free2hear

23 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I have 2 pairs of raw 55s, from 2007 and 2009, one has a button code of 4420, can’t remember which. Both are tagged 32 waist and measure approx 34.5 raw. Hope that helps.

Thanks Maynard.

Guys, can anyone share how's the fit on the LVC USA's 55, the batch from the 4420 factory, TTS?  Also, for sale I have a pair of USA 37's W31 L30 in almost new condition, way too big for my butt, so if anyone's interested shoot me a pm (I'm in Europe, if it does matter).

Thanks

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

6 hours ago, propellerbeanie said:

Finally finished exams for the year, and can probably take some pictures in the near future. I'm wearing some '66 501s for the DWC, and I have some pre-wash/post-wash measurements to let other know about the shrinkage. I bought a size 32/34, and put them through an initial hot soak (60C+), hot machine wash (50C), and just a line dry.

Pre-wash ---> post-wash

Waist 42.5cm ---> 38cm

Front rise 29.5cm ---> 27.5cm

Back rise 40.5cm ---> 38cm

Thigh 31.75cm ---> 30.5cm

Knee 24.25cm ---> 23cm

Hem 21.5cm ---> 20.5cm

Inseam 85.25cm ---> 77cm

Adding to your info and to other potential interested people, mine (30/32) at the waist went 15.75(40cm) ---> 14.5 (36.8) post hot soak and then back to 15 (38); yours surely shrunk more due to additional hot machine wash that mine didn't see.

front rise 11.5 -->10.5

back rise 15.5 -->14.258

hem 31.59 --> 29

66 rocks!

9 hours ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

What kind of comparison do you want? Measurements?

yep, that'd be nice.

4 hours ago, beautiful_FrEaK said:

I decided to keep both pairs of 1976. The size 36x36 with hot washes and the use of the dryer (still feels quite roomy, similar to my 1947) and also the 34x34 which I only soaked and washed cold for initial shrinkage and will keep as dry as possible afterwards. They still shrunk to just below 32” in the waist but I stretched out when wet.

 

Conclusion: Like always I would need a size 35

 post some pictures of both, it would be nice to have a comparison.

How do you guys feel about the 67-505? Any thoughts?

@bod and @albmuzquiz , try a proxy, I remember having some trouble aplying a code (not this one but another) buying at the european site from Portugal and then changed to an UK proxy and it worked.

5 hours ago, albmuzquiz said:

So based on the above thread and on other info I've seen about the 47s, I def want to size up, right?

 

I'm a comfortable 30 and snug 29 in regular 501 STF and a snug 30 in the 1954z. So I'm thinking 31 in the 1947? I just don't want them to wind up being too big. But we all know the unsanforized struggle.

 

My experience with  54 W30 (waist 15'', fit waist loose bottom), STF w28 (waist 14.8, snug and snug bottom but wearable) and 47 w31 (waist 15.75 loose waist and very loose bottom which I use very low at the waist). According to you, you should be comfortable with 47 w30 and snug with w29 and I guess it depends on the look you're trying to achieve and the size of your bottom. Hope this helps.

Loss of jobs, knowledge, history and exclusive and exquisite fabrics. Definitely some sad sh*t. 

1 minute ago, propellerbeanie said:

I think the majority of us appreciate photos!

It was a joke, we sure do!

This thing of taking photos to show on a forum - mostly to people you don't know, might come mainly as a bit of a vanity thing, but that's only partial true because I did learn a few things with this photo exercise: I would never had given another soak on the 66's but did after seeing with more detail how they wrinkled in the photos; I wouldn't have changed the way I worn the 47's, letting them go lower waist when I was using them in a higher waist position trying to compensate for an oversized waist; as for the 54's and contrary to the 47's, I started wearing them much higher at the waist, instead of lower, because that way seemed to compensate for their (or mine) lack of ass, as the following photos will show.

