Levi's Vintage Clothing

[airfrogusmc]

Paul, I've always been disappointed when I've soak first then worn. I tend to like the way things turn out if I just wear'm as long as I can stand it then after months of wear go for the first soak.

[Paul T]

I've done that on some, quite possibly it does give better wear, but given these early jeans are often oversized anyway, I get troubled by the Coco The Clown effect we discussed earlier with Dr Heech...

[billyk]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the replies. I haven't soaked it yet because I like to wear my jeans out and then soak/wash. So this would be my first time soaking prior to wearing. I figured that if it's only going to get minimal shrinkage, I'd rather just sell NWT rather than soaked minus tags. Alternatively, I can make up the two-inches by buttoning the first suspender button on the right leg and going old school.

Will

[Paul T]

If you need over two inches I would sell. I've made the same mistake myself, on the most expensive raw jeans (the '1873')... I persevered, later boil washed them, and of course got a pittance for them later.

Have you tried asking the dealier if they'll exchange? You could try blaming them, if they're ovsrsize!

[billyk]

PT, selling is probably the most realistic option, unless I go guano and scarf down a set of Twinkies to fill the waist.

The weird thing -- well, not so weird, given that they're different years and different cuts -- is that the 1873 from a few seasons ago is sized more true to waist than last season's Oldest Oldest. I assumed that the Oldest Oldest would follow the sizing of the 1873. Woops!

Thanks again,

Will

[Paul T]

Good luck. Sizing is notoriously inconsistent on LVC; used to at least be consistent for the same model, but there are more changes this year, Check the 501 guide, I've posted the dimensions for the new models. It's incomplete, but I'll post the full set asap: http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

And check out The Clerk's fantastic 1933 jeans that I've added. I'd say they look just like vintage ones but I'm not allowed!

[airfrogusmc]

You're allowed and you're right they do look just like vintage.

I gues if they're WAY to big but I can put up with them being a bit baggy for a few months. In my opinion the pay off is worth it. I have a couple'a pair of decent braces to hold'm up and the cinch to snug tings up till things shrink to more normal.

[ChuckO]

One of the things that's interesting to me after reading the authenticity arguments is how the denim changed or evolved over time. My take on it is that every ten years or so the fabric and the fit morphed. I'm kind of surprised by that. The fit makes sense to me. Paul do have much information on that? Did the looms change over time or is there some ability to change the weave on those old looms? I would have assumed they would have been pretty complacent about the fabric. Did Levi provide Cone with a "recipe" for their denim?

[Paul T]

One of the things that's interesting to me after reading the authenticity arguments is how the denim changed or evolved over time. My take on it is that every ten years or so the fabric and the fit morphed. I'm kind of surprised by that. The fit makes sense to me. Paul do have much information on that? Did the looms change over time or is there some ability to change the

weave on those old looms? I would have assumed they would have been pretty complacent about the fabric. Did Levi provide Cone with a "recipe" for their denim?

The fabric, in most respect, is WAY more variable than cutting and sewing a pair of jeans. For instance:

• the weight changed;

• the cotton changed (there was some sea Island, then that was wiped out by he Boll Weevil, Carolina and Texas cotton will all be subtly different)

• Slashing, the eway starch was applied to protect and stiffen the yarn for weaving, went through several differnet methods...

• the way they dipped the indigo changed (Cone perhaps used hand-dipped dyeing as late as 1933);

• the methods of spinning the cotton changed (for instance, a new spinning process produced in the early 60s that gave a very specific kind of striation); this alone can give an almost infinite amount of variaiton

• the looms changed, from Whitin through all the models of Draper, E, X2 and X03, all which gave a different pattern of defects;

• the source of the indigo changed and suplhur was introduced in 1975.

That's only a fraction of the variables.

You have things like carding of th ecotton, which makes a huge difference, the tensions and how you set the looms, which allows for almost infinite variations, finishing, singeing, operator error... the variations are almost literally endless. And I've probably missed several crucial other variables. That's the wonderufl thing about denim. As even someone like ringring, who has huge iceberg-like reserves of knowledge will tell you, you will never stop learning.

THere are people in Japan who have knowledge that Americnas dont' have access to, amazing dyeing knowledge and rediscovery of craft and dyeing traditions... Italians who have centuries of experience - mow, I'm being told, bought up by the Moroccans... seats of excellence like Cone and Ralph Tharpe, whose huge knowledge and passion is respected by many outside Levi's... that's what makes denim so exciting.

