Studio D'artisan

[Bobbo]

Here you go: 

 

Mine are 103XX. Yes, tricky buggers, not as hard to wear in as my natural indigo Levi's 1873, but hard work. When my Full Count are at nine months, I'll switch back to the SDA for another three months. The denim is made by Nihon Menpu, using cake from India (details in that Mens File piece).

I'm pretty certain the D1154 is a different denim. Completely different texture.


So here's the jeans. I see now they're pretty dirty. These are at least 8 months' wear so, yes, hard work. I think I'll give them a month or two in the near future (I'm trying to put off new jeans till 2014) and another wash. They're very interesting - definitely a take on the 1947 denim, they share the same graininess.

These look a bit boring at the moment, but they looked great at one wash, I think they'll look pretty good after their third wash.





Here they were straight out of the wash... so you can see the yellow cast is grunge...



HEre they are new:



One wash?




Unfortunately, i seem to have lost my LVC 1947. How this happens I don't know but it seems common. Alcoholic blackout after coming home with no pants? So, for comparison's sake, here's a trio with the SDA< my current Full Count (just hit six months, but I'll wait till May for washtime), and my LVC 55 (around 9 months and again obviously due for another wash).

[Blue Nemo]

OW denim has zero starch which doesn't give you nice crisp creases so I do find that it is harder to fade OW denim. My sda workshirt was like that too.

When you shrink your unsanforized denim how is there any starch left?

Ultimately, starch will have no effect on the evolution of your jeans. I mean, I even get now honeycombs on my 66 after 110 days and 8 washes. It's wear and tear. My denimes just don't get crisp creases, not even from the beginning.

I guess it's just another one of these myths.

The denim itself determines the evolution.

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 8, 2015 by hoggreaser

[SuperJackle]

Or amount of starch in the jeans to begin with, and how they were one washed etc. My eternals OW are still starchy and stiff as hell. My raw sugarcanes were only warmed soaked and lost most of their starch and are super soft.

[BrownMetallic]

I think, sometimes peeps get confused with fading Vs "definition" [as in, whiskers, combs, traintracks, ataris, etc.].

On the 15oz 10x, in particular, denim fades much much slower when washed before break in__ In fact, after 5yrs+ I'm still working on my 101s__ combs still needs some to be desired.

IMO, grail fade is a gestalt result from combination of__ the fading properties of the denim itself, up-keep [wash cycle/frequency], & how much/hard they were worn.

That said, from experience, RAW/soaked, but unwashed denim has best chance of achieving definition & contrast quicker= w/ less intense wear. However, going for grail is a different story. IMO, it takes a little more perseverance ... some technique & strategy.

Unfortunately, even w/ all the denim knowledge on our fingertips, not every1 can be SuperMAX

Edit:

I usually try to decide [break in] route, depending on the denim, on hand ... some, I deemed better served deferring wash, & some vice-versa. On the OKI-515, w/c are on 15oz prodn denim, washing will be on deferment until "definition" is indelibly locked in

Edited September 16, 2015 by BrownMetallic

[Mexicaman]

Thanks Bobbo for reposting those pics. Wow, a very interesting color!

[bradl]

Or amount of starch in the jeans to begin with, and how they were one washed etc. My eternals OW are still starchy and stiff as hell. My raw sugarcanes were only warmed soaked and lost most of their starch and are super soft.

Eternal uses a pretty cool method for their ow method, completely different than most brands. Iirc it's pretty much just soaked and left to be hung, given it a nice crisp feeling.

But sda must do a mass wash with a lot of pair, because their is litterally zero starch left in them.

Also nemo it takes so many washes to rid the starchyness out of jeans. Yes some brands must use different methods but generally the ow methods used in Japan are pretty harsh.

My s710 og come out still a bit crispy after a wash and I've was he them at least 8 times.

Edited September 16, 2015 by bradl

[kukupoint]

Did anyone honest experiment ?

Conditions :

1. One and the same batch of denim release (OW and RAW)

2. The same conditions and time of operation of denim (for option just alternate them every other day)

Only in this case we can draw final conclusions.

[unders]

Good shout kukupoint but I think each denim is different too. Certainly my raw SC 1947 became soft and not starchy after the first wash but my Oni 527 still feel crisp and starchy after 2/3 washes.

All OW jeans that I've had have felt softer than raw jeans washed a number of times.

[kukupoint]

Unders,I agree with you.

There are many factories with their technological nuances.

But we just have to use jeans the same manufacturer.

Different manufacturers might have different results,say SDA (OW and RAW) will be different from the ONI (OW and RAW)

Need a starting point,any manufacturer and the conditions that I described above.

