buzz ricksons 1945 US army chino pants review

[dinomartino1]

My buzz ricksons 1945 US army chino pants review here on the VLJ forum.

https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...-1945-us-army-chinos-pants.22003/#post-224302

 

[Bfd70]

Can’t link to it without being a member. Would you re print or state which subheadings its under on the site.

 

[dinomartino1]

Can’t link to it without being a member. Would you re print or state which subheadings its under on the site.

I see the problem if your not a member the reviews sub forum does not display, I will post it over here.

 

[dinomartino1]

I bought these because I wanted loose fitting 1940's style chinos not because I was after repro army pants.
I am not going to go into how accurate a reproduction these are, I have nothing to compare them to, rather a look at the fit for those who are interested in them.

I sat on the fence for while about buying these as for me it's a lot to spend on a pair of pants but I'm very happy with them. I always wear vintage style clothing and hate modern tight fitting clothes, if you think Dickies 874 are too loose and baggy you will not like these buy something else.

Talking about Dickies though if you are on a budget I would recommend the 874 model [ I prefer 1" too big in the waist for a loose fit ], they are kind of high waisted and loose cut by modern standards, are cheap and good quality for the price.

I did buy some of what price glory's version about nine years ago and the cut was pretty bad, loose around the top but really visibly tapered in too a two narrow leg opening, they reminded me of jodhpurs but they might have improved the cut since then.

I looked at WWII impressions but they worked out more expensive than the buzz rickson's with shipping to Australia, and Buzz has the odd waist sizes as well if your after those. I am not bothered about about who's is more historically more accurate it's more the cut and fabric I was after.

I would have considered Bronsons but the inside is leg is short and I wanted to be able to roll them up

I went with the 1945 model rather than the 1941 [which can be found cheaper] because they because they are supposed to be a bit trimmer, just what I have read on the net I don't if they really are.

Build quality and fabric are are to buzz ricksons' usual high standard, some have described the fabric as stiff, it is to a certain degree but nothing like new raw denim jeans and are they don't feel scratchy or uncomfortable on the skin. I would say the fabric is similar in texture and thickness to dickies 874, but these are %100 cotton and will wrinkle more.

I washed them four times in a row in a warm wash and dried them in the sun because I have read they shrink in the leg length after a few washes, but there was no shrinkage in the waist or legs.

I am just under 5'7" with a 31" waist, as I fluctuate between 31 and 32 I got the 32," in the pics these are 1" loose on the waist.

1945 model, colour beige, size w32, inside leg 34 1/2, after one days wear.
Hem is 9 1/4" at the bottom, all sizes come in the 34 inside leg and if you wanted to take them up the hem will be wider, about 9 1/2 two inches up from the hem and going gradually wider the higher up you go.

Maybe too loose around the khyber pass for some, but how the originals where.

How they wrinkle after one days wear, so if that bothers you get something else, %100 cotton so that is normal.

These next pictures are from ratuken, on this one it looks like the legs have just been turned up on the inside but a good shot of what they look like with no cuff.

 

[dinomartino1]

Not as slim as Virgil Hilts [too 60's for my taste] but,
Good views on the clip of Burt Lancaster in a tailored uniform as First Sergeant Milton Warden in From here to eternity.
The studio would have given tailored clothes to the stars but it was common for even privates in stationed in Hawaii due to the low cost, to have their uniforms tailored for a better fit.
In the book by James Jones who enlisted in the US army in 1939 and served in the 25th infantry division prewar at Schofield barracks and Guadalcanal, they even have their denim fatigues tailored, I haven't read it for a while but I seem to remember one soldier is considered to be a cheapskate and a slob for not having a tailored uniform.
If you have only seen the film and enjoyed it I would recommend reading the book, they had to tone down a lot of the stockade brutality and criticism of the army and the officers as they needed the army's permission to film at Schofield barracks.