.

[crownzip]

Hey Allen,

I think Levi's could and should do a better job with their repros - specially what they charge for them. Why is it that the LVC Japan make superior repros compared to the stuff that's sold to the west?

Grant

[ChuckO]

The fabric, in most respect, is WAY more variable than cutting and sewing a pair of jeans. For instance:

• the weight changed;

• the cotton changed (there was some sea Island, then that was wiped out by he Boll Weevil, Carolina and Texas cotton will all be subtly different)

• Slashing, the eway starch was applied to protect and stiffen the yarn for weaving, went through several differnet methods...

• the way they dipped the indigo changed (Cone perhaps used hand-dipped dyeing as late as 1933);

• the methods of spinning the cotton changed (for instance, a new spinning process produced in the early 60s that gave a very specific kind of striation); this alone can give an almost infinite amount of variaiton

• the looms changed, from Whitin through all the models of Draper, E, X2 and X03, all which gave a different pattern of defects;

• the source of the indigo changed and suplhur was introduced in 1975.

That's only a fraction of the variables.

You have things like carding of th ecotton, which makes a huge difference, the tensions and how you set the looms, which allows for almost infinite variations, finishing, singeing, operator error... the variations are almost literally endless. And I've probably missed several crucial other variables. That's the wonderufl thing about denim. As even someone like ringring, who has huge iceberg-like reserves of knowledge will tell you, you will never stop learning.

THere are people in Japan who have knowledge that Americnas dont' have access to, amazing dyeing knowledge and rediscovery of craft and dyeing traditions... Italians who have centuries of experience - mow, I'm being told, bought up by the Moroccans... seats of excellence like Cone and Ralph Tharpe, whose huge knowledge and passion is respected by many outside Levi's... that's what makes denim so exciting.

.

Thanks, Paul. Absolutely fascinating. I have a lot more appreciation for what goes into these different models. Based on what you've described I can't imagine trying to reproduce the different periods of denim.

[electrum]

RE: JP LVC best repro's (?)

The most unusual thing about my LVC JP 44 S' denim is that the weave is extremely loose. When held up to ANY light source, the light beams through it like it's a sieve. The stuff is like cheesecloth -- you can practically see through it. These are one hot soak no wear and the weave remains as loose as it was before soak. 1st foto is direct sun light behind and 2nd foto w/ sun offset. Both illustrate light beaming through fairly well, but it's much more noticeable in person. I've never seen denim so porous not even cheap stuff. I'm no expert, but I doubt '40's era vintage denim is anything like this. I have many detail fotos w/ comments of these jeans that might help the experts here deduce accuracy. I don't mind sharing as long as board mod's don't mind the clutter. Let me know if interested...

[Paul T]

I have never seen this before and honestly can't explain it. I've only seen one pair of original 44 jeans, deadstock, and don't recall the weave being as loose.

Would love to see photos, but especially when they're worn. I've seen the new Japanes fabric, but I've not seen it worn in, nor do we have any photos on here, as they used US fabric up until a couple of years ago.

Japanese construction is usually better, including the stitch detailing and the tags, especially the 55, . But on some models they modify the cuts, and they now seem to do a narrower range of versions.

[airfrogusmc]

And try and find anything larger than a 36 waist in LVC JP...

[JacoBlue]

Heres a few pictures that has nothing to do with LVC Japan,

But its been a month and these are celebrating 6 months.

super dark leather patch

c0ol cellphone fadezz

souper cool

i have made up my mind and im washing next month.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

So I went to Fake Alpha today to look at some vintage Levi's.

I compared the cut of a 47 and a 55. At the same measured size, w31", the hem of both pairs measured 22cm. Simple as that, 55s are not as wide as some have claimed here.

I also compared the denim of worn 47s, 55s and 66s. What I would say is that while you can perhaps see some differences between the denims when they're side by side, I highly doubt that anyone could pick out say a 60s pair in a blind test.

There can be more differences between individual 50s pairs than there can be between a 47 and a 66 pair. In general they look very similar, but I also so some odd 50s pairs that had more unevenness than others.

Also, it depends a lot on how the jeans are treated. Depending on how they're worn and washed, the same denim can look a lot different.

Also compared the denim of my JP ww2 506 jacket to originals. It's spot on.

