/fa/ - Fashion

the quality isn't terrible, but it's definitely overpriced.

anyone notice how apc has jacked up all there prices even though everythings made in china now? touitou you fucker.

Are the fadez on APC the best?

>>7260420
They're good, but I wouldn't say they're "the best".

Unbranded Skinny fits similarly go tts or size up

apc is shit and overpriced

>>7260581

>>7260605
kill yourself

A.P.C is horrible quality. They only fade good and fit good (not NS). Sold my NS and returned my PS Nordstrom lol.

My favorite jeans are UBs tbh. Healthy for my budget and good for my day to day activities.

Just curious guys. Have anyone of you tried anything beside a.p.c, unbranded, or naked and famous in terms of raw denims

His legs are way too small

That guy has a flat ass though.

>what other brands have a comparable cut?
fa pls... the fit is the only thing i like about apc.

>>7260694
Pure blue japans are great

however i gave my pair to my brother because idk how to wear blue jeans anymore

bump

Well what the fuck am I supposed to cop then? I have naked and famous in skinny guy but the bottom of the leg is too loose. Should I try super skinny in left hand twill? (No deep indigo sadly, so trying the next thing)

>>7261128
god thats so hot

only raws worth getting are apcs or diors because of the cuts
all that japanese bullshit throw it to the side unless you are a fat fuck

>>7260694
I love my 3sixteen slim tapered.
Tried UB and N&F (and some others) before them and was never happy with the fit and kept getting knee bags, but i'm thoroughly happy with these.

>>7261170
B-bump~

>>7261208
>QFT

unless you are a fat fuck who wants to relive the days of the 1930s levi cuts, go with apc or dior

>>7261377
if you don't want to pay more, then sure. Size down for LHT though, they're known to stretch more than usual

>>7261393
bullshit, there are plenty of other good brands
for example you're not even mentioning April77 and they are full skeleton mode, you can't deny that. And Acne etc...

>>7260338
quality is good.

>>7260407
price is competitive with the rest of the industry.

>>7260414
been made in china for the better part of a decade.

>>7261208
>>7261393
completely different products, no point in comparing them.
but somet, pbj, and skull all have p fashionable cuts
if you really want intense cutting then you should up ur game and get some carol jeans tbh

>>7260694
Have Japan Blue x Momotaro and Samurai.

Had to get the Samurai tailored but they are fucking awesome.

>>7260559

lol unbranded skinny is waaaay baggier.

>>7261464
>quality is good
oh awesome i totally believe you based on all your evidence

>>7261394
Is the Indigo power stretch better? It isnt about the money or anything, I just figured that the other is a bit heavier and better quality and will fade better.

srsly what cuts are smimilar

anybody have experience with black dyed denim? do they fade gray?

My NF skinny guys are a bit baggy looking. Is there something else with a bit more taper but isnt full on skin tight skinny jeans? Like 510s, just not shit. Should I try super skinny?

>>7261868
Don't get power stretch if you're looking for fades

>>7261881
dat ass
what model are these exactly?

>>7261377
>>7261170
There's this thing called a fucking tailor you could try checking out

>>7261933
samurai 710 sized down 6

I've owned NS and PS. main problem with quality is that the denim stretches like crazy. they say you "pay for the cut" with brands like APC, Acne, etc., so it's a pretty big issue when the waist stretches more than 2" (yes, really), and the seat/thighs/knee stretch 1"+. obviously that fucks up the fit. it makes it so people size down too much, making the legs below the knee oddly tight compared to the stretched out thighs. or alternatively people go closer to tts and end up with that diaper look from a stretched out ass.

so really they only looked good just after being washed, or when they are new. I would only cop if you plan on washing fairly regularly to combat stretching.

and this is a problem with all raw denim to a certain degree. every brand will stretch at least an inch in the waist/thighs. then you wash and have a completely different pair of jeans. pretty lame imo

>>7262013
I think the APCs stretch a lot in the waist, but too much anywhere else. With my nudies on the other hand, the denim seems stretchier, but maybe it's just because it's a lighter denim

>>7261669
that gif perfectly reflects the way you're acting. apc selects a good quality denim, the cutting and fitting is solid, and the seaming is eactly what you would expect. what more is there to say? that the denim could be *better*? that the patterning could be more intense, the fitting more forward thinking? certainly, but then it would be priced out of apc's market bracket and it wouldn't fit into the label's vision.

>>7262013
apc uses a bias cut waistband with a relaxed fit; the problem isn't the quality, it's that you follow sufu's stupid ass advice and sized down on it.

>>7262104
the fact that they tear like crazy and i dont even know how heavy it is

>>7262192
how did you size?

>>7262192
>responding to twerk

>>7262200
31w34-36l

>>7261464
what do you consider good? how many months wear can you get? how does it compare to acne in quality?

>>7262223
>encouraging twerk to post

>>7262244
Dude that's fine, they're just jeans, chill lil homie

I just copped some APC PS size 27, my waistline is 29.5. I traditionally wear a 28 Skinny Guy/Super Skinny Guy in N&F. How bad did I fuck up?

>>7262238
>thinking twerk doesn't have reliable information to share

stop please

>>7262104
so with apc, I should just buy true to size on what fits nicely in store - or true to normal sizing - or?

>>7262263
I recommend sizing down 1 to 3 times with APC, never go tts.

>>7262248
thanks twerk

>>7262248
>supporting twerk

>>7262252
But I keep getting burned by having my raws either be skin tight or turning out to be baggy in a month.

>>7262281
so if I try them on, I should size down 1-3 on what feels good due to stretch? Or because I take 32 I should buy a 30 straight out?

>>7262214
i meant, how many sizes down did you go?

