Dr_Heech

Yeah best to try and get some wear out of them. My old Roy jeans are a lower front rise and slimmish so not my style anymore. Fucked if l'm giving them away, l just chuck them on if l'm doing cementing or something similar. Get some more miles out of them. Fair play for having the patience to unpick the cinch strap stitching, l just cut mine to leave 2 riveted squares.

Well l never wanted to sell them in the first place as l love the duck digger denim and the details. So for me the Warehouse 1927 (it's actually their old 1922) model has a lower back rise (15") than all my other jeans, which usually are a 16" minimum. With all the hardware around the waistband (suspender buttons, cinch strap and buckle) my belt would push this hardware into my lower back and it would be painful. Removing all this 'gumph' made them more comfortable to wear. Wearing them now 🙂

Not quite as many as some of you supermods but enough for me. Decided a simple tweak of my previous update was the best way to go. Nothing much has changed in 2 years apart from altering my previous for sale WH 1927s and then wearing them. They feel cut wise like a 47 imo. Also the love affair with my smaller pair of Lee's is still very on and off. So 22 pairs in all with 12 pairs active. Other than that, just enjoying my denim.

Yes l did go with my typical size. Hoosier very kindly hand measured (Inc. pics) sizes 32 and 33, as l'd heard the same info as you as wanted to be as sure as l could about nailing the correct size. Every since l fell in love with FW denim l've always been a 33. Owned and sold a pair of FW47'S because l didn't ask for advice beforehand (a sz 34) and gave my sz 32 FW47'S to my son after vanity sizing led to the pockets being too small to be properly functional. My old, now sold 51's were a 33 and always fit perfectly, albeit a little low in the front rise for my tastes it turned out.

Say that again?

Only just read back and seen this. I've only owned a couple of pairs of FW denims (Also a pair of Bootleggers which had similar rivets) and l didn't find them a problem, however this time as l'm ordering both jeans and jacket with bucklebacks, l decided to have all the rivets processed just to be on the safe side. I don't want to be ripping up friends' couches when on a visit. I only said yes to the rivet process because l was asked, although l left the buckle unprocessed as l didn't think it would be a problem. I can hear the groans all the way from Arbroath

Mine are having some 'alterations' but will be ready soon hopefully. Sssh tho, Mrs thinks l'm only buying jeans 🫣

Almost definitely a pair of Lvc's 1933 model

Can we throw red tabs at it in case two of them stick 😉

^Love the colourway on those Cons.

I don't think it's just a case of something that was just widely thought of as charming but more of something that had been reproduced further, in the case of Csf at the time (2016/2017) it was not the wonky stitching that was the charm, it was the capturing of character and spirit that had risen the bar. The use of era specific skills on old sewing machines, materials that were more researched and wonderful denim. Yes the cuts Csf offered and the sizing weren't as well researched, and some of the variations of the original line up were just a bit more than quirky, but no more so than Levis Red or Evisu or some other brands. Again l don't think it's lost its charm because it's been offered more but more likely because we've had quite a few years of it being offered to us, so more like saturation of the market.

I think the level of slop was predominantly worse for Levis products for some of the reasons described earlier - re new factories, whereas Lee already had a number of factories. Only ever seen a few pairs of images of WW2 made cowboy pants and jackets and the only slightly sloppy stitching was on the pleat stitches, even then it's bearly visible. As for Bluebell's Wrangler brand, that wasn't introduced until 1947.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Enough wonkiness, l'm now looking forward to my non-wonky, straight stitched pre war FW tux.

@MJF9 l agree with @beautiful_FrEaK insomuch the garment is based off an actual vintage one so the wonkiness is perfect, in a perfect wonky sense. I just think like many that it is now just one manufacturer outdoing the next on the wonky scale. I for one am over this trend by a long shot but can appreciate the draw it still has.

Classic early seventies Maynard joke.

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim Meh, this is still lvc so probably still stitched with poly thread 🤮

My warehouse 1915 belt loop model (aka 1922 model) which l have been wearing on and off for the last year. Only had one wash since its initial soak. Love the cut details and denim but boy they do seem to fade quick. Phone pics have been 'sufu'd' so click on for a better quality version.

My Csf WW2 got a regular wash and made the jerky patch fall to pieces so l removed the rest. Nice roping thanks to @Mr Black skills at hemming on the old Union special. Been wearing these and my WH 1922s for a while but now it seems like shorts weather until September so my Csf will get put away until then. (Edit) sorry about the crap pic quality, not my intention. Click on them to get sharper image.

There's no such thing as owning too many jeans, as long as you have the right ones.

^needs more wear @beautiful_FrEaK

Be interested to know if they do a T back version 👍

Not sure about that but the other day l saw some reel introducing 'pee stained jeans' so even if you're not incontinent, you can certainly have the look of some dude who's been caught short.

Maybe they're CSF ? Looks happy. Probably chuffed he got a pair to fit 😅

Thought l'd share - pinched it from Matt @Rivethead. S501XX probably.

Photos of 1942 501XX from Hellers Cafe. Just a random comparison post as l don't have these photos to hand and it takes me ages to fire up the old laptop, and l can't be arsed to keep going back through these pages to find the images. 1937 1st ever pocket flasher, used between 1937 and March 1942 vs 1942 2nd pocket flasher, used between April and August 1942.