Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Paul T]

great fades for sure but they just lack that grainy look/texture that makes the 50's denim so cool. Look at the Marvin's site and take a look at all the late 40's/early 50's pairs and look at the areas that typically don't receive alot of wear like the lower leg and compare that with a similarly worn LVC piece from 47 or 55.

I see your point, and there are times when I've agreed with you. We could argue this for years... but essentially I don't agree. I think you're looking at jeans that have aged over 50 years and they will always look different. Thi is an intriguing point, which I would love to discuss at length, but i am way too busy and am spending too much time on here ... it's 5 in the morning now and I'm trying to keep up with my main project.

I have occasioally looked at Sammies, or other Japanese jeans, and thought they give more of a vintage look. Now I think they're different, exaggerated in terms of wear... theu give an interpretation of the same look.

There's another problem, in that, for instance, my first pair of 47 looked very vintage... but I sold them when they wer e10 months old - modern jeans don't really get the longterm wear, especially from us, we are always looking at the nex pair Also, we are looking at SUCH a wide range of originals, each on of which is unique, and we tend to memorise the good ones and forget the bad ones.

Also,I think looking at photos, like at Marvins, is totally useless as far as comparing finishes.

These are some of my curent jeans, sorry for reposting, but they\re the most accurate for colour (Can't seem to render these correcly, epecially when the've been thru photobucket). Look at the 50s jeans on the right.

And these are a pair of early, mid 60s originals that passed thru my hands recently:

I don't, in short, think there's a huge difference between them; the overall look of the farbic on the 55 is incredibly similar to that on the early 60s original. Any differences in the colour is really down to the photos (the LVC has come out way too pale, I'm still trying to learn how to meter and expose manually properly on my Canon G9)

In terms of graininess, it's the 47 version of LVC< rather than the 55, you need to look at.

I do worry about LVC.. i hate the thread breaks, we seem to get too many. Sometimes I worry if the wear is too high contrast compared to originals. I wonder if we get to many crotch blowouts, esepcailly on the 47. I worried about my recent 47 but an extra wash seemed to sort them. SOmetiems I wonder if I prefer the long-term wear on my Lees (fabric by Nisshinbo and'or Kaihara) to the LVC. And I know I prefer the denim on Cotton's SC/Mr Freedom's to my jeans. But there's always a better pair somewehre else. LVC, worn really long-term, are still capable of looking amazing.

Edit: I do agree re the stitching on LVC. I think they get too many of the colours wrong; the orange, in particular, doesn't seem to fade correctly. Some (the 33) are better than others, in particular the 47 and 44. Some of the 40s originals have lovely pale stitching which is a big part of their look, LVC don't seem to make much of an effort to get this right; some of the Lee repros do a much better job of reprdoucing the look.

As you might know, I love Warehouse and would love to get some as a project (in a couple years maybe); I have seen som, like their early Lee repros with the arcuates, get close maybe closer than Cone, to a vintage-style look. Do you have any photos to link/post?

[airfrogusmc]

PT, Photographs are no way to judge texture and fades will vary from wearer to wearer. All LVCs are not created equal. There were some bad years depending on year being repro'd but the denim lately has been much better.

And again Paul has seen probably more inside things than any of us could dream of....Original peices of old cone denim, origianls jeans in Levis collection, had real conversations with the real experts I donno seams credible to me...

[Paul T]

And here's the early 60s originals compared to my 47 I sold to Beatle.

The photo gives a limited idea of how similar they are, altho the 47 look grainier herre than they do in the flesh. As airfrog says, phots are incredibly misleading - only the more distant shots render the look more or less correctly. Digital for one thing gives a kind of aliasing of the grain.

It is acutlaly the 55 posted above that are far more similar. THe photo doesn't render them anything like correct, they are far far darker in the flesh, with just minimal fades coming thru exactly like the 60s 502.- I find this so interesting I am hugely tempted to reshoot once I've checked the camera manual... but I am thousands of words behind on my present book...

[Paul T]

Photrobucket also seems to be doing something to my photos... this photo here is pretty accurate:

http://www.trynka.net/Site/501%201955.html

It's these jeans in particular that seem exactly similar to me to the most recent vintage Levi's I've had in my hands alongside my own jeans. I've also compared samples at Cone side b side, modern fabric to, ro instance, another pair of early 60s they were trying to replicate, and they look essentially identical. As close as you can get. But then, also, only an approximation, same as the Japanese jeans are. I'm sure they could be better, but what couldnt'? I don't think SC are particualrly better, many I've seen are worse, but I've not owned a pair longterm.

This is also an almost p[hilosophical point. I've owned my Lee repros for around 17 years (!). I think of them as pretty much the same as vintage jeans. my LVC are only five six years old, it's too early to tell!