>>7262263
try on in store, buy the one that fits the best that day.
sizing down is, shockingly, the same as buying a garment that is too small; you will be uncomfortable, it won't wear in an appealing way, and the fabric will be under more stress than it was expected to accommodate and will break faster.

>>7262320
so they wont stretch too much if I get the ones that fit best?
Normally I wouldnt be so concerned, but the last thing I need right now is to be down 200 on jeans that end up fitting like shit.
>tfw unemployment

>>7262320
>i meant, how many sizes down did you go?
i didnt buy apc wth.. i'm op and all im tryna do is find other brands that make raw selvedge with the same fit as apc.

>>7262330
fabric gives with wear, it's unavoidable. my apcs fit a little loose in the waistband when i got them, but the leg fit was exactly what i wanted at the time and they didn't really fall down so i didn't mind.

fwiw, the models clearly aren't sizing down. go read the sufu apc thread, where they recommend all this three size down madness, and read about how they had to wear them around and house and sleep in them for a few days before they could button them up/be comfortable being seen in public in their jawns. then look at their fits with distended denim struggling to contain their ample butts. it's madness.

>>7262358
somet, pure blue japan

>>7262104

yeah well then the bias cut waist band is a flaw imo. APC encourages their consumers to wear the jeans as long as possible without washing. why would you want a waistband that stretches more than 2 inches? it's not a good decision on their part

>>7260338
Wow, that guy has thin limbs but a thick torso.

Spider man.

Permission to lift granted, can't pull off the skinny look if you don't have a thin torso.

>>7262375
What if I have zero ass and chicken legs?

>>7262404
idk. april 77?

>>7262405
actually, i checked the waistband and it's cut on the cross-grain; i must have been thinking of someone else who does a biased waistband but i can't for the life of me recall who.

waistband stretching is due to your sizing. my apcs hardly stretched, nowhere near the stories reported on the net, but i didn't size it like my self esteem was tied to wearing the smallest number possible.

>>7262375
Yeah, but I have a history with denim of buying true to size, and them stretching to the point of looking really bad within 6-12 months. I dont really want that so I'd like to factor in the natural wear stretch of them - but 3 sizes and wearing them around the house before you can even button them up seems ridiculous

>>7262427
But I got APCs, m8.

>>7262427

>but i didn't size it like my self esteem was tied to wearing the smallest number possible.

that's funny you say that, because APC vanity sizes their jeans more than any brand I've come across. then there is the additional stretching. you end up with jeans that are literally 6+ inches bigger than their tagged size. it's just kind of silly.

I've worn PBJs, iron hearts, nudies, APCs, and Acnes. APCs have stretched much more than any other brand. and that in my opinion is a reflection of poorer quality. I don't hate my APCs or anything, but if you're going to pay almost $200, might as well pay a little bit more and get something of the highest quality.

but imo if you're going for something as slim as PS, then the denim should have some elastane. I know that's blasphemy in the denimhead world, but it just makes sense.

>>7262512
>might as well pay a little bit more and get something of the highest quality.
The highest quality denim is certainly more than a little bit more than 200 dollars.

>>7262512

I take that back. maybe not 6+. but my 28s definitely measured at least 32 after stretching.

>>7262529

that's true. but if you're willing to drop 2 bills on a pair of jeans, then it might be wise to consider dropping more for a considerably better products

>>7262512
i've had two pairs of apcs; a pair of standards from before the denim line was overhauled and a pair of new cures from after the denim line was overhauled. the new standards measured as tags. the apc's measured the same as the new standards about a inch below the waistband, which is also the amount of rise which was removed when the line was overhauled, plus the waistbands were tilted forward in order to be more ergonomic, which also contributed to a larger measurement. what i'm saying is, they aren't really vanity sized. vanity sizing itself is kind of a silly concept because sizing isn't standardized in the first place and the concept of sizing jeans by the alleged waistband is only to facilitate the shopping experience; in reality no one would size that way because it's not the way that sizes are graded.

>APCs have stretched much more than any other brand.

did you size down compared to the other brands?

>but if you're going to pay almost $200, might as well pay a little bit more and get something of the highest quality.

i don't disagree, in the sense that pbjs for example cost only $90 more, but that's a whole standard deviation in terms of price point so i'm not sure why you'd point out that the latter is probably a better jean (ignoring that they're entirely different, fairly incomparable jeans) given that it has more room to play.

>but imo if you're going for something as slim as PS, then the denim should have some elastane. I know that's blasphemy in the denimhead world, but it just makes sense.

no argument there. should be fitted differently too, imo.

>>7262531
Yep. My 28 PSes stretched past 32"

>>7262553
so stubborn to admit apc quality is shit

>>7262577
>responding to twerk

>>7262560
Damn. My natural waist is about a 30 on a big day, and I ordered some 27s. Hoping they won't get baggy like my N&F that I only sized down one for.

>but imo if you're going for something as slim as PS, then the denim should have some elastane. I know that's blasphemy in the denimhead world, but it just makes sense.

Eh, my Momotaro x Blue Owls are skinnier than PS and they have zero elastane.

>>7262553

>sizing isn't standardized

well I understand that but I'm not sure it applies here AS MUCh. e.g. with female sizing... 00, 0, 2, 4, 6, etc... those are all arbitrary numbers along a spectrum. but when the number is meant to reflect the waist in inches, it's hard to say something that actually measures a greater number than tagged isn't vanity sized. of course every brand vanity sizes to a certain extent, but APC is worse in my experience. again this is just anecdotal experience. I don't have anything against APC or you. this is just how I feel :/

>>7262613
we already had this discussion and i don't feel like repeating myself after having repeated myself multiple times in that thread.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/fa/thread/S7113004

>>7262512
>should have some elastane

Idk man, it does make sense in theory. . . but in practice, I feel like elastane fucks up the "stacks"/natural creasing of the fabric. It makes the denim more malleable and instead of sharp, distinct folds, you get a rounded, less-defined fold texture.

just my thoughts on the subject. btw, im not saying this because "lol siccker fadez". I just prefer how 100% cotton looks when it bunches up.

