Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Rob]

From http://repeattofade.blogspot.com/

[Shorty Long]

holding out till fall for the 1915 cone colaberation edition.

C'mon!!! Spill the beans...we want details!

[setterman]

Any thoughts on how well Filson suspenders will work with the pre-1937 LVC 501s? They look they might be a little too wide in the back.

http://www.filson.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2092348&cp=2069836.2065003.2075127&parentPage=family

What years are the suspender buttons stitched on?

Thanks.

[airfrogusmc]

airfrog

in this japanese shop you can see some details.

http://www.jeans-neshi.com/mensjeanskan/levis/xx-aitem/17501-00/17501-0002fup.htm

http://www.jeans-neshi.com/mensjeanskan/levis/xx-aitem/17501-00/17501-0002.htm

Thanks they look great...

[airfrogusmc]

C'mon!!! Spill the beans...we want details!

They're in the F/W 09 catalog and are listed as 1915 cone mills colaberation. It was the first year the cone supplied Levis. Maybe Paul could tell us moe but I heard that cone made some real special denim for these.

[markus]

What else is to expect from the F/W 09 collection? Do you have details?

[Paul T]

They're in the F/W 09 catalog and are listed as 1915 cone mills colaberation. It was the first year the cone supplied Levis. Maybe Paul could tell us moe but I heard that cone made some real special denim for these.

I did know this is happening. But Cone, while real helpful, are very cagey about giving out Levi's info, as they are supposed to clear it with Levi's first. I have a bunch of queries Lyn Downy has to OK< but she's gorn off across the west in Loeb Strauss's footsteps, hasn't she?

From what I understand these are based on the 1917 'Homer' jeans, which are very heavily patched, they were returned to Levi's in 1920 becuase the owner reckoned they hadn't held up as well as his previous pairs. I am guessing they ID'd these as Cone fabric because they were synthetic indigo, and would have been done in the old fashioned dye vats shown in my Cone page.

INteresting, too, looking at my 5-1 Evolution book, which Shorty has too, how different in colour the 1901 is from previous jeans. Earlier ones were very green-cast, the 1901 is moare red-cast... obviously, even with Cone denim, there was huge variation from one pair to another, because the process was hardly mechanised at all.. Cone did get a patent for rope dyeing but it's possible they dind't introduce the process until 1934 or so.

From waht I can tell, both Amoskeag AND Cone supplied denim from 1915 - Cone became the exclusive supplier in 1922.

EDIT: Shorty, they have already done a 'Finished' 1917 jean, I believe the 1915 model is raw.

[Shorty Long]

Ohh...so these 1915s are going to be a "finished" piece...not so interested now in purchasing but still interested in seeing pics.

Thanks for the info.

[SLAB]

ok, I really want to pick up a pair of raw LVC with suspender buttons. Any suggestions which model I should pick up, keeping in mind I dont like my jeans baggy in the ass or with a wide hem.

- 1901

- 1917

- 1927

- 1933

[JOA]

I've searched this thread for more info on the '66 LVC 501s, but couldn't find much. I'm curious how much slimmer they are than the '47s (which I have), particularly in the thigh and leg opening.

I'm thinking of purchasing from Cultizm. For reference, I wear a 34x36 in the '47's (which is my true waist size).

[Rivet Head]

ok, I really want to pick up a pair of raw LVC with suspender buttons. Any suggestions which model I should pick up, keeping in mind I dont like my jeans baggy in the ass or with a wide hem.

- 1901

- 1917

- 1927

- 1933

I've got the 1927 model and they are both wide/loose with a long rise. You could probably size down two as they are about 2" wider than the tagged size. With that said, they are intentionally cut this way to replicate the way the jeans were worn during that time period.

[Shorty Long]

Unless you size down a lot, you're probably not going to get the look you're after...I'm pretty sure all pre-47 LVCs are wide cut...as they should be from a historical perspective.

ok, I really want to pick up a pair of raw LVC with suspender buttons. Any suggestions which model I should pick up, keeping in mind I dont like my jeans baggy in the ass or with a wide hem.

- 1901

- 1917

- 1927

- 1933

[airfrogusmc]

Ohh...so these 1915s are going to be a "finished" piece...not so interested now in purchasing but still interested in seeing pics.

Thanks for the info.

The ones I saw in the catalog looked raw. And I think Dejan said he would have them in raw..

[airfrogusmc]

I have a pair of 1927 and I really like them. Fit almost the same as my 33s.

