entertainment!

^And they have Knappaves in lots of wearable sizes. Just don't follow their sizing advice.

Just checked my Our Gang set. The one I was thinking of involving the dog catcher is called "The Pooch" from 1932. And the chore coat does have a chin strap. I wonder if this was a remake of "Love My Dog" which would have been a silent since it is from 1927.

I was watching an old silent "Our Gang" little Rascals called Dog something or another, and they had these two dog catchers on the short, 1928 I think and they had the most amazing chore jackets on. One was newer and the other was worn in with patches on it and rips. It was on Turner the other day. Worth finding just to see the vintage denim.

That does have some amazing jackets. I tried to take frame stills from that short to post here a while back, but I haven't figured out how to get around the copy protection. There is another Our Gang short called "Railroadin"" with some incredible loco jackets. It is on the complete DVD set of the Our Gang talkies.

Another great 1930s movie with chore coats and much more is "Other Men's Women" about three men who work for the railroad. In one scene, Jame Cagney takes off a pair of denim overalls to reveal a tuxedo. Which is a bit silly. But there is a lot of nice workwear in the film, and it is enjoyable as a movie too.

Anyone else getting really faint blue hues coming through on their pairs? Became more evident after two days hard wear and a second soak...Damn I can't wait to see how these will fade!

I thought I saw some, but wondered if it was a delusion.

Overall, I am loving the fit! I have been telling myself for a while that I need to try some jeans that are a little roomier, and I think these are it. The waist is still a little snug, and I have some kind of little wedgie going on, but I think that will all stretch out in a week or so. I'll likely double cuff once the jeans relax and I know where I want the cuffs to sit.

Zissou, I have some of that wedgie action going on too. Not as bad as with my first pair of Roys though which took about twenty wears to get comfortable.

Great fits all around. I have tried to rep all of them, but must spread.

@ Dr Heech- The knappaves and the duck pants will get some wear on the weekends.

I had to wait for the fog to clear this morning to get some pics in natural light.

I soaked for half an hour at 100F. Probably could have got more shrinkage.

Thanks again to everyone who made this possible Roy, Ralph, Paul T, Almostnice, Roy6, and rnr (but not future rnr)!

Went to NYC today and forgot my camera, so no pics yet. But looking at this denim all day made this one of the best New Year's Days ever. Every time the light changes a little the denim looks so different. The fabric is really crocking nicely already and in interesting zigzag patterns on the lap because of the pocket style.

I told my wife that I would be wearing these for the next year and she asked, "Even to sleep in?" I think she was joking but I am not completely sure.

Just got my pair today. I measured my waist at 34" and that is what I requested. The waist of the jeans measure just under 36" BiG style. The waist is just a bit loose which is what I was hoping for. Details are incredible.

Nice buckle choice on the Quercus.

BTW, I like the funky smell. It reminds me that the leather isn't a petrochemical product.

I have a pair of the MIJ '53s. They are similar to a '55 cut but the denim is more like the '47s. The denim seems to be much quicker to fade than the Cone '47 fabric.

^Given all the variation in LVC production, maybe the ones you have are a more authentic cut than mine!

I have a feeling I wouldn't be arguing so hard for the historical inaccuracy of '54s if the damn jeans weren't so uncomfortable for me to wear. I think it is good that Levi's makes a skinny cut with Cone selvage denim and other vintage details.

In that way: I am still convinced that there are rational arguments to claim that the '54Z cut is at least historically possible...

I would say that we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cut did not exist but that preponderance of evidence suggests it didn't. And I trained as a historian too. The most likely explanation of the cut is that LVC just wanted a slim cut jean to satisfy that marketing niche, not because they based it on a historical precedent.

The one piece of evidence we have on the '54 501Z is in the book published by Levi's called "501:The Evolution of the Jeans". I will scan an image soon. It is hard to look at a picture not knowing the waist and inseam size and make generalizations about the cut. On the other hand, the pair shown seem to be quite full cut and they have a huge rise. (The rise looks longer than the '47 that is shown in the book. There is no picture of a '55.) If someone else has the book and a scanner handy, they should feel free to post a picture.

I can also say from owning a pair of the LVC 1954 501Z that the cut is bizarre. The top block is loose on me, but they are so tapered that my knees hurt after wearing them for an hour or so. I just can't believe that they are an authentic cut.

Entertainment has a pair... maybe have a look on the Duck thread? I'm not sure I like the pants as much as the jumper, I'm suspicious about the lack of a yoke.

I have a pair of the 555 ones that I got from Dr Heech, but I don't have the new ones. I think Riff has a pair though and posted pictures.

amazing stuff

can't wait for the second book

Just picked this up at Kinokuniya on 6th Ave. Tons of great photos of original denim from the 1870's on. They have five copies left and also just got in the new free n easy.

I was at Kinokuniya NYC on Saturday and they had at least ten copies available, if anyone is interested.

^This is a complaint of mine with most shirts these days. It seems that tucking a shirt is becoming a lost art. 90% of shirts I try on always seem too short.

It's good to know that in advance about the eworkers shirts, I was considering ordering one or two but won't if they are cut short.

They are great quality but way too short. They drive me crazy. 28" for the back length is just way too short if you are any where near 6'. On the other hand, I like the rounded collar.

Great film and the jacket looks brilliant. I'll have to rewatch all the Mann/Stewart Westerns to check out the denim.

I might have got a bit carried away in my description of the denim. It is very similar on the Oldest Oldest and the Knappave. The Knappaves are slightly darker, but that is probably due to the Oldest Oldest having been soaked for longer than the Knappaves.

For $150 on Cultizm, the Knappaves are a steal.

another hey paul.... my dad wants a pair of suspender button jeans, so i've chosen 1870 oldest oldest. just a few questions, how much do they shrink, would it matter if they were actually washed relatively frequently (once per month or so) since the denim is so thin? is the sizing true ish/ he wears a 38 and im planning on getting a 38. and are they good pants overall? they seem pretty cool.

thanks man.

Paul is right. The Knappaves are much better than the Oldest Oldest if they are available. Better denim, better construction, better fit, better details. As to sizing, the best option would be to get measurements. The actual waist measurements are two to three inches bigger than the marked size on both. I have a 32 waist in the Oldest Oldest and a 33 in the Knappaves. I need my waist to end up about 35.5 BiG style for an ideal fit. Both of these are a bit loose. But they have only been soaked so far, not washed. Have you considered the 1915s? They are much more wearable than the Oldest Oldest or the Knappaves and have incredible denim (though some of the details are off according to Dr Heech).

Actually ROY said I was gonna be the judge. I will be totally impartial, but big cuffs, bootlegger leather jacket, suspenders, RNR utility shirt, Roy boots and rugged good looks are extra points.

Where to cop?

Vin, did you scan those pics from Take Ivy?

Does anyone know about these?]

I would think those are for metal rather than fabric.