 

[bobm]

Not as slim as Virgil Hilts [too 60's for my taste] but,
Good views on the clip of Burt Lancaster in a tailored uniform as First Sergeant Milton Warden in From here to eternity.
The studio would have given tailored clothes to the stars but it was common for even privates in stationed in Hawaii due to the low cost, to have their uniforms tailored for a better fit.
In the book by James Jones who enlisted in the US army in 1939 and served in the 25th infantry division prewar at Schofield barracks and Guadalcanal, they even have their denim fatigues tailored, I haven't read it for a while but I seem to remember one soldier is considered to be a cheapskate and a slob for not having a tailored uniform.
If you have only seen the film and enjoyed it I would recommend reading the book, they had to tone down a lot of the stockade brutality and criticism of the army and the officers as they needed the army's permission to film at Schofield barracks.

Nice pants and yep, something to be said for original looser fitting (more functional) pants. Great book, great movie and that fight scene is my favorite scene in that movie. Book definitely grittier - the Donna Reed character was a prostitute not a dance girl.
Brings you back to a "simpler" time I suppose.

 

[Ernest P Shackleton]

Thanks for the review. Their prices really have me scratching my head. I used to buy Oshkosh dungarees for the same reason of big, loose fit.

 

[dinomartino1]

Thanks for the review. Their prices really have me scratching my head. I used to buy Oshkosh dungarees for the same reason of big, loose fit.

Yep not cheap, nothing Japanese made is but the quality and attention to detail is top class but still expensive.
I wanted a wide straight leg 40s cut to wear with my A2 jacket.
If anyone knows of anything cheaper with a similar cut I would be interested in them, I don't care about them being repro WW2 army pants, just the cut.
I wear roundhouse bib and brace, made in the USA and cheap, never had their jeans though.

 

[ShanghaiJack]

Bill's Khaki's M1's are a great alternative.

https://www.billskhakis.com/mens-khakis/m1

 

[dinomartino1]

I know bills are good but you can get the get the buzz ricksons 1942 model in the USA for less at US$135 from HPA , maybe a good deal can be had on eBay for Bills used. New though, I would rather have a spot on repro of the WW2 issue pants at that price, I did say that did not bother me but at that price point it would.
I don't think bills have felled seams, but not an issue if you don't wear them rolled up or your not bothered.
These are slightly bigger cut than the 1945 model.

https://www.historypreservation.com...-1942-u-s-army-khaki-trousers-qm-spec-no-19c/

 

[bobm]

Are cuffs the preferred hemming on these pants?

 

[dinomartino1]

For WW2 no cuffs [as in sewn on turn ups] or rolled up cuffs when worn as part of the service/ dress uniform, but I have seen many pictures from the war with them rolled up. When I lived in the states I has some USMC 50s or 60s zip front khakis I found in a goodwill, they where pretty loose but not as much the ww2 and lesser quality fabric but still looked good.

 

[andyone]

I'm digging up this old thread again....

I would like to buy a Chino 1942 from Buzz Rickson.
I measured a chino from At Last (using this method https://www.historypreservation.com...-1942-u-s-army-khaki-trousers-qm-spec-no-19c/ )
and end up with circumference 37".
Since I'm between sizes (35 and 36), how do the chinos perform when washed (and worn, of course) several times? Does it shrink, expand, or stay the same?

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

 

[Tommy-VF51]

I've two pairs of these. My favourite cotton trousers full stop. One 2" cuffed, one plain hem. One is a 35, the other a 34. I cold wash them and neither has shrunk. I'll double check later, but I think waist is true to size.

 

[andyone]

I've two pairs of these. My favourite cotton trousers full stop. One 2" cuffed, one plain hem. One is a 35, the other a 34. I cold wash them and neither has shrunk. I'll double check later, but I think waist is true to size.

That sounds great, thank you for your feedback!

 

[Tommy-VF51]

Both still true to size, machine washed but on coldest setting and then only so often

 

[andyone]

Both still true to size, machine washed but on coldest setting and then only so often

Thanks for checking it!