J Crew F/W 09 Discussion

[edubs01]

Just bought the Aldridge Suit pants and vest.

 

[constant struggle]

Originally Posted by edubs01

Just bought the Aldridge Suit pants and vest.

should put this in S/S thread, this isn't F/W!

 

[edubs01]

Yes it is.
It is under new arrivals for fall.

 

[driveslowk]

they are opening a new outlet store at Ontario Mlls for you California folk

 

[Robert]

Originally Posted by ctrlaltelite

um yeah dude. just ask my friend, F/W 07. they can tell you all about it.

Well, that's one bandwagon I ain't joining.

 

[willy cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Robert

Flannel shirts are making a comeback?! Please, no.
They had them last F/W too, about 20 or more colorways in the usual washed shirting fabric and the featherweight tartans.

 

[Vernon-Dozier]

So I just received my latest J Crew order and thought I'd share some notes. In the past I made the mistake of settling for pants that were off from the tagged size. This time I wanted to ensure the best possible fit so I did a test. I ordered some officer chino pants which were on sale in two different colors - olive green and khaki. I ordered a total of 6 pants - all of them size 34x34. Here are the measurements (the first 3 numbers are olive and the last 3 numbers khaki.)

Waist: 33, 33, 34, 34, 34.5, 34.5
Front rise: 11.5, 11.25, 11.25, 11.5, 11.25, 11.25
Hips: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45.5
Thigh: 12.75, 12.75, 12.5, 12.5, 12.5, 12.25, 12.25, 12.75
Inseam: 34, 33.5, 33.75, 34.25, 33.75, 33.5
Leg opening: 8.5, 8.5, 8.75, 8.75, 8.5, 8.5
Back rise: 16.5, 17, 16.25, 17, 16.75, 17

So in summary the ranges are as follows:

Waist: 33-34.5 = 1.5 inches
Front rise: 11.25-11.5 = .25 inches
Hips: 45-45.5 = .5 inches
Thigh: 12.25-12.75 = .5 inches
Inseam: 33.5-34.25 = .75 inches
Leg opening: 8.5-8.75 = .25 inches
Back rise: 16.25-17 = .75 inches

The waist & inseam is the most important and what most people look at first. However, surprisingly the back rise showed some big variances which made a remarkable difference in appearance. I confirmed this by wearing the lowest and highest back rise pants. The first one hugged my buns nicely, while the 17 inch back rise made ****** look as baggy as a Texas truck driver. The hips and leg opening were all very consistent. The next most important thing to pay attention to was the thighs which had a decent amount of variance especially considering the small amount of space in that area.

In conclusion out of the 6 pairs of pants I found an olive pair that fit me perfect and a khaki pair that looked good but not perfect. The others were wearable but this time I'm not settling so they are going back. The whole point is that it confirmed my suspicion that J Crew's sizing is not consistant so you have to order several pairs to get the right fit.

Also, I picked up a pair of 34x34 officer chino shorts in khaki and the waist came to 35.5 which is way bigger than any of the pant measurements - go figure.

 

[driveslowk]

dozier as in lamont dozier?

 

[toothsomesound]

Wow, very interesting, though I think this has confirmed what most of us already thought to be true. Well done, good experiment Vernon.

 

[scb]

Originally Posted by Vernon-Dozier

So I just received my latest J Crew order and thought I'd share some notes. In the past I made the mistake of settling for pants that were off from the tagged size. This time I wanted to ensure the best possible fit so I did a test. I ordered some officer chino pants which were on sale in two different colors - olive green and khaki. I ordered a total of 6 pants - all of them size 34x34. Here are the measurements (the first 3 numbers are olive and the last 3 numbers khaki.)

Waist: 33, 33, 34, 34, 34.5, 34.5
Front rise: 11.5, 11.25, 11.25, 11.5, 11.25, 11.25
Hips: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45.5
Thigh: 12.75, 12.75, 12.5, 12.5, 12.5, 12.25, 12.25, 12.75
Inseam: 34, 33.5, 33.75, 34.25, 33.75, 33.5
Leg opening: 8.5, 8.5, 8.75, 8.75, 8.5, 8.5
Back rise: 16.5, 17, 16.25, 17, 16.75, 17

So in summary the ranges are as follows:

Waist: 33-34.5 = 1.5 inches
Front rise: 11.25-11.5 = .25 inches
Hips: 45-45.5 = .5 inches
Thigh: 12.25-12.75 = .5 inches
Inseam: 33.5-34.25 = .75 inches
Leg opening: 8.5-8.75 = .25 inches
Back rise: 16.25-17 = .75 inches

The waist & inseam is the most important and what most people look at first. However, surprisingly the back rise showed some big variances which made a remarkable difference in appearance. I confirmed this by wearing the lowest and highest back rise pants. The first one hugged my buns nicely, while the 17 inch back rise made ****** look as baggy as a Texas truck driver. The hips and leg opening were all very consistent. The next most important thing to pay attention to was the thighs which had a decent amount of variance especially considering the small amount of space in that area.

In conclusion out of the 6 pairs of pants I found an olive pair that fit me perfect and a khaki pear that looked good but not perfect. The others were wearable but this time I'm not settling so they are going back. The whole point is that it confirmed my suspicion that J Crew's sizing is not consistant so you have to order several pairs to get the right fit.

