What jeans should I get? I'm 28, so I think I'm too old for baggy zoomer jeans. And I know skinny jeans are for millennials 10 years ago.
Straight or Relaxed
>>18548375Kirkland jeans are unironically the best jeans avaulable. all my expensive brand named ones tear quickly or the zipper breaks.
Iron Heart 634s
Bootcut
>>18548375Get chinos and trousers instead
>>18548375higher quality, straight cut, dark denim. no fake fades or worn.https://www.blueowl.us/products/14oz-portola-slub-canvas-jeans-in-indigo?variant=40675446390842https://www.blueowl.us/products/246ccd-moca-crushed-concrete-mocha-15oz-selvedge-denim-clean-straight-fit?variant=40901328076858https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/clothing/men/jeans/straight/501-original-fit-selvedge-mens-jeans/p/005013722\\\btw, 28 is still young. i'd say it's pretty much the peak of your youth. enjoy it how you'd like, but don't let external pressures dictate how you express yourself.
>>18548375You know baggy and skinny aren't your only option. Just pick whatever complements your body type. As you pointed out you're too old to be a trend-chaser anyway. Get slim if you want skinny but more comfortable and less gay. Or straight if you want the comfort of baggy but without looking like a clown.
>>18548375just get a classic straight fit if you don't care about trends. a relaxed fit or even a slim fit if you are skinny are fine as well. all those are pretty normal and will generally be in fashion and go with most fits.
Don't buy levi's, levi's are trash now. There's a levi's shill who is going to call me a fat black homosexual now but you can go on other forums and look this up yourself. They're garbage now, riding on the name, and they will fall apart instantly
>>18548571I bought a pair of 501s last year and the fucking pocket started fraying where the corner of my phone would rest.
>>18548571What do I get then
I wear flared. Not bootcut and not bell bottoms. Actual flared.
>>18548630There are a million brands in the world, retard. You're on the internet. Look around. It's like asking what do I eat besides McDonald's.
>>18548630are you willing to swallow the "good jeans cost like $200-300" pill yet?if not start with one of the entry level brands like tcb or something. >>18548634post an example. everyone seems to have their own definition of what's a flare cut, what's a boot and what's a bell.
>>18548630Wrangler cowboy cut if you don’t want to spend much, something from Japan if you do. Buck Mason might be pretty good, think their price is in the middle
>>18548638No jeans is worth 200-300 dollars, especially in this day and age of high speed projectile looms and sewing machines. You're paying for overheads and outdated, antique manufacturing methods on 100 year old looms, not the actual quality. Jeans were always supposed to be cheap ass disposable work wear that even farmers, miners and construction workers could afford to buy.Same reason why jeans weren't even dyed completely, to cut costs. Hence the white insides of the jeans with the undyed weft yarn, and the warp yarn on the outside as well barely holds its dye compared to other types of fabrics. No other garment fades to almost a pale near white color from its initial dark color due to normal regular washes like denim does. Not even duck canvas.Picel is from like the 1940s. Those 501s cost them around 2 dollars. Adjusted to inflation they were 60-70 dollars max in today's money. Same as modern Levi's. You shouldn't have to pay 5 times more to get comparable quality in modern times when we have far better manufacturing technology and logistics. Both Levi's and raw denim brands are ripping you off.
>>18548375Levi 550, baggy enough but tapers near the bottom so u arent larping as 70’s
>>18548684cpi inflation numbers are total bullshit anyone fluent in finance knows this. the dollar lost nearly half its buying power during coof and the government fudges the statistics so we don't officially go into a recession/depression. when shuttle looms were widely used they were cheaper and easier to find skilled labor to operate and most importantly way easier and cheaper to maintain when parts were made for them. if you consider that economics of scale was taken away, and all the unfavorable trade agreements that force you to either outsource or overcharge, even your adjusted for inflation figures don't suggest that paying like $300 for jeans is unreasonable.your mythical well made jeans that are also cheap barely even exist. there's just wrangler and round house that's it. and wranglers are nowhere near the quality of repro in either fabric or construction they're just "good for the price"a #2 meal at mcdonald's is $17. a dozen eggs is over $12. money isn't worth what it used to be. i'm fine paying more than that for a pair of pants i'll get 5000+ wears out of.
