105

• 

• 

• 

Material: 95% Cotton, 5% Spandex, which is something we’ve seen before often, and for good reason – usually comes across as a lightweight, soft, stretchy bland. The material for this particular pair doesn’t feel quite as breathable as some other pairs, but that’s maybe splitting hairs, it’s still pretty nice.
Aesthetic: Pretty utilitarian with the all-black look and the plain white statement of the brand name along the waistband. The white pocket openings fit into that utilitarian aesthetic as well with the squared-off appearance.
Waistband: Very nicely stretchy, and a bit taller than some other waistbands, but otherwise pretty typical.
Pouch: Under Pockets relies on a very traditional boxer design with the vertical fly and not a ton of shape. However, there is a bit of a cupped shape at the bottom of the fly structure, so that’s kinda nice. As with a lot of traditional boxer briefs, though, the lower “corners” of the pouch area often do not come up against the torso, especially after general movement, so you may often get a bit of an open, unsupported feeling from this pair.
Backside: Pretty plain, as it’s also all black, which has the added effect that any shaping the backside does do would be lost visually. Like many mass-produced boxer briefs, though, there isn’t much shaping going on back here anyway. There is, of course, a little bit of visual intrigue with the white pocket openings providing a little bit of visual punch near your hips, so that’s nice I guess.
Legs: Okay, love these legs. =-)
Other: The major gimmick of this brand is, of course, the built-in pockets on the sides of the underwear. I won’t talk about whether this is a practical, useful idea or not, but what I will say is that these pockets have been executed wonderfully. They’re not bulky in any way, and yet are fairly sizeable, and the extra fabric is still nicely lightweight and soft. The pockets are worked into the pair by having vertical panels of fabric on each side of the pair, and the extra seams are entirely unnoticeable. Honestly, I’d like to see more brands realize that features on the sides of a pair can offer design flexibility that features in front or in back may not be as good for.
Overall: 3.5/5 – Honestly, a pretty solid pair overall, pockets or not! The potential lack of support between the legs is the only minor issue, as that can be largely avoided if you’re not moving around much (or if you’re moving around quite a lot and the ease of motion is a good thing).
Great for: Loungewear, Everyday wear
Good for: Activewear