Levi's Vintage Clothing

[dr.house]

Depends on the season. Foolproof way is tts and cold washes/ soaks, but check the measurements first.

[no-svg]

I recently checked 3 pairs of 1947s in the store, from the same batch, all tagged W32/L36.

First measured 31, second: 32 and 3rd: 32,5 inches.

My advice: always try it on you, before you buy.

The size might differ from season to season, and to make matters worse: from pair to pair.

PS. Sorry for my poor English...

[ThomasK]

I found this video about a LVC store in London and thought it was worth sharing.

[robbie]

I wasn't sure it was even possible but ryan adams just got cooler in my book.

[ThomasK]

Some pics of a Pantaloon that was washed (a few times?)...

http://store.silver-and-gold.com/?pid=35669196

[min2max]

sneak peek at ss12 lookbook:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcohendelara/6311297803/in/photostream/

looks like a midwest farming theme is up next..

[to><ikon]

If anyone is interested I'm selling a pair of new 67 505s that don't fit me. Link in my sig.

[ckappy]

long time 501 stf wearer but would like to move on to the lvc. any guidance on which models (47, 55, etc.) fits most closely to the regular non-us made 501s? any help much appreciated.

[attackwithstones]

The 1955 501 would be the closest fit to the modern 501's in my opinion.

[ckappy]

thanks AWS. sizing about the same, too (e.g. tagged 30 x 32 pre-shrink stf = tagged 30 x 32 lvc 1955)?

[jakie]

1954 501xx fit pic

4 months. 1 hot soak + 1 cold hand wash last week

[Maynard Friedman]

thanks AWS. sizing about the same, too (e.g. tagged 30 x 32 pre-shrink stf = tagged 30 x 32 lvc 1955)?

A tagged 30x32 1955 will probably measure around 34x32 raw and shrink to 32x30ish. Sizes vary from year (of production) to year and even within year.

Please see Paul T's rather excellent guide for further info:

http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php?showtopic=33596

[setterman]

I disagree that the current STF fit like the 55s. I picked up a pair of the green cast STF 501s a couple years ago, and compared to my 55s they've got a lot less room in the seat and are straighter/narrower in the leg. Didn't like the fit at all.

If you're looking to jump from standard STFs to LVC, the 44, 47, 55 and 66 are all good options. I don't have any experience with the 47s, but have a pair of each of the other years and really like each one. The 67 505 is an option too, and you won't have to worry about the shrinking.

You'd have to check measurements from what ever store you choose to go with, but it's pretty safe to assume the 44s are an inch to 1 1/2" over tagged size, the 47s will be somewhere around tag size (they'll be the tricky ones), 55s will be close to three inches over tagged size (but will shrink down to tagged), 66s one inch to 1 1/2" over tagged size. If you've got a shrunk up pair of STFs that you can measure, start there. If fresh out of the wash they measure 30" at the waist, and you're happy with how they fit (and they ain't skin tight), you're going to want a pair of LVC that starts with a raw measurement between 31 and 32".

[ckappy]

thanks for all the help. you guys are rad.

[robbie]

oops

Edited November 29, 2011 by robbie

[robbie]

FYI, if anyone is in need of a Big E Sz 36 type 3: I have one for sale on my etsy shop. 15% off w/ code hyperbole.

[tsekh]

...If you're looking to jump from standard STFs to LVC, the 44, 47, 55 and 66 are all good options. I don't have any experience with the 47s, but have a pair of each of the other years and really like each one. The 67 505 is an option too, and you won't have to worry about the shrinking...

The 47 is not a close to the standard STF either. I have a pair of 29/34 standard STF and a pair of 30/34 LVC 47. The waists are true to tag on both pairs. But despite being an inch wider, the 47 is significantly tighter in the butt and thighs. Below the knee and leg openings are similar, but that's the only similarity between the two.

[Maynard Friedman]

Raw 33s, 55s (only one pair left), 67s and 1880 on sale at really good prices at LA1 Clothing. Pre-washes and jackets (denim and leather) available too:

http://www.la1clothing.com/levi.html

Edited November 29, 2011 by Maynard Friedman

[roy6]

None of the LVC models are really that close to the modern 501 cut, unless you go out to the '83 model. '55 has a huge ass, '47 has a roomy seat but really tight thighs, '44 has huge thighs. Maybe a sized down '37 would be closest? Plus a bonus- the cinch.

[tsekh]

Maybe some decades later LVC will have a model called 2011 that fit exactly the same, like the STF today. But by then, everyone will be wearing some futuristic pants but not jeans.

[ThomasK]

Over the years...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[setterman]

Maybe some decades later LVC will have a model called 2011 that fit exactly the same, like the STF today. But by then, everyone will be wearing some futuristic pants but not jeans.

Naaaah, the jean has made it nearly 140 years. It's THE American pant, and THE pant of a large portion of the rest of the world. It ain't going no where.

[setterman]

None of the LVC models are really that close to the modern 501 cut, unless you go out to the '83 model. '55 has a huge ass, '47 has a roomy seat but really tight thighs, '44 has huge thighs. Maybe a sized down '37 would be closest? Plus a bonus- the cinch.

I don't know about current '44s, but my old 643 '44s have a narrower thigh and leg than my 643 '37s in the same size. I like both cuts a lot, and if someone was wanting a straighter leg they'd be the first two I'd recommend.

[devilish]

After wearing many LVC models, the 44 has become my favorite by far. For an everyday jean they are pretty much perfect for me. Nice straight, slim-ish cut. The rise is probably too high for those folks of the 'belly jean' generation but I like having the knowledge that when I bend over half my ass is not going to show and my shirt will stay tucked in. They have more room in the thigh than a 47, which is very nice but still maintain a great straight silhouette.

[dr.house]

The 66 looks also "more modern" if you like it slim.

[robbie]

Can anyone identify this Lvc ? The fit to me looks like 66 but it has a leather patch so can't be. Looks too loose for 47s ?

http://www.rawrdenim...ears-no-washes/

I am gonna call BS on the 15 years no washes claim, unless he isn't counting soaks or handwashes. There is no way he could wear those with any frequency for 15 years and them not be in shambles.

[dr.house]

^ It doesn't look raw to me.

[wgmds]

http://www.mrporter.com/product/167695

sale!

[airfrogusmc]

I'm not sure what the new regular Levis STF 501s fit like. I do have a pair of premium cone denim STF Levis 501s from 2010 and they are fit wise a cross between the 47s and the 55s. My 1955s measure and fit almost identical to a pair of 1999 STF 501s I have had since them (same tagged size).

[ThomasK]

I think if ones wants to get into LVC, the point is not to look what fit comes closest to the standard STF. You should rather enjoy the variety you get with LVC. Also most LVCs beginning with the 44 should give a "normal" fit, i.e. not being too baggy and 'beginning-of-the-century"-looking when sized properly.

The standard STFs I have from 2007 have pretty spacious thighs but seem to be a bit tapered or at least not too straight down the leg compared to my 55.