428CJ

1 hour ago, SmokeStackLightning said:

I am in the United States. Retailer is in Australia. They were on sale, and they offered me another size in a different length as an exchange. 

But it's expensive to ship to Australia, and I would have to pay for them to also ship me the new pair. The additional  $70 for both shipping charges makes me want to say fuck it and replace the button myself. 

You should not be paying to ship them back...and if they don't have the same size to replace them with, then they should just give you a refund. If you choose to repair them, then they should cover repair costs. That, or they can do the work of arranging the delivery of a repair part for you...if they are an authorized retailer. This is what retailers SHOULD do...and it is exactly what Cultizm did for me when I had a pair with almost immediate need for repair. They PayPal'd me $40 back, to cover the local repairs to the jeans.

32 minutes ago, mpukas said:

my $0.02 - retailers are usually not capable of making alterations or fixing defaults. They can usually only offer a refund/exchange. It happens, hardware breaks. I recently bought a TFH shirt f/ SE, and it arrived w/ a broken snap; SE replaced it. You've done all the necessary home work. At this point, I say send them to a repair shop like RCFG and have them put a new button on. It may not match, but so what? Wabisabi, bruh! 

I don't imagine the retailer can "fix" the problem with the jeans themselves. But they can facilitate refunds, exchanges, and contact with the Levi's company, if necessary. Retailers are the point of contact with Levi's regarding quality problems on brand new jeans.

FWIW, both tines on the tack are still intact. If, for some reason, you won't force the retailer to handle the situation, then I would simply try straightening the tines, purchasing the necessary tack button installation tools, and restoring the button yourself.

I would like to know what retailer has stated that the way you fix this issue is to return the jeans at your own expense, then have the replacement pair shipped to you at your own expense...so we can all avoid giving them our money.

The problems with the LVC button should be handled through the retailer. 

1 hour ago, cool_hand said:

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

Ask retailers for measurements of the actual jackets they would be sending you if you were to buy one.

The shrink guide is basically just to buy one size larger than you think you need. Since XL is usually the largest size, if you think you need an XL, then get XL. But try to wash it as little as possible, and only in cold water with line drying afterward. I'm not sure what happens to unshrunk unsanforized denim when it's dry cleaned, but I'm quite curious.

On 1/20/2019 at 12:27 PM, mpukas said:

Not LVC, but F' it IMA post it here anyway... 

Levi's 511 Selvedge, 3+ months wear. 1 cold machine wash when new, 1 hand wash warm wash at 2 weeks due to mud. I really like this pair, but the cut isn't for me. The rise is too low and especially the thighs are too tight. After a wash it takes about 2 weeks for them to stretch enough to be comfortable. These are a step above Levi's standard run-of-the-mill off-the-shelf offerings. Although the denim might be plain and boring to some denim connoisseurs, to me there's something very pleasing and refreshing about it, especially after so much highly engineered JP denim. I'd say it's on the slower side of average to fade. If I could put up with wearing them longer, I think the fades would be great.

The construction, sewing and details are spot on, except for maybe lack of hidden back pocket rivets and a real leather patch. The zipper fly detail on the inside is also well thought out and constructed. Heavy canvas pocket bags. Raised belt loops. Branded rivets. Multi-color threads. Nearly everything is present on this pair that denim-heads wax poetically about on their favorite JP brands. 

One area in particular that Levi's really shows they know what they are doing is with the design, detailing & proportion of the waist band, belt loops and pockets. IMO, EVERY JP brand should take notes. Even though this is by far the lowest rise, tightest pair I've ever worn, the front pockets are by far the best ever. Very, easibly useable. I keep a pocket knife w/ clip in the outer edge of my front pocket, and on EVERY pair of JP jeans I have, it makes the right front pocket useless - I can't get my hand in let alone put anything or take it out. With a wide, thick belt, the left pocket is nearly useless as well, as I can barely get my hand in. Not so w/ these 511's.I can easily get my hand in/out of the right pocket without my knife being in the way. It has to do with: the height of the waist band, which drop the pocket opening a little lower in relation to the belt; the width & shape of the pocket openings in relation to the front two belt loops; the spacing of the front two belt loops is just wide enough to allow for a buckle and keeper without cramping the pocket width. The waist band, belt loops and pockets on these 511 are noticeably different than the STF 501's and are a vast improvement. 

