erk

I think that looks fine. I would not try for a larger size. Keep it!

A vintage cut type 3 is gonna have a shorter body and shorter arms than a modern jacket. I’d say if it fits you in the shoulders and body then keep it. I feel like the first pic posted is how the jacket should fit. The other two are on the small side. 

They’ve landed

1955 in 32x34 raw measurements

W 16.75

Th 12.5

In 33.75

Kn 9.5

Hm 8.25

Fr 12.75

Br 16

For warehouse and tcb I’d buy direct from warehouse or tcb web shop. Don’t know enough about full count. 

1 hour ago, jsky808080 said:

i agree on the shorter fit - i'm only 5'7 so works better for me too. i'm after a type II as well - and want to try warehouse/FC version as like the subtlety from those 3 brands

my dad has an old beaten levi's thats got to be 30+ years old..i'll see if i can dig it out next time i'm home 

 

I don’t think the shorter length needs to correlate with shorter height of the wearer. My belief is that the jacket will look vintage and correct if it is short. If it is long it’ll look silly and modern. Silly in my opinion because these jackets were originally designed to be short. You shouldn’t be able to wear a proper jean jacket without your shirt tucked in - imho

love those warehouse type 2s. One day...

I went ahead and went for a new pair of LVC. First new pair of LVC since I discovered TCB and got rid of all my collection that didn’t fit any more. 

I had wanted to try the ‘66 for the first time but those back pockets are just so big. So I went with what I know I like - 1955 

7 hours ago, diggers said:

helo guys,

i want to know, about 1920s sizing?  1920s Jeans is True size or Up/Down size?

I got mine true to measured size. That’s as tight as I’d go on the 20s. 

Here it is. I’ll try to convince the misses to get a decent pic of me wearing it. 

a teaser from instagram on the jackets debut in NC. Still havent had a chance for real photos. 

new job - same jeans. watch out world. 

I’ll try and take some real pics this weekend  

8 minutes ago, Petez said:

I am intending to get a pair of 1954 size 32! Anyone experienced the 1954 size 32?, the original measure of 32.5 inches right now, if I want a 33 inch waist (after soaking and wearing),

can I choose this size pair?

Will they shrink? or stretch?

they'll stretch back out to 32.5 fairly easily but if you're looking for a 33 its gonna be tight. I'd look at the rise and thigh measurements and see where thats gonna put you. you're gonna lose approximately 1/2" on the rise and thigh. 

also that cut is pretty slim to begin with. I think I'd go up to at least a 33. 

If it’s the right size it won’t feel long 

13 minutes ago, Planetarium said:

The time has come for me to admit that almost none of my shoes fit properly in the toe; they pinch like crazy and it's becoming more painful with age.

Here's the problem: I have a very strange foot shape and am not very tall. The proportions of my foot until you hit the toes, arch, width, etc are similar to that of someone with about an 8 sneaker size, but the length of my foot is only about a 6. I have extremely wide and flat toes that spread out in a nearly straight line like a damn Hobbit. We're talking over 4.5 inches on a foot that's 9.5 inches long. I wear dress socks inside a Tricker's Stow and it's still tight. The famously extra large RM Williams, even in a wide width, are something like .75 inches too narrow. It sucks.

I'm looking into getting some Indys in a EEE if they still stock those regularly, or custom Whites semi dress. Any other suggestions? Anything stock that's bulbous enough for my affliction? Should I be wearing Renn faire moccasins for the rest of my life?

Thanks for any suggestions

Have you ever had your foot measured on a brannock device by a competent shoe sales person or foot specialist? It sounds like you have a wide foot with a longer heel to ball measurement compared to heel to toe measurement. I have a similar issue in that my heel to toe is 10.5 and heel to ball is around 11.5-12. In this circumstance you need to size for the ball of your foot or else your fee will forever be cramped up in the front of your shoes.

if you get your foot measured make sure they do both measurements. 

Must be a sticky fingers fan 

Glad to see the white paint is wearing off appropriately. That’s something that has been holding me back on these. 

1 hour ago, erockisalive said:

They’re both 16.25?

Yeah. I believe the 34 probably shrunk to 16.25 after their last wash. I just put them away after the wash. The 32s have been worn since their last wash. 

20 minutes ago, Volgin said:

 were common in Europe apparently.

makes sense. 

 34 on the left

34 measures 16.25at the waist. These are way too big on me now tho so the waist wouldn’t have stretched any. Thigh is 12.5. Leg opening is 8.5

the 32 measures 16.25 across the top. Thigh is 12. Leg opening is 8.25. 

Both of these have been hot washed and dried to get maximum shrinkage. The 32 has been worn and the 34 was just washed and put away - saved for in case I gained weight again one day. So that may explain the waist measurement. The 34 would definitely stretch to 35 inches. 

I can measure my size 34 and 32 when I get home from work 

Great updates from everyone  

It continues to be too hot to wear jeans in NC. I’ve been wearing mine after work in the evening but there’s not a lot changing. 

I can see the second photo. They look great 

Slow and steady wins the race.