Levi's Vintage Clothing

[jstavrin]

To be clear: I couldn't care less about how airfrog treats his jeans (to each their own, etc.), but it's the fact that he's constantly evangelizing his non-wash method that annoys me. This is what attracts so much criticism. Especially in this case, when in response to the praising of Erk's jeans you say "Oh, those are cool and all, but get a load of THESE."

Didn't you post your own jeans in the Holy Grail Denim thread?

EDIT: i'll drop it, just had comment.

[Goominim]

Oh man. Never thought I would say this, but can we just get back to sizing questions?

I wear my jeans low, so my hips are 32. Will a 34 1947 LVC shrink well for me?

[erk]

I wear my jeans low, so my hips are 32. Will a 34 1947 LVC shrink well for me?

thanks for getting us back on track.

yes. they should. but a 1947 has a fairly high rise (by modern standards) so i would consider wearing them higher. it just looks better.

[airfrogusmc]

To be clear: I couldn't care less about how airfrog treats his jeans (to each their own, etc.), but it's the fact that he's constantly evangelizing his non-wash method that annoys me. This is what attracts so much criticism. Especially in this case, when in response to the praising of Erk's jeans you say "Oh, those are cool and all, but get a load of THESE."

Didn't you post your own jeans in the Holy Grail Denim thread?

EDIT: i'll drop it, just had comment.

Why would that annoy you? I've done both and its what I found to give the best most authentic fades FOR ME. And its not my method as I pointed out there are others that have posted great examples of jeans broken in like this and actually they have gone much longer than I usually go. I could care less what you do but I certainly have a right to my opinion and your self riotousness narrow mindedness annoys me. I've seen really nice looking jeans that have had a soak (Pauls 1947s for one) but he did go a very long time between soaks. So do what you'd like. I could give a fuck but I've done it both ways and I prefer the method that others here actually told me about. In the mean time go get some decaf, relax and realize there is more than your way to do things.

[airfrogusmc]

To be clear: I couldn't care less about how airfrog treats his jeans (to each their own, etc.), but it's the fact that he's constantly evangelizing his non-wash method that annoys me. This is what attracts so much criticism. Especially in this case, when in response to the praising of Erk's jeans you say "Oh, those are cool and all, but get a load of THESE."

Didn't you post your own jeans in the Holy Grail Denim thread?

EDIT: i'll drop it, just had comment.

Yeah actually I did post those a while ago on advise of someone that posts in here a lot that told me that I should because he thought that pair really rocked. And by the way, someone whose opinion I value a lot. and is VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE.

And if you read back I was answering settlemans statement and I think the erks jeans look great but the debate was about better fades and more wear. Some like less fades and less wear, nothing wrong with that But from my experience if you like more wear the less water that they are soaked in, usually the better the fades, if thats what you are going for and that was my response to settleman and what better way to make a point than to show a photo.

[Goominim]

thanks for getting us back on track.

yes. they should. but a 1947 has a fairly high rise (by modern standards) so i would consider wearing them higher. it just looks better.

I don't mind having a baggy butt.

[jwsach]

sagging pants are fucking stupid.

my 00.02

[setterman]

Not the originals that I've seen and photos that I've seen of originals. THose look like ordinary MODERN jeans that were bought raw and washed normally. Just get a pair of regular raw STF and rock on in that case.

So if his are "modern" and "ordinary", how would you describe your own? And since you obviously have no problem giving your opinion about his jeans, I'll give you mine about your jeans... all of your 1800s and early 1900s 501s follow a pattern and they all look contrived. Too many/too sharp whiskers (looks absolutely messy and unnatural), terribly stretched out and rolled over waist bands (they're too small, buy a size 40 and some suspenders next time), a messy jumble of combs, extreme knee wear but minimal thigh wear, and outside this "hard wear" there's an overall starched newness to the rest of the jeans that just looks goofy.

