Levi's Vintage Clothing

[airfrogusmc]

I think Paul said that early LVC was using the same denim on all their models but Cone/Kurabo is now producing the different/close to correct denim for each year being reproduced.

[airfrogusmc]

I handled a pair of 501s from the 50s in person while wearing my LVC 1955s, so I got to compare the two

The denim may as well have been the same, really.

Thats been my experiece also. LVCs 55s are really a good reproduction in terms of denim and cut as compared to originals.

[erk]

I have an incredibly stupid question. If one wanted to buy a set of representative denims from this year's LVC collection, how many jeans would that be? That is to say, is the denim used in each cut UNIQUE and distinct from the other, or are there sets of cuts whose denim is completely identical and the only difference is the construction?

I suppose it would be nice to know this sort of thing for ANY given season but that's much harder (and less practical - being that you cannot just buy whichever one you'd like right now)...

Anyone?

the denim is different on every years model. There are probably some that are close, but the differences I've seen model to model are pretty significant.

[Busted Seam]

I handled a pair of 501s from the 50s in person while wearing my LVC 1955s, so I got to compare the two

The denim may as well have been the same, really.

You're not allowed to say that. It's only people who are old, in the pay of Levi's or took drugs in the 60s who would make such a ridiculous claim!

[airfrogusmc]

Heres an e-mail I found from from Paul T

"For Cone, the 1915, 1922, 1933, 1936, 1947, 1955, and 1966 are all different fabrics and have different codes - and I am sure the 78, 83 and 44 are different too, although I haven't asked about them. I believe, as you mentioned, that the very first LVC and Capital E mostly used one generic denim. THey did a lot of development from 1999 on, on the different fabrics, most of it overseen by Stefano Aldighieri, who is hugely respected by other industry experts, like Adriano Goldschimed, that I've spoken to.

For Kurabo, the 1880s, 1890s and 1901 are all different from each other, and suspect the others too (I don't know if the XX and Nevada, both circa 1880, have the same or slightly different fabric). THen of course the 201 range is a completely different fabric (I think your dungarees, and the waist overalls, have the same denim). Then there's the Sanforized fabrics like the 701, and zipper jeans, most of which come from Kaihara. Add in the 557 jackets etc, and you must have at least 20 different specs for across the range."

[bubdolan]

You're not allowed to say that. It's only people who are old, in the pay of Levi's or took drugs in the 60s who would make such a ridiculous claim!

Absolutely! A point well made, Busted Seam.

(I'll tick at least one of the above, and I didn't work for Levi's)

[airfrogusmc]

(LoL) I also don't work for Levis and think they LVC do some things good and could imporve on others. I think there 1955s are one of their more accurate repros.

[Dr_Heech]

(LoL) I also don't work for Levis and think they LVC do some things good and could imporve on others. I think there 1955s are one of their more accurate repros.

Amen to that!

[Dr_Heech]

Comparisons of my 1955's as requested (I forget who originally asked).

1955 501xx's from1998, 2003 and 2005.

Apologies, but I've tried to compare the difference in denim, but my camera just really isn't up to the job.

Valencia Street, San Antonio and Taylor Toggs factories respectively.

The 1998 edition is darker than the 2003. The 2005 is as dark as the 98, but more shiny in appearance.

From left to right: 1998/2003/2005

Back pockets:1998

2003 (note: chalk mark on pocket stitch - a reoccurring theme throughout post 2002 jeans.

2005: wobbly stitching. colour is lighter yellow than previous models, and more noticably the yellow rows of top stitch on the outside (rather than on the inside of previous years)

1998 rivet and belt loop

2003

2005

Tagged waist sizes are 36, But measured waist sizes vary-

1998 = 36" dead, 2003 = 37" dead, and 2005 measure a hair under 38" !

[rnrswitch]

I like the 98 denim better, looks almost black and I also like the dullness of it.

[civicex]

Comparisons of my 1955's as requested (I forget who originally asked).

1955 501xx's from1998, 2003 and 2005.

Tagged waist sizes are 36, But measured waist sizes vary-

1998 = 36" dead, 2003 = 37" dead, and 2005 measure a hair under 38" !

Sick stuff heech.

Call me crazy, but I actually like the denim of the 2005 model the best.

[blm14]

I will take one pair each in size 38. Thanks.

