428CJ

Well, I like Wrangler, Levi's, and Lee, if you look at their entire history. They all made gorgeous and good fitting jeans. The '55 LVC, '44 LVC, and '66 LVC are in my personal top tier of jeans cuts I've ever tried. But as far as what they all have to offer in their current standard lines, Wrangler beats the rest. Standard line Lee is complete garbage these days (the Lee EU stuff is cool, though, but again, expensive). Most Wrangler is too, but the Cowboy Cut line is good. Levi's still make nice 505s and 517s, and I can't complain too much about simple 501 STFs. But as far as style and quality for the dollar spent, Wrangler wipes the floor with the other two right now.

The best jeans cut out there IMO...outside of expensive reissues of old Levi's and Lee cuts.

They start out medium blue, so it's harder to build contrast. Also, broken twill is softer than RHT, so the fade lines tend to be less crisp than Levi's. Just have to be patient. Start out by hammering them with six months or a year of unwashed wear. My current pair of Rigid 13MWZs is just 70 days in, and they are already showing their fades. They will look great after 180 days, or a year. The 11MWZs shouldn't be broken twill. I don't believe Wrangler used that material in the '40s and '50s.

Jesus H. Christ. 40" inseam? Crazy (although I did order my 517's with a 38" inseam in order to reduce the flare after hemming to 33.5").

Don't worry. There's no reason you should expect to get only 1 inch back with wear. I've never had that little stretch in any pair of jeans. My '66s stretched about 1.5 inches, and that's worn loosely, with a nice and relaxed fit. With tight 501s, I have experienced up to 3.5" of permanent stretch from wearing wet after a soak/wash. I would say the "average" stretch on a regular fitting pair of 501s would be about 2 to 2.5 inches of stretch. And the '66s have such generous thighs in relation to the waist, that they should be no problem at all. If you let them dry first, then expect the stretch to take a few weeks. If you wear them wet till they are dry, most of it will happen that day.

If you want to get rid of the raw feel, I'd go ahead and shrink them. After shrinking, try them on wet. If the waist is a struggle to get into, then do the wear till dry routine. That will get your waist stretched very fast. '66's have the widest waist to thigh difference of any LVC cut. The "bell" shape and roomy things are well suited to those with your typical "healthy, athletic" male form: big legs and but, drawn in waistline.

Interesting about Levi's being particularly associated with the Ramones, etc. My boss went to nursing school in San Francisco (Levi's central, obviously) in the early through late '70's, and he said a lot of the punk rock scene there opted for Lees, because they had a good deep black color available – kind of the opposite of the thrashed blue jeans Ramones look.

What length inseam, and what temperature soak? How long was the soak? I am just trying to predict inseam shrinkage on my '76's (which I have yet to wear). Thanks.

Outside of the Levi's dot com end-of-year blowouts (where I picked up the majority of my LVC stuff at at least 30 percent, and some of it for insanely less), Cultizm is my go-to LVC retailer. Firstly, their standard LVC price is about $225, not $260 or $285, like the Levi's Website. Then on top of that, they usually run several 20 percent off sales per year, and they even go to 25 percent one or two times a year – sometimes with free shipping, even to the U.S.A. from Germany. When I order from them, I usually pay about $180 for a pair, plus about $10 shipping (unless the sale also includes free shipping), and sometimes a bit less if I catch the 25% sale. Other than my two pairs of 1880's, which I got from Levi's dot com for 30 percent off of 50 percent off ($210 for $600 list price jeans), the most I've paid for a pair of LVCs is $190 with shipping. The least I have paid is $72 for my '66's (straight from Levi's). Second least is about $105 per pair for my two pairs of 1915's (straight from Levi's UK). All my LVC is Rigid, except my second TPB, which is single rinse (could not resist it at the insanely low blowout price from Levi's dot com: $140.

Most of my LVCs are 36/34 and 36/36. I have never paid full pice for a pair of LVCs. I only buy when sales hit at least 20 percent off, and many of my pairs (and jackets) were bought significantly lower than that.

