how do you rock 'em jeans? : Fit Pics & Description

Originally Posted by hendrix

Click to expand...

disagree with others saying you should wear them low. Looks much better worn closer to the natural waist. Slouching only works with slim/skinny jeans - even then i don't really like the look.

re the creases - the denim will stretch in the places where it's tight, and not stretch so much where it's loose. after all, isn't that the main point of raw denim, that it conforms to your body?
1stly, before slim/skinny, kids used to slouch baggy. 2ndly, KMW 1950s are 50's based cut which are usually worn a bit loose/comfort fit. 3rdly, Garmis' body type kinda skewed the proportion because of his large thighs and calves, as compared to his waist. hence, i suggested for him to size back up__ he downsized to a W32 ... you don't just downsize on these suckers. .

with regards to the butt creasing on the 5000bk, he either size down from those or wear them a bit lower. they're no raw anymore [washed a couple of times] and no more shrinkage anywhere, so tendency of this vx denim at this point is to stretch out.

Originally Posted by y7bbb6

Click to expand...

PS 25? how much do yo weigh?

I don't own an accurate scale but last time I got a physical I believe I was 126. Don't let APC's vanity sizing fool you though, my true waist is 27.5

Originally Posted by IIIrd Icon

Click to expand...

1stly, before slim/skinny, kids used to slouch baggy. 2ndly, KMW 1950s are 50's based cut which are usually worn a bit loose/comfort fit. 3rdly, Garmis' body type kinda skewed the proportion because of his large thighs and calves, as compared to his waist. hence, i suggested for him to size back up__ he downsized to a W32 ... you don't just downsize on these suckers. .

with regards to the butt creasing on the 5000bk, he either size down from those or wear them a bit lower. they're no raw anymore [washed a couple of times] and no more shrinkage anywhere, so tendency of this vx denim at this point is to stretch out.

you do if they don't fit your waist.

He got the 1950s as opposed to the 1980s or rockers because he has large thighs and calves. the cut of these jeans IMO is designed with a slightly higher rise to be worn higher up, closer to the natural waist. if the 1950s fit at the waist but are still too tight at the thighs and calves, then it's not the right cut for him. If he wanted a relaxed fit with a low rise, he should've got the 2010s.

Originally Posted by garmis

Click to expand...

I am 6' 190 lbs.
Raw KMW 32x34. Though just two sizes down, they fit noticeably tighter than my 34s--and the seat area is all screwed up. What causes that terrible creasing? My theory is the low back rise.
These fit well/a bit loose in the waist (they have stretched to 34 inches) but are constricting everywhere else.

Those are the right size. I am the same size as you and wear 32x34 1950s. Once the ass stretches and relaxes a little bit you will get the "anti-fit" look going and everything will look great.

Originally Posted by shaftoe

Click to expand...

Those are the right size. I am the same size as you and wear 32x34 1950s. Once the ass stretches and relaxes a little bit you will get the "anti-fit" look going and everything will look great.


Well, I like this thought but I have worn these quite a bit--4-5 times a week for about 4 months now and I think they may have reached their stretching limit. The jeans really are comfortable, but that ass crease is just unacceptable. I am starting to realize my body type will not allow slim-fitting pants. I mean, ****** IS HUGE. Just big. Everybody says so. I wouldn't be surprised if I had the biggest ass on this forum! That coupled with very large thighs and 16-17 inch calves (measure yours and compare) leave my TTS options limited. I think the Samurai S5000s come close to working.

That all said, IIIrdIcon gave me some great tips on some fuller cuts with more relaxed top blocks. I don't think rise is the issue, rather it's the room in the top block (thigh and seat). I either have to resort to sizing up x2 (as evident in the fit of my 1950 34s--a much more flattering fit IMO) or I have to opt for a different cut. At TTS, the 1950 is not meant for me. And if I'm not mistaken, the 2010 certainly isn't--it's top block is slimmer no?

Originally Posted by garmis

Click to expand...

