Originally Posted by Makoto Chan
Haha... That's exactly what I'm looking for. I hope you don't mind if I interrupt your conversation with a question. Would APC Petit Standards fit that bill, for a skinny guy (31 waist)? I feel like if my non-thin friends can wear New Standards, then they'll probably end up baggy for me. But maybe I'm wrong...
It depends on your body type and what you're comfortable with. But if you're a skinny guy, you're going to be fine in PS or NC. The problem with how people wear APC is that they have it engrained into their brains that they need to size down 4 for a fit. FWIW, I know several "average build" dudes that prefer the fit of the PS while the outcome has people thinking their NS. Quite a few SW&Ders do this, in fact.
Originally Posted by johanm
All this talk about "slim" "straight" and "taper" is misleading. Really what you need to know about jeans is (a) do the waist/thighs fit, and (b) is the leg opening the size you want.Many "straight fit" jeans have no taper from knee to ankle
, but are very slim, because they have small thighs and knees - e.g. Levi's 1947 inspired cuts. Likewise, many "tapered" jeans look fairly relaxed because they have wide thighs and knees - e.g. Levi's 1966 cuts.
I would certainly hope so because that's the very definition of a straight fit jean. The problem is that within the SW&D community, describing something as a "straight fit" would imply that it isn't slim. 1947 isn't "very slim" by any stretch of the SW&D imagination. If anything, they're a standard straight fit with a slight taper. 8.75" cuffs on a 32, personally, are repro territory and would be considered by most on SW&D as "wide leg."
I'd also like to know where you get the idea that "many" tapered jeans are relaxed. If they are, then they're not a traditional tapered pair in the sense that they're slim throughout with a taper. Instead, what you're describing is a carrot, or "anti" fit (relaxed thighs, tapered hem) which is less common. I could point you to links all day that showcase the difference. The point is, many brands that are patronized by SW&D use the "tapered" description in their line to denote slim or skinny jeans. Typically, this will mean that they have taken their "slim" pair and merely tapered it or slimmed down the measurements further overall. A basic mall brand like Unbranded is a good example of this. Many brands on Self Edge are also good examples of this.
Originally Posted by johanm
I'm also confused by the notion that the "MC aesthetic" requires jeans with wide leg openings. The classic style of wearing jeans from the "golden era" of the 1940s - 1970s was very slim. Likewise, all the favorite MC brands like Borrelli and Incotex make jeans that are skinnier than most SW&D brands. If there's any difference between the MC and SW&D aesthetics it would be that MC favors more vintage/faded looking jeans and SW&D likes raw or contrast faded jeans, but even that is not really true.
I don't even know what the historical reference point is for wide leg openings on jeans. 19th century miners? 1990s hip hop? Dads and IT professionals (or what you refer to as "work casual")?
I never said anything anywhere about MC "requiring" wide leg jeans. My point was that the older MC crowd typically doesn't wear jeans as narrow as SW&D. If you think the 1940s-1970s were "very slim", then it shows how much you venture over to SW&D or are familiar with current denim trends. I would LOVE to see evidence of where you came up with Borrelli and Incotex making jeans that are skinnier than "most SW&D brands." Name your "most SW&D brands," please. As skinny, perhaps, but what brands like those make isn't necessarily what is worn or favored on here.
Frankly, it's absurd, although not the least bit surprising given my routine experience of denim knowledge by the average MCer, that you make such claims and feel that you do so from a source of current information than opinion. I think you need to go back and do some research, maybe even define what you consider to be "wide leg" or "very slim" or "most" and enlighten us all.