Sugar Cane Denim

[indigoeagle]

Selling this Heavy Twill Ombre Flannel Shirt in Navy XL NWT (in the sales thread)

[JMS]

@AlientoyWorkmachine Where'd you snag it? I've been eyeing that one. 

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

@JMS a shop called Klaxon. They only had one left but fortunately it was my size. I didn't dive too aggressively but cursory searches didn't turn up anything else for me in Japan that was still in stock. I saw a few in Europe but they were about $100 more. 

[JMS]

2 hours ago, AlientoyWorkmachine said:

@JMS a shop called Klaxon. They only had one left but fortunately it was my size. I didn't dive too aggressively but cursory searches didn't turn up anything else for me in Japan that was still in stock. I saw a few in Europe but they were about $100 more. 

Love Klaxon. Those strike gold sweatshirts for $100 are the best! 

[Mtvare]

8 hours ago, JMS said:

Love Klaxon. Those strike gold sweatshirts for $100 are the best! 

Any thoughts on the sizing of those? (I'm a measured 42" chest.)

[JMS]

7 hours ago, Mtvare said:

Any thoughts on the sizing of those? (I'm a measured 42" chest.)

I am 5' 10", 42" chest, about 175lbs, the size 42 (XL) fits me well, roomy in the chest, good length in the arms. They are cut very short, sit right on the waist, so size for the length, everything else is generous. They also shrink a lot with a wash but stretch back out after 5 or so wears. 

I've had one for about 8 years, wearing incredibly; the fabric is superior to Fullcount, RMC, Warehouse, the only fabric sweat I'd be curious to compare it to is Freewheelers. The construction is also superior in every way. I cannot say enough good things about them. 

The Klaxon measurements are bit off in the chest (or maybe the fabric has stretched?), here is mine after dozens of washes:

Arm length from center neck: 84cm

Chest: 65.5cm

Length: 60cm

[Mtvare]

That's so helpful,  thank you!

[beautiful_FrEaK]

So, now after 2 weeks of wear I have to say I really love the SC1946 model.

The fit is just right for me and the denim is awesome . The right texture and irregularities for my taste without feeling over-engineered. First it felt/looked very similar to the 1947 denim but through wearing the denim evolved a bit. I have ordered the 1943 as well but they have to wait.

Still, the 42k price tag is steep and I would have preferred 32k   But seeing how quickly they all sold, SugarCane did the right thing

[silencejoe]

12 minutes ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

So, now after 2 weeks of wear I have to say I really love the SC1946 model.

The fit is just right for me and the denim is awesome . The right texture and irregularities for my taste without feeling over-engineered. First it felt/looked very similar to the 1947 denim but through wearing the denim evolved a bit. I have ordered the 1943 as well but they have to wait.

Still, the 42k price tag is steep and I would have preferred 32k   But seeing how quickly they all sold, SugarCane did the right thing

Lucky you, I still try my luck to get the 43 

[Cold Summer]

I've got a pair of 1966 on the way. First Sugar Cane jeans for me. I always tend to associate "66" type jeans with a low rise, roomy top block, and sharply-tapered leg, but this pair isn't like that at all. Actually, the fit is the whole reason I wanted these: since I usually tuck in my shirts nowadays, I find the rise on most jeans in my size (about 31" or so) disappointingly low for the purpose. This is maybe not surprising since I'm much taller than most people with a 31" waist. More "normal" proportioned guys of my height (about 6'3" / 191 cm) probably have a 34-36 waist. You go up to that size in any of the jeans I wear and you get 1-2" of additional rise. This would seem to make a big difference not just in terms of comfort, but also practical considerations like shirts I want tucked in, staying tucked in.

The 1966 doesn't have as many fancy details as I'm accustomed to enjoying, like rolled belt loops, rolled back pocket edges, hidden rivets, and so on. But the fit in a size 30 looks dead on. Much longer rise than my other jeans, and a straight leg just a little slimmer in the thigh, with a very mild taper to a 20 cm hem that can easily accommodate my engineer boots. There's a good chance these end up being the best-fitting jeans I've ever worn. The denim is obviously pretty modest, but I suspect that with my typical infrequent washing routine they'd fade as nicely as my other pairs. Another bonus: it looks like the most recent run of these has a very long inseam, almost 36" in one-wash form, which is also quite appealing. These were also very cheap, at under $150. 

At this point I care less about very ostentatious denim and details or exclusive features and would rather just have a pretty classic pair of jeans that fits just how I want, and I'm pretty sure these will do just that. Of course I'll share pics and impressions once they get here. Some other SC models like the Okinawa, Hawaii, and 1955 also seem like they'd be good fits, but the 1966 seems like the best place to start.

