Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Maynard Friedman]

My 55s in a 32W measure about 34-34.5 raw. I think they're from 2009 or 2010. I'd have to check.

[colgems1966]

wouldn't it be nice if they just measured their tagged size and you didn't have to guess?

[Bamahater]

Anybody have any input on the 1944 Rough Rinse model? How does this fit compared to tagged size? I figure will fit bigger than tagged.

[colgems1966]

Anybody have any input on the 1944 Rough Rinse model? How does this fit compared to tagged size? I figure will fit bigger than tagged.

i would be careful with this model. i have always bought raw in the past exclusively; but i had a chance to get some LVC nwt very cheap but only washed models were available. i took a leap of faith & i went with a washed 1944, knowing LVC i asked for waist/inseam measurements up front to be sure. suprisingly the waist and inseam were about the same as raw after they have shrunk so i went ahead. boy did i get a suprise! though they did indeed fit in the waist and leg the ass and thighs were huge! i have two pairs of raw 44's and know how they should fit. these things fit like levis 560's or some kind of 90's era hilfiger homeboy jeans. it was like wearing a tent. needless to say i didn't keep them, they may have been an odditiy but this pair was an embarrassmnet to levis and jeansmaking in general.

[stickshift]

Anybody have any input on the 1944 Rough Rinse model? How does this fit compared to tagged size? I figure will fit bigger than tagged.

My rough rinse model fit pretty true to size....it's an anti-fit model IMO which is good if you have bigger thighs. It was what I wanted in a jean at least - a relaxed fit.

[Dr_Heech]

i would be careful with this model. i have always bought raw in the past exclusively; but i had a chance to get some LVC nwt very cheap but only washed models were available. i took a leap of faith & i went with a washed 1944, knowing LVC i asked for waist/inseam measurements up front to be sure. suprisingly the waist and inseam were about the same as raw after they have shrunk so i went ahead. boy did i get a suprise! though they did indeed fit in the waist and leg the ass and thighs were huge! i have two pairs of raw 44's and know how they should fit. these things fit like levis 560's or some kind of 90's era hilfiger homeboy jeans. it was like wearing a tent. needless to say i didn't keep them, they may have been an odditiy but this pair was an embarrassmnet to levis and jeansmaking in general.

I agree in so much as it is a difficult model to size. My 555 34/38's dwarfed me no matter how many hot washes, the 555 32/36's were almost TTS after one soak and the 2010 model in a 33/34 fits ok when stood up but cuts the blood off in 'places' when sitting - and that's after one soak.

I have a 2005 model (stripey shirt material pockets) in a size 36/36 'standing by', but am nervous about letting them touch water as god only know's what the outcome will be.

[colgems1966]

Dr. i have those 2005's with the striped pockets. my 38/36 measured approx TTS raw (going from memory) and shrank to 36/33 of course the waist stretched back out about an inch with wear. that model fits me the way i wish all of them did TTS! also the denim is very good on mine giving a lot of vertical falling and very good highs/lows. the places that remain darker are very dark and i do not baby mine, if they need washing i wash them. this denim will give a very convincing vintage look with wear. these are actually my favorite 44's even over my San Antonio ones. my only gripes: the pockets are not all-cotton as they should be and that stripe material will pill up with wear & and while the leather patch on these actually shrank up just like originals did (my only lvc to do so in this manner) the surface of the leather itself is kind of "plastic" looking. minor complaints really, all in all though one of their better models mine fit good and look very authetic more so than most of my lvc's. i've had mine for years but i understand this is a sought after model, i've seen these command premium prices on rakuten. nice score Charlie!

[Dr_Heech]

Dr. i have those 2005's with the striped pockets. my 38/36 measured approx TTS raw (going from memory) and shrank to 36/33 of course the waist stretched back out about an inch with wear. that model fits me the way i wish all of them did TTS! also the denim is very good on mine giving a lot of vertical falling and very good highs/lows. the places that remain darker are very dark and i do not baby mine, if they need washing i wash them. this denim will give a very convincing vintage look with wear. these are actually my favorite 44's even over my San Antonio ones. my only gripes: the pockets are not all-cotton as they should be and that stripe material will pill up with wear & and while the leather patch on these actually shrank up just like originals did (my only lvc to do so in this manner) the surface of the leather itself is kind of "plastic" looking. minor complaints really, all in all though one of their better models mine fit good and look very authetic more so than most of my lvc's. i've had mine for years but i understand this is a sought after model, i've seen these command premium prices on rakuten. nice score Charlie!

Thanks for that info Bob, yeah they have some nice details and it looks like from your experience they sholud be .5" loose on the waist when all shrinkage/waist stretching is taken into account. Just how I like 'em. They've been sitting in one of my 'denim' suitcases for 7 years!

