setterman

Hey guys,

I want to ask, which type of warehouse denim is the slimmest? 900 or 800? and which fabric has the best prospect to fade?

Cheers.

The 900 is the slimmest.  "Best" is subjective, but in my experience, it's easier to produce a higher contrast fade with the 1000XX denim the 800 is made out of.  The 1001 denim the 900 is made out off fades slower and with less contrast.

This is a very good example of how the 1001 denim fades.  I would guess these jeans have had close to a year of actual wear and been washed several times.    

 http://info.ware-house.co.jp/usedsample/74/

Yeah, surprised to hear you're having any sort of issue Max.  I have found though that if you aren't wearing jeans daily, the waist feels like it tightens up some if you're giving them some time off between wears. 

What’s your guys take on colored weft?

 

I have to admit I’m not a fan. I prefer the standard (bleached) white weft. I also like the natural cream color or light brown tone of unbleached cotton but heavily dyed weft yarns are not to my liking.

 

Indigo x indigo or indigo x black still seem to be very in vogue with brands and many of the more modern brands offer them (see Tanuki as an example which as a relative young brand also have an indigo x indigo denim already in their line-up).

My tastes mirror yours.  Though didn't Samurai do an Elements series a few years back, that had different colored weft? I remember liking one or two of those four models.  

Don't care much for most of the indigo x indigo jeans either, at least when cuffed.  Remind me too much of dress pants or khakis when you cuff them and there's the same color.  And other than PBJ's jeans, I've never cared for how the indigo x indigo jeans fade.      

I am at least as big as you Setterman and from my experience I''ve found that on a 36 everything with a front rise higher than 12 will be hard to wear for me as it will end to cut my belly in two... I am not interested in Tanuki but from measurements I can sense the cut Mike got would work perfectly for me.

We carry our weight differently.  I think it's fair to say Mike and my weight is distributed fairly evenly over our bodies, and you might carry your's a little more predominately in the middle.   

I'll also add that fit shows why I prefer more historical cuts for myself, and on other bigger guys.  With a lot of these modern cuts, the rise is lower, and the waist/top is very flat and square. On a size 36 (or even 34) on up, you need a rise over 12", with 4" difference between front and back rise, and a waist band that is narrower than the area below it down to about the bottom of the fly. The higher, narrower waist slims and gives some shape.  The further down on the hips they sit, the wider they make that area look.      

Here's me, RR1 (regular) size 36, unhemmed:

 

 

 

Mine are very new compared with Martin's. Denim is still crispy and unsettled.

Not trying to be critical or negative, because I think with a couple changes, they'll look very good.   

1, I'd wash them again to get rid of the starch, because right now they're a mess from the knee down.

2, Roll the cuff down one, or better yet, have them hemmed to a length about 2" longer than where you're currently wearing them.  As bigger guys, we need fits that lengthen and slim us.  The combo of low rise, wide waist, and high water cuff brings attention to the size difference between your ankles and your thighs, making your waist and thighs look wider.  Also makes your legs look shorter, which just adds to your waist looking wider.  Can't tell how tapered the leg is on these because of the messiness, but if they're as tapered as they appear, again, you want a longer inseam to stretch you out and put that narrow hem as far away as possible (without sloppy stacking) from your waist.  You want your legs to look longer and your upper body shorter, but wearing those jeans the way you are does the opposite. Tucking your shirt in with that low of a rise (and your buckle hanging out under your vest) also makes your upper body look longer and your legs shorter. 

As far as I know, the only difference is with the weight.  Patterns are the same. My 0105s are a 36.  Not sure I'd want them any smaller post wash, but they get pretty baggy after a few wears, and make me wonder if I should go with a 35 if I get another pair.  

Depends on the fit you want, but you could probably wear the 35.  

Having had the standard 0105 and the heavier BiG 0105C, I think I'd go for the heavier denim with any future purchases.  Both denims soften up quite a bit with some washes, almost too much for my liking with the standard denim.  The heavier denim stays closer to what you'd expect in a pair of jeans.    

I'm guessing that doesn't apply to the 1001?

Standard 1001 shrinks to roughly 31.5" / 80cm inseam.  

I believe models like the natural indigo 1001 had a little bit longer inseam.  

If someone wants a 33"+ inseam, their safest bet is the export models and the 660 from BiG.  

