Sugar Cane Denim

[istewi]

SC1947

[indigoeagle]

46 are live now.

[beautiful_FrEaK]

And ordered 

[Dr_Heech]

18 minutes ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

And ordered 

Curious, what size did you go for in the end? 

 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

W34 as I was quoted a one-wash size of 84-86 cm (depending on source). W36 around 88 and 91. Also one-wash 

[Broark]

I'm passing, but looking forward to seeing these once they arrive!

[indigoeagle]

Like most here I don't need anymore jeans, but find this repro project so meticulously done and also nicely documented, that I wanted to supported it and also got one.

[tooth]

Did you all order through Toyo?

[beautiful_FrEaK]

I bought through BEARS 

[tooth]

Awesome. Order placed. Was checking Bears earlier this am, but didn’t see them on the site.

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Direct contact beats waiting for items to go live on the homepage

[MJF9]

2 hours ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

W34 as I was quoted a one-wash size of 84-86 cm (depending on source). W36 around 88 and 91. Also one-wash 

An unhelpfully wide range they gave there bF.

Where are the measurements up online?  Or was that direct through seller?  Thanks  

Edited January 12 by MJF9

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Directly from seller. The lower numbers from BEARS, the higher from Pants Shop Avenue. 

I guess the truth is in the middle

[JohnM]

^ Truth is definitely in the middle.  Why I need to lose a few pounds and get from a 36 to 34.

[MJF9]

It's still nuts they missed out size 44 jackets from both the 1943 and 1946 runs... what's going on there?!

For the 1946 jacket, the size 42 has P2P of 57.5cm then it jumps to 63cm for the size 46. What a lamentable chasm.

To the boys and girls at Sugar Cane... as I know you read Superfuture Superdenim for inspiration 😜... come on what about the fellas in the middle, the forgotten size 44s?  

(Actually, you've probably done me a favour but my point still stands) 

[kiya]

6 hours ago, MJF9 said:

It's still nuts they missed out size 44 jackets from both the 1943 and 1946 runs... what's going on there?!

For the 1946 jacket, the size 42 has P2P of 57.5cm then it jumps to 63cm for the size 46. What a lamentable chasm.

To the boys and girls at Sugar Cane... as I know you read Superfuture Superdenim for inspiration 😜... come on what about the fellas in the middle, the forgotten size 44s?  

(Actually, you've probably done me a favour but my point still stands) 

The original vintage versions of these jackets were made with a solid back in size 44, but Toyo's reproduction of the fabric wasn't wide enough to make a 44, so they started at 46 with the T-back style (just like the vintage size 46 and up).

[MJF9]

Thanks @kiya.  I'd just heard that and was about to post it.  I understand the shrink was a touch too much.  

[julian-wolf]

I mean sure, but why not make a T-back size 44? It’s not like they’re sizes are true to vintage anyway

Edited January 13 by julian-wolf

[MJF9]

It's a good challenge Julian... suppose they want as much of the output true to original as possible whilst understanding not everything can or will be given the originals were 78-81 years ago 

[indigoeagle]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:36 AM, beautiful_FrEaK said:

In case you wondered which mill produces the denim for Sugarcane (at least their 47 denim and the new 43 and 46 denim).

It's Nihon Menpu

https://youtu.be/unmyU-TSo2U?feature=shared

A very interesting video.
For the 46 Nihon Menpu constructed a new shuttle compared to the one used for the 47 fabric.
With that it is lower tension and the production output per day is even lower.

[crescent]

On 5/26/2022 at 1:19 AM, roomtemplacroix said:

at first, i enjoyed the taper on the 66 a lot. over time and several washes the leg opening got much smaller. now i can't wear them as they won't even fit over a pair of cowboy boots. the 55 has a really generous hip/thigh/rise and a very subtle taper which i think looks and feels a lot better on my body personally. i think my biggest with sugar canes in general has always been that they seem to shrink very little after their initial 2-3 washes, but then much more dramatically over time beyond that. i end up disliking the fit on a jean several months into their life cycle that i loved when i bought them one-wash.

Hi y'all! I am contemplating a pair of OW '66s and thought I should go through this great thread, having no experience with SC. I stumbled upon this above, namely that the pair might keep shrinking substantially. Now it already happened with my Orslow 105s, which are now too tapered for my liking... I just want a mid-to-high rise, full cut with a decent leg opening (> 9 in. for sz38) that won't move too much.

Could '66 owners confirm that they keep shrinking, and did anyone notice the same with the '47? Thanks!

[NilsLW]

@crescent Yes this is true. To be honest I don't mind a smaller leg opening at all but since the thighs are quite roomy on the SC66 it makes the whole jean look a bit unbalanced compared to other 66 models from other brands, almost like a 90's dad jean. Even my TCB 505s which is supposed to be a tapered fit has a much more balanced appearance with a slim silhouette throughout.

[vIGGiou riou]

47 minutes ago, NilsLW said:

@crescent Yes this is true. To be honest I don't mind a smaller leg opening at all but since the thighs are quite roomy on the SC66 it makes the whole jean look a bit unbalanced compared to other 66 models from other brands, almost like a 90's dad jean. Even my TCB 505s which is supposed to be a tapered fit has a much more balanced appearance with a slim silhouette throughout.

SC 66 is most close to original cut of Levi's 66 than TCB other brands, which tend to modify cut. I have a pair of SC 66 and LVC 66 and cut is very similar. TCB 505 correlates with Levi's 505. I have LVC 505 which are much slimmer than cut 66. 505 is slim Ramones style....

Edited January 17 by vIGGiou riou

[NilsLW]

@vIGGiou riou Yes but that makes me wonder how accurate the LVC version is? My view of the true 66 cut is that it's slim straight rather than straight tapered based on the few times I've actually looked at real vintage pairs in real life. I still think the SC66 is a great pair of jeans with nice denim and details but there is just something about the cut that I find slightly unbalanced and inauthentic...

Edited January 17 by NilsLW

[Lazerr]

Recently picked up the Sugar Cane 1946 from Bears and they just arrived a couple of days ago. I'm pretty impressed with the denim and the details! The only other 46' pair I have is from the Warehouse 25th Anniversary, and those have been one of my favorite pairs over the past few years. I recently moved to a new state that gets a lot less sun than Los Angeles, but I was never much a photographer to begin with. 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

They look nice!

Finally, after more than a week without update my pair arrived in Germany. Now just waiting for DHL to deliver them.

[silencejoe]

Jist arrived 

Add few more picture and the old 46 few season back

Edited January 23 by silencejoe

[MJF9]

@silencejoe nice... what do you think of them?

Edited January 23 by MJF9

[JohnM]

On 1/17/2024 at 1:39 PM, NilsLW said:

@vIGGiou riou Yes but that makes me wonder how accurate the LVC version is? My view of the true 66 cut is that it's slim straight rather than straight tapered based on the few times I've actually looked at real vintage pairs in real life. I still think the SC66 is a great pair of jeans with nice denim and details but there is just something about the cut that I find slightly unbalanced and inauthentic...

I'm old and used to buy (well, my mom used to buy) new STF Levi's in 1966.  Was great fun to put them in a bucket and watch them go from stiff as a board to soft.

My recollection is that they were neither trim nor tapered -- pretty much straight all the way down with a tendency to sag at the hips (i.e., rise was medium not high and they didn't come in much at the waist).  Their fit reminds of a comment attributed to Roy Slaper that jeans are an ill-fitting garment.  I liked them but there was little in the way of conforming to the human body.  Not sure of hem width but definitely not trim.

[NilsLW]

@JohnM Interesting, thanks for great insight!