Warehouse

[Josh'N'Roll]

Long shot here, but does anyone have an unworn/gently used pair of the Warehouse x Hinoya 2021hxx in size 36 that they’d be willing to part with? I’ve had my eye on Yahoo Auctions for a bit and have only seen smaller sizes turn up. Would love to snag another pair if I can find one. 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Looks like the new John Mung project will feature an 80s 501.

[ChemProfJSpencer]

As a relative newbie to repro denim, I’m curious as to how full of “character” the denim in Levi’s from the 20s–40s actually was? My ’46 are surprisingly full of texture, neps, etc. that I thought were something of a modern invention. I was led to believe (perhaps incorrectly) that this “character” would have been considered as a flaw in denim from the period, and would have been rejected. 

Having never handled denim from the era, I’m curious if anyone in the know could enlighten me in the subject? Is Warehouse appealing to creative license producing repros in denim like the DSB 14 oz?

Edited March 17 by ChemProfJSpencer

[Dr_Heech]

@ChemProfJSpencer Cone Mills made the denim for levis 501xx exclusively from 1922 onwards. The Cone denim used back then had a lot more character, such as your neppy feel with slubs and loom chatter. The denim changed three times, once in the mid 1950s (a lighter blue dye it seems), mid 70's (sulphur dye technique was briefly introduced) and again in 1984 when the selvedge disappeared and the denim became more fluffier/bulkier, but had pretty much lost all that character by then. (As for the denim being a flaw, l've not seen evidence to support it).

The introduction of repros from the mid 1990s aimed to rectify that, trying to get denim made that replicated that character. And here we are 30 odd years later with an array of manufacturers and different denims doing just that!

Hope that helps?

 

[shredwin_206]

St Patrick’s day fit with the warehouse cowboys 

[ChemProfJSpencer]

16 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

@ChemProfJSpencer Cone Mills made the denim for levis 501xx exclusively from 1922 onwards. The Cone denim used back then had a lot more character, such as your neppy feel with slubs and loom chatter. The denim changed three times, once in the mid 1950s (a lighter blue dye it seems), mid 70's (sulphur dye technique was briefly introduced) and again in 1984 when the selvedge disappeared and the denim became more fluffier/bulkier, but had pretty much lost all that character by then. (As for the denim being a flaw, l've not seen evidence to support it).

The introduction of repros from the mid 1990s aimed to rectify that, trying to get denim made that replicated that character. And here we are 30 odd years later with an array of manufacturers and different denims doing just that!

Hope that helps?

 

It does, thanks. I was aware of the golden handshake, of course, but it seems most of the repro brands denim seems a little more even and flat than the coarser stuff like the DSB denim in my pair. I love this denim (like, a LOT) but wasn’t sure how faithful it really was to period denim, particularly Cone denim. Glad to know it’s in the ballpark. Thanks @Dr_Heech!

[unders]

@chicote’s mention of a 333 repro in the TCB contest thread reminded me to post this. Just screen grabs from Masaki Fujiki’s instagram stories a few weeks back, but he tends to post items (clues?) a couple of seasons before WH repro them, maybe from buying trips. I could be totally wrong and he might just like them and so shared them. Anyway, my fingers are crossed. 

[shredwin_206]

[sinjo]

WH 660, no idea how old or how many washes/soaks.

Before soak and after soak.

[crownzip]

20 hours ago, shredwin_206 said:

Shredwin, those look amazing! 

[shredwin_206]

@crownzip so sick! @unders how’s your pair looking? 

[unders]

Haven’t worn them much since the last time I posted them @shredwin_206  The arcuates are disintegrating which looks kinda cool

[Gio20]

Not so good iPhone pics 1001 banner denim 

[Alec Leamas]

On 3/14/2024 at 1:31 PM, lobster_for_lunch said:

@ChemProfJSpencer I got the S10001XX(1000XX) DSB 1947 (W33xL32), and they shrank from 87cm to 79cm inseam after one 40 C wash... 

I've been looking at getting these or the 1953 DSB's - what was shrinkage like in other places? Across the thigh for example?

