>>18469229>Those are not denimwrong. it's a pic from the 1880's they're most likely denim. could also be generic twill fabric or duck canvas. wool trousers and others were long fallen out of favor with cowboys by then.
>Fur, obviously with denim, twill or duck pants underneath, obviously.
>Possibly leather, however I could be wrongno you can just tell from the drape its probably a twill weave of some sort aka probably denim.
>>18469237> Not only did this make the legs look longer like rockstar jeans, they also didnโt crush your balls. 70โs pants had a similar fit. I wish companies made fits like this.bro you can literally buy those exact jeans deadstock for like $30-150 on ebay and vintage second hand places. i got a pair of pic related that looked like they had never been worn and washed once (yay no shrinkage to worry about, they're unsanforized) for PESOS on ebay.
>70โsnot just the 70's, that fit was made from the 60s all through the 80's.
you know how denim quality fell off a cliff in the 70s then again in the 2000s? look for late 60s/early 70's pairs and they will be selvedge, unsanforized etc. levi's big E tier quality but cheap because 0 hype & niche fit.
don't be fooled by the double felled outseams. a lot of them are selvedge but they just don't have a visible selvedge id anywhere. the stronger double felled outseam was favored in western jeans at the time.
here's a blog post on some 70s western flare type fits worth looking for from back then, its very incomplete but a decent starting point:
https://doluke.wordpress.com/2018/09/23/dead-stock-vintage-flare-denim-pants/
be aware some models got polyester'd or sanforized in the 70s read tags.
>>18469227the 1% spandex in baggy fits actually doesn't really cut down on raw material costs. its done to cut down on costs designing and tailoring the jeans, letting mediocre fits 'work good enough' on a wider range of bodies. easier to pattern with less tailoring experience required, more sales.