Levi's Vintage Clothing

[electrum]

I guess Levi´s produces their exaggerted prewashed repros from a heavier denim, just to make em as long lasting as the ones made of rigid denim. If you buy a 400$ dollar jean which looks like a 80 years old one, you don´t want to throw em away after two months of wear. 14oz denim bares more sandpaper than 10oz, does it Am I guessing logically?

Yes, that is logical. However, your logic is shot all to hell by the info. posted at the Levi's online store. http://www.levisstore.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2068693&cp=2068573 Two of the four wash color denim weights listed for the '47 weigh less than the Rigid 12.5oz. weight; "Rinse," 11.25oz., "Chamberlain," 12oz. The "Saddleman" does not list the weight and the "Exile," is 12.5oz. -- same as the Rigid. The 1901 is clearly listed as 14oz. and is described as shrink to fit which, I assume, means rigid, raw and/or deadstock.

[electrum]

?

From memory, 1947 Levi's were 12.5 or 13oz denim. The repros are made in 12.5 or 13oz denim. The washed jeans are listed as 14oz denim, because 12.5 oz denim, once shrunk, weighs approx 14 oz.

I understand Paul, but of the two '47's I purchased, one was tagged 10oz. and the other did not list the weight at all. You and others said it had to be a typo. What is one suppose to believe? All I'm saying is that I think Levi's needs to get a handle on describing their top-of-the-line products more accurately. It's like going shopping for a $60k Lexus coupe and the manufacturer tells you in their marketing promo that it's equipped with a 300HP engine. When you go to the dealership to buy one, you discover that the sticker says 250HP. You ask the knowledgeable dealer what's up with the discrepancy and he tells you it's a typo don't worry about it -- it's a Lexus! After further digging you find out that most Lexus models differ from the marketing pitch provided by the manufacturer. You call Toyota and they cannot explain the discrepancies and are not aware that the model you're enquiring about even exists! Would you not be a little perplaxed? If this was a one-time occurance okay, but it seems to be standard operating procedure at Levi's.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

Your totally right electrum, sometimes I wonder what "experts" are working at Levi´s stores... maybe I should become owner of Buttenheim Berlin;)

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I remember a huge typo on the inside tag of my 2007 505 where is stated that those will shrink 10%, haha, in the end it was 1%, but totally correct for it´s a preshrunk jean...

[deadpan]

Nothing to do with LVC, but the Lexus mention was too hard to resist

Km11Cb5NDp0

[hendo99]

Steve Coogan, Lexi, classic.

[erbs]

Deadstock 555 201s on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Levi-Vintage-LVC-201-deadstock-1920s-Valencia-555-jean_W0QQitemZ160234570628QQihZ006QQcategoryZ11483QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I have a pair of those (555 1999 201) and they're absolutely not in any way better than last season's 201s. I'd actually say the new 201s are better because the backpocket is sewn on with thread that is almost Nudie-orange, not very authentic I think.

So, don't pay $350 for those!

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

Okay folks, I´ve got a pair of deadstock 1960s 646s W29 L33, can you tell how much worth those are? It got talon zipper and the button reads 23.

[Paul T]

I have a pair of those (555 1999 201) and they're absolutely not in any way better than last season's 201s. I'd actually say the new 201s are better because the backpocket is sewn on with thread that is almost Nudie-orange, not very authentic I think.

So, don't pay $350 for those!

Agreed. Maybe it's worth paying a small premium for the Valencia St mystique (and the fabric is nice) but I would rather buy a new pair that I could try first, at half the price...

[ChuckO]

So if I buy LVC 47's in 36/34 I will end up after shrinkage with 34/31 because they're an inch less than marked for the waist and then typical shrinkage from there? Also are they a good bit slimmer in the leg than the 55's? I have a the 55's and I love 'em except from the knee down.

Boy, I was just looking at the LVC booklet on pg. 24 of this thread and almost every single example of jeans on there looked pretty tapered from the knee down.

What the heck are the "Blue Blood" 55 jeans pictured in that booklet? Those look super-cool.

[johnnyrebel]

id get true to size, they stretch to tagged size.

[Paul T]

id get true to size, they stretch to tagged size.

Have you ever worn or seen these jeans?

1947 raw 501s tend to be made an inch smaller than tag size. 34 inch waist will most likely be made with a 33 waist. These will shrink down to 31 after a 40 degree wash; they might stretch out to 32. (It's always worth emailing the retailer just to check actual size). They do NOT stretch out to tag size - especially as waist and thighs are cut slim, that would take three inches of stretching.

You can buy the 55s true to size, and they end up a nice, pretty skinny fit. But you can't do that with 47s, and it really pisses me off when people with no idea advise others to waste $150 on the wrong size jeans!

Edit: Oh, and Chuck, your logic is correct, these do have skinnier thighs (legs, and seat) than the 55s, which is another reason you can't size down. But, as said, email the retailer to check ACTUAL raw waist size, as you can get sample variation.

[16steps]

good advice Paul T., wish you were around a couple of weeks ago when i asked a similar question, couldve saved me the $170

theyll just be my comfy jeans for now

[allybee]

Totally agree with PT on his '47s sizing. I am a 31/32 inch waist. I buy '47s in a 34 waist. they DO shrink down.to fit beautifully. I have 12 pairs all bought at different times, all fit me using this sizing calculation.

[ktothe]

You have 12 pairs of 1947's? What exactly are you doing to them?

When purchasing 1947's I Only size up one in the waist because they will stretch at least 1 inch, quite possibly even 2.

...But thats just me.

