Fall 06 LVC range - news

[Paul T]

I had a look at the catalogue of the Fall 06 LVC range today. As we've seen, there's no guarantee that all territories will carry the full range.

Briefly, there are no major new introductions compared to the spring. Main jeans are:

1933 501 - in deadstock, and also a special edition which comes in a metal tin, based on an old pair which were once used in place of a tow rope...

1947 501 Deadstock, and distressed

1955 501 Deadstock and distressed. Hopefully the new production will have correct leg lengths (the last ones were all around 37"

Sorry, can't remember if there was a 67 model, might have been.

517 Deadstock and distressed, I believe. I think this is new to the range. The previous LVC 517 was great, especially for women...

505 Distressed (denim by Kaihara). Not sure if there's deadstock

PLUS there's a reissue of the 1880 rust-coloured workpants, which are possibly the first Levi's ever. Anyone who's seen the book Denim can find photos of the original on page 9.

The 1920s 201 (with the messed-up pocekt design) and 1890 reissues, which were perhaps from last fall, not spring, are both gone. And obviously there's no 1944 (altho Cinch still have them in stock, I believe) and 1939. So overall the range is light on early versions.

I didn't get a chance to check out the shirts; there's a nice new leather jacket.

Overall... I'd say it's about the most disappointing LVC range I've seen in some time, with no interesting new reissues bar the rust workpants. The last two special editions have been broadly similar - heavily-distressed 37s and 33s - to this season's. I'm not sure if there's a theme to thje new collection, as I haven't seen the normal flash booklet they have.

Personally, I cannot believe that they have re-introduced the 1880 pants in the rust cotton duck (which I know for a fact sold very poorly last time) but not the denim version, which has only ever been produced as the Nevada Mine jean and is now fetching huge prices. The duck is historically interesting, but the last version in the flesh looked pretty underwhelming. (It's particularly ironic, as 130 years ago Levi's realised their customers preferred their denim pants to the cotton duck ones.) Of any LVC, a deadstock 1880 in natural indigo would be top of my wishlist...

[walletboy]

It wouldn't bother me if LS skipped some of the high-priced stuff and simply reissued the great orange tab 505 for $24.95.

Edited by walletboy on May 18, 2006 at 01:04 PM

[cheapmuthafukr]

shit... if they reissued orange tabs like i have they would be alot more than that. i have a pair of orange tabs and a pair of redlines... guess which has nicer looking denim

If you've lost your faith in superfuture, Oh the end won't be long

Because if it's gone for you then I too may lose it, And that would be wrong

I've tried so hard to keep myself from falling

Back into my bad old ways

And it chars my heart to always hear you calling

Calling for the good old days

Because there were no good old days

These are the good old days

Edited by cheapmuthafukr on May 18, 2006 at 01:09 PM

[airfrogusmc]

Paul, I almost bought a deadstock pair of their 1886 with that awesome stitching on the back pocket a year or so ago from Aero but waited a little to long. By the time I went to but them they were out of my size.

I have a pair of 33 501s that are several years old now and were made from 10 oz. I noticed on the Levis web site the stuff that they're making their 05 LVC 33s is 13 oz. Now comes the question I read somewhere that the actual weight of their original 33 501s was 10 oz. Would you know if thats true?

I wish Levis would just issue deastock dry LVCs and not pre-distress them.

Allen

[walletboy]

I wish Levis would just issue deastock dry LVCs and not pre-distress them.

What, and put all those Mexicans out of a job?

[YoungPunch]

I'm interested in getting the work pants, and maybe some deadstock 33's. Other than that the denim products don't seem very exciting, again.

[Serge d Nimes]

Wow, suprise suprise! Skinny and raw jeans are in and levis is missing the boat once again! They should be producing modified versions of the 517, 1966 501, and 606 in deadstock. I have seen their LVC 646 and 517 with a dropped waist (both for women and distressed but great on guys) and I have a pair of the 1966 501 Pillion (rise taken in from the bottomon this woman's model.) Missed opportunities!

Carpe Denim! (not the jean brand silly!)

Edited by Serge d Nimes on May 18, 2006 at 09:22 PM

Edited by Serge d Nimes on May 18, 2006 at 09:24 PM

[minya]

Dropped waist 517? I want!

[925]

how come the '47 deadstock came out every season?

Edited by 925 on May 18, 2006 at 09:40 PM

[jake431]

Quote:

how come the '47 deadstock came out every season?

--- Original message by 925 on May 18, 2006 09:39 PM

From what I can tell, the '47's are one of their biggest sellers. Plus, you can argue that they are a slim jean, and slim jeans are in right now.

-Jake

[Shorty Long]

is this the 'global' line and not the US one? i'm assuming it is...

[alitarbegshe]

Yep, this is the global line.

Levi are actually doing alot of skinny jeans, but are concentrating this on the womens range.

p.s[url=" http://www.superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=9310"] <a href="http://www.superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=9310" target="_blank">http://www.superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=9310</a>

[justbrowsing]

any idea when these will be in US stores? specifically the DC store.

