setterman

6 hours ago, aho said:

http://item.rakuten.co.jp/hinoya/dd-1004xx/

Fit of the DD-1004XX looking good on Hinoya....Surprised that the DD-1003SXX wasn't as slim as I thought it'd be, but awaiting some fit pictures

Comparing the measurements on WH's site, size 36 OW 1003SXX sure looks an awful lot like what they expect the raw 1101 to shrink down to.

they fray from removing the stitching that holds them down. same thing happened on my 1003XX.  probably unavoidable.  

3 hours ago, edmond said:

Can i see the fit on the butt?

I figured you were the guy who already requested the arcs photo......

1 hour ago, JDelage said:

That's unfortunate because the waist is already loose on my pair of 33. That's what belts are for I guess.

Contact me if you're looking to part with them. Have a friend that may be interested.

So, what's your next pair of WH going to be Max? 

9 hours ago, Sugar Mountain said:

Pretty sure it's ''just'' the standard 14.5oz 6x6 denim.

My 1101 arrived yesterday and are being put through a couple of washes before I start to wear them. Learned from experience with the 1001 (plus Setterman's sage advice) that the banner denim needs a couple of runs through the washing machine before the inseam shrink is done. Ordered direct from WH and nothing has been removed from the back pockets . They're an awesome pair of jeans. Photos soon!

Will be interested to see pictures and measurements.  Went back and looked at these on WH's site and see that they expect them to shrink 2 cm in the thigh, which would put a size 36 at it at 13.5".  Not sure why I thought these would be 13.75" (too big) post wash.  Oh well, hopefully they're still in stock in my size a few months from now.      

On 2/1/2017 at 11:31 AM, SuperJackle said:

Thanks setterman. So it sounds like an all around more "fitted" pattern. 

Depends on your build. With my lack of hips and ass, I find the 800 and old 1003XX (same pattern as 1000) more fitted above the thigh than the 1001.  

1 minute ago, SuperJackle said:

Apologies if this answer is more readily found in the thread, but I could find a direct answer; is the leg opening of the 1001 smaller than the 1000 but all other measurements relatively the same?

Little less rise and thigh on the 1001 and more rounded through the hips and seat, where the 1000 is more square.  Unless the 1000 is skin tight on you, you shouldn't have any issue wearing the 1001 in the same size.    

7 minutes ago, MileHighEvertonian said:

Just a passing question (I'm not in the market for these, but everyone's excitement is a bit infectious): why the heck did they totally fry the leather patches? My google translation suggests something about "daring to get vintage texture." But wouldn't you get an aged leather patch the same way as the denim, but wearing and washing and using them. It strikes me as odd to pre-distress the patch like that. Just curious.

I think they're going for the "I found an old pair of hardly worn jeans" look, where a couple washes and 70 years of time have taken a toll on the patch.  Personally, I'd prefer they'd left it alone.

As for the differences (cut wise) between the '43, '45, and '47, it looks like they get progressively wider and less tapered as you go from older to newer.  Won't know for sure until we see measurements, but I'm willing to bet the two WWII models are 1/4" narrower in the thigh in the same tagged size compared to the '47.  

If we're going to compare them to current models, my guess would be that the '43 is closer to the 800 (though slightly more tapered), and the '45 is closer to the 1000.  Wish they took better fit pictures, and cuffed the jeans higher or hemmed them to get rid of the slop at the ankle.         

11 hours ago, aho said:

DAMN I'm glad I waited, both of the WWII models look EXCELLENT. Can't decide if I'll go '43 or '45 as I like a looser fit and the arcs on the '45, but also wouldn't mind a slim WWII to mix things up...

One of the translations I read makes it sound like those '43s are a copy of a vintage pair. I hope that's the case, and it's not "Hey, lets make these slimmer and sell more jeans".  If a vintage pair, I wonder if the slimmer fit is a one off, a customization by the owner, or a trait of a certain factory and common for the jeans they were making.

39 minutes ago, cusswords said:

More Duck Digger products have hit the Warehouse site including a new jacket made with the banner denim and 1943 and 45 models made with the 14.5oz denim.

http://info.ware-house.co.jp/newitem/dd2/

Will be interested to see the measurements on the '43 1003SXX, look a little slimmer than the '45 and '47 models.  

Pretty sure you want to wash with cold water, and asap, to get blood out. 

Some pictures of my 1001 before giving them another wash. And the wear at the knees/thighs opening up post wash. Got about a 9 to 10" section of the left leg that needs darned, 4 to 5" on the right, and whiskers on both side. 

