Freewheelers, Bootleggers Reunion, Bubo, etc.

[Duke Mantee]

I measure with the denims pulled tight across the waist 

[shredwin_206]

1927 jacket. Love this thing 

[mstax]

@Duke Mantee Double-checked: I made sure the before and after measurements were taken the same way: waist laid flat and spread out but not pulled while measuring. So the amount of shrinkage would be the same, pulled or not pulled. But the end measurement might be a little bigger when pulled.

[Duke Mantee]

58 minutes ago, mstax said:

@Duke Mantee Double-checked: I made sure the before and after measurements were taken the same way: waist laid flat and spread out but not pulled while measuring. So the amount of shrinkage would be the same, pulled or not pulled. But the end measurement might be a little bigger when pulled.

The measurements will be different ‘pulled’ - that being the reason I asked, and unless you wear your denims very loose then I believe it’s necessary to acknowledge the full dimensions since that’s how they’ll fit your waist.

I’ve posted many times previously on this … I’ve ALWAYS found FW to meet tag size, but clearly there are multiple methods of measurement.

[Dr_Heech]

On 4/29/2024 at 11:44 PM, olmecasteve said:

Reading such great things about freewheelers that I’m taking the plunge on the 1942 jacket from Hoosier. One interesting thing he mentioned is that he usually processes the rivets and buckle (make them less sharp) at customers request. 
do you guys usually go ahead and ask him to do that or just wear as is?

Only just read back and seen this.

I've only owned a couple of pairs of FW denims (Also a pair of Bootleggers which had similar rivets) and l didn't find them a problem, however this time as l'm ordering both jeans and jacket with bucklebacks, l decided to have all the rivets processed just to be on the safe side. I don't want to be ripping up friends' couches when on a visit. I only said yes to the rivet process because l was asked, although l left the buckle unprocessed as l didn't think it would be a problem. 

I can hear the groans all the way from Arbroath 

 

[mstax]

10 hours ago, Duke Mantee said:

The measurements will be different ‘pulled’ - that being the reason I asked, and unless you wear your denims very loose then I believe it’s necessary to acknowledge the full dimensions since that’s how they’ll fit your waist.

I’ve posted many times previously on this … I’ve ALWAYS found FW to meet tag size, but clearly there are multiple methods of measurement.

Just measured with the waist pulled: 17 1/4 inch. I’m assuming the one wash measurements were indeed 18 inch with the waist pulled so in that case the waist shrunk 3/4 inch (1,5 total). Let’s say it will stretch out with wearing, so I’m left with 1 inch shrinkage as opposed to when I got them.

[tooth]

@Broark @Dr_Heech did you both go with your typical FW size for the 1942 jeans? I wear a 32” in FW, but the charts I’ve seen have the 1942 running a bit large?

Thanks in advance!

[Dr_Heech]

8 minutes ago, tooth said:

@Broark @Dr_Heech did you both go with your typical FW size for the 1942 jeans? I wear a 32” in FW, but the charts I’ve seen have the 1942 running a bit large?

Thanks in advance!

Yes l did go with my typical size.

Hoosier very kindly hand measured (Inc. pics) sizes 32 and 33, as l'd heard the same info as you as wanted to be as sure as l could about nailing the correct size. Every since l fell in love with FW denim l've always been a 33. Owned and sold a pair of FW47'S because l didn't ask for advice beforehand (a sz 34) and gave my sz 32 FW47'S to my son after vanity sizing led to the pockets being too small to be properly functional. My old, now sold 51's were a 33 and always fit perfectly, albeit a little low in the front rise for my tastes it turned out.

[Broark]

@tooth I went with my usual FW size, I believe the cut is somewhat similar to the '37s so I'm expecting them to be a little loose up top.
Will post measurements once they arrive.

[tooth]

@Dr_Heech @Broark thanks to you both! 

[shredwin_206]

The 1937s do indeed run large. I was advised to go down one size than my typical FW size and am happy with the fit. I do know people who took their normal size in the 37s and have to wash more frequently to keep them from getting too sloppy. 

[indigoeagle]

12 minutes ago, shredwin_206 said:

The 1937s do indeed run large. I was advised to go down one size than my typical FW size and am happy with the fit. I do know people who took their normal size in the 37s and have to wash more frequently to keep them from getting too sloppy. 

Yep, also my experience.
I got them in 33 vs. my ususal 34 (ore recently 36) and they fit very comfortably.
The 51 on the other hand are quite slim in 33. 34 would have been better.
 

[tooth]

I went with a 32”, but also asked Speedway for some advice. I’m ok with them being roomier in the top block and overall (in fact, I upsized on a purchase I made at the beginning of the year and have grown to really like the (anti) fit…).

Which leads me to something I’ve been thinking about since a trip I took to Japan back in January of 2023 - and I’ve been wondering if any of you have had a similar experience.

With the exception of Fullcount, every shop I visited - Freewheelers, warehouse (multiple locations), flat head, Sapporo Base (when I was in Sapporo), etc - the shop employee was trying to get me to size up 1-2-3 sizes from what I would typically wear/buy. And I noticed, in my opinion, that most of the shop workers were wearing jeans well above what their actual size would/should be… I could tell from the way the top block folded back on itself and had that kind of undulation in the fabric between pockets and fly and from the rear a quite saggy bottom. I would say they just wore their jeans very differently and had an overall different idea of how jeans should fit/be worn. When I’ve tried on jeans in the US and EU, it always seems the opposite where a shop employee is trying to get me to size down because of stretch (especially 10-15 years ago…).