>>7262623

sorry I was not present for that. not trying to belabor a point or anything. just think a better argument can be made for the existence of vanity sizing with mens sizes, which reflect concrete measurements, vs abstract female sizes

but yee we don't have to argue or whatever. like I said I'm cool with APC denim. just not really into raw stuff much anymore. like to wear my acnes because they stretch and are therefore comfy :) the more I stay interested in this fashion shit the more I just buy comfortable stuff. raw denim definitely ain't that imo.

>>7262647

I agree with that. with my max cashs, the stacks took way longer to settle, and they are more rounded/not as distinct. but if you're wearing jeans as tight as in OP's pic with no stretch... good luck climbing on a bike. it's more of a functional thing than an aesthetic thing

>>7262649
>just think a better argument can be made for the existence of vanity sizing with mens sizes, which reflect concrete measurements

a different thread that explains why this isn't actually the case:
http://fuuka.warosu.org/fa/thread/S7202227#p7202863
the measurements aren't actually concrete because that's not how the garments themselves are actually sized; it's an abstract created to ease the shopping experience that masquerades as an objective measurement.

>>7262698

I think an argument can be made either way. if menswear isn't based in more concrete measurements, why isn't there the same variance in mens clothing that there is with womens clothing? (don't try to tell me mens clothing varies as much). obviously designers can grade as they choose, but I think they are more faithful to the numbers. with womens clothes, on the other hand, there's no reason for the "masquerade" to exist... since the numbers are completely abstract.

again this comes down to opinions. this isn't a black/white issue. this is my first interaction with you, but I'm seeing why people immediately posted ">encouraging twerk to post" and ">responding to twerk" as soon as you posted. we don't need to argue. I respect your opinion, although I disagree with you ... TO A CERTAIN EXTENT

>>7262668
True, I hate having to take large steps up/over things in my RT sk's. But I mainly wear my /fa/ stuff strictly when going out and just throw on something cheap and functional for more physically involved things. Thus, usually not a problem aside from the occasional spontaneous drunken romp somewhere.

>>7262755
if you read that post, you didn't understand it; if they graded such that sizing actually remained true to whole-inch increments, the fit would quickly be ruined and would shortly thereafter become totally unwearable because it wouldn't actually reflect the way that people themselves are sized.

this isn't an argument, it's a lecture. i'm not expressing an opinion, i'm explaining the way that the industry operates and you're getting mad because clothes aren't made differently.

it's only one person posting that, by the way.

If the petite standards have a better fit than NF, then how come their measurements are so much wider? I mean, my NF are pretty loose in the knee, and those are even looser.

>>7262834
Where are you getting these measurements from? Which sizes and fits of N&F?

>>7260338
The quality apparently isn't as good as it used to be. They're still fine jeans, but they lack some of the details you'd find from other jeans in that price range--canvased back pockets, chainstitched hems, hidden rivets on the back pockets, etc. I think those are intentional choices apc has made to streamline the look of the jeans (including the lack of a leather patch, which I like). Personally I'd recommend half a dozen other jeans that are cheaper if price is a main consideration. I personally wouldn't pay full price for apc jeans.

>>7262781
twerk bby
where is the best place i can purchase/try on geos in Los Angeles? who's got the most color options in stock?

>>7261464
>price is competitive with the rest of the industry.
eh, n&f makes cheaper jeans out of canada. i can't help but feel that apc is putting a lot of stock in their name, which is their prerogative.

>>7262946
I got the APC from context clothing, and I am talking about the skinny guy in N&F from Blue Owl.

>>7262976
maxfield is the only mainline stockist in the city of la.

>>7262988
what of it?

>>7262965
sub 200 is the range. the fit is the only thing i like. if you can rec jeans with the same fit, please do.
really wish this hadn't turned into an apc thread...

>>7263009
Which size in both? That really depends. I was up in the air between a 27 PS and a 28 SSG and I'm pretty sure the PS is skinnier.

>>7263030
From the looks, Size 30. Apparently I was wrong, they are a bit more tapered I just read them wrong.
Is the quality worse than NF, or is it worth it for the price?

>>7263067
I've only ever owned N&F and Momotaro jeans. I can't speak of APCs just yet. I get them tomorrow. I'm sure the craftsmanship isn't quite up to par with N&F, but the fit and cuts are better, evidently, or at least this is what most people comment on.

>>7262192
it's 12.5 oz
here's an interesting article on it
http://well-spent.com/2012/08/15/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-denim/

>>7262319
I sized down one from what I typically wear (from brands like levis, j crew, uniqlo, dockers, etc etc.). If you try them on in person you might want to size down one from the size that fits how you want it to fit. But mine haven't stretched out yet (guess i havent' been wearing them enough) so I can't comment on how they fit after stretching. I can't imagine sizing down 2 sizes though. for reference i usually wear a 29 and bought a 28.
>>7262330
some people buy jeans tts. that's another option. and if they stretch out too much you can always flip them for 100.

