IH-1955-UHR - Ultra Heavy Raw 1955 Cut
-
Thanks, Giles! Interesting decision now, go for 1955 UHR or wait 634 UHR … Hmmm.
I'm not used to accounting for the shrinkage factor of raw denim. Looking at the measurements of the 1955 UHR I assume that with both I would go with my usual size in Iron Heart (40) and then maybe get them hemmed 2 inches longer than normal to account for shrinkage?
-
I know that you're not supposed to wash raw denim, but I do anyway. And I loaded the machine up with my Hickory pants and a Pure Blue Japan shirt, both of which hadn't been washed before.
I figured that there'd be some indigo bleed, and it settled on the pocket bags of my 1955s.
I also over dyed the patch at the same time!
-
I always select a cold water wash when I'm washing any jeans with leather patches. I also wash them inside out. So far I haven't had any trouble washing Iron Heart this way - no bleeding or dyed patches. I haven't used detergent or soap either. Giles will murder me, but I always use a 1400 RPM spin, too!
-
Looks good Graeme. Enjoy the 55's – great pair of Iron Hearts with a nice high rise.
I'm tempted to get another pair but it's warm this time of year.
-
contemplating on one of these.. thigh grew out of the ihxb01, looking for something looser on the top block, but retaining the taper below..
size 33 on the beatle busters, i'm looking at a 33 for these? upload a fit pic of my bb later.
also, whats the difference between a high front/rear rise and low front/rear rise?
-
Here are my observations, RedMan. I've put my 1955 UHRs through their initial soak and wash per Giles' instructions. They shrunk about what was advertised (a little less than 1" in the waist, maybe closer to 1.5" in the length). Of all the Iron Hearts I have (all the same size - Beatle Busters, 634S, TW-634S) the 1955 UHR is the roomiest in the top block and thighs. It also obviously has the highest rise. It does taper a bit more than the others in the knee & leg opening. So, if looser in the top block is what you want, the 1955 UHRs might be it. That's just my experience though.
Personally, I really like the fit of the 1955 UHRs and will wear them a lot when the temps drop out of the 80s and 90s.
-
Here are my observations, RedMan. I've put my 1955 UHRs through their initial soak and wash per Giles' instructions. They shrunk about what was advertised (a little less than 1" in the waist, maybe closer to 1.5" in the length). Of all the Iron Hearts I have (all the same size - Beatle Busters, 634S, TW-634S) the 1955 UHR is the roomiest in the top block and thighs. It also obviously has the highest rise. It does taper a bit more than the others in the knee & leg opening. So, if looser in the top block is what you want, the 1955 UHRs might be it. That's just my experience though.
Personally, I really like the fit of the 1955 UHRs and will wear them a lot when the temps drop out of the 80s and 90s.
Hi, thanks for the reply.
What's the difference in terms of fit wise with a high/low front/rear rise?
-
Hmmm, not sure I'm expert enough to help with the rise distinctions. I guess you would need to compare the measurements of different models to see how they compare (factoring in shrinkage on raw denim models). The 1955 UHRs definitely have a "higher rise" than the other Iron Hearts I have, meaning that they sit higher on the waist. As simonc mentioned, they will probably settle and sit on your hips. Anyway, I leave it to others to help on the rise issue.
Hi, thanks for the reply.
What's the difference in terms of fit wise with a high/low front/rear rise?
-
That's a good question regarding the relationship of the front to back rise. Some vendors only provide a front rise measurement, which is really insufficient because both front and back matter in terms of fit and comfort.
From my (somewhat limited) experience, I've found Iron Hearts to have a good balance front to back. For example, the 634s doesn't have a particular high front rise but the fit is comfortable (for me) because the back rise is high enough to keep the jeans in place on my hips. When the back rise is relatively low, or too close to the front, I find myself constantly reaching back to hip up my pants – not good.
The 1955-UHR has a different overall fit than the 634s and other Iron Hearts in that it sits right at the waist. I find this very comfortable but it does look a little different than the classic, lower riding jeans that we tend to see everyday. In addition to having a higher rise (front and back), the 1955-UHR has quite a bit of room in the hips and thighs. This is also comfortable but, again, for the guy looking for that sleek, lower profile look, it may be too boxy and roomy.
John
-
That's a good question regarding the relationship of the front to back rise. Some vendors only provide a front rise measurement, which is really insufficient because both front and back matter in terms of fit and comfort.
JohnI have found it very frustrating as I have searched to find my "Perfect fit".The Frnt/Back Rise is so important IMO and yet it gets ignored.Even when stated as "High Rise" by some makers means squat,as it can be interpreted as relative to everything else in their line or what might be considered "High: by some kid who never knew the smell of denim.
I just ordered my first pr of IH UHR1955 in the hope that these will fill a gap in my collection.Untill now I have only found Edwin Ed-49 and Lucky Brand Vintage 2000 (Almost Identical in measurement to IH1955's and long discontinued) to fit my needs,so I am looking forward to these.
For those of you on a similar search,I would suggest also:Fullcount 105
Samurai 5510 or 50500although as you probably know,even 1/2" difference in cut can mean the world of difference in fit.
-
I just ordered (last night) a pair in a tag sized 34. I have a couple pairs of assorted Rising Sun jeans that actually measure 36" but are a little big in the waist. Figured theses are a pre-soak 35", soaked to a 34" and then stretched back up to a 35". And viola, perfect fit. Least I think I got that right, lol.
-
The Frnt/Back Rise is so important IMO and yet it gets ignored.
Completely in agrement with ya!..
-
Super fast shipping!Thanks…..
Going from 12/13 oz to this is a huge leap.I question weather or not i really need this weight of denim?
I recall looking at something of a similar weight some time ago and quickly dismissing it as ridiculous.
Nevertheless the cut of these jeans kept tempting me and the advantageous pricing of the Sale offer made me pull the trigger.When they quickly arrived,I was a mouse click away from returning them,thinking again and second guessing myself.I decided to sleep on it and on Wednesday I threw caution to the wind and threw them in the bathtub for a lukewarm soak for a couple of hours.Dry and stiff this morning ,I was again questioning the size of my balls as I threw them in a hot wash cycle followed (against advice) by a full blast in a Hot Cotton Cycle Tumble Dry.The fit is damned near perfect.Sit at the waist beautifully and have ample room throughout ,without feeling constricting.No belt required.A little leg twist and about 1.5" shrinkage in length.I am a regular 32 x 32, 170lbs, 5'9".
Hope this is of some help to you all.I'm sure these will settle down and become an old friend after some wear.They are a bitch to button up at present,so I will avoid any heavy drinking until they are broken in a while:)
Far too heavy for year round wear in these parts,so if these were done in a raw STF Mid weight (16oz) ?
I may become a regular customer. -
They are serious, heavyweight jeans, no doubt.
Chuck Norris doesn't wear 1955-UHR's – they wear him
