Random questions to which you seek an answer
-
-
Are F/W 2026 lookbooks going out with IHUK orders?
-
Just had to buy a new washing machine. New one offers cooler wash options and gentle cycle but shortest wash on these options are at least an hour.
Also has option of a shorter cycle (30 or 15 min) with cool wash options but not a ‘gentle’ wash.
So question is gently but long or short but slightly more vigorous (for the wash that is, as I realise that leaves the doors wide open for double entendres!) -
@Alex thank you
-
@Oaktavia Dude, you hit the nail on the head. I've had this conversation with myself over and over since i started the journey. I am definitely prone to hyperfixations. Some pass quickly and others come in waves. My current "state of wear" on my denim obsession has moved into a more passive state. I'm not as sharp with my wear/wash logging, and have been choosing a pair for the day with almost total carelessness. When I started my 21ib's i wanted to wear them exclusively, but now, I really just enjoy the variety. My wash routine has also steadily increased and become more casual too. I only handwash on the first wash after the obligatory "wear as long as possible without washing", about 30-40 wears, then i start presoaking and throwing them in the machine every 20 or so.
I've found that my 'new' pairs no longer look 'new' after about 75 wears, and by then have picked up enough character to begin rotating. We talked before about the initial sprint, and this is pretty much it.
My fitness routine has gained me some weight, so while all of my jeans are still wearable, some fit better than others, and thats pretty much the determining factor for my rotation. The ones with less wears just end up in a kinda catchup mode, but I still like alternating between more and less faded pairs for the sake of variety, and not 'neglecting' any of my jeans by not giving them the attention they deserve.
I have like 9 or so pairs, most of which are decently faded, but once i'm without a pair of freshies, i start keeping an eye on restocks.
"The whole future lies in uncertainty: Live immediately."
-Seneca -
@WhiskeySandwich dude you also nailed it with your response. I think that of all the folk here on the forum, you are the one who I can most relate to as far as wearing and fading definitely gained some insight and your post has helped me steady my course. I knew this was they way, I just needed someone like you to remind me. So, thanks homie.
-
@Oaktavia Dude, my pleasure. its always cool hearing how your brain works lol. And it's also good to hear all the folks' different takes on the varying thoughts for the 'problem' of rotation. Once I realized its not a 'problem', I found it added enjoyment. If fades reflect the wearer, I'd rather them not reflect the obsessive aspect of me lol
-
Question about sleeves...
I've noticed that IH shirts happen to fit me damn near perfectly. I do not think this is at all me, but instead the pattern. Many other shirts/jackets/polos/etc, all have this weird mobility issue where the sleeves shoulder cap is like pinned down, where if you raise your arms, it brings the whole shirt up with it, and you end up with fabric bunching above the shoulder and showing a bit of belly. It makes it almost impossible for me to wear anything but a T-shirt or an IH shirt.
Oh there's supposed to be a question here.....so, What the dilly yo? -
High arm holes. Less tailored items with lower arm holes fit more people more comfortably so that's what big brands do. Imagine if the arm holes were sewn down to the hem and you have an example of why the higher the better in regards to how raising arms will pickup the body.
-
@pechelman doesn't seem like it'd be more comfortable to anyone lol Is it 'low' arm holes or is it the angle the sleeve is put on the torso? i get that of you lower the angle it'd naturally lower the bottom... basically, example being my Schott suede jacket, the arm holes are about the same as my IH gear, but the sleeves are just angled down more, which imo is dumb on a motorcycle jacket. I think if the idea is they 'lower' the armholes/angle down the sleeves because its more comfortable, because it reduces bunching of excess fabric under your arm, this is a poor compromise, because idk anyone who goes around with their arms pinned to their hips. Guess i shoulda put this in the rants thread. lol sorry
"The whole future lies in uncertainty: Live immediately."
-Seneca -
@goosehd I do!
I've gone through most of the cuts and landed on 634s and 801s because of the room in the thigh. I was expert level at ripping crotches in jeans from other brands for over a decade. The two above are yet to face that fate, which I am stoked about.I really wanna get my hands on some IH-806-BLKs for the stage.
-
@WhiskeySandwich i think it's all relative. More comfortable in terms of very high and tight armholes which even people on here have complained about. Relatively speaking, the lower the arm hole the more people it will fit and the less restricting it will be for anyone with large arms. The side effect here for flexibility of fitting a more diverse set of body types and sizes is that it has a compromise on how it wears when moving. I think I know what you're saying about downward angled arms where it attaches at the body, but i think that's a result also of having a lower arm hole. I'm far from an expert on this though, so I'll let someone else chime in.
But i hear you on this being a rant of sorts. I don't like this either which is why I like the IH shirt cut so much. I struggled with this for so many years not really understanding why this happened until I got a shirt cut with higher arm holes.
-
@pechelman i agree with you. Its def just preference. but I would like to know what goes into the design of like arm hole circumference (being the space around the upper arm) and the angle of the sleeve (straight out or angled downward). It seems that a high or low armhole (based on the underarm connection to the torso), would be secondary/resultant of those primary factors. obviously they average the wearers arm size, as dudes who wear an XL will either have thick or thin arms, causing a looser or tighter fit. The angle of the arm attached would result in either more mobility or less fabric bunch under the armpit....idk maybe i answered my own question. I'm just thinking thru my fingers at this point lol sorry to ramble.
-
It’s interesting with the 409. On paper, it should fit very similarly to my 178, which I no longer own.
On the 178, the sleeves came down to the middle of my palm, while on the 409 they sit at the wrist with just a bit of extra material. The 178 also fit noticeably larger overall through the chest and shoulders, even before any soaking, washing, or drying.
First chart is the 409, second is the 178.
I assume this comes down to things like armhole placement, body height, and subtle pattern differences. Since they were made at different times, small changes likely don’t show up clearly in measurements. I’m not an expert, but it’s interesting how two shirts can look similar on paper yet fit so differently in reality.
For me, if the chest fits, I can usually work with everything else.
it's 5pm somewhere, right?
