Posts made by KA56

Ended up grabbing two pairs of these over the past month. Im between sizes (small waist and rear, big thighs) and initially went with a 34 for the bigger leg before getting annoyed at the oversized waist/seat making it impossible to fully cinch a belt without weird puckering.

Reached back out to the crew and they were excellent at hooking it up with a tag 33 with a relatively bigger leg. They arrived yesterday and fit like a glove. Im about 8 hours into wearing them and can feel them opening up already. Once the the seat/upper thigh open up a bit these will be a perfect slim straight jean.

Still going to hold on to the 34s for when my weight creeps up or for those days when I want a slouchier, more relaxed fit. And honestly you can never have too many IH pants.

The pics with the wrangler shirt are the new 33s, the ones with the Schott are the 34s

@northsouthdenimguy

Appreciate the detailed writeup! Im a 9.25 heel to toe, and a 9 heel to ball. Width is smack on the line between D and E, but I have a high instep on my right foot, so generally round up to a wider size where I can.

The attached pic shows where my ball lines up on my right foot (the bigger of the two), and where my big toe sits relative to the toe of the boot. It's hard to see, but Ive pushed my toe up as high as I can and Im pointing towards the tip.

Can I get a sense check on sizing?

I have a pair in 9E from The Shop Vancouver in olive petrolio horsehide (left). The first time I put them on they slipped on without any issues, were comfortable from the get go, but with the insole and thick socks, they feel roomy after a month of wear. I have a decent amount of heel slip, but I dont feel like the boots are just going to come off.

Wanted to get the same boots in black CXL (right) but could only find 8.5E in stock. They were absolutely hellish getting on the first time, and even though its only half a size smaller, the boot feels significantly tighter to the point that I had to take the insole out. I can wiggle my toes, and have maybe a thumbs width between my big toe and the tip of the boot, but I feel my big toe pressing against the top of the boot when I walk in a way that I dont with the petrolio pair.

They aren't uncomfortable per say (I've worn them one full day so far- 13 hours including standing for 3 hours at a concert), so Im trying to figure out if I'd be ok keeping this size despite the tight fit and letting it break in (and how much better I can expect them to feel with break in), or if Im better off cutting my loss while they're still in great condition and flipping them.

For additional reference I'm about a 9.25 on the brannock and at their widest, my feet sit just between the D and E widths.

@Johnnyutah247 yeah, I tried the 33 but couldn't pull it all the way up because of tightness in the lower thigh.

I dont mind wearing a belt, I'm mostly worried that the thighs won't stretch much but the butt will, and Ill end up with a diaper looking top block on skinny legs

Picked these up at SE. Was happy with the fit in store (couldnt pull the 33 up lol) and had them hemmed, but now Im worried I may have gotten ahead of myself.

With how much these stretch am I screwed long term or will they be alright with a belt?

Jumped on that one-off size 34 restock. These are a bit boxier than my overdyed pair in the same tag size but I'm guessing that'll settle with some wear and a hot wash or two.

Love this cut so much!

@Go-For-Chill sure, but I haven't sized jeans based on the waist measurement in years.

Thigh, rise, and knee (in that order) matter much more for a good fit. If the waist is too big, you can throw on a belt and be fine (assuming you can fill out the seat). If the thigh, rise, or knee are too small, that's a pair of pants that's never going to look or feel good, regardless of how perfectly they can stay up without a belt.

@Go-For-Chill interesting. I also have all three (tag 34) and my experience is the total opposite.

The 634 is the tightest of the bunch. The seat and upper thigh are painted on due to the lower rise giving less overall volume up top, though below the knee the leg is plenty roomy. Oddly enough they're still very comfortable with excellent mobility despite how tight they look.

The 888 is an odd middle ground. Pulled up properly, the waist and seat are both too big for me, but the leg is one step up from skinny jeans (I tried a 33 and had difficulty pulling them all the way up over my thighs). Worn a bit lower so that the back rise slouches a bit, the leg becomes much more roomy and comfortable, though at the cost of a flattering overall silhouette.

And the 1955 are the loosest of the bunch. The top feels similarly oversized to the 888, but because the leg is wider it looks like a balanced regular/repro fit with some good drape. I also have them in a tag 33 and they look kind of like the model pic on the 21oz indigo product page. Which is to say they're perfectly wearable and comfortable, but the overall silhouette is too slim for my liking.

@m4xime Really depends on the fit you're after. If you want a very slim fit you can do 634 in the same size as 888/1955. If you want something with more room to breathe, go +1 from your 888/1955 to get your 634 size.