>>7262512
i can't stand stretchy denim. makes me uncomfortable oddly enough

>>7262560
that's honestly not that much. i measured mine after i bought them (28s) and they measured as like a 30 or 31

>>7262781

what you linked to above is just one of your past comments that doesn't have any source. it's an opinion. not an industry standard unless you have a source. I don't know about your background, but you seem like a 19 year old who treats everything you learned in your design 101 textbook as infallible. there are different methods for grading, so what you presented as "industry standard" is in fact the old standard. it is now rare that a pattern is graded the way you explained in that linked post. see pic related. next picture I will post is APC measurements, which clearly show they follow the new standard (no pun or whatever intended) when it comes to the waist, which is what we have been discussing (didn't look at anything else). get off your high horse because you think you know more about "the industry" than me.

Are the petite standards more like the super skinny guy from NF?

>>7263098

APC just follows mathematical proportions that aren't based on body sizes. smaller end of spectrum isn't incrementally smaller as you said in your linked post. it's all done by a single inch. fuck off. you are the worst. a poor man's void.

>>7263029
i'm sorry i can't recommend by fit

>>7263016
>what of it?
I'm saying that they value isn't really there. By denimhead standards it's kind of a bunk deal.

>>7263098
i'm pretty sure twerk is like 25 and in patternmaking school lol @ you

>>7263122
Youforgot your alias twerk

>>7263122

why should I be laughed at though? I provided a text that refutes his opinions, as well as measurements from the garments we were discussing.

wasn't really mad until he brought up this "industry" bullshit. like all patterns are graded by a strict school. he just knows what his school teaches him. it's great he's getting an education an all, but it doesn't give him a pass to spew bullshit because most people on /fa/ don't know better

>>7263131

school of thought** I should have said.

>>7263098
>>7263117

#rekt

maybe twerk will stop posting now, like we have advised for... well I guess forever

>>7263131
Careful. Out-articulate twerk and all the sudden every thread you posted in will be deleted

>>7263145

ah ic. is he a mod or something? well I guess if that's the case, and he is a 4chan mod, I would just think less of him and not at all be tempted to respond to his opinions.

it's just so much better dealing with void/user. there's transparency when it comes to his background and he does a better job of explaining where he is coming from. from what I have seen with twerk (and like I said this is my first time talking to him), he just posts his opinion and links past posts of his opinion. lame.

>>7263164
Not sure if he is a mod, but it's a common issue when you talk around his weasel-wording bullshit.

Don't ask him questions, don't respond to him, don't encourage him to post at all

>>7263164
>>7263186
not sure if mod, but i did post a pic of him in this thread and now it's gone...

lets see if it disappears again

>>7263098
>not an industry standard unless you have a source.

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_myth_of_vanity_sizing/

>>7263117
who took these measurements? how were they taken?

>>7263164
i'm not a mod, but i do use the report function on shit posts and that results in a lot of trolling being deleted.

>>7263203
twerk doesn't like you stop sucking up to him

>>7263145
>>7263164
>>7263186
hahahaha what the fuck am i reading

>>7263194

you're not really responding to the crux of the issue, just nitpicking. it's funny that you linked fashion-incubator, because the photo I took is from kathleen fasanella's book.

kathleen writes to an audience of what she refers to as DEs (design entrepreneurs). when you look at this issue from her perspective, someone that is trying to teach the industry to entrepreneurs, saying there is "no such thing as vanity sizing" makes sense. she is trying to teach a lesson: you can size however you please despite measurements.

HOWEVER, as a consumer (a completely different perspective). when I put on a pair of size x pants, and it feels much different than any other size x I've tried before, I come to the conclusion that "vanity sizing" (even if I don't recognize it as those words) is what's happening.

again, perspective matters so much in this situation. the term "vanity sizing" isn't ever helpful to designers, but consumers who discuss clothes at length and nitpick and try to find the perfect fit... will of course assign words like "vanity sizing"

this is kind of a cliche, but we are really "arguing over semantics" at this point. I understand COMPLETELY where you are coming from. I am a member of the fashion-incubator boards. I have read Kathleen's book cover to cover three times and referred to it many more times. can we just agree to call this a difference of opinion or what?

hows the fit of 3sixteen slim tapered or rogue territory sk compared to apc's ps?

i have a pair of ps and like the fit but want another pair some something else

>>7263284
goddam, we should all just go to nyc together and try on everything at selfedge and blue and green. buying jeans online is for the birds

>>7263283
>everyone's opinion is objective except my own
???????????????????????????????

>>7263283
you're dancing around what it, but not quite confessing that whole inch incremental sizing isn't really accurate but handwaving it by saying that, if you approach it from that perspective, then you'll have a flawed view point on how garments are sized. wow. okay.

>>7263308
i meant subjective ignore me im high lol blaze it

>>7263194
Not that guy, but the measurements are from Context, and they show how they derive the measurements.

>>7263308
>>7263315

but I said I completely understand where he is coming from and respect his opinion. to make to more clear, his opinion is just as good as mine. we really aren't arguing over much. I don't really think I'm being a dick here.

>>7263313

>you're dancing around what it, but not quite confessing that whole inch incremental sizing isn't really accurate but handwaving it by saying that, if you approach it from that perspective, then you'll have a flawed view point on ho

I really don't know what this means. run-on and some wrong words mabye? again, not trying to be a dick. but it seems like you're trying to make an argument that requires more than one sentence.

>>7263284
I have sk's, never tried on petite standards but from the pics I see of them, they look to be a bit more loose throughout, but especially in the calf/ankle area, than sk's. I ordered a pretty close to exact fit though. Fit like a stiff, rough glove at first, but have since stretched and conformed to perfectly fit my legs. I def. recommend, fucking great fit.