It is impossible to grasp the immensity.But you can begin to understand.

[Blue Nemo]

In the end there has to be a final and correct answer. So far I would argue that I am right in saying that the OW process does not have an effect on how a pair has evolved through 2-5 years.

And I like to argue about that, and naturally, I could be mistaken too!

Right now I am on the move, next argument later.

[cmboland]

I think jeans are dumb. They cant do my homework for me.

[bradl]

Check out a ow sugar cane type II versus a ow model and you can see, also could see how my s552 25oz faded over two years versus a raw s5000.

But again I think it will differ from brand to brand, but it's a fact that most Japanese OW is quite hard on the denim initially. I would like to find some sources on how some brands do it though

[kukupoint]

The main difference (I think), the starch content in the tissue.I'm not sure what in the factories is applied additional chemistry when soaking.
If in the flat areas of fabric fading in intensity and in time looks the same, so no difference.
The difference should be noticeable only on the sections of the bend,there is a large shape retention fabric for rigidity (starch).
Another option, is to buy OW and independently use starch.
It's a simple procedure,however, whether there is a need for a simple user (probably only for big fans of contrast fading).
The addition of starch is the alignment of the initial conditions between OW and RAW.



Sorry,I seem to digress from the topic.

Edited September 16, 2015 by kukupoint

[Blue Nemo]

I agree that the manufacturer's OW process seems harsh compared to our approach, be that soaking, washing, with detergent or not.

 

And the second point is also true, we can not generalize the fading-process for all jeans, as denim with all the different weaves, dying methods is just too different. Which is cool, obviously.

 

BUT

 

As we are not talking about religion, myths or big-brain-mathematics-and-physics, only denim, starch, water and detergent, we should be able to find a correct conclusion, right?

 

When we are talking about fades, we don't mean the overall colourloss, but well defined, high contrasting honeycombs and whiskers, right? Only for this case.

 

So, starch does help you to create crispier honeycombs and whiskers. But when are your jeans really starched? You buy a raw pair, then you soak it, once or twice, lots of people (me including) also wash their jeans, ranging from low temperatures to 40 or 60°C. I even use detergent sometimes. 

Maybe you have still starch left in your once raw pair after a single cold soak, but definitely not after a wash with detergent. or two washes with no detergents, two soaks, etc.

No starch, but there are hundreds of pairs that yeald awesome fades, and also high contrasting well defined honeycombs and whiskers. Not during the first months, but after two years.

 

But if your pair is still starched after the first shrinking process, I think you havn't got all the shrinkage out of your pair. Starch prevents the water to penetrate the cotton fibres to the core. Running around in a half-shrunken pair only to have some starch left is nonsense. Not only for the distinctive fit, but also the length of the jeans, most of us need shorter inseams.

 

Furthermore, starch makes the denim rigid, which is maybe a nice kickoff for easy wrinkles, but it damages the fibres. I don't see this as a smart move.

 

Quality denim is dyed with great knowledge and craftsmanship, if the fibres are penetrated thoroughly by the indigo dye, it just takes more time to get fades (overall and well defined whiskers etc.). Eternal's denim is maybe the best example. 
Then there is denim that is only dyed on the surface, the core is not penetrated. Thus it fades faster.

 

Still starch helps you to get defined wrinkles quick, but this effect is gone. If not from the beginning, then after the first serious wash. And if this wash comes after 100 days of constant wear, I do absolutely not need starch to create well defined creases!

 

My raw 66 were starched rock hard, after the first hot soak with detergent there was no starch left. But still it took me less than a 100 days to create defined creases. And I washed my pair every 15 days. And after each wash it takes me only a day to put all the creases in the right place again. My whiskers yield a very high contrast, even though I washed them often and the denim used is as soft as the FC denim!

 

Lots of points, mostly state the same.

If starch really effects the denim, and how it fades (honeycombs&whiskers), it can not be substantial. The effect should be gone after the shrinking process, or at least after the first wash. And you do not have to wear your jeans for 6 months to wait for the first wash to get well defined honeycombs etc. I have seen a ton of pairs over the years that prove that point. Ultimately, this 'not-washing' regime is nonsense and lifestyle-marketing. My 66 start to show honeycombs after 100 days, even though I do not even have real creases in my kneeholes and washed them 8, now 9 times!

 

The SDA standard denim definitely takes longer to fade than my 66's denim, but that is due to how it is dyed and woven, not the amount of starch.

 

One could even argue that we should trust in the masterminds behind SDA, Warehouse, FC and all the others to now their business and denim in general. If they use a harsh OW treatment it could be safe to say, that it does not matter! And that we are just 'softies'...