Now, as jstarvin pointed out and has probably pointed out before... no one cares how you wear your jeans or is trying to change your habits. I know that I, and I'm sure others, just get really sick and tired of hearing the same shit over, and over, and over about how you get the best fades (debatable) by wearing your jeans raw for six months. That broken record picture? That's as much you as it is anyone in this thread.

And your trying to one up erk by posting pix of your mediocre 1915s for like the 30th time? Real classy.

[airfrogusmc]

So if his are "modern" and "ordinary", how would you describe your own? And since you obviously have no problem giving your opinion about his jeans, I'll give you mine about your jeans... all of your 1800s and early 1900s 501s follow a pattern and they all look contrived. Too many/too sharp whiskers (looks absolutely messy and unnatural), terribly stretched out and rolled over waist bands (they're too small, buy a size 40 and some suspenders next time), a messy jumble of combs, extreme knee wear but minimal thigh wear, and outside this "hard wear" there's an overall starched newness to the rest of the jeans that just looks goofy.

Now, as jstarvin pointed out and has probably pointed out before... no one cares how you wear your jeans or is trying to change your habits. I know that I, and I'm sure others, just get really sick and tired of hearing the same shit over, and over, and over about how you get the best fades (debatable) by wearing your jeans raw for six months. That broken record picture? That's as much you as it is anyone in this thread.

And your trying to one up erk by posting pix of your mediocre 1915s for like the 30th time? Real classy.

I wasn't upping one I was showing a difference if you READ properly. I've repped erk before for his jeans but the point I was making was if you want sharper fades keep them out of water as much as possible. Thats not just MY advise. It come from Levis as well. And I thought the entire FORUM experience was to exchange and get different ideas about things. But I guess you're right everyone should do everything the way that you think they should. I prefer a non wash approach to breaking in jeans and there are many more here that also prefer that method and if not that method a first soak and very few soaks after that until they are broken in.

I could care less if you like my jeans. I and many other prefer a more defined fade. So ya don't like Pauls 47s? His have it all over mine as far as definition and you don't like the 33s Grant posted both his and his friends? I think they look great. To each their own but I posted to show the difference not to say one preference is better than the other just that theres a difference and there is.

Oh and if you want your jeans to look like erks do what he does (and theres nothing wrong with that). If you want your jeans to look like mine then theres another option and I was responding to a post to show the diff. not to dis erk.

[entertainment!]

I was just looking at the 1873 duck pants on the Oki-Ni website to compare them to the 555 ones that Dr Heech sold to me and noticed that the new production does not have a yoke but does have two pleats. I don't remember any other lvc repros without a yoke. I also looked at all the pictures of early jeans I could find and didn't see any without a yoke. The 555 ones have a yoke and no pleats.

Anybody know of a precedent for the yokeless design?

http://www.oki-ni.com/Mens-Jeans/Levis-Vintage-1873-Duck-Canvas-Jeans/invt/lev0101rig

[Goominim]

I was just looking at the 1873 duck pants on the Oki-Ni website to compare them to the 555 ones that Dr Heech sold to me and noticed that the new production does not have a yoke but does have two pleats. I don't remember any other lvc repros without a yoke. I also looked at all the pictures of early jeans I could find and didn't see any without a yoke. The 555 ones have a yoke and no pleats.

Anybody know of a precedent for the yokeless design?

http://www.oki-ni.com/Mens-Jeans/Levis-Vintage-1873-Duck-Canvas-Jeans/invt/lev0101rig

The 1873 duck are a confusing bunch. Some have half selvage, no yoke, and sewn buttons.

[roy6]

To quote a wise man, okay well maybe not wise, but a man nevertheless.

Hey! Don't get me involved in this.

But since you did, you guys aren't properly appreciating Airfrog. He has the strength of his convictions, and a string of dramatically worn in jeans that look, in my opinion, great.

He's a cocky motherfucker, and he seems to know it. You of all people, Rnr, should be glad that there are some of us who appreciate that sort of thing.

[rnrswitch]

Hey! My broken record comment wasn't aimed at one person, but at the entire thread in general. The thread was doing one of its monthly cycles.

