• Home
    • Recent
    • Calendar
    • Register
    • Login
    Iron Heart Forum
    Iron Heart Forum

    New Iron Heart Website - Live Now - Feedback and Bug Report Here Please!

    ULTRA HEAVY RAW - IH-1955-UHR, IH-666-UHR and IH-634-UHR

    Bottoms
    97
    669
    149.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • RocknRollR
      RocknRoll
      Joined:

      The two ends of the spectrum are:

      1. The financially 'safe' option. The three highest selling cuts (I think), i.e. 634, 666, BB

      2. The 'exciting' option, i.e. something new. I liked Seul's suggestion of a cut resembling the SEIH07, and I'm also a huge fan of the Indo cut (which I'm sure would have sold like hotcakes under a different name). Both these options have a more aggressive lower leg taper than the IH standards, so dunno how Haraki would feel about this. I'm not suggesting a direct ripoff of Kiya's work, but definitively something in that direction.

      Of course, with potential for 700+ pairs, there would be plenty of scope to slide along that spectrum, and do some blend of options 1 and 2.

      last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        CLJ
        Raw and Unwashed
        Joined:

        Backing Urbanwoodsman's idea with a strong emphasis on thigh/waist proportion.

        last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • ?
          Guest
          Joined:

          Create a "Progressive" Cut: 
            1. Cuts like the 666, 555, and IHxB do not work for people with waists 31" and under (ME!):
            -The top block is too small, or the thigh measurement is too small, or the knee and leg opening are too small     
            2. Cuts like the 634 and DC4… do not work for larger folk:
            -The knee and/or leg opening is much too large to be practical/comfortable

          So, smaller people need a straight cut (except for some female customers), and larger people need a slight/moderate taper...

          Why not make a cut that is a straight 634 from sizes 28-31, and then using the top block from the 634 make sizes 32-35 similar to the 666 from the mid-thigh down, and finally make sizes 36-40 similar to the 555 from the mid-thigh down?

          Of course I am speaking with a 634 bias.  23oz. jeans should never be skin tight

          last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • babyknightB
            babyknight
            啓蒙家
            Joined:

            666

            last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • urbanwoodsmanU
              urbanwoodsman
              Banned
              Joined:

              @adam313:

              Create a "Progressive" Cut: 
                1. Cuts like the 666, 555, and IHxB do not work for people with waists 31" and under (ME!):
                -The top block is too small, or the thigh measurement is too small, or the knee and leg opening are too small     
                2. Cuts like the 634 and DC4… do not work for larger folk:
                -The knee and/or leg opening is much too large to be practical/comfortable

              So, smaller people need a straight cut (except for some female customers), and larger people need a slight/moderate taper...

              Why not make a cut that is a straight 634 from sizes 28-31, and then using the top block from the 634 make sizes 32-35 similar to the 666 from the mid-thigh down, and finally make sizes 36-40 similar to the 555 from the mid-thigh down?

              Of course I am speaking with a 634 bias.  23oz. jeans should never be skin tight

              Thanks for this. Exactly what I've been trying to say(with bias towards the bigger sizes).

              One cut for all would be a dream. I know most of you think the 634 is that, but it's one of the most unflattering cuts I've ever seen on anyone size 34 up with inseam 32in and smaller.

              The Final Cut would require major thigh to knee and knee to hem tapering(which IH has never done that I know of).

              last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Finn666F
                Finn666
                Joined:

                adam, sounds like a plan buddy! a cut like that is what is "missing" imo…

                last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • G
                  grandmasterben
                  Joined:

                  I hate sounding like one of those dudes that's obsessed with leg warmer denim, but for me the 634s cut with about a half inch smaller hem would be perfection.

                  last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • llvlaglneL
                    llvlaglne
                    Joined:

                    Agreed with grandmasterben. Almost like TFH 3009

                    "…think of a world tour as similar as to the sisterhood of the traveling pants." -LandoCal126

                    last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • madmondayM
                      madmonday
                      Raw and Unwashed
                      Joined:

                      love the excitement this denim produces.

                      nope, i got no take on the cut that should be produced, but i'm on the notify list so i can see what this turns into when it happens in 2014 or 2015 (if it takes that long).

                      head high, middle finger higher

                      last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • xtcclassicX
                        xtcclassic
                        啓蒙家
                        Joined:

                        Obviously the 666 and 634 at the very least. I agree with grandmasterben and adam313, both those ideas sound interesting for a new cut. I love the BB01 cut, but if the rise were lower and the waist measurement was bigger it would work way better for me.

                        last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Max PowerM
                          Max Power
                          Raw and Unwashed
                          Joined:

                          Seconding Urb and adam (and many others). The 634 cut is fantastic on guys with small waist, but 33 and above looks strange, as the leg is getting so wide. A little more taper would fix this. around 8,25" leg opening with 33/34 waist would be a great tube cut, but not a skinny one.