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Just one thing: as long the warp yarns aren't hank dyed you will have a white core and no indigo that thoroughly dyed the warp. Most of the jeans we see here aren't dyed to the core of the warp yarn so there is still a white core.

Edited September 16, 2015 by beautiful_FrEaK

[Blue Nemo]

Okay, but the mechanics stay the same.

[kukupoint]

I support the conversation, only because don't know the actual example of an honest comparison:
1. One and the same batch of denim release (OW and RAW)
2. The same conditions and time of operation of denim (for option just alternate them every other day)
Not important manufacturer of jeans and compliance fading.
Important process.What changes and when will we see in each case (OW and RAW).
















 

[BrownMetallic]

^ Not being a dick, but what for !?

I mean, discussion is one thing, but to [actually] do a simultaneous, real time experiment for comparison !?

Almost everything that can be done to a denim has been done here.

U just got to dig ... Or ask

... & if U ask, try to be more specific, what info u need__ there are still a few OG denimheads here, but mostly lurking incognito 😎

Edited September 17, 2015 by BrownMetallic

[mpukas]

@BM - I think kuku makes a decent point - there's so much heresay, folk lore, urban myths, etc. about denim and fades, evolution, etc. that the only way to really know how certain factors affect how denim ages is to do controlled studies. But, at the end of the day, who cares, why does it matter? Just wear your jeans how you wish, and make up whatever stories about them that make you feel good. 

[Blue Nemo]

 But, at the end of the day, who cares, why does it matter? Just wear your jeans how you wish, and make up whatever stories about them that make you feel good. 

 

man, I hate your yin yang approach, but you are right :-D

 

 

hate = do not favor .... too offensive it is

Edited September 17, 2015 by Blue Nemo

[BrownMetallic]

@mpukas @kukupoint :

I'm just saying the forum is littered w/ tons of info about wash vs no wash__ u just need a few to dig.

Okey, I'll give a nudge to start. Check out the Eternal 811 Contest:

http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php/topic/101143-eternal-811-contest-101010-121212/page-1

@soonami, in particular, for initial soak, "no wash" ... & compare vs the other entries

U can even find a couple of "DRY" fade RAWs that were rocked w/o even the benefit of an initial soak. If u look hard enough, the nuances [vs a pair that touched water] become more distinct__ to mention a few: high sheen patination, high contrast, more [3D] crease definition, seams/stitch edges ataried puckerings are longer & irregular between "bumps" [eg, as oppose to more even, corrugated-like train tracks].

Edited September 17, 2015 by BrownMetallic

[itsbenhere]

I think the argument between no difference from washing a lot and never washing is already agreed upon, that's not what they're talking about... They're talking about one-wash fades vs raw fades (that have been washed a lot or whatever), completely different imo

[BrownMetallic]

^ how hard is it really from [that] point to find an 811 O/W fades !?

Bottom line is, like I said before, it [still] all about personal choice & preference ... ie, some like the contrast, some don't, so it really does no matter .... Every1 can have their own spin.

Every1 can give their argument & POV ... In the end, no clear winner__ just an agreement to disagree

Edited September 17, 2015 by BrownMetallic

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 8, 2015 by hoggreaser

[itsbenhere]

Yep, I was thinking about it too, how the closest thing you could do was have someone buy the same jeans, cut, size, but one one-wash and the other raw. Alternate every other day between the two and then put them through the same washing regimen...

 

Not sure anyone would do that, it's kinda crazy!

[bradl]

If someone sponsored me to do it, I would for sure

[Sugar Mountain]

I'm somewhat surprised that Denimba hasn't tried this. I mean, this is a guy who wore three different pairs of Sugar Cane 1947 in rotation to compare the fading process of one size 29, one size 30 washed regularly and one size 30 washed infrequently!

[BrownMetallic]

True, but Ben was on point - which as I gather the essence to be put simply whether factory one wash fades slower than raw 'self' soaked/washed....

 

Whether that has any conclusive answer, certainly one that applies across all the brands, is another matter...

Granted, some1 has flexible sched to devote a year [6mos per] spread evenly , the outcome may only be relevant to the tested denim__ still won't be conclusive "across all brands".

Considering all variables to arrive at an absolute, definitive answer is just unfathomable. The sources/quality of materials & processes vary [from brand to brand]. To complicate it even more, those same variants changes over time.

I think I'll be okey with guestimation

[Blue Nemo]

as long no one is doing the experiment, its guestimation... and it is not really that important, but guys, seriously, i think we are babying our jeans. its quality made stuff, it doesn't care. we all have seen pairs that came out a dryer perfectly fine. lost some indigo, but still yielding awesome fades due to the way they've been worn.