428CJ

On 10/8/2021 at 4:41 AM, stanier said:

Just seen this recent addition to the Edwin site. Described by the kind of generic 1950s 101B (and they do a 101Z version and a jacket), are they actually 1954 101's?

https://edwin--mall-jp.translate.goog/shop/g/gLM6411-89-28?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc

There was a 1950 101B (I have a pair). It is different than the '54.

My pair runs very large.

This dude is a total douchebag. One quick look at his Instagram will tell you that. 

That magazine that is doing a "Best of Kansas City" entry about him ought to get a couple of letters from us, to provide some balance, and let them know they are promoting a sleaze ball.

On 6/25/2021 at 7:38 PM, Dr_Heech said:

Yes that's what l experienced. I originally purchased a pair in 2007 before l joined sufu so l didn't have any info on shrinkage/ washing them. After a 40, then a 60, no noticable shrinkage. But after a hot (90) wash, the inseam shrank an inch or so.

Thank you. I think I will risk a cold wash when the time comes. 

Also, I am wondering how you did a 90 C wash. That is approaching boiling. Our hot water heaters here top out at 140 F (60 C).

On 4/3/2021 at 10:47 PM, Dr_Heech said:

My 1936's claimed to be sanforized shrunk - didn't shrink in the waist but did shrink 1-2 inches in leg length after a  normal (no noticeable change) then a hot 90 degree wash. Lost a lot of indigo colour.

Do I understand correctly that you didn't note any inseam shrinkage after a cold wash – only after a hot wash?

My '36s are also hemmed, quite neatly (a 3/4–full break only). No room for any shrinkage. 

If the inseam shrinks, even in cold water, I guess it's dry clean only for those suckers.

12 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

My 1936's claimed to be sanforized shrunk - didn't shrink in the waist but did shrink 1-2 inches in leg length after a  normal (no noticeable change) then a hot 90 degree wash. Lost a lot of indigo colour.

Trouble is they had already been hemmed, so the leg shrinkage now gives them a bit of a high-water look, which combined with the so called Stovepipe top block, is a fit that l really like.

Will try and get some pics up soon.

If I understand you correctly, washing cold for life keeps this inseam shrinkage from happening.

I also hemmed mine before finding out about this extreme shrinkage.

On 1/16/2021 at 10:43 PM, Dr_Heech said:

@Broark they are Lee 1936 101 Cowboy pants. 13oz (i think?) Sanforized. They are the first hair on hide repro model, the other being the 1939 version (just different buttons).

These were my first repro Lee jean (bought 2 pairs in 2004) and they wear like iron!

Fyi though. My sz 34x33 measured 36x38 so l would imagine these would measure approx 38x38. Best double check measurements with the seller.

Yup. These (and apparently all Lee Archives, IME) run very, very large. I have 1936s and 1950s. Both are well above tag size in the waist.

I have also been told that they shrink quite a bit...but neither of mine have ever been washed, so I have no firsthand experience.

8 hours ago, LazyS said:

70s rider size 36

Hardly anything like the actual 70s Lee's i've owned, but it does have some details i like.

Got the same pants, in the same waist size.

Nope, nothing "repro" about them. Lee 101 EU doesn't do true repros, that I have ever seen. They've called things "'50s" or "'70s" before, but they are nowhere close to being detailed reproductions. 

On 3/14/2021 at 8:47 AM, SF2Turbo said:

thanks for the info. so i can't expect the back rise of 101s to be close to the LVC 1966 is what your saying.

I would expect any EU Lee 101 jeans to have a rise at least 3/4" lower than the same size LVC '66s. That's just an estimate pulled out of my head, so I would give it 1/4" either way based on the estimate.

On 3/8/2021 at 1:45 AM, SF2Turbo said:

Hi I only wear button fly denim for the most part. I want to add a lee 101s to my wardrobe when I have some spare cash to spend. Anyone know how high the back rise is? I usually go for denim with decent back rise like LVC 66 is perfect not over the top high but enough for a shirt to be tucked in giving it a comfy and smart look.

Rear rise will depend on size. There is significant manufacturing variation from run to run as well, IME.

There have normally been no truly high rise jeans in the EU Lee 101 catalog's standard offerings. Their highest rise cuts are still merely mid-rise jeans, barely hitting, or coming in just under, a 12" front rise, even in the larger sizes, like 36.

In the past few seasons, they have put out a few more "vintage-inspired" pieces, so these might have slightly higher rises. But the typical 101Z, Riders, and 101Ss are nowhere near high rise.

On 3/4/2021 at 6:59 AM, dotcomzzz said:

Guys, what's going to be the most tapered between the 66, 78 and 84 501. Info online is scarce on these versions and how they compare, particularly the last two years. Thanks!

I am unsure about the taper of the '84, and I don't really know the '78, but I do own the '76 and '66.

'66 is more tapered, but less slim fitting, than the '76. That is because the '66 has wider hips, yet a narrower waistband, than the '76. '76s are slim hipped compared to '66s, yet the waistband is larger. They both go out to approximately the same leg opening, at the same tag size. Therefore, the '76 is a straighter but tighter jean.

Where '84 fits in to that comparison, I do not know...and I am also now sure how close the '76s and '78s are.