What can a new denim company do these days, product-wise, to really differentiate themselves in a positive way?

 

<snip>

 

The term "peak selvedge" as another user put it, is fucking hilarious to me, but the idea behind it seems to ring true in the current denim market which is so over-saturated with brands filling every niche and taste. 

Very little or nothing.  The market is over-saturated, and anyone starting a new denim brand now is attempting to capitalize on a ship that set sail a while ago.  I suspect the Japanese brands that have been around 20 or 30 years are going to be fine, because what they're doing has more to to with classic style rather than modern trends.  Any brand counting on things I'd consider to be gimmicks (over the top denim weight, slub, or details that really don't add anything to the jeans), or cuts that are seasonal rather than timeless, are going to find themselves in a bad spot.  I'd suspect a lot of these newer US brands are going to find themselves in trouble too.  All using similar leg shapes (and none of them particularly flattering IMO) with the same Cone denim, charging as much as or more than the Japanese brands, in a market where people now seem less inclined to spend over $200 on a pair of jeans.        

Retail scene in America is crazy right now.. I+W probably closing down, Unionmade just closed 2 of their stores, Reed Space closed down, and Carson Street Clothiers too.  Those are all fairly big names to be closing all within a 4 month period.

Not surprised to hear about I+W. Was in their Nashville shop in May, and there was minimal denim inventory, and just about all the non denim related items that had been there the prior spring were gone.  Didn't seem long for the world.  

x post from Warehouse thread. Click on photos for better resolution (especially the front side one).

345 days of wear into the 1001.  Wanted to hold out to 350 for a wash, but they were getting too stinky.

 

Wearing a lot like my LVC 55s, and that's not a good thing.  After this most recent wash, I can see they're getting thin above the left knee, in the same spot I eventually had to patch on the Levis, and I'd prefer to not have to patch or darn these there.  Planning on slowing down the amount of wear from here on out in the DWC.  Plan is to finish the contest at 450 days of wear.

 

 

  

345 days of wear into the 1001.  Wanted to hold out to 350 for a wash, but they were getting too stinky.

Wearing a lot like my LVC 55s, and that's not a good thing.  After this most recent wash, I can see they're getting thin above the left knee, in the same spot I eventually had to patch on the Levis, and I'd prefer to not have to patch or darn these there.  Planning on slowing down the amount of wear from here on out in the DWC.  Plan is to finish the contest at 450 days of wear.

Wet the waist band, and stretch by hand. should stretch a little easier while damp. And be careful not to pull too hard. Not as much give with a zip fly vs a button fly, and you could break the zipper.

I wear the same jeans year round, and between the depths of winter and the peak of summer there's about a 60 to 70 degree difference in the high temperature.

If you're going to be outside for an extended amount of time in sub-freezing weather, just put on long underwear.  No reason to have a specific pair of jeans for the winter, especially since most of us don't live our lives outdoors then, and if we do, there's better choices to wear other than heavy weight denim that loses its insulation properties when it gets wet.     

Wouldn't mind having one pair of jeans in the closet that looked sorta like that (not quite as washed out), but I'd prefer to get there on my own.  

I do think they've done a good job with the wash and producing a vintage looking pair of jeans (which generally don't look like what most of us, myself included, are producing here at sufu with our wash and wear routine).    

I don't know that I've ever seen a vintage photo of anyone wearing the Mister Freedom style double cuff with exposed chain stitch.  

50s denim style can be anything from a big cuff at the beginning of the decade, to floods toward the end, and anything in between.  I wore my 0105s with a large double cuff for a while, and I didn't feel like it suited me or the jeans, so I shortened them up. 

not liking this new no-cuff trend.

Why not? 

I think we've all gotten to the point where we don't need to announce the world "Look at me, I'm wearing selvedge".  And we all realize that a cuff doesn't work with every jean's leg shape, and every pair of shoes or boots we own.  And we all have large enough collections of jeans with different leg shapes, that we can step back and say "what shoes and shirts am I most likely to wear these jeans with?" and hem them to a length that is most flattering for that leg shape, and your body type when worn with those other clothing items.