>>18548907>>18548907>cpi inflation numbers are total bullshit anyone fluent in finance knows this. the dollar lost nearly half its buying power during coof and the government fudges the statistics so we don't officially go into a recession/depression. 1. Where do you live that your consumption basket has doubled in price during the pandemic?2. Where do you live that inflation (and not GDP or unemployment) is the official recession marker?
>>18548684Trvth nvke
Slim, straight, athletic, loose, or cowboy
>>18548375If you're getting close to your 30s, you should stick to vintage 501 cuts, particularly the ones from the 40s-50s. These will give you that nice balance of relaxed without being too baggy, and the taper ratios on the legs for these cuts are basically the most timeless and aesthetically pleasing. Levi's quality in the modern age is absolutely abysmal and the denim looks fucking awful, and to make it even worse their markup is like 600-700%. Yes, a $70 pair of jeans may seem like the "right" or "economical" choice, but you are purchasing a piece of garbage that cost $10 to manufacture and then sold with a 600-700% markup. If you are just looking for one pair of jeans, invest some money in a japan made vintage 501 reproduction instead. The absolute best value pair you can get with the most universal, timeless cut is the TCB 50s. Fade them yourself and enjoy them more and more each day. ALWAYS refer to the size charts and compare to the dimensions of your best fitting jeans you own right nowhttps://tcbjeans.myshopify.com/collections/jeans/products/tcb-50s-jeans-one-wash?variant=31483720663145Other great jap 501s are:>Warehouse 1001xx (1947 or 1953 version)>Sugarcane 1947>Fullcount 0105 (more wide than the others, but not yet Gen Z baggymode. Most comfortable out of all of these)
>>18548907>#2 meal at mcdonald's is $17. a dozen eggs is over $12Are you OK, americans?
>>18548934Not him but I live in a rural part of NJ and agree with him. Gallon of organic milk is $10 now. Houses have doubled. And you’re also retarded or never seen a pair of $200 jeans to say they’re not any different from $100 Levi’s. Roundhouse makes decent cheap jeans that are USA made. I hear Bronson out of China makes good jeans but they get their quality long staple cotton from slaves if that matters to you.
>>18548970Cont. sugarcane makes the best “inexpensive” jeans from Japan.
>>18548375Buy wranglers they’re better in every way & half the price>high rear pokers to make the butt look better>heavier denim around 12oz Levi’s is 9oz>no spandex or polyester (this is a personal prefereance tho)
>>18548947>600-700%more than that.jap jeans cost around $50-90 to produce on average, and sell for around $150 in japan or $250 in america/europe. let's call it 150 since that's not really the cost of the garment or the price brands want to charge, its your government fucking you. pair of standard/premium levi's cost around $4-8 per pair to make depending on how involved the distressing is, and retail between $70-80.
>>18548973even 1% spandex means its a blight on the environment.after being disposed of, 100% cotton pairs get recycled. 99% cotton 1% spandex pairs get incinerated. spandex is incredibly unnecessary for denim and i consider all jeans like that irresponsible unless they're being marketed to women with fat asses or fat guys.
>>18548947I can't find a pair of jeans that fit me just right. I blame it on my huge thighs. Most jeans end up being too tight on the crotch and upper legs and I get blowouts. If I size up, straight jeans end up with a lot of extra fabric from the knee down, and tapered jeans taper too much. The best fitting jeans I own are the 13mwz and a pair of brave stars that I don't know the model of.I tried some 1947 levis repros but again, too tight from waist to knees, too much ezcess fabric from tge knee down.Also had to give up on 1967 505 much to my chagrin.
>>18549076Nothing wrong with having extra fabric down the knees you sissy. Jeans aren't supposed to fit like women's yoga pants. Just wear looser fits. They'll be more comfortable and fit better. Get something like Levi's 560s (big and tall).
>>18549076What body type are you? Athletic build, or fat? If you have an athletic build an actual wide cut would look pretty good. Fullcount 0105 is definitely the most wide and functional out of all the jeans listed in my post (pic related). Currently one of my top 3 favorite pairs I own, and I’m also speaking as someone with larger thighs. The thing to consider though is that it has a very large seat, so if you cannot stand a slouchy silhouette then they might not be for you. I was apprehensive about it at first, but the level of comfort and functionality on them completely trumps everything else and they actually look pretty rad if you know how to style your fits around a wide cut pair of pants. If you size up on a pair of those TCB 50s and just wear a belt, they will look and feel great. I always wear a belt with my jeans so it’s never an issue for me to size up once to get a thigh width that feels comfortable and relaxed. The cool thing about those TCB 50s is that they have the perfect taper ratio, so they wont look too baggy nor too slim. They’re modeled off of the most ubiquitous and influential era of the 501, so you can’t really go wrong
>>18549082That's not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm talking fucking sails of fabric rubbing against each other.
>>18549085Currently builtfat in the process of losing the extra chub. I don't like jeans that are too loose, as a general rule.I've checked the tcbs several times but never pulled the trigger. According to their size charts maybe I could fit on a 36, unsure if the 38 would be just right or too loose.
>>18549076you want something wide legged throughout the entire leg to balance your thighs out. anon's suggestion of fullcount 0105's are probably the go-to. if you need even more room in the thigh consider going for some denim military dungarees instead of a 5 pocket pattern. here's some reproductions, there's many more out there:https://www.dant.us/products/01-5130-81-us-navy-denim-utility-pants-indigo (half price from japanese retailers if you proxy)https://therealmccoys.com/products/u-s-navy-denim-dungaree-trousers_141-indigohttps://misterfreedom.com/products/raiders-fatigues-2x1-army-denimhttps://bronsonshop.com/products/bronson-mens-usn-us-navy-1917-1st-deck-tannin-denim-workers-jeans (in stock on taobao)https://www.atthefront.com/Navy-Dungarees-p/usndun.htmyou can size up like 1-3 sizes for even more thigh room on all the ones with a back cinch.
>>18549094You may want to reach out to Redcast Heritage and ask them some sizing advice on those if you’re interested. They’re one of the only retailers that sell them, so if you can provide them with sizes of other jeans you own that fit you well they may be able to help. I think as a general rule, you could safely size up once from your Wrangler size. Wranglers use vanity sizing whereas jap brands do not. For example, a wrangler waist size 33 would be comparable to a TCB waist size 34. That said, the wranglers are technically a slim cut whereas the TCBs are a classic straight fit, so if you size how I just mentioned you will likely get a waist size that is right for you and a little extra leg room without it being too baggy. The taper ratio on the TCBs is also perfect, so even if you have some relaxation in the thighs, the taper will make the silhouette look very natural without the hem hugging your ankles and looking too clownish
>>18549076if your measurements are outside the norm (gym bro) i recommend getting bespoke jeans from a place like fitted underground, bridge of the time, rebuilt.jp, ciano farmer, soso denim etc. nearly everything off the rack is gonna be made for like skinny to average guys unless you go into military and early repro patterns or zoomer fits. you'll want to find a pair of jeans that is "sort of close to fitting right" first though, so you have a starting point for measurements. here's some videos on fitted underground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH7Ue6NKX5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we0utLWbGsgall the bespoke brands that show off more modern looking jeans will make repro stuff on request.
>>18549100the downsides are: high cost, high wait, and its 100% on you to know what measurements will look good its easy to fuck up since you're not usually doing an in person sizing.
>>18549096>>18549097Thanks for the recs. I'm looking for a pair that has tge classic look, think of Brando in the wild one, so maybe I'll give TCB's 50's a shot.
>>18549103TCB 50s is the Brando look. If you want a literal exact reproduction of the Brando jeans, check out Warehouse 1001xx 1953 version. Wild One was filmed in 1953, so the jeans he was wearing was that particular year of the 501
>>18548375Just look for Levi 501 off eBay in the cor/wash you like Generally a straight leg cut. Jus talightly looser/slimmer depending on the year it was released and what was in vogue during that time
>>18548947How much do you have to size up in the waist to get 501s to fit baggy though the thigh like that? I’m not trying to get that look, I’m just confused because they never looked that way for meI’m not a yoked Adonis, but mine are pretty fitted through the thigh unless they’re falling off of my waist. 13MWZ are the same way, I could size down an inch in the waist, maybe two, but my ass would just be shrink wrapped to the point I couldn’t walk if I did.
>>185491041001xx 1953 is one of the best looking straight cuts out there. warehouse always gets the taper ratio just right. >>18549116not that anon:i personally size up about 2" to get that sort of fit out of a straight cut as a skinny guy. everyone's waist is different though, some guys get that fit going tts.
>>18549116The TCB 50s and Wranglers are completely different cuts. Since wranglers are more of a slim cut It sounds like you needed to size up to get something that wasn’t hugging your ass or thighs. A vintage 501 fits more relaxed in comparison. If you can manage to find your US brand waist size that fits your waist well on a technical level (without considering how tight the thighs may be), you might be safe to just size up once from there on the TCBs since they are already slightly more relaxed in the thighs compared to the wranglers. Speaking as someone who also originally hated the “relaxed” look on pants and who always gravitated toward fitted looks, you may at some point find yourself realizing that relaxed silhouettes really are the most stylish. It’s why Japan (one of the fashion capitals of the world) cannot get enough of the relaxed cuts. Having a “fitted” silhouette may look more proper, but it doesn’t necessarily look cool or stylish, and it certainly isn’t nearly as comfortable or functional. There’s a line though. If you are straight up fat, you kind of need to go for a sized up slim or tapered cut to help balance your proportions. If you are however a reasonable weight or are athletic, wide cut for life
>>18549130the problem with fitted cuts is they can look good with a tee shirt but once you introduce bulk to the upper body (jacket, sweater, even just a classic fitting button front shirt) it can look disproportional and top-heavy. unless you go full hedi boy slim everything and have a heroin physique.
>>18548950No, we're pretty much fuckedt. American
>>18549130>Having a “fitted” silhouette may look more properA "fitted" silhouette doesn't look proper. It makes you look poor and unsophisticated. Clothes should not cling to every part of your body. They should fit at some places (like the waist, hem, shoulders, cuff) and drape over others while loosely following your body's contours. Overly slim or baggy style will always make you look like you're wearing someone else's clothes, or your own old clothes that are too small for them to fit properly but you can't afford new clothes.
>>18549192Why do people always do this in extremes? nta btw. "Fitted" does not mean "clings to every part of your body", that's what we call "skinny fit". Fitted just means it doesn't look like you bought 3 sizes too big and had the belt line taken in.Also, bulky cuts are a luxury for tall people. If you're short, it will just exaggerate how short you look. You don't have to go skinny fit but a pant leg opening that works for a 6'4" person is not going to work for a 5'8" person. The age of baggy is suffering for manlets.
>>18549200An 8" or 9" leg opening is not baggy. It's what most straight legged jeans have. Most people for whom jeans were originally made for weren't that tall. They were around 5'7"-10", and they looked fine in jeans with a relaxed fit. Even women used to wear them. Nobody thought they made them look short. It's not about who wears them but how.A "wide" legged relaxed fit was and still is the norm for most work pants because they're more comfortable, breathable and easier to move in. Slimmer fits were for cowboys because they needed a more snug fit for horse riding.
