Mtvare

That doesn't bother me at all. Not that fussed about exclusive special features and the like. I'm still up for an unofficial contest - that is, I probably wouldn't buy these jeans ordinarily but if several people on here will do so as soon as they become available and wear them consistently, I'll do the same.

I might be up for this too.

I'm not going to rise to that one.

I prefer to keep hiking them up because they look and feel better in the right place. But it is a pain. I'm really liking the SC 47 at the moment because the waist is pinched in a lot after a fairly wide hip, which makes them comfortable and (at the moment at least) keeps them where they should be. What I find odd is that if you look at pictures from the 40s and 50s (e.g. rivet_head_com on IG) almost everyone has their jeans (with a fairly high to very high rise) sitting in the right place, in most cases without a belt. I guess it could be selection bias, with all the sagged jeans failing to fit the aesthetic criteria of today's photographic "curators", but it doesn't seem likely.

Don't know about the new ones but the old Cone ones shrank a lot, especially in length. If the new denim behaves similarly, it'll be very short but still have plenty of room in the arms after the wash.

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.