At 424 days of wear, 13 washes. Going to store them until the weather warms in April, and then get some final wear in before the DWC ends.

7 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Good choice SM, I've been coveting those for a while now though I'd need to shift a few pairs before I could justify a new purchase. The measurements on the Warehouse site suggest that you'd need to size down one on the 1101 compared to the usual Watehouse fit due to the bigger waist. Did you do this?

If you're a size 34 or smaller, you could probably drop down a size since the thighs on the 1101 are bigger than on the 1001, and the waist stretches so easy.

I'd like a pair of the 1101, but pretty sure I'd wind up constantly washing them to keep a size 36 as small as possible.  A 35 would work if it was available....   

Yeah, but not a fan of how their LHT denim fades.

Excellent fit!  Glad to see some other guys here with this model.  

Had mine on last night for the first time in a while, and some weight loss has definitely helped the fit. Still could use a little more rise, but they're livable.  

22 hours ago, setterman said:

Thanks!  Three washes so far, and a little dryer time after the first one.  They've lost 2.5" which is usually about it for the 1000XX denim.  Will give them a warm wash and dryer time next time around.  

Wasn't planning on washing the 800s again last night, but after I put the dog in the tub after his afternoon run and found a tick crawling on him, I threw them in the wash.  They've been horrible the past 8 months (toward the end of hunting season I found 13 crawling on the dog after a trip to the field, and found multiples on him every time we hunted), and the last thing I want is one getting onto my jeans and then on to me and giving me Lyme disease.  

Didn't lose any more inseam with a warm wash and some time in the dryer on high, so 2.5" of shrinkage is it.

Not something I can capture with my photo, but what I'm seeing leads me to believe the texture Aho's gets with his jeans is achieved with early, multiple washing.  

after briefly having had a pair 101s, I'd love the chance to wear in a pair of SDA, but the rise on all their models is nonsense.

Thanks!  Three washes so far, and a little dryer time after the first one.  They've lost 2.5" which is usually about it for the 1000XX denim.  Will give them a warm wash and dryer time next time around.  

800s. Inseam is at 32". If they don't lose another 1/4 to 1/3" with another wash, I think I'll get them hemmed. They're ok as is with boots, but I think they'd have to be cuffed with sneakers in the summer. 

6 hours ago, ironheartfan123 said:

how are ppl sizing on the DD-1001xx? would i be same size as in the 1003xx?

Looking at WH's sizing info, they appear to run small in the waist, ala the 2012 1001XX.  I tried the 2012 model in a one wash size 36, and the waist was cutting me in two.  I wear a 36 in most of WH's models, if I wanted the new 1001XX I'd probably get a 38.     

33 minutes ago, aho said:

^Understandable! I prefer jeans on the looser side, which I find more comfortable, and honestly prefer "saggy ass" and "hip flare" which happens to line up with historicity. Paraphrasing and agreeing with what you've enumerated many times before; If you don't find jeans comfortable and won't wear them anyway, don't wear or buy them!

 

Curious though, what have you been leaning towards recently, fit wise?

 

 

Just picked up those 800s, and those are it for me.  Would like maybe 1/4" less front rise, or the belt loops set a little higher up, to cut down on waistband rolling over the belt. Other than that, they're about ideal.  If I weren't still wearing my 1001 two days a week for the DWC, I'd be wearing the 800s every day. 

So what am I leaning toward?  Regular straight, with sufficient rise.  Something that works with everything in the wardrobe, and if the cuff isn't turned up to display the selvedge, no one would think to look at them twice.   

1 hour ago, aho said:

But you're right; it's all the details that are finally coming together in a  "perfect" "new" model (even if it's essentially similar to the "last" 1001XX released, aka the first pair in 2012

I guess that's part of my issue.  I understand wanting a combo of features, but having had experience with that model (2012 1001XX), I don't find it flattering or comfortable.  And I don't think it looks very good in the fit pix WH has posted so far (hip flair, with a side of ass eats jeans).

I guess I've reached the point where historicity and details don't preempt fit and comfort.  My days of buying jeans that are 1/2" big in the thigh because they represent a certain historical era is over.  

Ed, those are most likely from 2014 when they did three different versions of the 1003XX. All were made of the 1000XX denim.

I know my Instagram feed is a little warehouse-centric, but kinda surprised at the amount of excitement I'm seeing there over the new 1001XX. Don't quite get the appeal, but I guess it's probably all the desired features (40s cut and details, banner denim, arcs and red tab) all together in one jean.

Yes, that is an old lot number they've used for jeans with Lee details. Current one has WWII lee details, but I think earlier 1002s have mimicked different eras (late 40 or early 50s)