1954's ZXX rigid raw USA, W30 (50154-0001, 2012, factory 4420, 1 initial warm soak and another very hot soak)

cultizm measures - post 1st soak - post 2nd very hot soak measures

waist: 15.55- 15.25 -14.75

front rise:  8.27?- 10.25 - 10

back rise: nd - nd - 15.5

hem 7.09? – nd - 7.75

Like the 66's I didn't own these from new so couldn't measure them at their non used/washed/soaked state. I used Cultizm measurements (unfortunately they took them off with the revamped site) for a W30 that might be, or not, inaccurate (see hem and front rise measures), although many state they're generally quite accurate.

After the 1st soak I was partially happy with the fit mostly due to their "lack of ass" so decided for a very warm 2nd one with these mildly shocking results to the leather patch that turned it into a potential ninja weapon... Another mistake was that I hemmed them after their first mild soak, and the hemming decision was that I wouldn't be doing cuffs with this model, using them more with shoes instead of boots so they were on the shorter side. After their 2nd soak they lost more leg but luckily they remained usable and for my taste, perfect to wear uncuffed with either shoes or boots.  With these I surely learned through mistakes!

1st photo - how I used to wear them lower at the waist, 2n photo - how I started wearing them after seeing the photos, as explained at the beginning.

Like: not the greatest color from the batch of lvc's I have but enjoyable nonetheless, a very dark denim; the hairiest denim I've seen so far, very pleasing; leg fit and hem size, between older and more contemporary.

Like less but that's just idiosyncrasy: butt fit but it might be compensated if I wear them higher; white stitching at the back pocket rivets (see photo below) introducing a color not related to any other color used throughout the trousers; useless coin pocket size and perhaps related small front pockets; a zip in any 501 is a thing of hate and a potential deal breaker but sometimes you've gotta learn to love!

Before buying I was unsure about this model mostly because of the zip, but they were bought in a reasonable deal and since then I decide to keep them. After using them my main bug was their "lack" of ass and as they weren't part of the original 501 landscape but rather a contemporary designer invention, mostly capitalizing on Marlon Brando image of the "the wild one" movie, perhaps their "lack" of ass design was the best to Brando's big butt and way of living. Through these photo sessions, which I wouldn't have done if I didn't discover this thread,  I discovered I could wear them in a different way I which might pay off if my waist doesn't enlarge too much. 

4 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I don't know why I'm worried about it, perhaps I should simply embrace the Clarkson look!

In an ideal world we should be driving convertibles all year round (in Portugal we do..), be allowed to punch a few idiots that daily cross our paths (in Portugal we don't...) and our jeans would never achieve the dad jean dreadful aesthetic heights that you so kindly explained and also thanks to @bartlebyyphonics for the "hilarious" link. That would be part of a truly Clarksonian existence, but, unfortunately, that's not how civilization works.

@Paul T Your encyclopedic knowledge about lvc is a wonder to have here. Re your " For all these jeans except the 201, I would wear them for maybe three months in the summer.", in Portugal you can wear summer jeans for 9 months, that's part of the rational to buy one of the older 501's. But (one of) my problem(s) is wearing the same jeans every day, just love variety and I must assume that it would take years to achieve any kind of those looks that your photos so clearly demonstrate, which after all is not so problematic because I like them dark.

Eventually I'll find my "older" pair, and you paul and maynard are giving me good headaches about what pair (I think I would be happy with only one pair of those older models', or just another rationalization) to choose from. The 1915's seem tempting but the smaller waist they have is a 28 and I have one of the current STF's in W28 and though different their cut is I'm not sure if I could wear the 15's without a belt, perhaps the cinch is of help and they would shrink a bit but I'm hesitant and based on my previous experiences the belt "reassures" me. There seem to be no measures online for the 15's, even the helpful cultizm measurements page seem to have disappeared under the revamped site, and I'm afraid Levis UK will not be too helpful with detailed measurements. Does anyone have any info regarding the 15's measurements in smaller waist numbers?

