Cuffed Jeans

[ButteMT61]

Scott's going to be offended - took him an age to work that up... ;-)

Hah. Ironically, there is only one pair of jeans I own that even give me 1" of cuff. Only others I found that I could get 3"-4" are the Iron Heart I tried. My 35" inseam makes most jeans uncuffable. I only say here that I don't get bothered by it (pic above being a serious exception). I wish I had the option to cuff my jeans, but I don't. Some is posing (selvage) some is just a style. Don't bother me none.

 

[Doc Average]

I've been cuffing my jeans since about 1984. Being on the short side, I usually do it for practical reasons, but I also liked the vintage vibe right from the get-go. I would've been about 13 when I started, and was just getting into the vintage styles of the '20s > '50s. I'd usually do my shopping at Flip of Hollywood in Edinburgh & Glasgow mainly. The older kids who used to hang out there always had turn-ups on their jeans, and I liked the look. However, I've never worn cuffs any bigger than about an inch and a half. Very occassionally I'll find jeans that are just the right length for me, but not very often.

 

[bburtner@moran]

Cuffed?NO!!

 

[pipvh]

majormajor, as a yer actual, proper mod from back in the day, you say that jeans weren't cuffed? As a lame, poseur-ish 2nd generation mod from the end of the 70s, it was my understanding (gleaned from such sacred texts as the inside of the Quadrophenia double album) that 501s were given a little bit of a cuff, in fact I would spend hours with an iron and safety pins to get exactly that look. And now I find it was all based on an untruth? Have I been living a lie for all these years?

PS I like to cuff, but not excessively, my role models being Lucky Luke and (predictably) the Quadrophenia album...

 

[pipvh]

I also find I have to cuff in any case, because jeans never fit me exactly length-wise so I'm always buying 'em long and I detest stacking.

 

[SHOWSOMECLASS]

My dungaree/levi length and choice will change, based on whether I wear boots and if I ride the motorcycle.

 

[Sir Jacket]

I'm with the cuff wearers.

SJ

 

[robrinay]

All but one pair of my jeans, but one have the right length legs - I buy them that length. I was lucky enough to find a old pair of 13MWZ Wranglers -USA made which are a bit too long and I can't bring myself to 'damage' them so I wear them cuffed like the skinheads used to but not over short/half mast, as they seemed to prefer.

 

[Edward]

I also find I have to cuff in any case, because jeans never fit me exactly length-wise so I'm always buying 'em long and I detest stacking.

Yeah, I hate the piling up effect you see on so many trousers these days - even with suits. What's really unpleasant to my eye is when you see people - grown adults even - wearing jeans so long they end up walking on them, with the result in this kind of wear at the ankles:

The wider the leg, the more pronounced this becomes; I've frequently seen large 'U' shaped gouges out of the backs of jeans where the wearer has tramped on them. NOT from them being worn too low on the hips, but from the leg being worn too long over the shoes. It's as ghastly as boot-cut. Yes, boot-cut, I see you, you don't fool me: STEALTH FLARES.

 

[Mr Badger]

Very nice, Mr B!!!!

BTW, what is the width at the bottom of the 1944 Levi model?

They're 18" bottoms, but certainly don't look that wide with boots, on account of the relatively roomy top box and gently tapered leg... here's a quick (and quite rubbishy) snap:

 

[pipvh]

Ah: boot-cut. Weasel words. At least 'bell bottom' has a sort of misplaced honesty about it.

 

[pipvh]

They're 18" bottoms, but certainly don't look that wide with boots, on account of the relatively roomy top box and gently tapered leg...

Those are pretty nice. What's the weight of the denim, if I might ask? And are they very different from the 1947s, do you know?

 

[Dr H]

Not for me - 30/31" inseam means that I don't need to look any shorter in the leg with rolls of denim at the bottom.
Interestingly, did a very unscientific poll on campus today. Lots of young people, wide range of ages (most 19-25 bracket), cultural backgrounds. Plenty of denim on show, but didn't see any cuffed jeans.

 

[Edward]

Not for me - 30/31" inseam means that I don't need to look any shorter in the leg with rolls of denim at the bottom.
Interestingly, did a very unscientific poll on campus today. Lots of young people, wide range of ages (most 19-25 bracket), cultural backgrounds. Plenty of denim on show, but didn't see any cuffed jeans.

Yes, it seems to be out of the fashion cycle again now. I remember it coming round last in the late 90s. might well have done since then, I have no idea.

