Levi's Vintage Clothing

[crownzip]

Thanks Erk, Lance and Allen, It's been fun wearing these through the years and just goes to show with a little patience and avoiding the washing machine as much as possible, anybody can get cool results.

WWII garrison belts are built to last. The one I'm wearing is stamped 1942!

[erk]

Yikes! The last thing we wanna do is re-ignite that 1947 debate! I think at least some of the controversy is simply due to the sizing; size down on the 55 compared to the 47 and the difference is not that huge, as my sig illustrates. .

I actually thought of that right after I submitted that; but my intention was definitely not to start that up again.

[fardin]

yes you guys rocked this thread on the last few pages.thanks to all of you! a joy to look at all those great fit pics of the leather jackets, and grant for sure. those 47 are beautiful, but then i have never seen a bad pic by you. and theshirt looks awesome too !

[airfrogusmc]

I actually thought of that right after I submitted that; but my intention was definitely not to start that up again.

No wars, just debate. But all ya gotta do is measure the same measured waist of a 55 LVC (which are really close to originals of the period from the 40s thru the mid to late 50s) and a 47 then measure things like legs at the thigh and the knee and the leg openings and you'll see that the 47s are trimmer. Not that much variance with originals. You can kinda get a feel for the proportion if you look at the thigh and leg width and compare it to the waist width. That is a good indicator as to how slim the legs are as compared to the waist.

Heres a pair of original 1947s from the Levis archives. Please note the very boxy cut. Its almost the same cut as 1944s and 1955s.

Compare how Grants broke in as compared to these originals and you will get an idea of just how killer Grants 47s look. Also see the way Grants are almost worn through on one of the creases and compare that to the 33 originals that I posted. Like Grant said if you want them to look like this then keep them out of water as much as possible.

Maybe Grant could post a couple of his original and vintage flight jackets here. They do go great with LVCs.

[rnrswitch]

He posted a photo of his dad in Morro Bay (just near one of my favorite towns, Pismo Beach) in 1948;

I'm getting married in Pismo this weekend. You jealous?

Also, I love that pic of "The Rock." That was my home surf break.

[Paul T]

I'm getting married in Pismo this weekend. You jealous?

Not jealous, happy for you mate. If it worked for Bugs Bunny, it can work for you.

Actually, my g/f and I drove down there after she'd come over to see me when I was working in s/f, stayed in one of those chalets on the beach and that's when I suggested we stick together and have a sprog.

Have a great day.

[TallyHo]

this photo is anything but a reliable way of comparing cuts. the proportions on this pair are VERY odd. i would guess they belonged to a very large and rather short person.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i took a ruler to my monitor and these are the measurements i found:

front rise = 2.5"

inseam = 4" (as they are cuffed in that photo)

leg opening = 1.5" (more like 1.65" but 1.5" is easier)

assuming a 32" inseam (which i think is fairly standard) i did some cross multiplication and came up with the following:

2.5/4 = X/32 ----> 20 inch front rise!

1.5/4 = X/32 ----> 12 inch (24 circumference) leg opening!

we all know that these are nowhere near accurate measurements for originals or reproductions. its been awhile since i had to bust out this much arithmetic, but i'm pretty sure these are sound calculations.

in short: while that may be a pair of 501s from or produced in 1947, they are an odd waist/inseam combo or were shot at a strange angle or resized for print or something else.

you can look at the photo Paul T posted above, or any number of brando photos posted all over this forum and it is clear and simple: dudes wore tight jeans back then (post-war on, that is).

furthermore, if sugar cane's cut is more accurate, then i would have to insist that brando and the dudes above were not wearing 1947 levi's. period. as a true 36 waist, i would have to buy size 30 sc47s to get that kinda fit through the seat and thighs. nobody sizes down that much.

that's a nice looking pair anyhow though. thanks for posting the photo.

[crumps brother]

got my 32/34 '67 505's i got in the mail the other day...they were a bit of an impulse buy from end clothing w/ a 25% off coupon code...the 33/34 is a lil' sloppy in the waist after stretching a bit

took pics of both...size 33/34 on left and 32/34

measurements are pretty much the same except the waist...

