Time For a New Jeans Cut….
-
So if the 634 has 0.5" inch taper from knee to hem are you thinking this cut would have a full inch or more?
-
This sounds awesome!! Thanks G&G music factory [emoji23]
-
One of my IMO best fits was the 634SB in size 32, which had a leg opening of around 8,5". Sadly I need to size up to 34-36 these days, but just for the thighs and waist, making the rest of the leg look way to wide. So, I would be totally happy with a leg opening that is around 1" smaller than the current 634 offers. A carrot fit that tapers heavily like the FH 3012 looks somewhat off.
-
I just got the 634SB in a 32 Max. They are currently being hemmed and tapered to a 8" hem. Had the knee taken in a little too. I find the wider knee adds to the flair of the lower leg no matter what the hem is.
-
Since I've been feeling nostalgic these days, I've been lusting after the perfect vintage fit. 1947 top block, 1966 thigh to knee and classic 505 knee down. This sounds like it might be just that. Hoping the vintage 18oz denim does well and we might see this cut in a classic looking/feeling denim.
In my mind, here is what a size 36 would look like:
Waist 36-37
front Rise: 12
Back Rise: 16.5
Thigh: 13.5
Knee 9.5
Hem: 8.25 @ 36" inseam and 8.5 at 34' inseam.Essentially it's a 666 with a larger thigh and more taper from knee to hem… but I think that's what you guys are getting at anyways haha
-
Then what would the thigh be on a 34? Sounds like a smaller thigh than the 634. I think thigh measurement is the limit for many guys.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
-
Jepp. Anything between Appfaff's and Giles measurements would be sweet. Perhaps closer to 13.5 in the thigh for me, but 13 in 21oz would be fine.
I asked earlier but I'm rudely going to ask again, can you give a ballpark timeframe, Giles? Obviously it'll be a rough guess, but are we talking this side of summer or the other?
-
Then what would the thigh be on a 34?
Dunno.
Ask 100 people their opinion, you'll get 101 answers. Sometimes shit just doesn't work out for everyone, I can't help or do anything about that….
But I agree, the thigh could be a little larger....
-
Since I've been feeling nostalgic these days, I've been lusting after the perfect vintage fit. 1947 top block, 1966 thigh to knee and classic 505 knee down. This sounds like it might be just that. Hoping the vintage 18oz denim does well and we might see this cut in a classic looking/feeling denim.
In my mind, here is what a size 36 would look like:
Waist 36-37
front Rise: 12
Back Rise: 16.5
Thigh: 13.5
Knee 9.5
Hem: 8.25 @ 36" inseam and 8.5 at 34' inseam.Essentially it's a 666 with a larger thigh and more taper from knee to hem… but I think that's what you guys are getting at anyways haha
Since we are similar sizes you might want to check out the 666 uhr. It looks like it is right on the money for you except for the hem. Mine came a tad under 9, which is close to your specifications. I definitely think I found the perfect jean for me.
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
-
Thanks @DrBabyhorse - the measures do look great for the new UHR. I had the one ones in the 666 and loved them.
-
Just my two cents but these measurements look way too close to the 555.
My size 36 555-02 currently measure:
Waist: 38.5
Front Rise: 11.75
Back Rise: 17.25
Thigh: 13.25
Knee: 8.6
Leg: 8' at 33"I think the hardest part of these is the knee. 8.6 is after stretch, which means post wash they are about 8.3. that's a really drastic taper from thigh to knee and only about a .5' taper from knee to my hem, although the original 36" hem was closer to 7.8. If you take the knee to a 9' (adding essentially 1.3' total space pre-stretch) you get a much roomier thigh overall.
Your plans sound great @Giles - excited to see them in the future.
