Levi's Vintage Clothing

[almostnice]

OMG! I looked at chuckO 's pics above!!!

fuck,such a stupid mistake,now all my credits are gone...

[almostnice]

to my excuse i must say when i post at that daytime i am always at work and cannot waste too much time at the computer,so that was a mistake happend in a hurry.

funny thing is that our office in the workshop got two doors.on wednesday i had all of sudden one of our projektmanagers standing behind me,staring at dr. hous's 875 in all its glory." Now that looks very workrelated!" he said ironically."Yes,great workboots,arent they?" was my reply.but its all good,we are good friends.

[dr.house]

Hehe, nice. I love small stories like that!

[Paul T]

I thought you'd been at the oktoberfest... altho maybe your workwear knowledge increases with alcohol??

[entertainment!]

Like the original Doctor said, they're Valencia St 55.

The other clue is the serif font for the "501 XX" on the tag which is only used on the 1950s repros (1954 and 1955), afaik.

[Paul T]

In addition, the 1966 jeans don't have the "every garment guaranteed" on the patch.

[Fred S]

They have hidden rivets and a paper patch - so no 47s or 66s. I guess Dr. Heech and Paul T are right in that they are 55s, although the arcuate is extremely shallow for a 55.

[entertainment!]

Some nice models were made in 2005: - the 1886, the 1890 (second issue with the hammered rivets), 1944 wartime with front pocket lining made from stripe shirt material. Really well made.

Also the second variant of the 1955 (the variation being the yellow stitch is to the outside of the back pockets, rather than the inside) - they were really solid.

.. and, unfortunately, the 'wrong arcs' 201.

I also have the 40's 'hap jones' sweat from '05, which is just too short to realistically wear for me, but is a quality item nonetheless. Great chainstitching and details.

I have a pair of those 1944s from 2005. They are great, Dr Heech, but there is one detail that I have always wondered about. The edge of the denim in the pocket on the fly side is unfinished. Is this accurate to construction from that era. (This detail is also present on a pair of 1933's from 2006 and 1937s from 2007).

Here is a picture of the detail on the 1933s:

On the 1944s, since the bar tack of the belt loop doesn't overlap the pocket (the belt loops are set too close to the fly), the raw edge would always pop out of the pocket when I sat down. That drove me crazy, so I ended up sewing the edge of the pocket bag to capture the raw edge.

[Dr_Heech]

I have a pair of those 1944s from 2005. They are great, Dr Heech, but there is one detail that I have always wondered about. The edge of the denim in the pocket on the fly side is unfinished. Is this accurate to construction from that era. (This detail is also present on a pair of 1933's from 2006 and 1937s from 2007)

My 1944's do not have that issue with the pocket edge. However, I had a pair of 1933's from the s/s 2004 season, and they had the same issue (in the same place on the fly side) and i got it repaired. They were also the same pair where a rivet-head on the front pocket came off - something that annoyed me, but easily fixed. It was the begining of many a minor quibble for me with Lvc.

The other thing I've noticed with the more recent editions of the 1944, some pics posted recently on this thread, is the violet painted arcs and the weird skinny beltloops (they look more like ones from 55's, rather than the ones on the 33's, 37's, 44's and 47's).

[ChuckO]

Like the original Doctor said, they're Valencia St 55.

Oops sorry, missed the good Doctor's assessment. The arcs seem shallow, the rise looks off and I kind of thought the pockets looked small. At least compared to my 55's of similar size.

Is that a good 55 or bad? Or is it reasonable within a range of variation you would find on originals?

[Dr_Heech]

Oops sorry, missed the good Doctor's assessment. The arcs seem shallow, the rise looks off and I kind of thought the pockets looked small. At least compared to my 55's of similar size.

Is that a good 55 or bad? Or is it reasonable within a range of variation you would find on originals?

I dont think there are any good or bad 55's. I know in one year there was a model which had the wrong script across the bottom (" Lot 55501xx" ?), but everyone seems happy with their 55's.

As for originals, your phrase 'range of variation' fits the description well. Different factories, using variations of thread, with many crossover models throughout the 50's. There isnt really a template, which was the great thing about vintage originals - each pair were unique.

There's a lovely pair of one wash early fifties 501's on ebay at the moment, and those arcs are what Lvc could aspire to (sorry, forgot how to link, but ebay username = janinesjunk)

[ChuckO]

Yea, I'm a real 47 guy but I love my 55's. The denim is amazing. The thighs faded to a nice blue-ish white and there are parts that are a gorgeous royal blue and others that are a nice ink blue. "Gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh" as Little Alex said in Clockwork Orange.

[Dr_Heech]

Comparison pics of the 1873 duck and 1901 duck pants:

Notice how the 1901 has smaller areas where the buckle is attatched to the waistband (with rivets)

No two piece waistband on the 1873. The two piece waistband is not so offset on the 1901 compared to the 1880,1886,1890 and 1901 denim pieces.

(note - rarity of 1901 duck, limited to 172 pairs)

Different colour thread to attatch early buttons to waistband and fly

Obvious difference in pocket placement, but in comparison, the 1901 watch pocket is enormous compared to any other lvc jean I have owned!

Black Id lines on outside (the canvas of the 1873 is Waay more slubby than the 1901)

Rivet head stands proud, not flat like 1873.

There is a slight difference in the inside 'selvedge' of the two.

Will be interesting to see what the s/s 2010 1873 duck pant is like...

[Dr_Heech]

Also, thought I'd do some random pics of the rivets on my early levis

from left - 1873d, 1873 1st, 1880, 1886, 1890 and 1901d.