My 2010 model 44's were loose before their soak but now i dare not put them in the washer as tts is a bit of an understatement. Although the GF likes the trim look, my voice sounds similar of that to a welsh choirboy when squatting/sitting.. etc.

My little gripes about the 2010's are the beltloops are skinny like post 55 501's and the back pocket shapes and arcs are not in keeping with the original ones I've seen. They have a lovely thick/embossed leather patch and single sided tab, and the cone denim is nice to boot. Maybe keep 'em for my son when he's older?

.

[xEMBx]

Quick question: I think i know that the answer is "no," but it never hurts to ask. Do they make the 54 in any waist size smaller than 30"? I have a pair from Cultizm that I got in 2010, is it possible that the sizing has changed since then?

[xEMBx]

Only about 4 months and already a (mild) crotch blowout on my 47's!

I had the same the problem with my '54s, wore them for 6 months and then BAM! blown out crotch. I have since fixed them but they are starting to blow out again.

[ThomasK]

Have these 47s been washed? Imo a crotch blow out is not a sign of low quality denim.

[erockisalive]

Have these 47s been washed? Imo a crotch blow out is not a sign of low quality denim.

I agree. I've had the crotch blow out of every single pair of jeans I've ever had my entire life and it doesn't matter if they're $300 or $40, and always around the 4 month mark. I think it just has to do with the shape of my legs and the way I walk.

[xEMBx]

anyone wanting a slim/tapered LVC 501 should surely try the 1954 501Z XX. the purists will be annoyed by the zipper and some people might have a problem with the high rise, big pockets and antifit butt. i think it's awesome and has a much more "old-school" feel/fit than the '47 and is much much slimmer from the thigh downward than the 66.

i open the floor up to debate about authenticity of the zipper/fit/etc...

the high-rise is refreshing. they don't shrink that much in the waist, leg or ass just about an inch in length after two warm soaks and appear significantly darker than the '47s or '66s (what we carry in the shop).

we sell a lot of these to guys and a surprising amount to girls at the shop--mostly to dudes who love the LVC story and the idea of shrink-to-fit/unsanforized/loomstate denim but have worn skinny or slim jeans for the past few years and can't quite stomach the leap to how straight the '47s are. these can get pretty slim depending on how high you wear them. i've discovered that braces (again discuss authenticity) help keep them higher than a belt.

a big percentage of '54 buyers are making the leap from APC new standards. when looking to step up their game, interestingly, customers are often choosing between these and raleigh's thin cut. often choosing the '54 LEVI's over left field, raleigh, tellason, & baldwin's slim offerings.

i am surprised this style doesn't get more love here but i understand why,

i've worn these daily for 4 months. more/better pictures anon.

My only problem with the 54 is the rear. Everything else about them is perfect as far as fit, color, rise pocket placement/size, but I have no ass essentially and they look a little goofy on me,

[no-svg]

"mo a crotch blow out is not a sign of low quality denim"

That's true.

The reason might be wrong sizing.

Too tight in the crotch - you will destroy jeans from inside.

Too loose - crotch will start be blowing out from outer side.

That's my experience.

[Maynard Friedman]

Crotch blow outs will also occur if you have thighs that rub together, regardless of whether your jeans are loose or tight. It's just friction.

[clayton]

or if you ride a bike a lot this too relates to friction and crotch blow outs.

Cheap, those '66s look great. I tried a pair on at Roden Gray at Christmas but they did not work for me so I didn't grab a pair, now I wish I did. Forgot to factor in the STF part. At least I have my 2006 LVC 47's waiting to be worn after I wear my current pair of jeans for a year.

[Madder_Lake]

C'mon you aren't serious — it's a perfectly meaningful term.

I was just pointing out that the term is meaningful. You wanted to say that the claim is false, which is a different thing. I didn't see the original post so I am not judging either way.

[erk]

I decided to go with the 34/36. I did call the meatpacking store, they sounded a little annoyed with my question, but the guy who answered the phone said he was a 32 and he wore a 32 in the 55 and they ended up fine. I think the 36 would end up being too big. the 34 may be a little tight at first, but better than falling off my hips.

[ThomasK]

One of the nicest 47s I've seen. Awesome fading on the top block. I also like the the thread color and how it really pops out from the faded denim.

[setterman]

I decided to go with the 34/36. I did call the meatpacking store, they sounded a little annoyed with my question,

Nothing like being irritated when a customer has a question about the fucky sizing on your $250 product. even better when that person is one of the winners in a contest that's done more to advertise your brand online than anything LVC has done in the past few years (or ever)......