Oh, and I appreciate what Allen said above, but my opinion is only that, an opinion. I think this.. but I don't really know . As was said in, IIRC Bladerunner, who does?

[prochek]

Here´s a overview from FW09. If you want to download larger pictures right-click

HERE and HERE and "save as".

[partytaco]

only have a minute....

I posted the link to Marvin's because it's the best reference I can provide here on the net. I do think it shows the differences in the fade of denim clearly especially at points of little wear like the lower leg. Look closely. Obviously these are photos and can't compare to a side by side comparison which I have done with many originals from the 40's/50's/early 60's. A couple which I mentioned were worn in from unworn/deadstock.

The 60's denim you provided is a 701, correct? These are a totally different denim then you see on the 501. Much lighter and in my opinion something happened in the 60's (I believe you said it was the introduction of Sulfer) that changed the denim and it lost that grainy look I like.

yes, we could argue this forever........i give up...

Also,I think looking at photos, like at Marvins, is totally useless as far as comparing finishes.

And These are a pair of early, mid 60s originals that passed thru my hands recently:

I don't, in short, think there's a huge difference between them; the overall look of the farbic on the 55 is incredibly similar to that on the early 60s original. Any differences in the colour is really down to the photos (the LVC has come out way too pale, I'm still trying to learn how to meter and expose manually properly on my Canon G9)

In terms of graininess, it's the 47 version of LVC< rather than the 55, you need to look at.

Edit: I do agree re the stitching on LVC. I think they get too many of the colours wrong; the orange, in particular, doesn't seem to fade correctly. Some (the 33) are better than others, in particular the 47 and 44. Some of the 40s originals have lovely pale stitching which is a big part of their look, LVC don't seem to make much of an effort to get this right; some of the Lee repros do a much better job of reprdoucing the look.

As you might know, I love Warehouse and would love to get some as a project (in a couple years maybe); I have seen som, like their early Lee repros with the arcuates, get close maybe closer than Cone, to a vintage-style look. Do you have any photos to link/post?

[Paul T]

No, it's fair enough! I'm discussing, not arguing. This is an intriguing subject, which I'd like to revisit when I've made my deadline.

THose are 502, which are probably less grainy than a contemporary 501, but they do predate the use of sulphur.

There are some good examples here of amazing fades, one recent example is nemoulette's vintage lees:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1757546&postcount=29

I assume (without checking) these are r'h denim.

It would be interesting to see LVC that look as good as this. I hope my 50s LVC will be in the same ballpark 6 months from now- but I can't guarantee it.

[partytaco]

502 started in the late 60's......67 i believe. by then the Levi's denim IMO had already changed.

rise looks very long for a 502 especially for such a small pair.

[Paul T]

Arrgg, lost a post, wasted more time. 502 appeared in 66, these are an early example, and absolutely predate the use of sulhpur in the dye.

I'll leave this, and acknowledge that the very best rivals, eg real McCoy, have some models which are better than most LVC. But they're also more expensive. But still, i don't know of another cmpany whcih replicates as wide a range of vintage looks as convincingly as LVC at $180 or so.

Oh, and partytaco, please post some of your vintage Leiv's on here. Make me jealous, it ain't hard!

[airfrogusmc]

Photrobucket also seems to be doing something to my photos... this photo here is pretty accurate:

http://www.trynka.net/Site/501%201955.html

It's these jeans in particular that seem exactly similar to me to the most recent vintage Levi's I've had in my hands alongside my own jeans. I've also compared samples at Cone side b side, modern fabric to, ro instance, another pair of early 60s they were trying to replicate, and they look essentially identical. As close as you can get. But then, also, only an approximation, same as the Japanese jeans are. I'm sure they could be better, but what couldnt'? I don't think SC are particualrly better, many I've seen are worse, but I've not owned a pair longterm.

This is also an almost p[hilosophical point. I've owned my Lee repros for around 17 years (!). I think of them as pretty much the same as vintage jeans. my LVC are only five six years old, it's too early to tell!

Oh, and I appreciate what Allen said above, but my opinion is only that, an opinion. I think this.. but I don't really know . As was said in, IIRC Bladerunner, who does?

Of course its just an opinion but a well informed one..

[erk]

I just washed my 1947s last night. Maybe I don't get what you're talking about, but I'm seeing a lot of really grainy wear and I think they look pretty damn good. I looked at that website and I don't really see that much of a difference.

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3641/3465998278_967890ba6a_b.jpg

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3465185455_e677a76315_b.jpg

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3465186295_910cb40769_b.jpg

most color accurate is the first photo (its close but not perfect. as best i could get it with my girlfriend's point and shoot). check out the links for large size images.

*notice the graininess of the lower leg

[Paul T]

Whoa, lovely jeans, especially the leg twist!

[erk]

Whoa, lovely jeans, especially the leg twist!

thanks paul. I'm gonna keep these goin as long as possible.

also.

remember the clerk's 1933s?

[electrum]

Debates about LVC accuracy always manage to pop up on these blogs from time to time. It's usualy the same questions about cut/fit, colour and denim weight , texture and finish (i.e. rigid, raw, sanfordized, etc.), and so on. Everyone has their own different opinions on one subject or the other and those differences sometimes get a bit heated, so the same questions/debate continues.

Who really knows the answers? Levi's knows, after all they're the ones who invented the classic models they are selling, they have the historic documentation, archives, samples of the originals, etc. Yet they fail to market their product in a way that clears up the ongoing LVC authenticity debate. Look at Sugar Cane 501 replica product description at History Preservation for example. They lay out every detail of the (Levi's) original and compare how their repro duplicates those details down to the individual thread and indigo dye in a simple concise way. Levi's does not do that, if they did, there'd be no questions about almost all of their jeans. People new to vintage replica denim and its high cost, expect to know what they are getting. When one brand tells them and another does not, questions will arise.

Levi's should deliver detailed info about how, where and with what their LVC products are exactly made vs the original by providing detailed archival records, photos, pattern illustrations and other documentation. There's no debate/questions about rivets, patents, infamous crotch rivet, arcs, scratched saddles, red tab, cowboys, Brando, McQueen, etc. because Levi's markets that info very well. However, the debate continues about cut/fit, weight, finish, etc. because Levi's does not market that info very well if at all -- if they did there'd be no debating questions. Sorry guys, I had to weigh in on this and it's just my opinion -- that's the way I see it. I'm with Paul in that I know LVC isn't perfect, but for the $s, variety of interesting denim and models, LVC are the best and most interesting vintage inspired jeans available.

[Paul T]

Hmmm, that history preservation page is OK, I don't know that it's more detailed than some of the comaprative Leiv's material I've seen - add they do get the weight of the fabric wrong, perhaps they're quoting the post-soak weight - if so they should specify. Have you seen the LVC book that airfrog has?

Here are some nice 'canes, aged by Ryu, they look great. The second photo doesn't look quite as good. Photos vary, don't they? But more choice is good, yes?

http://letgoasyoulike.fc2web.com/sc1947-13.htm

http://letgoasyoulike.fc2web.com/sc1947-10.htm

And in case anyone can stand any more 1947 photos, here's more, incuding one of a set of shots I have knocking around of a late 40s orignal (complete with dark oragen stitching)...

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=11061&highlight=1947+months

Hey ho...

[bubdolan]

I've been enjoying the discussion of authenticity and reproduction.

Just to add my ten cents, I've been wearing Levis since 1967 and I think LVC get it right.

Memory is flawed ( cf Bladerunner) but the LVC I wear now behave similarly and compare very favourably with the jeans from era that I remember.

Like I said, just my opinion.

[Happy Hooligan]

I've been enjoying the discussion of authenticity and reproduction.

Just to add my ten cents, I've been wearing LVC since 1967 and I think LVC get it right.

Memory is flawed ( cf Bladerunner) but the LVC I wear now behave similarly and compare very favourably with the jeans from era that I remember.

Like I said, just my opinion.

are you sure you've been wearing LVC since 1967?

[bubdolan]

are you sure you've been wearing LVC since 1967?

Yeah, Xmas '67. It was a big deal getting a pair of Levis.

(Sorry - hadn't realised my mistake- I put LVC instead of Levis - thats the effect of living through the 60s...)

[ChuckO]

Hmmm, that history preservation page is OK, I don't know that it's more detailed than some of the comaprative Leiv's material I've seen - add they do get the weight of the fabric wrong, perhaps they're quoting the post-soak weight - if so they should specify. Have you seen the LVC book that airfrog has?

Here are some nice 'canes, aged by Ryu, they look great. The second photo doesn't look quite as good. Photos vary, don't they? But more choice is good, yes?

http://letgoasyoulike.fc2web.com/sc1947-13.htm

http://letgoasyoulike.fc2web.com/sc1947-10.htm

And in case anyone can stand any more 1947 photos, here's more, incuding one of a set of shots I have knocking around of a late 40s orignal (complete with dark oragen stitching)...

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=11061&highlight=1947+months

Hey ho...

Speaking of being authentic. Am I crazy or do those actual '40's jeans from eBay have fewer fly buttons. That seems typical of original jeans I've seen in pictures and both my LVC '47 & '55 seem to have more.

