SugarCane 1990's M-Series Archive

[Double 0 Soul]

Morning @yung_flynn

I can't give you the numbers i'm afraid.. i've owned numerous pairs of these which i bought worn and i own numerous pairs which are still raw but i've never actually washed a raw pair, i'm pretty sure we can figure this out tho..

You look like a slim guy so you only need worry about waist and inseam.. regarding the waist, I would always recommend going up one size if you want to achieve the same fit as a SC47.. they shrink from tagged, the shrinkage is expected / not irregular but bear in mind that the SC47 already has quite a nipped waist compared to a lot of other brands with the same tag size.. if you look back at pg1 there is a photo of the (raw) waists being measured.

The inseam is not ungenerous.. from memory, it shrinks to at least 33" but probably closer to 34" (i think SC47s usually end up around 33.5) .. check out the fit comparisons i did on pg2.. all of the inseams on the M41001 are unhemmed.. i'm 5'11" a  tailor would probably say i'm a 31-32" inside leg and they're all worn with a double cuff.. i could still make out the (32") tag of the darker pair.. they were all roughly the same size in the waist so i'd say they were all tagged 32" and they were all slightly too small albeit still wearable so again, maybe just go up a single tag size if you're used to a SC47 fit.. those photos were taken around 14yrs ago, all of those jeans have long deceased so i can't measure but i'm sure someone here has a washed / unhemmed M41001 they can measure?

[yung_flynn]

12 hours ago, Double 0 Soul said:

You look like a slim guy so you only need worry about waist and inseam.. regarding the waist, I would always recommend going up one size if you want to achieve the same fit as a SC47.. they shrink from tagged, the shrinkage is expected / not irregular but bear in mind that the SC47 already has quite a nipped waist compared to a lot of other brands with the same tag size.. if you look back at pg1 there is a photo of the (raw) waists being measured.

The inseam is not ungenerous.. from memory, it shrinks to at least 33" but probably closer to 34" (i think SC47s usually end up around 33.5) .. check out the fit comparisons i did on pg2.. all of the inseams on the M41001 are unhemmed.. i'm 5'11" a  tailor would probably say i'm a 31-32" inside leg and they're all worn with a double cuff.. i could still make out the (32") tag of the darker pair.. they were all roughly the same size in the waist so i'd say they were all tagged 32" and they were all slightly too small albeit still wearable so again, maybe just go up a single tag size if you're used to a SC47 fit..

Thanks! This is helpful. I'm tall so inseam is always my biggest struggle. 33 - 34" should be great. I can wear either a 31 or 32 in modern 1947s, so I probably could get away with either a 32 or 33 here.

For what it's worth, the 33 waist M-series has essentially the same raw measurements across the board as my size 32 Rockets, which I like the fit of plus an extra inch in the inseam (my main critique for the Rockets). I'm never going to get any slimmer either. The real question is whether to snag the sized 33 M41001 or size 32 M41027, but only I can answer that one

[Double 0 Soul]

I've just measured the inseam of a raw M41001 and it's exactly 36"

[julian-wolf]

@yung_flynn The M41027 do run around an inch smaller than many other M-series