Is the Wested short after all?
Moderators: Indiana Jeff, Mike, Indydawg
Is the Wested short after all?
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.
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.
Last edited by PLATON on Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- orb
- Dig Leader
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:19 pm
- Location: Austria (He doesn't know any of those guys. - Tony Nowak)
- Contact:
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
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
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.
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.
I might Disagree.................... I am in a trade where I take measurements 100 times a day........ So, maybe it is poor QC again?_ 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...
"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.
- WinstonWolf359
- Archaeologist
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:22 am
- Location: Fayetteville, NC
- Castor Dioscuri
- Expeditionary Hero
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:52 am
I agree, here is an *arguable* example:VP wrote:Actually Ford wears 1930's style pinks below the navel._ 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.
(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:
This has always been the case.Actually Ford wears 1930's style pinks below the navel.
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.
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.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?
-
- Laboratory Technician
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:46 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.
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
- Expeditionary Hero
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:52 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
*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
Last edited by Castor Dioscuri on Mon May 07, 2007 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- davyjones007
- Archaeologist
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:45 am
- Location: Virginia
- Castor Dioscuri
- Expeditionary Hero
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:52 am
- Michaelson
- Knower of Things
- Posts: 44484
- Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:55 pm
- Location: Out here knowing stuff and things and wishing I were with the family at Universal Studios Orlando
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".