Sugar Cane Denim

[silencejoe]

9 hours ago, MJF9 said:

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

I love the denim and the details

Pease wait for BF for the professional review 

Edited January 24 by silencejoe

[Dr_Heech]

16 hours ago, silencejoe said:

I love the denim and the details

Pease wait for BF for the professional review 

We need a review of all your jeans collection now Joe, how many wearers and how many squirreled away for 'later'?  😄

[beautiful_FrEaK]

18 hours ago, silencejoe said:

I love the denim and the details

Pease wait for BF for the professional review 

Will have to wait until at least Saturday.

The German counterpart of EMS is really not so good

[tooth]

I washed my ‘Denim Collectibles 1946’ (received last week from Bears) and thought I’d provide some pre / post wash measurements and some thoughts (albeit quite plebeian). No photos as they can be found online and in this thread already…

Tag size: 33 waist.

waist: 16.75” / 16.25”
front rise: 12.25” / 12”
rear rise: 16” / 15.5”
thigh: 12.5” / 12.25”
length: 33” / 32.5”
hem: 8.75” / 8.5”

The denim is great. Deep indigo with a subtle grey weft. When they arrived they were very soft and pliable, after the initial wash they stiffened up a bit and have a somewhat rough hand, but I have a feeling that within a few wears they’ll drape very well and return to their softer state. There’s some nice unevenness within the denim and a bit of loom chatter that helps with the texture, but it is still fairly even. I really like the iron buttons and subtle oxidation that I have a feeling will continue to age nicely. The chainstich runoff is not as extreme as the MiUSA 46s, which I am happy about… the MiUSA seems over the top to me. The stitching is perfectly imperfect and I’m a big fan of the thread color. The rivets are nicely stamped and the nipple has that sharper feeling similar to FW, but not sharp enough to draw blood . Was thinking of getting these hemmed, but the original is too nice and already showing great tension.

Personally, I tend toward repros more for the cut than historical accuracy, but with all of the research SC put into these I’m assuming they’re close to the original on which they’re based… would be great to get an expert opinion.

In any case really, looking forward to getting these into rotation and seeing how they come along.

Edited January 26 by tooth

[Dr_Heech]

Not plebeian at all @tooth. A good honest review. And as for an expert opinion on a 1946 model, l think @Flash is the man to ask (albeit he is spending his cash on ink these days) as he had a passion for them.

 

[MJF9]

Thanks for the review @tooth.

One observation is the rises are lower than I'd have expected and yours seem a touch lower than posted online. I know the adjacent war versions for FW and TCB both have considerably bigger rises.

Wonder what the 43 will turn out like.

I think we're going need some collectibles fit pics in the thread!!

[Double 0 Soul]

Morning @tooth there was another pair of SC46s made for Junky which predate the comedy MiA version.. Mr. Ryoichi Kobayashi supplied the vintage 1946 pair which was used as a benchmark for the details.. I’m a bit out of the loop nowadays but I posted about them on pg 66 of the DB thread if you want a comparison

https://www.denimbro.com/sugar-cane_topic92_page66.html?KW=Junky

I don’t even know if these recent offerings from SC are modelled from the same pair.. they was on display at Clutch, I might have the photos on my macbook.. I’ll have a look.

Edited January 26 by Double 0 Soul

[beautiful_FrEaK]

@tooth thanks for the measurements! Where do you measure the thighs though? 12" sounds tiny for a W33 so I don't think it's at the crotch?
 

@MJF9 The back rise really sounds rather small but that's nice for me (I hope). Will find out tomorrow.

[beautiful_FrEaK]

BTW, the 1946 model is already planned for a restock in March. In case anybody missed out.

[tooth]

@beautiful_FrEaK 1” inch down from the crotch. Just went back and looked at my post it and realized I used the front rise measurements for the thigh (thanks for the call out 👍) - updated original post… Looking forward to your measurements.

[tooth]

@Double 0 Soul those SC 1946 for junky look quite nice… awesome texture. One thing that caught my eye is that the patch features an ‘S’ (ie: S1946) when I think the production restrictions were lifted by that point (as can be seen by use of coin pocket rivets). Was the ‘S’ still employed for a period of time afterwards? Was there a surplus of patches that had been stamped with an ‘S’ that were used vs tossing them? I’m sure this has been covered before…

Edited January 26 by tooth

[Double 0 Soul]

It was just 501XX stamped in ‘green’ ink on the examples for the Devi’s Denim Project (which incidentally is also a good resource for all things 46) i’m out and about.. but anything is possible, check the Junky blog for an explanation and I’ll check the photos from the Clutch exhibition when I get home but the S1946 could just refer to Sugarcane 1946

[Double 0 Soul]

Right i'm back..

