IH-633S - Self Edge x Iron Heart 21oz Selvedge Straight Tapered
-
Prob going to need some agitation and real immersion to get that waist to shrink. They'll probably feel stiff again but I doubt they'll shrink much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Need to add photos of my 633s one year in! The denim is beautiful and the cut is great. I think that I still favor the 634 cut slightly, but that's because I always prefer straight legs, and think that the 634 is one of the best jean cuts anywhere ever. If you have reasons to prefer a taper, the 633s is the best cut going…In just over a year of having that cut at SEPDX, my mind was blown by how many people it's been the hands down best cut they've ever tried on.
-
It would be my "next to purchase" jeans if it weren't for the weak Cdn dollar.
-
Need to add photos of my 633s one year in! The denim is beautiful and the cut is great. I think that I still favor the 634 cut slightly, but that's because I always prefer straight legs, and think that the 634 is one of the best jean cuts anywhere ever. If you have reasons to prefer a taper, the 633s is the best cut going…In just over a year of having that cut at SEPDX, my mind was blown by how many people it's been the hands down best cut they've ever tried on.
I can see where people that hem to 34" or less would actually prefer this cut to the 634 since it will essentially turn into the "unhemmed" version of the 634 "taper-wise."
I had Kiya measure me some in my size, and when hemmed to 32", the Leg Opening would have been essentially the same as the Factory leg opening on my size in the same denim 634 model with a 35" inseam.
Tyler, had you seen anyone successfully size down in these and like the cut? Or did it look like when people size down in the FH 3012?
-
Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, anyone will always go at least one size down from what they wear (or would wear) in 634s. If the 634s fit well in a given size, but with room in the waist/top block, 2 sizes down is possible in the 633s. The top block is the same shape, but based on all trying on I've done, a 633s in (for instance) 33 will be just a hair larger than a 634s in 34 when it comes to waist, thigh, rise.
I haven't seen any intentional sizing down in the 3012, but the 3012 is a pretty extreme jean, and I could see it looking funky one many people who's body types don't suit (or call for) the roomy top block/extreme taper of the 3012. I'd also imagine there are some examples of "sized down" 3012 out there that are more extreme than you'd ever see with a 633s due to people underestimating the shrink potential of a raw pair of Flat Heads. People who think the jeans are too roomy when new end up with a fit that almost nobody would try to squeeze into in a pair of sanforized jeans…they'd just take the size up.
The 633s is much more versatile and "normal" and I have never seen it fit poorly if it's sized to hips/thighs instead of to the waist. At SEPDX I don't think we ever sold a genuinely "sized down" pair of 633s because if someone liked the 633s shape but wanted the legs to be slimmer, 301s worked perfectly 100% of the time. If your thighs/hips are too big to wear the 301s, they'd be too big to size down on the 633s anyways, so it's a moot point.
-
excellent bit of info @tmadd ! Much appreciated!
-
@tmadd great information.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on 633 vs. 301? How does the fit in thigh and back rise compare between the two fits? Would 301 be a good choice for someone who wants slightly slimmer thigh but the same backrise from the 633? Thanks in advance!
-
Can you elaborate a little bit more on 633 vs. 301? How does the fit in thigh and back rise compare between the two fits? Would 301 be a good choice for someone who wants slightly slimmer thigh but the same backrise from the 633? Thanks in advance!
I'm sure Tyler can say more, but I will say the rise on the 301s is good amount shorter than the 633. I have had 634s in the past, and while they are "mid-rise" in my mind, the 301 is what I would call low rise. Hope that helps!
-
Can you elaborate a little bit more on 633 vs. 301? How does the fit in thigh and back rise compare between the two fits? Would 301 be a good choice for someone who wants slightly slimmer thigh but the same backrise from the 633? Thanks in advance!
I'm sure Tyler can say more, but I will say the rise on the 301s is good amount shorter than the 633. I have had 634s in the past, and while they are "mid-rise" in my mind, the 301 is what I would call low rise. Hope that helps!
Adam is dead on…although the 301s is definitely a lower rise, it's still in the tasteful low-rise category, not neccesarily everything falling out everywhere kinda low rise. If you have large thighs that might be where you max out in the 301s, and that'll sometimes exacerbate the low feeling/appearance of the rise.
I probably should have clarified that although my experience was that many guys who tried on the 301s and 633s at SEPDX really liked both, and that both cuts definitely look good on a very wide range of people, they still have some fundamental differences, and aren't as interchangeable as they were for some of my customers if you have strong fit preferences for certain parts of a cut, specifically the rise. Though the 301s is the comfiest low rise jean I've had on ever, its still a low rise jean. The 633s, like the 634s isn't a repro full rise...medium is probably accurate, however there is something magical about the shape, front rise/back rise proportions or some other patternmaking voodoo that makes those cuts feel simultaneously comfortable and secure, in a way that often lures even the staunchest advocates of repro cuts. And that's the thing...when it came to customers trying on in store...anyone who either prioritized a fuller more comfortable rise, or had a body shape that demanded more drop from thigh to waist, invariably ended up favoring the 633s. If you like the backrise of the 633s, it's likely you've found the closest thing in the IH lineup to your ideal, and everything else is going to be a comrpromise in the wrong ways. That said..I don't know much about the 555s but it seems like that could be a little bit less of a compromise than the 301s would be. In the other direction, the IHxB01 has a higher rear rise by a little bit, and slimmer thighs, but the overall taper isn't as significant. As I said before, I like the 634s and 633s both a lot, but sometimes I think the IHxB01 might be my favorite cut of them all! Sorry that's probably not of much help in making a decision!
