Warehouse

[One Thousand]

For the Warehouse660, the size chart on BiG says that the thigh post soak is 11.5 but right now pre-soak, it is definitely smaller than 11.5. I know the chart is an average based on every pair since they vary in measurements but I'm inexperienced with denim and I want to know how I should go about solving this issue.

P.S The only thing that really needs a soak is the inseam

[Quoise1203]

I've heard some ramblings on this thread that the 1000xx is discontinued. Is this true? I was hoping these would be my next pair, so I would be quite disappointed if true.

BTW, people have said that the 700 is basically the same model with a cinch added, but the BiG measurements indicate a slightly more relaxed leg for the same waist measurement (looking at size 33 here). Can anybody who's owned both confirm or deny this is the case?

[aho]

Not "discontinued" per se...As Warehouse's "1947" cut, it is a standard like the 1001XX (early 50's) and the 1003XX (WWII). However, they aren't released in a standard form on a year to year basis, as details like the fabric itself will change. The last release was in 2011 (still available at BiG but not in the 33...). I've always found that the seat is slightly roomier on the 700 although it's not a marginal difference overall. Not sure if that helps!

In my opinion, however, it'd be worth it to look at the iterations of 1001XX. Both the 2012 (newer, darker fabric) and the 2011 (a bit lighter dye, 15th Anniversary ish) are pretty similar to the 1000XX and the denim is different than the standard WH oxidation denim.

Edited January 6, 2013 by aho

[Quoise1203]

Great, thanks for the advice. I will check out the 1001xx as well! It won't be for some time until im ready to buy, but i'm always interested in some new denim!

[grooveholmes]

Just got the 1100s in. Will post fit pics (hopefully) this weekend. The denim is a neppy blue/gray; definitely not dark. I've got nothing to compare it with... Initially it definitely seems to weigh lighter than the 1000XX denim.

Approximate measurements in inches:

16.75 W

12.00 FR

16.00 BR

12.75 TH

34.00 INS

08.75 LO

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 8, 2015 by hoggreaser

[setterman]

Just got the 1100s in. Will post fit pics (hopefully) this weekend. The denim is a neppy blue/gray; definitely not dark. I've got nothing to compare it with... Initially it definitely seems to weigh lighter than the 1000XX denim.

Approximate measurements in inches:

16.75 W

12.00 FR

16.00 BR

12.75 TH

34.00 INS

08.75 LO

What's the tagged size?

I think the denim is 7X7 in the 1100, so it should be a little lighter than the 1000XX denim.

Looking forward to more info and pix on this model.

[grooveholmes]

My bad. It's tagged 34. The only other pairs of Warehouse denim in my closet are the 660s and the Heller's x Warehouse Lion (distressed but bought for $10 at a sample sale a few years ago). I love my LVCs (wearing my 44s today), but damn, this denim makes me wish they would produce stuff like this again. My first thought out of the package was that it was similar to the Roy x Cone denim, but putting them next to each other really contrasts their differences.

I put em next to the RN04 and the Buzz 43023. It is, of course comparing apples to oranges, but you get the idea with regard to color. Not as gray as the Roys but not as deep as the Buzz.

Edited January 8, 2013 by grooveholmes

[devilish]

I have wished for a long while that LVC would make a denim that has more of a 'Warehouse' feel to it. It's not exactly the same as real vintage Levi but it's much closer than what they use now. But if wishes were horses and all that.

[setterman]

Thanks. So, they're a half inch under tagged. Been getting conflicting info on Rakuten, and wasn't sure what I'd need. Looks like 38, and they will be smaller than the same size 1001 and 700.

And agreed when it comes to Warehouse vs LVC/Cone. Can't help but think Warehouse is the brand LVC was actually meant to be..... so much they do right, that LVC does wrong.

[Maynard Friedman]

That lighter blue colour looks like the 15th anniversary 1001XX denim to me, it could be similar, especially if it's 7x7.

Nice line up there Groove, where d'you get the Buzz and Warehouse - Mr Mudd and Mr Gold or deepest japan?

