Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Shorty Long]

I think they started coming with this past Spring's collection. I actually saw just the book for sale on ebay. I'm including the one that came with my rigid '44s in my sale.

I want this book that came with the 1947s. I never saw it on the web? amazon doesn't have it as I saw? Or do you just get it with buying a jeans?

[electrum]

Yo, superhero, those '47s have a real nice sheen that should wear well. The '06 and two '07 (maybe '08 ?) issue '47s I had didn't have lustrous finish like yours, they were dull like my '37 555. All are good, but I personally like the lustrous finish best. Since they appear to fit you well, I agree with Airfrog to wear the hell out of 'em for as long as you can w/out wash. I wear all of my raw jeans off the shelf w/out wash for at least 12-18 months and some cool fading marks. I'll have fotos of my '37s once they hit 6mo mark in a few days. Thanks for posting -- interesting to see lustrous classic '47s -- very cool!

[Fed90s]

My 09 1947's pre and post one wash.

Waist 33in

Leg 36

front rise 12in

Thigh 11in

Knee 8.8

Hem 8.5

Waist 15in

Leg 33in

front rise 11.5

Thigh 11in

Hem 8in

Would a pair of 1955's in 34x36 shrink to a 1947's pre soak?

[Shorty Long]

Jesus! Your '47s shrank 18" in the waist after one wash????

My 09 1947's pre and post one wash.

Waist 33in

Leg 36

front rise 12in

Thigh 11in

Knee 8.8

Hem 8.5

Waist 15in

Leg 33in

front rise 11.5

Thigh 11in

Hem 8in

Would a pair of 1955's in 34x36 shrink to a 1947's pre soak?

[the_ming]

My 09 1947's pre and post one wash.

Waist 33in

Leg 36

front rise 12in

Thigh 11in

Knee 8.8

Hem 8.5

Waist 15in

Leg 33in

front rise 11.5

Thigh 11in

Hem 8in

Would a pair of 1955's in 34x36 shrink to a 1947's pre soak?

what was the tagged size on those?

[airfrogusmc]

One thing to remember they will shrink more where there is NO RESISTANCE when they're being worn. The will shrink in areas were they're not tight and stretch a bit in areas where they're real tight and everything in between to make a custom fit if worn and broken in properly. Theres no quick, easy way to get a great fit or great fades. Ya gotta put the time into them.

[Rivet Head]

Airfrogusmc - yeah, I bought them intending them to fit looser, but they kept right on shrinking until they STF!

[TallyHo]

Theres no quick, easy way to get a great fit or great fades. Ya gotta put the time into them.

actually, the quick, easy way to get a great fit is to soak them while wearing them and wear until dry...but we all know your opinion on that.

oh and erk, did you stop wearing your 47s? i'd love to see an update on those if you've been wearing them.

[robbojnr]

I've worn STF Levi's for over 35 yrs in my actual waist size. I never had a pair shrink more than 1/2 inch waist. I don't know how various LVC denims shrink, but my '37 555 lost only 1/2 inch, and my LVC JP '44s lost 1/2 after soaking once in nearly boiling hot water for an hour. The dude I got those '44s from assured me they'd lose 2 inches in waist, I took his word and ended up stuck with a pair of $285 jeans that were too large -- pissed me off. Also, I've seen a bunch of LVC come and go on Ebay where the guy selling them says, 'brand new never worn, one hot rinse, but still way too big, your loss my gain.' Needless to say, I don't buy into the standard size up 2 inches to allow for shrinkage.

Sizing is another in a long line of issues I have to add to my LVC gripe list. I mean hell, once you literally search the world over for a particular pair you want, you've got to apply some fucked up sizing formula. There always seems to be the usual fine print ; 'please note, jeans run something or another sizes larger/smaller than tag size in waist. So you're like okay, add/subtract 2 inches in waist then add/subtract 2 inches for shrinkage. Then there's the unknown factor of whether the jeans size up on actual hand measurements or or not and whether the measurements are in cm or inches. If you figure all of that out, chances are pretty good you'll still end up screwed with the wrong size. If you can't find a dealer who'll take the time to hand-measure every pair in his inventory to find your size, then getting the right size is one big crap shoot and an expensive one at that. How fucking difficult can it be to make a jean that has the correct measurements and is offered in sizes for everyone? Apparently for Levi's it is impossible.

ive always said buy what fits you, because even if they do shrink in the waist they will stretch back again

[Fed90s]

Jesus! Your '47s shrank 18" in the waist after one wash????

Yep, in size 34x36.

So would a pair of 34x36 1955's shrink to a 47's pre?

