Levi's Vintage Clothing

[ChuckO]

Shrink, Your from London? So 40 degrees is 40 celsius or Fahrenheit for you guys?

[Guest jbone45]

Could anyone point me in a direction as to finding any raw LVC cut from pre 1933 in a 30" waist?

I've tried cultizm.com and could only find the 1937 in a 30x34.

any help is appreciated

[jstavrin]

Ohh shit! They're broke.

No need to be condescending.

I know they're fine, I'm just baffled by the wear some people can put in their jeans in such a short time.

[shrink]

Shrink, Your from London? So 40 degrees is 40 celsius or Fahrenheit for you guys?

i live in london but i'am from the continent and it's 40 celsius

[erk]

Could anyone point me in a direction as to finding any raw LVC cut from pre 1933 in a 30" waist?

I've tried cultizm.com and could only find the 1937 in a 30x34.

any help is appreciated

try oki-ni.com and caliroots.com

they both have 30/34s

caliroots has 1917 and 1927 in 30/34 (beware the pictures are switched...i dont know why, but the 27s are the ones with belt loops.)

oki-ni only has the 1901 in 30/34

hope that helps.

aeroleatherclothing.com is also a good place to find stuff, but they only have 30/32

[Dr_Heech]

My Knappave 1880s waist overalls S1 08 are tagged 34W 36L. Actual measures were: W36 L35.5 I have soaked it in lukewarm water for a couple of hours (before weart) and cold washed it once after a month of continuous wear. The inseam has now shrunk to 34in. The waist is the same. By fastening the (useless?) cinch-back to the maximum and making a knot, I can reduce the waist to 17.5x2 = 35in. Yet it feels very loose and hangs on my hips where the measure is 37in. Apart from a little fade on the watch pocket there’s no fading and the denim still gives away colour. With gentle force can be pulled over without undoing the waist button

Does anyone know whether the waist will shrink if washed, let’s say at 40degree? does anyone suggest a higher temperature.

When I bought the Knappave I also tried the “oldest oldest†tagged 34W L36 and the waist was at least an inch wider than the Knappave.

Why it is so difficult to apply the right tag to the right jeans?

The knappave are way oversized, so are the 27's. Both pairs I ordered were tagged 36/36, but measured 39.5/36 !!

This is why, with Lvc's inconsistent sizing, It's best to contact your seller first and ask for ACTUAL measurements. Never assume with Lvc sizing.

My 1917's are a 32/34, but measure 35.5/34. This inconsistency, I noticed, first happened around 2003 - and it's been going on ever since.

[Dr_Heech]

Anybody who has the lot 213 jacket: What is the shrinkage like on those? I got one off of ebay some time ago for really cheap and the arms are just a bit too long, but the chest cannot get too much shrinkage if I plan on buttoning it up. Does this denim (normal 201 denim I believe) shrink the normal 10%?

The denim will shrink the normal 10% I believe. I have a 213 in a 44" and it has shrunk nearly a whole size from just one warm water soak. I cant touch it again, or I'll have to hand it to my Son.

Rnr, what size is yours?

[erk]

The knappave are way oversized, so are the 27's. Both pairs I ordered were tagged 36/36, but measured 39.5/36 !!

This is why, with Lvc's inconsistent sizing, It's best to contact your seller first and ask for ACTUAL measurements. Never assume with Lvc sizing.

My 1917's are a 32/34, but measure 35.5/34. This inconsistency, I noticed, first happened around 2003 - and it's been going on ever since.

maybe this is a good question for Lynn Downey.

seriously...how hard is it to get the size right?

everyone knows the jeans are supposed to shrink from tag size

a 36 measuring 39.5 is absolutely ridiculous and completely useless to a person who thinks theyre buying a 36.

[blacap]

thanks erk. but my 44 and 33 are not from the production this year. i think 44 from 05 and 33 from 08, so their sizing are alittle different. 1901from 08 and 37 from japan. also i have a lvc first edition jacket, should i soak it first too?

[Dr_Heech]

maybe this is a good question for Lynn Downey.

seriously...how hard is it to get the size right?

everyone knows the jeans are supposed to shrink from tag size

a 36 measuring 39.5 is absolutely ridiculous and completely useless to a person who thinks theyre buying a 36.

Not only that, but I sent my first pair of 1927's (36/36) back to Cultizm, got them to grab me a measured size 35/34 (actual tagged size 34/34), then when I got them - there was no crotch rivet !! It hadn't fallen off or anything, it just was never put on in the first place! So I sent those back. When the replacement pair turned up, one leg was over half an inch longer than the other! Luckily, after a regular wash, the difference is minimal. But sizing is only one issue - what about the missing thread on the top of the back pockets!

This 1915 c/c 501 better be good, otherwise I may just stick with Lee.