Well, I like this thought but I have worn these quite a bit--4-5 times a week for about 4 months now and I think they may have reached their stretching limit. The jeans really are comfortable, but that ass crease is just unacceptable. I am starting to realize my body type will not allow slim-fitting pants. I mean, ****** IS HUGE. Just big. Everybody says so.
Awww! My heart broke a little. Serious. I can hear your frustration, but appreciate when a guy can accept what he got dealt. I'm stymied as to why. Yeah, they're as stretched out as they're gonna get. Having had the 1950s, I know they're a 'vintage' interpretation, but those are far from a true high-rise full-leg cut. I think more diversification is needed. What's probably happening is that the top block is okay, and maybe even the rise, but the slimmer thigh dimension in relation to the back rise is pulling the material up and in...IMO, you need a more generous cut in the upper thigh, not the hips. You can see how Evisu resolves this in the pic below: Have you considered researching LVC cuts? The '44 cut is one of their fullest, as are some of the pre-'44 (maybe even the slimmer '47 worn one or two up?). Full but not baggy. Note: I highly recommend you check these ^ Lot 1's out too.

Originally Posted by garmis

Click to expand...

Well, I like this thought but I have worn these quite a bit--4-5 times a week for about 4 months now and I think they may have reached their stretching limit. The jeans really are comfortable, but that ass crease is just unacceptable. I am starting to realize my body type will not allow slim-fitting pants. I mean, ****** IS HUGE. Just big. Everybody says so. I wouldn't be surprised if I had the biggest ass on this forum! That coupled with very large thighs and 16-17 inch calves (measure yours and compare) leave my TTS options limited. I think the Samurai S5000s come close to working.

That all said, IIIrdIcon gave me some great tips on some fuller cuts with more relaxed top blocks. I don't think rise is the issue, rather it's the room in the top block (thigh and seat). I either have to resort to sizing up x2 (as evident in the fit of my 1950 34s--a much more flattering fit IMO) or I have to opt for a different cut. At TTS, the 1950 is not meant for me. And if I'm not mistaken, the 2010 certainly isn't--it's top block is slimmer no?

Originally Posted by shaftoe

Click to expand...

Those are the right size. I am the same size as you and wear 32x34 1950s. Once the ass stretches and relaxes a little bit you will get the "anti-fit" look going and everything will look great.

Well. I thought those were new. If you've been wearing them for four months I can see that they won't work for you.

mlyngard and shaftoe, thank you so much for the valuable input so far. I think the thigh measurement is indeed the culprit. My 1950 34s have a 13 inch thigh, compared to a 12 inch thigh on the 32s. Those Evisus seem ideal, unfortunately the $350 tag deters me.

As for LVC, I have just begun researching this somewhat nebulous line. So much info out there it's overwhelming--I look forward to looking at Mauro's offering of the 1944 501.

^got nothing against Levi's. 'got an old 501s [Valencia-made :: 555 :: '98 reproduction] and that's all the Levi's/LVC i'll ever need. it's like a route that you take to/from work each & everyday__ nothing more to reveal, imo. on the other hand, there's a ton of denim jeans out there waiting for you to discover.

i was just @BiG website and they still have your size on the FC 0105C which are ltd production [BiG exclusive] like my 1108Cs. they are '53 cut ... generous leg & trunk space. check out the FC Contest thread on SuFu for fit and jaw-dropping evos.

here's from some1 w/similar built [Mr HaGa's entry] :: pls scroll down.
http://mynudies.com/forums/showthrea...t=4342&page=21

so this could be really cool: http://denimdebate.com/

Originally Posted by garmis

Click to expand...

so this could be really cool: http://denimdebate.com/

Might also try http://www.makeyourownjeans.com/

Denim Debate looks good.

I washed my RRL straights the other day, after wearing for 6 months straight.

I walk heaps and these wore worn pretty hard.

Essentially I got very little fade at all, these things are dyed heavy.

My Edwin slim straight buckle backs faded hardcore when I washed them through, was expecting something similar.

Oh well, just have to **** them even harder. I want these to be my faded washed out jawnz.

Some straight up jean fits: APC New Standard size 30 EP's Smith size 30 Eternal 811 size 31 Momotaro 0701 size 32 Skull 5010 Black raw size 32

^'appreciate the contribution, sir. 'hope you can find time to put in a brief description of each, how you sized them, and measurements. it'd be a big service to ppl interested to know .... and maybe [much later on] edit in evo update right below your posted pix [for ez access/referencing].

spurr pipe legs TTS 32 after about a year waist is about 17.5 now, hemmed to 33