Cold Summer

Sounds interesting, I'll keep an eye out for those. Thanks for the advice/suggestions guys.

Thanks for the insight @AlientoyWorkmachine - I can get by with a 12" thigh, but it usually looks unavoidably sloppy when larger than 12.5" or so. I guess I could compare the measurements for a couple different retailers of the FW 1937 model to get a clearer idea. If I'm shopping for jeans based purely on what looks like would be good measurements for me I should probably just buy some Sugar Cane 1966. Measurements look dead on for my preferences in a size 30. Sure doesn't hurt that, especially with the current USD/yen exchange rate, they're really cheap. And before one of you jokers tells me "just squat more bro", I should point out that I've had this same tall, slim physique ever since I was about sixteen - half of my life, now - and no amount of laziness, bad eating, good eating, or exercising really changes it at all. I went to the gym for years and squatted as much as I could without worrying I was going to damage my knees, and my *middle* thigh seemed to get a little harder, but no effect at the top/around the groin; thus, no amount of squatting seemed likely to make my thighs big enough to arbitrarily be able to fit better into a particular pair of jeans, and I'm not sure that goal is really worth blowing out my knees and/or the added expense/effort of eating a couple extra chickens per day.

Yep, think I want a '37 type. LVC and their stupid polyester stitching is a no-go for me. The Warehouse DD-1004 looks really good, but the inseam is probably too short and the thigh too big. Didn't know SC made a 1937, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That one could be worth investigating.

I'm wanting some buckleback 30s style jeans, for some reason. I'd like a longer rise pair and those 30s details that are different from any jeans I've worn before. What are my best options? The Freewheelers 601XXC 1937 looks like the frontrunner. Measurements (from the Mirror Ball site, one wash version) look very good actually. Big issue for me is thigh, most jeans of this sort in my size (usually 30-31) have a gigantic thigh, like the TCB 30s jeans, which are something like 13.5", absolutely ridiculous. I have skinny thighs and the 11" of the FW pair looks just right. Are Mirror Ball's measurements generally pretty accurate/measure from the top thigh instead of several inches below like some places inexplicably do? Any other 30s buckleback type jeans I should alternatively consider?

My bad! 10.5. I thought I included that in the post, but I guess not. Just edited it.

John Lofgren Wabash engineer boots in Shinki horsebutt, size 10.5. Beautiful boots which unfortunately don’t work for my feet. $1100 plus shipping. Only worn casually a handful of times. Only real blemish is a scuff around the toe of the right boot, as pictured.

Freenote flannel / Flat Head 6002W denim jacket / Warehouse x Rocky Mountain Featherbed vest / Flat Head cordovan wallet / Flat Head hickory stripe pants / Chup socks / John Lofgren Steadfast boots

Flat Head flannel and jacket / Iron Heart belt / Warehouse 800xx / Wesco Mister Lou Maryam

Real nice fit on the new jeans b_F, I hadn't heard of this fit before but it looks great on you. If I was going to buy a Sugar Cane pair I'd go with the 1966, measurements look spot on for me. Though the 1955 also sounds pretty good - only turn off is the zipper.

Lofgren Steadfast boots resoled by Unsung House. Very pleased with their work, and I feel the new sole dramatically upgrades the appearance and vibe of these boots.

Flat Head shirt, jeans, and wallet / Iron Heart belt / John Lofgren boots

I too have wondered if Eternal is still around. It seems like their focus has been on washed/distressed, fashion-y stuff for a long time. I wish they made a more classic straight kind of fit, I might be tempted if they made something higher rise than the 811. But then again, denim is quite similar to Flat Head, as has often been observed.

There are few things more dangerous than a man with no literary ability convinced he has something important and profound to say. Well okay, no, there are many things more dangerous, but it makes for a pithy statement.

TFH / RMC / Hollows / TFH / Lofgren resoled by Unsung House.

Well, that was surely the purple prose-iest denim description I've ever read. Occasionally I've had the idea that I should offer my writing services to this retailer or that, confident I could write a much better product description than them, but this is certainly the most egregious offender yet.

Flat Head stuff / Iron Heart belt / Lofgren boots TFH 3005s at six months of real wear time. Giving them a wash soon.