33/34 32/34

waist 17.75 16

front rise 11 11

back rise 16 15.25

inseam 34.5 33.5 (surprised me a bit)

opening 8.25 8.25

knee 8.75 8.25

the knees are obviously stretched a lil' bit on the 33/34 though

[Leonard Leroy]

Also, fuck you jbone my lvcs is nicer than yours

again, thanks to pomata

[akka225]

started wearing my 1947's a couple days ago. no real wear yet, but i'm loving the fit on these, definitely slimmer than what i'm used to.

[Leonard Leroy]

fit like this:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x306/LeonardLeroy/mememe.jpg

[roy6]

I'm getting married in Pismo this weekend. You jealous?

.

So what are you doing hanging around here? Don't you have your hands full? Gonna get caught and beat on by the old lady if you keep this up.

[airfrogusmc]

this photo is anything but a reliable way of comparing cuts. the proportions on this pair are VERY odd. i would guess they belonged to a very large and rather short person.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i took a ruler to my monitor and these are the measurements i found:

front rise = 2.5"

inseam = 4" (as they are cuffed in that photo)

leg opening = 1.5" (more like 1.65" but 1.5" is easier)

assuming a 32" inseam (which i think is fairly standard) i did some cross multiplication and came up with the following:

2.5/4 = X/32 ----> 20 inch front rise!

1.5/4 = X/32 ----> 12 inch (24 circumference) leg opening!

we all know that these are nowhere near accurate measurements for originals or reproductions. its been awhile since i had to bust out this much arithmetic, but i'm pretty sure these are sound calculations.

in short: while that may be a pair of 501s from or produced in 1947, they are an odd waist/inseam combo or were shot at a strange angle or resized for print or something else.

you can look at the photo Paul T posted above, or any number of brando photos posted all over this forum and it is clear and simple: dudes wore tight jeans back then (post-war on, that is).

furthermore, if sugar cane's cut is more accurate, then i would have to insist that brando and the dudes above were not wearing 1947 levi's. period. as a true 36 waist, i would have to buy size 30 sc47s to get that kinda fit through the seat and thighs. nobody sizes down that much.

that's a nice looking pair anyhow though. thanks for posting the photo.

No you're totoally right but you can get a rough idea of proportion but the fact is if you take a pair of 55s and a pair or 47s the same size waist measured not tagged the 47s will be trimmer in the legs seat and thigh than the 55s and they shouldn't be. Not saying thats bad just that they are trimmer. This years 47s aren't as slim as previous years that I've owned but they are still trimmer.

[electrum]

electrum is a bitch

What brought that on you pissant calling ME a bitch? That's too funny, I mean aren't you that creepy girlie guy who likes to post pictures of yourself dressed up like a biker?? Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else, BITCH.

[seanieboy]

Two thumbs up for this

Woah - some tempers here!

Im new to SuFu, so I don't want to step in where my opinions aren't warranted, but after 15 years of buying and working in the industry, and a day job in tailored menswear, I have some insights that might be pertinent.

I hear what Electrum is saying to a point. LVC's have all the issues of jeans made in the 50's when quality controls weren't to high production standards. Tolerances in modern clothing production can be from 5 to 10mm, meaning garments are incredibly consistent. When I studied tailoring and design, we used CAD pattern making, which has been superceded time and again in 13 short years. Patterns cut in he 40's and 50's would have been blanket cut (20 or 30 layers stacked and cut at a time) from paper patterns. Depending on the angle of the cut or the position in the stack, a pattern piece might be out by over 20mm. So vintage pieces can have huge variances even in the same year and model.

When I met the guys from Levi's (Hello Rikke!) they told me that LVC was the reward for designers who had been with Levi's for years - the best of Levi's technical people. Things may have changed in the last ten years, but if that is still true, invariably these guys would be bringing their own likes and dislikes to the "interpretation" of vintage pieces. From the weights of denim to the qualities of the leather patch to the fits.

