Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Curious_George]

ejust found this japanese site , its a vintage shop and the stuff the guy has is amazing.

if on clicks on denim there is a deastock levis from the 20s and one from 1936 amazing stuff, but the prizes are crazy too, hahaha. intersting he has a levis from 1936 with suspender button but no rivettes on the back pockets! really cool stuff

so check it out

http://www.marvins-jp.com/

the rest of the site is great too though

The denim on these is incredible.

and check out the slub,

They blow me away. But to me they don't look at all like the more "authentic" vintage fade you see on current LVCs. These actually remind me more of some of the wild Japanese denim out there.

edit: After looking through some of the others the pre-1930s or so denim seems to have a more grainy appearance to it. I really like the texture a lot more than the 50s stuff. It was more irregular and less flat looking. Too bad it's also the most expensive.

[Leonard Leroy]

That whole fucking site blows me away.

[Paul T]

It is fantastic. THose old jeans have been worn hard. I know what you mean about the extreme slubbiness - but the thing is you don't see that on all the old jeans, just on some of them! There were probably all these variaitons in the cotton, for one thing, in the early 20s they were probably using Sea Island cotton and then, as ringing pointed out in the Historic Cotton Producers thread, the whole freakin' lot got wiped out by boll weevils!

THat pair above make a great comparison with the pair in Shorty's booklet, which I've seen in the flesh, and are my favourite pair of vintage jeans, period.

(second pair down, here...)

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1645946&postcount=2753

[sayocean]

LVC 1967 606 Super Slims. As requested, some fit pics

[modual]

I just got a pair of raw 55's which after soaking are buttoning up fine but feel really tight on the waist. I sized down from a 32, which i wear in 47's, to a 30. Just wondering how much the 55's are likely to stretch in the waist ?

[enojy]

So I managed to wear my sam 710s for 6 months with no wash and decided to go for a baggier look. I just got some 1947s and sized up enough to sag. Is there anyway to soak and retain the inseam length? Or how about wearing them raw if they are baggy on me and probably wont fade much anyway?

somehow you have managed to make everything in this post incorrect

[ChuckO]

Great find fardin! Some wonderful examples of fading and back pocket stitching. Also Interesting to note the 1947 cut - def not slim!

I don't know. There are a bunch of '47s on that site and the details are all over the place. The '47's definately seem to be pretty slim from the knee down. Some also seem like high rise whereas others look like medium. I saw one pair that looked like it was all yellow stiching.

I get the feeling wanting to squeeze jeans from pre-1960 or so into a bunch of categories for fit and details isn't the way it was back then. I suspect there was a lot of variation.

[ChuckO]

Cultizm has the 1954 501z model. That looks pretty cool. The photo makes it look quite a bit slimmer than the '55.

[telluride11]

if anybody has '55 or '66 raws or washed sz. 32 let me know please, interested in purchasing..

It's true about the LVC being pulled from most Levi's stores. All they have is the eco line now, fucking bummed. South Beach one got pulled and they had awesome clearance sales on past season LVC's since nobody picked em up.. I had a feeling I was only one of the local few who actually purchased it. oh well.

Also went to the NY store in Dec. (time square / union square), both gone too.

yea supwitdat? my money's not green? i dont want to branch out to other brands

[robbojnr]

where you buying your jeans paul

It is fantastic. THose old jeans have been worn hard. I know what you mean about the extreme slubbiness - but the thing is you don't see that on all the old jeans, just on some of them! There were probably all these variaitons in the cotton, for one thing, in the early 20s they were probably using Sea Island cotton and then, as ringing pointed out in the Historic Cotton Producers thread, the whole freakin' lot got wiped out by boll weevils!

THat pair above make a great comparison with the pair in Shorty's booklet, which I've seen in the flesh, and are my favourite pair of vintage jeans, period.

(second pair down, here...)

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1645946&postcount=2753

[erk]

just use cultizm. they're quick, cheap, and easy.

[Spaghettini]

forgive me for my LVC ignorance, but i have a question:

i have a pair of washed 1955 501s that are my favorite fitting jeans. im looking into buying a raw pair to wear in on my own, but i wanted to ask first, is the production year (not the model year) a deciding factor in the fit? meaning, if my washed pair are a couple of years old, and the new raw pair is a 2008 pair or whatever, will that make a difference in the fit? even if they are both 1955 501?

[Paul T]

That's not an unreasonable question.... because sizing on LVC can be variable. I believe, though, that all the 1955 LVCs are pretty consistent.

THey all seem to measure true to size, and given the fact the thighs are quite generous, I think you can get away with your actual waist size in them pretty much whatever year they were produced. I will check my older pair from Pomata when I find my tape measure, but I'm pretty sure last time I checked it was identical.

[napalm]

somehow you have managed to make everything in this post incorrect

lol how? I decided to give them a soak and the inseam shrunk from 36 to 33. The fit is great, but I still wish the inseam was longer.

[Bijan]

but I still wish the inseam was longer.

WHY?!?!?!?!

[robbojnr]

im in london, the dollar isn't working for me

just use cultizm. they're quick, cheap, and easy.

[erk]

that store cinch is in London. I believe paul t has spoken a lot about visiting cinch in the past. apparently they're owned by levis strauss?

here is their address according to google :

5 Newburgh Street

London,

W1F 7RG

Phone: +44 20 7287 4941

[Paul T]

If you're in London, you owe it to yourself to visit CInch.