[Shorty Long]

never...the global line (which is what this is) has for the past 3 or so years been completely different from the US one...based on recent trends, i wouldn't expect much at all from LVC in the US

[justbrowsing]

im interested in the fall 06 raw 1947s

[airfrogusmc]

Allot of the LVC stuff doesn't sell well US but I can bet that they'll be available in Europe. Aero Leather will probably have'm. I pre-oredered a pair of 1933s raw.

[justbrowsing]

well the aero prices are pretty high... i know the washington dc store has last season's raw 1947s, but i was wondering if the fall 06 are coming in soon before i make a 7 hour drive.

[airfrogusmc]

I picked up a pair of raw 47s at the Levi store on Michigan Ave Chicago a couple years back at a close out price $100. I was talking to the manager and she told me that her store wasn't going to be carrying LVCs anymore because of poor sales. I have a good friend that said he just saw some there a week or so ago. Looks like they're carrying them again and they were $175. You could probably call before you make the 7 hour trip though. I would also suggest trying the Levis stores in New York, Chicago and San Fran. They can always send them to you.

[digital_denim]

I don't get how the 47's are still considered slim fitting. From my experience on the board, the slim fitting jeans are all modifications of the 47s or the repros of the 66 Levis.

[captain5640]

Ok, I'm new and just learning about the LVC line. Can someone explain to me the difference, or point me in the right direction, in 501 cuts from different times. Thanks.

What exactly is "HYPE"?

[airfrogusmc]

These are my observations. I own 1901s, 2 pairs of 1920s 201s, 1933 501s, 2 pair 37 201s, 1 pair 37 501s, 1 pair 47 501s and had a pair of 1944 501s.

Heres my observations on fit. The fullest cut are my 1901s followed by the 20s 201s, then the 37 201s & 501s which fit similar. The 47s are very trim.

Capt thats a good question is I've always wondered why original 44s are full and levis would make their 47s very trim then go back to full on their 55s. Makes me also wonder if this was done just on their LVC line and the original 47s were full cut also. Maybe Paul could shed a little light?

[sneakeraddict]

Paul do we have any info on whether LVC will do the 40 length (raw) again like they have done in past collections

[sbrguy]

the one thing you have to take into account is when somwone says slim or full you have to see it form their point of view and take that into consideration.

for example, i have a slimmer frame that is athletic distance runner/cyclist build so the 47s on me are more liek an easy fit on me, but not a true slim or tight fit..

now on someone like airfrog they might be slim cut bc he has from past pictures appears to be a bigger build more like a powerlifter type of build not a runner build.

Edited by sbrguy on Jun 7, 2006 at 01:17 PM

[airfrogusmc]

Sometimes a photo works best. The 1947 are 38 waist as are the 1901s and the modern STF used to show the difference.

THe 1947 label

the 1947 compared to the 1901s both 38 waist

the 1947 leg compared to the 1901

the 1947 38 waist compared to a modern 38 waist

As you can see the 47 are much trimmer than both the 1901s and modern 501s STF in the same waist size. The 20s 201s, 33 501s and 37 201s and 501s are a little trimmer that the 1901s but not all the much. But as you can see the 47s are a different animal altogether.

[jake431]

Allen,

Nice pics - and a good visual explaination. One last detail about them, were all pairs washed and dried the same? Is the shrinkage complete for all pairs?

-Jake

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.

-Albert Einstein

[blackgrass]

I'm not sure I get the whole point of showing the 38 inch waist photos. Clearly both pairs are not true 38 inch waist....both pair may say 38 on the tag but certainly don't measure out as such. It just seems like with Levis that you had better get an actual measurement of the jeans and disregard what the tag says.

[jake431]

I think the point was to show the "slim jean" characteristics of the 47's, as compared to other 501's. You can disregard the tagged size and just go by measure, but you can also argue that comparing the cut of the same size jeans can easily show fit differences between models.

-Jake

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.

-Albert Einstein

[blackgrass]

Quote:

I think the point was to show the "slim jean" characteristics of the 47's, as compared to other 501's. You can disregard the tagged size and just go by measure, but you can also argue that comparing the cut of the same size jeans can easily show fit differences between models.

-Jake

--- Original message by jake431 on Jun 8, 2006 11:29 AM

I think it would be much more useful to see both pair of jeans with an actual measured waist of 38 side by side in order to compare the difference in cut between the models.

I would love to see some examples done this way.

[jake431]

I disagree - and I think we'll have to agree to disagree here - but when I want to know what fits trimmer, I will go by equivalent sizes, not equivalent measurements. If I want to know which jacket fits trimmer, I will try on two different jackets of the same tag size, and compare how they fit. But that's not to say other ways of measuring aren't helpful, just my two cents.

-Jake

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.

-Albert Einstein

[airfrogusmc]

blackgrass I was responding to the Capts question in regards to the way differnent LVC models fit. It clearly shows how much trimmer the 47s are than the 1901s and the standard STF 501s. The point that you may have missed is if you like the way your STF modern 501s fit in your tagged waist size you might find the 47s in the same tagged waist size a bit trim. All of these jeans are several years old and were raw/unwashed when new and have been washed and worn similarly and all have the same tagged waist size. Thats pretty much the way you would order them of the internet.

If you like the way the 47s fit then you might find a pair of 1901s in the same tagged size a bit loose. I think the phots clearly show the difference more than words could ever explain.