And finally, I also looked at a 1890s original. I got pictures coming of them.

[airfrogusmc]

I don't think the 55s are wide. I think the LVC 47s were/are to narrow (any way the ones from previous years). Originals between those years are going to show some fluctuation of course they're being made by humans but not the consistent slimmer profile of 47 LVCs from past years as compared to the LVC 55s which are very close in profile to original 1955 501s. I love my 47s but the cut is more modern than accurate as you have posted here you didn't see the size dif on originals that we see on previous LVCs between the 55s and the 47s.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I wouldn´t complain the denim of LVC´s, more the rest of the details, just look at the 1890s from this season, they used the wrong rivets with, if you look at PTs earlier version or the beautiful 1890s 201s, they got those beautiful flat rivets.... shame on LVC

btw. the 1944s from 2005 got the best denim and cut from all LVC came across me, but the 1944 are aswell the most modified jean in the LVC collection, nearly every season some things have changed with em...

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

btw. what do you think about 1996 STFs? I just got a pair for 30bucks and realized that there show the 555 button...

[Paul T]

I wouldn´t complain the denim of LVC´s, more the rest of the details, just look at the 1890s from this season, they used the wrong rivets with, if you look at PTs earlier version or the beautiful 1890s 201s, they got those beautiful flat rivets.... shame on LVC

btw. the 1944s from 2005 got the best denim and cut from all LVC came across me, but the 1944 are aswell the most modified jean in the LVC collection, nearly every season some things have changed with em...

Abso-freakiin'-lutely.

I've seen the wrong pocket on the 201, on the Oldest Oldest, the wrong patch on the 1901, the patch in the wrong place on the Oldest Oldest, the wrong rivets on the 1890s, wrong patch on the 30s 201, the wrong yoke stitching on the 1873, and then the sizing changes on every model.

That's what people should be slagging LVC off for, to try and get them to riase their game. But instead you get idiots (not Partrytaco, for whether you like how denim wears in is variable and subjective) whinging ignorantly about the fabric; I read some "denim maker' on another forum talking about how COne denim is "only 12 oz " - when that's what the weight should be, and when the "Japanese' denim he's buying is quite likely made in CHina. Meanwhile, Cone have really raised their game with the White Oak collection and the fabric on the SelfEdge al's Attire shirts, some of which is the best I've seen, period, much of which is being exported to Japan.

For all that, when they get it right - and I've seen 1933s, 1944s, 1947s and 1955s that all look amazing, plus the 201, 1901, NEvada and others cited earlier- they are wonderful.

Edit; jeez, I shoudl work on my day job but there's one more crucial thing. I don't think the best models necessarily sell that well. WHen I used to frequesnt the sales, I'd see the natural indigo versions marked down, the 333, the closed-neck jumper, the cotton duck pants. THese were all amazing models. However, people simply seem to want the 47 or 66 and that's about it. There is certainly logic in Levi's Japan focusing on a restricted range. I, personally, just find that boring.

[Paul T]

btw. what do you think about 1996 STFs? I just got a pair for 30bucks and realized that there show the 555 button...

I had a couple of pairs I used for painting. THey look great raw and were well made- but those ones did use sulphur and they simply don't retain the indigo.

I'm not absolutely certain, for it has been officially denied, but I think those STF, from 1983, are Ring/OE, not ring/ring.

[Dr_Heech]

Abso-freakiin'-lutely.

I've seen the wrong pocket on the 201, on the Oldest Oldest, the wrong patch on the 1901, the patch in the wrong place on the Oldest Oldest, the wrong rivets on the 1890s, wrong patch on the 30s 201, the wrong yoke stitching on the 1873, and then the sizing changes on every model.

That's what people should be slagging LVC off for, to try and get them to riase their game. QUOTE]

Paul,

Just back from my hols in sunny Cornwall and catching up on so many new posts, but I just wanted to say I agree 100% with this.

...although you forgot to mention the wrong arcs on the '05 201's and the appalling mistake with the "forgotten" top-stitch on the back pockets of the '27's !

By the way, change of subject, got a nice pic of my boy in his distressed H+M's - will post a pic this week on the sprogs thread.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I don't think the 55s are wide. I think the LVC 47s were/are to narrow (any way the ones from previous years). Originals between those years are going to show some fluctuation of course they're being made by humans but not the consistent slimmer profile of 47 LVCs from past years as compared to the LVC 55s which are very close in profile to original 1955 501s. I love my 47s but the cut is more modern than accurate as you have posted here you didn't see the size dif on originals that we see on previous LVCs between the 55s and the 47s.

