I just don't understand the raw denim lifestyle. I mean

sure smells like 2012

>>11662479
Not really. Sometimes the worn-in look is good. It gives stuff character.

Brand new black leather shoes look weird and uncomfortable. They have that weird brand new shoe look and sort of stick out and look out of place.

Similar with the jeans

what's the appeal of artificially aging the soles of your af1s to a piss yellow color? or anything for that matter? it's just personal preference.

and jeans will fade regardless of them being raw or not, just in case you didn't know

Raw denim is great, but the idea of never washing it to get ultra high contrast fades is not.
They should be washed every few months and allowed to age gracefully.

File: Screen Shot 2015-09-13 at 1.49.58 AM.jpg (229KB, 800x799px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 800x799px

clothes that are worn in almost always look better than brand new clothes.

raw denim just takes that to the extreme. a well-faded pair will 99% of the time look better than an artificial fade, it just takes a long time.

>>11662792

I never bothered reading about what the raw denim thing was about when it was the most popular thing to talk about on /fa/ a few years ago. I just did and I'm absolutely disgusted that people wear clothes more than a couple times without washing them afterwards.

Fucking savages.

>>11662867
Jeans really don't need to be washed every time, or every few times, you wear them.
Washing them once or twice a year or less is ridiculous, but you can go a while, unless you're walking through mud or sweating it out in the middle of summer.

raw denim makes it easier to create a pair of distressed jeans that are distressed in the proper places to fit your body

I don't like distressed jeans so I don't like raw denim

File: KVGMvS1.jpg (3MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3024x4032px

It doesn't have to be a "lifestyle"; that's just marketing nonsense. I buy raws because I don't like pre-washed/distressed jeans, but I wash them as often as any of my other pants.
>>11662784
You're correct; all dye fades eventually. Indigo doesn't hold onto cotton terribly well in the first place, and wearing jeans for months on end without touching water makes the indigo fade even faster (though mostly at stress points like behind the knee or the lap).
The appeal of raw denim is that all the fading will be unique to your body and lifestyle (more active = more fades), without any from the manufacturer.

Pic related is a pair of Railcars after 19 months and "countless" washes. I prefer this depth of color to the high contrast that comes without washing.

File: Indigofera-Clint-Shrink-to-Prima-Fit-before-and-after1-640x385.jpg (81KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x385px

>>11662919
Some people are also really into unsanforized jeans (which as far as I know are exclusively raw), which they claim lead to a better fit than pre-shrunk/sanforized jeans.

File: Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 7.42.39 PM.png (762KB, 1060x856px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 1060x856px

>>11662479
> These jeans look so much nicer when they aren't all beat up and worn out, don't you think?


nah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WOThq4N2eo

File: 044.jpg (566KB, 1415x1920px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1415x1920px

>>11662800
Who can afford to be in the top 1%