Also, I picked up a pair of 34x34 officer chino shorts in khaki and the waist came to 35.5 - go figure.

interesting....i measured a pair of 32x34 that had a 34 inch waist

my 2 pairs of 31s arrived today. i'll post measurements tonight

 

[Robert]

V-D, that's interesting and weird. I consider my usual J. Crew pants size as 34/34, and never seem to have problems. I can pretty much pick em off the shelf and know they'll work even without trying them on (though I always do b/c I'm a bit OCD about these things). I've measured the waist on all my officers and they all measure roughly 35.5. This is after washing (cold water) several times and hanging dry, so they might have started out at 36. Though I haven't measured, they also feel consistent in inseam and rise.

My other J. Crew chinos (essential, broken in) also come to roughly 35.5 to 36 in the waist--although since I don't own more than one or two in each configuration (classic, regular, slim, etc.), it's hard to say anything about the consistency of the other measurements.

I wonder if it's only online that there's this problem?

I can almost always depend on shirts of the same make and style being the same, too.

 

[Vernon-Dozier]

Other notes:

The Newport Blue secret wash shirt looks better in person than in the picture. Very nice with bisque club shorts.

The Baird McNutt white linen camp shirt is really baggy in the sleeves. The overall look is blah, and whats up with the puky yellow buttons? I'm only keeping it around for hot days bumming around when I don't need to look fantastic. It looked ok with my military green shorts.

The lightweight V-neck sweater in Heather Permission: Boxy but I love the light fabric and color so I'll exchange for a large. C'mon J Crew, let's tighten these sweaters up! It's the same one the model is wearing in the online look-book and his aint boxy, so he obviously got the clips working.

I ordered 3 light weight secret wash shirts and as usual they will torment me. They are a bit too long to wear untucked, but they are so light I want to wear them untucked while wearing shorts. I'm tall and usually complain about shirts being too short in the tail. I think they need to make shirts and market them for either tucked or untucked use or something. Especially being you can order tall sizes which are longer, but the standard size already seems like a tall so wtf? I'm keeping them though because I like to look and fabric.

I love the broken-in pocket jersey polo, got some old red (great color in secret wash shirt too), ocean and green in this order.

I also love the tropical aqua and dark cadet colored vintage polos.

 

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Vernon-Dozier

Other notes:

The Newport Blue secret wash shirt looks better in person than in the picture. Very nice with bisque club shorts.

The Baird McNutt white linen camp shirt is really baggy in the sleeves. The overall look is blah, and whats up with the puky yellow buttons? I'm only keeping it around for hot days bumming around when I don't need to look fantastic. It looked ok with my military green shorts.

The lightweight V-neck sweater in Heather Permission: Boxy but I love the light fabric and color so I'll exchange for a large. C'mon J Crew, let's tighten these sweaters up! ****.

I ordered 3 secret wash shirts and as usual they will torment me. They are a bit too long to wear untucked, but they are so light I want to wear them untucked while wearing shorts. I'm tall and usually complain about shirts being too short in the tail. I think they need to make shirts and market them for either tucked or untucked use or something. Especially being you can order tall sizes which are longer, but the standard size already seems like a tall so wtf? I'm keeping them though because I like to look and fabric.

I love the broken-in pocket jersey polo, got some old red (great color in secret wash shirt too), ocean and green in this order.

I also love the tropical aqua and dark cadet colored vintage polos.

I'm pretty much on track with you in all the above. The linen shirts look great on the rack in the store but are really sloppy looking on. Maybe linen shirts are supposed to be a bit baggy? Anyway, sizing down to a medium made them too small, but a large was too boxy, so I passed on these as well.

My j. crew sweaters never the look the same on me as they do on the models. If I size down, they're too tight. In L, they're comfortable but tend to get a bit baggy and long at the waist. They're nice sweaters nevertheless, but they could stand to be tightened up a bit.

I love the secret wash shirts, but yeah, you're right, I don't see how anyone could wear a tall and not feel like they're wearing a dress. I'm a good 6.1 and a regular large is long and then some. And nice suggestion about marketing for tucked or untucked--it's almost impossible to tell without actually trying them on. Of all the shirts I've purchased recently, though, the lightweight summer ones are best for untucking. Not extra short, but shorter than others, for kind of a relaxed untucked that doesn't look sloppy. I wear these lightweight ones all the time, for work, weekends, whatever. Great summer shirt without having to go with linen.

All the J. Crew polos are oustanding, imo. And I used to not be a fan of polos.

 

[Vernon-Dozier]

Originally Posted by Robert

V-D, that's interesting and weird. I consider my usual J. Crew pants size as 34/34, and never seem to have problems. I can pretty much pick em off the shelf and know they'll work even without trying them on (though I always do b/c I'm a bit OCD about these things). I've measured the waist on all my officers and they all measure roughly 35.5. This is after washing (cold water) several times and hanging dry, so they might have started out at 36. Though I haven't measured, they also feel consistent in inseam and rise.

My other J. Crew chinos (essential, broken in) also come to roughly 35.5 to 36 in the waist--although since I don't own more than one or two in each configuration (classic, regular, slim, etc.), it's hard to say anything about the consistency of the other measurements.

I wonder if it's only online that there's this problem?

I can almost always depend on shirts of the same make and style being the same, too.

That is weird, do you measure after wearing them for awhile or are you referring to unworn pants? I realize the average consumer wouldn't really care about all this, but I'm OCD too and a half inch difference in the thigh is a big deal to me. Do me a favor and see where yours are made and I'll check mine. Perhaps different manufacturing plants?

 

[willy cheesesteak]

You guys should let customer service know about these issues, they actually listen to comments like these.