Freewheelers, Bootleggers Reunion, Bubo, etc.

[lee porter 386]

21 hours ago, Duke Mantee said:

Here’s something I’m working on. It’s not finished because I want to show a comparison of all the 601XX cuts. These are actual measurements of my own jeans, which have all been:

a) Hemmed to varying lengths for cuffing purposes, so the hem is based on a 770mm inseam

b) Washed and worn, some more than others, so the waist is less certain and stretch and shrink will have a small impact 

Anyway it might be useful as long as you don’t get too hung up on every millimetre …

What size do you take duke please 

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

@lee porter 33 mate … but reed wot I rote - this is the draft of what I’m looking to achieve fir the whole range of 601xx. It’s not finished nor should it be used until I’m done with it

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

Definitely need to wash the ‘non-wash’ S601XX twice (if not more, but probably unlikely) - that’s two cycles at 40°C/3x rinse/400rpm spin - both times there was shrinkage, second time not so much, mostly on the rise and inseam.

Back rise (crotch bartack to top of waistband above belt loop) 470mm > 455mm

Front rise (crotch bartack to top of waistband above button) 335mm > 320mm

Thigh (crotch bartack straight across to outseam) 340mm > 333mm

Knee (330mm below crotch bartack straight across) 250mm > 245mm

Hem (measured at finished edge before and after washing) 223mm > 218mm

Inseam (hemmed at 810mm) 810mm > 770mm

Waist (pulled tight) 880mm > 840mm

 

In summary - don’t size down from your usual FW size, and most outlets are saying the ‘cut’ is between a ‘47 and a ‘51 … IMO they are not ‘between’. I can understand from the point of view that the ‘47 is broadly similar on the top block and the taper from the knee is more reminiscent of the ‘51 BUT they are more voluminous than either (especially the ‘51).

I think the cut is brilliant, it gives the impression of the thicker silhouette which I think is how war cuts should be, but different enough, because of that slight taper, from the ‘47 which really is (was) their apex of authenticity of cut but which can be a little too wide for the modern palate.

Edited June 13 by Duke Mantee
Measurements added

[AnOldFolkSong 447]

https://imgur.com/a/evyxEL
an album of my 1947s after washes and dries

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

Ok, I think this gives the main styles (no bush pants, flares etc). 

They are all 33 inch waist, so I’ve not put that dimension on the graphic since most of the jeans actually do come out to tagged waist size. I’ve simply added a + or - deviation to those that don’t.

And to repeat the method:

Back rise measurement is from crotch bartack to top of waistband above belt loop pulled tight

Front rise measurements is from crotch bartack to top of waistband above button pulled tight

Thigh measurement is centre of crotch bartack straight across to outside of leg pulled tight

Knee measurement is taken 330mm below crotch bartack and straight across pulled tight

Hem measurement is taken 770mm below crotch bartack and straight across pulled tight 

Please remember these are my measurements on my jeans, and those jeans are all in various states of use/age/wash. This is to give a general classification - your dealer can give you details from new.

 

 

Edited June 15 by Duke Mantee

[julian-wolf 5,985]

26 minutes ago, Duke Mantee said:

Thigh measurement is centre of crotch bartack straight across to outseam pulled tight

Just to the outseam, or all the way to the outside of the leg?

Great collection of info—thanks for taking the time

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

5 hours ago, julian-wolf said:

Just to the outseam, or all the way to the outside of the leg?

Great collection of info—thanks for taking the time

Let’s call it width edge to edge at that point

[julian-wolf 5,985]

Has anyone tried the recent PCT shorts? Look really appealing—interested in whether the double back extends all the way to the seat seam or just covers the pockets

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

3 hours ago, julian-wolf said:

Has anyone tried the recent PCT shorts? Look really appealing—interested in whether the double back extends all the way to the seat seam or just covers the pockets

I’ve got the denim version from 2015 - I’ll post some pics ‘shortly’ - but the double back is one piece across to the seat seam

Edited June 17 by Duke Mantee

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

Easily in excess of 50 washes - 10.5oz ‘military’ denim (same as my Westinghouse suit) - I wear these in the house, garden, and in better weather, wandering about the town. The denim seems immortal …

[Broark 14,812]

S series tux has landed, both received raw. I'll put them through the wash today and report back with post-wash measurements.

Agree with what Duke mentioned before, the color / hand feel is much different (at least when raw) compared to my 601xx 1943 jeans.
These feel a lot more grainy and have a more noticeable slub / irregular hand by comparison.
Of course the rivets are as sharp as ever. I can see this possibly being an issue with the cinch on the jacket, I'll likely hammer them down so they don't puncture my car seats.
Here are some photos and measurements for both in their current state.

S601xx jeans, size 36, raw.
Waist: 37.5 in.
Front rise: 14 in.
Back rise: 19.5 in. (yes, it is that high!)
Thigh: 14.25 in.
Knee: 11 in.
Hem: 9.75 in.
Inseam: 34 in.
(Thanks to Edwin's grandma for the aftermarket pockets!)











