Jump to content
Flash

Conners Sewing Factory

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Some great discussion on here, which I prefer to the photos too, although a healthy balance is best.

In my experience (although others on here will undoubtedly have more/better) Flash is correct re vintage sizing. When I was buying vintage pairs (though these were small ‘e’ and therefore late 70s/early 80s), I was a 30 waist and would never buy them in that size. It was a long time ago and it may have been due to a combination of the following but my favourite pair were a tagged 33 waist:

  • people wearing baggy 501s in the late 80s and hauling the waist in with a belt
  • buying whatever size you could find 
  • sizing up due to my athletic thighs(!)

This

There’s much talk of vintage however I think the word has been over-used and it’s use is flawed (much like raw and rugged).

1. Apparently vintage can be something only 20 years old - Maynard taught me this elsewhere (thank you). I had genuinely never considered this because it wasn’t important to me and so in my head when I said vintage I probably meant 1950 give or take a decade. It’s a nonsense.

2. I think the word vintage is used in lieu of style to give substance and to distance the wearer (us) from ‘fashion’.

3. I believe that cut and fit are more important than fabric - and by this I mean we seem to pore over fades, train tracks, whiskers, honeycombs and 縦落ち convincing ourselves of old-timey authenticity without asking what line of work caused these overalls to become so ‘beautiful’. I rarely see jeans being worn in the way they were for the period that cut was used - which clearly affects those all important fades.

We want historic cuts to wear in a modern way, something I see even more in the case of ‘work shirts’. We want to shoehorn timeworn aesthetics into modern life.

It’s not vintage - although it could yet be. However it is interesting and really enjoyable to see and read the individual approaches. Just don’t be frightened of fashion :wink:

EDIT - I’ve changed 10 years to 20 years because I’m stoopid 

Edited by Duke Mantee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 year old vintage ? Kappa tracksuits ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was 20 years but I agree with Duke’s sentiment.

What would people on here consider to constitute a vintage pair of jeans? From the 70s, 60s, 50s? Would they consider a 30 year old pair of repro jeans to be vintage or does the repro element rule this out in their book? It throws up some interesting questions about our understanding, perception and categorisation of old jeans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, dudewuttheheck said:

mvHWk0c

 

 

Thanks Dude, there's no right or wrong here i'm just enjoying the discussion... so to be the advocate of the devil..

As flash points out

17 hours ago, Flash said:

it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the pair Yoshiaki based his San Francisco model on had a more tapered hip

This is true, but it seems to be apparent through most models, some less than others and continues to be apparent through all sizes as they grade up. The snug hip is where folks often fail with CSF, so back to my previous statemnet regarding "it's irrelevant what 'waistband size' is printed on the patch if you can't fasten them over your hips"... regardless of 'waistband' size the size should be based on what size waist that pair actually fits, probably a more accurate indication would be a size taken across the narrowest point, like ive marked up above^ Print what you want on the patch if it keeps the vintage/historic accuracy nuts happy but i still don't see how that matters when said size disappears when washed and you're left with ill fitting jeans.. they just need to fit, especially when you can't try them on over the internet and measuring the waistband is no indication of this.

Regarding narrowest point...If you see this photo ive stolen from buler

46814592354_dd5492232f_o.jpg

^This dude is straining at the top button and its pulling the fly causing 2x folds in the denim, now if you follow the angle of those folds (and the ones around the top button) it will take you up to the tightest point which is cauing the pull (waistband) if this was CSF those folds would be almost horizontal, follow them through and you get to the point where the material is at its tightest..the hip, you can see the same folds pulling at the hip below and on those undersized hip hugging M41001's i posted in the M-Series thread recently.

28313435313_38839c1884_c.jpg

This same pair of size 33" jeans^ is loose at the waist to the point i can comfortable shove a pair of pumps in there, yet they crush my hips so i had to size up to a 34, they fit perfectly apart from the waist which i can pull out like Barry Bethell.

