Is the Wested short after all?

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:33 pm

If you feel that your Wested is short please post a photo here, we all want to see. Don't forget also to state:

1. your height
2. size of jacket
3. if standard cut or 80s fit.

Your opinion counts and the statistics of this are really interesting for me so please reply to the thread.

Much appreciated, thanks.

orb · Post by **orb** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:48 pm

Yep Platon I had once this problem.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/356/orb1ua5.jpg

As you can see it missed the extra inch or maybe extra two inches in front. However If I would have worn my trouser a bit higher it would maybe looked much better. But I don't like it this way. The measures of this jacket were: 42R, 80's fit, 25.25 back length

Here is an actual picture of my Raiders Lambtouch Jacket.
The measures are: 42L, 26.25 Back length and extra inch in front.
I'm 179cm tall and yes the jacket is an 80's fit!
http://www.imgbox.de/?img=c44684l67.jpg
http://www.imgbox.de/?img=e19801r67.jpg

However I would say it depends mostly on your own body measures.

Much regards

orb

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:04 pm

This is one of the biggest complaints I have with my wested. I will post better photos later. My US wings is exactly the right length.

6’-2”1/2
Size (Only says XL)
Standard Cut

After giving every last measurement to them, I still asked to make certain that it was a “long” because I have a longer torso. It is not so short that I can’t wear it, but the Wings was “Right On”

I will take better photos at home tonight. It has always bothered me that the tag only says XL and not a size.

coronado3 · Post by **coronado3** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:08 pm

I have always thought that the wested raiders is too short compared to the movies.

C3

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:10 pm

_ wrote:I have to ask this... What is the point here? 99% of this is going to boil down to poor measurement on the customer's side, IMHO...

Somebody please remember my response here when they think I have an agenda against Wested...

I might Disagree.................... I am in a trade where I take measurements 100 times a day........ So, maybe it is poor QC again?

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:28 pm

I have to ask this... What is the point here? 99% of this is going to boil down to poor measurement on the customer's side, IMHO...

No.

I have a 40R standard cut and it's length is right
My new 40R 80s fit is short

I measure the jackets, and they have the same length!!!

rick5150 · Post by **rick5150** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:15 pm

"Fred Mertz" style,

Something I noticed is that some of my Westeds - I think just the lambskin - seem to flare out at the bottom. I will try to explain...

Looking at them from the side, the bottom of the jacket is further from the body then the top. Not like a bell-shape, but you can use that to give yourself a radical picture. The leather does not seem to have enough weight to it to obey gravity. The current lambskin is thinner than the movie jacket, if I am not mistaken.

Sometimes the bottom almost seems to curve like the bottom of a rocking chair. Meaning if you pull the back of the jacket so that it is against your body, the front rides up. You pull the front down and the back pops up.

That explanation is about as clear as two feet of concrete.

EDIT: The it definitely makes a difference to where the seem sits on the shoulder as that is what changes when you pull the front or back down. I think the people with ride-up wear the jackets further back on the shoulders causing the front to appear shorter.

CM · Post by CM » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:41 pm

Hey Plats,

I'm around six feet two - 185 pounds. My Wested is a 42 reg. The sizeing is excellent. It appears to be slightly longer than some of the jackets I've seen from Wested lately. Mine is a LC jacket. Apart form the pocket flaps, it looks pretty close to the screen version.

Cheers - CM

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:24 am

it looks pretty close to the screen version

Pretty close to the LC screen vesrion or the Raiders screen version?

CM · Post by CM » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:20 am

Close to what it's meant to be - LC.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:25 am

Of course, if you're only wondering about their Raiders version - ignore my reply.

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:27 am

Here's the correct length of the Raiders jacket.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:08 am

That's a terrible pic to describe length.

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:16 am

WinstonWolf359 · Post by **WinstonWolf359** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:43 pm

Well,...HF is small and blurry in that pic, his arms aren't at his sides to compare sleeve length and jacket length and you can't see the waistband of his pants to compare with that either.

How about this?

VP · Post by VP » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:24 pm

_ wrote:he is wearing his jacket with 1930's style pinks that are worn "Fred Mertz" style, i.e. above the navel. Today we wear jeans and Dockers below the navel.

Actually Ford wears 1930's style pinks below the navel.

Lao Feng · Post by **Lao Feng** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:12 pm

W.w. 359 ---Great photo (with the "old man" scene?)! The seemingly longer length and roomier fit gives the jacket a whole different look. Interesting.