I'd love to see Levi's take this quality level, selvedge denim and details to the 501 and 502 cuts. These exact jeans in a 502, or a 501 w/ slightly more taper than currently offered, would be an ideal every day wear/beater for me. Everything else would be just for fun... 

You would probably like a pair of non-LVC M.I.U.S.A. 501's, that you have tapered to taste. They were blown out at the end of 2016 for only $88 a pair, or something like that. Well worth it, considering that standard crappy STFs list at $60. Not sure if they are still available, but if not, check the usual sources for recent N.O.S. examples (E-Bay, etc.). They were Cone Mills denim, available in double black or single-rinse blue.

35 minutes ago, Pedro said:

Hi.

I think I need a 36W in the ‘33 or ‘37.

thanks

 

OK.

I have a 36 1933, but that's my "keeper" pair.

Good luck. IME, your best bet for lower than normal LVC prices during the year is a Cultizm 20 percent off + free shipping sale.

10 hours ago, Pedro said:

 

I see they are Out-of-Stock on 36W and 38W on the LVCs I want.

Will inventory be replenished during the year? Thanks

-pedro

Which cuts are you looking for? I ask because I have size 38 1915's that I haven't even de-tagged yet. I also have 36's in the same cut, and I think they'll fit me better, so I was considering E-Baying the 38's.

12 hours ago, ecsong187 said:

Yea but they’re usually a 36 or 37 waist. 

 

My point wasn't that buying this way is a "solution" for those hunting for a pair. The point was simply to point out what the market seems to bear for a used pair of them...right from the source, at that. They usually sell for less from a "private party," so to speak. I remember that pair someone was trying to hock on here, and on Grailed, for some time. I think they finally went for $120 to $140, or something similar. I would have bought them myself at $140, but they had been rinsed or washed too may times for my taste (I PM'd the seller asking about it).

Bottom line, if they are going to move, it's going to be at $200 or less.

FWIW, Ryan sells his own very lightly used (worn just two or three days) pairs on IG for $195.

Anybody have shrinkage percentages for E6 pants? I want to get my E6's hemmed soon, so I can start wearing them.

20 minutes ago, i_denim said:

How does Levi's decide what's the cut of the current 501's being sold in their retail stores today? I know it's not a LVC question but I struggle to understand what 501 means in a retail Levi's store,

I don't know how they "decide" it, but I can say based on measurements that my contemporary STFs and OFs have been fairly close to what I would imagine as halfway in between my '66 and 76 cut LVCs. Not as bell shaped in the upper block as '66's, but not as tight hipped as '76's. Modern 501's and 505's are actually a very good fit on me, and they look great in the Rigid sanforized material. Darker than LVCs, and fade plenty quickly and quickly for a "cheap" jean. I have a $19 discount store pair of irregular 505's from within the past two years, and they are one of my best fitting and best looking pairs. I wear them indiscriminately with my LVCs.

1 hour ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I think there is a certain irony to being pleased about receiving a rapid response to an enquiry on a 1-year wait for a pair of jeans.

I don't know where you get "pleasure" from. I reported that I got a quick response, while others have reported otherwise. No more; no less.

I really wonder what accounts for different people's experiences with customer service, i.e. contact with Ryan. People report being completely ignored by him. But every time I have contacted him, he has got back to me very quickly. I asked today for a 12 month update, and he responded within an hour. 

^^^ That is, what you are describing the 1880's as matches the little cartoon drawing for the 1890's very well.

6 minutes ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

the 1890s are rather slim fitted in legs and seat compared to the 1880s. the 80s got a tapered waist, measure really wide at the hips. it´s actually from all cinch backed jeans the most unflattering silhouette.

What you are describing matches the little cartoon drawing for the 1890's very well, though.

I wonder how the LVC 1880 waist overalls compare to the 1890's in that drawing.

8 hours ago, Thanks_M8 said:

@428CJ got a 54 myself, taper is definitely more than a little bit. Interesting cut, I would personally describe them as a classic tapered cut, with the taper starting at the knee.

Thanks for the information. It's most appreciated. 

7 hours ago, unders said:

Agree with this. I have both 47 and 54, although they’re in one of many boxes in the loft following a recent move so I can’t compare measurements unfortunately. The taper is pretty aggressive and the fit, other than being slim, isn’t really comparable to the 47. Rises are pretty similar from memory. 

