Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Dr_Heech]

LoL yeah I'm a pretty big guy.

AF

Ive put some big Lvc up on ebay, check my signature.

[airfrogusmc]

If that 1944 jacket were just a little larger.

[ah_long]

I have decided, if the thighs are too roomy and too baggy, I'll re-hotsaok them and throw them into the dryer..

[airfrogusmc]

I have decided, if the thighs are too roomy and too baggy, I'll re-hotsaok them and throw them into the dryer..

No...not the dryer anything but the dryer.

[erk]

I have decided, if the thighs are too roomy and too baggy, I'll re-hotsaok them and throw them into the dryer..

it might take a couple of soaks til you're satisfied but I think you're gonna be fine. You also need to face the fact that the 1937 is a full-cut jean and is going to provide a little extra room in the thighs.

here are some quick fit pics just for you! pay no attention to my stupid face in the first one.

like I said. mine were very similar to yours pre-soak.

[ah_long]

thanks, you made me feel a lot better now.. I would rep you if I could..

How'd u size on yours?

what happened at the area above the thighs though, they look as if they are being pulled by something

[erk]

thanks, you made me feel a lot better now.. I would rep you if I could..

How'd u size on yours?

what happened at the area above the thighs though, they look as if they are being pulled by something

I think thats just from the "extra room provided" combined with the knees being a little stretched out. sometimes its there, sometimes its not.

edit: i'm about a 34.5-35" waist and I got a 34 tagged which was about 35" raw.

[ah_long]

So we did use a similar sizing method.. I am a 31.5 and I went with a size 32 tagged which measured 32..

I would assume you are taller than me though..

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

though i haven´t purchased a japan lvc yetm i´d like to know if the japanese models are running true to tagged size? i only would by them because of the nice leather patches, like with in the 47s... cheers!!!

[DrMoBueno]

my sorta 1885s are tagged 34 and measured 32.

edit: and that's the pre-soak measurement.

[electrum]

$400? Absolutely ludicrous price.

Given the choice, I'd go for the 555 version if they were the same price, or 10% more, but that is ridiculous. Ifd they start going for that much regularly I'll sell my pairs under the bed and buy a Nikon S2 or a guitar. They are only fuckin jeans! Look at the side-by-siude comparison in the 201 thread... I don't think there;s any sabstabntial difference between my 555 and Taylro Togs pairs. (Mine were from the year with the correct back stitching).

Oh yeah, and these are the Levi's Japan version; identical to the Euro ones, but they would sometimes produce a model independently when it was not in the Euro range for a season.

Edit: by the way, I had my 201 shortened by Big in New York, but you can get them done in London now - departmentofworks.com or Son Of A Stag by the Truman brewery.

Paul, I agree $400 is a bundle to spend on a pair of jeans. If you consider though, a pair of 1873s from a couple of yrs ago cost me $501 were watered down with cheap metal cinch buckle and buttons, narrow .25 inch selvedge seam and light indigo soft denim then those 555 linen patch 201s seem like a bargain. Hell, it's almost worth the premium just for those cool sinister gothic looking pocket eagle arcs alone, plus they're rare and are made at the legendary Valencia factory which makes them a collectable in their own right. With that said, I don't think $400 is too far off base. I also agree, the Taylor Togs 201 are as good based on the info/pics you've documented here, so yeah, I'd settle for those for the lower price, but those weren't made in my size.

[electrum]

it might take a couple of soaks til you're satisfied but I think you're gonna be fine. You also need to face the fact that the 1937 is a full-cut jean and is going to provide a little extra room in the thighs.

here are some quick fit pics just for you! pay no attention to my stupid face in the first one.

like I said. mine were very similar to yours pre-soak.

Dude, you look like a thug dock worker straight out of a Kerouac novel. I bet you don't have any problem with anyone trying to fuck with you do you? --Classic! Yeah, jeans look very cool too....

[Rivet Head]

it might take a couple of soaks til you're satisfied but I think you're gonna be fine. You also need to face the fact that the 1937 is a full-cut jean and is going to provide a little extra room in the thighs.

here are some quick fit pics just for you! pay no attention to my stupid face in the first one.

like I said. mine were very similar to yours pre-soak.

You look like the guy who did the Pompadour 101 site?

[Paul T]

Dude, you look like a thug dock worker

I so wish people said that about me...

[electrum]

On the subject of tag vs measurements, the '15s are way off. The smallest tag size available for those is 30 and I was told by 3 vendors that the 30 tag measures in at a whopping 33+ inches. WTF is up with that -- I mean why bother listing a tag size if it means nothing? Jeez....

[erk]

Dude, you look like a thug dock worker straight out of a Kerouac novel. I bet you don't have any problem with anyone trying to fuck with you do you? --Classic! Yeah, jeans look very cool too....

I look pretty normal without the hat. its gettin cold outside here at night and I just got a haircut so I've been wearin that thing. thanks though.

You look like the guy who did the Pompadour 101 site?

hahaha. i'm definitely not that guy. I dont even have a pompadour.

edit: electrum, people have told you they're 3 inches off??!? I thought it was 2...

I'm planning on buying a pair (w33l36) so I'd have a 35 waist but thats not gonna work out if thats true...

[Paul T]

Paul, I agree $400 is a bundle to spend on a pair of jeans. If you consider though, a pair of 1873s from a couple of yrs ago cost me $501 were watered down with cheap metal cinch buckle and buttons... with that said, I don't think $400 is too far off base.