(sorry for the rant)

[erk]

Not only that, but I sent my first pair of 1927's (36/36) back to Cultizm, got them to grab me a measured size 35/34 (actual tagged size 34/34), then when I got them - there was no crotch rivet !! It hadn't fallen off or anything, it just was never put on in the first place! So I sent those back. When the replacement pair turned up, one leg was over half an inch longer than the other! Luckily, after a regular wash, the difference is minimal. But sizing is only one issue - what about the missing thread on the top of the back pockets!

This 1915 c/c 501 better be good, otherwise I may just stick with Lee.

(sorry for the rant)

oh my god. thats incredible. I cant believe that.

blacap - cool. I hope those work out for you. and YES you should soak the jacket. it will shrink the full 10% as well

[heflys]

Not only that, but I sent my first pair of 1927's (36/36) back to Cultizm, got them to grab me a measured size 35/34 (actual tagged size 34/34), then when I got them - there was no crotch rivet !! It hadn't fallen off or anything, it just was never put on in the first place! So I sent those back. When the replacement pair turned up, one leg was over half an inch longer than the other! Luckily, after a regular wash, the difference is minimal. But sizing is only one issue - what about the missing thread on the top of the back pockets!

This 1915 c/c 501 better be good, otherwise I may just stick with Lee.

(sorry for the rant)

Damn.

Well, at least you can't say the jeans aren't historically accurate-in both good and bad ways.

[Busted Seam]

This ain't down to Lynn Downey. She has no control over LVC.

[erk]

This ain't down to Lynn Downey. She has no control over LVC.

i guess that makes sense. she is the historian.

does anyone know who IS in charge of LVC?

[setterman]

Why does the reply box dissappear every time I try to reply with a qoute?!

Chukc O wrore "And the '47's do sell for that, right? Isn't this thread filled with people alerting other LVC fans that one store or another has some 47's on the clearance rack for $80? The question is is that sold at a profit but I suspect they could make money at $80 if the volumes were there."

You can rest assured those jeans are being sold at a profit at $80 a pair. I have no doubt they could sell for $40 a pair and still turn a nice profit.

Hefly wrote "The '47, '55 and '66 for $60-80? LOL. The price is already relatively affordable; how could they possibly maintain the same quality at those prices?"

Sorry, they aren't $200 jeans, and the "quality" (or the denim) isn't really any better than in the two pair of regular 505 s I wore all winter. The only thing special about LVC is that it's selvage, and attempts to copy old styles. I say attempts, because any number of mistakes have been pointed out in this thread. Example, my recently made '44s have rivets at the coin pocket. This incorrect, is it not?

I still would like to see the current 501 dropped, and a new selvage 501 in a correct '47 or '55 pattern adopted, and be marketed (the most important part of the equation) and sold as a historic premium jean in the $60 to $80 range. I know it will never happen though. Not enough mass market demand, nor does it appear Levis cares about much other than resting on their image as The American brand.

[salaami]

levis needs to tighten the fuck up...they should buy one of the japanese companies who are obviously better than them, and put their name on it. if i were the COO/CEO of levis i would just take a loss and say 'fuck it, lets at least make ourselves seem respectable by putting out a product that rivals our high-end competition''. how about bringing some of the chinese that work in okayama to the states, and pay them the same as the workers here? no matter what anyone says, levis CAN afford to make jeans as good as a company that's 99% broker than them.

[blacap]

i think these are lvc but not sure which model are they... can anyone identify? http://www.yoox.com/item.asp?sec=1&YOOX=LEVI'S+RED+TAB&dept=men&tskay=3FD17CD7&rr=1&cod10=42124435TF&sts=sr_men80

[blacap]

Just found out i think they are from 1886, is it worth to buy? i am a W30 btw.

[heflys]

Sorry, they aren't $200 jeans, and the "quality" (or the denim) isn't really any better than in the two pair of regular 505 s I wore all winter. The only thing special about LVC is that it's selvage, and attempts to copy old styles. I say attempts, because any number of mistakes have been pointed out in this thread. Example, my recently made '44s have rivets at the coin pocket. This incorrect, is it not?

So, you're essentially saying that the LVC line is some crappy selvedge denim sold at high prices? Never mind that the line, more than likely, utilizes different variations of cotton; have models that possess denim that has either been manufactured on older machines in Japan, or on modified machines by Cone Mills (which is more wasteful). The line also, based on the variances in indigo color, makes use of various dyeing methods. And lets not forget that the denim isn't manufactured in Mexico, which is less costly. Things like sizing issues and missing rivets really don't affect any of this.

I'm still trying rationalize this belief that Levi's can, by means that escape my reasoning, replicate the quality of LVC in the standard line- while producing it in the same quantities- and sell it for $60-80.

[Dr_Heech]

i think these are lvc but not sure which model are they... can anyone identify? http://www.yoox.com/item.asp?sec=1&YOOX=LEVI'S+RED+TAB&dept=men&tskay=3FD17CD7&rr=1&cod10=42124435TF&sts=sr_men80

They are the 2005 edition of the 1890 501. If they're your size, snap 'em up. They are IMO the best 1890 to date. The earlier, valencia street model had the wrong patch and a shallow pocket arcuate. This season's line up has an 1890, but apparently they put the wrong rivets on them.