I take a 34 in 888/1955 (+2 from what I'd need in the waist in order to get the fit I want in the leg), and while I can squeeze my legs into a 34 634, I would need a 35 to start feeling comfortable in the thighs pre-stretch.

Haven't taken these off since I got them in- Texas humidity be damned. Paired today with the 14oz OD type III. Im pleasantly surprised with how well the higher rise and longer jacket interact.

The indigo pair is sitting in my closet untouched for now, and I may bring them out for this year's indigo invitational.

@yannis I would agree, with the caveat that someone who struggles with thigh measurements should still size these based on leg rather than waistband.

They're bigger than the 634 but not so much bigger that they can be treated as a relaxed cut where waistband is all that matters.

And also as pointed out, little to no pressure on a part of the garment = little to no stretch there.

@JohnM Just got tried my indigo pair on. They feel about the same as the OD one size up. The waistband is a hair more snug, but I'd imagine that after a week of wear they'll even out.

@thevintagefuture yeah I would describe the 1955 as:

• Start with the 888
• Add an inch to the front rise
• Graft on the leg of the 634 at the next tag size up
• Taper from the knee

As for top block room, I would say the 888, when worn as intended (eg. not how I wore mine) is a bit roomier than the 1955. One thing that it took me a while to learn is that when there's a bigger difference between front and back rise, it's a sign the jeans should slouch a bit. This is really common with Japanese repro cuts (look at how Full Count describes their 0105 and it's iconic slouched silhouette), and is in line with the "modern taper" that IH was going for with the 888. If you wear them that way (check out TJ at The Shop Vancouver for a perfect 888 fit), there's plenty of room in the seat and upper thigh because all that rise sort of hangs off the top of your hips. If you try to pull them up ala a Cowboy Cut, you'll quickly find that you get really odd vertical creasing in the crotch that isn't there on Wranglers (and the broken twill is much more comfortable when worn tight than IH's 21oz denim haha)

Personally I always tuck my shirts, so slouching is a no go. And if I wear pants that are too tapered, I look like a leg-day skipper, so I dropped the 888 pretty quickly. The 634 is better, and if I wasn't adamant about the tuck thing, I could make it work, but they sit on my body like how low rise jeans in the early 00s used to sit (firmly below my hips and hanging off of my butt). At that spot a snug belt gets really uncomfortable really quick. The plus side though is that if you aren't dead set on shirt tucks, the 634 is a cut that you can get away with upsizing to a significant degree because all you need to do is notch the belt a little bit to keep them hanging from the right spot.

@thevintagefuture yeah I totally get that. Fwiw I've got fit pics of all of them which sort of show what I mean. Not the best since the the OD fabric acts as something of a black hole, but you can sort of get an idea.

1955 are on the left. 634 are on the top right (you can see the belt is basically over my hips), and 888 are on bottom right. If you care to zoom in over the crotch you'll see how they bunch up when worn as a high waisted jean, as well as the relatively tighter fit along the low thigh. If I wasn't someone who religiously tucked my shirt in, the 634 would be totally fine because it can be worn very comfortably hanging off the hips, even at a few sizes up.

@thevintagefuture The 888 has a higher rise than other IH offerings (1955 excepted) and more room in the hip and seat. The leg however tapers hard from crotch to knee, making it more of a slim jean for big legs than a proper roomy cut.

Personally, at thighs pushing 25" and a natural waist around 31", I found the 634 to be a more comfortable big leg fit than the 888. The low rise wasn't ideal, but the extra room in the lower thigh made them so much easier to move in than the 888, which felt like they were grabbing my knees every time I climbed a flight of stairs.

The 1955 really combines the best of both cuts.

@JohnM I have a pair of tag 33 indigo on the way from The Shop Vancouver. They should arrive Monday and I can update you then.

I'm of the same mind as you based on the size charts and ordered different sizes in each.

Got mine in yesterday. 34 was the right call in these. The waist is a touch loose, but a belt will take care of that. Any smaller and the thighs would've been painted on.

Definitely the best IH cut I've found for my build.

@scarfmace Shop Vancouver still has 34 in stock.

So with these seemingly flying out of stock is there any chance of revisiting the '1955 as a core part of the IH rotation' conversation?

@AdamJ appreciate the insight. My issue is always too much room in the waist and not enough in the leg. The waist on tag 33 would likely stretch to be perfect, but I can guarantee that the leg would be too slim even post stretch (for context I tried the tag 34 serge work pants and they were veeeery slim in the seat and thighs).

The measurements on the tag 34 OD, tag 33 indigo are comparable to my current daily drivers (Sugar Cane 1947 in 33) so I'm just looking for reassurance they won't get radically bigger than their initial size.

All that said, I grabbed the 34 already so yolo I suppose