This makes the third time I’ve tried the Gap jeggings, and third time’s the charm! The first two times (the olive for fall and red earlier this year), the fit was lackluster. The legs kinda fit but weren’t fantastic, and the crotch was baggy and wasn’t very attractive. I pretty much gave up on them after the first two tries.
Then as I was reading reviews of the red jeggings the other day, one caught my eye:
The reason so many of you (and myself) are finding these too small is that there are actually two kinds. I tried on several over the weekend, after having bought and worn other Gap. If the size is given in two parts (such as, 10/30), it fits like the jeggings I’ve already bought. If the size is just one number (such as 10), then they run very small and the sizes are very inconsistent. Also, the pockets on the former are striped on the inside. The pockets on the latter are the same color as the pants. I ended up buying the 10/30 which are a little big but better than the newer edition in 8 or 10. With any jeans, always remember to try on several pairs of the same size. They can differ greatly. I gave them 3 stars as a compromise. If they all fit like the ones I bought (with 2-part size), then I would give them 5 stars.
Hmm…a smaller version with different sizing, huh? I racked my brain to remember the sizing of the first pair of red jeggings I tried on, and I believe they were the 24/30 kind. So I figured a stop into Gap on my next shopping trip to look for this apparent size discrepancy couldn’t hurt.
After circling the store, the red was no where to be found, until I peeked inside a little cubby underneath a bigger display, and there I found three very tiny looking pairs of red jeggings stacked underneath another color, all marked as size 00 (the smaller version the review talked about). Perhaps their weird sizing contributed to them being left behind?
I hate taking photos on overcast days. For some reason, all the colors look washed out and no amount of tweaking in Photoshop can fix it. The color of these pants are deeper than what is shown in these photos:
These fit so much smaller than the first pair I tried earlier this year. I actually had to do a little shimmy to get the pants all the way up my thighs, and do some pulling to get them buttoned and zipped. There is no waist gap at all on me. It seems the sizing trick mentioned in the review is true!
The fabric is pretty thin and shows underwear lines from behind, so undies should be chosen carefully. The front pockets are sewn shut for a flatter front fit. The fabric is stretchy and comfortable, and hugs my legs all the way down. The legs are a little loose past my calves, but cuffing them helps, since the smaller leg opening, when rolled, narrows the width of the fabric below my calves. It’s not a big deal, I guess I’m just spoiled by the figure hugging 7 For All Mankind Gweneveres I’ve been sporting lately.
So…if you love the fit of the original Gap leggings, look for the sizing with waist and inseam (such as 24/30). If you found the original Gap jegging sizing not quite right, try the pants with number sizing (such as 00). The review only mentions the red, but has anyone seen this with the other colors?
Size 00 Product Details (laying flat):
Waist: 10.5″
Hip: 14.5″
Rise: 7.5″
Inseam: 30″
Leg opening: 4.5″
Machine wash
Outfit details – Gap 1969 mid-weight legging jeans, size 00 :: Ann Taylor sweater, size xxsp :: Christian Louboutin shoes, size 35 :: J.Crew necklace
