Jockey Men's Underwear Seamless Waistband Midway - 2 Pack

I've been wearing this style of jockey for a very long time, and placing these side-by-side with the older versions, you can see what complete garbage they are. I purchased a pack of the Black/Heather and a pack of the African Sky/Plum stripe.I'm 6'5" 210 with a 36" waist (not a hardbody, just a wiry dude), and built in proportion to my size. I'm not bragging, it's just genetics, and in the instance of a garment designed to support said equipment, the subject is relevant. Additionally I have some tissue fragility issues, (Ehlers-Danlos type 3 under the old nomenclature) I've worn the older model of these trunks for many years because the cloth covered waistbands are one of the only ones that don't cut into my hips (I don't mean that figuratively either). The waistband, combined with the lack of a Fly made these underwear ideal for someone of my size, and with my physical issues.Now, Onto how Jockey just lost my business until they make these underwear worth wearing again.The weave- On the Plum Stripe the weave is SO wide, and so sandpapery, that it literally gets into the tip of my urethra, and feels like someone is jamming an emery board against the tenderest of my vittles. The weave on the African Sky seems slightly tighter, but both fabrics are more see through than my OLDEST pair of Jockeys..All 4 versions purchased are not something I'd wish on anyone I liked. You might not notice it till the fabric stretches slightly, or at all depending on your physical characteristics.These will never work for me.Waistband- Both pairs in the Plum/African pack have varying width waistbands The Plum stripe are a full quarter inch narrower than the accompanying African sky, and the waistbands of every other pair of Jockey underwear I own. Within seconds of donning the Plum stripes, the band doubles over into a rope. and becomes very uncomfortable in very short order. Whether this is normal Variance or bad QC is for Jockey to explain.The waistbands on the African sky, black and heather ones are only marginally better, but that is damning them with faint praise. My worn out old Jockey's bands still lie nearly flat on my skin.Fit- Tight in the keester, too small on the thighs, and no support up front. The prior version would at least serve as a saddlebag for the tetherballs, The current design leaves one hanging down the left leg. The stitching pattern is visibly different, The center panel is MUCH narrower, now a pair of 2" strips instead of 3" (at their widest point, 1.5 and 2" at the waistband)) . the front " pocket" ends with a horizontal stitch at the bottom that goes from leg to leg on the spot, , whereas the old design had a short horizontal stitch the width of the pocket, continued and curved together, THEN you hit the seam from leg-to-leg, just past the solid waste disposal unit.I will be returning the HECK out of these torture devices.Jockey, if you want my money, make a better version. I'll happily pay more.Time for bed, I'll think about adding photos tomorrow to illustrate the differences in the old and new models. I've got more than a few samples of the old style to back my assertions up.

These are way different than they used to be. And they are horrible now. I have older pairs to compare them to and this new version is nothing like them. It is cheaply made, thin rough fabric that loses it's elasticity quickly. The legs are shorter than they appear in the photo. The waistband has less stitching, uses weaker elastic and is thinner and rougher. *All* stitching is less than previously.If you are someone who has been buying these for years like I have. Stop now and try something else. These are horrible. Threw them all out after wearing just one pair for 5 min. They are really that bad.

The new version of this underwear is definitely not the same as it used to be. The waistband, while seamless, is much more narrow. Because of the width, it digs in to my waist, whereas the previous version of this same underwear didn't do anything like that. This underwear is still better than the Hanes I tried to replace this with, but, I'm still unhappy with the changes they made. I need to find a new go-to brand. It's unfortunate...

I am a female who wears men's boxer briefs for the comfort and thigh protection. These do not look like the picture - the legs are VERY short and ride up into your crotch. Would not recommend or buy again.

They fit OK but these later models are not as long on the thigh and the waist band is not as thick/tall. I think they are beginning to less and less material to save on costs for what used to be my favorite underwear and would go to great lengths to find. Now willing to try others.

I bought these for my husband because he wanted some more comfortable underwear. I researched and read reviews. These were the best deal. He says they are the most comfortable underwear he has ever had. Will definitely order more.

I have no idea how the drawers in the photo could have ever been the ones sent to me. The legs are about 50% shorter than the length pictured and the cuffs at the thigh about 60% tighter than the rest of the leg. But, since it's 100% cotton, it will gladly stretch, sag, and billow around your ass, giving you that worn-all-day feeling--within minutes of donning them!

Just as another reviewer said this version of the underwear is not the same as it used to be. Also, it is thinner, cheaper feeling and does not last a tenth (1/10th) as long as the previous excellent product.