TCB

[indigoeagle]

37 minutes ago, Hopethisoneisnttaken said:

@indigoeagle The inseam was tricky and I didn’t get it as I wanted. It’s different than jeans, I guess the rise is related as you mentioned. 

Thank you @Hopethisoneisnttaken

How tall are you? Was the inseam of your pair then also stated as 75cm?

I got away with 34 in the 50s and got the S40s in 36.
So 34 might be way to go here, considering that they're a quite wide cut. That should still be comfy.
Or better 36?

[yung_flynn]

My Cat's Drive jeans sound like they arrived today. I will try them on later and will probably wear tomorrow as long as they fit. I'm a little concerned that the waist may be a bit too small though since I had to order 2 sizes down from my 50's (31 vs. 33) due to availability. However, my size 33 50's have a bit of extra space in the waist and I could have probably worn a 32. The Cat's Drive rise is a bit higher too at 12.5" which should help.

Regardless of whether they fit or not, I will try to get some nice detail pics when I get a chance this week or over the weekend even if only to catch-and-release.

[Alec Leamas]

Interested to see / hear your thoughts @yung_flynn, I received my pair early last week and I’ve been mulling over the fit for the whole week since.

They have potentially rung the final bell on my foray into slim taper fits, I’m just not sure they’re my game, or whether I’m made for them. I could of course got the fit entirely wrong and needed a size or 2 up. It’s a shame as I do love the details on them so much, perhaps a tight top block is the James Dean vibe I was subconsciously yearning for.

Two things I will say though, the pocket bags are INSANELY small, which feels very strange. And, as all in this thread know, TCB are an amazing company. So good in fact, that I ordered a pair of 50s the same day I received the cats drive and they arrived yesterday, fit is much more my thing and I know those will be a long term wash and wear regularly pair for me.

[Alec Leamas]

A couple of detail shots just so it wasn’t all waffle and no content, including a shot of the pocket bags for illustration. I’m sure the size of them is accurately reproduced from Lee pocket bags!

[yung_flynn]

4 hours ago, Alec Leamas said:

Interested to see / hear your thoughts @yung_flynn, I received my pair early last week and I’ve been mulling over the fit for the whole week since.

They have potentially rung the final bell on my foray into slim taper fits, I’m just not sure they’re my game, or whether I’m made for them. I could of course got the fit entirely wrong and needed a size or 2 up. It’s a shame as I do love the details on them so much, perhaps a tight top block is the James Dean vibe I was subconsciously yearning for.

Two things I will say though, the pocket bags are INSANELY small, which feels very strange. And, as all in this thread know, TCB are an amazing company. So good in fact, that I ordered a pair of 50s the same day I received the cats drive and they arrived yesterday, fit is much more my thing and I know those will be a long term wash and wear regularly pair for me.

I have a lot more detail shots and measurements that I will upload later after I finish a few meetings. I agree regarding the fit of these. They are much slimmer than the measurements would suggest - really Exhibit a for how a few stray measurements don't tell the whole fit story. I agree about the pocket bags- it's hard to convey just how small they are. I'm also on the fence about keeping them, but there are some cool details that I do like about them

[yung_flynn]

Here are some details for the TCB Cat's Drive in size 31.

Waist:15.25" (stretched to 15.5" after trying on and a bit bigger still after wearing for a bit)

Front Rise: 12"

Back Rise: 14.5"

Thigh (at crotch): 12.4"

Knee (rough judgement): 9"

Leg Opening: 8"

Inseam: 33" (hemmed at factory)

Out of the box, they are super stiff, much more than the TCB 50's new. On paper, the measurements are nearly identical to my size 31 Warehouse Duck Digger 1001xx 1947, but the fit of the TCB feels much slimmer, especially in the hips and seat. The top block (really from mid-thigh up) almost reminds me of Samurai S211VX (which I'm also on the fence about selling off), but the taper is much more gentle from the knee down. In terms of sizing, I ordered 2 sizes down from my 50's because they were sold out of 32 when I ordered and I figured that my 50's were maybe a 1/2 inch too large anyway. I'd be curious how they would fit in a size up, but I feel like the pattern is designed to be worn slim and these technically do fit in the waist. Like @alecleamas, I feel like these may be a bit too slim and tapered for my present 1947-1955 taste, although they are certainly less slim and less tapered than contemporary "relaxed tapered" cuts. There are a lot of words here, but I find it strangely hard to describe how these fit.

