Kmw 1980

[Mark_Y]

Originally Posted by Nil

I really wish they'd change the back pockets on those things. I just can't pull the trigger with those gigantic things plastered on the back.

Funny you post this. I was about to pull the trigger on these myself as the deal at Revolve is exceptional. However, I just can't get over the back pockets. You could carry your lunch in those things.

 

[oboy_oboy]

OK, need a little help here. This is re: 1980 in Canvas. I know these run smaller than tagged, and apparently don't stretch as much as the raw/rinse denim. I wear a 31x34 in KMW 1950 (Japan) and 32x34 in 1980 (China; a little loose in waist).

Context lists these measurements (pardon the formatting, but you get the idea):

Tagged\tWaist \tRise \tThigh \tKnee \tLeg Opening

30\t\t29\t9.25\t11.25\t8\t7.75
31\t\t30\t9.5\t11.5\t8.25\t8
32\t\t31\t9.75\t11.75\t8.5\t8.5
33\t\t32\t10\t12\t8.75\t8.75
34\t\t33\t10\t12.25\t9\t9


I emailed Detour and asked them to measure a 32x34 (just waist and inseam, as the other measurements will be proportional) for me, the only size their site lists in stock. They said that pair measures to 30"x32.75". If that's the case I would think I'd need at least 33, or perhaps a 34. I just don't want to end up with a pair that measures out to 16.75 after wearing them for a few months.

Regardless, if the inseam is really that much shorter than tagged, that sort of kills it as I need 33.5 at least, and would really prefer 34-34.5. Wondering if it gets much longer as the sizes go up...

Anyone have more info? Grundletaint has dropped some insight here, but I'd love a little more. Thanks.

 

[grundletaint]

i'll measure my inseam/waist and take a fit pic this evening

 

[grundletaint]

they're 17 across now and inseam's about 33-33.5. bear in mind they sit pretty low, too, so the waist is still pretty snug on the top of my hips.

 

[oboy_oboy]

Many thanks. Hard to know what to do now...Detour says the 32x34 they have measure out quite a bit smaller than your pair, especially in the inseam. I'm game for some stretching at the waist, but if they're too short, it's game over. I'm only a little heavier than you, but I'm 3" taller...6'3"/175. So, inseam is pretty key.

Oh well. Probably just need to save my $$ and drop it when I know I can get the right size..if there is such a thing in this pant for me...

 

[grundletaint]

mine probably stretched an inch. they were tight as **** and i had to wear them about an inch higher than where they sit now - i'm 6' for reference on the inseam. who knows with this stuff, though....good luck!

 

[APK]

Originally Posted by Mark_Y

Funny you post this. I was about to pull the trigger on these myself as the deal at Revolve is exceptional. However, I just can't get over the back pockets. You could carry your lunch in those things.

The pockets are bigger than most, no doubt. But I think the higher back rise and fit pics where the model has his shirt tucked in makes the pockets seem gigantic. Compare the fit pic from Revolve with the one from Context. Big difference.

 

[KitAkira]

Originally Posted by Mark_Y

Funny you post this. I was about to pull the trigger on these myself as the deal at Revolve is exceptional. However, I just can't get over the back pockets. You could carry your lunch in those things.
I actually prefer them this way, anything you put in there is accessible (not wrapped up in super tight pockets you can't fit your hand into) and it sits low enough that you don't have to sit on a hump (I like my spine alignment how it is, thank you very much). That being said, I really should retire mine, they're falling apart...

 

[rkingucla]

Anyone interested in a pair of 1980s raw 31x34 BNWT? PM me..

 

[RKLounsbury]

I have a pair of raw KMW 1980's size 29/34 which I tried on once, still tagged. Not the fit I was looking for. They are for sale if anyone is interested, send me an e-mail. They're on E-bay right now.

[email protected]

 

[mlyngard]

Originally Posted by blank

A request:

. Can anyone who has the jeans post the pic of the fit, please? I need to decide if it's too slim.

Also, there are no 32x32's available on the web, anywhere. What would happen if I sized up to a 33? Would they end up too slouchy, or would I achieve a more relaxed fit?

Did anyone size up on the 1980's? And any fit pics would be appreciated.

I have them in the reg. ***. and the hand-dye. Love them. I also had the '50s and changed for the same reason. You have nothing to fear abt. these being too slim. They're everything slim jeans should be, and roomy in the top block. Other words, slim and comfy.

Do not size up. These are stretchy enough. And don't go by tagged size (my 29s were 31 new, 30.5 post-soak and machine dry). See Context's chart. These only shrink .5" in the waist, if that.

I'll try and post pics tomorrow. These really aren't a massive departure from the 1950 cut, but enough to make a difference.

Good call on the LVC too, mate. KMW shouldn't be trying repro cuts, even though I 'get' the 1950/80/2010 idea...

 

[APK]

After dealing with a handful of other cuts by assorted denim companies, I'm realizing how rare the 1980 type of cut really is. It's been the only cut I've personally encountered that provides a slimming cut with a top block and thigh dimensions that allow non-lanky dudes some breathing room. Shame I didn't size down, otherwise this model would be my go-to jean.

If it had a slight taper, I wouldn't ever have a need for any other cut.

 

[theom-]

Rogue Territory's Stanton is very similar. But yeah the 1980 cut is pretty rare.