jk215 Report post Posted October 8, 2015 92 maybe? Looking to achieve a similar style thickness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CustomDoug Report post Posted October 9, 2015 My guess is 138. Doug C Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leatherisfun Report post Posted October 12, 2015 That isn't 138, most likely 92 as the original poster suspected. 138 is thicker than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CustomDoug Report post Posted October 13, 2015 You could be right, to me it looks chunkier than 92 though. Also it' not a dressy wallet, more of a 'denim culture' piece which would typically give the a nod to a thicker thread. Hard to tell from the picture honestly. Not sure if this helps the conversation but I did a quick search on something I sewed using 138 Eddington in natural. The stitch per inch is closer than the OP's wallet picture, but the thread diameter seems similar to me: Doug C Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
25b Report post Posted October 13, 2015 Looks like 92 to me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasn8ya Report post Posted October 27, 2015 138 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
25b Report post Posted October 27, 2015 That isn't 138, most likely 92 as the original poster suspected. 138 is thicker than that. ^^^-------...what he said... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
