Levi's Vintage Clothing

[roy6]

^Those are both knockouts. What was his turnaround time for these two beauties?

[airfrogusmc]

^Those are both knockouts. What was his turnaround time for these two beauties?

The Werber was about 6 months if I remember correctly. The A-1 was a return from another costumer. John called me about it with a great price so I jumped on it. My fav is my Monarch M-422. It was on of the first ones he made and I think the turn around on that one was 4 months.

Its a real beauty and check out how light the mouton has gotten. The mouton on this jacket is old mouton from the 1930s/1940s. Its even lighter now. The goat skin is amazing.

[devilish]

I thought that GW wasn't taking orders at the moment? I've been waiting for the word to come that he's back on because I've been lusting after one of his beauties for awhile now.

[airfrogusmc]

I thought that GW wasn't taking orders at the moment? I've been waiting for the word to come that he's back on because I've been lusting after one of his beauties for awhile now.

These are all several years old. I don't know if Johns taking orders but I do have a Security Togs on my radar.

[ranonranonarat]

so much good shoe porn here. love those beat up indy's. great great jackets as well, so lucky!

[dr.house]

Too bad must spread...Those chucks are awesome (besides the other stuff of course!).

[Charlie Delta]

Beautiful jackets.

But please respect that this is not the thread for that.

There's a whole forum besides the LVC thread that would enjoy posts like those.

No more off topic posts please,

thanks!

[colgems1966]

oh come on who was he hurting? i think most subscribers enjoyed seeing the jackets and shoes plus it was relevant to the discussion on LVC leather jackets. people have to put up with the man enough in everyday life without bringing it onto SUFU too.

[airfrogusmc]

I just read that JC will be taking orders again in a couple of weeks

[airfrogusmc]

Plus they all go so well with LVC!

[colgems1966]

well maybe it's just me, but i don't like it when people appoint themselves to tell others what they can and can't talk about.

[airfrogusmc]

well maybe it's just me, but i don't like it when people appoint themselves to tell others what they can and can't talk about.

I agree!!!

[ranonranonarat]

well maybe it's just me, but i don't like it when people appoint themselves to tell others what they can and can't talk about.

i think he was being sarcastic and that was a compliment...

[roy6]

I suppose cotton duck has s a point there. This is the LVC thread, so I guess we should talk about LVC. To bring it back on point let's discuss the most talked about facet of the brand: their inability to size properly.

I hear those new '22s are three inches oversized. Pretty sloppy. How much effort does it take to measure the product and, if the sizing isn't right, replace the tags?

[colgems1966]

^^^that's one of my biggest gripes about LVC. you can go to K-Mart and buy pants that fit correctly. i realize different year models will offer different fits from baggy to trim but the waist and inseam should be consistent. i have bought a few pairs that after all shrinkage was out didn't fit right and i sold for a loss; in one case ruining a pair in boiling water trying to shrink them enough. now i always ask for measurements beforehand/lesson learned. this should be a top priority for LVC management,---it hurts the brand. any H.S. dropout with a tape measure can measure the damn things before they tag them, so what does that say ? i was going to buy the 22's but after finding out about the sizing games i decided to pass.

[Charlie Delta]

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Being "the self appointed man" I apparently am, perhaps it is easier if I just straight up move posts like these into another thread, or delete them altogether?

[colgems1966]

so the thread may stray a little to a related topic once in a while, is the world gonna end? it's just jeans not a presidential debate. it always gets back on track rather quickly, IMO you need to lighten up a little.

[Charlie Delta]

You are right that things tend to get back on track rather quickly, but that is not always the case (not talking about this thread specifically).

You need to realize that beyond this thread/forum being a nice and cosy chatroom for you guys, superfuture also is a resource for people that want to learn/read up on the brands being discussed.

For that reason it is appreciated that threads stay on topic, to keep things as clear as possible.

And lastly, in my humble opinion, you are not the one to talk about the need to lighten up a little, considering the speed with which you pulled "the man" into this.

Especially seeing how relaxed moderation is on superfuture in general…

Anyway, back to LVC!

I'm currently wearing in a pair of 1944's sized down slightly, which actually make for a very nice and unexpected slim silhouette.

I've actually had several people asking me if they were regular 44's or whether I had done something to them.

No pictures as you all know what they look like and there isn't much to show in terms of fading yet.

[Satya]

^^

as same as you cotton duck, i sized down in 44, and it turns to be a nice slim silhouette fit, the rear rise quite high though, details on this 44 model is awesome

[setterman]

I suppose cotton duck has s a point there. This is the LVC thread, so I guess we should talk about LVC. To bring it back on point let's discuss the most talked about facet of the brand: their inability to size properly.

I hear those new '22s are three inches oversized. Pretty sloppy. How much effort does it take to measure the product and, if the sizing isn't right, replace the tags?

Funny thing is, even with that 3" oversize at the waist, they shrink down to tagged size (in my case, 36"). I'd have to measure them, but I'm guessing with a few days wear they've stretched out to some where between 37 and 38". I don't get the impression that they want to stretch all the way back out to the original 39" (and that's fine by me, they're perfect where they're at).