1955's pre soak

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://modculture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/22/levis_55.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.retrotogo.com/2008/05/levis-vintage-1.html&usg=__xE3np3jUpg7I6HmXicoxebPowPc=&h=250&w=250&sz=16&hl=en&start=13&sig2=oJxU9Lac0fizdMoRijGcJw&um=1&tbnid=MzbGAaaKnX7PwM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlevis%2Bvintage%2B1955%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=23SNSo3gE8Ti-QbIxYj0DQ

[electrum]

One thing to remember they will shrink more where there is NO RESISTANCE when they're being worn. The will shrink in areas were they're not tight and stretch a bit in areas where they're real tight and everything in between to make a custom fit if worn and broken in properly. Theres no quick, easy way to get a great fit or great fades. Ya gotta put the time into them.

You're right Airfrog. However, to to be able to break in a pair of jeans like you and I like to break in jeans - without washing them first - you heave to get them actual waist size. You just can't wear a pair of raw jeans that are 1-2 sizes too large in waist -- they're going to look like clown pants. Then you'll have no choice but to wash them to get the shrinkage out of the way. Once washed, you just defeat your goal of wearing them rigid without wash. So if anyone wants to go old school and wear your jeans off the shelf rigid without an initial wash/soak, I suggest that you get your actual waist size.

[TallyHo]

So if anyone wants to go old school and wear your jeans off the shelf rigid without an initial wash/soak, I suggest that you get your actual waist size.

honestly, what are you talking about?! i ignored this argument in the past, and i'm not interested in discussing it at length now, but there is nothing "old school" about wearing jeans raw. i've had countless conversations with my parents and others who grew up in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s about soaking their new jeans.

my mom (who grew up in southern california) told me that everyone who was "in the know" would wear their new jeans into the ocean to shrink them.

every older person i've talked to laughs fondly about "back in the day" having to soak their jeans to make them fit (or fit better or fit tighter). the labels have always clearly instructed to size up and shrink the jeans in water (except Lee's sanforized jeans, who DIFFERENTIATED their whole line on the premise that you DON'T need to shrink them). what makes you think people didn't understand this or do this back then?

or maybe you just need to (re)watch quadrophenia?

if you want to wear your jeans raw, wear them raw. i like seeing how jeans turn out differently when treated differently. but trying to say that wearing them raw is "the right way" or "the old school way" of doing things is just plain WRONG.

[Shorty Long]

To add my two cents to this "keeping them raw" is or isn't old school debate...

Just thinking about it from a historical perspective...if you buy raw jeans in your actual size (and they measure your actual size pre-wash/soak etc) that means they would be practically unwearable after getting good and wet. Mines (jeans were almost strictly miners clothing WAY back in the day) were/are extremely wet places to work, so you can pretty much guarantee that jeans back in the day got good and wet even if the owner didn't wash them. I'm guessing that miners wanted to continue wearing their jeans even after they got wet, so I'd bet they typically sized up when purchasing.

[Busted Seam]

ive always said buy what fits you, because even if they do shrink in the waist they will stretch back again

Because you're always said it doesn't make it right.

On the 55, you'll be fine. On the 47. the waist might stretch but the thighs won't. If you want a real skinny fit, go with the 67 - again, they're tapered where the 47 is straight.

[electrum]

honestly, what are you talking about?! i ignored this argument in the past, and i'm not interested in discussing it at length now, but there is nothing "old school" about wearing jeans raw. i've had countless conversations with my parents and others who grew up in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s about soaking their new jeans.

my mom (who grew up in southern california) told me that everyone who was "in the know" would wear their new jeans into the ocean to shrink them.

every older person i've talked to laughs fondly about "back in the day" having to soak their jeans to make them fit (or fit better or fit tighter). the labels have always clearly instructed to size up and shrink the jeans in water (except Lee's sanforized jeans, who DIFFERENTIATED their whole line on the premise that you DON'T need to shrink them). what makes you think people didn't understand this or do this back then?

or maybe you just need to (re)watch quadrophenia?

if you want to wear your jeans raw, wear them raw. i like seeing how jeans turn out differently when treated differently. but trying to say that wearing them raw is "the right way" or "the old school way" of doing things is just plain WRONG.

Yeah, old school, that's what I call it. You no like? Well tough shit - live with it. No wash, old school, whatever, call it what you will, I don't care. If you reread my post, my point is if a person intends to wear their jean raw off the shelf without washing them, I suggest that they get their actual waist size - simple, no big deal. Nowhere did I give a history lesson nor did I tell anyone what's the right way or wrong way to break in their jeans. We're all big boys now who can make our own decisions about what we think is in our own best interest, while at the same time be open to other's suggestions, opinions and experiences without being ass holes. Learn to read and comprehend something before you go off on some irrelevant hormonal bitching rampage. Jeeez....some people...

