Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Dr_Heech]

I checked on this... apparently on LVC the fill thread is not bleached; I thought before it was, my bad. It just depends on the source of the cotton.

Dr.. on the transition model, I don't know. It's possible but my guess is they changed both at once. There was a big, modern-style marketing push fo the covered rivet jeans and I would guess they did add the tab at the same time.

Thanks paul,

Much talk over the years about the possibility, but I've never seen a model with exposed red-tab/rivets/suspender buttons, although I've seen a 1937 year model with suspender buttons (no..not the snap-on ones!)

.

[Doug C]

Do you know, was there a transitional (1936) model with exposed rivets and a tab, or is that just myth?

I thought the 1937 501 was dated when they bought out the concealed back pocket rivets, not the tab?

.

Dr. - on the transition model, I don't know. It's possible but my guess is they changed both at once. There was a big, modern-style marketing push fo the covered rivet jeans and I would guess they did add the tab at the same time.

If we look at the History of Levis (PDF) by Lynn Downey.... she states that 1936 was the first year with the red tab and 1937 was the first year with the covered rivets. So that would mean that in 1936 the 501 had both exposed rivets and a red tab. Not a myth if Downeys research is accurate. This is the pair I've always wished they'd make! Especially since it's one of the last designs with unique features and hasn't been done yet.

http://www.levistrauss.com/Downloads/levis_timeline.pdf

[Doug C]

Do you know, was there a transitional (1936) model with exposed rivets and a tab, or is that just myth?

I thought the 1937 501 was dated when they bought out the concealed back pocket rivets, not the tab?

.

Dr. - on the transition model, I don't know. It's possible but my guess is they changed both at once. There was a big, modern-style marketing push fo the covered rivet jeans and I would guess they did add the tab at the same time.

If we look at the History of Levis (PDF) by Lynn Downey.... she states that 1936 was the first year with the red tab and 1937 was the first year with the covered rivets. So that would mean that in 1936 the 501 had both exposed rivets and a red tab. Not a myth if Downeys research is accurate. This is the pair I've always wished they'd make! Especially since it's one of the last designs with unique features and hasn't been done yet.

http://www.levistrauss.com/Downloads/levis_timeline.pdf

[Paul T]

If we look at the History of Levis (PDF) by Lynn Downey.... she states that 1936 was the first year with the red tab and 1937 was the first year with the covered rivets. [/url]

It's well known that Levi's state 1936 for the tab and 37 for the rivets - the former is very important because it's a trademark which they're always enforcing . Their own material refers to "overalls', not necessarily the 501. But I've been through all the Levi's publicity material from that period with Lynn in the archive, and there are no jeans pictured or mentioned with tab and exposed rivets.Given that both required a change in production methods, I would guess that they instituted both changes at once; but as I said, that's a guess.

[s3lam]

I posted some pics of my 47's a couple days back. Here are some poak wash pics. I also did some repairs to the bottom of both legs to prevent the holes from getting bigger. It is a pretty amateur patch job but it will have to do =)

Cool roping effect going on here

You can see the shrunken tag from the boiling water I used a few years back....lol

[Dochunter]

I'm trying to sell a pair of 32x34 47's. They've been soaked once but never worn out of the house. What would be the going rate for these?

I know they reatil for about $200. These are still brand new. I priced them at $180 in the B&S forum with no replies. What do people typically sell these for?

[runormal]

I'm trying to sell a pair of 32x34 47's. They've been soaked once but never worn out of the house. What would be the going rate for these?

I know they reatil for about $200. These are still brand new. I priced them at $180 in the B&S forum with no replies. What do people typically sell these for?

For reference American Rag sells the 47s new for $175ish and cultizm for $167 so I think 180 for a soaked pair might be on the high end.... just my $.02

[Dr_Heech]

If we look at the History of Levis (PDF) by Lynn Downey.... she states that 1936 was the first year with the red tab and 1937 was the first year with the covered rivets. So that would mean that in 1936 the 501 had both exposed rivets and a red tab. Not a myth if Downeys research is accurate. This is the pair I've always wished they'd make! Especially since it's one of the last designs with unique features and hasn't been done yet.

http://www.levistrauss.com/Downloads/levis_timeline.pdf

Lvc would probably put the wrong patch on it,

(or maybe upside-down arcs?)

I thinks it's wishfull thinking that there was a '36' model,

my wishfull thinking included.