[rnrswitch]

I think it depends on the size. Smaller waist and length means fewer buttons on the fly. Larger waists and longer legs... more buttons on the fly.

I believe anyways.

[ChuckO]

I think it depends on the size. Smaller waist and length means fewer buttons on the fly. Larger waists and longer legs... more buttons on the fly.

I believe anyways.

It looks like a lot of space between buttons.

[Shorty Long]

The pre-40s 501s I've seen have 4-button flys

[rnrswitch]

It looks like a lot of space between buttons.

That's true, but I have seen sub 30in waists have 3 buttons, rather than 4. Lebron's have five buttons.

[stewiegriffin]

have been wondering,

how slim are the 505s? do they come in w28?

[partytaco]

those look great!

I took a look at a friends well worn and well washed 47 from 2 years ago to get a fresh perspective and i'm sorry the denim just doesn't compare. The denim is too flat, almost too glossy and without a lot of the "vertical falling" that the originals possess. maybe the more recent Cone denim is better but the denim on his reminded me of APC.

back to the tab......what changed that keeps the current tabs from curling up and fraying like the vintage ones???

I just washed my 1947s last night. Maybe I don't get what you're talking about, but I'm seeing a lot of really grainy wear and I think they look pretty damn good. I looked at that website and I don't really see that much of a difference.

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3641/3465998278_967890ba6a_b.jpg

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3465185455_e677a76315_b.jpg

big:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3465186295_910cb40769_b.jpg

most color accurate is the first photo (its close but not perfect. as best i could get it with my girlfriend's point and shoot). check out the links for large size images.

*notice the graininess of the lower leg

[eyongko]

here's my lvc jp made 44's. couple more pics on the evo thread. whats the general consensus on lvc jp in terms of quality and authenticity

[erk]

Partytaco : you are right about the aging of the red tab compared to vintage pairs but there are things you have to think about.

I've been wearing my pair since january 08 and I've only washed them a handful of times. perhaps we need an LVC example of a pair that was treated normally as a regular pair of 501s would have been in the 40s and 50s. I'm not sure what effect frequent washing would have on the tab.

I am out of town right now, but when I get back i'll take a photo of my red tab. its curling a little bit and has some light fraying. the color is also fading and is discolored from dirt, so the tab doesn't stick out as unworn compared to the rest of the jeans.

I don't really understand why the new tabs would behave differently, but I think you might be right about what materials are used.

eyongko: I believe the concensus is that LVC japan is great. some would say better than LVC europe for authenticity. If I remember correctly, most of what they sell in japan is the same as the EU stuff but they do a few models that are different. Like the 1954 501xx, and those 1944s501xx. the only thing that makes me think about getting a pair of LVC japan is the red tabs don't have to have the trademark like in the US and EU.

anyways. your pair looks like they're on their way to greatness. do you have any fit pics? does your red tab have a trademark on it?

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Arrgg, lost a post, wasted more time. 502 appeared in 66, these are an early example, and absolutely predate the use of sulhpur in the dye.

I'll leave this, and acknowledge that the very best rivals, eg real McCoy, have some models which are better than most LVC. But they're also more expensive. But still, i don't know of another cmpany whcih replicates as wide a range of vintage looks as convincingly as LVC at $180 or so.

Oh, and partytaco, please post some of your vintage Leiv's on here. Make me jealous, it ain't hard!

As far as I can remember, Levi's started using sulphur-indigo dyed denim in the laste 70s.

I also think that Levi's 501XX denim looked very much the same from around 1955 to around 1970, but there were also irregularities. But I should go have a look again, has been some times.

btw, Mccoys are not good replicas. They have a strong dye and nice details but the denim looks nothing like Levi's.

Warehouse is the best, together with some denims from FOB, Fullcount. Denime is alright but the XX is too grainy.

Flat Head does not look vintage.

[erk]

Flat Head does not look vintage.

you are correct sir. I'm not interested in flathead at all. One day I would like to try some warehouse or fullcounts.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Not all Fullcounts are good though. A lot of their stuff is very modernised too.

I agree with partytaco about the LVC denim. Especially the 47 is odd because it is like mentioned too shiny, almost like the cotton was mercerised. The 55 is better but I don't think Cone does a good job of replicating Levi denim at ALL.

I've written about JP LVC before and I think in a very sensible way, making sure not to hype it, but I would like to say that some of their denim has exactly the grainy but not slubby texture of originals.

I have a 506 jacket by LVC JP and the denim is great even though the details are off.

But my problem with LVC JP as well as EU is the shape of the backpockets. The EU 47 seems to be exaggerated to stand out. I've never seen that shape on originals. And the 55 isn't great either.

Look at these original 47s