IMG_9369

...now if this was our vintage compadre above, he wouldn't fit a Kingsize Rizzla in that waistband, ne'er mind a pair of pumps, yet he can still fasten them past the hip. I respect/enjoy CSF replicating a snug hip it that's what was there on the particular pair being reproduced.. but on every pair?

I always thought vintage was 25yrs old+ btw?

Edited by Double 0 Soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always of the assumption that vintage was 25 years.  That being said for jeans I would consider 70s and earlier to be vintage.  Maybe it’s denial that anything I could conceivably have worn originally could now be considered vintage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what? Now that you point that out I had something similar with my 37s happening when I was a bit heavier. This might be it. 

Something that I think helped me was that I tried on CSF jeans in person for the very first time before buying them which has made sizing very easy for me. 

I'll be interested to see how my next pair fits given that I sized down two. It is very hard for me to judge this now because all my pairs are too big- in both the waist and the hips. When I get a more "correct" fitting pair I'll have to look at this more closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I thought it was 20 years but I agree with Duke’s sentiment.

What would people on here consider to constitute a vintage pair of jeans? From the 70s, 60s, 50s? Would they consider a 30 year old pair of repro jeans to be vintage or does the repro element rule this out in their book? It throws up some interesting questions about our understanding, perception and categorisation of old jeans.

23 minutes ago, Flash said:

10 year old vintage ? Kappa tracksuits ? 

Sorry Martin, perhaps it was 20 years, I’m older than vintage so my memory is failing ...

But, aye, Kappa trackies could be vintage mate - the point is we’re using vague definitions for precise discussion and we’re using it selectively.

Really the majority of discussion (and I’m glad we’re having it) is centred around the second war and thereabouts - there’s seemingly little interest beyond the late 50’s and it seems to get more specialised for 30’s stuff and anything prior - but as Martin has said better than me - “why”? What’s the issue with 70’s denim for example?

CSF (to get back to the thread topic) does focus on our ideology of vintage. I wonder if that was deliberate? I have as much admiration as I have discomfort at the fastidious and time-consuming approach to replicating poorly made jeans :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I thought it was 20 years but I agree with Duke’s sentiment.

What would people on here consider to constitute a vintage pair of jeans? From the 70s, 60s, 50s? Would they consider a 30 year old pair of repro jeans to be vintage or does the repro element rule this out in their book? It throws up some interesting questions about our understanding, perception and categorisation of old jeans.

I consider my late 90's M41001's to be vintage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've no problem clashing 70's even early 80's  vintage and as we advance in time the limit where we would call something vintage would do the same , but i suppose this is subjective and everyone would be different 

Carrying on the top block discussion , like I said a few posts ago I do think it's more that likely that some of the models have been exaggerated where they have I don't think it's by much ,were talking what 15 - 20mm at most ? In the more extreme cases ... discounting my 30's as this may just have been a case of bad patterning ? ( see .. I'm not opposed to faulting the the man himself :D ) 

when it comes to comparing vintage cuts to the repros I think we really need to be using deadstock exames , a hard enough task to find good pics of ( believe me I tried ) 

Here is the product pic of the San Francisco ww2 showing that the taper is no where near as extreme as my 30's 

san_francisco_full_front_1000x1500

 

This pair of 47 501xx isn't far off 

20200504_105729

 

Edited by Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these s501xx 

20200504_112612

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those s501xx are a good example, i should have kept that book ;)

..but again they seem to nip just below the waistband/above the back yoke stitcch whereas CSF seen to nip lower...sort of half inch below the back yoke stitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are talking mm here , I know it can make a difference but negligible in most cases 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm a precision engineer by day... CSF analyst by night :D

Negligible yes, but enough to be the downfall for a lot of us..

