Levi's Vintage Clothing

[denimjunky]

The cut/model is lovely, though.

[setterman]

Not so very happy with my LVC type I jacket. The fabric is kindof flimsy, isnt it? Whats the weight of it anyway?

The 1937 501s are advertised at 10 oz at cultizm. The 506 is made from the same denim. Yeah, it's a bit light. I haven't had two months wear in my 37s and the back pocket rivets are showing as much wear as my 55s, which have at least five times as much wear.

[dr.house]

It's not the weight of the denim that makes the quality, buddy! And tbh, isn't a bit "lighter" denim more comfortable? I love the weight of my lvc bottoms, I'm not such a big fan of heavyweights (nevertheless I bought Tilmanns 19 oz. samurai).

[setterman]

It's not the weight of the denim that makes the quality, buddy! And tbh, isn't a bit "lighter" denim more comfortable? I love the weight of my lvc bottoms, I'm not such a big fan of heavyweights (nevertheless I bought Tilmanns 19 oz. samurai).

Yeah, even though my 506 is light, I expect it will hold up well.

As for the heavy weight stuff, my FC 0105Cs are in the 15 oz range, that's heavy enough for me! I have no desire to wear the 19+ oz stuff that's the current rage.

[roy6]

Miner's and cowboys used to layer- jackets over jackets over shirts over thermals, even pants over pants.

I guess the jacket over jeans and a T thing didn't really happen until the late '40s or 50s.

[Stratos]

Indeed, the weight has no immediate relation to the quality, I have a pair of 1890's that seem paper thin, but the fabric is very very strong. I don't like the heavyweight trend, it's missing the point really...

[colgems1966]

my 555 506xx is heavy. seems like at least 14oz. at 10yrs. old it's barely even faded any. btw for some reason 555's in 506,507 &557 turn up regularly on ebay. the majority of them NWT.

[bod]

My 1 month old 66's, great leg twist, think these will take a lot of time to breakdown. Love 'em.

[denimjunky]

It's not the weight of the denim that makes the quality, buddy!

Indeed, the weight has no immediate relation to the quality

Did I say that?

I just prefer stiff and heavy enough denim. Not flimsy something. Then I just wear a shirt.

[Stratos]

You did not say that, you may have implied it, whatever. Thing is: LVC tries to stay true to the historical facts, and they have it that denim simply was a whole lot lighter weight in those days.

[colgems1966]

You did not say that, you may have implied it, whatever. Thing is: LVC tries to stay true to the historical facts, and they have it that denim simply was a whole lot lighter weight in those days.

i don't know if i agree with that. i have handled original 506's and they didn't seem thin/ felt like 14oz. though that is a guess. they very well might have used different denim weights on the jacket. it would make sense that they did, shirt weights were different. if levis were overly concerned about historical accuracy the jackets wouldn't be made in turkey. i've never seen an original vintage turkish 506.

[Stratos]

Nah, ok, that's right. Then again, if they used 14oz for the earlier repro's, they might have gotten that wrong...Doesn't really matter all that much, just to say that 'guestimating' that the earlier jackets were a lighter weight seems plausible.

[setterman]

My 1 month old 66's, great leg twist, think these will take a lot of time to breakdown. Love 'em.

Gave my 55s a break today and wore my 66s. They're going to be a great pair of jeans. I'm suprised the model doesn't get more love here.

My impression, they're darker and stiffer than any other pair of LVC I've owned. Very similiar in weight to the 55s, but maybe with a tighter weave.

I agree with you, they're going to take some time to wear in (and that's fine by me!).

[entertainment!]

According to the book published by Levi's called "501: The Evolution of the Jean," 9 oz fabric was used up to the 1917 model, from 1927 to 1937 the fabric was 10 oz, and from 1944 on it was 12 oz. My understanding is that the jackets used the same fabric as the jeans, so it makes sense that the LVC type I would use a 10 oz fabric if it is historically accurate.

[rnrswitch]

According to the book published by Levi's called "501: The Evolution of the Jean," 9 oz fabric was used up to the 1917 model, from 1927 to 1937 the fabric was 10 oz, and from 1944 on it was 12 oz. My understanding is that the jackets used the same fabric as the jeans, so it makes sense that the LVC type I would use a 10 oz fabric if it is historically accurate.

Furthermore, I think those weight are all pre-shrinkage, so after the allotted 10% shrinkage, the 9oz goes to about 10 or 11oz, the 10 oz goes to about 12oz, and the 12oz stuff goes to about 14oz.