.

[aho]

Always been a fan of LVC roping...enjoyed those pics s3lam

[lilldavid]

patch looks tasty too s3lam

I thought I'd show you guys my pair of 1967 505's.I bought them back '04 before I had really gotten in to the whole denim madness. I got them in sz 31 which I've always kind of regret since they've been too big. So anyway I washed them the other day (was going to store them 'til I get old & fat) & to my surprice they shrank just like a pair of loomstate jeans (notice the leg twist)! I'm not sure if these are just a pair of freak 505's or if this particular batch of R button, S/S 2004 (I think) were unsanforized by accident. I've always found them to be a bit too hairy to be pre-shrunk...

Unfortunately I dont have any pre-wash measurments but I'm confident they shrank at least 1.5" in waist & 2" in length

any thoughts on why they've shrunk the way they have?

[Paul T]

[quote=Dr_Heech;2128244

I thinks it's wishfull thinking that there was a '36' model...

.

I asked Lynn, as her authority is being invoked; "I have never seen a "transitional" jean with the red Tab and exposed rivets, and have also wondered about that. It could be that both happened in such close proximity to each other that no transition ever happened, but if it did, I've never seen it!"

She, of course, is the first person anyone with such a rare model would go to. Wishful thinking would sound about right .

1936-1937 is right at the time there was a dude ranch boom and a lot of cowboy movies emerging out of Hollywood, as well as LS&Co opening a NYC office - so if those jeans were made they would surely have been photographed or filmed.

[Doug C]

Their own material refers to "overalls', not necessarily the 501. But I've been through all the Levi's publicity material from that period with Lynn in the archive, and there are no jeans pictured or mentioned with tab and exposed rivets.

So.. which statement do you think is the incorrect one? I suppose both things could have started happening in mid to late '36, that would have made it a grey area on the time line. Did you ask L.Downey about this issue specifically, or did you assume on your own the timeline wasn't talking about 501s in the 1936-37 parts, if so that would have been very perceptive of you. Especially since "overalls" are referred to as haveing belt loops and suspender buttons in '22. I think probably this timeline was written in vague terms on purpose, because they have little proof after all a red tab and exposed rivets would have only been a one year thing or less... and therefore there wouldn't necessarily be that many about, for Levis to procure. Of course I'm just guessing too.

[ADDIC]

For reference American Rag sells the 47s new for $175ish and cultizm for $167 so I think 180 for a soaked pair might be on the high end.... just my $.02

true. but take the shipping into account as well. so its around $180 shipped for cultizm.

that being said, i'd try $165 or so, Dochunter.

[Paul T]

As mentioned, the red tab was trademarked in 1936. Sales literature for the new model highlights the new rivets starting in 37. My guess would be that production of the new model, with the tab, only ramped up in 37 but there's no reason why there might not have been some examples produced in 36.

Incidenbtally I was checking some notes on the factories: they had a second factory, producing mainly Koveralls, from the 20s up to 1940. Then it was Valencia St alone. In 1946 they opened 'several' new factories around the Bay Area as there was a massive economic boom (GIs spendings their home loans etc). SO I'd lay bets that the '1947' 501 debuted in 1946.

true. but take the shipping into account as well. so its around $180 shipped for cultizm.

that being said, i'd try $165 or so, Dochunter.

I honestly doubt anyone will pay $165 for soaked jeans.

[ChuckO]

patch looks tasty too s3lam

I thought I'd show you guys my pair of 1967 505's.I bought them back '04 before I had really gotten in to the whole denim madness. I got them in sz 31 which I've always kind of regret since they've been too big. So anyway I washed them the other day (was going to store them 'til I get old & fat) & to my surprice they shrank just like a pair of loomstate jeans (notice the leg twist)! I'm not sure if these are just a pair of freak 505's or if this particular batch of R button, S/S 2004 (I think) were unsanforized by accident. I've always found them to be a bit too hairy to be pre-shrunk...

Unfortunately I dont have any pre-wash measurments but I'm confident they shrank at least 1.5" in waist & 2" in length

any thoughts on why they've shrunk the way they have?

I don't have any experience with LVC sanforized but from wearing sanforized in the 70's and early 80's I would need to wash and dry every week because of stretching. I used to always have two pairs so I could have one out of the wash because of stretching.

