Here's your assessment of my wife:
"The outdoor trekking pants 100 fits in length to ideal (height nearly 1.70m) However, you can at the size specification L not guided by customary international sizes There is size.." M eg for women size 40 -. 42 while size "L" really for the size 44-46 stands.
The designated by the manufacturer size "L is but too tight, that is best designed to size 42. I can close the pants, but the federal government this is too narrow, the trousers fit perfectly crisp (but too tight). This is really very pity. In the psychologically very unusual for me size XL pants would probably fit ideally. The manufacturer should therefore rather refer to the usual women's sizes in order to avoid disappointment and unnecessary returns.
Here the overall impressions in shorthand:
+ Decent quality and processing
+ Comfortable to wear fabric, it scratches nothing
+ An elastic waistband for certain leeway or convenience
+ Two pockets, side pockets and back pockets
+ For warmer days you can lose weight the two legs
+ A belt loop stabilizes the pants, if it should be a little too far in the Federation
+/- Their design can be felt while the zippers of the legs when walking / cycling; but these are covered on the inside with fabric
- Falls in the size "L" is too restrictive
- No real button on the waistband, just a little fummeliger hook which could bend ".
Quality and price, the pants is indeed in order, but the size specification is in my opinion wrong, therefore only solid 3 points, because you'd have to exchange the items in this case. This is against the background that the size of the men's trousers was not described optimally, and therefore is not an isolated case.