[grouse_allergy]

I got these before I was into jeans, just because they were cheap at a thrift shop. And I realized since then that they're selvedge (pink-line) and capital E, yet they're pretty obviously pre-distressed (subtle, but still obvious in the whiskers and honeycombs). Does anyone have any info? Any idea if they're LVC? Thanks!

[rnrswitch]

With the BiG E tab I would assume LVC. I don't think the Capital E jeans had "LEVI's" on the red tab, but I could be wrong.

[almostnice]

Anyway to tell what year my LVCs are from?

As yours are from pomata like my pair they are probably made the same year:1998.It says on the inside tag in the lower right corner:

0498: made april 1998.

[grouse_allergy]

Is it strange that my pair (up a few posts) has no tags inside? That's why I'm confused about what they are.

[Leonard Leroy]

As yours are from pomata like my pair they are probably made the same year:1998.It says on the inside tag in the lower right corner:

0498: made april 1998.

Yep, yep, that does it. Thanks, sir. Wish I could see LVCs in person to compare.

[dreamkast]

mmk ive read that already a couple of times. Im still not sure if I wana get another pair of 47's or branch out and get some 55's.

they say the rise is higher on the 55's any idea on how much? As im not that keen on such a high rise.

Also they say the 55 is oversized so go true to size, the pair im looking at are pre distressed and the smallest waist size is my true size which doesnt take shrinking into consideration so would true size in predistressed 55's be too baggy. Long story short ,how much is the oversize on the 55's compared to the 47's. and what exactly do they mean by the 55 is more boxy.

sorry for being annoying, but need some advice before either of them are gone.

[Busted Seam]

sorry for being annoying, but need some advice before either of them are gone.

Erk gave you the reference, with the rise and all the other dimensions, plus photos of the 47 and 55 next to each other. Once again, it's all here. Check it out; things like the thigh and seat measurements are there too.

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

Not sure what else we can tell you, except it's best to ask the retailer to tell you the actual waist size of the 55 pair; if you want a slim fit, you could go for a waist size one inch less than your normal measurement, the waist will stretch and the jeans will still be pretty roomy.

[Mr Black]

Wasn't someone looking for one of these recently?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-LVC-1st-Front-Pleated-Blouse-jacket-New-booklet_W0QQitemZ300311491872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMen_s_Clothes?hash=item300311491872&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1685|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

[Dr_Heech]

I will take one pair each in size 38. Thanks.

Funny you should say that.

I've also got a pair of the 2005 55's in a 38/36.

I'll add 'em to the list.

[Dr_Heech]

I like the 98 denim better, looks almost black and I also like the dullness of it.

To be honest, I've yet to try out the 2005 55's, but the 98's and 2003 both have a unique-ness to them when soaked + washed. The denim on the '05 looks more shiny, but I think they will dull a bit when put through their 1st soak+wash.

[Dr_Heech]

Last lot of comparisons then.

1944 S501xx, 2003 vs 2005.

2005 edition is darker. 2003 denim is identical to earlier, 555 repros

Back pocket shapes and arcs (left 2003, right 2005)

Leather patch 2003 (brownish tone to embossed print)

2005 (nice finish-off stitching, bottom right) Red tone embossed print

Inside leg stitch spacing: Left '03, right '05.

Crotch stitching '03

Crotch stitching '05

More to follow...

[Dr_Heech]

1944's (..cont.)

Inside pockets: calico cotton on 2003, striped shirt material on '05. Check out the black bar-tack stitch vs yellow bar-tacking which attaches the belt loops.

Watch pocket position/shape. Rivets are plain on 2003.

Rivets on 2005 are a mix of plain and stamped.

V stitch 2003

2005

Both pairs are tagged 36/36, both measure 36 dead.

[The Clerk]

Wasn't someone looking for one of these recently?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-LVC-1st-Front-Pleated-Blouse-jacket-New-booklet_W0QQitemZ300311491872QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMen_s_Clothes?hash=item300311491872&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1685|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

That was me, I saw the listing courtesy of Dr Heach, unfortunately far too big for me.

Thanks for the heads up tho Mr Black

[coupon]

x-post

[jstavrin]

What's the deal with leg twist? I've only had my LVC 1947s for about a month and the left leg has already shifted a lot.

[rnrswitch]

Dude.... Their broken.

[airfrogusmc]

Now thats funny (LOL)

[Leonard Leroy]

Dude.... Their broken.

Actually, if they were, there wouldn't be leg twist... so...