Dry

On 24/08/2018 at 10:00 PM, jewellben said:

they look very slim for a 1933

The hem is 8.5 inches (size 31).

@jewellben That's because of my fat thighs and sizing down!

2 hours ago, istewi said:

@Dry  I think it's safe to say that you shouldn't soak those... they may be un-wearable after.

@istewi don't worry, I seldom soak. Never had jeans that have become unwearable yet but there is always a 1st time lol. Having said that, the cut of my Fullcount 21 oz 0109 doesn't suit me and they have become uncomfortably tight in the thigh after multiple washes.

Sorry, I can't do anything about that, delete or edit it, nothing! I had thought about the inner labels. Here is a pic of my raw 1933s with 2 days wear - no soaks, no washes. Not how they are intended to be worn but so what.

On 24/08/2018 at 8:19 AM, Maynard Friedman said:

Or perhaps just the inner labels! 

@Maynard FriedmanFriedmanaFriedmanFriedmananFriedmanFriedmanaFriedmanFriedmanandFriedmanFriedmanaFriedmanFriedmananFriedmanFriedmanaFriedmanFriedmananFri

Thanks @kicks79  and @Maynard Friedman .  I guess it is the thread and/or rivets and/or buttons and/or patch which are imported into the USA.

Having looked back at the previous posts, the conclusion I have come to is that the Cone denim which has been used is made in Mexico or China (assuming they now make selvedge) or it is left over White Oak and some of the other components are imported into the USA or the denim is Kaihara (which would seem unlikely because the label info would then be incorrect). Anybody got of this 1933 denim with evo/fading?

Although the cardboard tag and website say Made in the USA from Cone denim, the sewn in inner label says 'Made in the USA of imported components'. Does that mean that Cone denim is imported into the USA, or what?

I noticed that Jake Shears is wearing some raw 1933s on his new album sleeve/lyrics sheet. I then got out some unworn 1933s - 36 x 36, - enormous. I had some (rare, I imagine) 34 x 38s which are very long. I remembered then that you couldn't get a 36 or 38 leg below a 34 waist and also that my old 34 x 36 were a fraction too short and still quite baggy. Then I discovered that you can now get L36 in W31, 32 and 33. Unintentionally, I ended up with 2 pairs of 31 x 36 and 2 pairs of 32 x 36. They are raw Cone denim,  made in the USA and nice and snug. The lengths look good. The button number is 4420. Anybody know where and whose that factory is? Anybody experienced these recent 1933s? I don't think I could possibly send them back to Levis lol

3 hours ago, Geeman said:

How do accidently put a pair of denim shorts over another pair? I'm not sure that's official licensed rugby kit Maynard.

Well, it was an accident in that it hadn't occurred to me before. When I thought about it it was obvious it would work: FC size 30 snug tailored fit with long inseam, LVC 1937 size 34. Looser fit with short inseam.

6 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I’m not sure if it’s my screen or whether you’ve spilt something down the front 

Strong rugby look though!

I think it's a trick of the light - nothing had been spilt and they were both bone dry!

On 26/06/2018 at 6:47 PM, Dry said:

This is sort of what I meant - joking of course!

Putting my LVC 1937 cut-offs over my Full Count 1904 shorts has (accidentally) created the result I was looking for. The 1937s from 2003 were the 2nd pair I bought at that time with flaws which emerged in the denim after a short period of wear. The 1st pair I exchanged at American Classics (sadly with 1955s as the 1937s were no longer available) and this pair I sent to the Denim Doctor in Manchester to be converted into shorts. The length of the inseam was determined by the location of the flaw in the denim.

And an unworn brother pair....

My most faded LVC's 1955 501 Valencia Street 1996.

Nudie Roger Overalls

The imagination is 1 thing, how it works in practice is another lol

On 13/06/2018 at 2:54 PM, Niro said:

I say go for it 

This is sort of what I meant - joking of course!

Has anybody got any experience with the raw 1952 stretch jeans? How much do they stretch? Do you buy smaller than usual eg thigh size and allow the stretch to bring it up to fit you?

On 07/06/2018 at 8:59 AM, Dry said:

Well, nobody seemed to like the pics of my FC1904 shorts in size 30 last year, but in fact they have worked and worn well in the flesh and I have had no adverse comments. However, with the arrival of this year's batch, I have gone a size up to 32.

Here are the size 34 - with SDA shirt. They are much more roomy. Although I would normally wear the smaller sizes there are occasions for the larger size

On 15/06/2018 at 2:30 AM, Iron Horse said:

21 hours ago, Geeman said:

One word. Why?

The look - dark shorts over faded tight jeans.

On 07/06/2018 at 9:12 AM, propellerbeanie said:

We probably have a different gauge of what feels tight, but visually, they look like they're vacuum packed onto your legs... Moose knuckles are definitely evident as well. 

I've now got size 34 and neither the thigh nor the hem is tight so there is definitely no 'vacuum-packed' effect. I expect they will stretch as per usual with Fullcount and will end up loose. I rather like the idea of wearing the shorts over a pair of tight jeans to give a rugby player effect. Has anyone tried that?

On 07/06/2018 at 9:12 AM, propellerbeanie said:

We probably have a different gauge of what feels tight, but visually, they look like they're vacuum packed onto your legs... Moose knuckles are definitely evident as well. 

Well that was 1st time on and they've stretched a bit since them. They're not as tight as they look, though I can feel the hem (same width as on size 30) when seated. Unlike size 30 there is enough width for them to be turned up to display some selvage. It will be some time before they fade nicely ... Unless @Max Power discloses his secrets. 

8 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

^^^ I think we need a fit pic of last year’s size 30 with some wear on them.

Here they are:

On 12/05/2017 at 7:32 AM, Dry said:

Well, nobody seemed to like the pics of my FC1904 shorts in size 30 last year, but in fact they have worked and worn well in the flesh and I have had no adverse comments. However, with the arrival of this year's batch, I have gone a size up to 32.