Well, I have my second set(original 47 compared to lvc 47 here http://ringxring.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13) of measurements from originals and the conclusion from looking at them can only be that the common claim that the LVC 47 is too slim and that it should be wider than the 55 is wrong. They are pretty much the same, give and take a few millimetres.

Yes, LVC 47 and 55s are sized differently but that was never what was discussed, the cut is what's been in discussion, not the sizing of the jeans which I think everyone knew was wrong.

So no, I don't think the 47 is too modern, it seems to be as authentic as the other years.

If you still claim that the LVC 47 is off, it would take measurements from originals and the repros to further the discussion.

[airfrogusmc]

Well answer this then; how come I've had 3 pairs of 47s and they've all be smaller than my 55s in the entire profile? I know a guy that has original mid 50s 55s that were almost identicle in profile to the same tagged size LVC 55s and the 47s tagged the same size were smaller in the bottom leg opening, waist, thigh, rise and across the knee . Pretty much in the exact same proportion as my 47 LVCs compared to my 55LVCs both tagged the same waist. You saw pictures a few posts back and I posted the measurements.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Well answer this then; how come I've had 3 pairs of 47s and they've all be smaller than my 55s in the entire profile? I know a guy that has original mid 50s 55s that were almost identicle in profile to the same tagged size LVC 55s and the 47s tagged the same size were smaller in the bottom leg opening, waist, thigh, rise and across the knee . Pretty much in the exact same proportion as my 47 LVCs compared to my 55LVCs both tagged the same waist. You saw pictures a few posts back and I posted the measurements.

Once again, we are not discussing sizing. You would have to compare jeans of the same actual size, not same tag size.

And comparing two repros to eachother doesn't say much about authenticity.

[airfrogusmc]

But if you see my measurement of my 47s and do %s you will see that the leg opening and thigh are slimmer % wise as compared to actual measured waist than the %s on the 55s. Thus slimmer profile.

[erk]

this whole 1947 authenticity thing is getting out of hand, is it impossible that the fit on actual 1947s was a tad bit slimmer? and if you don't like it being so slim, can't you just size up? Personally I'd like to hear more about this polycore vs. 100% cotton thread question.

it was said that some of the later models use polycore threads. how late are we talking hear? 1955 - 1983? 1966-83? 1947? "later models" is fairly vague. My guess is that the thread on my 37s and 47s is 100% cotton, just because of the way it looks and how threads have broken. but its nothing like i've seen on the fullcount contest.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Well, I don't agree. Proportions are not the exact same between sizes, like for instance there might be 10 waist sizes, 28-38 for example, but only 3-5 different sizes for backpockets.

Why is it that you simply will not accept the fact that I have TWO sets of measurements from original 47s, and have compared original 47s to original 55s and seen that the cut is very similar. I also compared measurements from original 47s to LVC 47s and they match up well.

[airfrogusmc]

If say I had a pair of say 36/34 55 LVCs that measured the same in the waist as my 47 LVCs which are tagged 38 34 the back pockets on the 47s will be smaller with more of a tappered shape the rise will be lower and the thigh on the 47s will be smaller. Thus slimmer profile. I think that a pair of 55s one size down from tagged size would measure the same in the waist as a pair of 47s. Thus the tagged size 36/34 55s having a similar waist size as a pair tagged size 38/34 47s.

All I can say is what I've seen. I don't have any idea of the 47s you are talking about but the pairs I've seen have been consistant with my statement. You also said the pockets on the 55s were wrong and I posted a photo that showed different. There are other out there that have experienced the same as what I've posted also.

[airfrogusmc]

this whole 1947 authenticity thing is getting out of hand, is it impossible that the fit on actual 1947s was a tad bit slimmer? and if you don't like it being so slim, can't you just size up? Personally I'd like to hear more about this polycore vs. 100% cotton thread question.

it was said that some of the later models use polycore threads. how late are we talking hear? 1955 - 1983? 1966-83? 1947? "later models" is fairly vague. My guess is that the thread on my 37s and 47s is 100% cotton, just because of the way it looks and how threads have broken. but its nothing like i've seen on the fullcount contest.

Origianls were cut pretty much the same from the mid 40s through the 50s.