Warehouse Duckdiggers

[02///M3]

I went to BIG yesterday and tried on the 1000xx. I wear a 32 generally and the 32 was way too big. The 31 was a bit too lose, but suprisingly the 30 was extremely tight. There was no inbetween. I would have bought the 30 right there, since they would probably stretch, but they only had the 10th anniversary edition, which is $100 more. Sorry for rambling.. I would suggest buying at least one, if not two, sizes down depending on how you like them to fit. Sick jeans though!

[xcoldricex]

ummm they are raw jeans. they shrink after you soak them, which is why the 32 was way too big. did they not tell you this?

[02///M3]

^^ haha wow. i wrote that post and then went on the BIG website, and have now returned to find this. i realized as soon as i looked on their site they were raw. i thought they were raw in the store as well, partly because the patch was new and the denim was so stiff, but the guy told me more than once they were one wash, which i specifically asked for when i was there. when i went to the site, i saw they were raw and came back to edit my post, and bam, you beat me to it. i guess even though it is on their site, they are out of the one wash. shit.

[tweeds]

wilful misrepresentation of goods?

maybe some sort of misunderstanding occurred...

[xcoldricex]

maybe you tried on the 30 in one wash and the others in raw, which is why the 30 was so tight on you.

anyway. looks like duckdiggers will have to wait. i got stupid and got some s5000bk's

[02///M3]

"I apologize if someone in the store misinformed you. My partner and myself were out of the store yesterday and our hired staff is still not 100% knowledgable." Got that email from a guy today after I asked if they were getting more in stock.

I went in, asked for one wash jeans. They gave me duckdiggers and sugarcane hawaii's. The duckdiggers were 32 and were huge, so they gave me a 30. I thought they were raw (new patch, very stiff), but he said they were onewash and Ive never seen dd's before. They were really tight, and I was about to buy them, but then realized they were the 10th anni and were $100 more. He said they didnt have the 1000xx or 1001xx in stock, but apparently this is not the case, as stated above.

Im going back tomorrow, and I'll make sure to post pics if I end up with em.

[jubei]

I was also informed that the DD's that they now have in stock are one wash (which I wasn't aware existed before... I'll have to inspect them when they get to me to confirm) Are you sure the salesman showed DD's? Because there is a difference between DD's and the rest of Warehouse's stuff (the biggest difference being that DD's have a much slubbier denim than standard Warehouse stuff).

I ask because the 10th anniversary range is part of Warehouse's standard range and they do have a model that is very similar to the 1930 DD ( I think it's called the Black Bear model)

Can't wait til my 1930's get in...

[jubei]

Oh mama.

I just became the proud owner of a size 29 one wash pair of 1930 duckdiggers.

I sized down one and I'm pretty glad I did. Instead of the trousier look, I got a nice slim seat with a regular leg. I have a feeling that it will stretch out a ton, though, since the unwashed size is pretty close to 32 (!!!) Denim is incredible, detailing is sick (it looks much better without a belt, incidentally)

Will post pics soon

[jubei]

Kinda pathetic that I've posted three times in a row, but whatevs. Double posted from how jeans fit:

Size 29 Duckdiggers 1930

I'm contemplating exchanging for my true size so that I can wear em on my hips instead of my waist. What do you guys think?

[Dick Danger]

What do you guys think?

nice butt

Warehouse is not about being in style, Warehouse is style. You'll have to work really fucking hard to make yourself look like an idiot while wearing a pair.

[synthi]

They will stretch, I wouldn't exchange. You can dampen the waistband to speed up the process. I prefer the 1950's version which I have but those are nice too.

[Charlie Delta]

I searched but I couldn't really find what I was looking for, so i'm bumping this thread.

I finally decided that I want to get a pair of the 1930 duckdiggers in a 32, and now I'm a bit worried that they might be too short for my (very long) legs. I won't be able to try them on as I'd have to order them.

It seems like they only come in one length wich is around 35 inch unwashed. I understood that they'll shrink around 3-3,5 inch in length, wich would mean they would end up too short for me. I'd need a 33 inseam at the very minimum, preferably 2 or 3 inches longer. Or could I try to keep the inseam shrinking at a minimum by cold soaking only?

Does the inseam get longer as the waist gets bigger or is there indeed only one lenght inseam on these?

Hope someone out there can help me out.

[mizanation]

why don't you just not soak them?

[Charlie Delta]

I thought about that, but I'd prefer to soak them before wearing.

Any help would be appreciated.

