ULTRA HEAVY RAW - IH-1955-UHR, IH-666-UHR and IH-634-UHR
-
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.
-
Backing Urbanwoodsman's idea with a strong emphasis on thigh/waist proportion.
-
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/comfortableSo, 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
-
666
-
@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/comfortableSo, 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).
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
^^ 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.
-
@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/comfortableSo, 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…
-
@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…
inseams kinda compromise between East and West, maybe like in the SR 