setterman

7 hours ago, Max Power said:

Looking great! I never had rips in those areas so far. Will you get them mended, leave them as they are or retire the jeans? I think it looks great as it is, like a medal for hard wear.

Thanks!

i believe the wear and tear there comes from sitting with my legs crossed.  that would explain why the left wears more and faster than the right. 

Not sure what I'll do post DWC. Probably wear until they have to be fixed. They're the only really worn pair of jeans I have that aren't huge on me, so don't want to destroy or retire them.

Only worn these three days since the beginning of February. Hopefully the cold weather is over, and I can wear these another 20 times by the end of April. A bit threadbare for cold windy weather. They tighten up nice with a wash, but they're pretty beat and get stretched and sloppy after a days wear and hang at the hips. 

WH 1001, just under 430 days of wear.

On 3/22/2017 at 1:59 PM, TheJPdude said:

I noticed that the denim was not softening up as well. I've had them on my body literally every day since I got them, and they're just now starting to relax. The upshot is that they are now starting to get a little hint of whiskering only 3 weeks or so in. I've done my best to be active in these (played some outdoor hockey in them, walked around the city a lot) so maybe that helps.

The waist wasn't a matter of stiffness, but a lack of give.  The top fly button and waistband button aren't too far away from each other.  Between their mutual support of each other, and the tighter weave of the denim, there's a lot less give than what I'm used to with LVC and Warehouse, and reminds me of my old SDA 101s and Valencia St 551ZXX.

The denim is much stiffer than we're used to with LVC.  But IIRC, after a couple times through the washer and dryer my 78s started softening up.  That stiffness, tighter weave, and less stretchiness is what I've kinda always expected outta the post war LVC 501s.  

18 hours ago, mrman said:

I get what you mean but you could also argue that how many desk jockeys need a pair of >300$ jeans or should they settle for a pair of Uniqlo.

Who spends $300 on jeans anymore?  Isn't most stuff below $240 now?    

I guess my point is there's boots for actually doing things, and then there's dress boots.  My Red Wings are my "do anything boot" where they fill multiple roles and I'm not worried about mud, dirt, water, and shit.  I'd think most Viberg owners are going to be a bit more careful (rightfully so) with their investment.  So whether you're the newbie guy in RW talking out your ass about them, or the guy with the high end customs that still look brand new after 2 years, to compare a $260 boot you're going to wear the heck out of vs a $700 one you're going to pamper isn't really fair or logical.  They're two different things. 

25 minutes ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

@setterman I would find it similar stupid though to buy 500-1200$ boots just to wreck them in a couple of months

 

Oh, I don't think they'd be wrecked in a couple months.  If you're doing the kind of work that for example requires a boot like Wesco, they're probably a good investment.  But, odds are if you're hanging around here you're probably not doing the type of work that requires a boot like that, and you're just playing dress up in some expensive footwear.  And if you like them, or their style or how they fit, that's fine.  I'm just tired of this idea that stuff has to cost an astronomical amount or it's not worth a damn.   

Yeah, I like my 875s.  Soles are junk, but they make a nice casual boot and I like moc-toes.  If I was at the beginning of my dog's hunting career rather than closing in on the end, I'd consider getting a pair of 10877s and getting them resoled with a more aggressive tread.  

What I've always found amusing is guys dropping $500 to $1200 on a pair of boots so they can look like a tough brute man while they're sitting at their desk at work.  They're not working construction, welding, or running a factory press. They don't farm, they don't log, they don't hunt, they don't ride a motorcycle, they may not even have a yard to take care of, but they have an expensive pair of custom boots that they hope makes them look like they do.   

Undo the bottom button. You're just supposed to use the middle three. 

On 8/3/2016 at 9:26 PM, itsbenhere said:

Red wings just never appealed to me... they look cheesy to me, I'm not sure how they looked when they first came around, they're pretty old right?

 

Something like Whites or Wesco or brands like that seem to reflect the idea of heritage quality workwear a lot better to me.

If you're referring to the 877/875, they started life as an upland bird hunting boot. That means light and meant for a lot of walking, with a tread that preferably doesn't pick up a lot of mud. Guys picked up on them as a work boot later on.

The guys from WH might be at Pronto's denim carnival. 

8 hours ago, mousemouse said:

thanks for the quick reply setterman! I will go for the lot. 1000 then. From what I read Warehouse 1000xx denim shrinks a normal amount right? I mean I wear a 33 in SC and most other brands except for the Evisu no.1 denim which shrank a ton. I have a 34 which is even tighter in the waist than all my size 33 pairs from other brands.

 

 

i wear a size 36 in the SC47 and WH 1000. The 1000 will have a little bigger waist and a little narrower leg than the SC47. I'd double check WH's measurements, but I'd expect you'd wear a 33 in the 1000.

1000 will be the corresponding WH model to go along with the other brands/models you mentioned. 

1976 fit after a little bit of wear. Waistband was just not giving, so I squirted it with some water and then it stretched it by hand. This stretched it out to a more comfortable measurement that's  a little closer to raw.

6 hours ago, Max Power said:

They look really great, for me their one of the true winners of the competition (which means I think they'll loose to a high contrast IH).

