chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
John M,
Tights have a foot, meaning the foot is encased in them. Legging on the other hand, do not. The foot is not encased. And there are longer leggings and shorter leggings. One trendy phrase for leggings is footless tights.
Actually, I think footless tights are, technically, just tights without feet, aren't they?
Leggings tend to be noticeably thicker and generally have seams down the legs.
Leggings in the '80s and early '90s were better than most of the ones around, now, I think, as they were thicker and more substantial, which made them more of a genuine alternative to trousers. People still tended to wear them with long tops, but it wasn't the end of the world if the top flipped, or rolled, up as they were completely opaque.
Also, I think they kept their shape better and didn't bag at the knees, or the butt (due to a higher lycra content, I think?), as the modern ones I have tend to.
Most leggings that are around now seem to be thinner and very slightly see-through, which means they really do have to be worn under a very long top, or a dress/skirt.
I really think manufacturers need to find some decent vintage leggings and fine-tune the modern ones.
BTW, if anyone knows of a company that makes matt black leggings that are more like the older ones I describe and ideally, also, not too low rise, please let me know!
Last edited by a moderator: