Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

btw. I´ve listed a pair of 47s at the bay, they are tagged and W32 and stretched, after a three hours soak in boiling water, to a comfortable W30 or a slim W31, the leg is tagged L36 but actually still is a L35. watch out:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=320246338520&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=011

so i would recommend aswell sizing up 1 or two size, depending on how you wanna wear your 47s.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

and yes Jamolos Om, I´m getting bored about the endless 47s sizing discussion;)

Just go to a shop and try em on, than by em cheaper online!

[modual]

I've never had a pair of 47's that measure less than tagged size. Maybe its something to with different measuring methods ? Anyway my current raw 47's from last year are tagged 32" which is my true stretch out size. After 4 washes in 40 degree they always stretch back out to tag size and maybe even a cm or two more. I believe the looser fits like 55's and 44's are an inch oversized but the 47's are bang on to tag size imo

[Paul T]

I've never had a pair of 47's that measure less than tagged size.

Arrrrgghhhhh, make it stop!

I've sat in Cinch and measured a dozen pairs of 1947, several times over successive seasons. The standard sizing for them is small - this is official, it is how the patterns are drawn. As pointed out before there IS sample variation, so you can get 34 inch waist that measure exactly that. But the most common sizing is an inch under tagged size. The only foolproof method is to ask your retailer the actual, measured size of the ones you're buying.

I am not letting this drop, because there have been a lot of people on Sufu who've been told to buy actual size in 1947, who have found them too small. The official advice from Levi's is to buy one size (two inches) up, and experienced staff sometimes tell buyers to size up by two sizes in the 1947, if their existing jeans are slightly tight. These jeans do NOT stretch three inches!

34 inch waist 1947s, raw and washed twice (and worn). Both will stretch an inch over measured size here under tension, to 33 inches (raw) and 32 inches (washed).

[horriblyjollyjinx]

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.

I'm quite certain there are no 1901s in 14oz denim. It's probably another screw up on Levi's part, for example I saw this season's '44s with the oil cloth stating it was 14 oz denim. Maybe something similar happened with the 1901s and the Levi support is getting their info from erroneus product specs like this?

[modual]

Sorry its driving you mad paul I guess its down to how you want to wear them. I have 32's tagged which is my true size where my jeans sit and 34's tagged. I prefer the slim fit of the 32's where the legs mould more to my shape. The 34's are loose and antifit which is not my preference. I guess you prefer the looser look. Maybe you could post pics up of how you wear them ?

[modual]

Heres a pair of tagged 32 waist 47's worn around 30 times since last wash. Stretched back out to 32"

[/url]

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Paul, how are you measuring the jeans? In my experience the raw 47s are sized as tagged if the actual circumference of the waist is measured.

If only the back of the waistband is measured, without lining up the back and front of the wiastband first like BIG does http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41, the measurement will turn out smaller than tagged size, about an inch or so.

Sorry if you feel I am discrediting you, I definitely don't mean to. It's just that people on here use many different ways of measuring jeans, so I don't discuss sizing anymore since there is too much confusion and it's never really worth the effort.

We need to be sure we're comparing apples to apples.

I personally definitely believe that some people on here have 47s that are true to tagged size after wash and wear, if the circumference of the waist is measured.

lillDavid has a pair of size 30 1947s that are 30" or 31" after wash and a lot of wear.

[lilldavid]

just measured them now, they are actually just 29"

[airfrogusmc]

The ones I have owned have all been one inch smaller than the tagged size RAW in the waist.

heres a pair of 47s (last year) and a pair of 55s (couple years ago) Both were raw when new check the smaller back pockets on the 47s. They're also more than an inch smaller in the waist after full stretching on both.

Both are tagged the same size waist.

47s

55s

[Paul T]

Paul, how are you measuring the jeans? In my experience the raw 47s are sized as tagged if the actual circumference of the waist is measured.

If only the back of the waistband is measured, without lining up the back and front of the wiastband first like BIG does http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41, the measurement will turn out smaller than tagged size, about an inch or so.

Sorry if you feel I am discrediting you, I definitely don't mean to.