For the record, I am on the side of soaking prior to wearing. But I also like to abstain from washing for a pretty long time, but when a pair of jeans need a wash they need a wash. I like for my sweaty balls to make my jeans stink, and not for my nasty jeans to make my sweaty balls stink.

[airfrogusmc]

Hey! My broken record comment wasn't aimed at one person, but at the entire thread in general. The thread was doing one of its monthly cycles.

For the record, I am on the side of soaking prior to wearing. But I also like to abstain from washing for a pretty long time, but when a pair of jeans need a wash they need a wash. I like for my sweaty balls to make my jeans stink, and not for my nasty jeans to make my sweaty balls stink.

I said I have seen great jeans done both ways in fact I think you RNR might be the reason I did a soak on my recently purchased 1947s and 1880s.. Hey when they get real rank they get another good soaking but its usually not for quit a few months. But one thing most great pairs of jeans have in common is they saw very little water either worn raw or the one soak method after that first soak for a very long time.

[airfrogusmc]

Hey! Don't get me involved in this.

But since you did, you guys aren't properly appreciating Airfrog. He has the strength of his convictions, and a string of dramatically worn in jeans that look, in my opinion, great.

He's a cocky motherfucker, and he seems to know it. You of all people, Rnr, should be glad that there are some of us who appreciate that sort of thing.

Thanks Roy. I'd rep ya if I could.

[ihatebrianwilliams]

I couldn't care less or could not care less. If you could...

lets start.

I have a pair of 201 555's from 0599. I'll post some photos of them when I get a chance. They are too small for me so I never really wore them. But with some elbow grease I got them from a tagged 31 to about a 36. Ha.

I thought I read somewhere that some of you guys hammer down the brace buttons. That help at all?

Oh and my pants look better than yours.

[Paul T]

I was just looking at the 1873 duck pants on the Oki-Ni website to compare them to the 555 ones that Dr Heech sold to me and noticed that the new production does not have a yoke but does have two pleats. I don't remember any other lvc repros without a yoke. I also looked at all the pictures of early jeans I could find and didn't see any without a yoke. The 555 ones have a yoke and no pleats.

Anybody know of a precedent for the yokeless design?

http://www.oki-ni.com/Mens-Jeans/Levis-Vintage-1873-Duck-Canvas-Jeans/invt/lev0101rig

I don't know of a precedent, and I personally prefer the look with a yoke. The early pair of youth overalls I saw at levi's did indeed have a yoke with single stitching. But I have heard rumours of new discoveries at levi's- perhaps this is connected. Hopefully I'll be having coffee with someone who knows the answer soon.

[Maynard Friedman]

I don't know of a precedent, and I personally prefer the look with a yoke. The early pair of youth overalls I saw at levi's did indeed have a yoke with single stitching. But I have heard rumours of new discoveries at levi's- perhaps this is connected. Hopefully I'll be having coffee with someone who knows the answer soon.

rnrswitch will love that!

[entertainment!]

I don't know of a precedent, and I personally prefer the look with a yoke. The early pair of youth overalls I saw at levi's did indeed have a yoke with single stitching. But I have heard rumours of new discoveries at levi's- perhaps this is connected. Hopefully I'll be having coffee with someone who knows the answer soon.

The first place I looked at was your book for that pair of youth waist overalls. As you say, they have a yoke as do all the other examples of early waist overalls with denim. The Rin Tanaka King of Vintage Heller's Cafe book also has an early pair of ducks that are listed as from the 1880s though IIRC, Dr Heech thought they were somewhat later. These have a yoke too. I hope your contacts at Levi's will have some interesting information for us.

[rnrswitch]

rnrswitch will love that!

There Paul C goes flaunting his connections again.

[roy6]

Hey! My broken record comment wasn't aimed at one person, but at the entire thread in general.

Oh, sorry Rnr. I didn't mean to imply you were directing that at anyone in particular. I was multi-tasking, trying to gently chide others and pick on you at the same time. Next time I'll give you my undivided attention.