Dealing with temporary discomfort for a ‘perfect fit’ (whatever that means) when I was in my early 30s feels a lot different now that I’m 43 - and I have a much better sense of how I like jeans to fit now.

In any case, I found this curious, and like I said, something I’ve been thinking about and considering since that trip.

Is this an East vs West thing and our general idea around aesthetics? Or did the move towards ‘true’ size just seem to take hold in Japan earlier than the US? Or, I’m I just over thinking?

This probably belongs in the general discussion, so please feel free to move, or I can delete…

 

Edited May 27 by tooth

[julian-wolf]

^ I think a lot of it connects to the history of what was available around the middle of the last century, when jeans were starting to gain traction in Japan: my understanding is that most of what they had access to was leftover stock from US soldiers, which would have centered more around the “golden sizes” typical to US men of the time, making them fairly oversized for most Japanese folks. This caught on as the way jeans were expected to fit, and I guess it sort of just stuck.

Edited May 27 by julian-wolf

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

I really tend to not enjoy excess waistband - which is why a more generous cut through the leg is welcome. Sizing up is a look, and yes it seems to be more embraced. I’ve got a couple of pairs I went that route on, but in general it’s nice to have something that fits relatively proper sans belt IMO. In the end I think you get what feels right - sizing down is riskier obviously. 

Speaking of Full Count - I love the 0105 cut (because you don’t need to size up the waist for something really comfortable) - but their sizing is all over the place. My 29s in the “super smooth” denim feel half to a whole size larger in the waist (but not the rest of the leg) than my size 30 in the black x white. And my 29 super smooths feel about the same as my 32’s in their chinos! They all came in about as expected - I sized right for what I wanted - but the measurements differed so much for a given item size I was doubting myself.

[Broark]

As promised, some recent deliveries from Mr. Seiichiro. I also got a handful of tees, didn't photograph those.
Won't be able to wear these for a few months but that's okay.
506xx 1942.


Blythestone flannel.

Lot 100 Ironalls jacket.

Deck Worker jacket.

S-8 jacket.

M-1951 field jacket.

[Duke Mantee]

Jeans being waist overalls until the 60s 

Finding the perfect fit now basically results in buying denims with such particular dimensions it nullifies the cut / pattern

[Maynard Friedman]

I think @Broark needs more jackets. Global Cooling™ is hitting Texas at an alarming rate 😆

[Broark]

Honestly we just need to move somewhere more temperate.

[mstax]

@Broark How’s the sizing on the 506xx ‘42? I noticed that this jacket measures bigger than the ‘46-‘47 version. My size 48 ‘46-‘47 in one wash is around 60 cm chest and Hoosier’s measurements of size 48 in the ‘42 come in at 65 cm chest.

[Broark]

@mstax I'll take some measurements for you soon, plan is to wash it once I get the jeans in.
Raw it feels similar to other type I jackets I have from FW, however I don't own the '47 version.
For reference I have the '22, '33 and '45 all in size 46.

[indigoeagle]

What would be the differences between the 42 and the 46 506XX?
The pocket looks a bit smaller.

Buttons were smaller on the 22 and 33 I think, but here it's already the same I think as 46.
Perhaps the pleats stitiching are smaller, too.

Also the tab is there already.
 

[Broark]

Main difference is the denim, the '42 uses the same denim as the S601xx WWII jacket.
But the buttons are also different as is the stitching color. And the cinch is coated black / dark silver as opposed to polished silver.
And the tab is a bit faded, a bit more washed out pink. Not sure about the pocket specs from a size perspective.

[tooth]

@Broark that deck jacket is awesome. I tried it on recently when I was in CA and have been thinking about it since. Nice pick up overall!

[Broark]

@tooth I missed it the first time around back in 2021, and honestly it worked out for the best.
The updated model is a bit looser fitting and has the two way zipper which is a nice touch.

[julian-wolf]

How’s the left pocket configured on the Blythestone? Hard to tell from photos

[Broark]

13 minutes ago, julian-wolf said:

How’s the left pocket configured on the Blythestone? Hard to tell from photos

The top is stitched down, there's a pen holder on the left hand side and there's a cutout in the middle where you can access it.

Stole this photo from Brogue:

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

Oh man that’s a haul and I really feel for the lack of wearable days you’ve got. Michigan would suit you well and then you can even get all the FW Great Lakes gear with the utmost appropriateness. These last few years a lined denim jacket can get you through even a lot of winter days, though that won’t be true in the northern parts. 

[Broark]

@AlientoyWorkmachine another user on here that I chat with a lot has been talking up Michigan, seems like a nice spot.
Winters would be a big change but honestly with how brutal the last few summers have been down here it sounds like a nice change of pace.
Also have some family moving back to the DC area soon so that's another option. I just want anywhere with four actual, distinguishable seasons!

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

I spent five years in NC and I’m never living south again if I can help it. Even DC is further than I’d go haha. (But, better!) I know some people love it.

We get 4 real seasons here and it’s one of my favorite things in life. Housing, coming from Austin, would probably seem pretty reasonable too! Winters do get some people down - the sun can go away for a good while. You’ve got to get outside. For me, I like that. Lots of chances to wear all those great jackets.