So, I don't think they got the tagging totally wrong. I believe their intention was that a true size 36 (for example), would buy a size 36, they'd shrink down to that waist size and not really stretch out. They'd fit pretty big through the seat and legs, but I think that is the look LVC is going for with them (even though that isn't how you or I would want them to fit, or what we'd really consider a proper historic look for that model). Yeah, their tagging overall is screwy, but I think most of us here have figured out what we need as far as waist and rise goes and when dealing with a knowledgeable shop (i.e. one that knows how to use a tape measure) we can get what we want.

[roy6]

My biggest sizing problem was a 333 I bought tagged 32 waist. It was a 'Broken Raw' wash and so pre-shrunk. Actual waist size was over 35", but according to Levi's standard advice to size up two for rigid, should have been a 30, hence just over five inches over-sized. That one soured me on LVC for some while.

[Max Power]

I got a 1944 33*38 from 2001 which shrank to tag size in the waist, but measures around 34,5 in the inseam. Fits perfectly, though.

I feel like wearing them again, thanks to this thread.

[roy6]

Yeah, their tagging overall is screwy, but I think most of us here have figured out what we need as far as waist and rise goes and when dealing with a knowledgeable shop (i.e. one that knows how to use a tape measure) we can get what we want.

I hear you- it certainly is possible to get what you want that way, but maybe it shouldn't require so much research and effort to get a pair of expensive jeans that measure what they are tagged to measure?

I also have wondered if, like you say, the designers skew the actual measurements to get a period fit, but certainly every 32" waist LVC I've tried on doesn't work. I take a 32"tagged in most years of the '55, a 34" tagged in most batches of '47s, with pre '30s jeans I take anywhere from a 30" to 36" tagged according to model and batch, not for a slimmed down look but for a relatively authentic period fit. So if the designers are going for a uniform post-shrink period fit with their odd sizing, I would have to call that experiment failed.

[setterman]

I hear you- it certainly is possible to get what you want that way, but maybe it shouldn't require so much research and effort to get a pair of expensive jeans that measure what they are tagged to measure?

I also have wondered if, like you say, the designers skew the actual measurements to get a period fit, but certainly every 32" waist LVC I've tried on doesn't work. I take a 32"tagged in most years of the '55, a 34" tagged in most batches of '47s, with pre '30s jeans I take anywhere from a 30" to 36" tagged according to model and batch, not for a slimmed down look but for a relatively authentic period fit. So if the designers are going for a uniform post-shrink period fit with their odd sizing, I would have to call that experiment failed.

Couldn't agree more, it shouldn't be as tough as it is at times. And I don't disagree that if they're playing around with measurements to get their customers into Levi's idea of a period fit, it isn't always working. I'm willing to cut them some (not too much!) slack though.... right now they're dealing with the models dating between 1890 through 1966. That's an old and wide range of styles to deal with (on modern bodies), about seven different types of denim (which behave differently when shrunk), and differing views on how a certain era should look or fit. And then throw on top of that three different manufacturers over the past five years and any management changes (and their ideas and philosophies), it makes things tough on everyone. And I don't know what the best format is to please everyone. Shrink from tagged, or shrink to tagged? Stick as close to the original cut as possible, or fiddle with it here and there to get the look and a comfortable fit? Not an easy task. Fortunately, I've been able to get my own sizing down pat. Basically what ever model, if it starts at 39" at the waist, I should be comfortable and get what for me is the right look. It's too bad that for a lot of people it isn't that easy!

I remember when you posted a picture of those 333s. Looked like you were in a pair of fishing waders! No wonder you soured on LVC for a little bit after that! I would too!

[ThomasK]

Aren't pre shrunk LVCs tagged like normal jeans? So I would expect a W32 preshrunk jeans to measure 32 inches. So they would be 3 inches oversized. Nevertheless pretty shameful for the manufacturer.

[devilish]

My own personal take on this is, all raw denim should shrink TO tagged size and that all makers should be prepared to do a 'test shrink' for each type of denim they offer. Taking just one medium sized pair and giving them a hot wash. This would let the customer know what amount of shrink that process will give and some self adjustment could be done from there ie. cold soak, warm soak, hot wash etc.

At least that would give the consumer a somewhat 'standardized' start to work with. LVC just puts that blanket 'buy 2 inches bigger' label on all their jeans and thinks that covers it, which quite obviously, it doesn't. If they are going to be doing washes for different effects anyway I don't think it would be too much trouble to just do a test run.

[oh_hella]

Gilt has some LVC stuff up for sale starting about 8 minutes ago - a few nice shirts and a leather jacket (on topic?): http://www.gilt.com/sale/men/levis-vintage-clothi

PM me If you need an invite.

[ColdsnapBryan]

Got a pair of 1967 505s I would let go for cheap in a size 33.

[cloudshift]

In case anyone is interested in such a thing, I have a pair of 36x36 1944 501's for sale in the supermarket:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?p=2884888

Thank you for your time.

[cloudshift]

Got a pair of 1967 505s I would let go for cheap in a size 33.

Made in USA?