I'm kind of surprised sanforized selvedge isn't more popular. It's really not that much different than STF in terms of molding to your body. Is the fading effected by the sanforizing process? It seems to me jeans from that period faded fine. We weren't going for the same effects back then, you just wore 'em and washed 'em all the time and they faded and softened up.

[Dr_Heech]

As mentioned, the red tab was trademarked in 1936. Sales literature for the new model highlights the new rivets starting in 37. My guess would be that production of the new model, with the tab, only ramped up in 37 but there's no reason why there might not have been some examples produced in 36.

Incidentally I was checking some notes on the factories: they had a second factory, producing mainly Koveralls, from the 20s up to 1940. Then it was Valencia St alone. In 1946 they opened 'several' new factories around the Bay Area as there was a massive economic boom (GIs spendings their home loans etc). SO I'd lay bets that the '1947' 501 debuted in 1946.QUOTE]

I still think that due to lack of phsical evidence, the myth will continue..

I really like the many variations of the S501/501 around the end of the second world war. Many different examples have been photographed, so some quite unique now.

.

[RRLselvageDenim]

It'll be interesting to see a photo thread that compares the Levis LVC fades side by side with other brands like Flathead, Sammies, SDA, PBJ, Fullcount - you get the idea.

On an aside, is there a thread that discusses how to get faster fades? I remember seeing one but can't find it anymore.

[aho]

Personally, I've found that the most beautiful fading has come after years of honest daily wear (well, 1.5+)...you just can't rush beauty IMO...On the other hand, I have also seen some crazy contrasty stuff in very little time from people who run/exercise/skate in their jeans. The secret is to just wear them according to your own lifestyle and in due time all will come naturally....

[RRLselvageDenim]

Aho - you just made a good case for not aquiring some many pairs of jeans considering in order to get the best fade, one would have to wear them 3-4 months unwashed, washed after 4 months of daily wear and repeat the process again and at the end of one year retire it and move on to another pair and repeat the process over again. I actually think this is a good idea.

[aho]

I think many of us on here can be accused of owning too much denim yet I also find that its comforting to fall back on a pair that's been on rotation for a year +....I often throw on a pair of old Levi's despite them being raggedy to all hell, and I love seeing people still wearing their WH contest jeans for example so really there is no need to retire really...

Adding to personal preference is also the different properties of the different denim fabrics used by different brands respectively when determining wear...

[RRLselvageDenim]

Aho - agreed. I'm tempted to divest myself of 50% of my collection.

[Doug C]

I look at it like this.. I don't need anymore denim but there are many more models I want (and expect more to come) so (from this point on) I intend to buy the ones I want and basically put them away (perhaps highlighted on display in some way) until I am in need of a dark pair of denim eventually. So in other words not necessarily work on several dark pairs like I have been doing since I got into the denim nuttyness. Life is long and who knows how long these great repros will be available, or the particular year model that you like will be available. I expect to be an old man wearing amazing denim one day, LOL. So get 'em now and enjoy them one day. I love wearing dark raw denim but I also like a variety in shades to choose from. I'm not sure I'll ever really "retire" a pair, just wear them less as they get closer to a destroyed point or pass them on to my son one day.

[RRLselvageDenim]

I look at it like this.. I don't need anymore denim but there are many more models I want (and expect more to come) so (from this point on) I intend to buy the ones I want and basically put them away (perhaps highlighted on display in some way) until I am in need of a dark pair of denim eventually. So in other words not necessarily work on several dark pairs like I have been doing since I got into the denim nuttyness. Life is long and who knows how long these great repros will be available, or the particular year model that you like will be available. I expect to be an old man wearing amazing denim one day, LOL. So get 'em now and enjoy them one day. I love wearing dark raw denim but I also like a variety in shades to choose from. I'm not sure I'll ever really "retire" a pair, just wear them less as they get closer to a destroyed point or pass them on to my son one day.

One thing you seem to be leaving out, The older one gets the more weight you gain. So whatever denim you buy now, there's no guarantee they'll fit you when you get old.

[Doug C]

One thing you seem to be leaving out, The older one gets the more weight you gain. So whatever denim you buy now, there's no guarantee they'll fit you when you get old.

