jstavrin

Going to the Alden store in SF tomorrow to get sized and possibly buy a pair of 405s. Can't wait. If only they had a better selection of boots...

even the regular 405s are a big step up from the GTs.

What makes you say that? Not challenging you, I'm just curious.

Thanks for the comparison shots.

Yeah, the Ultimates look better, but it's still a difficult decisions. I like the 405s, but I almost feel like I'm getting less "boot" for the money than I did with my RW GTs.

the regular 405s are built to the trubalance standards not the alden new england standards. so the general craftsmanship is better, you wont see welt stitching going beyond the welt or uneven stitching and such. along with full leather lining, leather sole with commando half sole and better and darker leather. They're quite a step up. I still just got the regular 405s, maybe one day I'll get the ultimates.

Interesting. I wasn't even considering a pair until I was able to make a decent amount of money by selling a bunch of my old shit. I'd really only be spending 150 to get the ultimates...Tough decision.

How much higher quality are the "ultimate" Indy boots? It doesn't seem like many people in this thread get them over the 405s.

Okay, so I think i'm going to bite the bullet on some Alden 405s.

I could go to the San Francisco store to buy them, but is there a place online that sells them cheaper? I may just go to the store to get them sized then buy them elsewhere, but maybe there is some advantage to buying them from the store.

Alden 405. You can get them for 300.

Is the next step up from the 405s much more expensive? I'm willing to pay an extra 100 for a better boot. The bottom of the 405s look like there isn't much traction.

Wow, lots of fantastic looking boots in this thread.

Can someone recommend some nice brown lace-up boots for 300 dollars or below? I have RW GTs in black, which I love. Something similar would be nice.

Personally, I would't. All you need is patience- you shouldn't even be thinking about the fades now, just enjoy the new jean look.

A soak will have got at least 60% of the shrinkage out of the way. Cone, who make the denim, reckon you shou;dn't stick them in the dryer, either. I would just keep wearing them for another 4 months and they'll come good.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just getting impatient and wouldn't mind if if they fit a little more snugly.

Been wearing these since March. One hot soak.

It doesn't seem like they've changed much. I'm considering just giving them a machine wash+dry to shrink them more because they currently fit pretty lose which I feel is slightly inhibiting the fades. What do you guys think?

What shirt is this? It looks great.

What's the deal with leg twist? I've only had my LVC 1947s for about a month and the left leg has already shifted a lot.

What are you guys looking under to find these photos?

When people wash their jeans, do they literally just throw them in the wash and hang dry? I always thought the best method was to do it by hand.

Didnt you say that you want them to fit loose? A hot soak will shrink them a little more,but a 60° wash ( dont spin,unless you want crinkles all over the place ) will get nearly all the shrinkage out.

I do, I just feel like I should get all of the shrinkage out before I get them hemmed.

I just did the initial cold soak for my LVC 1947s, but I'm wondering how much more they'll shrink with a hot soak? I like the way they fit around my legs, but they're a bit loose in the waist and way too long (seems like I should get all the shrinkage out before I get them hemmed).

Nice pair,Blackbeard.Get the zipper replaced,they deserve lots mor abuse!

BeautifulFreak,dont worry about the waist,it always stretches,and to jstavris:

this is how a 47 tagged W34 fits on me:

http://

They measured 33 raw.After several washes at 60°C they are a tad over 33 now.Btw,I usually buy a 32 in most jeans,so if you want a similar fit the 34 is your size.

Shit, that isn't at all how I wanted them to fit. I was hoping they'd be looser.

EDIT: Do you think I'd be okay if I just didn't wash them initially?

I bit the bullet and decided on ordering a size 34x38 pair of the 1947s. I sized up two to compensate for shrinkage and a slightly looser fit and sized up in length to again, compensate for shrinkage. I can get them hemmed so I'd rather they were too long.

Did I make the right choice?

1947 sizing, s/s 2007 season:

For a 32W 32L pair of 1947, dimensions are as follows:

Waist 32, Rise 12, L32, Leg opening 17, Seat 20 1/4, Thighs 20

For comparison, the 1933:

W33 R12 1/2, L31, LO 18 1/2, St 20 1/2 Th 21 1/2

And the 1955:

W35, R12, L31, LO 17, St 20 3/4, Th 21 1/2

I will post the whole chart on my website.... when I have a moment.

How do I know if I'm getting these or not? I have to purchase my 47s from Cultizm (getting them on an exchange), so is it generally known which era 47s they sell?

You'll just have to think of this as an interesting historical quirk! It's what happened on the originals.

No, it didn't really happen on my Lees, not

sure why as they sure shrank 10 per cent.

Sizing details here:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=21386&page=6

Okay, keeping that in mind is it safe to assume that I can size up two for a looser fit? Or will that not effect the thigh size at all?

Okay, so I think I've decided on the LVC1947. Would sizing up two (i think I have a 31'' waist, but generally wear a 32), to 34 be ideal for a slightly looser fit? I already have fairly slim jeans and I don't want this pair to be tight in the thighs (i've been hitting the gym so leg size has been increasing).

Can someone educate me on LVC 1967 505 jeans? I originally wanted to get the 1955 501s, but I can't find my size (32x36).

As far as the 1967s go, are they at all similar? I like that the 1955s aren't tight (like the 47s seem to be). Should I size them in any particular way?

The dude who posted pictures of his look great by the way.

EDIT: I think i've settled on the 1967. I don't want them to fit tight (again, i prefer the 1955). Should I just size them normally?

EDIT 2: Are 1947s actually that tight, or do people just size them down that way? Could I get a comparable fit to the 1955?

Day 3...

I'm surprised at how little interest there is in these jeans.

Anyone?

Day 2 bump.

what did the inseam shrink up to?

EDIT: Measured again, and it's almost exactly 32.5 inches.