In GQ’s annual survey of the shorts market, Patagonia Baggies are never far from top of mind. Their appeal might be simple—an unbeatable trifecta of silhouette, quality, and price—but in the grand hierarchy of outdoorsy shorts with real-deal style chops, they reign supreme. Around this time every year, though, when the Recommends braintrust convenes for our seasonal Shorts Summit to conclude that shocker, Patagonia Baggies are still great, we also caucus on any surprising new contenders for the crown. And after putting The North Face’s Class V Pathfinder Belted Shorts through the paces in the wilderness this weekend—hiking, climbing, swimming, the works—they might’ve overthrown the king in my own power rankings.
Because these are shorts predicated on performance above all else, let’s start there. The Class Vs are made from an almost-entirely recycled nylon blend that dries ridiculously fast, enhanced by a mere touch of stretch to ensure maximum range of motion (a boon no matter how much relaxation is on the agenda). They’re also outfitted with a webbed belt at the waist to make sure they, y’know, actually stay up, regardless of context, use case, or proximity to water.
They boast a total of four pockets—two standard slash pockets plus hidden zipper pockets on either side—along with the aforementioned belted elastic waistband, a feature both simple and a touch more involved than its standard-bearing counterparts.
I’m 5’9” with a 30” waist and went with a size small, the right move all-around. As hiking shorts, the Class Vs never sagged, even with a bunch of stuff loaded inside their pockets and an entire crash pad beating against them for well over two miles. As climbing shorts, they restricted approximately zero movement, even when I found myself contorted into pretzel-out positions that most non-climbers would describe as “no, please, god, no”.
And as proxy swim trunks—because darn right they double as proxy swim trunks—they were dry before I even reached the car. (As someone who prefers a bit of extra breathing room when confronted with the choice, I would add that they’re a touch slimmer in the thigh than a typical pair of Baggies, though I wouldn’t consider them remotely narrow, either.)
Here’s the real kicker, though: at $65, they’re also just a few bucks cheaper than a pair of Baggies, and objectively more tricked-out—see: that extra zipper pocket, webbed belt, et al.—which isn’t quite the Baggies’ remit, but does make you wonder, well, shouldn’t it be, given the contextual similarities between them?
As a near-lifelong Baggies devotee, I’m not going to pretend that the Class Vs will supplant them in my closet altogether. But I am resolutely stoked to have a pair at my disposal, and will be putting them through the wringer all spring long, official GQ shorts survey be damned.
Read the full article here