 

[djgo-cat-go]

Guess I'm a poseur, then! I do have a few pairs of selvedge jeans without cuffs, as they're only 34" leg, but – and this goes for the non-selvedge workwear jeans I've got, too – all the others I just cuff 'em to the right length, rather than have 'em shortened. One thing that looks totally wrong to me, and very much a poseur move, is when hipsters roll up the bottoms of their far-too-tight jeans, leaving 'em hovering several inches above their sock-less boat shoes (bleugh!)...



Yeah, overall, the Lee 101z (particularly the first European run, with the half-lined back pockets, which came out in the late 1990s) are a stellar jean – I still have one of my original pairs, which seems quite slimfit now, and a pair of the later, wider-legged 101b... which reminds me, I need to repair the inner front pocket bags on 'em both!

However, my all-time fave is the Levi's 1944 model – they've got a slightly higher rise, aren't too wide-hipped and are pretty straight-legged... for those on a budget, the Edwin Nashville model is pretty much on a par, and even more hard-wearing!

Slightly OT, I know, but here are my oldest jeans, had all of 'em for well over a decade, making 'em quite early LVC, and they've developed some serious patina, which is one reason why *most* selvedge denim beats the regular stuff hands-down! Two pairs of LVC 1944s and my 201s:

Show the honeycombs mr. Badger

 

[Mr Badger]

Ah: boot-cut. Weasel words. At least 'bell bottom' has a sort of misplaced honesty about it.

I believe that the term originated for jeans with no taper below the knee... kinda stoopid term, tho'!

Those are pretty nice. What's the weight of the denim, if I might ask? And are they very different from the 1947s, do you know?

As to the weight, this guide says 12-13oz, and this chart may help explain the difference in cut:

Show the honeycombs mr. Badger

Oh, man, I'm not even going there! 'Honeycombs' are for the likes of the StyleForum and Denim Hunter folks... I just like well-made jeans and, although I do dig the patina that develops over time, I'm not inclined to make that much of a fetish of it!

 

[pipvh]

Thanks, Mr Badger. I once had a pair of pre-production LVC 1955s which to my regret I eventually demolished. Had to work quite hard to accomplish it, though. I love the way that heavy selvage denim is the reverse of built-in obsolescence. I'm wearing a pair of Sugar Canes right now that I've worn hard for 7 years and they've still got more life in them than most things I find brand new on the high street.

 

[gtdean48]

... 13MWZ Wranglers ...

That's all I wear basically... I buy the 13MWZPW (PW = Pre-Washed)...I don't send them to the dry cleaners to have a crease starched into them like a lot of the horse-show crowd do. Spurs keep the backs from dragging & wearing like Edward mentions...
I do get a kick out of those who split the outer seam so the leg goes over their boots...

I am interested in these which are said to be improved 13MWZ's = http://www.drysdales.com/detail-183...ml?green=E96EB24A-46A2-5C08-AB43-676057E46201

 

[Sloan1874]

Ah: boot-cut. Weasel words. At least 'bell bottom' has a sort of misplaced honesty about it.

At the height (depths) of the Madchester craze, I owned a pair of 26" bell bottoms :eeek: I feel cleaner and lighter for confessing that. They lasted for one summer before a. I got sick of tripping over them, and b. I caught my reflection in a full-length of mirror.

 

[Mr Badger]

Thanks, Mr Badger. I once had a pair of pre-production LVC 1955s which to my regret I eventually demolished. Had to work quite hard to accomplish it, though. I love the way that heavy selvage denim is the reverse of built-in obsolescence. I'm wearing a pair of Sugar Canes right now that I've worn hard for 7 years and they've still got more life in them than most things I find brand new on the high street.

Yeah, great denim lasts a loooong time, eh? I take after my late father, whose favourite jeans were always the ones which were about to fall apart! "You're not going out in those!" my mum usedta tell him, "Put your new ones on!"

Never did get a pair of Sugar Cane jeans, too expensive – mind you, I haven't bought any LVC since the relaunch, when the prices increased dramatically... £250 for a pair of jeans? Hmmm...

When I lived in London, you used to be able to find LVC jeans for £60 if you were lucky, think the most I've ever paid for a pair of selvedge is £80... once, I bought the first run LVC repros of the 'type 1' and 'type 2' 1800s jeans for £10 each, but couldn't get on with not having belt loops and ended up giving them to a pal from Australia – kick meself now, as I wear braces all the time! Oh, well, easy come, easy go...

IMHO, you can't buy a better 'regular' cut pair of selvedge jeans than Edwin Nashvilles, they're about £100 most places but you sometimes can pick 'em up online for £50-60. Heavyweight denim, a generous but neat cut, they wear really well and just get better looking / more comfortable... one word of warning, tho', they're a full size larger than the ticket, to allow for shrinkage – which if you're not inclined to hot wash denim is a bonus, as you'll doubtless fit the size smaller than you usually take...