When I bought my '22s, both the meatpacking and San Fan stores were helpful. Though the advice of "just don't wash it" from the meatpacking store when I called to ask about the shrinkage of my sawtooth shirt wasn't exactly what I was looking for. hope the sizing on your 55s works out.

[erk]

thanks Michael. I'm thinking it will be ok. If not, they'll just have to go on the bay. with my other 1955s. haha. if that happens, I'll buy some warehouse.

I remember when we used to have a levi's store in Raleigh, NC I used to hear sales people talking to people interested in stf jeans. they'd usually tell them to buy a pair that fit and never wash them. dry clean them if necessary. its really not that difficult of a situation, but i guess some people can't handle it.

Nothing like being irritated when a customer has a question about the fucky sizing on your $250 product. even better when that person is one of the winners in a contest that's done more to advertise your brand online than anything LVC has done in the past few years (or ever)......

When I bought my '22s, both the meatpacking and San Fan stores were helpful. Though the advice of "just don't wash it" from the meatpacking store when I called to ask about the shrinkage of my sawtooth shirt wasn't exactly what I was looking for. hope the sizing on your 55s works out.

[jyoni]

Good grief...my 55's are 3" over tag. Wish I'd thought to call the "meatpackers" first lol. I can measure the rest of the block if anyone needs or wants it. But briefly: Tagged 38, true 41 . I have to echo the earlier criticism about the stitching. Does travel a bit here a there particularly along the pockets. Season 1711, plant 337

47s are good, tagged 38, true 38.5. I think I read somewhere in here they shifted those from 1" under to 1" over. If that's the case, then these are definitely ballpark. Very nice jeans. The needlework is immaculate. Also, these don't seem to have the dubious buttons people are leery about with the new production. These are matte, same as I remember my other pairs. I'll have to review the thread later on, to be sure. Season 2711, plant R

[jyoni]

*the denim of the 47s is much smoother and a bit softer than I remember my 2006 and 2008 being.

[colgems1966]

i was always a big fan of the 55 in the old days. but with this new crazy sizing and accompanying guessing games that go with it, i would suggest getting the new model 47's bought TTS they actually fit similar to TTS 55's of 10 years back. a little more fitted in the seat and legs but the waist comes out about the same. the fit of the 47 has been improved, it was the one and only pattern change LVC did for the better. the denim seems ok but the buttons? time will tell.

[bluegoldblues]

ok, I appreciate this is quite specialist but this is really annoying me...does anyone know why some 506XX (type 1) jackets have a vertical seam running down the back and some don't??? I have seen this feature on both 30's and 40's silver and bronze buckle models most commonly without the seam... doesn't seem to be any consistency which I find strange for such a classic jacket design. Maybe LVC have picked up on this? do the LVC jackets have the vertical seam?

ei...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7P2l6YeCBG0/SCHtp2-kBgI/AAAAAAAAACs/Y5uejTCDJLs/s400/wearingtwo.jpg

and

http://www.boo-bee.jp/blog/vintageblog100421.21.jpg

image html thing not working??

Edited January 23, 2012 by bluegoldblues

[Paul T]

Hmmm... good question.

I don't know but... The 30s is a very strange period - there were very significant inconsistences , in how the 501 yoke is stitched together - something I've never investigated, but of course this was a very turbulent time, I wonder if they were trying to cut costs, simplify production, or something similar. In which case the same could be true of the 506 - two smaller panels would imply less wastage.

[knucks]

will my type1 1936 jacket shrink a whole "size" as the label says? soaking now but will pull it out soon, cant afford to let it shrink much to a medium..(got a large)

[setterman]

I have an XL 506 and I consider it to have shrunk to a little bigger than tagged size. lost sleeve and body length, but very little in width.

[knucks]

awesome, good to hear. cant let it get much smaller in the body

thans, going to pull it out now

[killer b]

ok, I appreciate this is quite specialist but this is really annoying me...does anyone know why some 506XX (type 1) jackets have a vertical seam running down the back and some don't??? I have seen this feature on both 30's and 40's silver and bronze buckle models most commonly without the seam... doesn't seem to be any consistency which I find strange for such a classic jacket design. Maybe LVC have picked up on this? do the LVC jackets have the vertical seam?

ei...

http://3.bp.blogspot.../wearingtwo.jpg

and

http://www.boo-bee.j...og100421.21.jpg

image html thing not working??

it'll be a wartime thing - reducing wastage. i was looking at repro RAF flight jackets a bit ago, and the number of panels of sheepskin used in the construction increases the further into the war you get. bound to be a similar thing going on here, imo.