IHXB01 - Beatle Buster 21oz Japanese Selvage Denim Indigo
-
461??? are you serious??
Quite serious. That was in regards to the massive amount of flair visible in michaeljcr's photos.
-
-
Absolutely dick all.
That's what I was afraid of…
Sometimes you gotta take a break from slaying beaver
-
461's woud have been hugging his thighs big time…
Yes I know. That is why I said both the 634 and 461.
-
Sometimes you gotta take a break from slaying beaver
I couldn't have said it better myself.
el's about to get busted…...
Hopefully not like stokely just was…
-
There does look like some flare there, but 461's woud have been hugging his thighs big time…
I'm a 38inch waist, down from a 40 inch (ed. should have said 40-42inch, in all honesty, as I've lost about 2 stone/or 30 pound in American speak I think) this time last year, and I wouldn't have got anyway near a 34inch in these. I might have managed a 36 with some serious effort, but I don't think I could have moved around much!. And, all joking aside, Giles is correct about the thighs, as they're pretty well developed from carrying the rest of me around. It was these or the the 634 in the same waist size, and I wanted a trimmer look.
It's a shame they don't look as they're meant to, but they feel good so I'm happy. Slightly sad that they're not meeting people's expectations, but never mind. At this rate, these'll be too big in another 12 months and I'll be ale to go for a smaller size again, if I can get the over my thighs!
M.
-
It's a shame they don't look as they're meant to, but they feel good so I'm happy. Slightly sad that they're not meeting people's expectations, but never mind.
As long as you are happy don't mind what we have said. Personal comfort is most important!
-
Yes indeed, I like 'em, and I'd hazard a guess I'm at the larger end of the BB spectrum on here, so it's difficult to compare oneself with the tiny folks.
They are wider in the lower leg and hem than I might have expected, but I've enjoyed them today and I think they'll do me well.
Interestingly, looking back at the measurements on the site, presuming they're correct, there's very little difference in the 38" 634S and BBs. In fact, the thigh is down as the same, the knee just 0.1 smaller and the hem actually .01 wider in the BBs. The major difference is in the front and rear rise, again according to the figures on the site.
I can be the black sheep of the family, and perhaps when I've lost another 15-30 pounds I can shimmy into a smaller pair.
M.
-
Yes indeed, I like 'em, and I'd hazard a guess I'm at the larger end of the BB spectrum on here, so it's difficult to compare oneself with the tiny folks.
They are wider in the lower leg and hem than I might have expected, but I've enjoyed them today and I think they'll do me well.
Interestingly, looking back at the measurements on the site, presuming they're correct, there's very little difference in the 38" 634S and BBs. In fact, the thigh is down as the same, the knee just 0.1 smaller and the hem actually .01 wider in the BBs. The major difference is in the front and rear rise, again according to the figures on the site.
I've been racking my brain about this since the first time I came to this site. I've tried a lot of different cuts so far(at least for only being around here for 3 months) and being a true 36 it's hard with the cuts if you want a smaller hem. At first, it was difficult getting used to how wide they felt compared to my tapered jeans, but now I prefer 8.5-9in hems(i care the most about knee to hem). These cuts just do not look as flattering(IMHO) on bigger guys vs. say like a size 31. The 1955S, 666, Busters, and 634S are all the same hem measurement of 9in. in size 36. A size 31 hem is a full inch smaller than a 36 in the Busters. I don't know about you but my ankles can't be much fatter than anyone else. I mean I'm sure I'm just completely wrong here but it's just my opinion and preference. I know there obviously has to be some way for them to taper down from each waist size but come on. When I see someone wearing a size 32 in almost any IH jeans they seem to fit way better than any 36's on me, so I go down to 34's to try and compensate. Next time you get some IH's just go down to a 36 if you can. You can get a lot of stretch out of most of these jeans if you really need to.
I'm sure this is like beating a dead horse and has been discussed numerous times, so I'm sorry. :-\
If you're comfortable Michael, that's all that matters.
-
-
I know there obviously has to be some way for them to taper down from each waist size but come on. When I see someone wearing a size 32 in almost any IH jeans they seem to fit way better than any 36's on me, so I go down to 34's to try and compensate.
urban - I would have to say and no disrespect to any of our larger brothers and sisters, that as a general rule all clothing looks better/ more flattering on thinner people. As for the tapering I do not know the scaling process IH uses for their size to size ratios, but I can only imagine that it will never be easier to taper larger waist sizes. There have to be issues with it looking too drastic. Honestly though I meant no harm by this statement and I am more than familiar with having a larger stature. Maybe G can elaborate after discussing with The Boss?
-
Urban, I think the next up is another pair of 634S when I've lost some more weight, and probably the 36 if I can squeeze into them. I don't think the legs are getting any smaller though, as I'm trying to get on the bicycle more!
-
Georgeel - thanks for your kind words..cheers and sunny weekend
We can do anything
http://bybeatle.com