 

S506xx jacket, size 46, raw.
Chest: 24.75 in.
Shoulders: 21 in.
Sleeves: 26.5 in.
Body length: 26 in.

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

About time! FW will be announcing their new collection soon! 

Always been envious of the t-back, I think they look cool 

[julian-wolf 5,985]

Thanks Duke, those look great. Will probably pick up a pair of the canvas ones along with a shirt from the upcoming collection…

[MJF9 7,624]

@Broark same comment as to Duke - great tuxtastic pick up... will be interested in post-wash numbers

@shredwin_206 awesome work by your Grandma!  

 

[LazyS 572]

Swamper and S601XX

 

Edited June 18 by LazyS

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

Nice combo!

[JohnM 1,254]

Nice work Duke on the measurements of your FW jeans.  With your inspiration, I found a pair of washed 1944-45 in 34 from Mirrorball in Japan (raw is long gone) -- should be here in a week or so.  Over the course of asking about various FW models and their availability (or unavailability), I received an email from FW that described the basic differences between the 1943, 1944-45, 1947, 1951 denim as follows:

"Regarding the difference of denim, new fabric for 1945, and previous WW2 denim for 1943, are darker and thicker than our standard XX denim (for 1947 & 1951).  1947 and 1951 are our standard item.  It means we’ve been producing them for several years."

Regarding cut differences, FW said this:  

"About the cut of 44-45, it’s same as 1943 model.  43 and 44-45 are in the middle.  It means those are little bit wider than 1951, and little bit slimmer than 1947."

... as well as this about the future availability of the 1944-45:

"We'll produce them again in the future for sure (the specific time is not decided).  Please look forward to it anyway!"

 

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

Delighted you found a pair John.

The variations through FW denim (at least for their 601 series) is quite subtle so that’s great information for interested parties - thanks for sharing it.

[Broark 14,812]

Couple of fit pics of the tux, I won't be able to wear the jacket until it cools down but I've spent the last few days in the jeans.
Happy with the fit on both after a hot wash, might give the jeans another wash to ensure all shrink is accounted for.

[MJF9 7,624]

@Broark spot on mate... cracking tux, great fit

[Toegun 2,010]

@Broark looking good. I saw your raw measurements for both. Could you put up the post washed measurements too? I have the same jacket but by Samurai and because of the 4 buttons I always wished I had a larger size.  

[Flash 250,011]

Think those may be you best fitting pair of jeans mate 

[Broark 14,812]

Thanks everyone, FW just seems to tick all the boxes for me lately.
@Toegun I'll get some post wash measurements up soon!

[JohnM 1,254]

Jacket looks great Broark -- nice, dark denim and fit!

How would you compare it to the TCB 40s, which (if I recall) ran a little smaller?

[Broark 14,812]

Thanks @JohnM, the jacket fits much more like an actual 46 compared to the TCB version which fit like a 44.
That felt significantly smaller, I could barely button it up.

[JohnM 1,254]

^ Thanks Broark. I agree that the TCB 40s jacket runs small.  My 44 fits more like a 42.  I’d guess the TCB and FW jackets are otherwise similar — both very nice, dark denim and WWII details. 

My washed pair of FW 1944-45 (34) jeans came today. Other than a slightly asymmetrical back pocket placement, I love em — beautiful denim, long enough (33”), and a roomy top block and high rise. The waist measures only a little over 33” but will likely (hopefully) stretch with wear. 
 

[JohnM 1,254]

After noticing the asymmetry of the S601XX 1944-45 back pockets in the pic above (the right pocket is a half inch lower than the left pocket, closest to the middle seam), I reached out to Freewheelers to understand whether this was an out of spec sewing error or intentional.  Here is their response.  In short, I liked the jeans even with what I thought was a sewing flaw and like them even more now ;-)

"Thank you very much for your purchase, we’re happy to hear you’ve got the jeans,

And thanks for informing that the pocket of the jeans is tilted.

Yes, the pocket is not symmetrical… it’s tilted intentionally, as the design in fact.

The designer of it loves unevenness of products in that era. He loves the imperfection of old American products.

He’s making asymmetrical back pockets by requesting sewing factory to do so, and by using ‘greige’ denim as vintage denim.

So… pockets of other S601XX pair are tilted too (more or less).

However we understands it’s not easy to accept for most of people. Every pair of modern jeans are symmetrical naturally.

Compared with modern one, ours may be like defective products!

Anyway, this is our way of designing jeans.

We really hope you enjoy it.

Best regards,

Freewheelers & Co."

[beautiful_FrEaK 1,671,227]

Fit pics please, @JohnM

[Maynard Friedman 569,042]

“We were doing the imperfect aesthetic way before CSF”.

[Duke Mantee 11,212]

57 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

“We were doing the imperfect aesthetic way before CSF”.

There’s an interesting part in the process of pattern cutting that I’m not sure anyone has yet picked up on.