Arm length - Ultra Heavy Flannels (UHFs)
-
I thought the most recent batch were way too short. The hombre UHF, although beautiful, doesn't get near as much wear as my 101 purps, or the 04, or any of my other shirts. It's the short sleeve length and body length that make it less awesome for me. As a matter of fact, I am consistently more pleased with the longer/larger sleeve and length measurements on some of the older releases.
For me the ideal sleeve length on a medium UHF would be between 24.5 and 26", assuming the shoulders are between 16.5-18".
Thanks for giving us the opportunity for feedback. The measurements on the Cookie Monster look great to me, and I hope the solid cpos end up similarly sized!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
^^Exactly.
Longer length can be adjusted down through hot washes or soaks, which makes them wearable to a far bigger group of customers. Shorter lengths cannot be adjusted to longer though. We all know these things! I guess for some, it's only acceptable to size up and shrink denim.
-
same boat as @sabergirl . specially with winter shirt. not fun too short in the arms or on the length. as the UHF, the lined 105. very beautiful and well made but away too short for me. a tagged L for ex.
-
Thanks for asking for our Feedback.
I looked up the arm lengths of some of my favorite Shirts: 37, 52, 72, 87, 101, 131 etc. All size XL, the sleeves were around 25,5- 26,0". To me, that was perfect. I'm ok with slightly longer sleeves, like 26,5" but there's no need for superduper long sleeves. Escpecially as I buy XL because I'm rather tall, not because I have a lot of weight. If I was shorter and heavier the longer sleeves would be way too much.
And I wash my Shirts a lot, still the arm length of i.e. the 131BB would be way too much. You can clearly tell that they look weird on the recent product pictures. (That's also the reason I wear my black Cotton duck Type III not as much - too Long sleeves look weird.)
Just a thought: Could it be that the smaller sized People are the ones who ask for longer sleeves? A similar matter are the leg openings of Jeans: They usualy grow a lot with every bigger size, but there's no real need to IMO als shins and ankles don't increase a lot between one size.
What I'm trying to say: maybe the arm length has a sweet spot at 26" for sizes M, L and XL, it doesn't have to increase a lot between the sizes?
Conclusion: a Minimum sleeve length in every size that balances between too long and too short. For XL that would be 26,0-26,5" IMO. (Easier said than done, I know).
-
@4c:
I decided to increase the length of the arms on the UHFs because in my opinion in recent releases had been too short.
Yes, good choice. Longer = perfect. Especially with how much UHF can shrink.
Full agreement
UHF - [a tad] longer sleeves for the win!
My -127 (for example) is nearly unwearable .. and a machine wash almost impossible.
No need for 'three-quarter sleeves' during the colder seasons. -
Arm length on my flannels 37 (M), 86 (L), 127 (M) is good as is whereas my other shirts, 85 (M) and 92 (M) are a tad long. According to charts of extinct flannels arm length of my 127 is more or less the same as other medium western UHFs (20, 72, 87, 101, 107, 109). 25,5 inches on a size small (131-BB) reads crazy long …
-
Some good reflections and arguments. Here's my tuppence.
I'm one of the shorter heavier guys @Max Power mentioned, so my body shape suits the shorter sleeve length. Generally speaking with IH tops the arms are too long for me. I like cuffing type III's so no problem there and I don't mind rolling up sleeves on some other shirts. But by and large it's an issue. When last winters UHF's were delivered I was delighted. They were the first shirts I'd ever had from IH that fit well everywhere. So obviously I'm disappointed by the change. But that isn't the point here. If the sleeve length is shortened then one group/body type is disappointed, and so on and so on and so it goes. One group is going to be unhappy.
