

Mtvare
member-
Content Count
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
N/A
Community Reputation
188 making progressAbout Mtvare
-
Rank
super
Profile Information
-
style
none
-
attitude
none
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
I was too lazy to engage properly with the posting aspect of the 40s contest, but I did quite well with the wearing aspect. 40s tux from a few months ago:
-
Some recent shots after washing. The 50s are the oldest, but the 40s (newest) have had most wear, since I wore them most of the time during the contest. 20s, 40s, 50s:
-
Apart from the 40s debacle (where the initial measurements given were definitely wrong) I've never had a pair from any brand that didn't stretch beyond what I needed so I don't worry too much about sizing down. (Which phrase means different things to different people - and in different contexts - anyway. Some people mean taking a different size than is intended for the cut on your frame, e.g. to make a '55 cut into slim jeans. I just mean taking a different size from other pairs by the same manufacturer in order to get the waist right.) Thanks for the size chart comparison - I guess the 20s waist measurements are laid flat, and that's what accounts for the extra inch. The rise makes a big difference for me. I need around 1.5" more for a pair that sits on the hips like the 20s than one that sits at the true waist like the 37s.
-
The waists all seem to be an inch or more oversized, which - coupled with the high rise and the stretching tendencies of TCB denim - suggests sizing down a fair bit. I'd be keen on a pair of TCB looser than my 20s but not sure I'd get that if I had to size down to 31...
-
Thank you!
-
Yeah that fit is great. @Topnotcher would you mind measuring the front rise please? Those might be my size depending on the rise.
-
SC47 v TCB50s isn't an easy comparison because of the differences in fit. The 1947 has a very high rise and nipped-in waist then is full through the hips. The 50s rise is probably an inch lower. I wear 32 in the 1947 and 33 in the 50s but I wear the 1947 at my true waist. Lots of people say the 1947 is undersized in the waist but I get the impression that's because they wear them lower on the hips. If I wore the 1947 in the same place as my 50s sit I'd need to size up at least one.
-
Good point although actually I don't mind that so much.
-
Me too. And I'm positively put off by any stitching that might appear to mark me out as some kind of fashionista, which I am not and do not aspire to be. For example I like the look and feel of Iron Heart's 21oz denim but I don't like the loud arcs that announce to people that I'm wearing Iron Heart.
-
Really like those on you @beautiful_FrEaK - nice change from your usual more tapered style.
-
Their version of the 50s jacket was, as you say, slimmer and longer than the Levi's original. Then they decided to make their cut more like the original - hence now a bit wider and shorter.
-
The reviews of those are worth reading.
-
Happy jeans: TCBxSufu S40s WW2 contest thread
Mtvare replied to volvo240thebest's topic in superdenim
A quick update before third wash. These haven't seen as much wear as they might have, because after exchanging the 33s when they were too small, I lost lots of weight and now the 34s are too big in the waist. But with the contest nearing the finish line and having acquired a decent belt, I've been inspired to stick with them again. -
Damn, my 33s are going to end up way too big then....
-
That latest IH effort rather belies their explicit claim that they don't follow fashion trends.