I guess you got me there! As some have probably noticed by now I'm particular about trying to dress in the Japanese Amekaji style than how it tends to get really reinterpreted through western denim fan lenses (for example, wearing a tight Iron Heart flannel with PBJ slim taper jeans and Iron Rangers is not even remotely how Japanese denim fans style that kind of stuff.) But at least in my case, I was already into Japanese stuff, including studying the language and culture, long before I discovered the denim subculture/aspect of it, so I can plausibly argue that my take is driven more by my long-standing interest in Japanese things than trying to dress just like a 30s factory worker or whathaveyou. At least in my perception, the latter approach is a bit more vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and appropriation, or something like that. (As a side note, the whole nature of Japanese subcultures, of which the vintage/denim thing is absolutely an aspect, is really fascinating and distinct from in the West, and probably deserves a deep dive from somebody; though the Ametora book does touch on it some.) Could be, but as I hinted in my previous post, in my observation I'm not sure these kids are really doing it "on purpose." The 90s revivalist kids, yes; sweatpants and pajamas kids, maybe not. The latter seems more like an extension of an American society-wide breakdown of any sense of formality/trying to appear presentable/care about how you look at all, which was very noticeable to me when I was a college student almost twenty years ago now and saw much the same thing from kids on my campus. Something about the idea that nobody cares how they look or are even conscious of it is weirdly unsettling to me.

My take on the SuFu style is a little different - we're a subculture (or maybe several!) I like subcultures. I think a lot of them are weird and I'm not interested, while others I find compelling. Either way, I think it's good that they're around. Especially in light of the sort of global monoculture I think a lot of us, on the last couple pages, have been critiquing from a couple different angles. Subcultures at their best push back and can sort of help reform and counterbalance the main culture, even if some degree of friction is inevitable. My ribbing at the neo-90s aesthetic is a little more lighthearted (see my "Old-man-yelling-at-cloud" preface!) I guess what strikes me is a bit inauthentic about it, is that the kids doing it seem very far detached from it, themselves, and it can come across as being based on purely arbitrary whims. For myself, Gen Y dude born in the 80s, like most of my peers I have a great fondness for the sounds, looks, and general vibes of the 80s. But though the decade ended while I was still in diapers, its direct influence loomed large because I was exposed to a massive amount of 80s media, especially music and movies, during my childhood. So the 80s were actually an integral part of my most impressionable time, as is the case for a lot of people around my age. So the nostalgia of people ten years too young to have firsthand experience doesn't seem strange at all. On the other hand, the Gen Z kids were born after 9/11, and it doesn't seem like the 90s stuff, like grunge, really persisted the way the 80s did. It's weird when I see a high schooler wearing a hoodie emblazoned with Nicktoons characters on it. I'm thinking, have you ever even watched any of those shows...? They were kind of way before your time. And that sort of thing. It's less like my generation getting all rosy-eyed about the 80s, and more like if everyone in my class in 2005 was obsessed with disco and 70s TV shows. There's plenty of stuff I like from the 90s, and I'm not gatekeeping telling Zoomer kids not to listen to Nirvana, or whatever. It just feels to me like the way this all arose was driven by internet algorithms and not the sort of grassroots way that subcultures used to be born. It's more like, I feel bad for them because it seems like they're being exploited, and looks and aesthetics are just one aspect of it. Could be wrong, but that's my take. And it's certainly true there are plenty of things better about living now than in the past, and various harsh or brutal things about earlier times we can tend to gloss over or romanticize @AlientoyWorkmachine, so I'm with you there, that we should try to take a somewhat balanced view. We see pictures of men in cool rugged clothing in the 30s and think, that guy looks awesome, but sheesh, life back then kinda sucked for most people! On the other hand, probably nothing extended life expectancy and health like having clean water supplies and sanitation (which is why these are such a big deal in developing countries!), so I believe it's quite possible to keep the best aspects of modern living like you mention, while maintaining a healthy criticism of other parts.