That being said, it seems to me that adding an inch to the sleeve lengths is quite a big deal. If this were the waists on jeans we were talking about then it's the difference between going up or down a whole size. This is why the "you shrink your jeans so shrink your shirts" argument is facetious. Those of us that want to, can buy unsanforized jeans and do this. But you can wear many (all?) of IH jean cuts without having to worry about that. Also, many of us hem our jeans, a service that IHUK, R&H, SE and most serious denim retailers offer free with a purchase, or for a few dollars. None of them offer sleeve shortening as far as I know. There are cuffs to worry about and probably pleats, plackets and gussets too (I'm exaggerating for effect here). So adding an inch to the inseam isn't the same as adding an inch to a sleeve. Add an inch to the waist on jeans; different size. An an inch to a shirt's chest or shoulders; different cut. Am I seriously expected to try hot washing shirts for shorter sleeves and risk a tight chest or shoulders. Unless you have lots of the same shirt to experiment with and a degree of experience then hot washing can be a crapshoot, even with the information on this forum to help minimise the risk. No, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the answer.
As this is ultimately about retail (and customer service) it seems to me that the challenge is to keep as many people as possible happy, as much of the time as possible. Something that @Giles is acutely aware of, as this thread proves. This is to his and IHUK's great credit. That being the case a compromise length seems a good solution, (in lieu of hard statistical evidence that is relevant to your customer base). Maybe splitting the difference here will be the same as splitting hairs, but maybe it would also be a pragmatic solution that would make the most people happy?
-
I have a longer torso and arms, the sleeves of my 109 are just about OK, but a tad longer wouldn't hurt.
Reading the sizing chart for the 109 and the 131-BB shirts. I am XL for both and there is a whole inch extra in measured arm length according to the charts for the 131-BB. That would be better for me.
I voted leave them longer…
-
I have long and skinny arms. The sleeves on my XXL 101TG are near perfect (after a hot soak/hang dry). I wouldn't mind maybe .5" longer, but the 131 is 1.6 inches longer in XXL, which IMO is overkill.
-
For me the latest UHF's (127) are pretty much bang on for me. The 107 in XL has 26.4" arms after a few washes it has come down a bit so that is a long as i would want the arms to be. Any longer and it would be a no no for me.
-
I think people tend to forget that IH is a brand that was dreamed up with riders in mind, that denim hipsters happened to fall in love with…..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^This
Personally, I purchase the shirts/jeans because of the particular emphasis on motorcycle appropriate clothes, and not so much for the fashion appeal.
-
Some of the recent UHF's were too short for me; 25" on the Large 101tg stopped me buying it, would have struggled with the sleeve length even without washing it.
That being said, the 131bb sleeves are over 1.5" longer on most sizes than the 101tg, which seems slightly overkill.
It's hard to make much of a call until the seasons shirts have all been released. Like the 101tg was the shortest sleeves in a while, the 131 might be the longest sleeves, and it's just unfortunate that this was the first of the new batch that we all got a look at.
-
Just looked at @PattyCakez pictures in the latest UHF and IMO the arms look too long. Now they might be perfect when he riding his bike but who see's that?
-
I don't wash the UHFs often so it doesn't seem to be much of a problem-that said I can wear and M or L depending on the look and the shoulders. I will say that if the shoulders on the M stayed around 17-17.5", longer sleeves would make this a perfect cut for me. And because I am the warm center of the universe, you should probably do that. ; )
Un saludo!
-
I think people tend to forget that IH is a brand that was dreamed up with riders in mind, that denim hipsters happened to fall in love with…..
I'm not sure anybody has forgotten this. Nor do I think it's particuarly relevant. I think most people are commenting based on what suits them, understandably so.
IH has riding and bikers in it's DNA and that's great. Lots of design choices are made with this in mind, many of them are great for non-bikers too. But lots if IH clothing is not obviously biker friendly and little of it meets technical/safety specs for riding. A lot of it is designed with Japanese biker fashion in mind. I'm pretty sure 14oz white satin finish jeans aren't very practical from a bike riding stand point.
It was Giles that asked for longer sleeves, not Haraki-san, who makes most of the biker orientated design decisions. I love that bikers in the west are discovering IH but the majority of customers outside of Japan are not bikers. Giles is asking this question to get a sense of how the many people on the forum feel about this, so he can make a strategic decision about it that might affect future sales. And good for him.
I'm not worried that IH is going to lose it's biker identity over an inch of sleeve length.
