Thoughts about fit?

[HoosierDaddy]

No button fly for me, thank you. I'm satisfied with JC Penny 'Arizona' jeans. Don't need to shrink to fit. In fact, they don't shrink much at all. They fit from the get go. All my jackets cover my belt.

 

[Seb Lucas]

As the label says those 501s pictured are pre-shrunk so there should be no issue with washing hopefully.

Even the Levis Vintage 501's vary greatly year on year and they are supposed to be authenic fits to the period - I picked up a pair of their 1955 501s in the sale last year, liked the fit so bought this years 1955 model and the fit was way more loose.

They put out this year/fit changes guide a couple of years back;

View attachment 269918

Probably because I don't speak jeans - most of them look the same to me or not sufficiently different to be interesting.

 

[l0fielectronic]

I used to be happy with the standard Levis but I got a pair of Iron Heart's a few years ago and they were like the jeans I remembered from when I was younger and I kind of fell down that hole.

 

[Downunder G Man]

I saw those too. I never know what size jeans to get as I fit 32 to 35, depending on the cut.

I am fully expecting these to be "too squeezy" for me. That way I will not be disappointed if they are.

If so I will either "collect" them , sell them to a skinnier mate here in Perth WA (most of my mates are NOT skinnier than me !)

OR they will be in the forum classifieds

 

[Seb Lucas]

I used to be happy with the standard Levis but I got a pair of Iron Heart's a few years ago and they were like the jeans I remembered from when I was younger and I kind of fell down that hole.

I've been unable to romanticize the world of old jeans. I remember in the 1970's how jeans sometimes took 12 months to be wearable and feel like a decent pair, with all that shrink to fit BS. I hate any kind of fuss like that. But I know some people like their clothing rituals. The one thing about old jeans; they lasted for years. Even if you could hardly bear to wear them for the first year.

 

[nick123]

Probably because I don't speak jeans - most of them look the same to me or not sufficiently different to be interesting

Tried the selvedge route...still had the problems of developing holes in knees eventually. I don't know what I do, but it's a curse. Probably gardening.

 

[navetsea]

I like button fly on thick jeans that I wear very tight on the hip when new, I'm afraid zip would fail when I do squat or climb my bike or bicycle or something sudden while breaking in, they are not hard to open when desperately need to piss, probably even easier than zip, buttoning back on take more time, but even when you got distracted you wont end up like ben stiller in something about mary. also I can repair them with spare jeans buttons should they fail no need to sew anything

on relax fit pants or softer fabrics I prefer zipper though, I like both low and high rise pants currently wearing both style, I don't mind my belt showing a bit since I like my belt buckle too, I can't tuck in my shirt on higher rise raw jeans since my torso would look un proportionally short, looks better tucking in my shirt with lower rise pants for my proportion.

 

[Edward]

Cheap zips can be a killer. One lovely feature on the Wrangler Cowboy Cut is the hefty bass YKK. There are budget jeans out there in which I'd rather have buttons (and preferable actual buttons rather than studs) as they're easier fixed than a cheap zip gone wrong. A quality zip, though, is fine by me.

 

[Edward]

Cheap zips can be a killer. One lovely feature on the Wrangler Cowboy Cut is the hefty bass YKK. There are budget jeans out there in which I'd rather have buttons (and preferable actual buttons rather than studs) as they're easier fixed than a cheap zip gone wrong. A quality zip, though, is fine by me.

 

[Edward]

Cheap zips can be a killer. One lovely feature on the Wrangler Cowboy Cut is the hefty bass YKK. There are budget jeans out there in which I'd rather have buttons (and preferable actual buttons rather than studs) as they're easier fixed than a cheap zip gone wrong. A quality zip, though, is fine by me.

 

[Arnold]

Wearable, perhaps correct for the time period, wouldn't be out of place with high waisted pants, but I'd too prefer another 1.5" on the body. Sleeves are just fine.

Because it's a button front, I think it looks short in front, due to the coat connotations. If it was a zippered model, it'd be less apparent.

+1, best comment IMO. It's not about fit per se, but it's simply not the best type of jacket to wear with that type of jeans. So if those jeans are your style, it's not the right jacket for you and you should indeed get something a bit more baggy, and if the jacket is the style you want, you should get pants with a higher waistline and
a) either slimmer legs (if denim) in a dark color, or
b) if pleated pants (my recommendation) or chinos, they can be any color and can be loose around the crotch, but should be slim around the knees and calves.

Pretty specific, I know, but I welcome criticism.

This is a middle European perspective, I know Americans tends to favour larger fits. I wouldn't want the sleeves any longer. It looks as if they're longer in the back than on the front, so if anything, unless this is for motorcycling, I'd actually have the backsides of the sleeves shortened 1.5 or 2 cm.