julian-wolf

emphasis on half tempted…not that I have that kind of money to throw around anyhow

Think it’s that simple? I have a rotary buffer that can go down to pretty low rpm…

Yeah, if there was an easy way to get rid of all the wax from the start I’d be half tempted, ‘cause they’ll probably end up looking great eventually, but they’re so ugly out of the box that I honestly don’t think I could get myself to wear them enough for them to get to that point naturally

Prolly 'cause most folks aren't really very tube-shaped in real life

Yeah I wouldn’t worry about moths, but if you live somewhere humid mould / mildew could be an issue. When I’ve gotten raw jeans that are more than ~20 years old they’ve generally had permanent creases that don’t fully go away with washing, but it’s never felt like that much of a bother.

Deal Thursday’s funk night, so it’ll be a good excuse to get a little loose beforehand

I climb in jeans, come at me

I think you’re looking at a very different scale. Dye not penetrating to the cores of yarns is dependent on the dyeing process, as you’ve said, and yarns that aren’t dyed to their cores will fade as the outsides of the yarns wear away. Regardless of what dyeing method is used, different dyes will act differently. Some (reactive dyes) will permanently cling to the fibers, changing their appearance. Others (fugitive dyes, like indigo) will work their way into the fibers without actually attaching themselves. How well they work their way in will depend, among other things, on the size of the dye molecules. Fugitive dyes will generally wash out over time—though slowly, if used correctly—whereas reactive dyes will be more permanent. Anything happening on the fiber scale should be pretty independent of anything happening on the yarn scale, apart from informing what sorts of techniques should be used. Ai denim is (generally) dyed to the core using fugitive indigo dye. Iron Heart’s SBG denim is likely dyed to the core using a reactive dye.

Say it out loud: maybe it’s supposed to be pronounced “slimmer” as in “holy fuck these pants are slimmer than anything any sane adult should be wearing”

More or less, yeah. Washing seems to get rid of any tension that’s built up in a fabric. Weaving spun yarns into a twill tensions the yarns, as do skewing and sanforization. Washing releases the tension (is there’s any net tension left) and causes leg twist.

This sort of processing isn’t quite that smart. It doesn’t reduce the overall amount of tension in the yarns; it just tries to compensate for what’s there by adding more tension in the opposite direction. The fabric doesn’t really have any way of knowing what its original, un-skewed state is. As far as it’s concerned, skewing less in the right direction and skewing a bit in the wrong direction are different extents of the same thing. You’ll often see this happening with jeans made from heavily-sanforized denim, too: the pre-processing overcompensates for the initial tension in the yarns and, come wash time, they get torqued in the opposite direction.

Should be a strap (or two?) on the inside of each shoulder?

Always been tempted by those, but I can’t imagine the elastic will have held up well over the last ~25 years and that uncertainty’s kept me from ever pulling the trigger

Those are beauts From the final shot (of the hem), the fabric looks much thicker / heavier than we usually see on this style of repro—is that the case, or are my eyes just messing with me?

The originals (and all of the other SC40X00 model numbers) were 50/50 blends Out of curiosity, what about the sugar cane blends do you dislike?

@SmokeStackLightning, from the first photo (in particular, how little the seat seam angles out towards the seat) it's clear that there's very little hip and thigh room. Likewise, the top block looks pretty square, without any appreciable taper in towards the waist. The photo could just be taken weirdly—I'd love to be proven wrong—but it honestly looks even tighter up top than the Type III.

Jeez, just based on the top block in that photo the cut looks like it’s gonna be terrible. Better something than nothing, all things considered, but still sad to see them going this route for jeans with as much history / lore as their natural-dyed line of 15 years ago.

I thought that was Volvo’s job???

No, that’s the standard patch for the lot 100 Feels like we just had this conversation a page ago edit: Maybe “no” is the wrong answer in as much as the 100 was a precursor to the 401, but you get the idea

Congratulations! Great way to reign in the new year

^ Did you pay the $10? I guess I stand corrected

Why does Superfuture think this thread is "Hot!" all of a sudden?

I don't think I actually mind the whole numbered sizing thing. Ideally, every brand would have a consistent S/M/L or a set of chest / waist sizes that actually roughly correspond to chest / waist measurements, but in practice there's all sorts of variation in how different brands interpret these labels. Here we're used to it, and we know to just look up the true measurements if we're unsure, but folks coming from less of a fancy clothes background might not, and might get burnt by assuming that they'll be the same size in Fancy Japanese Brand as they are in Generic Mall Brand when realistically the two systems are unrelated. Going with a numbering system that's explicitly different from what folks are used to trades increased convolution for decreased confusion…or at least that seems to be the goal.

Asking active members to donate isn't at all unreasonable—most long-lasting forums that I've been a part of have had some sort of donation system in place. All adding a sign-up fee will realistically do, though, is prevent people from signing up. The rate at which we've gained new members over the last couple of years (I'm speaking for Superdenim in particular, but based on the ever-present sidebar it seems like we're the majority of the activity overall, so…) is already extremely low; it's not like there's high demand for a spot here. Those of us posting now have spent time using the forum and have benefited from it directly, and I'd bet that many of us wouldn't hesitate to donate if prompted, but the folks that are being asked to pay have no vested interest in the forum and no reason to think it's worth the sign-up fee. Of course: I'm saying all this without access to the actual numbers—maybe since they've added the fee the sign-ups have continued at the same rate as always…but I'd be real surprised if that was the case.

^^ They're from 2004. I haven't been able to find a whole lot of info on these, but from what I gather it's a 13.25 oz. fabric that was used only for these and for the S2005 that was released the next year. As far as identifying features go, it's a fairly intense blue (rather than the almost-black of most modern TFH denim) with a pink-on-white selvedge ID very similar to that on Roy's Blackseed denim. The cut is supposed to be similar to that of the S303SP, which I've gathered was a WWII model released in 2003 (although the cut doesn't seem very WWII at all). This is all I've been able to find. If anyone's heard more about these, I'd be really interested to know! Googling mostly turns up results for the S2004LTD, which seems to have been a substantially different model. Honestly, I sorta just bought these on a whim—I'd always wanted a pair of TFH jeans since I'd had such good experiences with their shirts and knitwear, but their modern cuts and detailing didn't really interest me, so seeing an old pair pop up in a straight cut with Levi's detailing was all it took.