I have plenty of LVC. Too much my wife keeps reminding me. I prefer my Samurai's or Evis, but most Japanese makers are making vintage styled jeans in weights and qualities far above the humble workwear origins of Levi's. As much as I like 15oz denim, most customers I speak to prefer 12oz and lower. So LVC would be preferable to most laymen. But then they'd probably prefer a light and comfortable, modern cut jean anyway.

So is LVC worth the money? Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Some guys love the pure indigo wear you get with LVC, or the light weights that wear more easily. Not me, not all the time, but my opinion have no bearing on the value of a product.

Is there a production cost to price ratio in the LVC range? Certainly - the hand finish on the products are incredible, and the real cost that nobody seems to consider - research, product development, QC and pattern grading/making - is much higher when you have a different cut or twenty to worry about every season. Evis is still using patterns developed in the 90's, in fabric and detail that hasn't changed. LVC is making new stuff all the time.

Is LVC a true vintage replica? Sure. According to who, though. We all know how speculative vintage can be. I collect Omegas from the 70's, and even there where there are manuals and production/repair books to go from, people will still bicker over what is more correct. We are talking about runs of workwear that had nowhere near the exacting specifications of a watch.

So if you have to ask if it's worth the money, you've missed the point. But I'm positive that there is something you get Super Maniac over that I wouldnt understand. That's what makes these forums so excellent to attend.

[LpotRs]

Yup, I'd bet on it. Your money, but I'd bet on it.

I've just looked at my Homerun t-shirt, and again there are lots of numbers, but the relevant one would be 0303 I would have thought, making it from the Spring '03 collection

Btw I have a pair of '55 LVC jeans that have 554 on the top button, making them Made in Texas according to the info herein

Keep up the great work, and Good Luck in the remainder of the football (soccer)...

[roy6]

I've just looked at my Homerun t-shirt, and again there are lots of numbers, but the relevant one would be 0303 I would have thought, making it from the Spring '03 collection .

I ♥ the homerun t, pic please.

[roy6]

Since I had the Rough 'n' Ready jacket out, admiring it, and found myself in a cool urban location...

[crownzip]

Roy, Again, cool looking jacket. I've got a Sears Hercules half belt work jacket from the early 40's that's similar in design I'll try and post photos of. The color of your duck reminds me of 40's-50's Carhartt's. Nice!

[airfrogusmc]

Agree!!!!!!!

[Goominim]

He looks completely different from his video. Look at that freak of a chain stitch!

[LandoCal126]

He looks completely different from his video. Look at that freak of a chain stitch!

Roy6 ain't ROY Denim...

[Goominim]

Roy6 ain't ROY Denim...

D'oh! I'm going to reread that Roy thread now.

[entertainment!]

Roy, that tower on Twin Peaks with the three horns is the Devil Tower. Does that mean you're the devil? Is that why you posed in front of it?

Nice jacket, by the way.

[Dr_Heech]

Damn, that jacket looks good on you Roy. Nice pix btw.

Just repped you so you'll have to wait another year before I can rep you again..Lol.

.

[roy6]

Thanks guys! This is one of my favorite jackets. If there was a fire, this is about the first thing I'd grab on the way out. Oh, maybe the cats too.

Entertainment- where'd you get that story about Sutro tower's spires? I like it.

Edit: crownzip- the pants seem to be made from the same Cone duck LVC used for this last batch of 1873 pants and the duck jumper. It really is a fantastic color. Pretty comfortable, too.

[almostnice]

Roy, that tower on Twin Peaks with the three horns is the Devil Tower. Does that mean you're the devil? Is that why you posed in front of it?

Nice jacket, by the way.

sure he is.such diabolical good fits can only be achieved by the devil himself.

but he is only one of the four riders of the apocalypse who are striking terror into sufuer's hearts...

[roy6]

sure he is.such diabolical good fits can only be achieved by the devil himself.

but he is only one of the four riders of the apocalypse who are striking terror into sufuer's hearts...

Hey, Pestilence. 'Sup?

[almostnice]

far too soft.

moth plague?

[sayocean]

Some 1947 Lovin'. Here are my brother's 501s, worn for almost half a year with one dry clean and a hot wash? I absolute love the small details like the noticeably thinner selvage line and how the leather patch ages.