They are sized the same as the old ones, but I got them a few months after everyone started losing their shit about sizing. I'm still not convinced the sizing actually changed, since context is the only one that actually said anything about it, and raw denim is harder to measure than one may think.
When I got mine, size 29, they measured 31" laid flat with the waist aligned, but if I was careless, left the dip in the waist, didn't pull the fabric tight, I could measure it 29" across.
The thigh on my 29's measures 11.75" right now measured the same way context measures, and they were never too tight in the thigh so they probably didn't stretch much. Also keep in mind all of context's measurements are to the closest half-inch. I had a pair of 30's back in the day that I sold because they were too big for me and looking back at the measurements I took, from new their thigh was 11.875"
Chillip, I think for you a 30 may be best if you're looking at New Standards, but you may need to take them to a seamstress or something at some point to taper them from the knee down. When you get them, just make sure the top button is hard if not impossible to button at first, and the legs should be uncomfortably slim, but not painfully slim.
wow so interesting. i only asked because the last pair of NS i owned were in size 28, and I have just under 22" thighs and even after wearing them around for close to a year they were always quite tight in the thighs. It jsut seems strange that one size (28-29) could make that big a difference, but I guess if I get another pair of NS again, I'll be going for the 29s
EDIT: went over to context to check their measurement tables.. 29s list at 11" thighs, which makes way more sense from my experience.
Edited by bik2101 - 3/29/13 at 7:08am