Crate vs. Farinelli: The Official Jeans Thread

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by Mazda

In my experience APC is more like 3 to 4. Like I said, I wear a tagged 32 in "normal" jeans and pants. I am more like a "REAL" 34 waist. the jeans I am wearing at this instant are a 32 but measure 17.5 (thats a 35 for the math majors) BiG style measured and are slightly too large. I wear a TAGGED 29-30 APC.
No, out of the box, APC jeans measure 2" larger in the waist than tagged. The additional 1-3" is stretch, which APCs are notorious for. My earlier statements refer only to "stock measurements," as you put it, not post-stretch measurements.

 

[spacemanvt]

i dont understand.... i looked at the website and it says a size 30 CVSF measures 16" across.... doesnt mean its a 32 waist?

sorry if im being stupid.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by spacemanvt

i dont understand.... i looked at the website and it says a size 30 CVSF measures 16" across.... doesnt mean its a 32 waist?.
It means the waistband of the jeans measures 32", not the waist of the wearer, which would need to be smaller in order to fit into said jeans.

 

[Mazda]

Originally Posted by aqhong

No, out of the box, APC jeans measure 2" larger in the waist than tagged. The additional 1-3" is stretch, which APCs are notorious for. Both statements refer only to "stock measurements," as you put it.

It's semantics at this point but I still disagree.

Calling it APC style is still not correct (and irresponsible considering that you are responsible for misinforming noobs) considering the known stretch factor which no other jean anyone gives a **** about has yet to match.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by Mazda

Calling it APC style is still not correct (and irresponsible considering that you are responsible for misinforming noobs) considering the known stretch factor which no other jean anyone gives a **** about has yet to match.
Agreed. I never called it "APC style." I was disagreeing with only a part of your post (which I have bolded below):

Originally Posted by Mazda

It's in no way APC sizing. Neither by stock measurement or by stretching.

 

[Mazda]

Originally Posted by spacemanvt

i dont understand.... i looked at the website and it says a size 30 CVSF measures 16" across.... doesnt mean its a 32 waist?

sorry if im being stupid.

Jesus. Whodini are someone with a similar flair for linguistics needs to write a fitment FAQ.

Go put on a pair of jeans that fit WELL. Lay them out with the front and back waist aligned. That measurement ( a bit smaller to account for stretch) is what you should shoot for.

 

[JSTF]

That measurement ( a bit smaller to account for stretch) is what you should shoot for.

x2

 

[Get Smart]

Originally Posted by aqhong

It means the waistband of the jeans measures 32", not the waist of the wearer, which would need to be smaller in order to fit into said jeans.

incorrect, if a jean's waist is 32" around, it will ideally fit someone with a 33" waist....the wearer's waist should be bigger than the jean otherwise it will fit loose. The jean waist needs to hug the wearer's actual waist, and it gets tricky because if you have a flabby gut, you can get away with even more discrepancy between jean waist and your own.

 

[spacemanvt]

ok let me reclairfy if i wear 32 in most denim, am i ok with 32 in CVSF?

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by Get Smart

incorrect, if a jean's waist is 32" around, it will ideally fit someone with a 33" waist....the wearer's waist should be bigger than the jean otherwise it will fit loose.
This makes no sense, both theoretically and empirically. Theoretically: If you have a object with a 33" circumference and a strip of fabric 32" long (that is not made of a stretch material), the fabric will not be enough to wrap around the object. Therefore, how does a 32" waistband fit a 33" waist? In my own experience: I have a 30" waist, and all the jeans and pants that fit me well have a waistband of around 31" (15.5" across). A 30" waistband would be skin-tight/suffocating (since there would be no slack), and a 29" waistband would not fit, period.

 

[reprehensible]

Originally Posted by aqhong

This makes no sense, both theoretically and empirically.

Theoretically: If you have a object with a 33" circumference and a strip of fabric 32" long (that is not made of a stretch material), the fabric will not be enough to wrap around the object. Therefore, how does a 32" waistband fit a 33" waist?

In my own experience: I have a 30" waist, and all the jeans and pants that fit me well have a waistband of around 31" (15.5" across).

Flesh is not solid. For pants to have normal snugness, they have to be compressing your waist to some degree, which means being smaller in circumference than the part of your body they're sitting at.

 

[k4ppah]

You guys are a riot.

 

[Razele]

I'm going to go hammer nails into *******.

See ya guys!

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by reprehensible

Flesh is not solid. For pants to have normal snugness, they have to be compressing your waist to some degree, which means being smaller in circumference than the part of your body they're sitting at.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I am fairly solid and my waist does not "compress." If I pull a tape measure around my waist as tight as I can, it reads 30". Pants with a waistband shorter than this (the length of the tape measure) will not fit.

 

[grundletaint]

Originally Posted by spacemanvt

ok let me reclairfy if i wear 32 in most denim, am i ok with 32 in CVSF?

that's what i've gathered. i'm 32 in nudie and spurr (31 in prewashed ****) and mauro says 32 is what i need for this. he hasn't been wrong on any sizing advice for me yet.