Stuff I Like – Patagonia Men’s R1 Fleece Hoody

I’ve always liked the Patagonia R1 Fleece, going back to when it was a part of the Military Advanced Regulator System (MARS) military clothing system. I don’t recall owning any before that but several years ago, I purchased my first R1 Fleece Hoody in Black. The Polartec Power Grid is comfy, and it makes a nice layering piece. Although, it’s considered a slim fit, it has a bit of stretch to it. In addition to the hood, there’s a single, zippered chest pocket, deep front zipper for ventilation and thumb cuffs for keeping your hands warm. Finally, the fabric offers Polygiene permanent odor control.

This Spring, I was shopping at an REI when I saw the Hoody in the Buffalo Green color, so I purchased a new one. The R1 Fleece Hoody is a design that is reintroduced, season after season, but in new colors, so you have to keep an eye out. As we near the end of the season, you may start to see these on sale.


28 Responses to “Stuff I Like – Patagonia Men’s R1 Fleece Hoody”

  1. rearmout says:

    I concur, the R1 is a staple for my fall/winter layering system. Under heavy exertion, you can be wearing a T-shirt and this over it and be comfortable in the 40’s, but it will still breathe well when it gets up into the 60’s.

  2. Archangel says:

    Presumably military contract overruns show up in their online outlet from time to time. I was fortunate to purchase both Alpha Green and Coyote versions of their R1 zip-neck pullover. Great products.

  3. Gramick says:

    Anyone know how these or even the R3’s compare to the Arc’teryx Naga?

    • SSD says:

      My opinion. The fit is similar. Patagonia is stretchier and more breathable. Naga looks better and is more durable.

      The Patagonia pieces are intended as layers while the Arc’teryx item you chose is well suited as a stand alone garment.

    • corsair says:

      Both are using Polartec textiles, the R1 uses PowerGrid, which is suited for next-to-skin or, a second-layer component.
      Whereas the Naga uses PowerStretch that has a hard face finish, lots of stretch but also a bit lofty so very effective second-layer or, thin outer layer.

  4. Ed says:

    Did you all know Patagonia among other “outdoor” product companies are vehemently anti-gun/anti-hunting??

    • Jester says:

      That just makes it more fun to wear when you bag a nice 10 pointer.

    • mike says:

      Ed, please provide a link to Patagonia’s anti-gun stance. As for the hunting part. They are not publicly for it or against it. They give money to organizations on both sides of that fence. So I guess you can say they are just pro environment and give money where they think it help the environment most. I know they do currently donate money to organizations like TRCP and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation which are clearly pro sportsman. One thing they do believe in is protecting public lands, which is good for the hunter.

    • Joe says:

      And these brands are?
      Also, feel free to provide links so we dont assume you are talking out of your ass.

    • Formeractionguy says:

      So true, thats why they make high end fishing gear, and uniforms for SOF.

      • Ed says:

        You mean the SPEARs Op uniforms that suck and fall apart like cheap Chinese copy of US gear issue???

    • Arclight says:

      They’re also pro-keeping public land available for us to do stuff on, rather than making it into condos or a strip mall. For that, I’m pro-them.

    • JKifer says:

      who F’ing cares? they make great products that keep the suck from being as sucky…

    • Ed says:

      Here, sent from a friend in the industry who reps for Camo girl.

      And here is more “neutral” or PC response:

      So the butt-hurt doesn’t have to be so bad for some of you!

      • SSD says:

        I’ve told you guys over and over that ignorance is bliss. I’m going to charge you now with researching the political leaning of the manufacturer of every other product in your life, from the device you used to write this comment to the vehicle you drive, to the brand of socks you wear.

        Report back to us on each and every one of them. Tell us which ones meet your standards for political reliability.

      • mike says:

        Still waiting for that anti-gun link there Ed. Maybe you can call some friends so you don’t actually have to research anything yourself. Why don’t you go through the entire list of organizations they support and see for yourself instead of using 3 year old blog post someone else pointed you to that pick and choose from a large list. Patagonia wants to restrict your ability to fish according to the info you provided, yet they donate to Trout Unlimited. Like I said they give to organizations on both sides, but still probably do more to support hunting and fishing then 90% the companies you buy from. Like SSD said, maybe you need to take a hard look at all the stuff you buy and use.

        • Ed says:

          You crack me up. My intention was not to stir up everyone’s sensitive feelings regarding an outdoor industry Co. and their support or non-support of various activities and their fellow alliances. I wanted to share something that was passed on to me and I already had that one article I searched for earlier. My main take away and pseudo animosity for Patagonia is the quality of the Op-gear they made/deliver for SPEARs program and how sh*tty it is for training and operating. Other than that I could give two dead moose sh*ts about anyone else’s opinion or what others think of mine.

