Marty McFly's Jeans...Let's Talk

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


jonnytrooper

Sr Member
From my research, sizing hasn’t had bearing. Here’s a size 28 of the style that you posted:
EABA8286-5A76-4AA7-87AB-8F6EE99B3D1D.png D24D4DE2-2519-49EE-B300-7A818FDB74C8.png
I believe there were two style of zipper jeans. There were two distinctions between the style I posted and the alternative. On the less accurate pair, the front pockets don’t touch the belt loops and the rear pocket vertical stitch flairs towards the top.
4E883DA0-9E33-4CA6-A343-0FB40FFED479.jpeg
And the correct rear pockets are on The Searchers, as well. All the more impressive!
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

67Beatle88

Active Member
The Searcher So the most recent pair you posted are the same as the first ones you posted, only a bigger size? If so, then the size changing the belt loops seems accurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

The Searcher

Sr Member
67Beatle88 Your theory would seem to be correct on this one, since it makes sense someone with a 25 waist (vintage Guess jeans often run a couple sizes small) would be wearing a much thinner belt than someone with a size 30 waist. Since the smaller waisted customers would be wearing thinner belts, it also makes sense the loops would be shortened to prevent the belt from sliding up and down.
 
Last edited:

jonnytrooper

Sr Member
Well done! Totally makes sense! Curious on how tapered they are, too. Do you own the ones you posted, Searcher? I have a pair of inaccurate 1050’s and they’re much more relaxed in the leg than his.
 

67Beatle88

Active Member
@The Searcher it absolutely makes sense now that you're talking about belts being thinner... I didn't even think of that, it was just a theory based on nothing:lol @jonnytrooper , I also have some inaccurate 1050's (Late '80s) and they are much more relaxed. I think the style changed, but kept the same number. Now i will go and search for older ones in size 34. It's absolutely fantastic that we've been able to identify these things now! His whole outfit is pretty much been identified now.
 

The Searcher

Sr Member
jonnytrooper Unfortunately, I do not own this pair (it had already sold when I found it, but thought about saving the pictures), but basing it on proportions of another pair (which I know to be slim and tapered like the accurate pair) The ebay description listed them as slim/tapered back when I found it.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

The Searcher

Sr Member
Since we seem to have got the jeans IDed for the original film, I decided to have a crack at part II. I brought some screencaps:
FC6ECFBA-05BF-4CC0-AC2B-86C60E06286B.jpeg 77D5B2C7-A69D-4016-A786-ECF49C60FB94.jpeg 1B3491D0-0420-41C4-B78D-0DC5245B3E34.jpeg FD4D2693-346B-4987-BF1D-553511BFF08E.jpeg
By looking at the second still, i’ve compared the darker blue splotches to the screen-cap from the original movie(which differ), and the lack of a dark triangle mark (left over from the removal of the Guess tag) that was present on the original pants has convinced me that these pants are an entirely different pair. I also discovered that the newer pants no longer have the belt loops lining up with the pocket seams (screencaps one and four).
 
Last edited:

67Beatle88

Active Member
I think the part 2 jeans were the "new" 1050 jeans. That's why they were less skinny, not acid wash, and had the changes to the loops and stuff.
 

The Searcher

Sr Member
So thanks to jonnytrooper, I now have an accurate pair of jeans in my possession. Since they didn’t quite fit, I will be returning them soon. Before I do so, I was wondering if you guys would like any particular pictures of the jeans. Eitherways, I’m going to make a new post soon about the underside of the tag and the numbers on it to possibly make it easier to find the pants.
 
Last edited:

TheNickFox

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I guess the secret is out about the jeans so I'll break my silence...

The 1050 jeans are women's jeans, which means you will not find larger sizes. Guess in the 80's was not too concerned with fitting anyone who didn't fit their body standards.

The sizes indicated on the tags are generally 1-2 inches BIGGER than they actually are. So a 28 is really more like a 27...and since 80's denim had no stretch, they are pretty much going to stay that size.

MJF was 5'6" and in his own words in better shape than he had ever been in his life when he shot BTTF, so it's not unlikely that he could have had a 26-28 inch waist. I have a 29" waist and can JUST squeeze into my size 30 1050s. (It's a good motivator not to gain weight after I spent nearly 1 full year identifying the style)

There are similarly styled men's jeans from the same time. Off the top of my head, I think the 22050 is the right style number for the closest male jeans. (Don't quote me on that) The big difference is in the rear pockets. Whereas the 1050's have a distinct "Whale Tail" V-shape where the pockets meet the seam immediately above them, the men's jeans have space between the pockets and that seam.

Even after The Searcher returns his jeans, I'm happy to provide information about my pair to spread the knowledge.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Zlurpo

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Would there be interest in replicas of these? I can get custom jeans made, I'd just need to do some research into getting all the details right.
 

67Beatle88

Active Member
The 1050 jeans are women's jeans, which means you will not find larger sizes. Guess in the 80's was not too concerned with fitting anyone who didn't fit their body standards.
I seriously doubt that still. All of the Guess women's jeans I've seen are marked with sizes like 8, 10, 12, etc. Men's sizes are generally the bigger numbers like 26, 28, 30, etc. I think Guess, like you said, wasn't concerned about some people not fitting their standards for skinny jeans. I've seen size 32 1050 jeans so they did make some bigger sizes (bigger being in the 30s).

Would there be interest in replicas of these? I can get custom jeans made, I'd just need to do some research into getting all the details right.
I would possibly be interested depending on price and accuracy. The wash and fit need to be right and the pocket needs to have the spot where the triangle was.
 

jonnytrooper

Sr Member
9ACC6B40-EDFD-424D-A37E-E060D17B3240.jpeg 8610D009-A37F-4E35-AC2A-09268B246C7C.jpeg I managed to find an accurate pair in a 32, too! They’re a true slim taper, and I’d say they fit like men’s jeans. As others noted, they fit more like a contemporary size 30”. Happy hunting!
 

TheNickFox

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I seriously doubt that still. All of the Guess women's jeans I've seen are marked with sizes like 8, 10, 12, etc. Men's sizes are generally the bigger numbers like 26, 28, 30, etc. I think Guess, like you said, wasn't concerned about some people not fitting their standards for skinny jeans. I've seen size 32 1050 jeans so they did make some bigger sizes (bigger being in the 30s).


32 is the largest I’ve ever seen in the 1050s, (really closer to a 30...one of the smallest men’s sizes of jeans) yet any style with 5 digits in it can be found in larger sizes consistently.

As as for the sizing, Guess DOES NOT size denim based on women’s charm sizes. Especially in the 80s, but even today. Check it out: https://www.guessfactory.com/en/cat...MI4Mf4uoGv2wIVzFqGCh1Ijw32EAQYASABEgLNU_D_BwE

They were entirely based on waist measurements. Search eBay or Etsy for “vintage guess women’s jeans” and you’ll see exactly that. Even in sizes that not many men could fit in like a 26 or 24. (Which, again, would actually be 1-2 inches smaller than marked)

If you look at that modern listing, you’ll see that women’s jeans max out at 34. Similar to how the 1050s appear to max out at 32.

As far as I can tell: 4 digit style numbers were women’s and 5 digit styles were men’s when it came to Guess jeans.

These are women’s jeans. I don’t know why no one ever wants to believe this. Go look through tons of vintage shops and swap meets and literally 10s of thousands of listings online for vintage guess jeans like I have and let me know if you come to a different conclusion, but all the evidence points solely in one direction.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top