Paul T

203 is the kid's size of the 201, same as the 503 was the junior 501 etc..

Edit: oops, sorry, didn't realise Maynard was there already.

Some of the codes did get re-used. IIRC 502 was a junior size and later became a different model. Kid's models of vintage Levi's are great because they're often available for less $$$$.

Those look good, interesting to know there must have been an extra tag for the Japanese etc market.

Yeah, the inseam is tricky to stitch too, I can't remember what you call that stitch that's half-way to a felled one, but it would be very hard to redo that and get the hems right too, so I think they can't be tapered.

Ah, ok, thanks for that info. I'd be pretty certain they're legit in that case (it could be an extra export tag). Maybe that apparent taper is because they're so long. The hems look right. 2-horse patch looks good, too

Here's the top side of the tag, my old 555 201 from 2000. PLus a 98 2-horse tag

Those have surely been tapered, haven't they?

I've never seen a fake as good as this, but that extra tag looks strange. I'd want to see the underside of the main tag. This is my old 555 55 98 pair. Plus the top side of my old 201 555 from 2000.

they're generously sized around the seat and thighs, I don't downsize with many jeans but found the 55 and 66 worked brilliantly.

2 hours ago, SF2Turbo said:

thanks gents got the idea i may use a plastic hanger instead of wood just before they are hung to dry. with all the bottons done and use another hanger to hang the denim with has clip on it.

thanks once again guy appreciate the help and knowledge.

I think a plastic hanger won't be strong enough.

I normally spin my jeans as normal; then I have a piece of old plywood I keep for the task. If, say, you're a 32 waist you'd need a piece about 15.5 inches wide, or else with a slot in it at 15.5 inches, so as the jeans dry, the waist stays at circa 32.

It's called the 'stock control' strip by Levi's.

they don't scream out fake to me. There are constructional errors (ie the yoke shape, where the two lines of stitching meet) but I've seen those on early LVC for example. The fabric doesn't look that off, either.

Here's what they're trying to look like:

https://www.superdenim.com/uk/levis-vintage-clothing-1976-502-jeans-rigid.html

There's what I think is a good guide to fakes here!

Those do look dodgy, if they have selvage. They are extra wide leather-like, for the 'stock control' section, but the wider part on the right should be serrated, so dealers can tear off that strip to record what they've sold. I could only tell for sure with a couple more photos.

13 hours ago, kicks79 said:

From my understanding, LVC is a very small part of what Levis does as a global company and I don't think its a very profitable part of their business. How many people here actually purchase full price LVC for example?

I suspect White Oak closing had a large reason to do with Levis going public. Perhaps the writing was already on the wall for the future of LVC?

I can't really see LVC being able to continue, at least not in its current form, and certainly not with the added pressure from shareholders to deliver profit and results. 

 

I'm not party to what's going on, but White Oak has nothing to do with Levi's floating. They're simply a supplier, and not a huge one.

The worldwide men's head of design, an ex Sufu regular who joined  in the long run up to flotation, is a big LVC fan. I can't see why it wouldn't continue. You normally strip down a company to improve profit margins before you float it.

As for who'll take over re selvedge, as mentioned before it will likely be Kurabo, with whom LVC have a longstanding relationship.

Looking great. Lots of leg twist there, too.

16 minutes ago, Foxy2 said:

pre-assembly?

It's something like "bit parts" but not that, I know it's mentioned a couple of times in the 689 pages of this thread.

We know there was a range of templates at the same time, because my Scottish friend and Levi's Europe attempted to track them down and did obtain some. I don't know how much of the internal stitching etc was operator initiative but I would guess a lot of it was because I see that even now in the short run lines they have in San Francisco. One woman will be seen as constructing the definitive pocket stitching and it's handed down from one to the next. Then in different factories there will be different traditions.

I can't remember what the word is for all the 'bits" - ie coin pockets, belt loops etc - but these were especially different between factories. So while a new cut might ripple through the production lines fairly quickly, those other pieces might be updated in a different way.

Unfortunately I don't have my complete notes from Alan Joy, the fella who helped set up the Scottish produciton line and was then a consultant to LVC when it started in the 90s, but he did say there was a lot of argument about what a particular model of 501 should be, simply because there were such conflicting examples to choose from, and the US and European LVC both had very different opinions, even on a cut for a particular year.

It's a shame, I would love to have tracked down a bunch of operators from the 70s and 80s and quiz them about how knowledge was handed down, it would make great oral history too... I pitched a more detailed denim book where I could cover that social/technical history but couldn't get a good enough offer to do it properly.



 

that's fascinating

I was told by one guy who was attempting to standardise new templates for the Scottish-made jeans in the early 80s, that the previous guides were simply worn by high-volume use, I can't remember what they were made from but I think thin wood or ply.

The Scottish plant previous made flares or what have you, then started making the European 501 with Cone fabric (ring/OE) around 1981. There's a lovely little story on the Dundee plant which explains the risks of copper rivets here.

23 hours ago, Pedro said:

Really? 

