SUPERDENIM SMALL QUESTIONS THREAD (Use instead of making new threads)

[Geeman]

Same

 

[Double 0 Soul]

If you click on the page 227 tab of the roy thread.. it should take you to the top of page 227 (it often takes you to the previous page if the current page is less than 10 posts long) but if you click on the ‘13hrs ago’ link next to where it says ‘last reply by mpukas’ .. it should take you to the most recent post.

Edited January 11 by Double 0 Soul

[Geeman]

Doesn't work like that for me, weirdly not on all topics. Some go to last post some always go to top of the previous page. 

Same with notifications,  sometimes if I click the notification it takes me to the quoted/repped post or sometimes to the top of the previous page. 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Yep, I got the same problem. LVC thread usually takes me to the previous page and the "Blunders" thread will always take me to the last post and ignoring all other new post before that. And it is marked as "read" immediately if I dare to open another thread first.

[julian-wolf]

Tried clearing your cache?

[Duke Mantee]

47 minutes ago, julian-wolf said:

Tried clearing your cache?

Yep - spent all of mine buying Freewheelers

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

I don't know exactly how it works, but I generally get kicked to the second to last page of a topic if there aren't something like 5+ posts on the brand new page. It's annoying, but I never cared enough to dig into it. When I get notifications it pretty much never takes me to the post that the notification references. It's always like scroll up or down 5-10 posts to find it. 

[UkeNo]

Same for me @Geeman & @beautiful_FrEaK 
it doesn’t happen on all threads. Some go straight to the last page or wherever I select, and some to the same point each time. 
 

I’ve cleared my cache tried other browsers etc. same issue each time. 

[reallypeacedoff]

Happens to me on Samurai, Flat Head, Self Edge, and a few other threads as well. Always takes me to the second to last page, and if someone gives me rep, it takes me to random pages, sometimes I haven't even posted on that page.

[UkeNo]

@superfuture Do you have any suggestions for the few above queries? We're struggling to navigate to where we choose in different threads.

Thanks

[mpukas]

Any recommendations for a simple work jacket, canvas or denim? Zipper, not buttons. Collar, no hood. Lightly insulated. Any color as long as it's black. Or indigo. Carhartt's Detroit jacket was an icon. The revised version is a travesty. 

Edited January 23 by mpukas

[chicote]

@mpukas tenderloin might be a good brand to check out, i have an excellent carhartt repro of theirs.

[mpukas]

@chicote thanks for the tip. I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything. 

[chicote]

@mpukas sorry bout that, i realized i've had my jacket for close to 10 years now and figure they might not make the same style anymore. this one is sort of close, maybe? 

[Hopethisoneisnttaken]

I’m pretty sure timeworn clothing have something similar now

[Cold Summer]

I'm wanting some buckleback 30s style jeans, for some reason. I'd like a longer rise pair and those 30s details that are different from any jeans I've worn before.

What are my best options? The Freewheelers 601XXC 1937 looks like the frontrunner. Measurements (from the Mirror Ball site, one wash version) look very good actually. Big issue for me is thigh, most jeans of this sort in my size (usually 30-31) have a gigantic thigh, like the TCB 30s jeans, which are something like 13.5", absolutely ridiculous. I have skinny thighs and the 11" of the FW pair looks just right. Are Mirror Ball's measurements generally pretty accurate/measure from the top thigh instead of several inches below like some places inexplicably do?

Any other 30s buckleback type jeans I should alternatively consider?
 

 

[Maynard Friedman]

• Warehouse make 37 models from time to time, I’m not sure if they currently have some available 
• Sugar Cane
• TCB
• LVC
• I’m sure there are others. I also assume you’re looking for a 37 model rather than a 33 model with exposed back pocket rivets snd suspender buttons

[Cold Summer]

Yep, think I want a '37 type.

LVC and their stupid polyester stitching is a no-go for me. The Warehouse DD-1004 looks really good, but the inseam is probably too short and the thigh too big.

Didn't know SC made a 1937, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That one could be worth investigating.

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

1 hour ago, Cold Summer said:

I'm wanting some buckleback 30s style jeans, for some reason. I'd like a longer rise pair and those 30s details that are different from any jeans I've worn before.

What are my best options? The Freewheelers 601XXC 1937 looks like the frontrunner. Measurements (from the Mirror Ball site, one wash version) look very good actually. Big issue for me is thigh, most jeans of this sort in my size (usually 30-31) have a gigantic thigh, like the TCB 30s jeans, which are something like 13.5", absolutely ridiculous. I have skinny thighs and the 11" of the FW pair looks just right. Are Mirror Ball's measurements generally pretty accurate/measure from the top thigh instead of several inches below like some places inexplicably do?

