Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Stratos]

Well, if you ever consider selling 'm, I might just be interested...I really don't care too much how historically accurate they are and actually I think buyers customized a lot in those days, so they might not be 'as they were' but rather 'as they could/might have been'.

Other guess: LVC might just have reproduced a transitional model? Or perhaps a prototype? Who knows, I mean, with all the millions of jeans produced there may be some very surprising hybrids about.

[Dom]

Thanks again guys. This was great info. I'm curious though, Josh, what it is about the '54 that you don't like. Is it the denim itself?

I might be one of the few, but I like the fit on the '54 and I have a couple other LVC's. If you'd like, I'll post a "fit pic" later this week. (Been worn on/off for months, though)

[josh mullen]

its a cool-ass cut, just not what i'm looking for. fit pics would be nice, there are relatively few of them around.

[Stratos]

For what it's worth I'm not clear how the 1954 LVC cut bears any resemblance to any actual jeans cut from that era irrespective of whether it's considered an appealing cut for today or not. And bear in mind when the jeans shrink this may affect whether the zip works or not........

Just my thoughts on the 'era' thing: let's face it, LVC fans are not wearing 'historical' jeans, we are merely wearing very high quality limited productions that take certain characteristics of historical jeans. They do approach the real thing very closely sometimes, but they are still mere interpretations. I totally understand that LVC every now and then carries this interpretation thing rather far. Don't forget that we're talking about a mass produced items that are prone to serious differences within and between batches. Transitional models do exist, limited models do exist, at one time or another a designer may have taken liberties. Also, in the 50's labour was cheap and skilled taylors were abound. Furthermore, lots of people were capable of customizing clothes and jeans were a cheap item to home experiment with.

Matter of fact: we ourselves are 'interpreting', I don't see anyone wearing late 19th cy 501's the way they were supposed to be worn, because they'd be the laughing stock of the neighbourhood with their waist overalls pulled up all the way to their false ribs.

I think you shouldn't worry too much about accuracy, if the materials and fabrics are ok, and there are no obvious anachronisms, it's ok with me :-)

But that's just my opinion ;-)

[setterman]

I think you shouldn't worry too much about accuracy,

If we're not concerned about accuracy, then why buy LVC? I thought the whole point of raw LVC denim was to get as close as possible to historic models?

Personally, the '54s are a disappointment to me. If they were done the way the should have been done (take the '55, put a leather 501Z patch and zipper on it, and maybe an offset rear belt loop), I know I'd own a pair, and that model would probably get a lot more love around here. As it stands right now, it's running neck and neck with the 78s and 83s for the title of "most ignored current model".

[Stratos]

If we're not concerned about accuracy, then why buy LVC? I thought the whole point of raw LVC denim was to get as close as possible to historic models?

Look, I'm not saying accuracy is not important, I'm just saying that there is room for interpretation, without necessarily jeopardizing accuracy. I mean, a cinch on a pair of 50's jeans would be plain ridiculous, but I don't see why LVC shouldn't produce a model that within reason 'could' have been in its era? Take for instance the 'customized' 1915's (at least I think they were...) with added leather belt loops and back pocket flaps. I don't think LVCcan produce the real thing, but it very well might have been around.

In my opinion, 'historical accuracy' does not necessarily mean that every reproduction needs to be an exactl copy of an existing historical sample. If it 'could' have been, moreso, if it likely has been, it's ok with me. And then it's up to us, the customer, to decide what reproductions we want to go with and what not.

Do you want to stick to exact replica's of historical items? Fine, but I like some historical educated guesses every now and then. But again, it''s just my opinion.

[josh mullen]

i tend to enjoy the models i believe most closely resemble the vintage levi's styles they are meant to reproduce -- '44's, '55's, and '67's. the '54's are cool if you're looking for a modern cut though, and i can definitely understand how some would find them easier to integrate into their wardrobes.

