LOGO by Lori Goldstein

[Pearlee]

A two-hour show, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

[Pearlee]

http://www.qvc.com/LOGO-by-Lori-Goldstein-Panne-Velvet-Jogger-Pant-with-Ruching.product.A296520.html...

Panne velvet jogger pant w/ ruching   A296520  (photo not up yet)

[dulwich]

Liking the sound of panne velvet jogger pant.  When it says "with ruching" I am assuming it is down the outside seam of leg not sure how that would look - hopefully we get picture up soon.  Thanks for posting.

[Pearlee]

@dulwich  I am assuming the same about the ruching.  The photo will probably be up before Sat.'s show.

[violet runner]

@Pearlee, I  think you have said you don't do Fascebookj, but Amy Stran  posted  there wearing these pants. It's hard to see details in the 2 pics she posted. Maybe someone more cpmputer savvy than me  can post  it here.

[Pearlee]

@violet runner  Thanks for the heads up. I looked at the page - Amy's QVC FB page is available to view even to those not on FB like myself.  Thing is, I was reminded why I don't like going to her FB - wading through all  her baby/family photos before gettting to the product I'm interested in.  (Aren't those things for her personal, not QVC, FB page? oh well...)

I didn't think they looked good on her (one of the few things that hasn't).  They were too big on her, which made the ruching look baggy.   Like "the pants were wearing her" rather than vice versa.  I guess I'd need to see them on Bonnie, the size medium model who is about my size.  They also looked like they are way too long on Amy, which would also make the ruching - or in her case bunching - look worse.   

Thanks for pointing that out though.

[Pearlee]

---

@dulwich wrote:

Liking the sound of panne velvet jogger pant.  When it says "with ruching" I am assuming it is down the outside seam of leg not sure how that would look - hopefully we get picture up soon.  Thanks for posting.

---

@dulwich  Yes, it does appear to be on the outside of the pants. Scroll down a bit to see them:

https://www.facebook.com/AmyStranQVC/

[Pearlee]

I just re-looked at the description. I'm surprised the length of the ruched pants is only 28" because they look so long on Amy, making the ruching look even more bunched as I stated above (that's what prompted me to look at the length measurement).  I probably won't order these.  The velvet texture adds more bulk anyway so I would prefer that they not have the ruching --- at least for me.  Others may definitely feel differently.   
I think they look bad with the camo jacket that Amy chose to wear with them; that wouldn't be my choice, even though I own a very similar camo jacket that i recently purchased at the Nordstrom Rack (love the jacket - just wouldn't wear it with the rouched velvet pants - a little "too much going on" for my taste).  

To anyone who orders them, enjoy them.  I'd definitely wait for the presentation, though, before ordering.  The ruching in the two photos seems to add more bulk than I'd like -- for me anyway.

[dulwich]

@violet runner  Thanks for heads up re Facebook pics.

@Pearlee  I agree with you they do not look that great on Amy.  Definitely too long.  I think I will give these a miss as panne velvet plus ruching for me maybe too much for my size large rear!

I am checking out I.M velvet jogger pants A298794 as I do want a velvet jogger and this one looks a bit sleeker.  Never ordered his pants but thinking I may try these.

I am sure Lori's panne velvet will look good when we see the presentation too - ah well, decisions, decisions!

[Pearlee]

---

@dulwich wrote:

@violet runner  Thanks for heads up re Facebook pics.

@Pearlee  I agree with you they do not look that great on Amy.  Definitely too long.  I think I will give these a miss as panne velvet plus ruching for me maybe too much for my size large rear!

I am checking out I.M velvet jogger pants A298794 as I do want a velvet jogger and this one looks a bit sleeker.  Never ordered his pants but thinking I may try these.

I am sure Lori's panne velvet will look good when we see the presentation too - ah well, decisions, decisions!

---

@Dulwich  I took a look at those I.M. Joggers - they do look nice and, as you say, sleeker. They are an inch longer at 29" inseam.  The thing about Lori's panne velvet, as we discussed on her new panne vest thread this season, is that it tends to be shiny.  From the photos, I like I.M.'s better, but over the years I've had just a few pants of his home, and none have worked out for me so I'm going to shy away from those. I wonder if QF will have any joggers in velvet this year.  I have good luck with QF bottoms, esp, in the short offerings.    Since you pointed these out, I think I'll try to catch a presentation of them - I really like the looks of the black ones.  The 28" lengh is preferable to me, but when I order 29" in LOGOs they work so I'm assuming I.M.'s would also in that length.

LOL at your "rear" comment.   Yeah, thus far without seeing them on air, Lori's look pretty darn bulky with the ruching.  My legs have enough natural folds in them, if you want to refer to cellulite as "ruching."  LOL!