Don’t be an Underwear Snob: Men’s Underwear on a budget
Can you buy quality underwear for less?

For a lot of people, underwear needs to be functional and
affordable. Does that mean buying underwear on a budget has to sacrifice
fashion or comfort? Based on my experiences so far, I can say absolutely no, you don't have to make compromises, you
can spend less and still get quality underwear. Of the four budget brands I’ve
tried out to date: Jockey, Covington (Sears),
Merona (Target) and Stafford (JCPenny), I would give my top recommendation to
the Covington bikinis with the

Some general rules that I’ve noticed when buying money-saving brands:
- Wash before wearing. Although this is a good rule for all underwear purchases it seems like the less expensive underwear brands tend to shrink a lot more after a wash and dry cycle and they are accordingly cut a little larger to compensate.
- A little extra room. It seams that a lot of the budget underwear designs were intentionally cut looser than standard sizes so although the waist might be a consistent medium the front and back cut patterns are almost a ½ size larger which creates some bunching and “wedgie” effects.
- Quality can vary. Not surprisingly quality control is probably the one aspect of affordable underwear that takes the biggest hit compared to the more expensive brands. Occasional broken seams and crooked stitching can happen with budget underwear, but with multiple pairs per pack you’re likely to get wearable underwear in your purchase no matter what.
If you keep these 3 rules in mind when shopping for underwear I think you’ll find an interesting range of choices are available. So if you don’t want to be considered an “underwear snob” get yourself down to your nearest department store and take the plunge without drowning your finances. Spurred on by the general success of my last three purchases of budget underwear I have ordered men’s bikini style underwear from Hanes and Fruit Of the Loom via Freshpair.com and will let you know the results when they arrive.







Comments