Time For a New Jeans Cut….
-
I am super excited for these too. Really hope they turn out well.
-
Yep, same here. Looking forward to these.
-
I was hoping these might come in a different denim first but understand why the 21oz gets the nod. Lets hope they sell well and we get to see this cut in a range of denim
-
I was hoping these might come in a different denim first but understand why the 21oz gets the nod…
I'm in the fortunate position of needing some fresh 21oz in my life. I've now gone through the first IH life cycle with my first pair ( 301S) bought 3 yrs ago having been trashed and my second pair (555-01) having reached well worn status. New 21oz for my summer pair (fingers crossed they land before summer) will be perfect.
-
I was hoping these might come in a different denim first but understand why the 21oz gets the nod…
I'm in the fortunate position of needing some fresh 21oz in my life. I've now gone through the first IH life cycle with my first pair ( 301S) bought 3 yrs ago having been trashed and my second pair (555-01) having reached well worn status. New 21oz for my summer pair (fingers crossed they land before summer) will be perfect.
See i am the opposite, i got 2 pairs of 21oz which are still quite fresh. That being said neither of them are standard 21oz so maybe i do need another pair
-
I'm quietly hoping the thighs are more akin to the 1955 than the 634
I'm reading through this thread while crossing my fingers and hoping for the exact same thing…
Edit: there's actually less in it than I thought there was... keep up the good work
Oh, and make sure the pockets are deeper than the ones in the 1955S, please, they're too shallow for larger phones, and even with a little phone there were problems such as it being impossible to do up shoe laces unless you removed the phone from the pocket. (That issue more due to the extreme front rise/shallow pocket combo)Cheers!
-
@richardjohn22 I've found the exact same thing with my 1955S. I can't sit in the car with my iPhone in my pocket, and I don't even have a particularly large/new one. I usually put it in my back pocket to walk around, and in a chest pocket when I'm in the car. The result being I do an excessive amount of phone manipulations that I wish I didn't have to do throughout the day. Other than that and the rise, the 1955s are pretty much perfect.
So long story short, a lower rise deeper pocketed 1955s would be my ideal cut.
-
Oh, and make sure the pockets are deeper than the ones in the 1955S, please, they're too shallow for larger phones, and even with a little phone there were problems such as it being impossible to do up shoe laces unless you removed the phone from the pocket. (That issue more due to the extreme front rise/shallow pocket combo)Cheers!
Pocket shape/size will be determined by what Haraki thinks is best, not and what the current 'on-trend" size is for a phone….
-
Oh, and make sure the pockets are deeper than the ones in the 1955S, please, they're too shallow for larger phones, and even with a little phone there were problems such as it being impossible to do up shoe laces unless you removed the phone from the pocket. (That issue more due to the extreme front rise/shallow pocket combo)Cheers!
Pocket shape/size will be determined by what Haraki thinks is best, not and what the current 'on-trend" size is for a phone….
It's his baby, of course he can do what he wishes. It's best we provide you feedback when a functional component like a pocket is proving problematic, so you're aware it is an issue for some of us. Agree or disagree with the sentiment, just throwing it out there. It's an issue unique to the 1955S- never had a problem with any other pair from any other brand. Credit where credit is due, the pockets are better constructed and made from better fabric than any others I have seen, they're just shallow is all.
-
@richardjohn22 I've found the exact same thing with my 1955S. I can't sit in the car with my iPhone in my pocket, and I don't even have a particularly large/new one. I usually put it in my back pocket to walk around, and in a chest pocket when I'm in the car. The result being I do an excessive amount of phone manipulations that I wish I didn't have to do throughout the day. Other than that and the rise, the 1955s are pretty much perfect.
So long story short, a lower rise deeper pocketed 1955s would be my ideal cut.
Snap.
I only have an iPhone 6SE, basically the smallest smartphone anyone will own, and if that doesn't fit comfortably… cant really see how that's a weird thing to want in a pocket?
But the front rise is much lower on these so at least that'll help compared to the 1955S.
-
Meh. Never put my phone in my jeans pocket, don't go much on the phone fade look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can == must. Options are good. I would like my left front pocket to be one option. It's not the end of the world if not, but it will affect my buying decision. (I really do think a lower rise will solve this inherently absent any other changes)
-
Can == must. Options are good. I would like my left front pocket to be one option. It's not the end of the world if not, but it will affect my buying decision. (I really do think a lower rise will solve this inherently absent any other changes)
I think you're right, a lower rise would single handedly solve the phone-in-pocket issue of the 1955S. In 36 the rise is 13.5, opposed to the regular 11 you'd see elsewhere. Plus the pocket when measured against all my other jeans (yes, I measured
I was confused by my problem of failing to reach my feet with phone in pocket, despite thighs not being restricted) was almost exactly 1 inch shallower. If this new pair we're discussing is 12 in the front rise (which is a perfect measurement), and pockets matched the 1955S, then likely it would retain the phone-problem).And no, I'm not buying a man bag, and no, it's not a deal breaker that'll stop me buying this new pair, but it would see me unfortunately resigned to finding someone who could enlarge the pockets as I'll be moving to a phone which isn't so small.
Also not putting the phone in my back pocket- anyone that does that in a big city deserves to have it stolen!
-
I think you're right, a lower rise would single handedly solve the phone-in-pocket issue of the 1955S. In 36 the rise is 13.5, opposed to the regular 11 you'd see elsewhere.
Richard, that is the point. These are our take on a 1955 Levi's 501. They have an unashamedly large rise because that is what a 1955 501 had…..
-
Totally understand. The thing is that the 1955s solves one issue (thigh to waist ratio) for some of us, and yet the high rise causes another. It may not be designed to solve that issue but it does. As such it gets bought by people with a certain build, and the rise is just something to deal with.
Those of us blessed with the quads of Zeus himself are hoping this cut might solve our issue without the drawback that the 1955 has. I'm sill going to wear my 1955s until they fall off my legs, but will always welcome a cut that could suit me better.
It's hard to differentiate helpful feedback from petulant demands on the internet, but I'm pretty sure the comments here were intended as the former.
-
I am sure they were and I have no issue with that. But the 1955 cut is a 1955 501 cut. I don't want to change it, otherwise it is not a 1955 cut which is what I wanted it to be. It's for those of us/you who like a larger rise and larger thighs. If you don't like it, then there are a load of other options….
Unfortunately, we and/or our cuts can't be all things for all men.
I have taken a lot of feedback re: the new cut and I have submitted my requirements to H. A sample will be made in due course, if I thinks it's shite or does not meet my specs, I'll change it, otherwise it will stay as is.