Do they still make the 1967 505? That may be more like what you’re after. 

Thank you for your input.

The 505 reissue is even less suitable for me, as the rise is quite a lot lower. Anything below 12" feels bad to me, and I like 13" and over, in an ideal pair.

I was really just hoping that the '54's were a zipper fly '47, with perhaps just a slight taper. It's okay; it's not like I need another pair of jeans!

Can anyone describe the '54 cut to me, relative to '47's and '55's? 

Based on the written description on the Levi's Website, I would think it would just be a '47 with a zipper...but Levi's also specs it with a 2"smaller leg opening than a '47, which would seem to indicate a more dramatic taper than most 501's...yet they also say it's straight legged in the specs listed. Due to the greater taper, and the lack of specificity in their description of front rise, my suspicions are raised that it might not actually be as high in rise as the '47's and '55's.

According to Levi's:

'47, '54, '55: "Sits at waist" – So I would assume they all have approx. 13" rise in size 36, like my '55's do.

'47, '54, '55: "Regular fit through thigh" – So I would assume they aren't a snug fit when worn TTS

But: '47, '55: "Straight leg opening: 17" and '54: "Straight leg opening: 15"

So is the '54 a high waisted tapered cut? Hard to tell from pix.

I'm into it if it's basically just a '47 cut, but with a zipper and a little bit of taper, but I'm not interested at all if the waist sits lower than a '47 or '55.

Thank you.

With all the LVC 501's I have, I've still not gone for the '47's. I always figured I would go for the Sugar Canes instead, but knowing that the LVCs will still be Cone next year has me interested in taking the last shot at the "real deal" without it being a special run or something. I felt the same way about '54's, but might grab a pair of those next season as well.

On 11/26/2018 at 12:28 PM, MJF9 said:

@theotherchrislewis looks really good. I was wondering, given the blanket lining, does that effectively reduce the sizes by much? I've never owned, nor tried, a blanket lined jacket so interested to hear how it impacts chest or shoulders sizing.

IME, size up two to four sizes from your measured chest size when you have a thick blanket lining, with each "size up" being a 2" increase in chest size. I.e. if you have a 42" measured chest, then get a jacket that measures 46-50 actual armpit to armpit measurement off of the jacket. Go two if you don't need to layer a lot; go three if you do, go four if you do, and you also want a somewhat relaxed fitting jacket on top of a few layers.

But it appears that Lee Japan have done this already in this case, based on the 48" post soak measurements for a size 42.

That is a good looking jacket, I must say. I almost like it better than my late '70's dead stock one, because the lining of the repro is probably 100 percent wool, instead of the blended (or is it all poly?) blanket lining that mine has.

FWIW, my measured chest size is 42, and I like a 46" UNLINED denim jacket (actual armpit to armpit measurement, not tag size). I like my heavy blanket lined jackets at about 49–51" armpit to armpit. 49" for a snugger fit without a lot of layers, and 51" for what I consider to be a "proper" fit for a heavy blanket lined denim jacket, i.e. big enough to wear several layers underneath (thermal, tee, and thick button-up shirt, at least) and still move around comfortably.

On 11/20/2018 at 2:40 AM, theotherchrislewis said:

A bunch of MIJ Leepro Storm Rider jackets have recently dropped. I pre-ordered a blanket-lined with the corduroy collar off Rakuten (the shop also had the plain denim version too 'LM6013-189'). Code on the sticker says 'STORM RIDER 1119-289' (reverse side is white with 'THE ARCHIVES' on it). Mine (42) is soaking now, will post up some measurements in the next few days.

Very cool, and congrats.

I have a dead stock late '70's one, so I don't think I will be biting...but out of curiosity, do they make them in 44 or 46?

I can't wait till the Archives '59 101Zs are made again. I think I might buy several pair. I'm hoping these get made again, but maybe not. Most people like the earlier '50's cuts. I like the '59 because it has 7 belt loops.

1 hour ago, Pedro said:

Any chance of photos?

Any retailers still carrying that in the EU in XL?

I like sizing them up to XL in order to get the shoulder freedom when I use them in the field.

I recently saw a very nice quality denim type I with Pendleton wool lining but the corduroy is on the wrong side of the collar. It is sewn so that it faces away from the neck when the collar is up and the entire point of the corduroy was to be against the skin. The softness kept the skin from chafing, ofcourse, and even when frozen, was much “kinder” then frozen denim.

edit: Maybe someone can refresh my memory if Levis made a corduroy collar blanket lined? I think ours are all Lee & Pennys.