>>7263319

yeah didn't respond to that because twerk was kind of dumb challenging it. yes, they are from context. yes, they measure straight across the waist as any other store would

>>7263329
Seriously, don't talk to twerk

What is so hard to understand about this

>>7263329
i mangled the sentence because i'm paying more attention to something else.

you're using perspective to excuse the flaws inherent in whole inch waist increment as a standard of sizing. using the measurements you posted demonstrates that apc doesn't subscribe to the grading technique you described.

>>7263337
the measurements of my new cures are notably different from what they post, so i'm not sure if i can trust their technique.

>>7260694
I got the BOM 006

>>7263355
Yours have probably stretched or are from a different production. Do you seriously think they just made these numbers up? They are a reputable clothing retailer.

>>7263313

reading this through a few more times, I think I see what you're saying. my point with the sizing chart was to disprove your previous post you linked before. if what you said was truly the "standard" (and the only standard), then a 36 would actually be 1.5" bigger than a 35, while a 27 would only be .75" smaller than a 28, or WHATEVER (these were hypotheticals). but obviously APC follows the "new standard" when it comes to these measurements. everything is done by one inch, no matter if it's at the smaller or larger end.


even IF it is done in a more anatomical manner, as you described in that linked post, if consumers notice a general trend of the sizes being larger than most other brands, they will label this as "vanity sizing" or something similar.

gonna smoke a cig and probs not come back. you need to learn how to budge a bit m8. we could be having a really good conversation, feeding off of each other's knowledge, but you're so damn stubborn. it's really crazy and a dumb thing to argue about.

>>7263346

not gonna anymore

peace out yall

>>7263376
i already gave this thread more replies than i intended do and that it deserved.

>>7263379
the *hem* measurement is off by half of an inch, to speak nothing of the fact that the new cure flares towards the ankle but is here represented as a pin straight leg.

>>7263389
>i already gave this thread more replies than i intended do and that it deserved.

Jesus. No wonder you're alone.

>>7263389
Are you measuring the hem exactly as they are in the picture they provide?

You seriously think they are lying? What purpose would it serve? Perhaps yours are just a different run.

>new cures

>>7263396
the hem flares. their measurements don't reflect that. what part of that did you misunderstand? why are they even measuring a tilted waistband horizontally across? it's not going to be accurate at all.

honestly OP APC are overpriced. Levi's are still the best value for jeans

>>7263433
They state that it's a straight to leg opening, which says a lot, actually. That's how most places measure their jeans, actually. Why is a basic measurement system, complete with pictures on how to do it so mysterious to you?

>>7263460
it's not a straight leg opening, it flares slightly at the ankle. i called an apc flagship at one point several years ago to confirm this.

>Why is a basic measurement system, complete with pictures on how to do it so mysterious to you?

slow down. it's a tilted waistband. measuring flat across fails to account for the tilt. the most accurate measurement would be to take three measurements across the inside of the waistband, of the back panel and both front panels to the center of the button. i don't blame them for not being bothered, but it's not accurate, so i'm not sure why it's being advanced as proof of anything.

>>7263470
It's accurate in the sense that they allow you to replicate it with your own jeans.

Call Context to ask about the flair, but perhaps things have changed unless you have contacted APC recently.

This isn't rocket science, mate. The New Cures are a pretty bad fit to be honest, and when I tried them on I didn't notice any sizable flair.

>>7263470

they align the front part of the waistband with the back, so it gives the all around measurement that measuring from the inside would give. they don't let the front settle below the back then measure just across the back or front.

>>7263487

respond to:
>it's a tilted waistband. measuring flat across fails to account for the tilt. the most accurate measurement would be to take three measurements across the inside of the waistband, of the back panel and both front panels to the center of the button. i don't blame them for not being bothered, but it's not accurate, so i'm not sure why it's being advanced as proof of anything.

>>7263489

>>7263492
They allow you to position your favorite denim the same way as they do in the images they provide to measure it as such. Jesus I think a kid in primary school could have an easier time with this than you do.

>>7263489
That's odd. I assumed they did it the second way because I measured mine after receiving them and my 28s measured out as between 30 and 31 (measuring it the first way you described it)

>>7263497

well it seems they practically line it up then. obviously the waist is more tilted than that inch or less difference shown in the photo. what do you think the difference between measuring the inside vs measure the jeans as pictured would be? .5" at the most.

either way they are consistent in their own system, which proves, like dude above said, that the waist is done in inch increments.

what would they stand to gain by lying about measurements, which you suggest they are doing it seems like?

>>7263524
...and on their chart a 28 is 29" i should add

>>7263497

so that little bit is the "tilt" you're referring to? you can't have it both ways friend

>>7263497
They have a system that they are
1. consistent in
2. demonstrate
3. allow for you to do the same at home
4. provide contact information if you have any issues

Jesus dude, you're grasping at straws.

>>7263545

>grasping at straws
>twerk it

what's new

he seems like a motivated student of fashion though, so I'll give him that. he's just so bullheaded and misguided in his arguments that it's funny.

>>7263557
Before Twerk started posting in WAYWT threads I had high expectations of his fits, see a lot of really good gender play like Momma but he disappoints me drastically. He has so much knowledge but it doesn't come across in any of his outfits.

>>7263530
it doesn't matter if the difference would be small, they didn't account for the tilt and that means that their measurements aren't accurate and can't be used to establish apc's grading rules. that they used a consistent measurement isn't really salient because we can't determine how much of the difference is applied to the front two panels and their tilt. the measurements are sort of useful for the shopping experience, but totally irrelevant to apc's sizing and this discussion.

>>7263557
sure, it's not like your argument isn't such a mess that we're going on and on about semantics in order to establish how much of a mess it is. nope, all my fault.

>>7263579
has more to do with the pictures themselves than the fits.

