or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by emptym

Vin Diesel?
If you're talking about the post w/ the racist slur, that was me.  You may have thought it was funny, but others apparently didn't.   You're lucky you weren't TO'd too.  Although, that may come.  So be good.
Unfortunately, I don't have any exp. w/ that chambray.  Best to ask Luxire.
(602) 635-7449  is this number that was on their website when I took the screenshot and is currently on their Instagram (where they recently posted that custom denim orders will all be made with "our classic brown thread and copper buttons."  I wonder if that includes black pairs.  Hope not. 
@JIMB  The main things I noticed are that the shirt sleeves could be a bit shorter and the pant rear has the common wedgie effect.   +1 to Clapyron's endorsement of the Brembana chambray.  I've had one for 3 yrs now and it's a great shirt.  I mainly just wear it w/ gray jeans casually and occasionally w/ a tweed sport coat, no tie.
That's a good question.  The right is shorter than the left but wider.  But the increased creasing isn't from fit.  (Each boot fits it's foot well.)  It's from diffences in the shells.  The shell on the right boot is much more supple than the right ones, and probably a bit thinner too.  DW asked Horween for two shells that were as similar to each other as possible in thickness, but I remember him letting me know even before making these that the shells were a little...
It's not a 180.  One comment says one or more GYW had a footbed.  The other says one or more did not.  Both are perfectly compatible statements.  If this is the case, then you and DW are not defining the word "footbed" in the same way.
Again, DW did say the AE shoe had a footbed and the Church was forming one.
 It definitely seems like MWS is correct that you're not reading DW carefully, Chogall.  For example.  In the post above, DW writes that it is possible for GYW shoes to have a footbed.  In fact he says the AE shoe has one and the Churches one is forming one:  
Does the disagreement stem from Chogall's conception of a footbed as having two dimensions and DW/MWS/etc.'s definition that it must have three dimensions?  A thin piece of leather will show some evidence of a foot, but not the same as a thick one.   Of course everything in space has three dimension, so it'd really be a question of degree.  Thus, thin leather have some three dimensionality but less than a thick piece.  Seems that DW and MWS are saying that difference is...
New Posts  All Forums: