Yesterday, my Chimala buckle-backs came in from the Farinelli's flash sale. (They were on my doorstep on Saturday, but I was not home.) They are very nice jeans. I like the detailing and the fit. Chimala advertises these jeans as "relaxed fit." Yet, when comparing their measurements, I find they are the a little smaller than Nudie RRDS's with the same size waistband, and have about the same rise. (I expect, like the RRDS's, they will stretch out a bit.) The KMW 1950 and Earnest Sewn Fulton.50 are also similar in size above the knee. Likewise, a made-in-1998 (and heavily worn since then) Helmut Lang "Vintage Classic Denim: Boot Cut" have a similar rise and measurement through to the knee. (The 'Mut "Boot Cuts" taper more from the knee to the hem than the newer jeans!) When I bought those HL's, they were considered skinny jeans! Jeans to jeans, they are also considerably smaller/tighter than the other jeans I bought, in PRPS's "Impala" fit. (Farinelli's did not have measurements for those.) Those jeans, along with Rogan Original cut and others, are more my definition of "relaxed fit." I work out a little, but not much. Are the KMW 1950, vintage Helmut Lang, Earnest Sewn Fulton and such really considered "relaxed fit" today, or did Chimala lose something in translation? NOTE: this post is not a "complaint." The measurements were there, after all, and the jeans are great. They fit me as well as many of my other favorites do! And chances are they will stretch a bit all around. But "relaxed fit," subjective though it may be, does not seem appropriate to me.