FWIW, I think Levi's seemed to stay quite nice in terms of build and materials quality, all the way up till the end of mass U.S.A. production. I have a dead stock pair of late U.S.A. era rigid sanforized 505s (at least late enough to have a Website prominently displayed on the pocket flasher – my instinct says late '90s or early '00s, based on the general design of the flasher). They are very well put together, as well as being a great cut (totally true to tag size, with a nice 13" rise in size 36). I also have a 1994 pair of 501's that are as well built as anything outside of super expensive tailor-made jeans (e.g. W.H. Ranch).

I disagree with this. Levi's denim quality was great in the '80s, IME. The jeans from those years aren't cool and collectible, for a variety of reasons, but they lost nothing in actual build and materials quality vs. the selvedge era.

What does hip 12.5" mean? Hips are usually in the 40's, or upper 30's on smaller sizes. Additionally, I find the frequent reports here of '66's being slim in the top block to be very odd. I have 1880's, 1915's, 1933's, 1944's, 1955's, 1966's, and 1976's, all in size 36. The '66's have the most relaxed hips of the lot (1 inch larger hip measurement than my '33's which are the next most relaxed in the hips). Yet they also have the smallest waistband of the lot. My '66's hips are 46" and the waistband is 35.5" held aligned. All my other LVC 36's have bigger waistbands and tighter hips. The upper block of the '66's is truly bell shaped, with very relaxed hips and a drawn in waistband...just like the LVC description and the LVC cartoon silhouette. I can understand someone finding the waistband tight, if they don't have a drawn in waist themselves. But I can't see the entire upper block being called tight. IME, they have quite a relaxed fit in the hips, and the waistband draws in, so they stay up better than most LVCs. Because of this, I find them to be the most suitable LVCs for downsizing – because as long as the hips fit, everything else on a pair of straight-legged jeans will stretch to fit in time (waistband, thighs, etc.). And with generous hip room, you can downsize quite a bit before the jeans get tight there.

...and since I just happen to have my 1933 (36/34) measurements as well, here they are, just for trivia's sake. Waistband: 38.5" Hips (at midpoint of front rise): 45" Thigh, at crotch: 27" Thigh, 2" down from crotch: 26" Actual knee: 21.75" Hem: 18.75" Front rise: 13.25" Inseam: 34" The '33's are a bit bigger than the '55's everywhere, except for the upper thighs (both are the same) and the rise ('55 is higher). As you can see, the '66's are very different, as they have a very figured upper block, with wide hips and a drawn-in waist compared to other models (even '76's, which keep the same basic leg shape of the '66's, but go back to a straighter upper block – tighter hips, and no significantly drawn-in waist). As such, '66's are the LVCs that best conform to a classic textbook male form. And due to their extremely generous hips, they can be downsized more easily (unless you have a belly that creates problems with the drawn-in waist).

...and since I'm in the mood and have the info right in front of me, here is my 34/34 1955's vs. my 36/36 1955's. I have included the percentages bigger that the 36's are, to provide an example of how sizing does slightly alter the cut of a pair of jeans. Each size is not simply a perfectly scaled-up or scaled-down version of some other size. As you can see the various points of measurement on the 36's range from about 2 percent bigger to about 7.5 percent bigger than on the 34's. 34's left, 36's right. 36/34 1966's left, 36/36 1955's right. Waistband: 35.5" – 38" ('36's are 7.0 percent bigger) Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends): 42" – 44" ('36's are 4.8 percent bigger) Thigh, at crotch: 26.5" – 27" ('36's are 1.9 percent bigger) Thigh, 2" down from crotch: 25" – 26" ('36's are 4.0 percent bigger) Actual knee: 20" – 21.5" ('36's are 7.5 percent bigger) Hem: 17.75" – 18.5" ('36's are 4.2 percent bigger) Front rise: 13" – 13.625" ('36's are 4.8 percent bigger) Inseam: 33.5" (1/2 inch under tag) – 35.5" (1/2" under tag)