 

[vIGGiou riou]

5 hours ago, Cold Summer said:

I've got a pair of 1966 on the way. First Sugar Cane jeans for me. I always tend to associate "66" type jeans with a low rise, roomy top block, and sharply-tapered leg, but this pair isn't like that at all. Actually, the fit is the whole reason I wanted these: since I usually tuck in my shirts nowadays, I find the rise on most jeans in my size (about 31" or so) disappointingly low for the purpose. This is maybe not surprising since I'm much taller than most people with a 31" waist. More "normal" proportioned guys of my height (about 6'3" / 191 cm) probably have a 34-36 waist. You go up to that size in any of the jeans I wear and you get 1-2" of additional rise. This would seem to make a big difference not just in terms of comfort, but also practical considerations like shirts I want tucked in, staying tucked in.

The 1966 doesn't have as many fancy details as I'm accustomed to enjoying, like rolled belt loops, rolled back pocket edges, hidden rivets, and so on. But the fit in a size 30 looks dead on. Much longer rise than my other jeans, and a straight leg just a little slimmer in the thigh, with a very mild taper to a 20 cm hem that can easily accommodate my engineer boots. There's a good chance these end up being the best-fitting jeans I've ever worn. The denim is obviously pretty modest, but I suspect that with my typical infrequent washing routine they'd fade as nicely as my other pairs. Another bonus: it looks like the most recent run of these has a very long inseam, almost 36" in one-wash form, which is also quite appealing. These were also very cheap, at under $150. 

At this point I care less about very ostentatious denim and details or exclusive features and would rather just have a pretty classic pair of jeans that fits just how I want, and I'm pretty sure these will do just that. Of course I'll share pics and impressions once they get here. Some other SC models like the Okinawa, Hawaii, and 1955 also seem like they'd be good fits, but the 1966 seems like the best place to start.

 

good luck with your new acquisition. I like SC 66 very much. both fit and denim... I think you did good choice. denim of 66 is quite fast fader and in couple of weeks will be molded on your body as glow....

[julian-wolf]

5 hours ago, Cold Summer said:

There's a good chance these end up being the best-fitting jeans I've ever worn.

That’s a pretty bold expectation, for never even having tried them on…

Obviously I hope the best for you—and I’ve seen these jeans fit really well on a wide variety of body types—but it feels like the online measurements say very little, in practice, about how clothes will actually end up fitting at the end of the day, and trying out a new brand for the first time always ends up being a toss up

[Maynard Friedman]

My understanding of the SC66 is that they have generous thighs and arse (due to the high front and back rises) with a taper. Perfect for me if I were in the market but I’m not sure that’s what you’re looking for @Cold Summer, although I’m happy to be proven wrong and hope they work out for you.

[Cold Summer]

I've bought enough jeans online from various places to generally know what's going to work and what isn't when it comes to measurements, especially when I cross-reference a couple different places' measurements. Aside from the longer rise, the legs appear to be in line with other pairs that have fit me great like Warehouse 800xx, 1001xx. Back when I had my Dawson Regular Fit jeans, those had a similar high rise which I really liked - but they were a little too tight and slim in the top block. The 1966 should be similar rise, but with a bit more room.

What's interesting about my looser fitting straight pairs like Flat Head 3005 and Warehouse 1001xx is that they look and feel best when they're slouched a little bit - but that doesn't work well with tucking stuff in, where I have to hike them up a bit. The 1966 should feel a bit like those slouched straight fits, just with the waist sitting at a more appropriate height, which would seem to be the best of both worlds. We'll find out how good my fit prognostication skills are soon enough, I suppose.

The only really clunky fit I've had in years was the Samurai S3000vx, which is seriously boxy in the top block; the top thigh was bigger than any of my other pairs but really the main problem is just that the rise on those jeans is way too low for a WWII type jean, leading to all sorts of problems.

Edited February 13 by Cold Summer

[yung_flynn]

On 2/12/2024 at 10:44 AM, Cold Summer said:

This is maybe not surprising since I'm much taller than most people with a 31" waist. More "normal" proportioned guys of my height (about 6'3" / 191 cm) probably have a 34-36 waist. You go up to that size in any of the jeans I wear and you get 1-2" of additional rise.

As someone with a nearly identical height and waist, I'm really curious to see how they fit you. Warehouse 1001xx is also one of the better fitting pairs for me as well, although I wish that the inseam were 1"/2 cm longer. The rise at smaller waists is definitely hard for taller people - I've seen plenty of "mid-rise" pairs with a 10" FR that almost is below my hips. Same for leg opening on "relaxed tapered" cuts, which usually are heinously small at small waist sizes and nearly impossible to pull large feet though (I broke the chain stitch hem on a Samurai pair because of this).

[Cold Summer]

@yung_flynn Good observations. Those "relaxed tapered" cuts are really made for big guys who want a proportionally smaller hem. If you wear a size 34-36 waist there's a good argument for jeans like that, which will give you maybe 8-8.5" hems while a straight leg fit is around 10" and extremely wide. But in my size those tapered fits are usually something like 6.75" with a 12.5" or larger thigh and look completely ridiculous. I can see why a guy would need more room than me in the top block, but not why they'd want such a tiny hem. To me these jeans seem like they negatively emphasize one's midsection, especially in the smaller sizes where you don't need all that taper.