And I think a historical fashion context should be thrown into the mix too.  No point in buying a jean that's heavily influenced by the jeans of a certain decade, and then not wearing them in era's style.  For me, that means my SC47s and WH 1003XX have a decent size double cuff, my WH late 40s 101Z have a medium single cuff, my FC 0105 have a small single cuff, my WH 1001 and LVC 551ZXX are both hemmed for no cuff.  My LVC 47's are also hemmed for no cuff, but that's because IMO that narrower leg shape looks better on me hemmed rather than cuffed.

Max's jeans look great as they are. But personally, I think they'd looked better hemmed shorter, especially since he often wears a rather flat soled sneaker, and IMO that type of shoe looks better with a small single cuff or none at all.  And then throw on top of that their 60s shape which was historically worn hemmed (short enough to show ankle during the first half of the decade, which actually suits the type of foot wear he's wearing even better).      

I doubt it (BiG says there's only an inch difference between the knee and ankle on the size 34 OW, so I can't see a hem opening the leg up more than 3/8"), but the easiest way to find out is just fold a big single cuff inward to see what the leg would look like hemmed to the desired length.   

Every jean that's on my radar for future purchase is on Max's too.  

IMO, tapered, 1960's 501 inspired cut = no cuff.  I'd lose 4" of inseam.    

There are no plans to make the regular version of that jacket up to size 46 at this time.  

Have you tried on the modified version?  It does shrink a full 1.5" in the length when hot soaked.

Been eyeing it since it was released.  Didn't realize the 44L could lose that much length.  

Position I'm in is the 42R is too small to wear raw, and the 44L is too long to wear raw/too narrow in the chest to be able to throw it in the washer.  My chest is 47", so an actual measurement of 50 to 51" in the chest is preferable.    

Any chance of the SC Type II being made in a 46R, or just not enough demand to warrant that size?  The modified 44 is close to what I'd need, but about 2" too small in the chest, and about an inch to an inch and a half too long in the body.  

 

Ordered size 44 raw from Inoue and got it today. Inoue said that the measurements for 44 once washed are following:

 

sleeve length 66cm

shoulder width 50cm

chest 58cm

length 67cm

 

In truth the measurements for 44 raw are:

sleeve length 68cm

shoulder width 50cm

chest 56cm

length 70cm

 

And soaking will shrink these even more. Pretty pissed off.

 

That sucks!  

I've considered having a type II made, but the chance of something like this happening has scared me away.

Too late now, but for anyone considering a similar purchase in the future, it might be best stating what you want the raw measurement to be.  I don't know if mrman specifying a 64cm raw chest measurement would have made things any better though.           

This^

I don't keep track anymore

I normally don't either, but in the case of my 1001s being involved in a multi year contest I decided to keep an accurate record rather than guessing.  It's revealed that my jeans, even a slower wearing pair like my 1001s, are wearing faster than realized when I look at the actual number of days worn.  I'm still a month short of a year of actual wear.  If they were someone else's that I'd come across on Instagram, I'd have assumed they'd been worn longer than that.  

as already said, the person, fit, activity level and other things can make a huge difference in how long the jeans last; given that setterman looks like an active outdoors guy with a relatively slim fit, i'm rather impressed with how the lighter-weight WH denim has held up, and the fade evolution is amazing; i think if i wore the same model in my usual sized up 1 it would last me at least 3-4 years of daily (mostly office) wear !

 

(that said i always tell friends new to denim that they can expect around 2 years daily wear and may need repairs down the road)

Looks can be deceiving when it comes to level of activity.    Taking the dog for a mile or two run every day is about the maximum of my level exertion in those jeans.  When I do yard work where I expect to get dirty, or I'm hunting, I have different pairs of jeans I wear.  My days are spent in an office, and then evenings like everyone else.... hanging around the house (5 nights a week ), or going out for some sort of entertainment or dining.  I do wear my jeans 14 hours a day though, so that probably makes up for a lack of an adventurous life.

Hats of to Kiya that he's been able to get 1100+ days of wear out of a pair of jeans (Stevenson's?).  My experience with where my LVC 55s and WH 1001s are at with well under 700 days of wear, and where my other jeans at even less, tells I'll never be able to reach that many days of wear without the front of the jeans from the top of the whiskers to the knee being so thinned out as to be useless.  I don't consider myself to be particularly hard on jeans.... and nothing worn tight, and jeans washed regularly and then hanged to dry.