          READ BELOW.

          • mike says:

            So let me get this straight, you threw down the claim that a company is “vehemently anti-gun” and you have zero evidence to back it up. “Vehemently anti-gun” is a pretty bold claim. Has nothing to do with stirring up feelings. If the company deserves the label that’s great, but don’t tarnish a company and their ability to make money by making claims you can’t back up. Class act there Ed.

            • Ed says:

              I will stay classy! Thank you.

              On point for point: I couldn’t find any information that Patagonia is the opposite or should I say “Vehemently Pro-gun”! How do you like that? My words are my words, not the words of “God”. I find it more than amusing that you state:

              ” If the company deserves the label that’s great, but don’t tarnish a company and their ability to make money by making claims you can’t back up”

              Lets examine your sentence and wording shall we. I wasn’t aware that my “voice” or opinion was that shattering that I as a passive observer and commentator had that much affect to impede the ability of a multi-million dollar Co. to make money! As extracted from your comment……..or for that matter that my tiny-tiny post can tarnish a Co. that had been around for decades and is an industry leader. *I mean, hell! I guess I should take your reply as a compliment and start my own blog?? I mean I wasn’t aware I had such internet-swagger and influence of visitors to this forum! This is outstanding, I think I’m going to start the process of cancelling my contract and say eff* it to Uncle Sam! Mike, I got to hand it to you, I never wanted to be an internet “troll” but damn son! You motivate me!

              *(Heeaaavvvyyyy sarcasm implied to the slower ones here)

              On my last point and I made it twice here on this string, Patagonia Operation uniforms suck donkey D*CK! I guess no one can touch that unless you were issued them or bought them on EBay from guys that would rather pay out of pocket for quality clothing like Cryes or Beyond. Crickets there huh???

              To Patagonia’s credit, the PCU they helped developed and was fielded the Lvl 4,5,6 I have no complaints or most my fellow Team mates. I’m pretty sure it could of been done 100% Berry compliant though, but I don’t want to keep stirring the whining hornets nest by “what I heard”! Ha, ha HA

              • mike says:

                SSD has a crap ton of individual hits per day. They don’t come here for you, but they do read the comments. Sometimes the comments are from people who actually have a clue what they’re talking about. Instead of popping on this thread to share your actual knowledge with the quality of the companies products you instead decided to label the company as “vehemently anti-gun” without a single piece of proof to back it up. It wasn’t till you got called on your post that you added the stuff about your use of their products.

                Most the readers here are pretty pro-gun so I’m sure there’s many who would have no problem crossing a company off their buy list if they knew they were anti gun. If nobody called you out then there’s the potential people will read your comment and take it for the truth and continue to spread it. The real truth is you just plan made the anti-gun part up.

                You try to justify your comment now because you couldn’t find any info that Patagonia is “Vehemently Pro-gun.” So I guess it’s alright to just make stuff up as long as you can’t find any information online that is 100% the opposite. Something tells me if you actually owned a company and had someone running their mouth on SSD that you were “Vehemently anti-gun” with zero evidence you wouldn’t take to kindly to it. I have zero financial connection with Patagonia, but don’t like to see companies in this industry labeled things like “anti-gun” unless it’s the truth.

                So how about you just own it and say, hey I was just regurgitating what someone else told me and it turns out I was wrong.

                • Ed says:

                  I already said that you dumb phuck!

                  Oh, and I have owed a Co. or produced a product to date. I’m an end user and have either been issued most the gear on this site or bought it out of my own pocket. Go to bed old-timer, sounds like your hemorrhoids are flaring up again!


                  • Ed says:

                    ***spell check****

                    I have NEVER owned a Co., etc….

                    My bad, I suck at typing with only a few fingers!

  5. Ed says:

    Excerpt from this article:

    “One catalogue, in the nineties, had a little chart of what Patagonia was versus what it was not: Fly fishing, not bass fishing. Long-haul trucking, not delivery-men. Surfing, not waterskiing. Upland bird hunting, not deer hunting. Gardeners, not survivalists. Patagonia’s people were the West’s recolonizers, the next wave of pioneers, the self-appointed protectors asserting a blue-state ethos in red-state territory—tree huggers pitching their tents in a logging camp. By now, this war for the West is a tired one, but it is in some ways a microcosm of the greater global battle between those who want to preserve lands and conserve resources and those who would prefer to exploit them.”