[johnnyrebel]

well i dont have 12 pairs but ive worn 34s and 32s and they ended up 34 and 32 after washing.

[deadpan]

well i dont have 12 pairs but ive worn 34s and 32s and they ended up 34 and 32 after washing.

I really don't get how this is possible? What size were they raw (measured size) as in my experience, and as mentioned by others, '47s come up smaller than tag BEFORE soak/wash, and then shrink quite a bit after a hot wash/soak. Are you cold washing/stretching before soaking?

[ChuckO]

Have you ever worn or seen these jeans?

1947 raw 501s tend to be made an inch smaller than tag size. 34 inch waist will most likely be made with a 33 waist. These will shrink down to 31 after a 40 degree wash; they might stretch out to 32. (It's always worth emailing the retailer just to check actual size). They do NOT stretch out to tag size - especially as waist and thighs are cut slim, that would take three inches of stretching.

You can buy the 55s true to size, and they end up a nice, pretty skinny fit. But you can't do that with 47s, and it really pisses me off when people with no idea advise others to waste $150 on the wrong size jeans!

Edit: Oh, and Chuck, your logic is correct, these do have skinnier thighs (legs, and seat) than the 55s, which is another reason you can't size down. But, as said, email the retailer to check ACTUAL raw waist size, as you can get sample variation.

Thanks Paul.

How about the Blue Blood 501 jeans and the Blue Blush leather jacket in the Levi booklet on page 24 of this thread. The jeans are exactly what I think of when I hear Levi and the jacket looks really cool. Does anybody know anything about them?

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=14314&page=24

[ktothe]

I really don't get how this is possible? What size were they raw (measured size) as in my experience, and as mentioned by others, '47s come up smaller than tag BEFORE soak/wash, and then shrink quite a bit after a hot wash/soak. Are you cold washing/stretching before soaking?

I just measured my 34x34's and they have been washed twice. They waist is still 34 but the inseam is just above 32.

The only STF's Ive had shrink more than 1in in the waist are my shitty 501's. Are you guys actually measuring before and after, or just guessing?

[johnnyrebel]

they did shrink and they did measure a little smaller than taged, but they stretch like crazy

[Paul T]

Thanks Paul.

How about the Blue Blood 501 jeans and the Blue Blush leather jacket in the Levi booklet on page 24 of this thread. The jeans are exactly what I think of when I hear Levi and the jacket looks really cool. Does anybody know anything about them?

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=14314&page=24

I remember them well, the jacket too. I think the Blue Blood had a resin finish, but they're still pretty much identical to the current 1955 reissue.

ktothe, FWIW, I have been through perhaps 20 pairs of LVC and they all generally shrink around 2" in the waist, once they've been thru a hot wash (less for cold). Your jeans were probably oversize once made originally - many of them are. But all three of my 34 inch waist 1947s started out small, and ended up at 32 or 31.

[ktothe]

I wish that was the case with mine, because then they would be wearable. Im going to pick up another pair of 32x36's and hope they dont shrink to a 30.

[electrum]

Okay, here we go again with the weight thing on the 1901 501. The Levi's online store lists them as 14oz., Oki-Ni lists their's as 14 oz. However, Cultizm and others list the weight as 10oz.. Can anyone here confirm whether or not Levi's actually produced this year's 1901 in both 10oz. and 14oz. weights? I'm licking my chops just thinking about the possibility of getting my hands on a pair of 14oz. 1901's! Neither Levi's nor Oki-Ni offer them in my size.

FWIW, the 1901 501xx LVC offered at the Levi's online store are (according to an email response I received from Levi's cust. service) in fact 14oz. unwashed stf rigid denim. However, they are only available in 32'' inseam. Does anyone know what the shrink characteristics are for 14oz. xx self-edge denim? I'd like a pair of these but am afraid that the post wash inseam will end up being way too short for my actual 30''-31'' inseam.

[ktothe]

They will shrink a few inches. Here is an option for longer inseams:

http://www.cultizm.com/product_info.php?info=p206_Levi-acute-s-reg--1901-501-JEANS-DRY-GOODS.html

[Paul T]

ktothe's 1901s are the ones I've seen. They are 10oz, no doubt. There might be some weird version I don't know about but these are the ones current in EUrope. 10oz. Electrum, I know we keep going back and forth, but the website people just sell the boring mainstream stuff and I wouldn't trust them for yer high end Lexi jeans.

Thanks also to Alex, for sening me this photo, like one I was going to make myself, thankfully he's saved me the time, cheers Alex. THESE JEANS FREAKIN" SHRINK, OK!!! Unsanforized jeans have ALWAYS shrunk, maybe you can suspend the laws of physics, johnnyrebel, but your gonads are gonna be awful cramped.

[Paul T]

i think its just the nature of cotton fabric to stretch as much as it shrinks..

Mmm. But we've already pointed out that the 47 Levi's are sized BELOW tag size. So you're saying that they stretch MORE than they shrink. Really?

How many 1947 501s have you found this applies to? Three inches of stretching? Show us photos, please...

[MindxMatters]

I work at a levi's store in Detroit and I'm pretty sure that every pair of 1947 501's I've handled run very true to size before shrinkage, we always reccomend sizing up at least 1 to 2 on these in the waist. We always have customers coming in because their 47's shrunk way too much for them to fit into.

[airfrogusmc]

I've owned several pairs from different years and like Paul has said they run very small. The back pockets are even smaller.

[Jamolos Orm]

Speakin' 'bout the devil (47's). Almost a year gone now. And yes, I do believe they run small in size.

I know most of you aren't interested, but what the heck.