Not necessarily. I've been the same size for ages, and expect to be about the same from seeing my older male family members. It's not like you have to stock up now, just get a pair or two a year and be real honest with yourself on your weight when decideing what to get. I'm not worried about it But if that doesn't work for you then hell, just fade 'em quicker like you were originally thinking about doing. I don't see any problem with that personally. Will the fades be noticeably inferior to naturally faded ones? Yea probably, but unless you're around other Denim Heads then I doubt anyone would really notice. Research the subject and I bet if you're the least bit artsy you could make them look pretty authentic (may want to practice on a couple thrift store jeans first, no biggy). A suggestion though... go at it with a "less is more" philosophy, do a little step back and consider the big picture. Now don't forget too that almost every model of LVC jeans come in a pre-distressed version, example : Nevada, Gut for Garters ('47), Roadside ('66) - just to name a few. That may just be your best bet.

[RRLselvageDenim]

Not necessarily. I've been the same size for ages, and expect to be about the same from seeing my older male family members. It's not like you have to stock up now, just get a pair or two a year and be real honest with yourself on your weight when decideing what to get. I'm not worried about it But if that doesn't work for you then hell, just fade 'em quicker like you were originally thinking about doing. I don't see any problem with that personally. Will the fades be noticeably inferior to naturally faded ones? Yea probably, but unless you're around other Denim Heads then I doubt anyone would really notice. Research the subject and I bet if you're the least bit artsy you could make them look pretty authentic (may want to practice on a couple thrift store jeans first, no biggy). A suggestion though... go at it with a "less is more" philosophy, do a little step back and consider the big picture. Now don't forget too that almost every model of LVC jeans come in a pre-distressed version, example : Nevada, Gut for Garters ('47), Roadside ('66) - just to name a few. That may just be your best bet.

I'm strictly a Raw person myself. But I see your point.

[the_serkis]

Can someone help me out on sizing for the 1927 501? I read Paul T's guide and a size 32 waist measures 35in. So i emailed Cuiltizm twice for exact measurements and they tell me a quick answer thats they measure 2 inches above listed size. (talked to Dirk and Erdal)

I am a 34 but normally wear a 36 because i like em a lil loose. I dont want to buy the 36, see that they measure 39in, only shrink a half an inch, then have a pair of clown pants either.

Btw, This is my 1st post, I love this site and have been reading it now for a few months and am glad to finaly join. This will be my 1st pair of LVC in 9 years so appreiciate any sizing help i can get.

Eddie

[Dr_Heech]

Can someone help me out on sizing for the 1927 501? I read Paul T's guide and a size 32 waist measures 35in. So i emailed Cuiltizm twice for exact measurements and they tell me a quick answer thats they measure 2 inches above listed size. (talked to Dirk and Erdal)

I am a 34 but normally wear a 36 because i like em a lil loose. I dont want to buy the 36, see that they measure 39in, only shrink a half an inch, then have a pair of clown pants either.

Btw, This is my 1st post, I love this site and have been reading it now for a few months and am glad to finaly join. This will be my 1st pair of LVC in 9 years so appreiciate any sizing help i can get.

Eddie

Hi, I am a 34 waist and had problems with sizing this model.

After a few unsuccessfull attempts of getting the correct size, I finally went for a tagged size 32/34 (measured pre-soak 35/35), soaked them warm for an hour in the tub, then washed them twice (first wash 40, second wash 60 degrees) over a period of a few weeks.

They measure 34.5/33 now (waist hardly shrank) and fit fine, but a little loose, which i like.

.

[the_serkis]

Hi, I am a 34 waist and had problems with sizing this model.

After a few unsuccessfull attempts of getting the correct size, I finally went for a tagged size 32/34 (measured pre-soak 35/35), soaked them warm for an hour in the tub, then washed them twice (first wash 40, second wash 60 degrees) over a period of a few weeks.

They measure 34.5/33 now (waist hardly shrank) and fit fine, but a little loose, which i like.

.

Thanks Dr, That was the info that i was looking for. I just pulled the trigger now on the 34x34.

[Doug C]

the_serkis welcome to the forum and do us all a favor and post measurements of the pair you receive and maybe some fit pics of those '27s ... there are next to none posted at this point. Good Luck.

[the_serkis]

the_serkis welcome to the forum and do us all a favor and post measurements of the pair you receive and maybe some fit pics of those '27s ... there are next to none posted at this point. Good Luck.

Thanks Doug C.

Allready planning on posting an update on the measurements (pre/post soak) ect.

Looking thru the past 600+ pages there isnt a lot of posts abt the 27. The only worn pair of 27's I recall seeing was Airfrogs.