428CJ

Are these in store in L.A.?

I agree with 501XX4EVER. The care tag is very similar to my late '70's/early '80's Storm Rider. And the MR in the Lee tag means it couldn't be much older than that. That's a nice looking pair of jeans IMO. And they look to be in good enough condition to last a long time.

And here I sit at a mere 8 months!

I might be able to take your dick outline and Crocs in separate posts...but all together?? I am dyin' here! That said, if you want tight jeans – and I certainly have a few myself – you've got 'em. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're after. But you are deluded if you think that is a "regular" fit, or ever will be.

Yes. No.

I am, of course, aware that jeans shrink. My above judgment of the '66's fit accounts for that, and is based on plenty of pairs of jeans shrunk, stretched, and what have you. My 1966 36's were purchased TTS, and they measured within half an inch of tag size when new. I call that accurate sizing, as half an inch isn't that bad of a deviation from label size. Point being, I did not say the '66's don't come out of the bag true to size. I was saying it's a relaxed cut, and that the waist has stretched 1.5 inches since new, making it 2" over tag size in the waistband. The '66 cut has a drawn in waistband, so when you get the right waistband diameter, the cut fits more loosely than most other jeans. (Other LVCs have larger waistbands at tag size 36 IME; my '66's are the closest to actual tag size. The other tag size 36's were at least 37" when new, and some were 38" when new. E.g. my size 36 '77's were 37.5 and my size 36 1915's were 38".) I still have plenty of room in the '66's after wearing dry (as in they're now a bit saggy and the 27" thighs barely even touch my legs). That's with me being bigger thighed and bigger butted than most. I can't imagine these jeans would be anything short of a bit of a baggy fit when sized TTS on anyone with a more typical thigh-to-waist ratio. Of course they shrink pretty permanently in the thighs, etc...but shrinkage from a relaxed thigh/butt fit (as these have) ends up being no tighter than the looser end of a regular fit. And the fact remains that the jeans are now 2 inches over tag size in the waist (38") prior to shrinkage, and they are going to shrink from there (not from the original 36.5"), and then stretch out yet again. There is no way these jeans will ever get tight on me, even washing hot, and no way they will ever end up with the waist settling at original size (36.5") from 38" after shrinking then wearing. They will probably shrink down to about the original waist size, then stretch back out to 38" or so, while the thighs of the jeans might lose an inch or an inch and a half, and end up actually touching just the tops of my thighs just a bit, placing them on the relaxed end of a regular fit. I know you are extremely knowledgeable, and I don't mean to get into a debate with your, which I will surely "lose." But I do know how to size my pants for my body, unsanforized or otherwise, and that is all I shared – what I would do. If I spend years shrinking these, and they end up too tight for me, I will gladly post my results, and retract these statements. But I can't imagine these jeans will be some crazy wild card or something, that acts much different than most STF denim I have encountered. After years of trial and error, unsanforized denim is pretty predictable to me, and I have never encountered said wild card material that makes the jeans unwearable in the end. I usually account for the worst case scenario when buying and washing it (i.e. lean large when sizing, and lean cold at first when washing). So, again, I would size down 1 or 2 for a regular fit in the end, and buy TTS for a relaxed (but not baggy) fit in the end. Nothing overly optimistic about that, and, hell, it's not even "advising." It's just "what I would do." It's also worth noting that there is a range of about 5–6 sizes of 501's that I routinely wear, depending on the fit I want. I have a 36" measured waist, and I wear 501's with actual waist sizes of 34" to 39". Outside of the extremes of off-true sizing, there really isn't a bad fit for a 501, be it tight or loose. So it isn't like it's a bloody disaster if a pair ends up a bit tighter or looser than one might expect.

I don't have any experience with size 33, but I can tell you the following about size 36: When new: 36.5" waist, measured with front and rear of waistband held together flatly (no dip in waistband), then doubled. After 2 weeks of dry wear: 38", measured the same way. I have worn them past the two week mark, but the waistband has not stretched any farther than 38". I have not shrunk them yet, hot or cold; they are still raw. I assume the waistband will shrink a bit when washed, but will end up stretching back out to 37" or 38" in the end. They are a roomy cut, so you can afford to size down, even accounting for shrinkage. Given all this, I would size down 2 inches for the snug end of a regular fit, size down 1 inch for the relaxed end of a regular fit, and buy true to size for a relaxed fit. I have a 36"–37" actual measured waist, depending on the day (not the high hips – the actual waist, as in at the belly button). I also have relatively large thighs and butt (26.5" and 44", respectively). I bought mine in size 36 to be worn with a relaxed fit. Pre shrinking, they are relaxed. Post shrinking, they will be a little bit more snug, but still a relaxed feeling fit. I I had wanted a regular fit, I would have bought a size 34 instead. Here's how my TTS '66's fit the first day I wore them. They did not hug my thighs in the slightest (and now they are stretched out even more, after being worn for several weeks).

I have several recent 501 STFs, and my LVCs are 1880, 1915, 1933, 1944, 1955, 1966, and 1976. Based on my actual measurements from these pairs, I'd say the 1966 is the closest cut to the current run-of-the-mill 501 STFs. The cuts are, in fact, near identical on my pairs.

^ Interesting, considering that they are specifically advertised as being relatively fast faders.

I think you'd be better off going up a size in inseam, just to play it safe. But if you like a breakless inseam, you'll probably be fine. Just wash infrequently, wash cold, and always air dry.

Gorgeous jeans. I would wear those till they are dusty and dirty before getting them wet, myself, and then wash them hot as hell (but air dry to keep the patch from shrinking and hardening). Just hike 'em high and cinch up your belt till then. They won't shrink much anyhow. Or, exchange for the next size down if you can. Also, "Jap" is largely viewed as an ethnic slur in most of the English speaking world.