[jwsach]

I always dug lvc for the repo aspeckts... they dun even fit me that good, and i doubt 0.1% of people on the street know im wearing LVCs and not regular levis

[josh mullen]

i've never had anyone ask me about my LVCs. I kinda like it that way.

[grooveholmes]

It's kind of weird to think that XX has designated Made & Crafted to be the wing that does the sometimes-retro-re-interpretation-thing. That sort of aesthetic seems to be bleeding into the LVC line and seems out of place. I suppose I can understand why and how some little details may pose a problem with regard to accuracy, but making something up on the LVC-side "in the spirit of [insert model and year here]" doesn't jive with the directions LMC and LVC are supposed to be going in.

[Dr_Heech]

If we're not concerned about accuracy, then why buy LVC? I thought the whole point of raw LVC denim was to get as close as possible to historic models?

Personally, the '54s are a disappointment to me. If they were done the way the should have been done (take the '55, put a leather 501Z patch and zipper on it, and maybe an offset rear belt loop), I know I'd own a pair, and that model would probably get a lot more love around here. As it stands right now, it's running neck and neck with the 78s and 83s for the title of "most ignored current model".

Outta rep at the mo. but got to agree here with Setterman.

The less accurate the model, the less desirable it is to own.

Lvc should stick to accurate historical models, and leave all the other levis-lines to interpretation (engineered, signature, red, M+C...etc)

.

[Madder_Lake]

I think the issue of authenticity has arisen here because there is an opinion that the 54 is not like the '55, which is seen as the authentic 50's cut. But what if that is the wrong (i.e. anachronistic) way of seeing it? Perhaps Levi's were looking to produce a modified zip-fly '47 cut and lowered the rise and tapered the leg. But then in 1955 someone came in and said, wait, we are going to completely redesign the 501 jean, more in line with our roots. And this gave us the '55 jean, which lasted for 11 years, until there was a move back to the '47 shape in '66.

I would be very surprised — shocked even — if the '54 jean was not a pretty accurate rendition of the historical '54 501Z. It is a great pity that we have no actual 54 501z's to compare it to. I must confess I'd never heard of it until I saw it on Cultizm.

[dr.house]

I thought the '54 was made after a customized pair they've got in their archives?

[Madder_Lake]

I thought the '54 was made after a customized pair they've got in their archives?

Certainly not according to Cultizm, who claim that it was a regular production model.

"The 1950's brought a rebellious youth revolution in which icons such as Marlon Brando gave denim, and particular the 501, an iconic status. In the mid 1950's Levi Strauss & Co. became a national phenomen. In order to make potential consumers comfortable with the company's products, LS&Co. introduced a zipper version of the button fly shrink to fit jeans in 1954.: the 501Z . It had everything longtime wearers loved: the silhoutte, the tough but flexible fabric, rivets, etc. Retailers carried both the 501 and its zippered brother, the 501Z, and everyone got the pair of Levi's jeans that worked best for them."

[LFC4ever]

Yes I think the demand for a ipper came from the East coast. Interestingly Denime's interpretation of the 1954 model (I think) is a much tighter fit than their XX model, Sugar Cane's Made in the USA 1955 with a zip (and I assume they kept making them in 1955) is a typical loose 1955 cut.

[dr.house]

Certainly not according to Cultizm, who claim that it was a regular production model.

"The 1950's brought a rebellious youth revolution in which icons such as Marlon Brando gave denim, and particular the 501, an iconic status. In the mid 1950's Levi Strauss & Co. became a national phenomen. In order to make potential consumers comfortable with the company's products, LS&Co. introduced a zipper version of the button fly shrink to fit jeans in 1954.: the 501Z . It had everything longtime wearers loved: the silhoutte, the tough but flexible fabric, rivets, etc. Retailers carried both the 501 and its zippered brother, the 501Z, and everyone got the pair of Levi's jeans that worked best for them."

