robbojnr

http://www.oki-ni.com/Mens-Jeans/Levisr-Vintage-1901-501-Raw-Jean/invt/lev0015ind

the path on these are they from last season or maybe 2

that could be. I didn't measure mine before soak cause I was too excited and forgot. but i did measure my brother's pair and his were 1/2" larger than tag size. Mine are pretty snug at the waist but I think they'd be fallin off me if I had gone up a size.

erk, did they shrink much, i take it these stretch pretty much back out

i have had lots 33's and they always stretch back out, ive just ordered waist 36 in these i hope they aren't too big

are the ones on offer all this season, i can go into cinch and try them on and buy a few pairs

There's a ton of LVC 40% off at Oki-ni. You have to use the code SEASONEND under 'Additional Services' during checkout. Here is the stuff that it works on. Most LVC is on page 2.

Once again, I would have bought a pair of oldest oldests, but I usually wear 32/34 in jeans, and they only had 34/34 The consensus around here seems to be go true to size, but post-shrinking, the 34s should measure 33, and my fully stretched jeans are 34-35 in the waist. Worth a try?

Kinda sad that levis customers have to finish the job hardwear-wise.

But yeah entertainment, 100% agree with you about the the beautifull denim.

hey heech you mentioned in an earlier post you were done with lvc, what denim is next for yuou

do you not mean autumn production 2009

also with 55's how much do they shrink and stretch back out

Just in case it's useful, here's my LVC measurements from the spring produciton.

My suggestions for sizing would be to size up one inch, in the measured size, from your normal size.

So if you're a 31 waist, buy a 32 in the 47. you can size down even further in the 55, as these have quite generous thighs - this gives quite a cool 60s skinhead look. If you're a 32 waist in the 55, get ones that measure 32, even 31 would not be too slim. Similarly, the current 67 suits downsizing, and if worn undersized makes a slimmer jean than the comparatively straight-legged 47. Buy your actual size waist in the 1922 201. For the others it's a matter of opinion. Some of these are meant to be loose and downsizing doesn't suit; but for the 33 and 37, either normal sizing (one inch or two inches up) or downsizing works equally well.

LVC measurements, spring 2009

Measurements are for jean tagged 32W 32L.

W= waist, R=Rise, L=leg length, Lo=leg opening (measured across hem) S=seat (width just below the front pockets), Th=thigh width 7 inches below the crotch.

1901 501 W34, R13, L31.5, Lo8.75, St22.25, TH10.5

1922 201 W34, R11.5, L 32.5, Lo10, St20.5, Th11.25

1927 501 W35, R13, L32.5, Lo9.5, St 21, Th11

1933 501 W33, R12.5, L31 , Lo 9.25,St20.5 , Th 10.75

1937 501 W32.5,R13, L31.75, Lo9, St 20, Th10.125

1944 501 W35, R13, L32, Lo 8.75, St 20.25,Th10

1947 501 W32, R12, L32, Lo8.5, St20.25, Th10

1955 501 W35, R12, L31, Lo8.5, St20.75, Th10.75

'54 501Z W32, R11, L33.5, Lo7, St20.25, Th10

1966 501 W32, R11.5, L32 , Lo8.25 , St21.75, Th10.75

1978 501 W35, R11, L32, Lo8, St21, Th10.5

1983 501 W34, R12, L31.75, Lo9 , St20.75, Th10.25

Sufu 501 guide:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

I'm updating the LVC guide in my sig, as we speak.

Sorry I can't participate as I already have a bunch fo LVC (and SDA) under the bed but I'm looking forward to seeing the results. It's great that poeple are going for the more neglected cuts like the Knappave...

I've worn STF Levi's for over 35 yrs in my actual waist size. I never had a pair shrink more than 1/2 inch waist. I don't know how various LVC denims shrink, but my '37 555 lost only 1/2 inch, and my LVC JP '44s lost 1/2 after soaking once in nearly boiling hot water for an hour. The dude I got those '44s from assured me they'd lose 2 inches in waist, I took his word and ended up stuck with a pair of $285 jeans that were too large -- pissed me off. Also, I've seen a bunch of LVC come and go on Ebay where the guy selling them says, 'brand new never worn, one hot rinse, but still way too big, your loss my gain.' Needless to say, I don't buy into the standard size up 2 inches to allow for shrinkage.