I absolutely see your point, but I think this pricing is an illustration of how off-beam the selvage/vintage repro denim business is becoming. To be honest, I think $200 is sustainable for a pair of jeans that have been made by workers who aren't exploited, using denim made by craftsmen/women in Japan or the Carolinas.

But once you get past that pricepoint, to me it's diminishing returns - and, worse, it becomes an example of consumerism and the antithesis of the ideal of denim - that it's classic and democratic, that it's how you wear it in that matters, not how much you pay for it.

[Dr_Heech]

Paul,

cant find the 201 thread, but just bagged a pair of the distressed 1915 201 (vault?) from a few years ago, for £40 ! Really hoping they fit, as the sizing on that model is a bit vague.

They look very worn/washed-out, with repairs, bright orange stitching and an earlier two horse linen patch.

Will post some pics when Royal mail can be arsed to deliver it.

The most I spent on a pair of Lvc, was £175 on a pair of deadstock 551zxx from the very first run in August 96. They are worth every penny.

[dralfonzo]

to follow on from what you two are talking about - look at these fucking things! $890!

http://eu.levi.com/it_IT/shop/products/male-Parte-inferiore-Jeans-e-Pantaloncini/1915-501s--Cone-Mills-Collaboration-155010002.html?insearch=true

[ChuckO]

I absolutely see your point, but I think this pricing is an illustration of how off-beam the selvage/vintage repro denim business is becoming. To be honest, I think $200 is sustainable for a pair of jeans that have been made by workers who aren't exploited, using denim made by craftsmen/women in Japan or the Carolinas.

But once you get past that pricepoint, to me it's diminishing returns - and, worse, it becomes an example of consumerism and the antithesis of the ideal of denim - that it's classic and democratic, that it's how you wear it in that matters, not how much you pay for it.

Hear, Hear!!!! Couldn't agree more! Those prices start to feel like abuse of the addicted.

[Dr_Heech]

Chucko - check your messages

[electrum]

edit: electrum, people have told you they're 3 inches off??!? I thought it was 2...

I'm planning on buying a pair (w33l36) so I'd have a 35 waist but thats not gonna work out if thats true...

Yeah, AeroLeather told me the '15 rigid tag30 measures 16.5 (33), Doshabari listed theirs at a bit over 85cm (about 33.5'') and the other store, I can't remember - I think they're in Scotland - said theirs are 16.5 (33) Cultizm never responded to my emails which tells me theirs run way too big too. I didn't ask about other sizes, so I don't know about the 33 tag. Erk, since LVC tag sizes are so damn squirrely, I'd contact the shop you're getting them from and have them give exact measurements otherwise you'll get screwed. I've lost a lot of time and money returning lvc jeans that are 2,3 or 4 inches larger or smaller than what tag says --- the g'damn things should be what the tag says they are! I;d really li,ke to know why levi's does this - among other things??Since it's obviously their standard practice maybe they just enjoy antagonizing their customers.. ..?

[Dr_Heech]

Yeah, AeroLeather told me the '15 rigid tag30 measures 16.5 (33), Doshabari listed theirs at a bit over 85cm (about 33.5'') and the other store, I can't remember - I think they're in Scotland - said theirs are 16.5 (33) Cultizm never responded to my emails which tells me theirs run way too big too. I didn't ask about other sizes, so I don't know about the 33 tag. Erk, since LVC tag sizes are so damn squirrely, I'd contact the shop you're getting them from and have them give exact measurements otherwise you'll get screwed. I've lost a lot of time and money returning lvc jeans that are 2,3 or 4 inches larger or smaller than what tag says --- the g'damn things should be what the tag says they are! I;d really li,ke to know why levi's does this - among other things??Since it's obviously their standard practice maybe they just enjoy antagonizing their customers.. ..?

You're right there,

Contact them first, get them measured, otherwise it's a long and expensive process. I recently purchased 1915, 1917 and 1927 from Aero and they were all at least 3 inches bigger than tag size in the waist. All of them. I have since sent my 1915's and 1917's back. I doubt I'll be buying any more Lvc.

it's just laziness on behalf of Lvc, and another way to extract more of your hard earned cash.

[erk]

thats absolutely ridiculous.

dr. heech, you measured yours big style?

[Dr_Heech]

thats absolutely ridiculous.

dr. heech, you measured yours big style?

Apologies,

unsure what big style is, (I've heard of 'big-styl-ee') but I ensure that the back and front are level across, and measure staight across and double it. Then with a taylors tape, measure around the inside of the waist band as well as staight across/doubled. I then compare the two (usually they are both the same, give or take a few Mil.

IMO since 2003, sizes have increasingly yo-yo'd. But saying that, some of my prized 555 stuff is also under or oversized.

[LFC4ever]

Hi - BIG is Blue in Green Soho measurement methid

http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41

[Dr_Heech]

Hi - BIG is Blue in Green Soho measurement methid

http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41

Many thanks LFC.

[Alleyne]

Xpost from the Cultizm LVC Contest.

Fit pic of my 30x38 1947 501 555 Valencia St.

True waist is 30 but I wear 28 for PBJ 007, 29 for Imperial Dukes, and 28/29 for nudies.

Going for a relaxed fit for this pair. Comments?

[blm14]

for relaxed fit those look pretty good. I think pre-soak they'll be real nice. Even the stacking looks solid.

[Flash]

cant go wrong with a 47