I myself don't like to feel like I am wearing something flimsy for a jacket, such as the 506, so I have moved on to metal armor for ultimate durability. 24oz ain't got nothin on that shit...

[erk]

the heaviest I've experienced are my pair of samurai s5000vx and I don't think I'll ever venture into that realm again. Its just too hot for summer wear. the 14oz (post wash) 55's and 47's are more up my alley. Although the comfiest, softest I've got is definitely the 1915. super durable too. not a single hole yet, and still a pleasure to wear.

I do think a jacket made out of the 9 or 10oz denim would be a little flimsy feeling. Another reason I'm trying to get my hands on a type 2.

[colgems1966]

erk the early LVC 506's are heavy too. as i said earlier 555 usa made 506's and 507's turn up on ebay regularly. most are still NWT and are reasonably priced. i have a 555 506 i paid $68 for yrs. ago. i didn't like the buckle and replaced it with an original "solide" buckle like on the original 506. other than the 555 stamp you could not tell it from an original. i am very pleased with it.

[dr.house]

Less love on the 66 is something I always wonder about too. It's such a great jean and one of the best classic cuts ever. Pretty stiff after soak and great denim, completely different fabric and more 'japanese-like' imo. Learn more about the 66 :

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=253488&page=7

[jstavrin]

Pardon me for what is possibly a very stupid question, but why does denim weight increase after washing?

[colgems1966]

Pardon me for what is possibly a very stupid question, but why does denim weight increase after washing?

i believe the weight is oz. per yard. when you wash them the weave tightens up making the fabric "heavier".

[colgems1966]

Less love on the 66 is something I always wonder about too. It's such a great jean and one of the best classic cuts ever. Pretty stiff after soak and great denim, completely different fabric and more 'japanese-like' imo. Learn more about the 66 :

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=253488&page=7

i'm a 66 fan too. just a guess here but i think a lot of people don't like the arcs and also the closer you get to modern the more vintage features you lose (hidden rivets etc) but the price is the same. it's even worse for the 78 and 83 501's, they get no love.

[jake431]

i'm a 66 fan too. just a guess here but i think a lot of people don't like the arcs and also the closer you get to modern the more vintage features you lose (hidden rivets etc) but the price is the same. it's even worse for the 78 and 83 501's, they get no love.

I love the 66's. I have a pair of the 67 505's. There's something great about those late 60's cuts, imho.

[colgems1966]

yeah i agree the 66 501 and 67 505 both have very flattering cuts. my u.s. made LVC 505's are my favorite pair of jeans i own.

[dr.house]

The 60s cut is the most modern vintage cut imo. And yeah, I'm looking also for a pair of 78's to complete my collection.

[Stratos]

So am I, and I love my '67 505's, beautiful cut, beautiful denim, and very modern yet vintage.

[Paul T]

Pardon me for what is possibly a very stupid question, but why does denim weight increase after washing?

Weight is per square yard. What ends up as a square yard after wash, will have been more than a square yard before, nearly 1.2 square yards, so the weight per square yard goes up by roughly 15 %. After wash the fibres are packed together more densely,

Less love on the 66 is something I always wonder about too./QUOTE]

THe fabric on the 66 is quite unique, more slubby than its predecessors, as I've mentioned before Cone introduced a new spinning process in the mid 60s, and - comparing washed examples of the original and repro side by side - the repro fabric copies this very accurately. A great, versatile cut too. It's just a detail, but I wish they didn't exaggerate the shallowness of the arcs quite so much.

[dr.house]

Check the arcs on those 66 on the right side below. They look similar to the repros (and NO V-stitch ;-)

[Paul T]

Well, yes, they're shallow, but the repros are shallower still!

The arcuates they had on the 517 repros were far more representative of the general shape in the late 60s. It's certainly possible that a few originals did have arcuates as shallow as the repros, but I think they've exaggerated it, to accentuate the difference with other versions.

[tropicalbird]

Shallow arcs works best for flat asses. I like the arcs on '47, the way it follows the contours of a nicely shaped ass. hmm delicious.

[jewellben]

I got a pair of 66 over Christmas, previously I've stayed clear of them as there was little appeal with no cinch, hidden rivet etc as per the earlier models, however they have become one of my favourite and the arc is so different to other models.

They are the only LVC anyone who doesn't know about my obsession has asked me about as they look different from standard Levis.