-pedro

Actually, when I pulled the jacket out to snap a few pix, I saw that it is actually a size L, not an XL. It just runs so oversized that I had it in my mind as an XL. It has a 51" chest and 22" shoulders – huge for a size L. It is supposed to shrink 5 percent, though. I usually wear it over an undershirt, a button-up shirt, and sometimes a vest too. Very cozy jacket. I love oversized type I's and II's (these cuts work better and look better oversized IMO). I was very happy to find a type I or II so huge.

It is almost certainly a style with discontinued specs. It is not a vintage accurate piece, but it is L.V.C. (I have all the original tags and flasher). It has a yellow selvedge I.D. (weird, but cool looking IMO), and a modern style wool-poly blend for the blanket lining. The interior tag might not actually be leather. I do have the original tags and flasher somewhere, but I can't dig them up at the moment. I bought it N.O.S. from an independent party in England, via E-Bay. Made in Turkey for the EU market.

Welp, the end of the year budget is significantly smaller this year, so I have limited myself to just one item during the first round of the 40 percent off sale: a Rigid Type I jacket in XL.

It was that or  the LVC Type II. I already have the Sugar Cane copy of the type II, and I already have an oversized EU LVC blanket lined Rigid Type I. In the end, I decided that the unlined Type I was a "necessary" addition to my collection more so than a "proper" Levi's Type II. The Sugar Cane type II copy is such an outstanding jacket that the LVC Type II would have been pretty redundant. As for the blanket lined Rigid LVC Type I that I already have, I purposefully sized it so that I am swimming in it, and it is also simply too warm for many occasions. Therefore the unlined, more regular sized Type I will be a much more welcomed addition.

Can't wait to get the thing!

25 minutes ago, Thanks_M8 said:

The new rinse is basically their one-wash, but it's made in turkey. Patterns also sometimes differ, but not hugely. I've had the experience to size the same as raw to get it right

Their pre-rinsed stuff seems to be tagged "after" the rinse, while their raw stuff is tagged "before" the rinse.

For example, my single rinse XL Triple Pleat is pretty much identically sized to my Rigid XL Triple Pleat. As such, the Rigid will be smaller in the end, even though they are both XL.

Definitely need to be sized down for a more standard fit. I wear mine very loose and sag them, even with both cinches tightened.

I'm not sure if they shrink or not. I'm 70 days of wear in to them, and I haven't washed them yet. I am hoping that they do shrink quite a bit. If not, my attempt to improve them will be moving the cinch straps around half an inch each side, to the outseam area.

2 hours ago, Pedro said:

Can I ask what advantages you find with that type of break-in schedule?

Does it affect the overall shrinking or is it for fade contrast, etc?

Any insight appreciated.

-pedro

 

I prefer the way they look and feel when worn totally dry. I like the dark, starched, "flat" look, and the more subdued (i.e. less saturated) grayish blue that you have before washing. I try to make that last as long as I can (and sometimes I even heavily starch my jeans after washing them).

It's also about looks in the long run. You get sharper creases and dingier highlights this way. And definitely more contrast IME. I can always wash too much contrast out down the road if I want to. But if I don't build a lot to start, I'll never be able to get it if that's what I want.

It's also about fit. After a long period of wearing jeans, they fit so nicely, because your body has forced them this way and that as needed. Hard to give that up; it's such a nice feel when they've given in all the places they need to give, and stayed in all the places they need to stay. But this is more about using long wash intervals with any pair of jeans than is about wearing dry unsanforized denim.

I like wearing 501's within a range of 4–5 sizes. I have 33–36 tag sizes that I routinely wear, and a pair of 38's too – my oversized pair of 1915's. So I don't mind if they gradually get smaller over the years. I usually start with a relaxed fit which gradually shrinks down to a regular fit over the years. If I want a snug fit, I start with a regular fit. If I want a tight fit, I start with a snug fit.

I also find that extended wearing before shrinking does tend to slightly reduce the amount of shrinkage you get when you finally do wash. I don't know exactly why, but it's almost as if after enough time, the denim "forgets" that it's unshrunk. Probably something to do with the fact that the denim has already ben stretched so much.