>>7263592
I would love to see a well taken picture. Even if someone else took the photo for you w/ your camera or phone or whatever.

>>7263579

he doesn't have much knowledge tho. take a pattern making class at your local CC and you'll have just as much "knowledge"

>>7263592
yeah dude a rick double layer and drksdhw hoodie u really need a high quality camera to capture the complexity

Do I buy momotaro 0702 or get that Japan Blue monster denim?

>>7263577

you ignored the part where I said their system, even if it ignores waist tilt to a small degree, is consistent. so it matches the anon above's alternate system of grading, not the one you described. in every response itt you have just picked out one part of the argument to attack. it's really lame. what if you were theoretically accomodating and made your point without being so stubborn? oh wait user already exists.

what do twerk's fits even look like? I feel like I've seen them, but about three trip posters blend into one in my head. does he wear basically the same stuff as "mango"?

>>7263643
One he posted recently.

Mango dresses w/ a kind of Urban inspo. Can see the resemblance towards Kanye.

This pic will probs be removed but whatever.

>>7263647

that's a hard fit to pull of without a jacket to balance. nothing really going in terms of a color scheme. looks kind of skinny fat. "flat tires" making his tee flair

>>7263647

looks like he lives in a cheap hotel.

>>7263655
He's said previously that the angle of the picture is to blame and etc. I would like a better picture so I can actually tell.

>>7263661
compare it to other fits where my shoulders are obviously narrower, torso more tapered/hourglassy, etc.

>>7263643

mango is more fit. twerk is more tranny/andro. when you see twerk's clothes you kind of understand the nitwit that he is. really caught up in his own fantasy land.

>>7263666
I feel that this shirt only sits well when your arms are raised.

>>7263666

idk still pretty bad. draping of the shirt accentuates how it catches his wide hips. and then the lower half is a skirt with thigh-highs. but honestly I doubt he left the house in it. and again the weird furniture and shower curtain makes it looks like someone else decorated his home/apt

>>7263666
>>7263647

this isn't what the designers intended m8

lol

>>7263678
wasn't taken at my house, but your comment sort of exemplifies why i don't take criticism seriously, especially on /fa/.

>>7263647
>>7263666
haha what the fuck

>>7263685
What? Simply because he commented in your background after your fit?

>>7263685

so you took two separate fit pics in two separate rooms in someone else's house/apt or a hotel? that just seems narcissistic.

you should probably just stop posting now. the hole is getting deeper and deeper. also don't feel obliged to attach an image to each post, because the quality is declining dramatically as you comment more.

>>7263690
"i seriously doubt he left the house in it"
he doesn't really "get" it, and he's commenting on the drape of a top that he can only see in a still, blurry image in a single pose. what's the use?

>>7263694

>>7263694
>>7263678
post a fit
team twerk, u all sound boring
twerk where is that drawing (self-portrait?) of u as an anime character in this outfit
maybe im remembering it wrong

>>7263695

lol just answer the doge pic dude's comment? what is the explanation behind the two pics? why are you wearing a beanie scrunched over your entire head in LA? why do both pics make it seem like you have huge hips? why would it be any different moving? why did you abandon the real arguments in this thread to try to defend your fits, which is an even tougher battle to win? why do you even post when every single response is negativity?

seriously there is no respect for you. who is agreeing with you in this thread? fuck off you attention whore.

>>7263707
best pic

>>7263711
YES thats it

>>7263710

#rekkage

>>7263695
Then why post the picture if you knew we wouldn't "get it"? While I think you raise a good point with the still image if a picture cannot do your outfit justice what makes you think seeing it in person will?

You even posted an image that looks fantastic. Surely something is off if I don't get even remotely the same reaction from your outfit?

>>7260338
>still taking the time to talk to twerk

It's not worth it. Promise

>>7263716
why is this all about you? why do you think i care about *you*?

>>7263720
I don't think you do in all honesty. It's about me because I'm asking you. I, personally would like to know. Sure you can give no fucks about anyone you reserve that right but when asked about it from someone who doesn't "understand" your only answer is to shoot me down w/ a petty insult?

>>7263730
who insulted you? it was asked why i didn't take his criticism very seriously, and i said it was because the concept is so foreign to him that he's not even willing to believe that i left the house in it. so what good is his input?

>>7263720

it's funny that you refuse to acknowledge the same exact fault when it comes to your argument concerning denim in this thread or your fits. you don't consider an audience. above, it was consumers. in regards to your fit, it's the 4chan members that will judge harshly. and then you don't take respectful criticism either way, so people get hateful.

please illustrate your stupidity through more opinions/media please.

lol twerk has been watching this thread attentively and responding for the last three hours. get a fucking life man.

>>7263741

that's a brilliant analogy actually. spot on m8

>>7263741
>above, it was consumers.

consumers were regarded when i said that sizing waists in whole inch increments was useful for their shopping experience. are you sure you're reading my posts?

>and then you don't take respectful criticism either way

where? this thread is you complaining that i won't acquiesce to your argument and one or two anons shitposting endlessly.

>>7263744
playing a video game actually.

>>7263710
>why are you wearing a beanie scrunched over your entire head in LA?
>why do both pics make it seem like you have huge hips?
>why would it be any different moving?

keep up the good work guys, maybe we'll get lucky and knock down another

>>7263740
It's interesting to hear the responses of people who don't subscribe to your interests. You can really get some development from a refreshing opinion instead of people just talking you up. That's why I go on 4chan. I get bare bones responses that are as harsh as can be. It betters you and it will better your personal style.

>>7263710
>why do both pics make it seem like you have huge hips?
because twerk's got a fucking sick ass, that's why

main problem with twerk is he just attacks one aspect of an anon's argument.

why hasn't he explained the two fit pics in someone else's home? and seriously why is he wearing that beanie over his whole head in LA?

