Levi's Vintage Clothing

[ramoer]

The 1901's are pretty similar all in all, so are the '15's and '17's. You can go tts on measured size btw. They won't be all too baggy, the real baggy ones are the late '20's and 30's. Mind you, the fit will be very different from the slim cuts you seem to be used to.

Yeah...it looks like a looser fit...

Would you say those photos are pretty accurate on the fit? Also, does the selvage have a redline? Ive seen some photos with and some without redline....

[Paul T]

1901 never have redline, that only turned up in 1922.

Here's a fit-pic, sized up by the normal two inches - I take a 32 waist, these were an oversize 34, which measure around 33-34 after wash. Ideally, you'd measure the jeans you're buying and size up by one inch. You can certainly size down on the 1915 (make sure you check out the actual, measured size, these too are made oversize).

I own 1890s, and the 1901, the 1901 is a much more attractive shape. There are photos of eltopo weatring an Indigo Immortal pair I sold him, and they look great, too. Of the single pocket jeans, the Nevada, or Knappave, is the more flattering cut.

The Clerk has 1901s that are, I think, actual size, and they look great, much trimmer than this:

Here we go. A week on the farm with 1900s-style cabin, stove, brit army braces, 1901 LVC and Sunset Shirt.

(and apologies to anyone who, like almostnice, is offended by the untidy cabin)

[Maynard Friedman]

Yeah...it looks like a looser fit...

Would you say those photos are pretty accurate on the fit? Also, does the selvage have a redline? Ive seen some photos with and some without redline....

The selvage is plain with no redline, that didn't appear until somewhere in the 1920s. There's no chainstitch at the hem either.

Ask for actual measurements rather than relying purely on tag size. My 30/34 1915s measured 34/35 raw.

[Dr_Heech]

1901 never have redline, that only turned up in 1922.

Er, wasn't it 1927?

Love those 1901's Paul, never get sick of seeing 'em.

(still waiting for your measurements btw)

.

[entertainment!]

Here are some fit pics I posted of the 1915s a while back. I went tts measured. IIRC, the 32 waist measured a little over 35 BiG style, but I would definitely recommend asking for measurements.

[Paul T]

there's confusion between the LVC model numbers, and the historical record.

Cone started supplying Levi's in 1915, and produced the fabric exclusively from 1922 - altho of course the first LVC model with redline Cone fabric is designated as 1927.

Edit: Romoer seems to have turned up an eBay pair that look authentic, ie non Thai but have redline fabric, that looks more like a 60s hue. Maybe a production sample or other aberration.

[Dr_Heech]

there's confusion between the LVC model numbers, and the historical record.

Cone started supplying Levi's in 1915, and produced the fabric exclusively from 1922 - altho of course the first LVC model with redline Cone fabric is designated as 1927.

But I thought Cone developed the heavier 10oz fabric in 1927, which had the added visual aid of the redline added to it then.

Before then it was 9oz plain selvedge.

It is confusing, as in Lynn's book (evo of the jean) she confirms the above.

.

[Paul T]

No, that sounds right, Cone were supplying exclusively from 1922, but added the redline, with a heavier weight arund 1927, more or less the same time as the belt loops, chainstitch and roundtop rivets, I oversimplified, my bad.

[Stratos]

But I thought Cone developed the heavier 10oz fabric in 1927, which had the added visual aid of the redline added to it then.

Before then it was 9oz plain selvedge.

It is confusing, as in Lynn's book (evo of the jean) she confirms the above.

.

With all due respect for Paul's excellent work and that of other historians, but it is very very difficult to make any more than some general statements on the evolution of a piece of work clothing, especially since a lot of information has been lost or never even been recorded before the rationalisation of production after WWII. Also, there simply MUST have been transitional and off standard models It is confusing indeed...

[Paul T]

One thing, I would sure never claim to nail those dates definiteively, I'm going by what Lynn and Cone say. And there's a huge amount of variation, as has been discussed before, with the originals - even the construction varies, bigtime. They used the fabric they had, and that varied itself - Cone might well have been using different dyeing methods over the same period, they reckon. Often the specified date, let's say 1927, is when all production has changed, but those dates are definitely nominal, rather than definitive.

[Stratos]

Take the discussion a few days ago on the eBay seller who claims his jeans are 501's dated between '22 and '25, don't know why he claims that and he hasn't answered me back since. Btw: no bids there yet...

[ramoer]

Here are some fit pics I posted of the 1915s a while back. I went tts measured. IIRC, the 32 waist measured a little over 35 BiG style, but I would definitely recommend asking for measurements.

Those look excellent. The fit looks much slimmer on the 1915s than other photos Ive seen. I may consider that model...

[Paul T]

The 1915 also have the most attractive fabric, I reckon.

[Leonard Leroy]

Sooo 1947 stretching estimations, haven't gotten them in yet, but my pomata size 30 1955s shrunk to a 28, and currently sit at 31 in the waist. They could easily go to a 32.

Does this have any bearing on the 1947?

[akka225]

i think 47's will stretch somewhat less in the waist and not so much in the thighs.

[bluegoldblues]

where is this charming little cabin of yours paul?

[Paul T]

where is this charming little cabin of yours paul?

Just rented for the week (for a formidable cost) - featherdown farms, the middle class camping experience that costs as much as a decent hotel.

I think they're taken from a dutch concept, cottonduck has been somewhere very similar (his place has a wind-up gramphone):

http://www.verborgenverblijf.nl/

[erk]

the 1915 is amazing. If you're gonna get an early jean, I'd go for the 1915. but I do really love your 1901s paul.

fit from a while back.

[tropicalbird]

Those hues...

[grooveholmes]

Dude, where did you get that WXDU shirt. I need one.

[erk]

Dude, where did you get that WXDU shirt. I need one.

haha, my band played there and they gave us free shirts.

you can buy a recording here - http://digguptapes.com/222-2 but you can also just listen to the whole thing for free.

[josh mullen]

Sounds good. Ever play in Chicago?

[erk]

Sounds good. Ever play in Chicago?

ha, yeah at the Honky Tonk bbq. which was some of the best bbq I've had. our lead singer couldn't play though. so I fronted the group playing my own stuff. the rest of the guys knew the material already cause we've played shows before. So we've played my songs in Greenville NC and Chicago. As a band we've toured all the way across the country - even met Landocal in SanFran.

I hope to go back again soon and play a real set. maybe not at a bbq joint.

[josh mullen]

Honky Tonk is great. Let me know you guys ever make it back to Chicago.

[jake431]

Yeah, please do - more Chicago visits please.

[Leonard Leroy]

lol at my Levis.... think I'm going to wear these raw for a little bit and then soak them.

[erk]

lol at my Levis.... think I'm going to wear these raw for a little bit and then soak them.

maybe a little tight? did you end up going for the 66?

[Leonard Leroy]

haha, I bought a pair of 1947s on this whim because there was a cheap deal on it on supermarket.

i mean they fit fine now, might have to wear them as they dry.

But for reference, I wouldn't mind wearing a sz 29 in the future.

Just going to wear them out and give the waist a head start on stretching.

[Leonard Leroy]

sup airfrogusmc.

[josh mullen]

Erk -- Really, there are worse things than playing in great BBQ joints.

L. Leroy -- Man, just wear them raw, and never soak.