I have a pair of those 2005 1890's and they are lush! Thick leather patch, with the correct text, hammered-in rivets and the denim is Amazing.

[Busted Seam]

Just found out i think they are from 1886, is it worth to buy? i am a W30 btw.

They're worth it but are likely too big. You should generally buy these same size.

.. I have no doubt they could sell for $40 a pair and still turn a nice profit.

Hefly wrote "The '47, '55 and '66 for $60-80? LOL. The price is already relatively affordable; how could they possibly maintain the same quality at those prices?"

Sorry, they aren't $200 jeans, and the "quality" (or the denim) isn't really any better than in the two pair of regular 505 s I wore all winter. The only thing special about LVC is that it's selvage, and attempts to copy old styles. .

There are many things LVC do wrong and could improve. But none of them has much to do with your points. If you can't tell the difference between LVC and regular 505... keep the 505 and sell your LVC.

You are correct that the rivets on the 44 are a mistake - one of far too many. But even a quick look tru this thread shows a heap of jeans - the Nevada, the 1886, the 1901, the 201, the 333, the 55 and a whole heap more - that are definitive.

Sure, plenty of Japanese companies produce jeans that are better in some respects. Buy them, that's cool, the more choice the better. Post photos on the evo thread and justify your choices, but don't post such pointless blah here.

[Busted Seam]

[

The Doctor posted while I was writing and is absolutely right, these are terrific jeans, better than the recent production. But sized up, these will be pretty baggy.

INcidentally, look at the details on the back seam; there's no stagger where the seams meet, and the left hand panel overlaps the right. This construction changes on Levi's, and on LVC, year by year. By 1947 you will get a stagger, with the panels reversed. The stitching of the arcuate differs from every other period, and is an exact replica of a pair shown in the THis Is A Pair of Leiv's book. Things like the stitch length are different to later models, while the denim is different from both the 1880s and 1901 replicas.

This is an example of the kind of attention to detail you get on the (good) LVC, that not every fuckwit is capable of appreciating.

[blacap]

damm. thanks busted seam. i think i will just get it first !!

[Dr_Heech]

Yeah, Busted seam is right about the sizing on those. I took it for granted, back in 2005, when you order a pair of tagged 36/36 jeans, that's what you would get. But no, my 36/36 measure a 38.5/35.5. Never mind, they're still lush, and I'll keep 'em just for the denim alone.

Still, if anyone has a pair in a tagged size 34/34......?

[heflys]

Sooo.....Is LVC moving towards some shrink-to-tagged size concept?

Sure, plenty of Japanese companies produce jeans that are better in some respects. Buy them, that's cool, the more choice the better. Post photos on the evo thread and justify your choices, but don't post such pointless blah here.

I'm reminded of this topic:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=147567

[erk]

something I've been thinking about recently

the interestingly lighter shade of indigo blue that my 1937s have.

color corrected swatch of denim - the 37 color is a little light and a little green since sending to internet but the 47 is dead on

color corrected (as best I could, too bright outside for this)

left to right : 501 STF, 501 37, 501 47

straight from the camera - different exposure

same orientation

the 37s have been soaked 3 times and washed without soap once(by hand) the 47s have been worn for about 6months and washed a few times.

[airfrogusmc]

The Doctor posted while I was writing and is absolutely right, these are terrific jeans, better than the recent production. But sized up, these will be pretty baggy.

INcidentally, look at the details on the back seam; there's no stagger where the seams meet, and the left hand panel overlaps the right. This construction changes on Levi's, and on LVC, year by year. By 1947 you will get a stagger, with the panels reversed. The stitching of the arcuate differs from every other period, and is an exact replica of a pair shown in the THis Is A Pair of Leiv's book. Things like the stitch length are different to later models, while the denim is different from both the 1880s and 1901 replicas.

This is an example of the kind of attention to detail you get on the (good) LVC, that not every fuckwit is capable of appreciating.

Great post and when LVC gets it right they can really get it right. Man I know i keep raving bout these 1917s but they are really nice...

[airfrogusmc]

But even a quick look tru this thread shows a heap of jeans - the Nevada, the 1886, the 1901, the 201, the 333, the 55 and a whole heap more - that are definitive.

I would add the 1905 209 coveall to this list...

[mistahmoogle]

Can anyone out there help me check if this LVC Denim Jacket is fake or legit? It's supposed to be a 1967 Type III. Didn't come with a LVC booklet, the pricetag looks off, the capital E red tab has "LEVI'S" again on the back of the tab such that it shows the right way when the left chest pocket is up. I don't know enough about this to know if it's real or not. Here's some pictures:

Jacket

Label (Cardstock)

Pricetag

Tab

Back of Tab

Button

Hangtag

Hangtag Back

Thanks in advance!

[randomkoreandude]

sooo are the lvc 1947 on the bad list of lvc or the good list?