Yes.. the pair of 46s supplied by Ryoichi Kobayashi did indeed have the S prefix

[Double 0 Soul]

They stamped it in the 506XX repro too for good measure

The original version had unusual button backs, they did their best to repro these too

Test sample from Junky

[beautiful_FrEaK]

My pair has finally arrived.

Size 34x33

One-wash
Waist: 34"
Front rise: 12.5"
Back rise: 16.375"
Thighs: 13"
Knee: 9.5"
Leg opening: 8.8"
Inseam: 33"

 

[Broark]

I really like how wide the spread is between the inside and outside of the back pocket stitching (not sure exactly what to call this area, is there a name for it?).
Looking forward to seeing how the denim wears in and living vicariously through y'all.

[Dr_Heech]

Would be interested in a comparison, measurements-wise to your FW47'S  when you have the time @beautiful_FrEaK

[Edit] Doh! forgot your SC's are One wash and your FW's were unwashed 😊 

 

Edited January 27 by Dr_Heech

[JMS]

Did someone mention they are doing another run of these in the spring? Looking forward to everyone's thoughts on the fit. Love the 'stovetop' waist flare. 

Edited January 27 by JMS

[beautiful_FrEaK]

27 minutes ago, JMS said:

Did someone mention they are doing another run of these in the spring? Looking forward to everyone's thoughts on the fit. Love the 'stovetop' waist flare. 

Yep, they already have the 1946 listed for restock on their homepage in March 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

And here are my fit pics. Size 34 (one-wash)

 

[yung_flynn]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:42 AM, beautiful_FrEaK said:

 

Is that selvedge in the coin pocket? Is coin pocket selvedge a historically accurate 1946 detail?

Mostly curious because my WH DD-1947 does not have the coin pocket selvedge and Sugar Cane 1947 doesn't seem to either (at least based on product photos - I don't have a pair). However, WW2 jeans (at least the CSF and Buzz versions) seem to have coin pocket selvedge in product photos and same for 1955 jeans (TCB and Sugar Cane). So if it's a historically accurate 1946 detail, why did it disappear in 1947 and reappear in the 50s?

[unders]

@yung_flynn Hey buddy, just to let you know that my SC47 have coin pocket selvedge (bought a couple months ago). I also have a pair with arcuates in the loft - if memory serves me they are the same but I’d need to check to be certain. 

[yung_flynn]

25 minutes ago, unders said:

@yung_flynn Hey buddy, just to let you know that my SC47 have coin pocket selvedge (bought a couple months ago). I also have a pair with arcuates in the loft - if memory serves me they are the same but I’d need to check to be certain. 

Thanks for the follow-up. I didn't see it peeking out like in some of the other models (at least in the Self Edge stock photo that I saw). Interestingly, I checked photos from other stockists and it's clearly there on their SC 1947 models. Warehouse's 1947 definitely does not have the coin pocket selvedge, at least based on my Duck Digger pair though. Not sure if it's an oversight or intentional.

Edited January 29 by yung_flynn

[beautiful_FrEaK]

@yung_flynn Usually you see the hidden selvedge in the coin pocket on pairs up to the 60s. Sometimes with peek-a-boo selvedge. But that's surely not a hard rule as you can see with your Warehouse. My Lb40s also don't have the selvedge in the coin pocket. I am pretty sure not all Levi's were the same as well.

[Cold Summer]

Real nice fit on the new jeans b_F, I hadn't heard of this fit before but it looks great on you.

If I was going to buy a Sugar Cane pair I'd go with the 1966, measurements look spot on for me. Though the 1955 also sounds pretty good - only turn off is the zipper.

Edited January 30 by Cold Summer

[Mankind on M34-4602151-B]

Gotta say... very tempted🤩, thanks for sharing. 

I wonder do you get a good leg twist though? 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Thanks!

Nope, nearly no twist on my pair

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

I’ve been wearing my blanket lined 1953 pretty consistently lately and had to see if I could find my size in the corduroy SC15463. I found one left and got a deal so I couldn’t pass it up and as soon as I put it on I absolutely do not regret it. For me this is pure nostalgia as I used to wear a much crappier Sherpa corduroy type 3 in college. 

I told myself no new denim this year, still going strong! 

[vIGGiou riou]

4 hours ago, AlientoyWorkmachine said:

I’ve been wearing my blanket lined 1953 pretty consistently lately and had to see if I could find my size in the corduroy SC15463. I found one left and got a deal so I couldn’t pass it up and as soon as I put it on I absolutely do not regret it. For me this is pure nostalgia as I used to wear a much crappier Sherpa corduroy type 3 in college. 

I told myself no new denim this year, still going strong! 

beautiful jacket Alientoy....

[Alec Leamas]

Never picked up any Sugar Cane stuff but the fit pics on all the jeans and the jackets on here are whetting my appetite for sure!