I can't imagine that shirt looks much better in motion. probably mostly the same but with twerk adjusting it a lot in the hopes that a poor man's scott schuman approaches him

AND HE POSTS ON

ONE MAN

WITH A DREAM

TO TROLL ALL OF FA WITH ENTRY LEVEL SEWING ADVICE AND SHITTY FIT PICS

HE WILL LIVE ON FOREVER

HE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN

IN THE FACE OF LOGIC, HE EMPLOYS SCARCITY

HE WILL NEVER GIVE UP

HE WILL ALWAYS BE

THE PSEUDO TRIP

THAT IS

TWERKKKK ITTT

>>7263778
the #ether is too strong

twerks a big gay dandy boy moron who doesnt know what hes doing, but hes right about the frivolity of the criticism from anons on /fa/. most of you are amongst the stupidest people ive encountered on the internet.

>>7263804

so logically the question that follows is, "why are you guys who are above /fa/ still post here?"

really what is there to gain?

>>7263804
Do you mean most stupid

>>7263807
fun. never said i was above the medium, just most of the users are nauseatingly braindead - like mind bendingly stupid.

85% of the response are "how did you interpret that from what was just written, i honestly can not believe you exist" level dumbdumb.

>>7263808
adjective
superlative adjective: stupidest

>>7263804

You are the type of tryhard faget who goes to another "better" forum hoping to play with the private school cool boys and tell gosips with them in sleep overs only to be shat on.

>>7263818
got me dead to rights =)

>>7263824
What's the better forum

>twerk disappeared

finally

>>7263804
thats rich coming from you

>>7263842

ehhh.. yeah pigfuck is one of my least favorite peeps here. he positions himself above /fa/ but doesn't ever post a fit. he goes on about his grails he has obtained but has a lot of really shitty pieces. like his raf sweats. I doubt he really looks that good, which is what this should be about, regardless of brand

>>7263832
i dont post on any other forums. i use superfuture to sell things

sufu, sz, sf, maybe even hypebeast in some ways, are all better than /fa/. mfa is probably better per capita as well.

yeah this..

>>7263855

is a pretty good example of this...

>>7263854

talks shit, never posts a fit. might have a good amount of money, but he is only ever trying to sell stuff here. and it's a jumbled collection of incongruous pieces he tries to sell.

yeah saying jumbled and incongruous is redundant but not gonna go back an fix it

>>7263833
You've made most of the posts in this thread, even after half were deleted.

>>7263842
thats exactly the brand of stupidity i am talking about; you pull this out like its some 'gotcha' trap card allakazam exposed moment.

yeah i posted once and forgot to upload pic and quote so i delete it and repost, what a faux pas, oh woe is me ill never live it down please dont remind me of it again. i suffer eternal embarrassment at the hands of that memory. seriously it keeps me up at night.

>>7263854
>hasnt posted a fit
whats this if not the best fit this forum has ever seen? and if you think sweaters from aw03 are 'shitty pieces' then u suck ;^)

>>7263866

nice fit bro

>>7263866
no
you were complaining about frivolous criticism or whatever shit
at the same time youre making all these bizarre garbage posts
thats what that post was about
god

>>7263879
its different when i do it

>>7263866

lol it doesn't have to do with your repost. it's that you were being a petty shitposter. jesus how can you not recognize that and still take yourself seriously?

>>7263866

>if you think sweaters from aw03 are 'shitty pieces' then u suck

exactly. you think a plain graphic sweat is great just because it's old. lame shit. no wonder you're trying to sell.

also where the fuck is your scrotum?

>>7263896
>its cool cause its rare
hooooooo boy

>>7263889
what do u want from a sweatshirt? u want it to shit gold? piss rainbows? should everything you wear be a silk/wool/ramie/rayon blend? "wheres your kangaroo leather sweatshirt dude"

its cool cause its rare, from one of rafs best collections and has a sick-gnarly-dope-fit, i am not selling any of my still sweaters - idk where u got that idea.

u can see some testie but i wanted the focal point to be the ass and jacket, clearly it went over ur head.

>>7263897
what about that statement do you have a problem with

>>7263896

I think a sweatshirt should be interesting if the asking price is hundreds of dollars. a good fit is nice, but who cares about a rather plain sweat with some text on it? no one since 2003

>>7263903
instead of being an asshole why dont you just post about stuff u like

like old helmut lang and raf simons, not a lot of people post information about those here but you seem to know at least a little

i just dont understand what you gain by this

>>7263906
what piece is this?

>>7263906
then that's just a matter of ideology. people care about it - and are willing to pay that price for it - because it is archival and hard to find, or because they like the designer and want to own a piece of the their history. in the case of that particular sweater it marks an amalgamation of peter saville, joy division and raf simons which, to some(ie. those paying the prices) makes it a special piece.

>>7263916

then why won't that shit sell so I can stop looking at it? doesn't seem like anyone is willing to shell out for your graphic sweat.

>>7263896

lmao please kill yourself

you'd be dropping stacks on the margiela aids tees if u saw it blogged on tumblr

you are literally the worst thing about this place

>>7263922

your "grails" are shit pigfuck. just put them on ebay and stop posting them here.

>>7263925

>WHAT DO U WANT FROM SWEATSHIRT??? BEST U CAN DO IS PRINT SOMETHING JOY DIVISION RELATED.

jesus so mid 2000s

>>7263927

idiot

>>7263909
mostly because theres a wealth of information already out there on both subjects that has been composed and cataloged by people far more eloquent and knowledge than me on the subject.

you'd be much better served hearing it from them.