1873d, 1873 and 1880

1873, 1880 and 1886

1880 and 1886

1890 and 1901.

[Dr_Heech]

Oh, and lastly, the beautifull embossed two horse patch from my 1901's

and comparison of 1901,1890 and 1886 patches.. (the 1890 patch, centre, is really thick and solid compared to the others)

[Paul T]

Great pics, Doctor, many thanks. Your knowledge and attention to detail is a real asset.

I got my replacement Canon G9 back today. Sadly my laptop is bust so I can\t do proper colour correction, but your cotton duck pics inspired me to pull out a tote bag made from a sample of Cone's new cotton duck fabric.

This is a proper narrow loom selvage they designed from scratch; the previous fabric wasn't. I only managed to get the colour right in this detail shot, I will try and post more later. The fabric looks great - let's hope the p[ants are as good (with the correct rivets!).

And lastly, I shot my 55 on a borrowed camera; here they are (left) with the 47. I doesn't do a grat job of distinguihsing the two denims. These looks very different unwashed, and after one wash. At one wash the 55 looked infinitely superior; really dark and inky, exactly like the old pair I once had. After two washes they bhoth look more similar - in fact even the 1901 looked less different after its second wash. But if you look at these two together, you can see there's a different wear texture. The 55 still looks a little darker, a kind of petrol inkiness, in real life; the gradations of wear are finer than the 47, whcih somehow looks a little more brittle.

[Shorty Long]

Nice pics of the cotton duck. Do you know if LVC is going to be using this fabric for any upcoming pieces?????

Great pics, Doctor, many thanks. Your knowledge and attention to detail is a real asset.

I got my replacement Canon G9 back today. Sadly my laptop is bust so I can\t do proper colour correction, but your cotton duck pics inspired me to pull out a tote bag made from a sample of Cone's new cotton duck fabric.

This is a proper narrow loom selvage they designed from scratch; the previous fabric wasn't. I only managed to get the colour right in this detail shot, I will try and post more later. The fabric looks great - let's hope the p[ants are as good (with the correct rivets!).

And lastly, I shot my 55 on a borrowed camera; here they are (left) with the 47. I doesn't do a grat job of distinguihsing the two denims. These looks very different unwashed, and after one wash. At one wash the 55 looked infinitely superior; really dark and inky, exactly like the old pair I once had. After two washes they bhoth look more similar - in fact even the 1901 looked less different after its second wash. But if you look at these two together, you can see there's a different wear texture. The 55 still looks a little darker, a kind of petrol inkiness, in real life; the gradations of wear are finer than the 47, whcih somehow looks a little more brittle.

[Paul T]

Nice pics of the cotton duck. Do you know if LVC is going to be using this fabric for any upcoming pieces?????

Yes, I think there a pair of 1873 pants in the works. Hopefully it;s a positive sign that they're working on new fabrics from the ground up.

[fardin]

i love those cotton duck pants. when in NYC this summer i bought the 1880s duckdiggers, and the color of the pants are very simliar to the ones of 1873 LVC. i was wondering what the black stripe on the side is. id line ?

cool pics dr i wish i could rep you again. many thanks. cant wait for the 2010 LVC ducks. ( 2010, strange date, reminds me of zager and evens)

[Dr_Heech]

i love those cotton duck pants. when in NYC this summer i bought the 1880s duckdiggers, and the color of the pants are very simliar to the ones of 1873 LVC. i was wondering what the black stripe on the side is. id line ?

cool pics dr i wish i could rep you again. many thanks. cant wait for the 2010 LVC ducks. ( 2010, strange date, reminds me of zager and evens)

Thanks Fardin,

I think the black I D line is just the way they identified the cloth they used for this model, but I cant be sure. Early selvedge identified what fabric was used for which manufacturer from around the turn of the (last) century, so maybe it was an earlier version, Cant see it on the pics I've seen from the ones in Paul T's book, or on the other pair - which there are pics of in "The Jeans"( japanese denim book).

I remember it being called ID line from the little book which came with another pair I used to have. I've got the little book of the duck coat, I'll have a look in that.

[schcxmark]

is the selvage line on 47's narrow, about 1/2" wide?

[Guest Selvage Seb.]

The experimental paint is almost vanished from last machine wash

Hit the one year worn mark already

say hi;

[wgmds]

where does everyone cop their cool lvc? all the levis near me stopped and besides they only got 47 and one pair of 55s

[dr.house]

where does everyone cop their cool lvc? all the levis near me stopped and besides they only got 47 and one pair of 55s

www.cultizm.com

[erk]

is the selvage line on 47's narrow, about 1/2" wide?

I don't have my pair with me to measure but I do have this picture.

the narrower pair is from 07 and the other is from 08. both are 1947s. I'd say the 08s are much more "normal" when it comes to width of selvage edges. the 07s are very noticeably narrower.

[schcxmark]

^thanks for the help. the wider line looks better i think.

[RRLselvageDenim]

Thought this might be of interest to you guys:

thinking of pulling the trigger on this:

http://www.caliroots.com/system/search/product_vert.asp?id=19588

[entertainment!]

For those who live near New York City, I was in the J Crew Men's Store on Broadway in Soho last week. They had the rigid 1967 505 in lots of sizes for $195. They also had the 505 in a washed version as well as other washed lvc. I am not sure exactly which ones since I was only interested in the rigid though.

[Dr_Heech]

Any one interested, there's a pair of 1873 Duck pants 36x38 1 wash on ebay (username = v5sport) !!!!

[dnm_dnmz]

@Seb

which levis are those

cinch + hidden rivets