.

good point... I am measuring the back, as you can see, mainly because that's how Cinch do it, when I've been in there to measure jeans (as per BiG - normally with a finger in each corner to provide a little bit of tension, which would take those raw 47s up to 33, and the washed, stretched ones to 32 or so). And yes, all those points are valid. I don't feel anyone is discrediting me, and this is all open to question or discussion, bar the fact that 1947 are consistently sized smaller than other LVC. I don't mind if anyone disagrees if they have some experience, it's more the people who've got a couple of dozen posts and state very debatable opinions as if they're facts. The one thing I feel strongly about is that it's extremely risky to say that 1947 will stretch out to tag size; there are many here who've tried that, and suffered.

I think the recent responses, including those from me, lildavid, airforg, sftd, and mindxmatters, as well as the LVC staff who know what they're talking about, all produce pretty much a consensus that the end result will be a minimum 1 inch below tag size, with modual in the other camp ( and suggesting I wear my 47s baggy and hip-hop style, cheeky man). That's not including many other people earlier on this thread, IIRC, who bought their 1947s true to size, or allowed for stretching, and regretted it.

I think it's really important to emphasise this, because the sizing of LVC is so inconsistent, especially now, as I believe has happened in the last few years, the pre-washed jeans ARE true to tag size.

(Oh, and I wear my 47s slim. Once they've had a hot wash, anyway.)

Edit: btw, hjj, I loved your recent Edwin story, I agree these are really under-rated jeans. The finish and wash on the Original Straight is excellent...

Second edit: after all this discussion, it was great to get my original pair of 47s out again. They were scrunched up next to an early 60s pair of hidden rivet 501Z, and the denim of the repros compares really well. It's only a shame that the orange thread is way too dark...

LASTLY: I suggest, for future reference, we continue that 1947 sizing debate on a thread that's devoted to it...

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?p=298597

[electrum]

I'm quite certain there are no 1901s in 14oz denim. It's probably another screw up on Levi's part, for example I saw this season's '44s with the oil cloth stating it was 14 oz denim. Maybe something similar happened with the 1901s and the Levi support is getting their info from erroneus product specs like this?

At first that's what I thought . However, in addition to Levi's online, I've located two retailers offering a 14oz. 1901: Eleven and Oki-Ni. Each offer their '01 for anywhere from $55 to $100 premium over the 10oz. version offered by other retailers. It stands to reason that since the price is higher, the denim is likely a heavier weight. What's more, if you look at the pictures at Eleven Shop webpage you'll see that the jeans do appear heavy denim: http://www.eleven-shop.co.uk/collection/mens/levis-vintage/levis-vintage-1901-501-deadstock-jean-rigid-indigo

Here's the kicker though, each of the three sources offering the 14oz. only offer it in a few off sizes with Oki-ni only offering one size, Eleven four sizes and Levi's online one size inseam of 32''. Neadless to say, I'm still searching for the right size.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

Just to get away of neverendnig 47s story, I have two questions:

1. Can you say that all Levi´s Jeans produced up to 1983 are made of selvage allthough not showing redlines like the one on my pic, it´s a red tab 605 or others like 517s, 646, 606s???

2. Do only 501s up to 1969 show the V-stitching, or is it the same with like orange tabs? I ask to date two pair of big e orange tabs of mine, also the big e 605 here only show a parallel stitching?

don´t mind the socks please

[Paul T]

J

1. Can you say that all Levi´s Jeans produced up to 1983 are made of selvage allthough not showing redlines like the one on my pic, it´s a red tab 605 or others like 517s, 646, 606s???

2. Do only 501s up to 1969 show the V-stitching, or is it the same with like orange tabs? I ask to date two pair of big e orange tabs of mine, also the big e 605 here only show a parallel stitching?

don´t mind the socks please

Not all Levi's up to 83 would have been made on narrow, selvage looms; I am pretty certain some of the others switched before the 501, I would guess in the late 70s, probably they used the orange tab denim as a test-bed for the 501.

I don't know about the V stitching on orange tabs, I haven't seen it but that doesn't mean they don't exist...

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

Thanks Paul T,

I was wondering because I haven´t see the V-stiching on any orange tab, weither on originals nor on repros...