And where's the buttonflyed brother then? I've read somewhere that the 54 is a CUSTOMIZED version...dam, I can't remember where. Which jean of this decade got slim tapered legs else? My 54's is dam slim, not to compare with 47's or 55's, not a bit.

[Madder_Lake]

And where's the buttonflyed brother then? I've read somewhere that the 54 is a CUSTOMIZED version...dam, I can't remember where. Which jean of this decade got slim tapered legs else? My 54's is dam slim, not to compare with 47's or 55's, not a bit.

As I say I just think that this is a backward, anachronistic, way of looking at it. As a related point note that the '55 was introduced half way through the decade. It can hardly define the entire decade. Most of the guys in that decade would have been wearing the Forties cuts. So slim cuts would have been the norm.

Still, if you remember where you've heard the '54 was a custom cut, not production, please post.

[Maynard Friedman]

If we can get rnrswitch to go back to the 1950s (in the time machine he used to check he won the ROY contest) and undertake a comprehensive analysis of the jeans of that era, we can finally put an end to this debate once and for all.

[Paul T]

Certainly not according to Cultizm, who claim that it was a regular production model.

"."

Cul;tizm are wrong - LVC did the 54 just as something funky and different, reinterpreting the jean with a more modern, skinny cut.

THey've done this in the past. In fact, they've done it again recently with a terrific pair of jeans, the lot 66, which is a pair of pants converted from an overall. But the 54 is a bit of a curate's egg, and worst of all they didn't really publicise what it is consistently, which is why people like Cultizm got confused.

[Madder_Lake]

If we can get rnrswitch to go back to the 1950s in the time machine he used to check he won the ROY contest, we can put an end to this debate for one and all.

The thought of Mr Switch with his sarcasm trying to make himself understood to the humourless cold war denizens of the '50's is almost too frightening to contemplate.

[Madder_Lake]

Cul;tizm are wrong - LVC did the 54 just as something funky and different, reinterpreting the jean with a more modern, skinny cut.

THey've done this in the past. In fact, they've done it again recently with a terrific pair of jeans, the lot 66, which is a pair of pants converted from an overall. But the 54 is a bit of a curate's egg, and worst of all they didn't really publicise what it is consistently, which is why people like Cultizm got confused.

Thanks, I take that as an authoritative response.

[setterman]

I think the issue of authenticity has arisen here because there is an opinion that the 54 is not like the '55, which is seen as the authentic 50's cut. But what if that is the wrong (i.e. anachronistic) way of seeing it? Perhaps Levi's were looking to produce a modified zip-fly '47 cut and lowered the rise and tapered the leg. But then in 1955 someone came in and said, wait, we are going to completely redesign the 501 jean, more in line with our roots. And this gave us the '55 jean, which lasted for 11 years, until there was a move back to the '47 shape in '66.

I would be very surprised — shocked even — if the '54 jean was not a pretty accurate rendition of the historical '54 501Z. It is a great pity that we have no actual 54 501z's to compare it to. I must confess I'd never heard of it until I saw it on Cultizm.

The '55 wasn't designed in '55. As far as I know, the change in cut from what we refer to as the '47, to what we refer to as the '55, occurred in 1953. Levis is using '55 as the year for their 50s 501, because that's the year the change was made from the leather to paper patch (so it has historical signifigance). The '55 cut was around from 1953 to what? 1962? 1963? A 1954... 1955.... 1957.... 501Z should be identical to it's button fly brother aside from the zipper and labeling on the patch.

Now, I have no problem with Levis altering jeans in the LVC line, if they're copying a vintage jean in their archive, and it's part of the predistressed line. But IMO, the goal of the raw jeans should be getting as close as possible to you walking into a store 50 years ago and pulling a brand new pair of Levis off the shelf.

[dr.house]

But IMO, the goal of the raw jeans should be getting as close as possible to you walking into a store 50 years ago and pulling a brand new pair of Levis off the shelf.