3 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I removed the cinch straps entirely, rivets and all and had them tapered and (chainstitch) rehemmed at the Levi's shop in Regents Street. They are still a full, high-waisted cut but I'm much happier with the slightly slimmer hem.

In terms of denim, these also seem to have that royal blue hue that Paul mentioned (on the 33s) so I'm trying to be more frugal with washing to avoid the dreaded dad-jean scenario. The 1915 denim is definitely nicer.

Definitely agree with functional alterations that pleases you better, some good ideas here Maynard. Can you be more specific about that dad jean stuff? Is it about color?

38 minutes ago, Paul T said:

I have actually worn all of these bar the 1915 and 1937.

I don't know the new 1915, but the old ones were terrific. That would still be a strong contender for the best, as I think the new fabric is good. But I do love the 1901. With all of the earlier ones, especially, you have to resign yourself to a ridiculously long wear-in process.

1880 - great, unusual shape. Still jonesing for the natural indigo version
1890 - lovely drainpipe cut. Mine are 10 years old, worn maybe 6 summer and still only just starting to wear in. One back pocket is a pain as the front pockets are shallow and money drops out. New Cone fabric for these looks terrific. Perfect for the beach.
1901 - great all-rounder.
1915 - good rep but I haven't worn
1922 201 - the old Kurabo fabric was amazing, very natural -indigo like, as in very turquoise with lots of greeny midtones and a bastard to wear in. Very wide, almost sailor-pants like.
1933 - somehow my least favourtie LVC, mostly on account of the fabric which I found too baby blue; although I did wear these as a new parent and hence had to wash a lot due to baby sick (and worse)
1937 - good fabric and a good cut means these have to be some of the most enticing cinchback models.

Great info @Paul T. The 37's seem very appealing. Did you ever fiddle with adding belt loops to some of the older models? (i'm not a suspender guy..) Also, any theory about the 1915's being so cheap at levis uk at the moment?

[some sort of poll..]

Based on your experience/preference which pair(s) would you buy, and why, from this batch: 1880, 1890, 1901, 1915, 1922 201, 1933 and 1937? All reasons valid, vanity included .

6 hours ago, kicks79 said:

Nice review @free2hear

I copped a pair of 66s on sale. The price was just too good to pass up.

I haven't worn them yet as I'm still working on my 76s  

 

thanks @kicks79, where did you get yours? And those 76's... pics pls!

Some pics of the 66's W30 (2015, factory 4420, 1 warm soak, 1 hot soak)

cultizm measures - post 1st soak measures - post 2nd soak measures

waist: 15.75 – 15 - 14.5

front rise:  11.5 - 10.5 - 10

back rise: 15.5 - 14.5 - 14

hem 7.87(?) – 8 - 7.75

1st picture after 1st soak, 2nd picture after 2nd soak

I didn't own these from new so couldn't measure them at their non used/washed/soaked state, so used Cultizm measurements for a W30 that might be, or not, inaccurate (those hem measures...) in this case, although many state they're generally quite accurate.

The original owner told me he only did a mild soak and my guess is he didn't like them for some reason and decided to sell. When they arrived they smelled like new, were starchy and after the first measures and photos (left) I decided to make a 2nd wash with very hot water. I liked the fit but wanted to see if it would improve with a 2nd soak and lose some of the wrinkled tissue you can see on the 1st frontal photo and also at the back. The front improved, the back also did though not as much as I wanted, which makes me believe that my best bet with these might be W29, as well as the 47's. I've seen some model pictures of these and they all fold a bit at the butt, perhaps it's something you will never get rid with this model.

like: great color, back pockets shape, round top block, larger thighs than usual but ok with me skinny legs, general fit.

like less but that's just idiosyncrasy: oversized back pockets but that's something most lvc models have, too much wrinkling at the butt (oversized?).

I'd love to see these shrink a tiny bit more but am always hesitant in giving them the machine treatment at this underused stage, guess I just like them dark...

