Last season's 1947 501s at six months

[Busted Seam]

They do look great, tho' I'm guessing you'll keep more of the indigo on the 'canes. A lot depends on which stockist is easier to get to. The cut looks nice on the Levi's, and the back pocket stitching is maybe my favorite, so simple.

[soultek]

Paul,

Do you have a recommended online book retailer to buy your book?

[mizanation]

finally bought the book today. i can't stress how essential it is for the denim lover or even the casual fashion fan. it's loaded with absolutely beautiful pictures and engrossing text. btw, i got it at a barnes and noble (the first barnes and noble i went to were out--all 5 copies were stolen).

http://mizanation.blogspot.com

[airfrogusmc]

Paul didn't realize you were the author of a denim book. And soon to be of the godfather of punk. Man that Stooges stuff still sounds great after 30 + years.

Sorry back to my question, where can I score your denim book?

Allen

[mizanation]

^^^ you can get them online (amazon, b&n) or you can get them from your local bookstore (i got mine at b&n). call ahead of time to make sure they have it in stock.

http://mizanation.blogspot.com

[airfrogusmc]

mizanation THANKS!!!!!!

[sam113]

Paul(or anybody)-

Check these out.

Are they the 1901 repros you mentioned above?

Thanks.

[airfrogusmc]

Looks like yours are 1955 501s to me. 1901s do not have belt loops, suspender buttons, single needle stitching on the arcuate on the back poclets and are made from lighter weight denim.

[Paul T]

Yup, they're 55s, the finish is Blue Blood from LVC 2003. Nice jeans, made in Levi's Texas factory, I have a bunch of LVC stuff from that year, Levi's 130th anniversary, their last really good collection I reckon. And thanks for the props re the book, btw, much appreciated.

These are my 1901s. Great summer jeans...

Edited by Paul T on May 16, 2006 at 06:03 AM

[airfrogusmc]

Those 1901s were another pair that the wife thru in the wash with my 47s. Check the difference between yours and mine. Mine are from the same year...

[sam113]

Paul-

Thanks for the I.D..

Two questions:

These jeans came with some kind of waxy coating that I assume is resin. I wore them a ton and never washed them and that coating got much shinier and greasier.

I'm considering soaking them to shrink them up(they have always been big on me).

Will a soak affect the resin

and

If I want them to shrink 2 sizes what specific process do you recommend(H20 Temp, length of soak, etc.)?

Thanks.

[Paul T]

Is the actual waist size 30, or 32? I thought that these jeans were washed, which means there will be not a hell of a lot more shrinkage.

If I'm wrong, and they measure 32 or more, a simple machine wash at 40 degrees will shrink them as much as they'll go, around an inch in the waist, and two in the leg.

[sam113]

The waist size is 32. Is there an indicator on the label or elsewher that indicates if they are raw denim?

I never washed them, and I pretty sure that they were unwashed denim new.

What about the coating? How will water affect that?

[Paul T]

If they're like the finish on the RED jeans from around the same time, the resin should simply wash out, won't affect the shrinkage. I assumed they were washed, becuase the two-horse batch looks washed... I think there's no way of telling bar the fact that washed jeans will be one size down from that marked, so if yours are washed they will measure more like a 30 or 31 waist,.

[sam113]

Thanks a lot, Paul.

Great info.

[Paul T]

Just bought a new camera, and thought I'd post a couple more pix of the jeans after their second wash.

In my experience, the Cone denim on these jeans is pretty close to late 40s jeans - specially when you bear in mind that in the late 40s few people used washing machines etc. These were washed with organic powder stuff first time round, and evil normal washing power second time around, at which point they'd maybe had another three months' wear, on and off.

The only thing I don't like aboutthtese jeans are the broken threads you can see, mostly on the honeycombs. Could be because I only soaked these for an hour or so before wearing, which could have left some starch in, making the denim more brittle.

Front view. I don't really have one leg shorter than the other, that's just the perspective...

The color is more marginally accurate on the back view.

[poly800rock]

wow, those look killer

[Ahlvahroe]

damn, i am so envious of that leg twist.

[rnrswitch]

Paul, your killing me with those jeans. I had the same happen with my Nudie RRDS where the honey combs had started to "break." Like you said probably from the brittleness of the denim as I had worn them right off the rack.

