Time For a New Jeans Cut….
-
Hope there is enough of a taper left when they get hemmed to say 32-34 leg.
-
- If we want to have selvedge side seams and a proper cut, there is a limit to the taper that can be given to the jean. To have selvedge side seams, the outseam HAS to be parallel, so you have to take the taper off the inseam, take too much and the cut is a joke. One of the reasons that the IH-634 is a better cut in many ways than the IH-634S, is that we don't have to worry about a parallel outseam.
- We could use selvedge denim and dispense with the selvedge ID showing on the outseam (like the IH-461S), but that is probably a compromise too far.
-
Would it be possible to end at 36" inseam after shrinkage? I am pretty certain not many will need an longer inseam. 38" or above are a bit much if you want a small leg opening at the (I think) most pouplar 32-26" length.
-
I think the key thing here, that'll make this work, is the tapering from above the knee. If you consider the difference between the 555 and 666 cuts, I know I can buy a 666 with a 12.8" thigh and avoid sausage leg because the drop from the top of the thigh is relatively straight and the taper marginal. 12.8" in the 555 is a no go because the the taper starts early and I have thighs like Yamaha engine block. So the point with these jeans (I hope), is to have a properly fitting top block giving way to generous thighs that then taper early giving us big boys a bit of wiggle room in a more flattering silhouette. For us short inseam types any taper is going to help, and be better than living with the big flappy openings that I end up having on my 666 and BB's.
The point is this, we're not going to get (nor I believe, do we want) a W36 jean with a 13.5" thigh that narrows to a 7,8" hem. It's going to be some antifit, carrot-shaped nightmare cut. But we do want the silhouette of a tapered fit. The trade off will be a hem that is less wide than on a pair of 634's but not as narrow as 555's/777's.
-
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....