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

@free2hear,

 

what i like about them is the super high waist. the 47s got a tapered waist so are full at legs and bum while being snug at the waist, the 44s come straighter (hip-waist ratio) and fit better if you don´t have a full bottom. the denim used is still the same and will age beautiful.

I've been considering some high waist ones, the 44's and most of the older models seem to fit that aspiration, and your explanation of the 44's waist to hip is quite helpful. Currently on sale the 1915's seem to be nice too, in the high rise department, but the lack of belt loops means fiddling with adding some loops and detaching suspender buttons because I'm not into the braces look. Perhaps the 33's

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

this online shop got a lot of rigid lvcs (1890,1915, 1933, 1966, 1967) for 138,-€ in sale. grabbed myself some nice rigid 44s

www.sivasdescalzo.com

sympathy, it'd be nice to see your comments after receiving and trying the 44's

Really love these "making of" pictures at the end of lvc's catalogues. @Paul T you've been doing a marvelous job with those.

^Yeah It could do with a few washes but my preference goes to keep denim dark also I'm not much into developing fades. The idea is to have a few pairs to rotate keeping them dark as long as possible. I'll try to find a 29, until then I'll wear them.

47's fit, model 47401-0117 rigid, w31

cultizm vs actual measures (after 2 soaks, warmish to hot)

waist 15.35 - 15.25

front rise 11.42 - 11.25

thigh 11.22 - 11

hem 8.27 - 8

I might have been a bit conservative on those 2 soaks (time, water temperature) because according to cultizm measures they didn't shrunk as much as I thought they would. This was my first pair of lvc bought without any prior knowledge/experience of shrinking of lvc. At the time I read some stuff about the 47's being iconic and every time I saw sufu mentioned I was left wondering wtf did sufu meant...

Their fit, two last photos a bit out of focus.

Although I like these a bit oversized I think they would suit me better in a 29/30, or I'll have to be more radical about the next wash. I think the 47's cut is really beautiful and it's easy to understand their popularity among fans.

Like: Cut, stitching colors, denim color, size of belt loops, hem size, pocket watch size, good pocket room for your hands

Don't like: Fit (this size), distance between two front belt loops barely leaving size for the buckle, huge back pockets but perhaps because they're a w31, copper rivets immediately giving you two central light blue dots in your butt, but then, they're a repro...

Some pic porn and personal impressions on the 66's (2015, factory 4420, w30, 1 warm soak), 47's (47501-0117, 2013, factory 4420, w31, 2 soaks, one warm, one hot) and 54's(50154-001, 2012, factory 4420 , w30, 2 soaks, one hot, one very very hot) all rigid denim.

I'm not an lvc expert and this is just personal opinions based on a brief, and sometimes painful, experience on lvc denim jeans.

in order: 66, 47, 54z, notice the much higher position of the back pocket on the 51z (waist aligned). in terms of color don't have a favorite, all are beautiful in their own way. the higher pocket of the 51 makes it a very different jean from the others.

notice the larger belt loop on the 47's, really like this detail

the crooked path, pardon, the cooked patch of the 51z's, bearing witness to my denim cooking capabilities or excessive high temperature water, notice the warp on the denim below the patch due to the shrinking leather. might take off the leather patch because of that warp..

the 51's leather patch was identical to the beautiful 47's (uncooked) patch

the "unleather like" patch of the 66's though levis states it as a "leather like patch"

notice the different stitching color at the top of the back pockets aka bartacking?, orange on the 66, nice color but perhaps overcolored

dark blue on 47's, my favorite, it makes for a more discrete pocket because the lvc pockets are everything but discrete in their huge sizes (I like them anyway..)

and white on 54z, the least favorite, because it seems to bear no relation to any of the other colors use throughout the stitching.

Visually the pocket shape I like the most is from the 66, more square but nevertheless big in width 6.5 inches

when the 47's is 7 inches, huge to my small bum..

more to come..

a few pairs of used lvc for sale at https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/19631966/m.html