[Rivet Head]

Alright ladies...take a deep breath and a valium and think....

[TallyHo]

I think everyone is entitled to an occasional rant -- at least once a month. After all, Levi's LVC marketing and customer service really sucks.

YOU are gonna tell ME about bitching? your role throughout this entire thread has been *the guy who complains about everything.* gimme a break.

not to mention, the quote i used in my original post CLEARLY shows you equate wearing them raw with "old school."

[blacap]

hey, i just got my 50's short horn western. i didn't realize they have such detail on the pocket.

[blacap]

[erk]

Superhero.

Those are gonna be great. I'd go ahead and soak.

For those who care cone has a new website which is much more interesting and informative

www.cone.com

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

interesting, especially anxious to see what the under construction "shop" tab turns into...

[erk]

Yeah me too! I hope there will be a "buy a bolt" option cause I'll buy one.

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

While we're on the topic of Cone, does anyone in here know much about their Black Seed denim? I'd ask this question in other threads too but I have a feeling most Cone knowledge resides within these electronic walls...

[rnrswitch]

Let's all remember that "Old school" is the the new "New School" and "New School" is the old "Old School." Just to clarify things up for y'all.

[electrum]

I want this book that came with the 1947s. I never saw it on the web? amazon doesn't have it as I saw? Or do you just get it with buying a jeans?

The book you're looking for is up for auction on Ebay right now. If you want it, you better hurry there's only about 1hr 20 min left........

http://cgi.ebay.com/LEVIS-VINTAGE-BOOKLET-501-LVC-THE-EVOLUTION-OF-THE-JEAN_W0QQitemZ160355692229QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_CSA_MC_Jeans?hash=item2555f1aec5&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

[Shorty Long]

$40!!! Pay me $200 for a brand new pair of raw '44s and you get the same book for free.

The book you're looking for is up for auction on Ebay right now. If you want it, you better hurry there's only about 1hr 20 min left........

http://cgi.ebay.com/LEVIS-VINTAGE-BOOKLET-501-LVC-THE-EVOLUTION-OF-THE-JEAN_W0QQitemZ160355692229QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_CSA_MC_Jeans?hash=item2555f1aec5&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

[airfrogusmc]

You're right Airfrog. However, to to be able to break in a pair of jeans like you and I like to break in jeans - without washing them first - you heave to get them actual waist size. You just can't wear a pair of raw jeans that are 1-2 sizes too large in waist -- they're going to look like clown pants. Then you'll have no choice but to wash them to get the shrinkage out of the way. Once washed, you just defeat your goal of wearing them rigid without wash. So if anyone wants to go old school and wear your jeans off the shelf rigid without an initial wash/soak, I suggest that you get your actual waist size.

I always get mine baggy when raw. The results are always worth it,

[airfrogusmc]

honestly, what are you talking about?! i ignored this argument in the past, and i'm not interested in discussing it at length now, but there is nothing "old school" about wearing jeans raw. i've had countless conversations with my parents and others who grew up in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s about soaking their new jeans.

my mom (who grew up in southern california) told me that everyone who was "in the know" would wear their new jeans into the ocean to shrink them.

every older person i've talked to laughs fondly about "back in the day" having to soak their jeans to make them fit (or fit better or fit tighter). the labels have always clearly instructed to size up and shrink the jeans in water (except Lee's sanforized jeans, who DIFFERENTIATED their whole line on the premise that you DON'T need to shrink them). what makes you think people didn't understand this or do this back then?

or maybe you just need to (re)watch quadrophenia?

if you want to wear your jeans raw, wear them raw. i like seeing how jeans turn out differently when treated differently. but trying to say that wearing them raw is "the right way" or "the old school way" of doing things is just plain WRONG.

Yeah you're right those miners in the early 1900s would go down and pre shrink those jeans because they for sure didn't want the other miners to think their butts looked big in those. (lol)

I think they bought'm put'm on and went to work until they couldn't stand'm then they'd wash them. And those examples that Levis has in their archives have the best fades.

[jstavrin]

Miners in the early 1900s, kids in the 40s 50s and 60s. Apples and oranges. In other words, wear your jeans however the hell you'd like.

[jake431]

Miners in the early 1900s, kids in the 40s 50s and 60s. Apples and oranges. In other words, wear your jeans however the hell you'd like.

This is the best advice I've read yet on the subject.