Sponsored Links closebtn

Outside companies pay to advertise via these links when specific phrases and words are searched. Clicking on these links will open a new tab displaying that respective company's own website. The website you link to is not affiliated with or sponsored by Kohls.com

Rated 5 out of 5 by from No more super expensive jeans - I am buying Lee!! I used to buy super expensive jeans thinking others could not match the fit or washes I liked, but these Lee jeans made me think again. These slim cut jeans are perfect (for me) - all it took was giving them a try!! Please make more washes!! PS - love the comfort fit/slight stretch to the jeans!
Date published: 2016-09-30
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Perfect fit First time in years that jeans actually fit perfect.
Date published: 2016-10-26
Rated 2 out of 5 by from cheapened jeans A year ago I loved these jeans. I decided to buy more before they changed them. that's just what they did. 7 belt loops gives greater fit and comfort, now they give you only 5, (1 in the back). I would buy if they gave us 6, (two in the back). Simply put, cheapened the product.
Date published: 2016-02-07
Rated 3 out of 5 by from Lee Goes Slim As a smaller, relatively slim individual, I am in constant search for pants that don't billow on me. I should add that I have been a long time Lee wearer. I was happy to see that Lee had developed a slimmer cut, as I had recently discovered and purchased several pairs of GAP slims, the fit of which I really like. I ordered two pair, one of which I kept, one of which I returned. As has been a problem I have had with Lee in the past, pants of the same size and style were inconsistently constructed. The leg on the pair I returned was significantly wider than on the pair I kept. Will I keep trying Lee slims? Not sure, as it costs me to return, whereas GAP pants, although more expensive, can be returned at a store. (I have not seen Lee slims at a store yet.) So in the end, I like the pair I kept, but was disappointed in the pair I returned. But again, with the same size/style, I don't see why this inconsistency should be happening.
Date published: 2013-10-08
  • y_2016, m_11, d_24, h_13
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_0.0
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_519, tr_8989
  • loc_, sid_1476188, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=RELEVANCE, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_kohls