All this raises what is, to me, an obvious question: why don't jean makers offer at least some models by hem size? For instance, a "22 cm" pair that's a pretty classic 8.5" hem, and as the waist size goes up, the top block and thigh get roomier, and taper proportionally increases while the hem stays about the same. Even better if the rise is also pretty consistent (let's say, 11.5-12" or so in the front), and only when you go down to size 29 or smaller does it scale down a bit.

 

[yung_flynn]

On 2/14/2024 at 3:15 PM, Cold Summer said:

All this raises what is, to me, an obvious question: why don't jean makers offer at least some models by hem size?

I wonder if it's just challenging to pattern jeans in this way based on the way that manufacturers design their sizes - select a master model size and then extrapolate to other sizes. Maybe the extrapolation gets wonky if the leg opening is kept constant.

TCB new Cat's Drive jeans feels like the closest that I've seen to what you're describing. Leg opening only varies 2.5 cm/1" from size 29 to size 36, while the thigh measurement varies 5 cm/2" in the same range. So the fit is probably closer to a WH 1001xx style straight fit at smaller sizes and more of a modern tapered fit above about size 34. Or alternatively, the measurements above the knee in my size are almost identical to Samurai S211 while the measurements below the knee are closest to 1001xx.

[Duke Mantee]

@Cold Summer @yung_flynn - basically you guys are discussing and advocating a different cut for every pair of jeans made in a different waist size.

Technically any maker can change a pattern but really that takes you into a custom build.

Grading is what all makers normally do and that means they are creating the same style in another size - EVERY measurement point is changed, following a strict formula, to maintain the same fit and proportion in each new size.

[silencejoe]

Finally got my luck for the jacket and jeans

Edited February 23 by silencejoe

[beautiful_FrEaK]

I want that booklet  

[indigoeagle]

That is in the 2023 F/W catalogue.

[Dr_Heech]

@silencejoe We need some detailed shots of both garments before they disappear into the black hole that is your apartment 😅

[MJF9]

I might have somethings coming along soon 

[MJF9]

3 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

@silencejoe We need some detailed shots of both garments before they disappear into the black hole that is your apartment 😅

+ fit pics of the jacket would be good if you don't mind @silencejoe 

[southofnonorth]

On 2/15/2024 at 7:15 AM, Cold Summer said:

@yung_flynn Good observations. Those "relaxed tapered" cuts are really made for big guys who want a proportionally smaller hem. If you wear a size 34-36 waist there's a good argument for jeans like that, which will give you maybe 8-8.5" hems while a straight leg fit is around 10" and extremely wide. But in my size those tapered fits are usually something like 6.75" with a 12.5" or larger thigh and look completely ridiculous. I can see why a guy would need more room than me in the top block, but not why they'd want such a tiny hem. To me these jeans seem like they negatively emphasize one's midsection, especially in the smaller sizes where you don't need all that taper.

All this raises what is, to me, an obvious question: why don't jean makers offer at least some models by hem size? For instance, a "22 cm" pair that's a pretty classic 8.5" hem, and as the waist size goes up, the top block and thigh get roomier, and taper proportionally increases while the hem stays about the same. Even better if the rise is also pretty consistent (let's say, 11.5-12" or so in the front), and only when you go down to size 29 or smaller does it scale down a bit.

 

It’s been done by Dior Homme. They had a 21cm, 19.5cm, and a 17.5cm cut (if I recall correctly). Not a denimbro label but still a brand that got plenty of airtime on SUFU ca. 2008.
 

That said, I can’t vouch for whether the leg opening actually was the same across all sizes – I doubt it based on @Duke Mantee’s very accurate observation. 

[silencejoe]

Ha ha ha you know me Dr 

Here is for you and MJF9 for the special request 

 

[Dr_Heech]

@silencejoe wondering which S506XX repro you prefer in terms of accuracy to the originals? Are you keeping your new purchases on ice or do you plan to wear?

 

[silencejoe]

35 minutes ago, Dr_Heech said:

@silencejoe wondering which S506XX repro you prefer in terms of accuracy to the originals? Are you keeping your new purchases on ice or do you plan to wear?

 

I am waering the one from you, the sc one maybe next 

I like the SC one but just one red tag is missing 

Edited February 24 by silencejoe

[Dr_Heech]

37 minutes ago, silencejoe said:

I am waering the one from you, the sc one maybe next 

I like the SC one but just one red tag is missing 

Why not take the Piece tag off when the jacket becomes threadbare and sew it onto the SC jacket?

[MJF9]

A few thoughts and observations...

The arm holes on the SC version are notably vertical.  The CSF arm holes more curved.

When I looked at the shoulder measurements for the SC, they are quite big

Perhaps the jacket SC modelled it off was more akin to the #02 model from 1923 in the Levis book

When I compared measurements on the SC 1943 to the FW 1922, they are similar in terms of the wider shoulders relative to chest.  The arms come up a bit longer on the SC hence you can see peeps like SJ above wearing the sleeves cuffed.  It looks good either way imo.

I think the SC looks both attractive and interesting... the denim looks nice and crunchy and irregular too... 

Edited February 24 by MJF9