Indiana G · Post by **Indiana G** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:01 pm

hey vp, where'd you get that screengrab? is that from.....***CRASH*** {gets runover by canyon}

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:12 pm

VP wrote:
_ wrote:he is wearing his jacket with 1930's style pinks that are worn "Fred Mertz" style, i.e. above the navel. Today we wear jeans and Dockers below the navel.
Actually Ford wears 1930's style pinks below the navel.

I agree, here is an *arguable* example:

(Notice the elbows in relation to the waistband... I would think Han Solo would have worn his trousers below the navel)

If Ford wore his trousers above the navel, then it would look rather obvious, take for example Bogart and Gable:

coronado3 · Post by **coronado3** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:09 am

wow! I am glad that high waisted trend in men's clothing went down in flames!

CG's pants are touching his pecs!

C3

whiskyman · Post by **whiskyman** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:18 am

I wonder if the jacket seems so much longer and roomier in Imman's house because he's wearing it without the MKVII, holster and whip?

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:45 am

Actually Ford wears 1930's style pinks below the navel.

This has always been the case.
It is really interesting that the opposite opinion was considered to be the case. Every now and then somebody says something and it i regarded as truth. People don't even bother to look in photos or the movie to see the truth. I remember one of those misconceptions was that Rotla jacket has small pockets and LC has large pockets.

Also, the fact that Ford wears below the navel is the proof that the NH pants and the Wested pants are not SA. The NH and Wested are "low rise" pants i.e. if you wear them below the navel, the crotch will be so low that you would imagine that these pants were made for someone with swollen nuts to the size of a coconut. It is obvious in the movies that this was not the case with Ford.

For reference, there are three categories. The high rise, the medium rise and the low rise pants. Your jeans for example are high rise, the pants Ford wore in the films where medium rise, as any dress pants of the 80s and today, and the real 1930's pants (and the ones NH sells) were low rise.

Anyway, the jacket shown in the scene with the old man is long, but it is not the jacket Ford wears throughout the film.

In an older thread with hundreds of screen caps I have shown that in the majority of the scenes they used one jacket. But this one, is not the one they used the most.

DeWayne · Post by **DeWayne** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:00 am

whiskyman wrote:I wonder if the jacket seems so much longer and roomier in Imman's house because he's wearing it without the MKVII, holster and whip?

Yep. I think so. It changes the entire fit of the jacket. Even the holster by itself is either going to hike up, push back, or bulge out the jacket. Can't wear all that gear and have it NOT affect the look.

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:07 am

Guys, pardon me if I am wrong but the holster and bag are situated under the belt. How the jacket looks roomier and longer ?

VP · Post by VP » Thu May 03, 2007 1:58 pm

Indiana G wrote:hey vp, where'd you get that screengrab? is that from.....***CRASH*** {gets runover by canyon}

Yes, it's from ToD.

independent · Post by **independent** » Fri May 04, 2007 10:04 pm

PLATON, I think you've got the low, medium, and high-rise description mixed-up, at least according to American specs and trends.

Low-rise means the distance from the waistband to crotch seam is shorter than regular.

High-rise means that the distance is longer.

You could read more from this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rise_jeans

or just google "low rise"

I would say Ford wears reg-rise trousers, but in action scenes, these often slip down closer to his hips.

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:44 am

As a continuation to my last post, I just couldn't resist imagining what Indy would look like with 1930's accurate trousers:

*and obviously I was having too much fun with Microsoft Paint*

So, I guess if the pants really were that high, we'd all pretty much be ordering leather dusters to look screen-accurate with our below the naval pants

davyjones007 · Post by **davyjones007** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:50 am

that is a perfect examlpe of too much time on your hands. and in the whole movie Indy's pants always seem to be ridding on his hips, which is why his shirt is always comming out.

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Mon May 07, 2007 10:12 am

davyjones007 wrote:that is a perfect examlpe of too much time on your hands.

I had a feeling someone was going to say that!

But isn't that the whole point of COW?

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon May 07, 2007 10:15 am

Castor Dioscuri wrote: But isn't that the whole point of COW?

Of COURSE not!

This is a serious, scientific research site....uh...ummmm....yeah... 8-[

Regards! Michaelson

PLATON · Post by **PLATON** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:20 pm

PLATON, I think you've got the low, medium, and high-rise description mixed-up, at least according to American specs and trends.

Low-rise means the distance from the waistband to crotch seam is shorter than regular.

Yeah you re right, I got it the other way around (silly me). As mentioned, crotch-to-waist on a pair of pants is known as the "rise".