Any other 30s buckleback type jeans I should alternatively consider?
 

 

There’s very possibly a discrepancy in the way of measuring the thighs between TCB and FW. I’ve got a pair of black 30’s in size 31 from TCB. I sized up for a loose fit, and they are loose, but the thigh isn’t crazy. 11” for a size 30 is straight up skinny jean style and one reason I went to repro fits - (I guess I squat just enough for this to matter).

Usually repro cuts are > 11.5”(on the slimmer side) or more for a size 30 and this is measured directly from the crotch. It could be TCB is doing it this way and the FW measurement is 10cm down, or something. 

I just checked my Freewheelers ‘51 30x30 and they are slightly greater than 12” on the thigh, and that should definitely be a slimmer model than a 30’s model. 

[Cold Summer]

Thanks for the insight @AlientoyWorkmachine - I can get by with a 12" thigh, but it usually looks unavoidably sloppy when larger than 12.5" or so. I guess I could compare the measurements for a couple different retailers of the FW 1937 model to get a clearer idea.

If I'm shopping for jeans based purely on what looks like would be good measurements for me I should probably just buy some Sugar Cane 1966. Measurements look dead on for my preferences in a size 30. Sure doesn't hurt that, especially with the current USD/yen exchange rate, they're really cheap.

And before one of you jokers tells me "just squat more bro", I should point out that I've had this same tall, slim physique ever since I was about sixteen - half of my life, now - and no amount of laziness, bad eating, good eating, or exercising really changes it at all. I went to the gym for years and squatted as much as I could without worrying I was going to damage my knees, and my *middle* thigh seemed to get a little harder, but no effect at the top/around the groin; thus, no amount of squatting seemed likely to make my thighs big enough to arbitrarily be able to fit better into a particular pair of jeans, and I'm not sure that goal is really worth blowing out my knees and/or the added expense/effort of eating a couple extra chickens per day. 

Edited February 6 by Cold Summer

[julian-wolf]

If you think the DD-1004 will be too wide, the 601XXC will be just as much of an issue

I’d expect the TCB to be way on the slimmer end for a ‘37 (although I haven’t tried them on personally)

Maybe the SC40303, if you can find a pair? Those should be fairly slim…but with a less ordinary repro style fabric

Edited February 6 by julian-wolf

[Broark]

Definitely agree with Julian here, I think the 601XX-C might be too wide in the thighs. It's a pretty relaxed cut, especially in the top block.
While it's not a '37 model, FW will be releasing a '42 model soon (in the next few months) that has somewhat similar details.
Those might still be a little wide, but by comparison they should be a little bit slimmer than the 601XX-C.

[Cold Summer]

Sounds interesting, I'll keep an eye out for those. Thanks for the advice/suggestions guys.

[indigoeagle]

7 hours ago, Cold Summer said:

Sounds interesting, I'll keep an eye out for those. Thanks for the advice/suggestions guys.

Perhaps this. WH 1936- preorder

https://item.rakuten.co.jp/rogues/wh_1004xx1936_23s/

[Jeef1]

I have the ‘37 models from warehouse, sugar cane, and freewheelers. The sugarcane have the widest thigh, warehouse are the narrowest. 
 

I like the fit/pattern of the sugar cane the best, but the freewheelers have better construction and details. Probably prefer the denim on the freewheelers too, although the 37 sugar cane fabric seems nice. 
 

 

[Thor]

I am looking at a pair of Evisu no 1. 2001 in W42 . Raw. They are described as having a rise of 42 cm. Does anyone know if this would be the front or back rise ? Cheers in advance.  

[beautiful_FrEaK]

@Thor it is very unusualy to just state the back rise. Usually, if you can find a rise to be listed, it's the front rise. That said 42 cm = 16.5" sounds strange for a pair of jeans. Even for the 2001 in a W42. Do you have a link to that listing?

[Hopethisoneisnttaken]

Can anyone shed some light on the reasoning behind the super wide beltloops in USN 40s deck pants? I know the tcb seamen trouser has them, also know the recent release by brass Tokyo has them and I think the RMC version too. It almost looks like it could fit two belts inside the loops. Did the USN issue super thick belts or something like that? 
 

picture for reference:

 

Edited February 8 by Hopethisoneisnttaken

[Maynard Friedman]

^As deck trousers, they were designed to accommodate a lifebelt 🛟 

[Duke Mantee]

@Hopethisoneisnttaken White bleached cotton belts were 1 ¾” and leather ‘undress’ belts were 2” wide