I really like some of the details on these, but I'm a little unsure whether I like the fit enough to keep. I will wear them for a bit to see how they relax. The wide set back pockets are pretty cool and flattering in my opinion. Both front and back pockets are tiny though, too small for a modern cell phone and almost even for a wallet. The denim is much greyer in appearance than the 50's denim, although it's a bit hard to capture on camera. The denim also has some interesting character - the left hand twill is very soft and smooth but there is some roughness (and maybe some nep?) as well. I feel like it will probably age pretty well. The stitching feels a bit sloppier than on my 50's, especially along the pocket bags where the stitches are not aligned (see detail shot near end of photos), but that may be by design. The rayon inside label is a bit confusing as it says "Sanforized Shrunk", but Ryo told me that they were actually unsanforized. Puckering and roping feels much less than on my new 50's too and the yoke is almost flat.. Coupled with the stiffness I almost wonder whether they are sanforized, non-wash - may have to check with Ryo again just to verify. The fly is gloriously long and I really like the buttons. The fit has actually relaxed a bunch within an hour and they ride up much less in the back. I may give them a full day or two of wear to see how they break in before deciding whether to release them.

[yung_flynn]

As a final addendum, these ultimately stretched to 15.75”. It’s hard to overstate just how stiff this denim is. The fit most reminds me of how WH 1001xx fit me except with rigid and unforgiving denim rather than soft Banner Denim and a more cinched waist. To @AlientoyWorkmachinepoint in WAYWT, they technically fit but the rigid denim and narrow hips makes them like a much less comfortable pair of 1001xx on me. I changed into my 1001xx immediately after and the difference was night and day despite fitting nearly the same from the crotch down. The denim relaxed a lot after some wear and stopped riding up in the back (not sure if you can tell the difference from the after photos). The back rise is only 2” higher than the front rise - another inch would have been more ideal for me. My suspicion is that this denim will soften a lot with wear and that they would be a lot more comfortable at that point. Not sure if I’d reach for them enough to reach that point though. Leaning towards re-selling but I’m not in a big rush to decide, same with my pair of Samurai s211 (if anything these reinforced how much I dislike the tiny leg opening on those)

Edited March 20 by yung_flynn

[super-thermite]

@yung_flynn you look totally miserable in that last set. I know that face, and that feeling: "Get me out of these things, damnit. Why am I doing this to myself..." 😂

[yung_flynn]

11 minutes ago, super-thermite said:

@yung_flynn you look totally miserable in that last set. I know that face, and that feeling: "Get me out of these things, damnit. Why am I doing this to myself..." 😂

It's also the "too many meetings and I'm ready to go home" face.

Never having tried on a pair of Iron Hearts, I imagine that this is what they would feel like in terms of stiffness. The back pocket even creased during international transit since the denim is so rigid. Easiest pair of pants in the world to fold - no flopping around

[super-thermite]

IH dragged me back in with the 1955 and its high rise. I have been spoiled by the Warehouse, OA, and FC denims. The 21 oz used to feel easy compared to UHR and whatnot. Holy smokes, it took 15 days to get the waistband to give in.

[julian-wolf]

I’m surprised to see those compared to the 1001xx at all. On paper, and by every other description I’ve seen, they’re way slimmer cross the board

[yung_flynn]

17 hours ago, julian-wolf said:

I’m surprised to see those compared to the 1001xx at all. On paper, and by every other description I’ve seen, they’re way slimmer cross the board

Only from the crotch down. The waist and hips are much slimmer than the 1001xx. Laid flat on the floor, the Cat's Drive are almost a perfectly straight diagonal below the cinch in the waistband in the top block without any of the hip flare that makes the 1001xx more comfortable and roomy.

To be fair, they only remind me of the 1001xx (which fit relatively slimly on me) in terms of the dimensions through the legs relative to me legs (only my opinion though - it's hard to get past the dissonance of how they measure vs. actually feel). The drape and how they actually feel while moving is very different, partly because the Cat's Drive fabric is so rigid compared to Banner Denim. The white Oxford photo is taken with my 1001xx and the sweater with the TCB. I'm super curious to see how they fit someone else.

