ULTRA HEAVY RAW - IH-1955-UHR, IH-666-UHR and IH-634-UHR

[Giles]

If you don't like leg twist, move on to another thread…...

[Friday]

Can I stay..?

[Giles]

Yup.

Shrink test results….There is some tweaking to do to the rise of both styles, but apart from that they're good.....

[Finn666]

the 1955 in a w33 or even a w32 would be a nice thing to have from what i can tell! hmmmmm… :-\

[spitfiredealer]

Liking the look of that 13.5 thigh on the 1955's.

[Seul]

Hoping one of the tweaks involves a higher rise for the 666'es…

[hajduk]

G, both are tagged 34?

[Finn666]

@hajduk:

G, both are tagged 34?

yessir!…

[Giles]

It does…..

[Seul]

I'm just gonna assume that was in response to my question 

[hajduk]

@Seul:

Hoping one of the tweaks involves a higher rise for the 666'es…

same here

[Giles]

@Seul:

I'm just gonna assume that was in response to my question 

Yes it was.  Rise on both cuts has come out too small, we will be correcting that….

[Seul]

Huzzah 

[hajduk]

good!

[Friday]

I don't have a slightest idea on  how a UHR denim behaves. So will another hot soak on the 55 brings another variance on the post soak measurement G-San, or no more?

[Giles]

It should not.  I washed the living shit out of these…..

[Friday]

Good!!!

[simonc]

Maybe sending a pair of unwashed lvc 55's back might be a good idea for a once-over before final product is issued.

[Giles]

The 1955S is our interpretation of the 55 it is not a direct copy…..If getting an exact copy is your goal, we are not the place to buy from....

[Max Power]

The low rise has been adressed - I also think the 666 could benefit from a larger thigh. I know it's a Slim cut but as a true 35 I find just a tad above 12" pretty Slim - and I'm not even athletic built.