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

[hajduk]

G, both are tagged 34?

[Finn666]

@hajduk:

G, both are tagged 34?

yessir!…

[Giles]

It does…..

[Seul]

I'm just gonna assume that was in response to my question 

[hajduk]

@Seul:

Hoping one of the tweaks involves a higher rise for the 666'es…

same here

[Giles]

@Seul:

I'm just gonna assume that was in response to my question 

Yes it was.  Rise on both cuts has come out too small, we will be correcting that….

[Seul]

Huzzah 

[hajduk]

good!

[Friday]

I don't have a slightest idea on  how a UHR denim behaves. So will another hot soak on the 55 brings another variance on the post soak measurement G-San, or no more?

[Giles]

It should not.  I washed the living shit out of these…..

[Friday]

Good!!!

[simonc]

Maybe sending a pair of unwashed lvc 55's back might be a good idea for a once-over before final product is issued.

[Giles]

The 1955S is our interpretation of the 55 it is not a direct copy…..If getting an exact copy is your goal, we are not the place to buy from....

[Max Power]

The low rise has been adressed - I also think the 666 could benefit from a larger thigh. I know it's a Slim cut but as a true 35 I find just a tad above 12" pretty Slim - and I'm not even athletic built.

[derivative666]

Agreed with Max I am stuck between sizes as well. 12.1" thigh is gonna hurt and going to a 36" waist is gonna be too big.

[Giles]

I hear you…...

[Finn666]

that was my main problem with the 666(sod) cut…waist-thigh ratio is pretty much killing the cut for me!

[Bums_Fan]

^ Same here.  The only 666 that works for me are the Ducks.

[Friday]

and here..

[Spring Son of Light]

Some of us are tall and lanky and the 666 as is works perfect!