Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

161 making progress

About 428CJ

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • style
  • attitude
  • location:
    Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.
  • wish i was in
    Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.
  • denim
    size 36
  • t-shirt
  • shoes
    us 10.5 uk 10 eu 44 jp 28
  1. Roy. (expurgated edition)

    The belly (or the belly button, to be more accurate) *is* the waist, or close to it, on most people. You probably mean that you prefer to wear them on your high hips (which is where most jeans are worn, because they don't have enough rise to make it to the true waist).
  2. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    Those are not current manufacture. They are old stock. Cultizm has had them for a very long time, and they are down to only one size left (30/34). Aero Leathers have more sizes in stock than that, but their supply is still quite limited (30/32, 30/34, 32/32, 32/34, 34/32), and their prices quite high (185 GBP plus a rather high shipping charge).
  3. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    Wear the thing. A size 40 denim jacket on a size 36 chest is not that big of a fit. I have a 42" measured chest, and I need a 46" chest measurement on a denim jacket in order to allow full freedom of movement, and full buttoning. (I need 48" or 50" on lined jackets, and even wear up to 52" measured chest on my blanket-lined Type I.) The older-style pleated jackets, with their lower yoke seams, are even more restrictive, so can use to be sized up even more. The stenciling on the back is kind of cheesy, but what the hell?
  4. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    Gorgeous! If those were 34's or 36's, I would be bidding from across the Pond. If he needs the 1947 rise, then I am not aware of anything LVC like that that is tapered. He should just get a pair of '47's altered, or check out Sugar Cane Type III's.
  5. Naked & Famous Denim

    Be sure to look at size charts again. The Easy Guys are not high rise jeans by anything but the use of highly relative marketing terminology. They are higher than any of N&F's other men's cuts (IIRC), but they're not high on an absolute level. They're definitely mid-rise jeans. My 34 Easy Guys (which are actually 37's due to a healthy amount of vanity sizing) have a 12 inch rise, which is actually a tad low for that size waistband. That's exactly how Gustin sizes their Straight cut jeans (12" rise with 37" measured waist). Both my Easy Guys and my Gustins have a slightly lower slung feel than all of my 501's...and those 501's are mid-rise jeans. All the so-called "high tapered" cuts I know of are not *actually* high rise jeans; they're just "higher" rise jeans than most of the other stuff the company makes. If you want a truly high taper, you'll probably have to buy a high-straight cut and then have it altered.
  6. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    Do not assume that. It might be the case sometimes (Levi's is notoriously inconsistent), but IME, it is not. As an example, look through the last page or two for my measurements from a rigid LVC item vs. a rinsed one (two Triple-Pleat Blouses in this case). With the same tag size, the pre-rinsed one has a significantly larger pit-to-pit measurement than the Rigid one, and that's before the Rigid one has ever seen water (i.e. the difference will be even greater once they are both rinsed). This would suggest to me that LVC, at least sometimes, uses different patterns for items that will be pre-rinsed. They might even use different denims and different factories. Bottom line, you need to track down a size chart for pre-rinsed '54's specifically, not just view a Rigid '54 size chart and extrapolate.
  7. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    I was actually going to reply to that poster to be very leery of the size charts from a store called Union Made. Some of those charts are wacky, nd obviously dead wrong...and they're the ones that seem to pop up most in Web searches.
  8. Lee Japan denim

    I need to re-report after the jeans completely dried. In fact, there was zero shrinkage. All measurements are identical to the pre-soak measurements. Wish I had just worn them as they were.
  9. Lee Japan denim

    Just shrunk my 1950 101-Bs in 50–60 C water. Based on comments here, I expected shrinkage similar to an unsanforized pair. Instead, I got the standard shrinkage one would expect from sanforized denim: about 3 percent. The pocket bags and rear pocket linings, however, shrunk up much more; they must be made of unsanforized canvas. Now, due to the tightly shrunk canvas, the back pockets each have a big hump across them, and the denim fill panels at the tops of the front pockets are misshapen. It's too bad. I was hoping for more shrinkage on these. Now I think I'll have to take the waistband in. I'm quickly getting them wet again and giving them a brief run in a hot dryer this time. I hope this doesn't shrink the leather patch too much.
  10. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    You're right. When I wrote my last post to you, I was calculating based off of a $140 starting point, minus the discounts. You are quite correct that the thing actually did cost more. I think it was actually $180 or $190 to start, minus the 30%. It was a couple other items that I ordered that were $140 before applying the sale. It isn't a tight fitting shirt, and it will always be worn with an undershirt (as I wear all my button shirts). I do a degree of manual labor most days at work, and it does get hot here. But my sweat is not particularly potent, and I wouldn't be wearing the Sunset Shirt in hot weather anyhow. My denim shirts that are much tighter fitting and made of heavier fabric take many months of actual wear to get even a hint of an armpit odor. And when I said I probably wouldn't wash it for years, I didn't mean years of actual wear—just calendar years, being worn sporadically. I usually decide it's time to wash a denim shirt after three to six months of actual wear. I don't decide based on a certain number of days, though. I wash it when it needs it. Considering that I will wear one of my denim shirts at most 30 days out of a year (if it's one of my favorites), I can't see this thing needing a wash until it's at least two years old, and probably three.
  11. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    The XL is a "very relaxed" fit on me (ended up with a larger chest measurement than almost all of my jackets) that will eventually shrink to a "quite relaxed" fit over the years. I break my shrink to fits in extensively before ever getting them wet, and I usually wash cold and air dry. Barring accident, it will likely be years before it gets its first submergence in water. I will do it's first wash cold to see what happens. If I want more shrinkage, the next wash will be hot. That said, I very much like the way it fits as is. It's a fine fit for a jumper-style shirt. It did end up being larger than I expected, and I wouldn't mind owning the large too. I wanted to get the large in addition, but I restrained myself. The price was just under $100 U.S. fot the XL. When it went down to $85, I said screw it and tried to order a L too. The Website showed it as in stock, and let me add it to the cart. But as soon as it was there, a note appeared beside it, saying to remove it from the cart because it was out of stock. I'm happy with the XL. I am just being greedy in wanting the same design with two different fits (just like I have with my 1880's, 1915's, and 1955's).
  12. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    See my measurements above. I got mine XL. It won't look bad with short sleeves. Also, remember that the shoulders are wide, and that translates to a deceptively short sleeve length measurement.
  13. What about Jeans Jackets ....