Something in this same category I think about a lot is how all new apartment buildings look exactly the same, at least where I live. They all look like they were designed by the same guy. Or most likely, "the market" determined that this one specific bland boxy design is the ultimate blend of cost-efficient construction and seeming "luxury" allowing you to charge exorbitant rent for housing that actually sucks. For that matter, most new restaurants follow this same glass box aesthetic. Now I know it's silly yearning for the bygone days of fast food, but at least Pizza Hut, Wendy's, Taco Bell, or my favorite - Whataburger - and so on looked unique, once upon a time. You could immediately identify them by the architecture, even if you didn't see the sign. Sure, it's just dumb fast food, but it was fun. Now they all look like the same bleak glass box pioneered by Chipotle (a place with food I think is good, but which is always blasting the most awful, low-key nightmare background music within) fifteen years ago. It all feels so dehumanizing. And not fun! We're not allowed to have fun anymore. Now only the most expensive and exclusive places can afford to be "unique." I'm seeing a pattern here. LOL, great point. It seems rather contrived. I buy it with "street style" photos from somewhere like Japan, where everybody carries a bag everywhere because nobody drives and you have to carry stuff with you for your day out, or leave it at home. I know from experience. But even there, the bag usually has a clearly practical aspect, and isn't just a way to be "seen." It's a little less convincing when you're walking ten minutes form your 4.5 star hotel to the fashion show or whatever. Once upon a time the way you dressed was a reflection of your culture, of your place and people where you were rooted. That's why you'll see pictures of people from Romania, or Thailand, or wherever, in their pretty, traditional outfits for special occasions, and these cultures all look different from each other, but you can see there's the same underlying motivation to it. Today, it's all detached and based entirely on personal whim and this interesting cultural pressure to manufacture your own identity out of thin air. I'm certainly not immune to it. Of course I dress in the Amekaji/heritage/vintage sort of style as well, largely just because I like it and there are aspects to it - like stuff that gets better with use, and attention to detail, and all that - which aligns with my particular OCD sensibilities. But it's not so hard for me to justify it otherwise - obviously I'm not a blue-collar working man, being a boring software developer and all that, but I am from Texas, and a longtime resident of the lower Appalachian region, so I think the way I dress is at least to some extent reflective of some aspect of the traditional culture of where I'm from and where I live. I could go watch a bluegrass band perform, and nobody would think I looked weird or out of place; I dare say I'd feel right at home. So that's worth something to me. On a lighter note, If I may be indulged to engage in some Old-Man-Yelling-At-Cloud action, the style of The Young People these days greatly dismays me. Every time I see teenagers when I'm at the grocery store or whatever, they fall into exactly one of two categories of style: Pajamas: they look like they actually just rolled out of bed, wearing sweatpants and hoodies, with some kind of hypebeast sneakers; weird, gigantic logos, often for some sort metal band or hip-hop artist optional. Often seen with very strange hair colors and cuts. Boys and girls often hard to tell apart. Every single thing is extremely synthetic. Constant scrolling through smartphone feeds, bleary, dead eyes. They don't look like adherents of some wacky subculture, like punks, metalheads, or goths. They look like unmoored kids with no culture. it's the uniform of Unconscious Gnosticism. Misremembered 90s: What if everyone on Saved By The Bell or A Goofy Movie listened to Nirvana and Pearl Jam? This aesthetic attempts to answer that question. It's the mashup of Very 90s fashion with stereotypical grunge style, and it feels very contrived, but it's not nearly as bad as the above aesthetic. It just feels very inauthentic for anybody "who was there" - and I was in elementary school for the majority of the 90s, but even I can tell it's not very realistic. I'm dreading the day some Gen Z influencer decides to revive the aesthetic of the Late 90s Dark Age. I predict a cringe apocalypse-inducing mashup of the "Xtreme leather trenchcoat" and "frosted tip boy band Abercombie And Fitch" styles. Imagine if LFO did the soundtrack to Godzilla and Batman And Robin. God help us all.

Never occurred to me! The buckles on my 7500s are okay. Maybe someday I’ll see about changing them. Is Viberg still such a big deal? My impression was that their popularity has dropped off a lot since the 2030 heyday of 2016-18 or so, but I could be wrong. I don’t think those are bad looking boots, and they go well especially with slim trousers and a bit more refined menswear look. But the whole tight fitting Iron Heart or Rogue Territory flannel with slim tapered jeans and Viberg 2030s feels like a very dated 2017 sort of look. I’d feel weird wearing 2030 boots with my straight jeans. On the other hand I think the 310 last is too chunky.