14 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

If you look back at my statement, l did say iirc (if l recall). It's hard to remember the exact details of every model of every year and l do get it wrong from time to time like any other human denim enthusiast 

Are they used/worn or raw still? Would be nice have some shots of the back pocket/s arcs. Wonder if they are the missing puzzle for me, template wise.

It's not just, "If I recall," but, "If I recall/remember correctly." 

On 1/5/2021 at 12:11 PM, shredwin_206 said:

@428CJ you still got another year at least. Unless you’re lucky. Haha 

what did you order? 

Yeah. The dude told me it could take up to a year. I expected it to take that long...but not 4 to 5. When I ordered, I was not really an active member here, so wasn't up on the complaints. Wish I could just withdraw the order.

As for what it is, just a pair of jeans.

On 1/2/2021 at 12:31 PM, shredwin_206 said:

WH Ranch Bluebell repro sold. 
so did everyone waiting on orders get their stuff? 
I’m very curious who even buys his stuff anymore. 

I am now officially a member of the three year club.

On 12/23/2020 at 9:08 PM, shredwin_206 said:

From top of the collar to the bottom hem of the back 

I did ask for him to make it a little longer 

Ah. It's the BACK. That makes more sense. I thought it seemed way too long.

On 11/28/2020 at 7:26 PM, shredwin_206 said:

Selling my WH Ranch Wrangler Bluebell repro. 
you know the one. 
it just doesn’t fit 
I paid $500 and waited 4-5 years. 
Save yourself the wait. 
$500 obo

Chest: 22.5”      
Shoulder: 19”    
Sleeve length: 25”    
Length from collar to hem: 27.25”

 

Hi, Edwin.

Can you please tell me what part of the collar you're measuring from? Seems like a longer jacket than I would expect, but maybe you are measuring from a higher point than I am thinking.

Here is an update on my Cone '66s, 36/34, purchased from the Levi's U.S.A. Website in Nov., 2017 (killer sale: $72 for the jeans). This is after their first wash with soap, after 200 days of wear. Cold hand wash in the tub, with Dr. Bronner's, and air dried. They were also washed cold in a tub with a few cups of vinegar in the water, and air dried, at 100 days. Cold washes. Haven't measured them after the second wash, but shrinkage after the first was about 5 percent on average.

^ Cool looking '66s, and inspiring, as I am about 200 days into a pair of Cone '66s that I started on back in late 2017. They are just starting to show some character. Good to see what tone of blue they fade to.

On 9/8/2020 at 12:24 AM, Dry said:

Thank you.

What does appear clear is that the longest leg length is L34 and that L36 has been abandoned. This must limit the number of potential customers.

I have never had less than L36 in Levis stf since 1969 so L34 won't fit me. I have also bought L38 out of choice when available (both pre and during  the life of LVC). 

My current 1937s V2 are L36 and after shrinkage I wouldn't want them any shorter.

I may have long legs but at 5ft 10 inches I am hardly a freak!

Perhaps I am missing something: is an L34 really an L36?

If true, that's unfortunate. I always buy the longest length available at the time of purchase. I like to have extra material for patches.

With those jeans, the dry cleaner might become your closest friend. Just be sure they are dropped off for actual dry cleaning, and not washing. Dry cleaners usually offer both services.

7 hours ago, shredwin_206 said:

5 years later I’ve received my jeans 

Did they just show up one day? Or did he contact you first to finalize the details, find out if you had moved, etc.?

Freenote's pockets (which I can actually tolerate, unlike most pockets on "hip" brands) are very similar to those.

Still holding out for the LVC reissue of the very first 501s after standard U.S. production ceased. Oooh! Such well researched and perfectly reproduced outsourced crapiness!

I am tellin' ya, man, explore the 1890s. They are practically a woman's cut already. Try to find a Levi's store that carries LVC. Try them on, in a variety of sizes, including downsized. These jeans are cinch backs! No belt required. Cinch 'em up! Have them tailored if you need to. That was the true origin of the first "women's" jeans: men's jeans that got tailored by private parties.

Anyone got a pair of Strong Guys yet?

One of their newest cuts, and I haven't heard peep about it. They haven't sewn it very often since introducing it.

I got my first pair today. It's a silly cut, but I like it.

It is extremely straight legged. The leg opening is huge – deliberately comical, obviously.

I used to be in the navy, and I swear they based the cut on the 13 button pants from our dress blues ("crackerjacks").

The denim is awesome. Natural indigo, mid-toned, light weight.

Rise isn't quite as high as I'd like, but I am looking forward to seeing how these break in.

Interesting that they are called the Strong Guy, when the cut is actually something I would expect to see a woman wearing.

Glad to see N&F finally do something with a fair amount of rise and leg opening. And again, this denim is awesome.

I don't know if the very early Levi's women's cuts have been reproduced. But most of the LVC cinch back cuts are cuts that would, today, be thought of as a certain type of women's cut more than as men's cuts. High waist, generous hips, roomy fit. Add some taper if you want. I would look at the 1890s first, as they have the most stereotypically "womanly" cut. High, drawn in waist, wide hips, fairly dramatic taper for the style.

I feel very lucky to have got a rigid one and a pre-washed one, both in XL. The pre-washed one is for dyeing, and I'm hoping the rigid one fits OK being washed cold throughout its life.