl.

CC

Click to expand...

Claire was wearing the same last night and I couldn’t think of how to word it about the crotch emphasis. It was so unflattering and didn’t look very comfortable either. The waistband was very bulky too and reminded me of the top of tracksuit bottoms from decades ago. In fact if you put a cuff on the bottom they’d look like tracksuit bottoms.

Battiola73 said:

Claire was wearing the same last night and I couldn’t think of how to word it about the crotch emphasis. It was so unflattering and didn’t look very comfortable either. The waistband was very bulky too and reminded me of the top of tracksuit bottoms from decades ago. In fact if you put a cuff on the bottom they’d look like tracksuit bottoms.

Click to expand...

I think last night they said that Claire was in the wrong size. Pretty basic to get her thr right size I'd of thought but obviously not!

Some of the larger sizes sold out but I bet they were the darker colours or the people buying intended to wear a longer top. It's a shame really that designers/fashion companies can't get their act together and make nicely fitted fashionable clothes for every size. Just because you're bigger or smaller doesn't mean you want to look like a frump or a child.

CC

They look too short in the rise and the elasticated waist finds the natural waistline so makes it obvious.Too wide and ‘flappy’ in the leg.In short not good they could also ‘bag’ at the knees after you sit down.No I am not tempted!!

With this width I'd be worried about my feet getting caught in them when going upstairs or down.