ummm...interesting question

[Blackplatano]

What yields better fades?

Extreamly hard wear for a relatively short period of time (like 6 months)?

OR

regular wear for a relatively long period period of time (1or more years)?

P.S. only washing when completely necessary.

[Tenchi]

I reckon extremely hard wear for a relatively long time...

4year old unwashed Flare Glenns anyone?

[Noddy]

hahahaahahahahahaa

[tweeds]

long period of time. jeans get lovelier over longer periods of time.

you should take a look at http://mizanation.com/mizblog/, with especial attention placed on the recent wabi-sabi posts.

[watchman]

i like miz's posts on wabi-sabi a lot, i agree that the reason we like the fades in our jeans is because they represent our lifestyles. I think that's the reason i never starch and don't necessarily try and go out of my way to fade my jeans.

[justinbaily21]

Ryu's journal always ruins all of my notions about wear. I don't know what to tell you.

I would think hard wear, short period... :confused:

[tweeds]

ryu's hard worn short period jeans are lovely, but i think if you look at paul's stuff they've all been worn here and there over long periods of time. you need time to give you depth of colour, richness, etc. you can see this with ryu's joe mccoy - less accelerated but more promise.

[pacioli]

My take on this is while hard wear over a short period creates contrast in your key areas (whiskers, f/b knees, hems) you really need time for overall fading. Having worn my pbjs for over 7 months I've noticed the highs and lows we all love take time to become noticable.

Early on the back hems became really white from walking around home bare feet and stepping on the jeans a lot. A flooring project also faded the knees nicely. But it was time that brought out the high and lows throughout the jeans. Time also gave the jeans an imprint of my pocket possessions...notebook, wallet, cell phone.

So my opinion on this is both time and hardwear are necessary for a nice fade.