[airfrogusmc]

ok, I really want to pick up a pair of raw LVC with suspender buttons. Any suggestions which model I should pick up, keeping in mind I dont like my jeans baggy in the ass or with a wide hem.

- 1901

- 1917

- 1927

- 1933

If you don't like'm baggy then don't go for any of these models.

[fardin]

actually the cut in the beginning of the century were a bit slimmer, or not as baggy as lets say the ones from the 20s and 30s. just look at pics of that period. but still they are all antifit in the back so either size down or change your mind. and check pauls guide here on sufu, might be helpful

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

and hinoya also has some good fit pics of lvc

[markus]

Take a 1937 model in your actual size. Cultizm delivers them with snap on buttons for suspenders.

[Johnnylazar]

x post from the evolution thread

My lvc 1947. 3 months, one initial soak and another one at 2 and a half months. and by the way, mine came without the front pocket rivets. they fucked up and didn't put them on. they seem to be holding up really good so far. the close up front and back shots show the true color.

[superBobo]

ok, I really want to pick up a pair of raw LVC with suspender buttons. Any suggestions which model I should pick up, keeping in mind I dont like my jeans baggy in the ass or with a wide hem.

- 1901

- 1917

- 1927

- 1933

I have 33s, and the have a relativly small hem and leg, but the ass is baggy. I dont see how you could avoid that on LVCs. If you sized down on 33s it might turn out okay though.

[Paul T]

If you sized down on 33s it might turn out okay though.

Supawiwi's look great:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1685599&postcount=3035

[Rob]

I've searched this thread for more info on the '66 LVC 501s, but couldn't find much. I'm curious how much slimmer they are than the '47s (which I have), particularly in the thigh and leg opening.

I'm thinking of purchasing from Cultizm. For reference, I wear a 34x36 in the '47's (which is my true waist size).

'66s are NOT slimmer than 47s. They are slightly looser in the thigh and taper to a similar hem width.

There is certainly no reason to size up. Buy your usual size.

[SLAB]

thanks for the comments guys; I do understand they are cut anti-fit, I just don't want to end up with a 'gangsta look' on behalf of my skinny legs. Sizing down seems to be the way to go then.

I'll still give it a try though; my taste in denim has been evolving to more fuller cuts (plan to pick up the LVC '44 also)

[zakkaz]

Hi. I picked up some 1947 501 from here, US version. Just wondered if it was normal for the 'levi's' NOT to be shown on the back/reverse of the red-tab and only on the front of the red-tab....and the reverse of the top button to have an 'R' embossed onto it...thNKS

[Paul T]

Hi. I picked up some 1947 501 from here, US version. Just wondered if it was normal for the 'levi's' NOT to be shown on the back/reverse of the red-tab and only on the front of the red-tab....and the reverse of the top button to have an 'R' embossed onto it...thNKS

Yes and yes. R jeans come from 2007 or so; Levi's used single sided tabs up to 1954.

All such info is contained here:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

[zakkaz]

That's great, thNKS

[Rivet Head]

thanks for the comments guys; I do understand they are cut anti-fit, I just don't want to end up with a 'gangsta look' on behalf of my skinny legs. Sizing down seems to be the way to go then.

I'll still give it a try though; my taste in denim has been evolving to more fuller cuts (plan to pick up the LVC '44 also)

You're not gonna look "gangsta" unless you let them shits sag down low. I personally like a looser fitting jean, but I guess I'd be out of step.

[setterman]

thanks for the comments guys; I do understand they are cut anti-fit, I just don't want to end up with a 'gangsta look' on behalf of my skinny legs. Sizing down seems to be the way to go then.

I'll still give it a try though; my taste in denim has been evolving to more fuller cuts (plan to pick up the LVC '44 also)

I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but the '44s aren't full. They've got room in the seat, but are a couple inches narrower than the 30s jeans in legs. I like the cut a lot.

[superBobo]

I cant see the "gangsta" thing with LVCs. I wear mine pretty low, but they look anything but gangsta.

some old pics wywts of the 33s worn

(might be 37s)

[blm14]

[Dr_Heech]

Yes and yes. R jeans come from 2007 or so; Levi's used single sided tabs up to 1954.

All such info is contained here:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

Paul, are you sure Levis with 'R' are from 2007? I have two pairs, one 1933's and one 1901's, both with 'R' on the top button - they were purchased by me from Cinch in spring 2004. They still have tags and booklet, both of which date them to '04.