[Paul T]

Good point re repros, although I don't know that they do orange tab from pre-1971. GIven that the V stitching is a hangover from earlier jeans, I think it's unlikely it was used on orange tab... but I wouldn't want to say for definite and be proven wrong.

Edit: thanks for correcting me on the 606. It makes it all the more likely orange tab didn't have the V stitching.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

yes the did the 1966 606 super slims, also the 646 is more often declared as a 1966 rather then 1971...

[ChuckO]

What does the "v" stitching refer to?

[blm14]

Just came across these - had to post. Too cute... Someone will kids snatch these up!

http://cgi.ebay.com/LEVIS-LVC-Toddler-Jeans-4YR_W0QQitemZ160239092655QQihZ006QQcategoryZ147348QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[lilldavid]

What does the "v" stitching refer to?

See that V-shaped stitch next to the top button? that's it.

[radical_radish]

Now that the warm weather is here, it's time for my LVC 1890s (first issue from 1999) to get an airing - really love the denim on these. Would I be right in thinking the denim is Japanese?

Also, does anyone know the source of the denim used in the current euro LVC Knappave jeans?

Thanks

[Paul T]

Now that the warm weather is here, it's time for my LVC 1890s (first issue from 1999) to get an airing - really love the denim on these. Would I be right in thinking the denim is Japanese?

Also, does anyone know the source of the denim used in the current euro LVC Knappave jeans?

Thanks

Historically on these, the natural indigo denim is from Kurabo; some of the synthetic comes from Cone, some from Japan. i'll try and find out about the Knappave.

Yup, today was the day that the 47s went under the bed and the 1901s came out...

[Charlie Delta]

This seasons 1901's?

Pics please!

Also thoughts on them, perhaps you gave those already, in that case I'd like to be directed there.

[Paul T]

This seasons 1901's?

Pics please!

Also thoughts on them, perhaps you gave those already, in that case I'd like to be directed there.

Sorry no, they're from 2001 or so. This season's look good, but have the wrong leather tag, the early one, which - on the brightside - does look cool.

Pix of my 1901 linked below. At the end of the summer I'll be washing these, the 201s, another pair of 47s, and a grungy pair of Lee Riders & I'll do a bumper post...

1901s here. These were a lovely dark blackish denim, which does give a good high-contrast fade, although you dont' get great honeycombs etc due to them being worn slightly loose... pix don't do them justice, but they give an idea of the inky-blue color - fabric is quite slubby, definitely one of the better earlier model LVCs... http://66.240.222.190/showpost.php?p=599608&postcount=2

[Charlie Delta]

I agree on the patch of this seasons 1901's although I hate the colour, it's like just the patch has gone through some prewash/distress process and it looks totally off with the colour of the denim imho...

Another missed chance by LVC....

[Heritage.]

Is there a general 1930s and earlier styles thread someplace?

It seems like a handful of people around here more into suspenders and waxed canvas than multicolored hightop sneakers.

Personally, I nominate Cotton Duck to start such a thread if one does not exist.

[Charlie Delta]

You'll mind that the mayority of posters on here is not into multicoloured hightops.

Are you talking a pre 30's LVC thread, or just in general?

[Heritage.]

In general.

[Charlie Delta]

I'll pm you some thread links so we don't have to further derail this thread...

[Paul T]

Quick and dirty 1901 shots.

Here's the basic synthetic indigo model. I believe the current model is the same denim and will fade much the same. (the suspicious-looking marks are water splashes). Look at the leg to see how well it retains its colour (the shots show some flare, in real life the leg's way darker).

These aren't particularly old-school looking jeans... they're just very plain and stripped down. The cut's not unflattering - worn on the hips, the bum's not oversized, it hang straight down, it's hard to describe, and looks pretty good.

LAstly, here's the Indigo Immortal, the distressed version of the 1901 from around 2003. The finishing on this, which I think is by Bart Sights, is excellent. although I have been mocked for the stains on these...

Lastly, I agree re the current 1901 patch, it's way too dark - although the patch on my old raw 1880s looked very similar after a few washes.