IH-777S-21 - Super-Slim Tapered 21oz Indigo Selvedge Jean - VERSION 1
-
No 634?
-
I get the feeling he is looking for a smaller hem than what the 634 offers. I like the way the 777 fits on you Ragehaver. I don't think that the hem is too big at all.
-
Sorry for the huge detail, everyone.
I get the feeling he is looking for a smaller hem than what the 634 offers. I like the way the 777 fits on you Ragehaver. I don't think that the hem is too big at all.
Thanks, agreed. I think I'm just going to get it hemmed instead of tapered after looking at those pictures. While looking down at your own legs, they tend to look bigger. I prefer a slightly smaller hem but getting it tapered something like 0.5"s seems silly.
No 634?
I don't have pictures of some of the other cuts I listed (634, MBB, 666-XHS) because I've sold them and don't have them anymore.
-
Looking good…enjoy your evo !
-
Great fits folks @Yury could I ask what length you had them hemmed to and the leg opening measurement. Just wondering if much width/taper is lost with hemming on the 32"., this looks like my ideal cut and a lower rear rise may be perfect for a "no-arse" like me
-
Great fit for you!
Can't wait to see these in black to grey in the future
-
@Bingo:
Great fits folks @Yury could I ask what length you had them hemmed to and the leg opening measurement. Just wondering if much width/taper is lost with hemming on the 32"., this looks like my ideal cut and a lower rear rise may be perfect for a "no-arse" like me
Thank you guys!
Bingo Baller, the jeans' length is 36'' and hem's width is 18.5 cm
If you cut jeans to 32'' then hem's width will be 19 cm -
@Yury Many thanks.
-
I know I've asked about this topic before.. When is 777-SII due, any estimate?
-
Not for ages (6 or so months probably). I need to get the cut right in the 21oz selvedge first and I have not initiated that run yet…..
Okay, thanks for the info. That sounds like a plan.
-
@Giles May I propose my thoughts on the upcoming improvements on the 777-cut? You're planning to lower the rise and my concern is that this is against IH's own philosophy because those jeans that barely cover the butt are only today's fashion and IH doesn't follow and doesn't have to (this is the greatest part of it). Additionally it'd be very odd to see someone with such a cut and an IH-patch on it. The other tweaks are great (the bigger thigh and the slightly smaller hem) but only as long as the rear rise stays in fashionless / comfortable regions to guarantee it will be a classic shape in 20 years.
-
@den213:
@Giles May I propose my thoughts on the upcoming improvements on the 777-cut? You're planning to lower the rise and my concern is that this is against IH's own philosophy because those jeans that barely cover the butt are only today's fashion and IH doesn't follow and doesn't have to (this is the greatest part of it). Additionally it'd be very odd to see someone with such a cut and an IH-patch on it. The other tweaks are great (the bigger thigh and the slightly smaller hem) but only as long as the rear rise stays in fashionless / comfortable regions to guarantee it will be a classic shape in 20 years.
I respectfully disagreed. For me as a middle aged man with no arse, its not.about fashion but all about comfort.
Both of my pairs of IH in 666s & BB 31/32 have rear rises of 15"+ and it gives me a saggy behind as rise is too high for my frame, the jeans fit great everywhere else though.
I'm sure a small reduction isnt going amount to us seeing everyones underwear. -
I hear you, but if it was against Haraki's philosophy I can 100% assure you it would not be being done…..H and I know we need to differentiate it from the 555.
Other views?
The 555 is great, it'd be even greater with a more fitted top-block, roomier thighs and the same small hem = this is what the 777 is about (right?). I was just a bit scared of the lower rise (the front one is good but the rear one :-).