>>18549130Ok, gotcha, so that’s a very different fitting pair than the 501s you get at a mall store rn. More like the classic 50s fit. Idk if that’s really a look that I personally love, I like the way the cowboys fit, I was just surprised at seeing a “501” look that baggy because they’ve always fit slim on me. Convinced everyone on reddit/mfa is just a string bean or has a gut and chicken legs, they were always talking about “baggy 501s” My wranglers actually fit pretty good, 34/36 has some ease in the quads, fitted through the seat for that ‘80s cowboy rocker type look, and not cartoonishly sloppy at the ankle. Only problem is that the waist stretched more than I expected as I wore them, so now I need to belt them up. Sizing down to a 32 or 33 is probably the way to go, just gotta power through the first month before the waist stretches. Length is kinda tricky too, 36 fits nice with boots, though they’re too loose at the ankle to stack much. The issue is that with sneakers they pile up and look kinda sloppy and barefoot at home I’m stepping my heels inside the legs. Idk, maybe size down to a 34” again, I was told they shrunk a good amount length-wise and I usually wear a 34 so I didn’t want to end up with high waters or have em pull up stupid in my boots. Quite frankly, I should tighten my physical waist up an inch or two anyway, that’s a whole separate topic haha. As far as wide leg vs. straight leg goes, the wranglers don’t look as tight as I made it sound lol, it’s more that I couldn’t size down without losing all my wiggle room in the legs and hips. I have some old Carhartts that are super high waist fitted-ish through the hips and then bagged everywhere else and they look cool as hell, but the style is discontinued. Can’t speak to what level of baggy vs. tight is really the most stylish or the most timeless, but don’t worry, I’m definitely not wearing them 2013 indie style lol. Maybe I’ll post a pic tomorrow
550 or 578the ones bitching about shitty 501s in this thread shop at kohls, of course theyre shit qualitymuh japanese selvedge tryhards are right up there with car guys: only impress other men
>>18548375womens low rise bootcuts
>>18548375you don't have to go full zoomer clown jeans, you can wear a relaxed fit at any age
>>18549104This is more or less what I'm looking for. Fitted enough so it follows the shiloutte, but not skintight nor loose.Come to think of it, I've got similar proportions to young Brando, thick torso, barrel chest, tree trunk legs and that cake.
>>18549461Id follow the sizing advice for those TCB 50s. Brandos jeans look like they have some taper, which is what the TCBs offer. I also forgot to suggest looking into the Left Field Smokestacks in their 14 oz denim as another decent alternative. That said, if you want your jeans to fit like that then it’s going to be very likely that you’ll eventually get a blowout in the crotch
>>18549215no, sorry but no. an inch is a lot for a leg opening. 8" is fine. 9" makes you look like a teenage girl terrified of being made fun of for wearing the unc skinny jeans
>>185495218” hem opening is straight up millennial taper mode. 501s have always had around a 9” hem opening
>>18549085the shoes ruin it there jesus f christ just grip some brown leather boots
>>18548947I AM NOT TAKING ADVICE FROM ANY IDIOT WHO POSTS AISLOP (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SLOP) IMAGESPOST A REAL MODELWEARING ACTUAL REAL JEANS
>>18549541>8” hem opening is straight up millennial taper mode. 501s have always had around a 9” hem openingI don't think that's correct
>>18548375Just get what fits you best. I've got muscular legs so I go for relaxed (for slim fit) or baggy (for a straight fit)
Neo 501s are too skinny and vintage are too expensive Just get 550s non tapered and they'll look better as you wear them
>>18548375you can wear loose or baggy you stupid faggot, stop with these generational bullshit divides literally everyone under 40 that is remotely fashionable is using baggy/loose/straight
What is "Millennial taper" anyway?Fitted denim existed long before the first millennials were born.
>>18550091why did Artificial Intelligence put leather gloves on that faek modelit looks fucking retarded as shit
>>18550096This. TikTok just wants you to give up if you’re 30. If they think you’re cringe dressing in baggy clothes, get the baggiest fit just to make them even more tickled.
>>18548571I have 3 pairs of the denizen carpenters I ordered from target before they went defunct and I love them.