    I would go dead stock '70's–'90's, myself: Levi's, Lee, or Wrangler. You'll probably pay less than a new sherpa jacket from a "boutique" brand, and perhaps even get a better made jacket while you're at it. Be aware that there are some cool sherpa jackets that were not made of denim. I love my '70's or early '80's Wrangler sherpa lined JL301, which is made of brushed cotton twill, and doesn't have any sherpa material on the collar (my preference, as it's less showy/more classy IMO). I got it true dead stock, with original tags, for about $50 shipped, on E-Bay. I clipped the ears of the giant late '70's collar, and proceeded to start wearing it as if it was new. Also, if you're into the style of '70's Wrangler jackets, make sure to search for Maverick brand jackets as well. They're the same maker, same basic thing, but usually cheaper (think buying the Plymouth version of a car instead of the Dodge version).
  14. Levi's Vintage Clothing

    FWIW, my 1880 size 36's came this morning. I expect the 34's to be there when I get home. I misplaced my tape, so I have no measurements yet. But I can say that the waistband feels smaller than all my other size 36 LVCs when I first tried them on raw. It feels perhaps an inch over tag size. I would like to believe that this is by design, due to the fact that these jeans sit at a narrower part of the torso than most do...but that's probably giving them too much credit. The fit is relaxed, but not "baggy" by any means. They are nice and lightweight, and feel like nothing when worn. The rise must be the same as, or maybe a bit higher than, the 14" rise of my 36/36 1944's, so they sit closer to the actual human waist line than most jeans (but still not all the way there). They will be great summer pants. I will be keeping both pair, as I am sure the 34's will work for me too, even once shrunk (I don't shrink them prior to breaking them in).
  15. W. H. Ranch Dungarees

    Hello, The issues of whether you care whether a repro is accurate or not, or what you see cowboys around your area wearing are not really important to my comments. My main point was that you went into a store and purchased in person (a luxury few of us have) one of a line of jeans that not only takes heavy inspiration from old Lee items – in fact being very true to vintage in many ways – but that uses this inspiration and vintage accuracy as a major point of marketing. Regardless of what jeans are being discussed, if you tried them on in person, it's unfair to knock 'em so hard; you can only knock your choice to buy them. You appear to have been unaware at the time that they were basically old Lee repros. It seems totally unfair to be so disturbed by the rear pockets, when they are, in fact, one of the main distinguishing features of that style of jeans. Bottom line, that complaint can't be held as a mark against the company. Learn more about the item you're about to drop $300 or $400 on, and judge the aesthetics better in the store next time. Where your critique has merit is with the front pockets, if they are really 5 or 6 inch pocket bags. However, a photo of a tailor's tape or a ruler on top of the pocket bags is the only thing that would provide this forum with an objective take on the potential problem. I have made no judgements as to the relative merits of Lee-based repros and modern Wranglers. The two lines of jeans would never be put up against each other by working cowboys, obviously; the comparison would be ridiculous, as the markets for the two items have almost no crossover. I simply described the W.H. line, and especially that cut, for what it is. That cut is a very specific old-style cut – one of the most famous jeans cuts of all time, in fact – of which anyone who is denim enthusiast should have at least superficial knowledge. I wear jeans everywhere from grape-smuggling fits that I probably shouldn't be wearing, to painfully accurate old-school cuts, to modern Wranglers. I've bought, and indiscriminately wear, everything from $1.00 thrift store Levi's to idiotically expensive pairs. I am not a vintage snob by any means, and my tastes run the spectrum. I simply think that you can't go out of your way buy a certain, very specific style of jean, and then harshly judge certain features of it that are the exact features that define that certain, very specific style. It's like buying a high-end sub-model of Corvette, and then saying that because you don't like two seaters, or you prefer front wheel drive, or you can't fit a sheet of plywood in the trunk, that the car has features that you find dumb and/or useless. I have also made no judgments as to the relative merits of sizing/fit. (E.g. stating some shit like real cowboys wear baggy pants. I would never do that, nor would I probably use the term "real cowboys" outside of irony, sarcasm, or quotation). I simply stated that you appeared to have sized the jeans down from a middle-of-the-road, average fit, and that this makes the wide pockets look a little more odd than normal. Pretty much every standard cut of straight jeans has a range of four or five sizes that any given person can get into. How to size within this range is a personal choice, not something that can be flatly stated as right or wrong. But one can say that certain fits have certain aesthetic effects, and that is what I did. FWIW, I find Wrangler Cowboy Cuts to be the best fitting and highest value pants on the market. If I was a cowboy, I'd probably choose them as my work clothes, for no small reason because they are so cheap. However, be aware that they are produced in five main varieties, from leg hugging to baggy, and straight and flared. You can bet that Wrangler sells all of them to "real working cowboys," so they can wear their jeans in whatever fit and size works best for them.