[ChemProfJSpencer]

7 hours ago, Alec Leamas said:

I've been looking at getting these or the 1953 DSB's - what was shrinkage like in other places? Across the thigh for example?

@Alec Leamas Here are the numbers on my size 34:

Pre-wash:

• Waist: 18" / 46 cm
• Front rise: 13.5" / 34 cm
• Rear rise: 17.75" / 45 cm
• Hip (7.5 cm up from crotch seam):  24" / 61 cm
• Thigh: 13.5" / 34 cm
• Mid-thigh (10 cm below crotch seam): 11.75" / 30 cm
• Knee (34 cm below crotch seam): 10" / 25 cm
• Hem: 9.25" / 23.5 cm
• Inseam: 35.5 in / 90 cm

 Post-wash (two 40 °C washes with line drying):

• Waist: 17" / 43 cm
• Front rise: 13" / 33 cm
• Rear rise: 16.5" / 42 cm
• Hip (7.5 cm up from crotch seam):  22.5" / 57 cm
• Thigh: 12.5" / 31.5 cm
• Mid-thigh (10 cm below crotch seam): 11.25" / 28 cm
• Knee (34 cm below crotch seam): 9.25" / 23.5 cm
• Hem: 8.5" / 22 cm
• Inseam: 33.75" / 85.5 cm

Edited March 31 by ChemProfJSpencer

[Alec Leamas]

9 hours ago, ChemProfJSpencer said:

@Alec Leamas Here are the numbers on my size 34:

Pre-wash:

• Waist: 18" / 46 cm
• Front rise: 13.5" / 34 cm
• Rear rise: 17.75" / 45 cm
• Hip (7.5 cm up from crotch seam):  24" / 61 cm
• Thigh: 13.5" / 34 cm
• Mid-thigh (10 cm below crotch seam): 11.75" / 30 cm
• Knee (34 cm below crotch seam): 10" / 25 cm
• Hem: 9.25" / 23.5 cm
• Inseam: 35.5 in / 90 cm

 Post-wash (two 40 °C washes with line drying):

• Waist: 17" / 43 cm
• Front rise: 13" / 33 cm
• Rear rise: 16.5" / 42 cm
• Hip (7.5 cm up from crotch seam):  22.5" / 57 cm
• Thigh: 12.5" / 31.5 cm
• Mid-thigh (10 cm below crotch seam): 11.25" / 28 cm
• Knee (34 cm below crotch seam): 9.25" / 23.5 cm
• Hem: 8.5" / 22 cm
• Inseam: 33.75" / 85.5 cm

Thanks dude! I actually meant the DSB 1947 or 1953’s but given they’re the same DSB denim I imagine the shrinkage would probably be the same, unless someone can enlighten me otherwise?

[lobster_for_lunch]

On 3/31/2024 at 3:33 PM, Alec Leamas said:

Thanks dude! I actually meant the DSB 1947 or 1953’s but given they’re the same DSB denim I imagine the shrinkage would probably be the same, unless someone can enlighten me otherwise?

Yeah, I would say the shrinkage is almost the same for the 47 and 53's.

[Gio20]

Has anyone noticed the side stitching on the 47 DSB is 1/2 inch longer on one side? 

[Gio20]

9 minutes ago, Gio20 said:

Has anyone noticed the side stitching on the 47 DSB is 1/2 inch longer on one side? 

*Just noticed it’s like that on the DSB 46 as well… 1/4 inch

[beautiful_FrEaK]

There are repros where it is done on purpose, e.g. the Sugar Cane 1946 or also TCB's 40s model.
Could be the case here as well. Could also just be the normal human error (especially when we talk about 1/4")

[Maynard Friedman]

I’d send them back and ask for a new pair.

[Gio20]

2 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I’d send them back and ask for a new pair.

