Discussion in 'Streetwear and Denim' started by whodini, May 21, 2009.
i think it might a little too baggy, but if that's what u intended to do then i guess its fine.
good find for those nice pictures. that new site is still unfix and annoys me to stay there for another second.
i don't really agree about the slim fit being that slim - it's really not, especially compared to brands like APC
those look shidi
^ I really like your fit on the low straight rinse jeans. Did you size down a lot?
The fits on the fitguide all look great, especially the slim bootcut which barely looks bootcut at all. Which wash is that?
Gracias. Just sized down one from 32 to 31. They were snug, not tight, initially. Looks like it's in line with what their intended fit is vs. My 30s, which are on the skinny side
I agree. i tried on both 32x32 APC NS and RRL Slim fit, to me APC felt slimmer to me.
Trying to decide betwen the following shirts.
[ATTACHMENT=639]1.PNG (475k. PNG file)[/ATTACHMENT]
[ATTACHMENT=640]2.PNG (291k. PNG file)[/ATTACHMENT]
[ATTACHMENT=641]4.PNG (409k. PNG file)[/ATTACHMENT]
E.D., RRL site is unnavigable for me so thank you for posting this! Hard to tell the difference between the low straight and straight in those pics, only notice a difference in rise.
All 3 look nice, personally I would go for the 1st or 2nd.
i wish the fucking thing (and the rest of the lookbook) were in color.
That makes no sense. A 32 Slim Fit has a leg opening of about 7.75", whereas NS has 8". In addition, the rise is totally different with the NS having close to 2" higher rise than slim fits which would throw off the comparison.
If you want to compare to APC, compare the NS to Low Straight and NC to Slim Fit. My statement of them being slim is relative to the whole RRL line where all their other pants are based off either regulation/officer chino cuts. Compared to those, it's a noticeable difference.
The main problem is they are using all different guys in each fit.
If you downsize 3 on straight legs vs 2 on the Low Straights, they look very close. In the same size, the current straight legs have about .75 - 1" more room in the thigh/lower leg compared to the Low Straights
Is the Slim Bootcut comparable to the Slim fit in the thigh and knee area with only a slight flare from the knees down? In the fit pic above, the flare looks pretty pronounced in the side view pic.
here's something i previously posted but it's been buried.
i sized down 2 on both of these, from 32 to 30. both are 30x32 one washes on the same guy (me). keep in mind the straight legs had been worn and soaked while the lows are fresh outta the box.
the low straights in the same size were waaaaaay tighter in the top block and thigh and you can see the taper on the LS. my low straights sized down 1 (31) (from a page or 2 back) were much closer in fit to the straight legs down 2 (30).
here is a link to the original post with various sizes and cuts
it's post 3970. i can't get this damn hyperlink to work right
straight legs are on top, low straights on bottom
grundletaint, so you wear a 30/31 in Low Straight but a 32 in Slim Bootcut? Are the Slim Bootcut not vanity sized as well (a tagged 32 actually measures 32")?
Separate names with a comma.