I am not sure how their prices compare - I believe it's £125 for, say, a 1947, (Might be slightly less with new VAT) - but they have the full range, and you can try then on of course. The manager is RIchard, he knows his stuff.

They also will have the spring 09 range in this week I believe. ... mmmm... SUnset shirts....

[radical_radish]

im in london, the dollar isn't working for me

aeroleatherclothing.com have decent prices. As Paul states, Cinch is good if you want to try stuff on and they usually have a good selection, but their prices tend to be on the high side (shop rent/rates?).

[robbojnr]

yeh i know the guys in cinch

there prices are a bit on the top end say 30 notes more expensive than aero clothing

If you're in London, you owe it to yourself to visit CInch.

I am not sure how their prices compare - I believe it's £125 for, say, a 1947, (Might be slightly less with new VAT) - but they have the full range, and you can try then on of course. The manager is RIchard, he knows his stuff.

They also will have the spring 09 range in this week I believe. ... mmmm... SUnset shirts....

[mikedbt5]

Found some pics of the 2009 1954 501zxx on Sivletto (recommended) Think LVC is off the mark on these , they look far to slim . The pics on Cultizim suggest the same . This might appeal to many on sufu but having waited for these I am pretty disappointed .

[stanier]

Hi Mike, if you're after 54's might be worth checking out LVC Japan '54's.

The look much more like 55's just with a zip and leather patch

Cheers

[Paul T]

Yes, these seem to be a modern interpretation of the 501Z and are far slimmer than the 55. My sympathies, it's really irritating - can you exchange them?

I went into Cinch this week and got the full measurement set for the current line.

One important new fact to note is that the new 47 no longer seem to be undersized. From now one I would size up by one inch in these, or buy actual waist size.

I'm planning on putting hte measurement chart up on my website in the next fortnight; at the same time I'll be adding a page or two on Cone.

Quick note on Waist sizes:

For a nominal 32W, in the current range, actual sizes are as follows: 1901 = 34, 201=34, 1927=35, 1933=33, 1937=32 1/2, 1944 (old model) =35, 1947=32, 1954=32, 1955=35, 1966=32, 1978=35.

These aren't massively different from previous measurements but look out for the 1978 which is severely oversized, plus the 1927.

I will have to check again on the 55 - AFAIK previous versions were accurate in the wasit, but you could still buy actual size... this would mean that for current models you might need to go DOWN one size.

TO check which year the jeans are, look in the interior tag - these shoudl say something like s/s 09 or 0309. The recent jeans might also have a 233M on the fly button, or interior tag.

Here are just a couple of items from the new range. Cinch don't have the 1917 pair in yet, which look to be a stadnout item in the new range, likewise the Sack Coat.

I didn't shoot the 66 bib overalls, but they look amazing (distressed finish only); these were originally made from a light Cone fabric, I've been looking at a lot of those recently, and the repros are spot-on I wish they did a raw version for when I'm working on my car...

First, the 1983. Interesting model... haven't had chance to look at the shape properly but these look to be an interesting finish.

I heard from Cone that they changed the dyeing method in 1975 - incorporating sulphur. THis was at a time when washed-out jeans became very popular. Lots of people here have speculated that the 501 dye changed at some point in the late 60s or 70s - now we know why.

1983 501:

Plus I snapped the shirts...

Sunset chambray:

[aak]

that fit looks perfect to me. id rock em, with a little less cuff

[mikedbt5]

Paul , thankfully I havent bought them . The pics are from a Sivletto , a Swedish denim/50s clothimg and accessories shop/site . I was waiting on Aero stocking them as I reside in Belfast .

Maybe they didnt want the 501zxx similar to the 1955 but ffs it miles away from a 50's cut . Interesting info on the 47's , i bought a pair last Oct and although the wasit was one inch undersize the cut did not seem as slim and the back pockets not as angled as previous seasons . At least LVC is going the right way on these !!!

[mikedbt5]

Oipollioi in Manchester have the 501zxx on sale on their site this morning , see link below . Levis have lost the plot on sizing these !!!! (there is a sizing chart in the link) As I siad in my earlier post , thie cut/sizing will appeal to many "younguns" but unfortunatletly not me .

http://www.oipolloi.com/store/LevisVintage-1954501XXRigidIndigo-4360.html

[fardin]

thanks for the infos paul.

i wonder if the LVC japan are cut the same?

i bought my first 501 in 1984, but the european ones back then didnt have a selvedge back then. must have been after they changed production.

[Rob]

My 1983s have just arrived. They are loose in the leg and similar to a 55 but with less 'anti-fit' in the seat. The indigo is very dark and has left the bath nearly black.

My main gripe is that Levis quality control haven't noticed the single sided big E tab that is on my particular pair.

[erk]

sizing on 47s also seems to vary from US to Euro lines. My 47s from 07 are from the US line and were tagged 34 and meaured 34. My newer 47s are tagged 34 and measured 33, and because of this sizing they are really tight now after their first machine wash (theyre about to be six months old with a few hand washes and a soak). I might have to sell them or give em to a friend. I'll put up post-wash pics regardless.

thanks for the info paul very nice of you. and that sucks about the 501zxx, I was hoping it would be cool/accurate.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I really like the selvage of the 83s, not that narrow as with the 33s...

i´d like to see the 1890s which are my faves from the old days, because of the beautiful rivets, but i guess there are variation with like with the 44s...

can anybody guess why levis hasn´t intrudecd a 1936 501 yet???