Discussion in 'Streetwear and Denim' started by LA Guy, Apr 1, 2009.
Flannel Walts and Carmina Wingtips:
^ Awesome. Saw a video from the trunk show, always fun to get to see the living people behind the nicknames.
1) Would overdye be done on a finished pant, or fabric before cut and sew? Just wondering as it would be awesome to see some overdye jeans w/ contrast stitching as opposed to have all the stitching get dyed to match. Both look great, but you rarely see the contrast version and I think it can look particularly great on navy.
2) Chocolate duck would be cool. More importantly to me though: is there anyway these can keep a longer inseam than 33.5?
I'm thinking of getting the Walt trousers but I'm afraid there'll be too much room in the rise.
Can anyone who wears a Size 31 in the Rivet chinos, tell me if they find the Walt in a size 29 or 30 with too much room?
I do 33 in both but the waist is always a bit big on both but good elsewhere. I'm debating a Rudy order and will probably go 32 for those.
I think 2 down will be too small from Rivet to Walt.
I'm sort of the opposite. I find that a 31 in the Rivet is maybe sufficent to wear low on the hips. With Walts, I'll go down to a 30 so the legs are slim enough then let out the waist and seat a little. The rise is higher but that's what I'm looking for in a dress trouser. I think going down 1" from Rivet to Walt is the MAX.
I wear 29 in RC and 28 in Walt. There is zero excess rise in my case. I would even consider letting them out a tiny bit (so they sit lower and provide more room in crotch) if I thought it was worth the hassle and expense. I think a 29 Walt would be way too loose on me, though.
Remember that the Walt waist will be higher on your body, so the measurement will (may?) be smaller.
I wear the same size in both (32). Your post makes me wonder if I could size down one in the Walt, although both fit me pretty spot on and I'm afraid sizing down in the Walt would be too tight in the waist (could always let the waist out I assume, and the leg would still be a little slimmer).
same for me, I wear 32 in both, RC and Walt and wouldn't change a thing. Perfect fit for both.
I'm a 31 in RC and around 31.5 in the Walt. I wonder if it's the higher rise of the Walt that does force guys with a slight gut (like myself) to size up a bit.
34 in both. but I take in the waist for the walts. 33 walt is too slim on my rear.
Quote:I'm the opposite. I'm a 29 in walts but at least a 30.5 for the Rivets. I guess my hips are a lot wider compared to my stomach area.
I'm a 34 Rudy, 36 Rivet, and I get the waist taken in on both. I need to size up because if I used my normal waist size then the thighs and butt would be too tight on both. Can't wear Walts at all without major tailoring, so I just stick to Rudys.
Thanks for the hep guys.
ANother question: Does anyone know why the rise is 12.5" for ALL the sizes? Is that an error or perhaps deliberate?
Mike always recommends sizing based on thighs, and adjusting waist/seat to match. Sounds like you could size down and let them out if you're really intent on a slimmer leg. IMO, if they fit well now I would leave it alone and continue as you have been. It depends if the extra alteration cost is worth it to you. Some fabrics might show external evidence of being let out?
So I've basically followed the above advice, except I don't bother letting them out, and it's close enough to not be an issue.
Separate names with a comma.