erk

I wasn’t going to post any pictures cause I know I’m not in the running. I’ve had a bit of a love hate relationship with this pair. Mostly the back pocket size feels really weird and I can’t stop going back to my 50s and a pair of 517 orange tabs. I’ll see if I can take some though.

@Paul T I can’t believe the nipper is off to uni. It’s really been a long time here hasn’t it. The jeans look great ( Paul’s and the rest) these are the most washed out I’ve seen from Paul, very cool.

yeah the flare is pretty subtle. I’m wearing them with zero break and they really just look like straight legs

I’m wearing a pair of vintage 517 orange tabs right now. I look pretty cool if you ask me.

I feel like there was something about a California regulation about zinc or something. Maybe Paul t can shed some light. Also could have dreamt the whole thing.

initial feelings after returning to LVC. 1. It kinda makes a difference when the back pockets have the arcs and the tab says Levi's - even if the tab wont shrivel up and fray like on the TCB. 2. much stronger taper on the LVC, rise is higher. Probably a more flattering silhouette. 3. The fabric is awesome. Really drives home how much of a loss it is to be without cone mills. 4. $285 is way too much for a pair of jeans. $170ish is just fine. Makes me wonder if they'd do better to sell them for the old $170 of yesteryear and just sell more jeans. Are there really enough suckers out there to pay the $285 full retail? 5. I shoulda bought a 1947 too. 6. The buttons still look bad. But I think thats an environmental regulatory issue though...if I remember correctly.

Thanks everybody. The 50s are a size 31. They don't actually seem much smaller than my 32s though. I think they might be pretty old - so I dont know if there was a change in the pattern or what. I'll see how the two measure. My waist is a true 32 and these are a perfect fit at the waist. Could wear them without a belt but every time I've done that with Japanese jeans they get very badly stretched out.

I think that looks fine. I would not try for a larger size. Keep it!

A vintage cut type 3 is gonna have a shorter body and shorter arms than a modern jacket. I’d say if it fits you in the shoulders and body then keep it. I feel like the first pic posted is how the jacket should fit. The other two are on the small side.

They’ve landed 1955 in 32x34 raw measurements W 16.75 Th 12.5 In 33.75 Kn 9.5 Hm 8.25 Fr 12.75 Br 16

For warehouse and tcb I’d buy direct from warehouse or tcb web shop. Don’t know enough about full count.

I don’t think the shorter length needs to correlate with shorter height of the wearer. My belief is that the jacket will look vintage and correct if it is short. If it is long it’ll look silly and modern. Silly in my opinion because these jackets were originally designed to be short. You shouldn’t be able to wear a proper jean jacket without your shirt tucked in - imho love those warehouse type 2s. One day...

2nd hand tcb 50s + me being a “cool dad” in my boba wrap. The 20s are cool but the 50s cut is still my favorite.

I went ahead and went for a new pair of LVC. First new pair of LVC since I discovered TCB and got rid of all my collection that didn’t fit any more. I had wanted to try the ‘66 for the first time but those back pockets are just so big. So I went with what I know I like - 1955

I got mine true to measured size. That’s as tight as I’d go on the 20s.