                          That said, I think the 666 and 634 would sell great. The 555 cut in 23 oz - well, I don't even want to speak about comfort then. But it would sell, I'm sure.

                          @elclintor:

                          > I don't care what people say.. The Max Power way is the right way…

                          last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • GilesG
                            Giles
                            IHUK Crew
                            Joined:

                            @fanya:

                            If it was made once why can't it be made again?

                            If what was made once?  If you are talking the SE collab jacket, that is a completely different denim.

                            "OK face up to it - you're useless but generally pretty honest and straightforward . . . it's a rare combination of qualities that I have come to admire in you" - Geo 2011

                            last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • N
                              Nerkg
                              Banned
                              Joined:

                              I seem to be the minority but on the 634 I like the bigger legs in bigger sizes. If I want a smaller leg I just size up 1 on the 666

                              last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D
                                davito
                                Joined:

                                Two runs, one in 634 and the other 666 🙂 inseams kinda compromise between East and West, maybe like in the SR 🙂

                                Cheers,
                                David

                                last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • Max PowerM
                                  Max Power
                                  Raw and Unwashed
                                  Joined:

                                  ^^ yes, but then the thighs remain tight and the rise of the 634 is more "universally appealing". For really slim guys, the 666 is perfect. but athletic or bigger built folks seem to be better off with the 634.

                                  @elclintor:

                                  > I don't care what people say.. The Max Power way is the right way…

                                  last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    davito
                                    Joined:

                                    This is why i wrote a run of 634 and the other in 666. kinda like the 25oz VMC each 150 pairs special leather patches 34 inseam. i am a slim guy and have no problems wearing both cuts well. If there is only one cut in this denim I'd say 634.

                                    Cheers,
                                    David

                                    last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • GilesG
                                      Giles
                                      IHUK Crew
                                      Joined:

                                      If H can make the material, we will def do 634 and 666

                                      "OK face up to it - you're useless but generally pretty honest and straightforward . . . it's a rare combination of qualities that I have come to admire in you" - Geo 2011

                                      last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • D
                                        davidl890
                                        Joined:

                                        Oh shit… Heck yeah options 🙂

                                        last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • TinManT
                                          TinMan
                                          啓蒙家
                                          Joined:

                                          @urbanwoodsman:

                                          @adam313:

                                          Create a "Progressive" Cut: 
                                            1. Cuts like the 666, 555, and IHxB do not work for people with waists 31" and under (ME!):
                                            -The top block is too small, or the thigh measurement is too small, or the knee and leg opening are too small     
                                            2. Cuts like the 634 and DC4… do not work for larger folk:
                                            -The knee and/or leg opening is much too large to be practical/comfortable

                                          So, smaller people need a straight cut (except for some female customers), and larger people need a slight/moderate taper...

                                          Why not make a cut that is a straight 634 from sizes 28-31, and then using the top block from the 634 make sizes 32-35 similar to the 666 from the mid-thigh down, and finally make sizes 36-40 similar to the 555 from the mid-thigh down?

                                          Of course I am speaking with a 634 bias.  23oz. jeans should never be skin tight

                                          Thanks for this. Exactly what I've been trying to say(with bias towards the bigger sizes).

                                          One cut for all would be a dream. I know most of you think the 634 is that, but it's one of the most unflattering cuts I've ever seen on anyone size 34 up with inseam 32in and smaller.

                                          The Final Cut would require major thigh to knee and knee to hem tapering(which IH has never done that I know of).

                                          That is why like the 55 cut roomy through thighs and a nice clean taper from knee to ankle.  Not to mention the jean still gives a slim looking silhouette. Maybe a more modern 55 cut with a front and rear rise similar to the Mega Beatle Buster.

                                          Tinman on the go…

                                          Now, I have an IRONHEART!!

                                          last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • TinManT
                                            TinMan
                                            啓蒙家
                                            Joined:

                                            @Max:

                                            Seconding Urb and adam (and many others). The 634 cut is fantastic on guys with small waist, but 33 and above looks strange, as the leg is getting so wide. A little more taper would fix this. around 8,25" leg opening with 33/34 waist would be a great tube cut, but not a skinny one.

                                            That said, I think the 666 and 634 would sell great. The 555 cut in 23 oz - well, I don't even want to speak about comfort then. But it would sell, I'm sure.

                                            I concur!!  I love the 634 cut and I am size 34 with long legs.  a little taper to the ankle hem would be nice.  I prefer a leg opening no bigger the 9 inches, but really like an 8.5 inch opening.

                                            Tinman on the go…

                                            Now, I have an IRONHEART!!

                                            last edited by 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright Iron Heart 2022.