Sizing is another in a long line of issues I have to add to my LVC gripe list. I mean hell, once you literally search the world over for a particular pair you want, you've got to apply some fucked up sizing formula. There always seems to be the usual fine print ; 'please note, jeans run something or another sizes larger/smaller than tag size in waist. So you're like okay, add/subtract 2 inches in waist then add/subtract 2 inches for shrinkage. Then there's the unknown factor of whether the jeans size up on actual hand measurements or or not and whether the measurements are in cm or inches. If you figure all of that out, chances are pretty good you'll still end up screwed with the wrong size. If you can't find a dealer who'll take the time to hand-measure every pair in his inventory to find your size, then getting the right size is one big crap shoot and an expensive one at that. How fucking difficult can it be to make a jean that has the correct measurements and is offered in sizes for everyone? Apparently for Levi's it is impossible.

ive always said buy what fits you, because even if they do shrink in the waist they will stretch back again

airfrog

you got any idea how much these will shrink and if they will stretch back, also are they oversized

thanks

mike where did you buy the 33 waist from

I should be now , this is my third pair of 1966s !!! and the only pair that have worked out fit wise for me . My first pair stretched out to a w36 , the second were ok but I then lost weight and they were too big .These are a tagged w33 and are spot on as I am around a w35 !!!

what about leg length mike

i see that no one has past 34 in leg left in uk

Me an Lee jeans do not have a happy hstory , I have never had a pair that worked out fit wse or after wash that I really liked . However , that hasnt stopped me . Got a pair form Cultizms sale , 1966 101z , which are a good fit . I have worn them for a month and a half , everyday , 4m walk from work , gardening etc,... they are unwashed . Might just keep them ...

did you soak these first, if so was there any shrinkage ..

i was going to get a pair i hear they come up big in the waist

This is what I thought. As a skinny jean I love my '54, but it doesn't even seem like a 501. The silhouette is closer to my Dior 19cm than any 501 jean I have. From most reports I've read it seems like the '66 was supposed to be the slimmest of the 501s (this may also be a result of people wearing them undersized in the 60s). My '54s are definitely a lot slimmer than the '66 though.

the 54's are ridiculously skinny

*also posted in the Buzz Rickson thread*

My Buzz Rickson khakis have arrived. How's the fit? I'm not used to wearing stuff this baggy.

These have not been soaked.

trousers look great, what shirt is that

trying to decide between the mc coys 101b or z's

whats the difference any sizing for these pre and post soak

thanks

^ robbo they have been in the washing machine once when I got them & handwashed once but thre reason they are now a 36 is through wear. They are a nice slim fitting jean.

so i take it they were about a 35 when you bought them 2 inches up from tag size

anyone know the difference in these 2 jeans, one says 13 oz denim the other 11 oz, are they the same jean but a mistake has been made

http://www.oipolloi.com/store/Lee-101Z1966DrySanforizedIndigo-1565.html

http://www.oki-ni.com/View-All-Lee/Lee-101-1966-Dry-Jeans/invt/lj0004denm

Thought I would do a repost as there seems to be a renewed interest in these jeans.

patch these look great, im thinking of getting a pair, you said that the size is now 36 on the 33's is this after soaking..

thanks

the owner at three eight, where i bought my pair told me that mccoy lees are sanforized, but they do shrink. and they aren't supposed to stretch back much. so i got my pair loose when raw.

will try to remember before and after soak measurements and let you guys know.

do they run to tag size, superdenim said they could get me a pair of the mccoy 101z

i'll do it for you, pm me

you're welcome. you are correct about the difference in silos between the two pairs -- different years. also forgot to mention the warehouse 101z's come with crotch rivets too.

but the waist sizing was very similar. at least, that was my impression without doing a side-by-side comparison.

but grant definitely has a point if you're interested in looser fits -- maybe you'd rather get mccoy's 101b. detail-wise, i actually much prefer 101b, with the button fly and all. but i'm more concerned about the fit (my fave is 66 cut), so i went with the taxi driver lees.

but since nobody seems to own warehouse lees around here yet, maybe there's something to that too.

how many pairs do real mc coy make

and also warehouse

what are these

http://www.yoox.com/item.asp?tskay=B84CE7A2&cod10=42127765AI&rr=1&sts=srNav80&query=sr_men80&dept=men&srnavpag=3

Good luck. Sizing is notoriously inconsistent on LVC; used to at least be consistent for the same model, but there are more changes this year, Check the 501 guide, I've posted the dimensions for the new models. It's incomplete, but I'll post the full set asap: http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

And check out The Clerk's fantastic 1933 jeans that I've added. I'd say they look just like vintage ones but I'm not allowed!

according to paul basically all levis in spring are 2/3 inches oversized is this what others have found because i havent found this. Also oipolloi who do measurements as well have on average a one inch increase in tag size

Thanks Doc they look even nicer now. Get'n a bit gamey though (LoL). Only a couple months left and I will post more photos after they hit the water.

i think the ones i liked the most were the 1901's that i tried on today

sorry for my last post i was asking about the difference between the cut on the 33's to 37's

sorry for above post i was wondering how 37's comapre to 33's

how does compare to 33's in cut, are they slimmer

Apart from the denim itself, those 1915's on the Hanon site look identical to the 1917's, especially the back pocket shapes + arcs. Does anyone else out there think this, or is it just me? I mean, why bother bringing out a different year jean, if its the same as an existing one?

Should have been titled 1917 cone colab.

just been in cinch today tried on loads of jeans, find the 17's too wide from knee down. They said that the 15's will be very much the same a as the 17's but with different denim obviously. They said they are in at the beginning of august

anyone bought a pair of 66, 101z lees