IH-1955-UHR - Ultra Heavy Raw 1955 Cut
-
Great idea Giles. I'll give it a go when they're back in stock.
Can't imagine that there are too many of you out there, but if anyone has owned both the 1955-UHR and 1955S, it would be great to hear how they wear and compare.
John
-
I have both the 1955S and the 1955UHR. I love them both, and they are two complete different animals. I wear more often the 1955S, more during work. Then I turn towards the look and feel of the 1955 UHR. The UHR are a bit more stiffer (heavier). I get more compliments on them as well. These two jeans make me feel like I have dual personalities, until I think, if only they made them in 25OZ denim. hhhhhmmmm.. Bottom line is they both wear great, and different but great for those who prefer a higher rise.
-
Thanks for the input Sam. Sounds like the S and UHR are different enough to justify owning both – all I need is a small excuse. I hear you on the 25 oz., though I suspect these may stand up on their own. I would like to see something around 18 oz. also.
As far as fit, I really like the high rise. I do notice on my UHR's that there is some hip flare, though this may be a result of the stiffness of the denim -- something that will change and settle in over time. Do you notice this with your 1955-UHR and, if so, is it any different with the S?
-
Hi John. This is my opinion, the 1955S, are a softer heavyweight denim, which probably conforms to me a bit more. One pair I wear has been washed a couple of times. I move around quite a bit while at work, and they feel very comfortable. The 1955 UHR, I have soaked once and washed once. they probably have shrunk not as much as I expected, are a stiffer heavier denim, but still feel great Can't say that I notice a hip flare, but a totally different denim feel. Why I brought up the 25OZ. denim, I also have the 25OZ Beetle Buster, which after washing, maybe even before washing, have a softer feel than the UHR. On this point, I am not complaining, it's the denim, and why I like the 1955S and 1955 UHR. Two totally different jeans, and 2 different feels and fits. Both of which I like.
-
I would like to see something around 18 oz. also.
G mentioned that he is considering a 1955 cut in the 17oz Organic Cotton/Natural Indigo denim seen here:
http://www.ironheart.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5056.0
If you scroll through the pages, you can see how the denim fades with G's personal pair. Based on pictures alone, I think the denim is one of IH's nicest.
-
One more thought on the 1955-UHR. I am know way an expert on these heavy weight jeans, I just started wearing them in September 2014. But I have collected vintage Levi's, Lee and Wrangler for years, and the 1955-UHR reminds me of some vintage 501's-505's that I have from the late 40's early 50's, and I know it's not the same denim, but appears similar.
-
Appreciate the input Sam/IH and seanocono. My wallet is grateful that the 1955S is out of stock in size 34 at the moment and that the 17 oz. organic cotton version hasn't been introduced (yet). While a 25 oz. version would also be great for the reasons you say Sam, I might be especially tempted by the 17 oz. since the weight would be versatile year 'round and the organic cotton looks great from the pictures.
As an aside, I do have a pair of 16 oz. organic cotton jeans from Samurai that I really like, though I'm not sure how the denim compares to IH's.
John
-
@Giles so there will be no restock for the 1955 (or any other UHRs) until the 2016 reweaving?
Is the IHxB01-UHR coming before May or will that be postponed until 2016 as well?
-
We have no more of this denim and have no plans to re-weave until late 2016 at the earliest.
Which denim Giles? 17 oz. organic?
Restock of the 1955S expected in 2015?
-
We will probably rerun the 1955S. Trouble is, the are not stocked in Japan and very few retailers take them, so I have to wait until running a 100 for me is sensible. At the moment with 56 or so in stock, it make no sense.
Yes, 17oz Organic - if I decide to do it at all. Again the 100 rule rears its ugly head…
-
I have had the 1955uhr,the 1955S and the Fulcount 1101.I am a 32 waist and found that sizing down to a 31 in the 1955S has provided me with the best fitting jeans I ever came across.Of course every single body is different,and how we like to wear our jeans will determine what we deem a great fit.the FC 1101 to me reminded me of the Edwin Nashville.slightly lower rise and tighter around the crotch.The 1955UHR I did not have for long and had to be returned due to a slight MFG problem,but also fit very slightly lower IMO than the1955S (even though they were a 32 ) possibly due to minor shrinkage.Denim wise all three are quite different animals.I would certainly go for a pr of 17oz In a 1955S cut and hope that they do come into production.
Others for your consideration could be:3 Sixteen CS 100X
Warehouse lot 1001XX
Real McCoys lot 002All are high front/back rise iirc? And a 50's cut
-
Anodsasgoodasawink,
Interesting about the slight rise difference of the 1955S and 1955-UHR. I have only the UHR and have found the rise (both front and back) to be relatively high (which I like) not unlike my Fullcount 1101 or 0105. If the 1955S rise is a touch higher, that will work.
I'm not familiar with the Real McCoy's Lot 002 but was considering the Lot 003, which has a very high back rise in size 34 (17.75") but only a moderate front rise (11.75"). A 6" spread between front and back is atypical, as you know.
Giles, with all this IH-1955 forum traffic, I'm hoping that you've sold 35 pairs in the last few days and are gearing up to reorder 300 new 1955's (100 1955S, 100 in 25 oz., and 100 in 17 oz.
John
-
I'm going to throw my 2cents in on the 1955s would love to get a pair of them in size 34 in any of the 3 denims mention or all three!!!I have a 2 pair of the LVC 1955 witch are the only pair of my 20 pairs of LVC that I still wear since I have discovered Iron Heart!!! Start adding up these posts maybe we can get to 300!!
Now let's see what organ has enough life in it to sell for 350 €... (I'll settle for 349...)