Yeah, I think you're right when it comes to the over all winner (most likely high contrast IH).  But IMO, some of the best jeans are in the mid weight class.  

cultizm seems reasonably accurate. Best bet is to ask here, or call a Levis store. 

I don't think it will be a weak spot, but as you can see from your photos, it is going to fade differently (it's already a different shade of blue), and there will be a noticeable spot there as they fade. In your first photo it almost looks like there's a heavier line at the left side as chatter starts.  I have that across one of the back pockets of my 1001s, and across both lower legs of my 1002s.  Not a big deal on either because it's just one line of chatter, and not all that noticeable on the 1001s. We'll see with the 1002s since it's not really a high wear area.  Where it's at on your 800s is a high wear area, and there's a lot of it. If you're fine with it, then don't worry about it.  If it were me (and after all the jeans I've bought there), even on sale, "all sales final", and after all this time, I'd still give them a call to see about an exchange or store credit.  And at the very least to let them know they might want to inspect their jeans a little better. In their position, I wouldn't want to be sending someone jeans with that much "character".    

Doesn't matter IMO. They have a fairly large flaw, that wouldn't become obvious until washing.  If BiG and Warehouse are the type of companies we all believe them to be, I don't think they would want him wearing them.  

Yeah, that's more than a little loom chatter, that's a defect.  I'd be contacting WH directly and see about returning them.  

edit: Had to go back and see what model those are, 800s you got at BiG.  I've had multiple pairs of jeans made of the 1000XX denim, and never had anything resembling that.  Some chatter in the 1001 denim, but nothing covering that large of an area.  I'd contact BiG and have them replace them, and then they can take it up with Warehouse.  

The 660, 800, 1000, and current 1003XX and 1003SXX all use the same 14.5oz 1000XX denim.  There is no 14 oz 1000XX denim.  

Something I've noticed with the standard '76, the denim reminds me of what SDA uses in their 101.  The Cone denim is lighter weight and far less dark, but they both have a similar feel.  And they start with a tighter weave, that just gets tighter and more dense when shrunk.  Doesn't feel like they'll breath as well as other jeans, and will naturally be more stiff without adding more starch to the mix.  And like SDA, they don't seem like they're going to have as much give at the waist as some of us might be used to with other brands.    

I'm pretty pleased with these.  My favorite pair out of all the LVC models I've owned, and while not big E, IMO should be the flagship of the LVC 501 line up.   

I certainly hope my 76s don't lose any more inseam. They're short enough. Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure my 78s started with a 34" inseam, and I had to have them hemmed to get them to the 31.5" the 76s are already at.

as for thread color, according to Dr Heech's excellent thrifters thread at denimbro, the cooper orange was the more common color in the 70s, and the only color by the end of the decade. I wonder if lvc using any lemon yellow in the 78s was correct.

Yeah, I'd give them a gentle wash, or let them soak for a half hour. They probably have a little further to go, but I wouldn't expect the inseam to shrink 3". 2.5" is the most I've seen out of lvc the past five or six years. 

On 3/4/2017 at 4:30 PM, JDelage said:

All - looking for a cold weather coat. What do you think?

Of the two jackets, I prefer the looks of the Filson jacket.  Should be very durable, and probably the warmer of the two jackets.  

When it comes to deck jackets, I prefer the original style (not modern takes) and would recommend Buzz or McCoys.  My experience with the Buzz jackets is if you live south of I-70, get the standard version, north get the heavier Demotex version.  Beware, they'll have their design flaws. They were meant to be worn over deck pants, so to get the proper fit in the chest/shoulder/armpits it may be roomy in the lower torso and let in some cold air.  You can tighten the drawstring, but that will make the waistband rope like on the hem of a pair of jeans, and like the hem it will wear.  I have a few tiny holes in the waist band of my Buzz N-1 after two winters of not especially heavy wear.     

Leather jacket jacket were mentioned. When it comes to sheepskin, I'd go with the B-6. The B-3 is so damn heavy, and only comfortable in the coldest of weather.  And you'll roast wearing it in a car.  If you must have a heavier sheepskin jacket, I'd go with the AN-J-4, it seems like a more practical fit/design than the B-3.  I had a redskin ELC B-6 years ago, and if I got another I'd get the version made of the darker sheepskin. It's softer, will break in easier, and fit better (and keep out the cold air better).     

Losing an inch in back rise is normal, but front rise is usually 1/2 to 3/4".

not sure why they're marketing this jean as "slim". Waist is the only narrow part about it. And thankfully it's already starting to stretch. Any smaller, and I couldn't wear these. Tag says expect 2" in waist and inseam shrink. I say expect 2 to 2 1/2".

Still damp after a warm gentle wash and 15 minutes in the dryer. Looks like they shrank pretty hard.

36x34 1976s

Waist, 36" after stretching. At one point looked like they were under 35"

front rise 12"

back rise 15"

thigh 13 3/8"

inseam 31.5"

leg opening 8 1/2"

Of note, the right leg didn't twist at all (like both on the 78s), but left leg twisted a fair amount.