Also, as to people saying the new 47 cut is thinner than the actual vintage levis 47 cut, what is your experience? Are the canes 47s more legit or are the lvc 47s the true cut, cuz the canes are noticeably more baggy in the ass and thighs.

That leg twist is ridiculous... hmm hmm hmm!!!

[Paul T]

Re sizing, I reckon the effect of the Levi's 47s is accentuated by the actual sizing - the waist of a '34' 1947 repro is smaller than that of a '34' 1944 repro, and that contributes to the slim profile. If you sized up slightly you would probably find little difference to the 'Canes in terms of how full the cut is. I think Levi's adopted this policy simply because in the late 40s its users seemed to wear their jeans in smaller sizes, and if you look at photos of California bikers from that period then the present 47 cut looks essentially identical.

As to which is more accurate, altho it's fashionable to always namecheck 'Canes (which I love) I know on those earlyish LVC they went into incredible detail, and checked though more vintage jeans than SC could have done (obviously there are odd recent models that have been slapdash). But it's probably true to say that SC sizing is more consistent across its ranges, whereas LVC 30s jeans are oversized and the 47 ones slightly undersized. Why LVC do this, I simply don't know. At some point I might be able to find out, but I'll need to have an excuse to quiz the person who cuts the patterns for LVC. It could reflect actual Levi's sizing over the years, or (less likely) it might be based on how its customers wore them.

Paul, your killing me with those jeans. I had the same happen with my Nudie RRDS where the honey combs had started to "break." Like you said probably from the brittleness of the denim as I had worn them right off the rack.

Also, as to people saying the new 47 cut is thinner than the actual vintage levis 47 cut, what is your experience? Are the canes 47s more legit or are the lvc 47s the true cut, cuz the canes are noticeably more baggy in the ass and thighs.

That leg twist is ridiculous... hmm hmm hmm!!!

[synthi]

Wah! Beautiful pair of jeans there Paul

[jubei]

^ great post Paul T, as usual... pattern making is such a mind boggling process to me. Watching my gf turn pieces of muslin into garments in college blew my mind o_O

[Paul T]

Now I've worn these in, my job is done. Should I sell em? Whaddya all reckon they will fetch?

[tweeds]

i say keep them, but i'm a closet rat.

just for fun, try putting them on for 2.5x their retail and see if anyone will catch. someone sold a pair of beautifully worn apc new standards for twice their retail and it moved.

[cultizm]

Hi Paul,

the 33's is true to size in this collcetion, but the 1947 is undersized, to my mind till 2''.

I will be very happy getting more information about the sizing of LVC.

Selling LVC online is sometimes a challenge due to the sizings of the cuts.

may be I could also get some useful information.

thnx in advance

dejan

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Now I've worn these in, my job is done. Should I sell em? Whaddya all reckon they will fetch?

Why sell them?! o_O Put them up on the wall!

[JeffreyBelengazi]

I'm sure this has been answered elsewhere probably, but I couldn't find it so...

I'm confused about the cut of (Japanese) LVC '66 501s. Assistants in two different shops have told me that they are a slightly looser cut than the LVC Japan '47 501, but when I try both on the 66s feel like a closer fit than the 47's... I tried them in exactly the same waist size BTW... anyone have the answer?

Many thanks

[modual]

Old post i know but Paul T's 47's look killer. Just wanted to know whether he sized up the recommended 2 sizes in order to get that sort of whiskering ??

[Paul T]

Yes, but they're slightly under tag size. Marked 34, actual size was 33, so they shrank down to just over 31. my second two pairs, from later seasons, were similarly slightly undersized.

I'm trying to get that look with my 201s, which are much looser. They're on the way, but I'll leave that first wash to at least 7 months.

oh, and thanks, glad you like em!

[modual]

Yes, but they're slightly under tag size. Marked 34, actual size was 33, so they shrank down to just over 31. my second two pairs, from later seasons, were similarly slightly undersized.

I'm trying to get that look with my 201s, which are much looser. They're on the way, but I'll leave that first wash to at least 7 months.

oh, and thanks, glad you like em!

Hey Paul what size do you wear in other lvcs compared to 47's ? Specifically the 55's and 66's