Official fit guide

[blackplatano]

i did a search and found a post were people were describing the tightness/baggines of jeans on a scale of 1-10. Great idea. BUt i didn't find any pictures describing what's a 3 or a 5 so ultimatly it's useless since people have different ideas of what's a 4 (for example).

So i propose making a scale of 1-10 with *pictures* describing how tight or baggy it is. This standarized scale will make thing easier because things are 100 times easier when you know the fit somebody is after.

opinions? tell me if has been done before. I think it would be a great reference.

 

[Saucemaster]

It's not a bad idea, but it would still be of limited use, since tight on me might be slim or even loose on someone else, or vice versa.

 

[ken]

Hey, I've got an idea. How about sticking the Jeans Measurement Index back on top. And, no, I will not contribute any measurements, but I'd be happy to take, take, take!

 

[blackplatano]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

It's not a bad idea, but it would still be of limited use, since tight on me might be slim or even loose on someone else, or vice versa.

you are not looking at it from the right angle. I am not saying that we will say something like

"slim jims are a 2 and RRDS are a 5 on the fit scale"...

it's more like "i usually wear size 32 and they fit like a 4, what size should i get in APC (or other brand with weird sizing) so they fit like a 4?"

the numbers 1-10 will only describe the FIT not the JEANS.

Exception. Certain jeans have a certain range, for example long johns can not be worn as loose as RRDS so then the scale can be used to describe how tight or loose they can be worn (problaby 1-3).

 

[ron]

I agree with saucemaster, the scale is only relevant if you have the same body size as the person rating the fit. Let's say person_1 is 30 inch waist and 34 inch seat and person_2 is 30 inch waist and 32 inch seat. The same pair of jeans will fit tighter on person_1 than on person_2. It seems that the scale would need to be based on actual jean measurements and not just how they fit on someone.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

you are not looking at it from the right angle. I am not saying that we will say something like

"slim jims are a 2 and RRDS are a 5 on the fit scale"...

it's more like "i usually wear size 32 and they fit like a 4, what size should i get in APC (or other brand with weird sizing) so they fit like a 4?"

the numbers 1-10 will only describe the FIT not the JEANS.

Ah, I getcha. So more just rating jeans in comparison to each other, then. So "if a 32 RRDS fits me like a 4, what size in APC Rescues would I need to purchase to get the same fit?" Which in theory relies much less on people comparing body types. I still think you'll run into problems because different cuts still drape differently on different body types, but it's minimized.

 

[blackplatano]

I guess you are getting a little closer, but im still not understood. Your example is one of the uses, but there could be many more.
What im proposin is just a scale that describes the fit from tight to baggy in a scale of 1-10 (with pictures). Another use is that insted of describing a fit you could just say a number.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

What im proposin is just a scale that describes the fit from tight to baggy in a scale of 1-10 (with pictures). Another use is that insted of describing a fit you could just say a number.

I don't think that this is really useful, mainly because fit cannot be described in terms of bagginess alone. For example, and antifit jean with skinny legs and a loose jean with baggy thighs could not be put on the same scale.

 

[digital_denim]

Japanese clothing sites attempt to do this and it's unreliable as hell. They use a 1-5 scale for tightness.

 

[beefcake]

why not just have a thread where you post pics of how your dior x eternals fits you and what size they are, and your weight/height, with pre-stretch/post-stretch measurements of everything useful (W/L/thigh/hem/etc). i believe there's a thread just like that on the other SF and its nice.. called something like "how jeans fit [...]". very usefull if people contribute. i would.
i think scales are the wrong way. how tight on a 1-10 scale is 4/5 buttons buttonable? 3/5? and how baggy are a W38 on my 5 year old sister? i mean, it'd get hard to define tight/baggy.

 

[blackplatano]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

I don't think that this is really useful, mainly because fit cannot be described in terms of bagginess alone. For example, and antifit jean with skinny legs and a loose jean with baggy thighs could not be put on the same scale.


in that case it wouln't be too much work to just say "loose on top like a 6 and tight in the legs like a 3".

Pointing out how *specific* jeans fit is not really the point. but W/E, i think i explained well enough.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

in that case it wouln't be too much work to just say "loose on top like a 6 and tight in the legs like a 3".

Pointing out how *specific* jeans fit is not really the point. but W/E, i think i explained well enough.

Yeah, I guess that that could be done. Still sounds to me like a lot of work for very little payoff though. I don't see how this is really more valuable than a pic... I'm not about to stop anyone who wants to do this project though...