WAYWRN: MC Casual Style - Page 637

Are those the RL Lindrick boots? They're awesome, I should have grabbed those when I had the chance

Yup RL Lindricks.

maolford, that is great. and regarding my comments yesterday, i think that top is way more coherent with the khakis. the whole things flows, and looks great.

very nice. nothing else to say.

Thanks, guys. I'm afraid that my lack of fit pic posting has led to an increase in the size of my upper frontal mass. Back to teh manorexia for Dig.

A vintage italian army field jacket.
click

i do,

What I wore today:

 

 

 

And, with more than a bit of trepidation, and what I know you're all looking forward too (if only to enjoy ripping it to pieces! ), here's what I picked up from being hemmed:

 

 

Feel free to give an absolutely honest critique on the jeans fit (although be aware that the specific shirt & jacket are just what I happened to be wearing anyway, though I did swap the shoes for a more appropriate boot). Whether it's deemed good or bad, this will be my last experiment trying to get a pair of jeans that looks OK. From my position of ignorance, I will say that I prefer how this pair looks in the mirror to any of the other attempts I've made, and actually, they feel a hell of a lot more comfortable to wear around the waist/thigh, which is quite strange considering they both sit lower and are heavier/stiffer & more tapered than previous pairs. They've actually naturally settled even a touch lower since I took the photos (maybe about half an inch or so further down), but I can't be bothered to retake the pics.

pre-distressing is bad and the rise is too low to tuck a shirt in. stop trying to wear them like trousers - they aren't.

just to humor me - take a picture with shirt untucked, roll the hem twice, and pull the pants down lower on your hips an inch.

Holdfast...oh my.
 

 

Out of curiosity, I just took the belt off to see whether they can shuffle down any lower; the combination of the jeans' waist circumference and my hips mean that the waistband literally cannot be pushed down any further. Physics prevents it. :)

 

As mentioned above though, they are now about 0.5" lower than pictured, as they did settle a bit as I've been moving around since then.

 

 

Are they pre-distressed? I didn't even notice, lol. Looking at the photos, I suppose they are, very slightly! Funnily enough, the photos do exaggerate this aspect though, compared to what I see in the mirror IRL, even now I know it's there. Maybe the processing I did to the pics showed it up more? Don't know.

 

In the interests of education, what's the issue with pre-distressing? Is it the specific pre-distressing on these jeans, or a philosophical objection to pre-distressing in general, similar to how some guys prefer shoes with no artificial patination and others like the kind of artificial vintage effects you see with, say, Berluti?

 

I wear jeans approximately once a month, at most, so I think waiting for natural distressing is a bit of a non-starter in my life. :)

 

BTW, how can the rise be low enough to mean no tucking in of shirts, and at the same time, also need pushing down a further inch as per your first post? I really don't understand!

 

 

I live to entertain! :D

 

As I said, it's my last experiment with denim, so it would be unfair not to share the results with an expectant world, even if it's a fail. The IgNoble Prize awaits!

Looks like Paul Harnden but you'll have better luck asking in SW&D

Doc, that's the wrong cut for you. Try the 514's. They're the midpoint between the 501's and the 511's. Will give you a larger rise and a bit more room in the thigh/crotch. Also, get the length a size longer.