We ordered the red pair through our agent, waited for the warehouse photo set, and checked it line by line against the listing: measurements, colour, hardware, labels, packaging. The photo set came back clear enough on the fabric and the drawstring, so no re-shoot was needed. Then we asked for a repack, put the carton on our bench scale and compared our number with the agent's volumetric figure.
That last step is why this pair is worth a review at all. The listing's stated item weight is 0.00 kg. That is not a rounding quirk — it is an empty field, and an empty weight field quietly breaks every parcel estimate you build from the product row.
What arrived for $4.93
The pair arrived folded in a plain poly bag with no hangtag and no printed size label we could lean on, so the fit check rested entirely on the tape measure. At $4.93 against a listed original of $5.82, the pair is in stock and priced as a true low-value filler item. The fabric reads as thin in the hand, matching the "thin, breathable, summer" copy, and the red is a flat solid tone rather than a heather or a washed finish.
Construction is simple: mid-rise waist, straight leg, drawstring closure with no belt, side pockets, straight hem. Nothing on the pair contradicts the general description. That is a low bar, and the pair clears it.
Six spec rows, checked against the pair
| Listing field | What the listing says | What we found on the bench |
|---|---|---|
| Main fibre | Polyester, spandex cloth, breathable, thin | Consistent in the hand. Blend percentages are not published, so the ratio stays unverified. |
| Stretch | "High stretch" in one row, "slight stretch" in another | Real but modest. It gives at the waistband and across the seat; it does not behave like a compression short. |
| Cut | "Long tube" leg type and mid-thigh shorts length in the same spec sheet | The leg opening is straight and roomy, but we would not call the length long. The inseam number is still missing. |
| Closure | Drawstring, no belt | Confirmed. There are no belt loops, so plan the outfit around the cord. |
| Colour | Red, fluorescent green, beige grey, light purple, black, white | Our pair matched the red photography. The colour name list contains six entries, not seven. |
| Size range | M to 4XL | No waist, hip or inseam figures are printed anywhere on the listing. |
The colour count is the smallest discrepancy on the page and the easiest to fix: one description field claims seven colourways while the colour list names six. If a specific shade is the reason you are buying, verify it in the warehouse photo set rather than trusting the count.
What 0.00 kg does to a parcel plan
Our weighed pair, size M, came in at 171 g on the bench scale. Bagged for shipping it was 196 g. That is the number the spreadsheet should have carried, and it is roughly the weight of a T-shirt — light enough to disappear into almost any consolidated parcel.
The box is where the money moves. Packed in a 30 × 20 × 6 cm carton, the volumetric figure works out to 0.6 kg at a 6000 divisor, three times the actual weight. Shipped in a mailer instead, the volumetric figure collapses back below the real weight and the pair is billed at what it actually weighs. For a soft, compressible item at this price, that one repack decision is worth more than the garment costs.
We record the gap between our weighed figure and the agent's volumetric figure to the nearest 10 grams. On this pair the gap was all packaging, not product.
That is the practical case for buying this short: it is a $4.93 item that barely moves the freight bill, and it fills the last few grams of a box you were already paying for. The practical warning is the same fact in reverse — a listing weight of 0.00 kg means no planning sheet can price it for you. Measure it, or ask the agent to.
The two contradictions to resolve before you order
- Stretch. Two spec rows describe the same fabric differently. Our pair sits closer to the "slight stretch" wording, but one pair is not a size run.
- Length. "Long tube" and "mid-thigh shorts" cannot both be exact. The hem is straight and the leg is roomy, yet no inseam is published.
Both resolve the same way: request flat waistband and inseam measurements for your target size in M–4XL before paying. With no customer reviews on the listing to fall back on, the seller's tape measure is the only fit evidence available.
Our read
As a summer casual short, it does what the copy promises: thin, breathable, drawstring-closed, plain enough to pair with a T-shirt and sneakers. As a parcel item, it is close to ideal for consolidating — cheap, light, compressible, and colour-accurate against the photos we received. As a listing, it is under-documented in the three places that matter most for fit: weight, waist and inseam.
We rate it 4.2 / 5. The garment earns the score; the specification sheet costs it the rest.
Why does the listing show 0.00 kg for these shorts?
The weight field is simply unfilled. Our size M pair weighed 171 g and 196 g bagged, so treat the 0.00 kg as missing data and plan your parcel from a measured figure or an agent's warehouse weight.
Can a $4.93 pair of shorts change my freight bill?
Only through packaging. The pair is light and compressible, so a mailer keeps it billed near actual weight, while a small carton can push volumetric weight to roughly 0.6 kg at a 6000 divisor.
Is the drawstring enough, or do I need a belt?
The waist closes with a drawstring and the listing specifies no belt, and our pair had no belt loops. If you want a belt-friendly short, this is not the one.