Edited by Double 0 Soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day we all dress ourselves in the morning  .... or at least I hope so  ( and are able to )  so were going to gravitate to different things. The small discrepancy were focusing on here isn't enough to turn my interest of the brand off and after trying to branch out with the warehouse only further instilled my opinion that no one makes a better 40's repro than conners ( arcs would still add a lot to them though ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to turn you off the brand, i agree nobody makes a better 40's repro, it all started with 'me' being disheartened with CSF 'direction' and when pressed further, my statement that they're not quite the perfect repro and we find ourselves here... the finer points of hip-nips B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no mate , I didn't think you were ( you couldn't if you tried ) 

Was just trying to sum up my thoughts and note we all have out sticking points when it comes to what we wear 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Double 0 Soul said:

I'm not trying to turn you off the brand, i agree nobody makes a better 40's repro, it all started with 'me' being disheartened with CSF 'direction' and when pressed further, my statement that they're not quite the perfect repro and we find ourselves here... the finer points of hip-nips B)

2 hours ago, Flash said:

No no mate , I didn't think you were ( you couldn't if you tried ) 

Was just trying to sum up my thoughts and note we all have out sticking points when it comes to what we wear 

It’s how discussions go

I’m grateful you’re both knowledgeable enough and passionate enough to educate me

Edited by Duke Mantee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought - would it be more period correct for CSF to simply employ a few machinists to do the sewing and give them high productivity targets? That way,  they could increase their production levels and incorporate some shoddy workmanship in an accidental fashion by the machinists simply rushing to complete their quotas. This would also be more authentically period correct as it would better represent the work conditions at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it still there?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conners fanboy spotted in the wild 

20200504_130006

In other news ... think I'll be joining Duke in the unemployed club , not gonna stop me smiling , couldn't think of a better way to spend my days than with the little man ........ hated the bastards anyway 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Flash said:

Conners fanboy spotted in the wild 

In other news ... think I'll be joining Duke in the unemployed club , not gonna stop me smiling , couldn't think of a better way to spend my days than with the little man ........ hated the bastards anyway 

I thought you might have been getting annoyed at the discussion but I didn’t think you were going wild :laugh2:

Shit news on the job front mate - if it does come then I hope it’s just a short break and you can have a bit of fun with the family then move onto a job that suits you better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol  , enjoyed the discussion mate 

It'll work out , always does 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flash said:

Conners fanboy spotted in the wild 

20200504_130006

In other news ... think I'll be joining Duke in the unemployed club , not gonna stop me smiling , couldn't think of a better way to spend my days than with the little man ........ hated the bastards anyway 

There's an opening at the new NERF gun factory in north Belfast ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:laugh: good thing it isn't in west Belfast 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flash said:

:laugh: good thing it isn't in west Belfast 

I chose my location tactfully for that quip :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like Dominic Raab, ive never actually read the Belfast Agreement but i'm sure if they would have given everyone Nerf guns for a pitched street battle everything would have turned out swimmingly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke, Flash, Double O and others -- great discussion.  Pics and reps are nice, but I confess to enjoying this more extended discussion more.

I have a couple pairs of CSF (47 and 46 first half) thanks to you folks (Flash and b-F) and love them both, probably more for the slightly odd fit and repro mystique than for their adherence to historical specs.  I would agree with Duke's comment that cut and fit are more important than fabric.  In this regard, my Ooe OA02 and LVC 47 fit better than CSF, but I enjoy the CSFs for their quirkiness, not to mention that I'm 65 and there is some natural expansion up top that occurs with age that the CSF accommodates.  38 works just fine, even though I tell my friends I'm 35.

Regarding vintage jeans, I have no experience with any 30s/40s/50s originals.  What I do know from experience is the 501 from the 60s and it was cut very much like the LVC 1966 -- medium rise (at best) and straight down from the waist, sagging down on the hips -- giving the impression of rough, tough, and raw, even though none of this remotely applied to any of us in junior high or high school.

'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing to contribute. 

Just wanna say, the downfall of DB was the best thing happening to Sufu :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now