Edited March 21 by yung_flynn

[Alec Leamas]

Some fit pics on my Cats Drive pair, for illustration of the fit on a different body type.

I put them on again today to find that actually, they're not so uncomfortable and maybe I will put some time into them - the fabric is already softening and I imagine will become very comfortable over time.

On 3/20/2024 at 10:21 PM, julian-wolf said:

I’m surprised to see those compared to the 1001xx at all. On paper, and by every other description I’ve seen, they’re way slimmer cross the board

I actually did the same thing, I compared the size charts beforehand to my DD-1001XX (1947) (essentially my North star fit-preference wise, granted the waist is a bit big for me, but overall as yet unbeatable) - and the comparison of the measurements I need to know about looks like this:

     DD1001XX (34) // TCB Cat's Drive (32)
Waist (flat): 42cm // 40cm
Front Rise: 31cm // 32cm
Thigh (my KEY measurement): 31cm // 31cm
Hem width (at unhemmed inseam length): 21.5cm // 20cm 

Given that, I imagined I was going to be in for a spacious pair - as you can see - I was indeed not!

As mentioned above it was truly a lesson in a set of measurements not giving the full picture. It wasn't the fit I was after, but maybe I'll get along with it anyway! They certainly won't be getting my usual treatment of regular wash and dries.

 

Edited March 21 by Alec Leamas

[buler]

Probably a topic more for a general thread, but I've always felt the measurements should include the hip area. Many times you even have to dig around to get a rear rise number. But I feel like some cuts just have much less fabric in the hip/arse area. Also, some have too much in the hips and they kind of bag out.

[Alec Leamas]

3 hours ago, buler said:

Probably a topic more for a general thread, but I've always felt the measurements should include the hip area. Many times you even have to dig around to get a rear rise number. But I feel like some cuts just have much less fabric in the hip/arse area. Also, some have too much in the hips and they kind of bag out.

100% agree, a hip/seat measurement would really help me out!

It’s more of a constant than rear rise measurement as well I feel, given that the stitching up the centre of the rear rise does contract significantly on most pairs when going through the first few washes.

[Maynard Friedman]

Where exactly do you take the hip measurement from? It’s not something I’ve ever been concerned about.

[Alec Leamas]

1 minute ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Where exactly do you take the hip measurement from? It’s not something I’ve ever been concerned about.

That’s a good question, and I suppose it would vary depending on the rise/how high the design intends them to sit on a person. Maybe that’s why it’s never available.

I guess like some thigh measurement approaches it could be a set distance down from the waistband.

[Mtvare]

Rivet and Hide give hip measurements for their inventory:

https://rivetandhide.com/measurement-guide/

[JDelage]

@Alec Leamas - I think those look good on you. 

[Alec Leamas]

@JDelage Thank you! I do like the fit, it's a bit different to the rest of the collection but that's a good thing I think

[KarlHavoc]

Any chance they release the black 50's again some time soon? Or do you all think that was more of a one off?

[julian-wolf]

So far, all of their black denim releases have been one-offs, with no indication (that I’m aware of) of that changing

[KarlHavoc]

Aww that's too bad. 50's might be my favorite pair at the moment, would love if they brought the black back some day.

[vIGGiou riou]

9 minutes ago, KarlHavoc said:

Aww that's too bad. 50's might be my favorite pair at the moment, would love if they brought the black back some day.

Try SC 1947 black. They are now available in stores (after couple of years) and I think cut is very similar...

Edited March 31 by vIGGiou riou

[Hopethisoneisnttaken]

Speaking of black 50s

 

[KarlHavoc]

23 hours ago, vIGGiou riou said:

Try SC 1947 black. They are now available in stores (after couple of years) and I think cut is very similar...

Yeah those are on my list as a possibile alternative. The 50's are perfect for me but from what I understand the 1947 has a higher rise which I'm not sure I'd like. The more charcoal-ish black of the 1947 does look pretty cool. 

[indigoeagle]

Not sure, if this had been posted.

 

[edwardlj]

On 4/1/2024 at 4:17 AM, Hopethisoneisnttaken said:

Speaking of black 50s

 

seems verticle fall is more obvious than the blue one.