Warehouse

[Sugar Mountain]

Wider than the 1001XX or the regular 1001? Surprised if it's the former as the pre-2012 cut is wider than the revised (non-XX) version.

[Broark]

Wider than the 1001XX pair that I have.

I should so some measurements to compare. I feel like the extra length could be the contributing factor making them feel bigger

But the knee also feels a big bigger, top block feels quite similar.

[Foxy2]

Yes, please - actual measurements would be nice to see how they compare to the chart...

Edited February 3, 2016 by Foxy2

[Broark]

Worn today, while at work so they might've stretched a bit.

Size 36 one wash, measured BiG style:

Waist: 39 in.
Front rise: 12.5 in.

Back rise: 17.25 in.
Thigh: 14 in.

Knee: 10 in.

Leg opening: 9.25 in.

Inseam: 34 in.

Also these really bleed, my hands were covered with blue throughout the day...

I plan on putting these through a hot wash and dry tomorrow just to see if I can get any more shrinkage because I could use it.

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Thanks for the measurements! Waist and rise seem "huge" for a size 36.

ALl in all a pretty roomy cut with 14" thighs

[Maynard Friedman]

Maynard - I thought that the 800s would be a golden fit for me based on paper measurements, but then tried them on in Tokyo and the thighs were way tight. I have larger thighs relative to my waist size and found that the 1001 provided a really nice, trim fit while still being roomy where I needed it (that's right, the left inside leg  ).

 

You might be after the 1000XX denim rather than the banner denim though...

Thanks SM, I already have 2 pairs of Warrens (1000XX oxidised), 415 (1000XX) and the 1001XX 15th. I just really wanted a pair with a smaller leg opening as all mine will end up between 8.5-8.75" for a size 32 and I really prefer something around 8" these days. I may just have to get a pair tapered instead.

[Sugar Mountain]

Yeah, figured you already had a few pairs of WH with 1000XX denim.

1001 in size 32 has an 8.25" l/o if that works...

[setterman]

Worn today, while at work so they might've stretched a bit.

Size 36 one wash, measured BiG style:

Waist: 39 in.

Front rise: 12.5 in.

Back rise: 17.25 in.

Thigh: 14 in.

Knee: 10 in.

Leg opening: 9.25 in.

Inseam: 34 in.

Also these really bleed, my hands were covered with blue throughout the day...

I plan on putting these through a hot wash and dry tomorrow just to see if I can get any more shrinkage because I could use it.

 

Those are what I'd expect for raw measurements of a size 36 1001.  Definitely give them another wash, my experience with OW 700s was that they still had a little ways to go (another inch in inseam IIRC).  I wouldn't use the dryer though, especially if they're bleeding that much.  

[Broark]

Those are what I'd expect for raw measurements of a size 36 1001.  Definitely give them another wash, my experience with OW 700s was that they still had a little ways to go (another inch in inseam IIRC).  I wouldn't use the dryer though, especially if they're bleeding that much.  

 

Just washed them and they didn't actually bleed a lot during the trip through the washing machine.

I had the same experience with my 1001XX's, they came one wash and after a few trips through the wash/dry cycle the shrank up more.

They're in the dryer now, I think they should be okay but I'm monitoring them. Will update with new measurements.

[Broark]

Not quite completely dry, but dry enough for me to take measurements.

Didn't let them completely dry in the dryer because I noticed the legs starting to crease.

I have a feeling these will fit better based on these measurements.

 

Waist: 36 in.

Front rise: 12 in.
Back rise: 16 in.

Thigh: 13.5 in.

Knee: 9.75

Leg opening: 9 in.

Inseam: 33.25

[setterman]

Other than the inseam, looks like where the standard size 36 1001 would shrink to.  Checking the raw model, they're supposed to start at 36" in the inseam, so another 1/4" of shrinkage, and your's are probably done.  

[Broark]

I've been wanting to try a more straight leg cut and I think these are it.

It was really the waist and knee that felt too big, so I had to hike them up a lot so they would sit tight across the waist and everything.

Once these are bone dry I'll give them another spin, likely tomorrow.

[Broark]

Just a crappy fit pic I attempted to take.

These feel a lot better now. Could do with a little less inseam, but a nice straight leg cut.

[Sugar Mountain]

The straight leg cut suits you very well man. A hem job and you'll be grand.

[Rightyow77]

agreed, they look great. 

[Broark]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'm happy with how they feel after the wash and dry.

Maybe Warehouse had them mislabeled or they used a gentler one wash process on these because originally they felt very large.

The waist stretched out to be a little big so I might invest in a belt but otherwise pretty happy with them!

[Foxy2]

They look fine!

And there are pretty decent belt options out there...

Have my pair being shipped out yesterday - maybe I sized right.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Foxy2

[setterman]

Good fit!  Look a little roomier in the thigh than some of your other jeans, correct?  I think these are going to hold up better in the areas that are wearing fast on your other jeans (Ooe).  

[Broark]

Thanks! That's correct, more room in the thigh and top block overall.

I think you're right as well, no blowouts after 6-8 months.

[setterman]

Gonna get them hemmed? IMO, a hem with minimal stack really suits the 1001.  Plus it makes us short legged guys look a little taller!   

[Broark]

Not sure yet, I'm going to wear them with boots today and see how I feel about the length.

The chainstitch width and the color of stitching used is really nice so if I can get away without hemming I'll go that route!

[josh mullen]

Looks good, Broark. I do, however, agree with setterman that they may benefit from a hem. But whichever direction you choose, I'm sure they'll end up great.

 

With my seven-year-old 800s all but retired, I decided it was time to replace them with something new from WH. Initially, the raw 1000s on offer at BIG caught my eye. Unfortunately, though, I couldn't get past the relatively low rise they feature. It's entirely possible that I'm in the minority on this issue, but it seems to me that the front rise on a pair of size 38 jeans should shrink to a number greater than twelve inches (I'm 6'2"); I mean, the waist-to-rise-to-upper thigh ratio of 37.5"-12"-14" is just a bit off in my opinion. So, rather than going with something new to me, I chose to grab another pair of 800s. So far, so good. Still, my concerns notwithstanding, I'm considering picking up the Kaigai model 1000s as well. 

[Max Power]

Some random WH 800 shots.

 

[Max Power]

[beautiful_FrEaK]

The marbling starts...

[superheavent]

Please post a picture of whole jeans front and back Max 

[Max Power]

They're just drying from a wash,will post them soon.

[setterman]

Josh, BiG listed the rise as 12.25" on the 36 and 38 1000, but on my size 36 1003XX from a couple years ago, which is identical in cut to the 1000, the front rise is 12.5". Ever had a pair of SC47s? In same tagged size, the 1000 will be a little wider in the waist and narrower in the leg than the Canes.

[josh mullen]

Perhaps I'll ask Gordon to measure a few pairs of the 1000, which should help me arrive at a final determination as to whether or not they'll work for me. 

 

Nope, I've never owned a pair of SC47s. But I've come close on a few occasions. Honestly, they're a bit too wide in the leg and at the hem for my taste. Generally speaking, 9.25" (post-soak) is just about as wide as I'm willing to go when it comes to hem width. 

[setterman]

If the size 38 800s are fine, I'd expect you wouldn't have any issue with the 1000. I'm afraid the lvc '44s I just sent you might be skin tight though. Rise won't be an issue, but the thighs will be narrow.