1955 501s current

[airfrogusmc]

Anyone have any comments on the current LVC 55 501s dry/deadstock? Thinking about picking a pair up just wanted some comments..

[greentea]

they're nice, pick em up.

Julian Red Cali 32x32 *USED* 2 1/2 weeks. 130$ shipped -U.S only.

[url=" http://superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=11570"] <a href="http://superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=11570" target="_blank">http://superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=11570</a>

[Paul T]

You might find the spring 06 range only have one leg length, about 37 inch, despite the tagged size. There will be new production for the fall.

[airfrogusmc]

Paul, how is the denim compared to earlier made 55s?

[LFC4ever]

IMO the current LVC offerings are not as good as the 555 stamp ( Valencia factory ) products, possibly because initially ( 10 years ago !) Levis launched only 3 models (1955 501,1937 201 and the 550 zip fly).All were ( and still are ) superb, then they diluted the line, shut the Valencia street factory and I believe quality and attention to detail suffered.I guess it's a bit like comparing original Evis with current Evisu ( though maybe not that bad ! )

However, only my opinion and I own shitloads of the old stuff so I'm biased.

[Serge d Nimes]

It wasn't a 550, it was 501ZXX. There was also a 507 jacket in the range.

Carpe Denim! (not the jean brand silly!)

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I would like to see some proof that today's LVC jeans are worse then the old ones. Not trying to get into philosophy, but slightly different does not mean inferior. It seems to me that people often say that the old anything is better than the new anything. To me this is rubbish and most often based on minor or major differences that dont necessarily mean either better or worse.

People often seem to want the pro's of the old but forget all the pro's of the new and all the con's of the old. I think it's sufficient to say that something is different, if it really is.

Where is the proof that Evis is better than Evisu or that Valencia-made LVC is the best?

The general opinion seems to be that things in general are getting worse and have gotten worse. This falls on it's own absurdity.

våran panel tycker att man ska koka pastan i två år

Edited by horriblyjollyjinx on May 21, 2006 at 10:02 AM

[Serge d Nimes]

I was never very impressed with the Valencia street stuff. I have had probably 100 pairs pass through my fingers over the years and have worn more than 30.

Carpe Denim! (not the jean brand silly!)

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks guys for the advice. I think I'm going to pull the trigger on the new 1955s. In my opinion I do prefer the Valencia stuff myself. Last years 1920s 201s have double needle stitching on the back pocket and the denim on my 1999 20s 201s is nicer. Both pairs of my 37 201s both made 97 are probably my favorites. The redline denim is kinda nubbie and wears just beautiful. Also I've noticed that the current offerings of LVCs 33 501s are made from 13 oz denim. I have an older pair that was made from 10 oz and was under the impression that 10 oz was the correct weight used in 1933. Anybody know which one is correct?

[LFC4ever]

"Where is the proof that Evis is better than Evisu or that Valencia-made LVC is the best?"

To be fair I did say 1. I was biased 2. It really was just my opinion !

Maybe the word preference is better than one being better than the other. I prefer the Valencia street stuff - and by the way I'm talking about the first 3 pairs of jeans only - because it was authentic ( IMO) made in the original factory, I preferred the feel of the denim ( as last post) and all were raw ( range hadn't been diluted by lots of finishes etc etc

Re Evis and Evisu I was referring to the Japanese vs European stuff. But to be fair I sold my whole Evis collection except for a pair of No. 1 specials because I got tired of the whole Evisu thing......

[Paul T]

501 jeans changed from 9oz to 12.5oz denim in 1928. When I last looked, in the spring, the 1933 and 1939 repro jeans used the right weight (it might have been spec'd as 13oz in some places).

I speak to a lot of people associated with LVC... and I would agree that the range in general is suffering from a lack of TLC. And there have also been some serious errors, like the wrong pocket design on the recent 201 and the fucked up leg lengths.

I would actually say that LVC improved from the first range in 1996. I think the range from 2002 was a particularly good one, 2003 was terrific also. I am not sure the quality of the denim from cone is suffering, and in fact there have also been good new fabrics being developed with Kaihara. I think that when they get LVC right, they are still excellent jeans, and I'm looking forward to getting a pair of the 1955s from the new season, if they've sorted out the leg length problem.

But.. I think there's a question mark over the long-term commitment Levi's have to LVC, which is very sad...

[tm1210]

Any idea when the new season stuff comes out as I'm after a tag size 34x36 with the proper leg length.

[airfrogusmc]

My 33s were raw from 03 I think and are 10 oz. The 47s on the Levis site right now (not raw) are 10 oz http://www.levisstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2116308&cp=2068573.2068693&parentPage=family while the this years 33 are 13 ozhttp://www.levisstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2072876&cp=2068573.2068693&parentPage=family. It will be interesting to see what weight the new LVCs will be.

[Paul T]

I think the 47s being listed as 10oz is a simple error, they're listed as 13oz on the LVC section of levis.com

I have checked the specs for the 2005 and 2003 range, and it was definitely 9oz on the pre 1923 jeans, and 13 oz for the later ones (the 44 501 is listed as 12oz).

I do remember my old Valencia-made 1933 jeans felt lighter in weight than my current 47s, though, but I wouldn't like to say there's any difference at al between the denim of this year's and previous years' 1933 repros unless I could compare them both side-to-side.

[airfrogusmc]

Paul you anywhere near Chicago? If not PM me and I'll send the 1933s to you so you can check'm out if you're interested. But ya gotta send'm back...

Edited by airfrogusmc on May 22, 2006 at 03:44 PM