>>7263931

BUY MY GRAILZZZ

1500% markup originally but yours for only %2000!!!!

>is rocky still hyping this orrrrr?

>>7263936

>it fits real good!!! did I mention raf made this before 2012????

>>7263944

>you guys know the lead of joy division killed himself right?? show others what a true artiste you are with this sly reference!

>>7263922
i think you have me confused with ebay user http://www.ebay.com/usr/collectable*on*sale

thats not me. hes asking what he paid on y!jp for all those STILL sweaters though and hes sold one for 400

http://www.ebay.com/itm/321233384094?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

>>7263925
i never use that term and if i did i wouldnt use it to describe a sweater.

>>7263950

no. you did use the term grail. you explained how you are sort of jaded when it comes to fashion nowadays, and you just look for grails. nothing of any real interest is made these days right? why would you lie so blatantly?

also I really wanna buy that jacket. I love the way it touched your odd-shaped ass in the previous photo you posted. do you jerk off in it???

I have NC's and PS's. I love my PS's. I wish it was one size smaller though, but fits perfectly after washing. It's just a tad big once stretched.

The NC's aren't tapered enough, but PS's are perfectly tapered.

>>7263954

my image got switched due to 4chan error. whatevs. argument still stands. you really are a pig when it comes to taste. what are you buying now that your raf shit isn't cool anymore? undercover jackets so your love for joy division can be a beautiful understatement communicated through the lining? nice!

should I keep posting interesting sweatshirts or do you stand by your comment that you can't ask for much when it comes to sweats?

>>7263954

of course he does

when he's not tirelessly updating his mediocre tumblr and borrowing his dad's money to sate his superficial interest in fashion

>>7263961
are you male or female

>>7263961

biiiiiitch ass pigfuck pussy niggaaa

>>7263963

male. are any females this aggressively interested in internet arguments? probably not. I'm a fucking loser but still better than "pigfuck"

>>7263957
You are truly pathetic. Why dedicate so much time to knocking a tripfag down a few pegs? It's really sad how just because you can't appreciate some designer's work you go apeshit at someone who does.

>>7263968

HI PIGFUCK. SO ANONYMOUS. SUCH SOLIDARITY.

honestly I don't care if you really like a "design" that is a printed on a plain crew neck. I don't care if you want to pay hundreds for it.

I only care that you said there is only so much to ask for in a sweatshirt. you implied there are no interesting sweat designs. I am posting some examples of pieces that are worth a lot more money.

hopefully in the process I dissuade anyone from buying your boring ass shit.

>>7263957
this is so tiresome.

i honestly dont know what your argument is. you're opposed to the resale prices of archival items that you perceive to be overvalued in today's marketplace? or do you just find the whole raf archive reverence of today contrived? i guess theres weight to the argument, especially when you've got ln cc buying pieces for $50 at archive sales and reselling at for 20 times that. but at the end of the day if people are prepared to pay those prices then thats what it is worth, whether or not you disagree is irrelevant.

posting 'interesting' sweatshirts doesn't negate the perceived value of anything, its apples and oranges. people paying $400 for raf archive sweaters have no illusions about its quality, they want it for a variety of other reasons.

>>7263975

BUT NO ONE WANTS YOUR SHIT. YOU POST IT OVER AND OVER.

and then in other unrelated posts you act like you're better because you own these great pieces (which you are trying to get rid of.. not just the sweats, other shit too)

to me it seems you are over your "archival raf" because you know, just as I do, that it isn't that impressive. you are probably try to buy better pieces now, which is great.

but yeah the main problem with you are that 1) you try to assert your status based on shit you want to get rid of, 2) you say there isn't much that can be done with the sweatshirt template, when that's obviously not true, and 3) you have been trying to get rid of this stuff for awhile but it just wont sell. so you aren't making anyone else believe it's special by referring to "raf archive reverence." you're applying arbitrary value for reasons undisclosed, but obviously no one else sees that value, since the shit is still sitting in your closet.

>>7263986

sry you just annoy me a lot. like someone posted a pic of your sweatshirts and you of course popped in and said, "hey, those are mine!!!"

you feel compelled to add multiple runway shots of your stuff as if that makes it better. guess what? lots of shit goes down the runway. doesn't mean anything.

I just think you're caught up in the wrong aspects of fashion and it's tiring to read your bullshit, so i wanted to call you out. whatever. keep copping your grails bud. sorry fashion isn't really all that interesting to you anymore.

majorly derailed thread but probs good since a couple trip types got destroyed. I would recommend any new /fa/ readers look over this thread and educate themselves on dumb "trips"

>>7263986
> you have been trying to get rid of this stuff for awhile but it just wont sell.

i really think you have me confused with someone on ebay, these are the only items i have for sale atm

http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php/topic/149135-fs-new-og-helmut-lang-astro-parka-raf-simons-archive-bomber-raf-simons-04-hoodie-sz-46/

everything i have ever tried to sell prior to those pieces ive sold.

i dont expect it to sell on /fa/ but its free to post so why not.

>so you aren't making anyone else believe it's special by referring to "raf archive reverence." you're applying arbitrary value for reasons undisclosed, but obviously no one else sees that value, since the shit is still sitting in your closet.

the resell culture of raf archive has been an institution for a lot longer than ive been operating.

you seem to think i am some lone merchant peddling wares that no one wants, which is patently false. raf archive prices are insane, they were before i got into it and will be for long after i stop.

the argument that

>NO ONE WANTS IT

is irrevocably false, i am a minnow in a marketplace of people selling things at huge markups, and people are more than willing to pay.

>>7263102
Bump~ the measurements look like it.