Random Rants
-
Maybe the should consider an "R" size with a shorter inseam and a "T" designation for a longer one.
-
Maybe the should consider an "R" size with a shorter inseam and a "T" designation for a longer one.
I think that's a great idea. But that's a lot of extra work. There would probably need to be a whole new pattern made for the shorter(regular) inseams. I feel like they used to all be 34in inseams or smaller but changed to 36in for the western market. I don't think any pair of pants should have a knee measurement larger than 9in no matter the size. Anything over a 9in hem opening is too wide and falls under your heels.
-
The reality is as follows. We are just not large enough an entity to run different versions of the "same" item.
So with jeans, I have to go longer because it is always possible to shorten (even if that does compromise the cut) whereas if I go short, I can't add on.
Similar with T-shirts. No one shape fits all, so Haraki and I have to reach a compromise about what will suit the most people out of our combined customer base.
I understand that this means that not everything will work for everyone, but it was ever thus.
-
I'm sure they (IH) probably try to shoot for some kind of happy medium. It's like a game if tug-o-war. On one end you got tall guys like myself, seancono, twin, etc pulling for the longest inseams we can get because we legitimately need them and then there's the other side of the spectrum who loses the taper when they get hemmed if they are too long…I'm just happy that there are a few offerings, limited as they maybe, out there for us talk guys who wear boots cause I just can't do 7" leg openings.
OK, I have been ruminating. How about this for a plan?
As many future runs as possible of stuff that I can control, I make the leg opening to be par at 34" even if I make them 36 or 37 or whatever.
-
Wouldn't that make the cut look strange for those that do need that inseam? Or is it such a minuscule change that it wouldn't make a difference?
-
I love it when G uses the word ruminate
-
-
I'm after the 666XhS first run. The measurements on the current run are not the same. The Beatle buster is the opposite of what I want, they have a smaller waist and at least a 9.3in+ leg opening and that's at a 36inseam. By the time you hem them for my short ass you have 9.5-9.7in leg opening, which is enormous. I just don't think IH makes a cut anymore that can fit me how I want. If they made cuts in shorter inseams, like in Japan, they would fit me fine because the cut would be true but not on these 36in+ inseams. Any sort of taper there is gets lost once you hem them to 32ish or shorter.
Tons of other brands fit like fucking gloves, I just don't get it.
Btw, I tried on the original 666xhs run when they came out and they fit like a glove, just didn't have the cash. Also, tried on Zwer's pair, fit like a glove.
So I lay in bed last night thinking about this. Here are the sums:
We measure the knee 13" below the crotch. That leaves 23" to the hem on a 36" inseam
On the majority of our jeans we taper 1/2" from the knee to the cuff
That means the taper is 0.022739 of an inch per inch of inseam
Say we chop 4 inches off, then we lose 0.096857 of an inch in the width
On a hem that originally measured 9.5, it will now measure 9.41" -
That's fucking maddening. Is there a doorman or receptionist at the destination?
-
Finn … I'm guessing it's a guy at the customs.
Had the same issue once ... online tracking says delivered to XXXX .... ran frightened through the whole neighborhood to find somebody with this name ...
.... three days later came the letter with the info to pick it up at customs