I guess I thought that with the decisions to make the various modifications that each year is known for, (suspender buttons giving way to belt loops, rivets no longer being exposed, leg tapers, etc) that some concensus would have been reached on patterns to cut the fabric. 

Thanks for the insight.

 

Indeed, but different people have reached a different consensus, because there's a lot of room for interpretation in a cut. Pattern making is quite complex, particularly the way sizing changes were accommodated. For instance, in the early days the top block was left the same size and only the waist band changed, which is why you get pleats in some of the early yokes. Interpreting old patterns always has a subjective element to it, particularly if you're only looking at worn, washed examples, as they will have stretched in different ways.

On top of that, I'd reckon that LVC have added a bit of a spin to each pair, to delineate them better. I don't agree with all of the decisions, for instance I don't like the 66 pockets and wish they'd change the design. I have mentioned this to peeps in charge, but they have a lot on their plate.

Re measurements, there's a full set here. Some measurements have changed, in almsot all models the waist measurements are much more true to size but it gives a good idea of relative seat, thigh and leg opening dimensions etc.
 

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

I always wondered that as well.

Levis would have had an official pattern for the ‘47 even if individual jeans were variations of cut.

The Sugar Cane brand makes a 1947 that is described as being the “original” Levi pattern.

They almost certainly didn't have an "official pattern". The patterns often varied between factories, and the tooling and templates might wear or change at different times. Even things like the pockets aren't standardised between factories. Someone who attempted to go back to an "original" pocket shape in the 80s found that there wasn't really a definitive one.

Last time I was at Levi's I was shown a bunch of deadstock they've obtained recently in search of more "accurate" cuts. But even pairs from the same periodlooked significantly different. So in the end, whatever is done will be a judgement call.

4 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Thanks for the info, I think I’m definitely leaning towards the ‘55 now. What I really like about the ‘47 is the straight silhouette. When you say you have a “tight fit” pair, do you mean that you sized down? 

How does it compare to a ‘47? Is it just wider throughout?

On that subject, I’ve read that the LVC ‘47 is an inaccurate reproduction of an original 1947 501, anyone have any idea why that may have been? If the whole purpose of the (sub)brand is to create accurate reproductions of a time period, why attempt to modernize it? 

I love both the 55 and 66. At this time,given the Cone issue,  one key difference is the fabric. they're both nice, but different. Personally, I prefer that of the 55, it's grainier and less blue. For a slimmer cut, buy your 55 an inch smaller than you would the 66, the seat is generously cut and the waistband will stretch.

Re the 47; there's no such thing as a perfect reproduction, because you're reproducing a range of jeans, and also trying to get a different character where the originals changed graudually, there's a likelihood you'll always impose some kind of aesthetic. I wouldn't call the 47 modernised; it's more engineered as if the user bought a particular size and stretched it etc etc. You can see photos of people wearing jeans from that period that look like the LVC cut. In any case, it's pretty successful, as most other manufacturers copied that LVC 47 outline, it's become definitive.

If i have time I'll post a comparison of the fabrics. Here's the 66, then the 55 (right) and 47. Note the bulkiness of the 55 top block and how much higher the rise it. It would say that's more of an obivous difference than the taper. The 66 has a mild taper, not obviously drastic. These are sized 32 for the 55 and 66, 34 for the 47. In real life, the differences between the fabrics are much more obvious.

 

Around that time LVC did quite a few customised jeans, they are quite likely designed as a pair of customised Boyfriend jeans - that was A Thing for them at that time 

 

On 2/6/2019 at 2:10 AM, -KapitalSteez- said:

Found some '54s in the op shop for $10 and they fit perfectly. Some wear but plenty of life left and ability to make an imprint. 

I was a bit sceptical of getting them from Levis seeing as they were out of the premium raw selvedge game for a while but they have clearly put a lot of care into these...

those look great .

Yup Levi's dropped premium denim for such a long time, between 1983 and 1987 I think it was.

On 2/13/2019 at 3:00 AM, diggers said:

 got from online thrift shop, $46

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooh, those are gorgeous @diggers, v jealous!

13 hours ago, airfrogusmc said:

I just added some recent photos of the 1911 lot 333 LVCs. The denim is AWESOME. As are many of the other details like the buttons and button backs and rivets. 

Good luck with the sale, Allen. The Lot 333 are fascinating. The originals (and the repro) used recycled cotton in the yarn, I'm not sure where the farbic was milled but they were a real one-off.

they look great, suggest you put the waist size in the listing title though.

Looking good, Bartleby!

I didn't mention at the time, but when I posted my 3-pleat back in the summer and gathered suggestions of whether to wash, which I accordingly did... for a few months I thought it was an absolutel disaster. Just seemed to have shrunk too much to wear. I threw it in my denim box and ignored it.

I decided to cut my losses and sell the fucker in the autumn, when I got rid of my 555 55, Full Count 108 and more. Then saw they didn't actually fetch that much used, started wearing it again, and decided the sizing is fine.

Mind you, it's getting grubby around the cuffs once more, but this piece of clothing will never go in the washer again.

Last week was a beautiful golden dawn light in the bathroom, which captures the texture of this lovely Cone fabric perfectly.