-
Can you elaborate a little bit more on 633 vs. 301? How does the fit in thigh and back rise compare between the two fits? Would 301 be a good choice for someone who wants slightly slimmer thigh but the same backrise from the 633? Thanks in advance!
I'm sure Tyler can say more, but I will say the rise on the 301s is good amount shorter than the 633. I have had 634s in the past, and while they are "mid-rise" in my mind, the 301 is what I would call low rise. Hope that helps!
Adam is dead on…although the 301s is definitely a lower rise, it's still in the tasteful low-rise category, not neccesarily everything falling out everywhere kinda low rise. If you have large thighs that might be where you max out in the 301s, and that'll sometimes exacerbate the low feeling/appearance of the rise.
I probably should have clarified that although my experience was that many guys who tried on the 301s and 633s at SEPDX really liked both, and that both cuts definitely look good on a very wide range of people, they still have some fundamental differences, and aren't as interchangeable as they were for some of my customers if you have strong fit preferences for certain parts of a cut, specifically the rise. Though the 301s is the comfiest low rise jean I've had on ever, its still a low rise jean. The 633s, like the 634s isn't a repro full rise...medium is probably accurate, however there is something magical about the shape, front rise/back rise proportions or some other patternmaking voodoo that makes those cuts feel simultaneously comfortable and secure, in a way that often lures even the staunchest advocates of repro cuts. And that's the thing...when it came to customers trying on in store...anyone who either prioritized a fuller more comfortable rise, or had a body shape that demanded more drop from thigh to waist, invariably ended up favoring the 633s. If you like the backrise of the 633s, it's likely you've found the closest thing in the IH lineup to your ideal, and everything else is going to be a comrpromise in the wrong ways. That said..I don't know much about the 555s but it seems like that could be a little bit less of a compromise than the 301s would be. In the other direction, the IHxB01 has a higher rear rise by a little bit, and slimmer thighs, but the overall taper isn't as significant. As I said before, I like the 634s and 633s both a lot, but sometimes I think the IHxB01 might be my favorite cut of them all! Sorry that's probably not of much help in making a decision!
Pre or post size tweak? (That model appears to have gotten significantly smaller with the last run.)
-
Thanks guys, your descriptions for the 301 vs. 633 fit was dead on and resonates with a lot of my impressions of the 634/633 fit. Personally I like a higher rise, it just feels more "secure" like you mentioned. I've learned over time that I need a rise of around 15.5, it starts to be too short when less than 15 and too long when more than 16 inches. In terms of thigh measurement, while I think I can probably tolerate a slightly tighter fit, the struggle to stretch the thighs just isn't worth it for a jean rotation of 7-8 pairs. With those observations, I think the 633 is likely the best fit for me.
I also thought about the 555 and 666 fit, both of them have thigh measurements that's a little too slim. The 633 fit have a lot of variation though, while my 633-sII and 633S fits perfectly, the new 633N came up short with the back rise (14.5 inch for tagged 34). Thankfully 634N had the usual thigh measurements.
Thanks to both of you for the help!
Dan
Adam is dead on…although the 301s is definitely a lower rise, it's still in the tasteful low-rise category, not neccesarily everything falling out everywhere kinda low rise. If you have large thighs that might be where you max out in the 301s, and that'll sometimes exacerbate the low feeling/appearance of the rise.
I probably should have clarified that although my experience was that many guys who tried on the 301s and 633s at SEPDX really liked both, and that both cuts definitely look good on a very wide range of people, they still have some fundamental differences, and aren't as interchangeable as they were for some of my customers if you have strong fit preferences for certain parts of a cut, specifically the rise. Though the 301s is the comfiest low rise jean I've had on ever, its still a low rise jean. The 633s, like the 634s isn't a repro full rise...medium is probably accurate, however there is something magical about the shape, front rise/back rise proportions or some other patternmaking voodoo that makes those cuts feel simultaneously comfortable and secure, in a way that often lures even the staunchest advocates of repro cuts. And that's the thing...when it came to customers trying on in store...anyone who either prioritized a fuller more comfortable rise, or had a body shape that demanded more drop from thigh to waist, invariably ended up favoring the 633s. If you like the backrise of the 633s, it's likely you've found the closest thing in the IH lineup to your ideal, and everything else is going to be a comrpromise in the wrong ways. That said..I don't know much about the 555s but it seems like that could be a little bit less of a compromise than the 301s would be. In the other direction, the IHxB01 has a higher rear rise by a little bit, and slimmer thighs, but the overall taper isn't as significant. As I said before, I like the 634s and 633s both a lot, but sometimes I think the IHxB01 might be my favorite cut of them all! Sorry that's probably not of much help in making a decision!
-
@Shoreman I don't know that it's ever not been smaller. Since I can remember they've measured 1 under tagged at the waist. Last I checked (I've dropped a few pounds so I'm a different size in most things than I often have been) my sizing would be like this in the 3 jeans in question: 633s sz 31, 634s sz 32, IHxB01 sz 33.
The waists would all be pretty snug to start. B01 would be tightest in the thighs, followed by 633, and 634 -
I really hope to shoot down some of these @SE when i visit USA in the summer… might be the perfect fit for me!
-
Pretty close to the colors on my pair in the light.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Coming along beautifully!
Thanks Tyler, slowly but surely!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
date night
new vans
new 633's
new turquoise ring -
Nice @bubbapest. The 633s is probably my current favorite jean in my collection. Unfortunately they are about to be put up for the summer [emoji20]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