[aho]

...must...not...buy...

but no, great pickup, it was definitely the right choice with the deal that was going on, etc.! Will they be your dedicated pair? Would love to see how the denim evolves...I definitely do see the lighter dye being closer to the 15th Anniversary denim (but with a 60's twinge), and the 7x7 is another great quality. I've found 7x7 to be the perfect thickness for me, providing lighter weight and more pliability

Edited January 9, 2013 by aho

[grooveholmes]

I wish I could say so, but the Devis pair will take priority, which isn't so bad. These will certainly be in the mix throughout the year, and I'll be wearing 'em until the contest begins.

[aho]

Two months in Warehouse denim can still make a solid dent...I'll keep bugging you for update pictures so be forewarned!

[vjiforlife]

New to this thread. Need new denims. How's the fit/quality of 660's compared to eternals or other denim? Sizing? Any additional info is appreciated. Thanks.

[SLAB]

color of those 1100's looks really similar to the 1001XX 15th; it would be interesting to see them side by side

[Mr-Bielby]

I picked up a pair of 1100's in Japan not long back. Leg opening a bit too big for me, but getting a taper as I type. Aside from that they fit well and feel great.

To me the denim is the same as the 1105 that came out a couple of years ago.

Strange that some are saying its a 60's cut. In a recent lightening they describe it as a 70's cut.

[grooveholmes]

Interesting. The copy for the 1100 states these are made using Texas cotton-- do we know if the other similar/suspected models and their respective 7x7 denims were made with Texas, Memphis, Arizona, or other? I vaguely remember seeing somewhere the 1105 uses a blend, but that was more recent read and not a few years ago. Haven't kept up on Warehouse, so I can't speak to the consistency year to year.

[Mr-Bielby]

This years 1105 uses the same denim as the 1001XX. I've noticed that the current 1105 is now Y24,000 instead of the Y18,000ish that I paid.

[setterman]

I picked up a pair of 1100's in Japan not long back. Leg opening a bit too big for me, but getting a taper as I type. Aside from that they fit well and feel great.

To me the denim is the same as the 1105 that came out a couple of years ago.

Strange that some are saying its a 60's cut. In a recent lightening they describe it as a 70's cut.

The details of the 1100 make it specifically a '69 to '72 Levis 501 style jean. It, and others like it lacking back pocket rivets (SC 1966), are lumped together as a "66" for ease of conversation.

[Mr-Bielby]

Messed that up and repped myself. Yes I'm a newbie

Edited January 9, 2013 by Mr-Bielby

[Mr-Bielby]

^^Clears that up for me thank you. I was expecting the leg opening to be smaller on a 60's pair. Did hems on Levi's get wider towards the end of the 60's and this pair of 1100 is historically correct?

Thanks

[setterman]

Here's two vintage pairs to compare too.

http://bluegoldblues.com/post/5732130285/1966-67-big-e-levis-501-rare-model

http://bluegoldblues.com/post/3784994047/1969-73-deadstock-big-e-levis-501

If anything, the Warehouse 1100 looks narrower through the thigh, and more straight legged. And the jeans in the second link look very rounded and full. Might just be the way things are laid out and photographed.

[grooveholmes]

[grooveholmes]

[alvah407]

^ I'm sold! Why, oh why. I have no need nor $$$ but I must. One wash?

[grooveholmes]

Nope. These are the raw. "non wash".

[beautiful_FrEaK]

if those would have been one wash I would have doubted grooveholmes sizing game

massive legs still..from the measurements I first thought one wash...well...waist under tag size when raw doesn't make any sense to me

[grooveholmes]

Agreed. If anything I was hoping for it to be a little larger than tagged. If it's a historical detail, it's probably one I could do without. ; ) But I guess this is what Warehouse likes to do from time to time. Those old 660s were a nightmare to figure out.

The next size up was too large in the waist. Not too worried, however, as I've soaked to fit before, and will do so again. (They're soaking now...)

[alvah407]

Same problem w/ the 101b's, I'm in between sizes & the fact their sanfordized & probably won't stretch back out has made me hesitant to buy. Not to mention, I just started to wear my Billikenman. Can't wait to see how they fit after the soaks.