[mizanation]

cold soak will still shrink them, unfortunately... a short cold soak will shrink them to about a 34 i think... i soaked mine for several hours and the inseam shrunk to 33.

so, soak for a short time and you'll be ok.

[jubei]

I exchanged my size 29 1930s for a raw 32 inch 1920 and I can confirm for you that the inseam shrinks like crazy. As you stated they were like a 34-35 presoak and are now something like a 32.5-33 (which might be just right for you, judging from your original post). If you're worried, I would suggest stretching them out while they are still wet (maybe by attching weights to the bottom hems), as I think this denim has a lot of give in it.

I have no idea whether the inseams get longer as the waist gets bigger, but I'd guess that it doesn't based on how sizing goes for other companies like Sugarcane. Sugarcane inseams are 32 inches up to waist 29, and are 34 inches from waist 30 to 36 or 38 ( they might get longer up in that range).

OT: I ended up sizing up so that I could wear them more as loose trousers rather than uber-tight pants... I figured that the whole reason why they had all bucklebacks and hardware was to help keeps your pants up right? I also switched models, since at BiG all DD's cost the same and the 1920's just had so many more details I wanted (triple stitch, double selvage outseam and reinforcemnt stitching being my fave details, though the crotch reinforcement and large backpockets were also very nice) Either way, I dont think you can go wrong with these jeans.

[Charlie Delta]

Thanks, I really want them so I guess I'll just get them and hope I'm lucky.

Maybe I should size down one size so I don't have to shrink them to the maximum.

Hmmm? Questions.

[jubei]

wouldn't the inseam shrink the same amount regardless of what waist size you got? I think that since you're going to be wearing these jeans for a while you should be more conerned about the fit on your top block... I'd really suggest trying them on if at all possible.

Edit: once you get yours, you me and Miz can be the miniature DD contest, lol

[mizanation]

haha, that's funny joobs. hey, warehouse made a belt that says "DUCKDIGGER" in huge letters. maybe that would be the prize.

[Charlie Delta]

Really not possible to try on unfortunatly. I was thinking about the short cold soak too, but them maybe the waist wouldn't shrink enough. Or I could just try to only soak the upperhalf of the jeans.

Miz, what were the raw measurements on your 31?

[mizanation]

hmm. raw measurements of the 31... don't remember exactly. but it was a smidgen looser than post soak. maybe one inch or so looser?

don't soak just the upper half of the jeans, could be the recipe for disaster.

maybe size down one and then do a quick cold soak, just enough to get the sizing off. you should be good after that...

[ang_kangkong]

Not to contradict miz, but you can just spot soak the top after the cold soak. I did this to a pair (not DDs, Lees, and not the cold soak part), and the results were satisfactory. I used a mix of really hot tap and boiling hot water.

Of course, after awhile, it'll stretch back out... but you can deal with that later.

[mizanation]

the question is, from where to where do you soak?

[Charlie Delta]

I figured I could just dip the waistband in hot water after a cold soak, that way the waist would get the most shrinkage, and if the hips shrink a bit too that wouldn't be such a problem, it's mainly the legs that I'm scared about.

Also if the waist ends up being (a bit) too big, the 1930 model has a cinch to save it a bit.

Maybe I should size down to a 31 since the length wouldn't make a difference anyway.

Dammit, I thought I figured the whole sizing thing out, until I discovered these short inseams!

[ang_kangkong]

I soaked mine to the end of the rise. It's hard to get it exact, because water'll creep up the denim. Just soak that denim in really hot water (don't know how you feel about the leather patch, and I've seen a thread that showed a patch that got dried out like jerky because they poured boiling water on it, but that's the look they were going for) for awhile. If you're serious about this, you can even use a blow-dryer to dry it.

[Charlie Delta]

So it worked out ok for you? Did you it the way I just described, so hot waist soak after a complete cold soak? The possibilty of the patch shrinking up is not a problem for me, I quite like it actually.

I also have to find the raw measurements of the 31 somewhere.

[jubei]

not to be a dick, but wouldn't this make washing the garment a huge hassle in the future?

[Charlie Delta]

Yep, it would, I guess I could try to just lukewarm soak them, once it's washing time. I realise that the inseam will shrink at some point and that the jeans will be on the short side for me anyway, I just don't want to overshoot it.

I worry too much......

[mizanation]

hey, if you want to keep the leather patch from shriveling up, apply some mink oil, neatsfoot oil or leather balm and you'll be ok.

[synthi]

^ Good quality body moisturiser works too! Natural varieties by say Lush (a chain in the UK) or Keils (their 'pour homme' outmeal body moisturiser is pure badass) should work nicely. End of metrosexual post . .