Why do the big jeans makers not offer a 31" in-seam? I know in my case I have passed up many purchasing opportunities because I know that a 30" in seam is almost always too short, and a 32" is almost always too long.
Was the efficiency and lower cost (by eliminating odd in-seam sizes) worth the reduced sale of the 31" in-seam, which, being “average,” would seem to have applied to many, many people.
A 31" in-seamer is an odd-man out in the world of Levis. You’re supposed to pick your poison, purchase the 30" and live with the high waters or get the 32" grunge look. They do the same thing with underwear sizes etc., so the 'tweens just have to live with it.
What makes 31" “average”?
And why doesn’t that apply to the missing 33" and 35" lengths? Or lengths shorter than 29"?
The obvious answer seems to me that reducing the number of different sizes is the best policy for all mass-market clothing sizes, and that most odd sizes were eliminated because that worked the best across the industry.
What would be interesting to know is who did this first? And what were sizes like when they were first introduced?
It would make more business sense to eliminate the less popular sizes, not the odd sizes. Serve all the people in the middle of the bell curve, at the expense of those on the tails.
Wrangler makes jeans with odd size inseams. I’m wearing a pair right now.
Turn-ups, people. You turn up the cuffs of your jeans.
How is this new information to some people?
Look, Levis even has a page on their site covering this amazingly advanced jeans-wearing technique.
Just FYI: Lands End lets you order jeans in any length you want, down to the quarter inch. They custom-cut them for you when you order.
I wore Levis most of my life, but have given up on them. Lands End seems to be good.
I’d be happy with the 31" length. Companies could make them, while saving money by not making zillions of jeans that are 36" long with a 28" waist, which pile up on the racks because there just aren’t that many tall cadaverous people around any more.
I remember shrink-to-fit jeans and having to buy them too big to get them to fit right after washing. There was always that pair you didn’t buy right, that was always a bit too big or too small. And as they shrunk (or I grew) the cuffs got smaller, revealing a lighter color line across the leg where it used to be cuffed. And only button-fly Levis, zippers were for squares.
2 inches is a big difference between sizes, and it would seeem to leave out a small %age of people around the 31 mark (same for 33, etc), but that number is maybe small enough that many will accept the large/smaller size, and those who just have to have the 31 will get it altered. The few who refuse both options are just not worth the 31 sizing.
I’ve been wearing Levi’s for about 40 years now, and I’ve noticed that their sizing is, at best, approximate. My inseam is 34", but I’ve got to try the jeans on in the store, because the manufacturer apparently thinks 34" means 34 inches, plus or minus an inch or two. The same with waist sizing.
So try on some 32-inch jeans, or some 30-inch jeans. You’ll find a perfect 31", for sure.
Yeah, so I go for the 32. A holdover from having been young when it was stylish to walk around treading on the cuffs of your super-flared bell-bottoms. I still make a slight nod to the bell bottoms by buying Levis 517 boot cut. Although somewhere along the line I’ve started wearing cargo pants more often than jeans anyway. Those don’t seem to come in a fine enough granularity of inseams either.
Back when I spent a stint in retail, there were far fewer specialized women’s jeans and so women, or girls of high school age, came in to buy men’s jeans. I was astounded at how many of them bought 36" inseam, despite not being especially tall. Women do tend to have longer legs and shorter torsos than men in my experience, which I suppose explains all those leggy pictures.
Do women do this today? Not the ones who wear skinny jeans, certainly, but maybe there is still some demand for men’s jeans from women. Or maybe it’s just an anachronism and will someday disappear.
I have the same question about waist sizes. Most men’s pants–jeans, casual, dress–are sized in even inches starting at 34". Before I lost some weight) I was buying from Eddie Bauer, the only ones who had 35" waist jeans (that I know of).
And I won’t even start talking about dress shirt sleeve lengths.
Lands End has 31-37 in odd sizes.
These things aren’t precision made like rocket parts. I would be surprised if the tolerance was less than 2". I assume they’re labeled like 10% resistors. 1kΩ can be between 900Ω and 1.1kΩ, and 1.2kΩ can be between 1.08kΩ and 1.32kΩ, so there’s no reason to sell a 1.1kΩ resistor.
So that’s why you try on pants before you buy them. Find the “short” 32" pants on the shelf or the “long” 30" pants and you’ll have your 31". They just aren’t labeled that way.
EDIT: Or, what Saintly Loser said.
Thanks. 
Penney’s will also order the size you want. Try finding a 29" inseam with, say, a 44" waist. Manufacturers always seem to assume that if you have a larger waist, you must be seven feet tall. They also assume that all women want to buy “slimming” jeans. My wife has a hell of a time finding comfy pants.
Nonsense. A person who wants 31s (which includes me) will settle for a 32 & hem it. We’ll grumble, but we’ll buy. A person who needs 38s won’t settle for a 35 if that’s the longest (or widest) size they make.
This.