cool_hand

1976 Mirrored jeans listed on eBay for £7000 and £2000!!

Maybe I should sell mine?

8 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

It’s not my thing either @cool_hand, especially at that price but I’d love to see what a faded pair of the jeans looks like after a couple of years, especially using a monthly timeline. 

These will probably end up on sale at a few places; alternatively you could pick-up a pair of Studio D'Artisan Salesman Jeans for £200.

https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/blog/article/a-farewell-to-cone-mills-white-oak/

saw these at Newburgh Street yesterday – not really my thing - they are £560 a pop!

New buttons!

#buttongate

No size 35.

where can I find measurements (and shrink guide) for LVC jean jackets? 1936, 1953 etc.

On 9/17/2018 at 11:14 AM, edmond said:

Same as the indigo 

which is?

Warehouse 800 ECRU - Shrinkage? Anyone?

Any chance of some fit pictures Foxy2? FC1108R

On 22/04/2018 at 9:13 PM, mattialife said:

Sometimes wash in the sea!!

 

Please tell me that's not salt water?

Really not a good idea.

Please sell me your Ducks.

anyone know anything about EDWIN 105SX red selvedge denim jeans (Made in Japan)?

11 hours ago, Ciabatta said:

Any sites with decent size charts for the ‘54 501s? For either the rinsed or rigid versions?

https://unionmadegoods.com/product/levis-vintage-clothing-1954-501-rigid/

https://unionmadegoods.com/product/levis-vintage-clothing-1954-501z-jeans-new-rinse/

3 minutes ago, 428CJ said:

I sized for a "very relaxed" fit that will eventually shrink to a "quite relaxed" fit over the years. I break my shrink to fits in extensively before ever getting them wet, and I usually wash cold and air dry. Barring accident, it will likely be years before it gets its first submergence in water.

I wanted to get the large too, but I restrained myself. The price was just under $100 U.S.

You did state you paid $133 on the previous page, how did the price change to under $100?

Looking at the fabric I'd be surprised if it shrinks a whole size if it was cold washed. The label on inside states 5% shrinkage.

Not sure how you can wear it for years without washing it? It's going to get a bit whiffy.

30 minutes ago, Collin said:

I really like the shades of the 1880! Thanks for sharing 

It was photographed in natural light today but it was overcast - I think the 1880's natural indigo might 'ping' a little more if it was sunny.

TOP LEFT: 1880 Overalls Rigid.  TOP RIGHT: 1915.
BOTTOM LEFT: ROY Peanut.  BOTTOM RIGHT: LVC 1976 Mirror Jeans.

1880 Overalls Rigid.

1915

ROY Peanut.

LVC 1976 Mirror Jeans.

54 minutes ago, 428CJ said:

See my measurements above. I got mine XL.

It won't look bad with short sleeves. Also, remember that the shoulders are wide, and that translates to a deceptively short sleeve length measurement.

Did you size up or is that your usual size? Have you washed it or soaked it yet? I'm assuming not from your reply.

The shoulder width and sleeve length is the same on the Large. Yes, agree the shoulders are wide but not really enough to completely compensate for the short sleeves.

Here are the measurements of the Large:

Chest: 24"
Shoulders: 20.5"
Sleeve: 23.1/4"
Depth: 33.5" - (base of back collar to hem).

The fabric is superb, I wish it had glass buttons.

There was no XL left - price was £99.

Did anyone pick-up the Sunset Chambray Shirt Rigid (AW17)? Have you washed it or soaked it and how much did it shrink?

I received mine today in a size Large - the sleeves are much shorter than I expected: 23.1/4" shoulder too cuff. The swing tags states:

Due to the nature of the fabric, it will shrink one whole size if washed.

The sleeve length is a concern!

Busy here today! 1880's just arrived. The size 34/34 measures 16.5" across the waist with Back Rise of 17" - these are too small for me. The 36/34 measure 17 3/4" waist and are similar in all other aspects - these fit better.  The seat is noticeable - true anti-fit. I didn't like it at first - less noticeable if you look at the side with the rear pocket, more noticeable when you look at the side sans-pocket. I would expect with some shrinkage the seat will improve. The denim is similar to the 1915s but not as dark, I'd like to see it in natural daylight and will take some comparison photos tomorrow. Unlike the 1915s it has generous pocket bags. Like the Mirror Jeans, it has limited edition number on the inside: XXX/300. The construction is interesting, the small pleats at the back and the way the seams are finished on the inside. I'm not a fan of the patch from this period but it's actually been nicely done and it sits discretely under the cinch. Anyway just initial thoughts, I'll probably be keeping them. There are a few pairs left on the UK website - mine worked out £126 after adding a discount code. Not sure how they got away with selling them for $600 retail in the US? Perhaps I have that wrong?

On 06/01/2018 at 11:46 PM, 428CJ said:

Some time in the next week or so, I will be able to provide you with measurements for 34/34 and 36/34 1880's Overalls.

I think a dummy at Levi's decided to call them non-stretch, incorrectly thinking that there might be dummy customers who don't realize that Spandex didn't exist in the 19th century, and then assume the low 8 oz. weight means that they're made of modern, thin stretch denim. It's unnecessary, and, as you have proven, potentially confusing. You can expect them to stretch at least as much as regular 100 percent cotton denim, and possibly more due to the light weight.

I ended up ordering the same as you (2 sizes) and will keep/send back the pair that work/don't work; that's if I like the fit! I'm sold on the natural indigo that's for sure.

1 hour ago, Paul T said:

they are so generous around the seat etc that I would personally simply go for true to size. The waist will stretch back out for sure and the seat will still be generously proportioned. That's what I did with my 1890s, and my 1880s (not soaked yet).

I noticed they are described as anti-fit. I'm trying to find some better fit pictures of the seat. My impression is they have a high rise though - is that correct?

2 hours ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

you are right cool hand, i have both the current 1915 and the current 1890, the 1915 in W30 measures around 31" and the 1890 in W30 are tts...

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim Apparently the 1880s in rigid are TTS so I probably need to size up to a 36. Next question: does anyone know what the shrinkage is like on these? They are described as Non-stretch 8 oz. selvedge denim?

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim I have a pair of new (unwashed) 1915 34/34 here and they measure 36" waist so I would not describe as TTS. The 1880's Overalls look like similar denim to the 1915 so if they fit similar I'd be interested to know?

Why have you referred to them as 1890s? Typo?

where can I find measurements for 1880's Overalls Rigid?

8 hours ago, free2hear said:

nice read https://craftsmanship.net/secret-vintage-jeans/

In other news, a luxury brand just dropped a leather jacket inspired by Vladimir Putin.