Flat Head stuff / Iron Heart belt / John Lofgren boots

Freenote / RMC / Equus / TFH / WH / Wesco

Fascinating discussion here, with many good points raised... reminds me quite a bit actually of last year when I read disillusioned-environmental-activist-turned-apocalyptic-mystic Paul Kingsnorth, who wrote an extensive, detailed series of essays about what he calls The Machine, his name for globe-spanning decentralized socio-industrial force mentioned in these last few posts, about where it came from and what it's been doing to us. Thought provoking stuff, and the rare commentary that manages to get out of the tired and often contrived right-left, capitalist-marxist dialectic that tends to keep such discussion generally bogged down in arguing about trees while missing the forest, reflected in the diverse and interesting perspectives of the commenters on his posts. It's interesting to me how a lot of makers - whether we're talking Roy, the Ooes, Minoru Matsuura, Brian the Bootmaker, and so on - superficially seem to represent nostalgia for a bygone era of industrialization, where things weren't as great as we sometimes imagine, being ourself so far divorced from the circumstances of those times. Yeah, that vintage shirt was Made in The USA... by women working 80-hour workweeks for pennies, in awful conditions. But I think in fact, such makers are utilizing the trappings of an earlier industrial era, while operating under an ethos that hearkens back to an earlier, pre-industrial, smaller scale way of making things, where you'd learn to make shoes from your dad, who learned it from his dad, and you guys were The Shoemakers in your town, and made shoes for real people you knew in person in your community, rather than performing one singular tedious task for the guy who owns the factory in exchange for a paltry wage. Unfortunately, we live in an era that so worships Efficiency and Specialization and the Almighty Dollar, that such "inefficient" ways and outmoded concerns like "Making things with care for your customer," "taking satisfaction in your craft," and so on, are luxuries reserved only for the elite (or nerds, as in our case?) who can or are willing to afford them. It's a rather sad state of affairs, and there seems to be no real way out of it, short of hoping the whole big Machine eventually falls apart and perhaps somehow or other we can return to the way things used to be in traditional societies, before English aristocrats first lured impoverished peasants dispossessed of the Commons into their urban factories with the promise of A Better LIfe, one where you can perhaps Make A Bunch Of Money in exchange for family, community, rootedness, and other such silly, outdated concepts - and over subsequent decades, successfully exported this way of operation across the entire globe, with few willing or able to hold out against it. Maybe I'm just trying to justify my dumb hobby here, but when I support a small maker or brand I can get behind, like John Lofgren, or Flat Head, or whatever, rather than buying disposable polyester trash at the mall, I like to think that in some small way I'm rebelling against The Machine. Rebelling by spending my money on Cool Stuff... how convenient!

Oh alright, gotcha. I'm not real familiar with those, but I can see why such brands (and their target clientele) might prefer that look.

@julian-wolfAre you referring specifically to the one Lofgren uses on these boots, or just in general to "tea core" leather used on boots, eg. Clinch? I can only speak for my particular boots, but it seems as deeply dyed as any other black veg tanned leather and more resistant to scuffs/abrasion color changes than black Chromexcel ones I had in the past; about ten years ago I had Lofgren boots in the black CXL and didn't like how that leather aged. It seemed more susceptible to brown scuffing than this Shinki horsebutt, but YMMV and all that. I actually couldn't find any evo pics of Lofgren horsebutt boots, though I admit I didn't look real hard. And in the case of some of those Clinch boots with really dramatic color change, I think it's actually Brass that hand-paints the natural-colored hide, which leads to that dramatic patina, so that's probably more on the manufacturer than Shinki. My Wesco boots have Maryam veg tanned horsehide, and it shows some "tea core" characteristics as well, though it doesn't seem particular exaggerated to me. Admittedly, I am not real hard on my footwear, just wearing them for pretty casual situations. I suspect the "Stitchdown community" or wherever a lot of the crazy patina is coming from, use their footwear in more extreme ways in pursuit of that kind of look. I just wear mine, and however it ends up aging is fine by me. Worth pointing out that it's not like Shinki makes one type of leather they sell to anybody, but various different types. This is especially evident when it comes to horsehide used for leather jackets, but applies to boot leather as well.