Imagine someone doing that and having the same thing in the next pair.  They would be furious lol 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

You wouldn't be the first to do a similar thing:

Quote

Now, there’s one more big thing that I’d like to discuss regarding these jeans, and I think it ties into a bigger discussion regarding authenticity versus quality. When I received my first pair (I ordered them from Mr. Porter), I sent them back immediately because there was some serious leg twist on the left leg. For those that don’t know, leg twist occurs sometimes when unsanforized denim is washed and shrinks unevenly. Whether or not this is a quality control issue is a bit complicated – some see it as the true nature of authentic denim expressing itself, others as an aesthetic bummer. The twist on that first pair was almost 90 degrees, so it was significant enough that I felt it warranted an exchange. When they sent over a second pair, I pulled them out and laughed – these had just as much leg twist as the first pair. Back they went. When I got my third pair and saw the same thing, it finally dawned on me that this was not a fluke – it was the norm.

 

https://fromsqualortoballer.com/product-review-orslow-107-jeans/

[yung_flynn]

2 hours ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

You wouldn't be the first to do a similar thing:

 

https://fromsqualortoballer.com/product-review-orslow-107-jeans/

I'm still curious why leg twist bothers some people so much. It's not uncomfortable and nobody has ever noticed unless they are deep in the game and looking closely at photos

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

It’s up there (for me) with rating jeans based on how well they dress up.

If you throw a blazer on with jeans you’re dressing down the blazer (imo), not the other way around.

The whole concept to me is still a bit misdirected - if you’re going to dress up, just own it. It’s not that I don’t think jeans can look nice and clean but there are better options if that’s the point. It’s like those Cole Haan “dress” shoes with sneaker soles. They look confused. I mean do what makes you happy but that is not any sort of positive development to my mind. 

But I agree it’s not an actual issue with quality. It’s never bothered me at all.

[yung_flynn]

14 minutes ago, AlientoyWorkmachine said:

If you throw a blazer on with jeans you’re dressing down the blazer (imo), not the other way around.

Yeah I think that this is a great way to put things. Any time that I've ever worn a blazer with jeans it is to dress down the blazer and not dress up the jeans, so things like the leg twist and paper patch fulfill that goal well. If I want to dress up a blazer, I'd be better off in chinos or wool flannels in my mind.

The comments on the article that bF linked are interesting though. Several people complaining about the "cheap" paper patch and "poor" QC of the leg twist and misaligned back yoke seams on a $300 pair of jeans (another huge US markup vs. Japanese domestic at $150). A pair of CSF would probably send them into palpitations.

Edited April 3 by yung_flynn

[tooth]

I think it’s a case of people having no idea around what they’re buying and no idea why a brand has made the decisions they have made… not only with a paper patch, but across the board: patterning, hardware, thread weights / colors, and let’s not forget the denim itself and the choices / decisions that went into creating said denim…

Also, that article is from 2018. I wonder if the guy who wrote the review, and the people who posted comments, have tried any other brands between now and then and how / if their complaints / preferences in denim have changed.

Edited April 3 by tooth

[ChemProfJSpencer]

12 hours ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

You wouldn't be the first to do a similar thing:

 

https://fromsqualortoballer.com/product-review-orslow-107-jeans/

Sacrilege. 

[Alec Leamas]

On 9/21/2023 at 4:37 PM, vIGGiou riou said:

Now I am in my new WH 1000XX DSB 11 days and I think that would be worthwhile to present how they stretch ten days after initial wash.

Taged size W33/L32

raw/after initial wash/after 10 days (all in cm)

waist 91/86/89

front rise 33,5/31/31,5

back rise 44,5/41,5/43

thigh 33/31/32

knee 25/24/24,5

inseam 89,5/82/83

hem 23/22/22,5  ??????

How are these coming along @vIGGiou riou?

I know you're in your 220a's all the time at the moment but I just picked up a pair of these 1000XX 25th Anniversary DSB as Hinoya had another restock, so I was interested in how they looked now.

Can I just check on your thigh measurement above also, is that Hinoya style (10cm from crotch seam) or right up at the top??

[lobster_for_lunch]

@Alec Leamas here are my DSB 1000XX, after 3 years... I haven't worn them that much latley as I have other pairs in my rotation now. The front pockets are falling apart inside, but otherwise they are holding up pretty good, they been repaired a couple of times. The most irritating repair was that the seam in the crutch broke after 1 month of wear...