Of Senators and Kings Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Haven't wore a 2.0 but I hear they are more comfortable and baggier than the 1.0's "slimfit" trim. I'm wondering if this actually makes a difference significant enough to warrant bumping up/down a size? I sit around a 54/56 in 1.0s, would that generally be the same for 2.0s or do I have to bump down to get the same feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobcat1988 Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Haven't wore a 2.0 but I hear they are more comfortable and baggier than the 1.0's "slimfit" trim. I'm wondering if this actually makes a difference significant enough to warrant bumping up/down a size? I sit around a 54/56 in 1.0s, would that generally be the same for 2.0s or do I have to bump down to get the same feel? I like wearing 54/56 in a 1.0 as well and find that anything from 54-58 in a 2.0 feels fine to me. I wouldn't change your jersey size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus X-1 Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yeah I wouldn't change sizes- the cuts are a little different but there's no reason I can see that would necessitate switching sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I have size 60 in 1.0's because they don't seem to have 58's available. I know game worn and game issued 58's are readily available. Is the difference between the two THAT big? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsportsdudex Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Personally I prefer a 54 in 1.0s and a 56 in 2.0s just for a little extra length in the arms, since the arms are definitely shorter in 2.0s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I don't think the size difference is that drastic. For example, I could wear a 46 or a 50 in a 1.0, but a 50 2.0 is a bit on the big side for me. I could still wear it, it's just a bit baggier than I like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAK74 Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 ^ Same for me. I like 50's in 1.0's but the 2.0 50's are really large in the chest and arms for me, so lately I've been getting 46's in the 2.0's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevilsGreg Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I've only ever worn a 52 in a 1.0. Never had the opportunity to try a different size. In 2.0's I've worn 52-58 but I'd probably prefer a 54 or a 56 in a 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbhockey22 Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 How much shorter are the 2.0 arms than the 1.0s generally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MountainKing Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I'm not huge on the 1.0's, they feel heavier and I don't like the way the arms sit. The arms are probably 2-3 inches shorter on the 2.0's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbhockey22 Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 That makes sense, all the size 52s I have that are 6100 style have sleeves about 2-3 inches shorter than my size 52 1.0s when I'm wearing them, thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConcreteCharlie Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 1.0s I pretty much need a 56. 2.0s anything from 54-58 fits well Above all I find the 2.0 MUCH sturdier and MUCH more comfortable. The 1.0s are a bad combination of feeling flimsier but breathing much worse. They are so hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus X-1 Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I like the tie strings on the collars of the 1.0's better though. The ones on the 2.0's are too rigid- they don't fall naturally but rather kind of stay in one spot as if they were made of wire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I have yet to find a Devils 2.0 for comparison, but my 1.0's have grown on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I think there's the difference of a size between the 10 and 2.0. My favorite/best size is a 54 in the Edge 2.0. Similarly, the 56 in a 1.0 fits better than a 54. That 54 in the Edge 1.0 is beginning to border on too tight/slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedWheelers Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I'm 5'10" and weigh 200lbs. I wear a 52 in the pre-Reebok CCM jerseys, and I wear a 54 in Edge 2.0. I could have gone either way, a 54 and 56 both fit fine. I opted for the 54, it's baggy enough without being too big. Perfect for wearing to games or around the house. A friend of mine with a similar build opted for the 56 because he wanted the sleeves to be a little longer. I dont own any Edge 1.0's but I did try some on, and I would have probably gone with a 56 with those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMCantStopRockin Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Hey guys. I know the thread is a little dead at the moment, but I wanted to chime in since 2.0s have been in the market a little longer now.I wear a size 50 for 1.0s, but I find the same in the 2.0s to be a little tighter than my preference. So I jumped up to a 52 for a 2.0. I like em to fit a bit baggier than a comfortable fitting long sleeve shirt. The sleeve ends are pretty equal and so are the feel of the bodies. So, yea folks- 1.0s in a size 50. 2.0s in a size 52. Hope that helps for you guys, and anyone else wondering who are skimming Google these days Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmart23 Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hey guys. I know the thread is a little dead at the moment, but I wanted to chime in since 2.0s have been in the market a little longer now. I wear a size 50 for 1.0s, but I find the same in the 2.0s to be a little tighter than my preference. So I jumped up to a 52 for a 2.0. I like em to fit a bit baggier than a comfortable fitting long sleeve shirt. The sleeve ends are pretty equal and so are the feel of the bodies. So, yea folks- 1.0s in a size 50. 2.0s in a size 52. Hope that helps for you guys, and anyone else wondering who are skimming Google these days Cheers! I am looking to purchase an Islanders 2.0. Currently, I have a Premier in Large that fits me just right. I am 6'0 195lbs and I don't want to get one that is too baggy. I did the comparison of measurements and theres not a big difference between a large premier and a 52 2.0. I found someone who has a 52 2.0 for a little less than a variety of sizes. Do you have an opinion on which one would be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAK74 Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 Sorry, I don't quite understand your question, but a size 52 2.0 should have length, width and sleeve length measurements that are comparable to the Large Premier. However, the 2.0's arms will still be baggier than the Premier's; there's really no way to get around that, as that's just they way they are cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMCantStopRockin Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Im 5'10 and about 175lbs. Although, i don't own any premiers that have jock tags. All of mine are winter classic jerseys so they're cut like 550s and are air-knit.. Not the funky stuff for modern premiers. And i own a bunch of 550s...so I'm used to baggy arms. I did own a medium premier and quickly flipped it (w/jock tag) and it had fit allot like a 2.0/50. I would agree that a size 52 would be alright. You're a bigger guy than me and a 52 is nice and roomy. If you can find a decent deal for a 52 then i probably wouldn't hesitate. Get it customized with Boychuk while you're at it ;-). We miss him over here in Boston. F(&^*** Chiarelli. He meticulously destroyed the Bruins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJSharks415 Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 I'm in the market for a new 2.0 Sharks jersey. I currently wear a 50 1.0. I've also tried on a 52 Indo-Edge and it seems to fit similarly to the 50 1.0 that I have. Should I go with a 50 2.0 or 52 2.0? I've heard the sleeves are shorter on the 2.0's. Right now the 1.0 sleeves go to the middle of my hand so it's just about perfect. What size do you guys think I should go with on the 2.0? I'm 5'10" and about 185lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.