[rnrswitch]

Alright as long as we can agree on that one.

[rnrswitch]

On another note. Does anyone know if LVC plans on re-releasing the 201 denim jacket? I have one I pulled off of ebay and it fits right now, but I here the 201 denim shrinks a ton. To me, this is the coolest denim jacket levis made (that I know of), cloth patch, black buttons, single pocket. It's like the 506, but cooler.

[Dom]

I just received a pair of the LVCJ 1967 501 "F-type" from eBay. They were pre-owned (he said, "washed twice")... Kind of a weird jean, but I bought them for less than $35.00.

Just wondering, anyone else own these?

[rnrswitch]

What are those long strips across the jeans? Is that some crazy "loom chatter?"

[airfrogusmc]

I couldn't care less or could not care less. If you could...

lets start.

I have a pair of 201 555's from 0599. I'll post some photos of them when I get a chance. They are too small for me so I never really wore them. But with some elbow grease I got them from a tagged 31 to about a 36. Ha.

I thought I read somewhere that some of you guys hammer down the brace buttons. That help at all?

Oh and my pants look better than yours.

I have a pair of 555 201s and they are real sweet LVCs As far as the 20s 201s originals having flat heads IIRC they do. I do know that both the 15s and the 17s and I think was sometime in the 20s (Paul?) that they stopped and went to the more rounded heads.

[Dom]

What are those long strips across the jeans? Is that some crazy "loom chatter?"

"F-Type" = "Failure Type".

I was kind of surprised to see them on my pair, but makes sense... I guess.

[erk]

not to fan the flames or anything, but here are the 1937s pre and post warm hand wash...

Pre wash:

Post Wash:

Big: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/4729643804_8e4b7a05c6_b.jpg

Big: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/4728999877_a906dca418_b.jpg

something is going on with the lens on the back picture...it was really humid, directly after rain in 90 degree weather, so I think that its condensation. anyways...here it is.

not a big diff huh?

PS: check out LVC bringin the leg twist and roping. yes yes.

[Paul T]

I thought I read somewhere that some of you guys hammer down the brace buttons. That help at all?

Oh and my pants look better than yours.

On most of the early jeans the rivets were hand hammered; LVC don't reproduce this on all of their jeans. SO you simply tap the rivets with a hammer.

But it doesn't help denim obsessive disorder, if that's what you mean...

Originals:

1901 with round-top rivets

1901, with rivets hammered flat. Don't attempt this after drinking.

[airfrogusmc]

arrrrghhhh...

One last word to the wash/ no wash discussion. Don't you guyz agree that washing/soaking is a main factor of the progress after creases are set? And yeah, very few of us are miners (even if my garden looks like a mine ) but I'm sure it's nevertheless possible to get a real vintage look on your LVC if you just don't baby them. Wash and wear for easy care or just wear them dry til you die but : WEAR THEM.

No not entirely because every time they hit water the entire jean looses indigo so the background gets lighter thus less contrast.

The longer they stay either raw or after the first soak outta water the better the fades will look. It takes a lot of time to get great fades and for the creases to really set and its that stiff set crease that will get lighter and they really show well if the background is as dark as you can keep it.

My experience is the first soak after a long period of wear or again after the first then a long period of wear will really pay off if you want a good deal of well defined whiskers and combs.

Its not something thats going to happen overnight. So have patients grasshopper and you will reap the reward.

Heres a couple of examples of originals from the Levis archives. Neither of these had seen a lot of washes. How can I conclude that? The reason one there went many machines back in the 1930s and even less in 1901 but look at how dark the background is compared to the whiskers and fades. This kind of look isn't everyones cup of tea but I think both pairs of these jeans are gail material and what I think is a great standard to try and achieve.

1933s

1901s

I would say a pair of 33s that Grant has and his buddies 33s are getting CLOSE to these.

Also those 47s that Paul posted a couple years ago that he broke in were amazing.

I would say that my 1915s are not to bad either

original 1933s