Paul T

Maynard, that pair looks awesome!

I loved seeing the nippers wear in his 302, hope those are as much fun. It's very interesting seeing an original pair wear in. I think those 60s jeans might be even harder work than the repros.

T Jr just did his GCSEs. This is what he wore that year. Now needs a knee repair, which looks trickier than 302 or 501 because felled seams. Didn't have chance for full length pic, but it shows how well the 606 wear from raw.

 

thanks free2hear, I don't work for LVC, although I have done the odd project with Levi's, so can't take any credit for the look books! That happy fella on the hoss does look like my long-lost brother though.

I think the 55 are a bit wider. I would go for the 66 personally, get your actual waist size. It's a tough call though.

And good on ya, Sammy.that's a stunning fit.

http://happyjeans.jp/tcb/2017/09/28/16660

The originals varied a lot, but there are definitely some with that little skew towards the top.

Good luck Alvin!

My 55 are not at all snug, I bought my actual waist size, and it stretched out.

I'm not into tight jeans and wouldn't buy actual size if the seat or crotch ended up tight, but it's the waist alone you will be fine.

Feeling nostalgic!

http://loomstate.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-size-1947-and-1955-levis-501-for.html

9 hours ago, alvin_cheong said:

Thanks all for the recommendation...I will size up on the 55jeans.

Why? I think everyone here suggested you buy your actual waist size. The 55 jeans are very generous in the seat etc. See my various posts here and elsewehre.

Good call folks re those eBay jeans - the seller presumably knows they're not LVC as they haven't posted the white label with code numbers on.

55 ,go for actual waist size. Works for the 44, 55 and 66 for sure.

looks like classic shill bidding. I would report it.

https://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/seller-shill-bidding.html

15 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

^^ Paul, post up some pics of your gratis pair of 1880s when you get them 

Might be able to post pix but the chance of anything more than temporary possession is remote.

The new 1880s fabric is made by Cone, using indigo grown in Tennessee. Can't wait to see it.

The previous natural indigo, from 2001 or so, was made by Kurabo. Fascinated to see if the new one is very different. I am guessing the yarn will be rather like that used on the three-pleat jacket.

This must cost them more to produce than the Kurabo one, which was more bought-in than individually developed. A crazy thing to do for two items which don't carry over to next season, but I admire that craziness.

Sanforized is supposed to shrink a maximum of 2 per cent, but usually seems to shrink more - as even my friends at Lee, who use mainly Sanforized, agree. It's often around 5 per cent.

Soaking should somewhat reduce broken threads in the honeycombs etc, by removing starch and warp yarn resins, although I believe that happens less with Sanforized fabric. So whether to soak or not depends most on whether you like the look or not. Unwashed sanforized has more of a sheen, and the fabric is flatter. I personally like that look and feel, and usually wait a few months before washing or soaking, but it's definitely down to personal preference.

Haha!

I'm very interested in that fabric as it looks identical to the indigo duck that Cone developed about a decade ago. I have a huge roll of it, it's so wonderful that I can't quite decide what to do with it. It wears fantastically, especially if you don't wash at all (T Jr has a pencil case made of it that looks amazing).

But it bleeds like the ultimate, unthinkable bastard. It would undoubtedly stain everything you're near. i have a rough memory that when Levi's used the material for pants, they were only allowed to do so with a resin coating, as the technical spec for bleed is so lousy the lawyers told them they might get sued for damage to furniture!

By the way, those arcs are drop dead gorgeous.

When do we think they'll be finished? I"m off to an indigo farm on 18 Sept, would be a great debut journey...

Sorry, can't get to my 47 for a bit as I'm supposed to be working, but this suggests almost exactly 22.5" for the 66. This was a 32 inch waist, measured 32, which stretched back to 32, two washes so far. I think the 66 is a bit lower rise than the 55.

13 hours ago, johnnyryall said:

Hey guys, if any of you LVC experts care to help me it would be greatly appreciated!

I've lost more money on raw denim than I'd care to admit so figured I'd come here for some input...what I'm looking for is a LVC cut that best resembles Marlon Brando's in the wild one...I know, an overused model but to me it's the perfect cut-anti-fit enough to accomodate bigger thighs while still having a fitted seat and high rise. The most flattering silhouette that isn't slim-fit, imo. I've tried the 47 but the thigh is just too slim for the look I want, especially since I'll be washing fairly often to achieve subtle fades. ANY suggestions would be appreciated! 

 

The 55 seems the right choice (the 66 would work too). You will need an actual 32 inch waist, as measured. I think current producition is true to size but check with your seller.

http://loomstate.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-size-1947-and-1955-levis-501-for.html

(47, 33 waist as measured on left, 55, 32 waist as measured, on right).

OK, funds are in and the clock is ticking, Ed!

Yeah, looks like those are slots to position the patch on a punch which cuts them out; how the punch falls will affect how much of the slot is visible. The size/model type is different too - a smaller font on my pair, they probably used a simple lead type which might well have varied from batch to batch.

I'll try this. Should show what I mean about the slots.

the model number and size imprints vary a lot on originals. I think they must have used a variety of machines/type to print them over several years in different factories. I always think the card they use seems to vary across different originals.

THose slots are definitely there on the originals - they were in different places on the two deadstock 60s jeans I've owned and have keptpix for - they are actually notches on the outside of the outline, sometimes they come out as a slot with the outside edge intact (sorry, hard to explain, I really need to sort out another pic host so I can post photos). In the ones I have, a 66 pair have slots tops and bottom right, a 69 pair are top left and top right. Both have very different main print, too.

I do speak to my friends at LVC about inaccuracies; overall, they're looking at an overall package of how authentic something is, it costs a lot to make the fabric and jeans in the US, so they accept some compromises (for instance, on the non-rayon red tag). There are inaccuracies that bother me - on the upside, for instance, they take far more care over the fabric than many other repro makers, designing the yarns from scratch where others simply buy in existing ones.

 

4 hours ago, JoFo said:

This sucks.

They have select items from the archives on display in the regular building, I think the pair were there.

The surprise royalty check i got in, that inspired me to join this contest, has now ebbed away, thanks to a lovely holiday and a horrible tax bill.

so leave it at least another 10 days Ed! No hurry!

Lovely HK update. We returned from there on the 18th, sorry I didn't see you. Having always thought folks exaggerated the humidity of the place... I salute you for travelling around in those pants.

I liked the city, altho perception was coloured by the fact we did a houseswap with a banker, who owned an expensive property on Old Peak Rd - complete with Fillipino maid. Shocked to see the space she lived in, and how there's this almost victorian culture of servants. Loved seeing them take over the city on Sundays. Bored by the mall culture, but loved the fast-changing areas around Sai Ying pun and Kennedy Town, wish I'd spent more time there.

On 5 July 2017 at 0:53 AM, redragon said:

While waiting for something more exciting to come along worth documenting here, did notice small difference in the yoke construction when compared to "modern" model of 501. 

Cross check with other brand doing similar period repro also does the yoke right over left.

Just wondering if there is any historical reason for this, maybe @Paul T can chime in...

Most 20sjean were right over left. 40sand 50s left over right. In the 30s they switchedbetween both. There are also differences in how the 2 rows of stitches lineup, there is a 'stagger' post war although the 50s tcb didn't feature one, and the 20s seem to .