Some measurements from my brand new LVC 1976's: Size: 36/36 Waist (pulled straight): 37.5" Front rise: 13.0" Hips (at halfway point of front rise): 43.5" Thigh at crotch: 27.5" Thigh 2" down from crotch: 26.0" Knee (13" down from crotch): 20.75" Hem: 17.5" Inseam: 35.75" Here are the raw measurements I took from my '66's, which I got last November: Size: 36/34 waist: 36.5" rise: 12.5" inseam: 33.0" thigh: 27" at crotch, 26" two inches down 20" at actual knee. hem: 17.5" And I took a hip measurement of 46" after two weeks of dry wear. I should have taken that when they were brand new, but I forgot. I'd say that the hips of these didn't stretch much vs. new, though, because this is a relaxed fit on me. That said, the waist stretched 1.5" in those two weeks. So maybe we can assume the hips of the '66's were originally 45" to 46". My verdict: The '76's have a wider waist (by 1") and narrower hips (by about 2") than the '66's. When new, the '66's profile came out about 9" from waist to hips, while the '76's profile came out only 6" from waist to hips. Thus the two pairs have a pretty dramatically different waist to hip ratio. I.e. the '76's have a straighter profile in the upper block, while the '66's have a more relaxed-hips-and-drawn-in-waist profile. Even though it might be easy to think that these are basically the same cut, in fact, the '66 is a notably more old-fashioned cut than the '76. '66's are gonna be a better fit if you are thick-athletic, hourglass shaped, or otherwise bottom heavy, while '76's will better suit those with skinnier legs and butts, thin-athletic builds, and less of an hourglass shape. I have always had a much thicker lower body than upper body, and more of an hourglass shape rather than straight, so the '66's are a more natural fit on me. But I ordered the '76's big enough, so they'll be fine. Just a different look. I haven't done any shrinking of the pants yet, and I won't for a while, so we'll have to wait to see where these settle in over the years.

Hoping to continue the break in on my 1950 101Bs and 1936 101Bs this summer...as well as my Buddy Lee denim dungarees. As soon as I'm done with my current stint in my raw 13MWZs, it's on to these three pairs of Japanese Lees until it cools down again (usually around the end of the year here in L.A.). I realize these are quick, crappy pix, FWIW. The '50's are a lighter blue than the others. These are upsized for a loose fit, and cuffed with wide double cuffs ATM (will be hemmed for a slightly narrower and slightly lower single cuff before their first true wash). I've got 6 weeks of wear on them so far. I initially tried to shrink them without losing starch. I gave them a hot water misting till they were saturated but not dripping (not a true rinse). I did this a few times, always stopping before water started seriously dripping off of them. Then I ran them through a hot dryer for about 15 minutes. That was a failed experiment, as they didn't shrink one bit. Oh well. They still look good and seem like they will fade nicely. I will be adding two or three extra belt loops to the rear, so they cinch better in the future. The '36's are sized for a slightly big fit. They have already been hemmed to length (I wear them uncuffed), and they are still raw. I've only worn them 2 weeks so far. This a hairy, dark denim, with a tiny bit of a red cast, making the over all look a little purple. The Buddy Lees are also upsized for a loose fit. They have 4 weeks of wear on them so far, and are still raw. I wear these uncuffed too. These are dark, and they fade pretty quickly. I have two pairs of upsized gray twill Buddy Lees as well. These are very thick cotton twill, unsuitable for anything but cold days.

There is a way to triple cuff in order to fold in a huge excess of length, without making the cuff too ugly. Example: I am 5'11". When cuffing, I cuff somewhat high, at about 29"–30", regardless of inseam. If you are 6" shorter than me, let's say 3 inches of that is in your inseam, as opposed to in your torso. Thus you probably want to cuff at 26" for a high cuff, and maybe 28" for a lower riding cuff. I'll use the midpoint of 27 inches, and assume your pants came with 10 extra inches of inseam. With the 10 extra inches, you don't need to fold up a huge 5" double cuff, nor do you need to roll your factory hem all the way in to the interior of a triple cuff (which will make it hard to get a sharp cuff). Instead break the 10" into three sections, with one of the sections being a bit shorter than the other two. For 10" excess, the sections could be 3.5" + 3.5" + 3". The first cuff is made at the last number plus the middle number: 6.5". The second fold is made at the first number: 3.5". Important: The second fold is made 3.5" *up from the first fold* (through the layers of the first cuff, not at the point where the factory hem now sits). What happens is that you get a meaty, four-layer-thick 3.5" triple cuff, but the factory hem stays loose and at the top of the cuff (yet hidden by 1/2"). It doesn't end up buried inside the cuff. It's a neater and looser cuff than a straight end-over-end triple cuff that tightly buries the factory inseam deep inside the cuff. 3.5" is still a damned healthy looking cuff, but it's not totally ridiculous like 5". Also, you might not have 10" of excess length, plus you might want to ride your cuffs a bit lower – two things that would shorten that 3.5" cuff.

The availability of a wide variety of hemmed inseams is indeed something that came about in fairly recent history in the clothing industry. I'm not sure exactly when; maybe mid '50's to early '60's (someone here will know when). Jeans, just like dress pants, used to come in just one, or maybe a handful, of lengths. The thought was that you'd have the retailer or a tailor hem them for you after you bought them. Not everyone did this, hence the relatively common use of healthily tall cuffs. The trend of modern jeans companies doing roughly the same is actually a nod to the past, not something new. Even some lower-end jeans companies still do this on women's jeans. For instance, Lee women's jeans come in a variety of waists, but only a few lengths: S, M, L...and sometimes P (petite) and SP (super petite).