APC sizing!

I would go with a pair of 32s. The waist is about 33" to begin with, and will stretch to about 34", which will be comfortable, but not too loose.

I'll agree with LA Guy, if you want a loose fit. I have a true 31 waist, and I got my New Standards in a 30, which were just about right (maybe a little loose) at the beginning, and stretched to around a 33, which sits them on my hips for a loose, but not baggy, fit. You could probably get away with a 31 if you wanted, but it depends on how you want them to fit in the leg.

If you're talking about the Rescues instead of the New Standards, my personal experience has been that the Rescues are marked at least a size smaller than the NSs--a 29 Rescue was pretty similar to a 30 New Standard for me (in the waist). Actually, a 29 Rescue was a little looser than the 30 New Standards.

Yeah, the big question is whether you are getting New Standards or Rescues or something else. I have a 33 waist. I tried the 31 Rescues and they were too big. The 30 Rescues (which I am wearing right now) are still a smidge big at the belt line (after stretching) but pretty tight everywhere else. I think theoretically you could go as low as a 29 with a 33 inch waist, but they would be pretty tight indeed.

PS The world mourns the loss of all the great content I contributed to this forum over the last seven months. Also, is it just me or is the interface subtly different?

Ack, only 610 posts! 611!

Can we get a picture of you in your new standards? Im also interested in getting a pair but im really nervous about the fit. Your're my size so I can judge from that.

Sure.

Front:



Back:



Side:



The only thing I don't like about the fit is that the knees have stretched a lot, as you can see; other than that, they look exactly like I wanted them to. Loose, but not baggy. If you want them to look the way that most people's New Standards are "supposed" to look--tighter, basically--you could go down one size or possibly even two, depending on how skinny your legs are.

I'm going to have to go against the grain here, and say that my NS were less 'stretchy' than every other pair of dry jeans I've owned. I'm a true 30/30.5, and bought a 28.

They were too big. Like, almost an inch too big with no stretching. So, I exchanged them for a 27. There were VERY tight - only get two buttons done up at first kinda tight.

I wore them like that for an hour or so, and slowly did up the other buttons until there were finally on. I wore them for maybe 1 to 1.5 months, but they never got much bigger or comfortable.

My Svens took less than 2 weeks to get a lot of stretching done. My Californias did it insanely fast. My Eternals I used my patented streching-out method to get them perfect before I started wearing them.

So, I'd say go with the general consensus on these, but keep my experience in mind too. Sizing down two for me proved too big, and three too small.

Ok thanks for the photos and the above info. I think I'll size down one and go from there.

I found the 30 Rescues to fit pretty much exactly like the 32 RRDS in the waist, and a little slimmer throughout the leg. They're really my favorite jeans at the moment. I love the silhouette.

Back to Basics Q:

Could someone clarify the "true waist" measurement. I mean, would this not change depending upon how high or low the jeans are worn? Similarly, there is the typical drop between dress pants' and jeans' sizes, in large part due to where dress pants are typically worn, in comparison to where jeans are typically worn. You have the rise to consider, too, and some jeans, as you know, are designed to be worn relatively lower or higher than other jeans. So, when you are stating "true waist", are you factoring in where the particular jeans are designed to be worn? Or, have I over-thought this ?

That really is a nice silhouette. Are they generally mid-rise?

I have also been considering APCs. I love my Earnest Sewns, but I want a little more variety.

My waist is a true 34. I bought my new standards in a 33 and I think they were always too big. A crazy girlfriend stole them on her way out of my life (a friend compared this to the $20 story in "A Bronx Tale" if any of you remember that - needless to say I didn't ask her to bring me the jeans), so i'll get to replace them someday with a 32. My rescues are 31 and fit me fine. The sizing variations and stories I've heard make me wary though. When I spoke to the NY store on the phone, they acknowledged that some batches run bigger or smaller than others.

Well, 'true waist' measurements have gotten me into trouble before. Like when I started putting on a little fat, but still thought I was a 30 (I've since lost the weight).

I just measure my waist about where I think I wear my jeans, and go with that. Unless the jeans are really low rise, I wear them about the same place on my body. If you wanted to be more accurate, you certainly could do what you suggested in your post, and measure out a 'waist' size for low, mid, and high rise.

Thanks, Ahaz. I think it is probably 'better' to go with the most accurate true waist one can measure -where the jeans sit, since there are those factors, noted earlier, that contribute to sizing differences, like variations in size across batch runs and degrees of stretch.

I wonder if in the jeans measurement thread, there might be room for some sort of appraisal of jeans/body type. Something along the lines of "this is great for those that are thin-as-a-stick" or "this is good for the muscle-bound". I guess much of this is subjective. However, while pretty much anyone can wear 501s, you know, there are some body types and jeans that don't mix well.

I practice the trial-and-error method of trying 'em on and then assessing. Measurements are great, but I wonder if any generalizations can be applied. Maybe not. But, then again, maybe so.