Yeah, but I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking. We all know that the 47 cut differs a lot from the original (Sugar Cane 47I are a lot closer to the original), just for example. Nevrtheless it's a great jean with a great cut and a great vintage feeling.

[setterman]

Yeah, but I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

I don't expect them to get things 100% correct, but for $200+ for a pair of jeans, I expect them to make a helluva an effort! ;-)

[Paul T]

I don't expect them to get things 100% correct, but for $200+ for a pair of jeans, I expect them to make a helluva an effort! ;-)

Sounds reasonable!

I like the 47, don't feel offended by the 54, but I would like them to include rayon red tabs . Now the npper is conductong tests on his 60s 302, it's obvious the original tabs get distressed and distorted really quickly; it would be far better if the repro version did so, too.

1969-70 tag, 10 weeks wear...

[setterman]

Sounds reasonable!

I like the 47, don't feel offended by the 54, but I would like them to include rayon red tabs . Now the npper is conductong tests on his 60s 302, it's obvious the original tabs get distressed and distorted really quickly; it would be far better if the repro version did so, too.

Another reason why it would nice if there was an open line of communication open between LVC and it's customers. "Hi, I've been wearing a pair of LVC the 12 months, here's what I've noticed about them compared to originals".

I'm going to enjoy seeing how those 302s wear in. I have a friend that was in his teens during the late 50s and wore Levis all the time. I've shown him how my MIJ and LVC that I've worn in to varying degrees, and some jeans on sufu, and he's said "that's not how they wore in back then. They were very dark and very gradually faded over all." Looks like the 302s are taking their time, and it will be neat to see where they go.

[Madder_Lake]

The '55 wasn't designed in '55. As far as I know, the change in cut from what we refer to as the '47, to what we refer to as the '55, occurred in 1953. Levis is using '55 as the year for their 50s 501, because that's the year the change was made from the leather to paper patch (so it has historical signifigance). The '55 cut was around from 1953 to what? 1962? 1963? A 1954... 1955.... 1957.... 501Z should be identical to it's button fly brother aside from the zipper and labeling on the patch.

Now, I have no problem with Levis altering jeans in the LVC line, if they're copying a vintage jean in their archive, and it's part of the predistressed line. But IMO, the goal of the raw jeans should be getting as close as possible to you walking into a store 50 years ago and pulling a brand new pair of Levis off the shelf.

I agree with you about the need for historical accuracy in LVC. But in that same spirit and with a semi-amateur interest in history, I like evidence for historical claims; so what is the evidence that the '55 redesign occurred earlier? Are there any photographs of the 55 redesign with a leather patch, as required?

[setterman]

I agree with you about the need for historical accuracy in LVC. But in that same spirit and with a semi-amateur interest in history, I like evidence for historical claims; so what is the evidence that the '55 redesign occurred earlier? Are there any photographs of the 55 redesign with a leather patch, as required?

I believe Paul has mentioned several times throughout this thread that the change in pattern took place in '52 or '53, and I've seen Japanese publications that also refer to 1953 as the start date of the "50s model".

Here's some nice pictures 501s that would have been made in '53 or '54. Leather patch, offset belt loop, and (at least to my eye) the '50s shape.

http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/vintage-levis-501-jeans-i-ask-you-is-there-anything-better/

[Madder_Lake]

I believe Paul has mentioned several times throughout this thread that the change in pattern took place in '52 or '53, and I've seen Japanese publications that also refer to 1953 as the start date of the "50s model".

Here's some nice pictures 501s that would have been made in '53 or '54. Leather patch, offset belt loop, and (at least to my eye) the '50s shape.

http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/vintage-levis-501-jeans-i-ask-you-is-there-anything-better/

Thanks for that link. I'd seen those before but I can't make out enough detail on them to know when they are from. But they certainly look nice and it is a shade of blue that I remember very well.

[Dom]

LEVI 501Z XX 1954 (worn by me, 6 months +/-)

LEVI x Filson Trucker Jacket

Enjoy the infamous 54 LVC!