Levi's Vintage Clothing

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 12, 2015 by hoggreaser

[cool_hand]

I hear you, but I guess the other scenario is I buy a pair of 34's and they end up to small for me!

 

this blog goes into some detail on the shrinkage:

 

http://denimhunters.com/2013/06/lvc-1944-1966-size-guide/

 

seems to average around 4cms or 1.5" on the waist. in my experience that sounds about right.

[josh mullen]

Just a heads up, guys -- I'm posting a couple pairs of LVC denim (size 34 1955s from 2009 and size 36 1954s from 2010) in the market. 

[mf051404]

If you want to get the maximum shrinkage, turn them inside out, soak them again (cold is ok I guess so as not to bleed more indigo) and this time dry them in the drier, that will probably tell you the maximum shrinkage they can get. Speaking of LVC raws, like I said, the older releases were tagged actual size (so expect to shrink less than the tag size), but for newer releases (not sure what year maybe 2008 up...we need to ask LVC) they were tagged as expected shrink size, so they are quite larger pre-soak. Very confusing and annoying. So as a rule of thumb when buying online, I just ask for the actual measurements and if they are raw or not then analyze myself. I don't just trust the tag size.

[cool_hand]

That's not what I'm seeing with LVC Rigid (Raw Cone denim) which is currently being sold online.

 

For example the pair I picked up are tagged 36 and measure 18" flat. If they shrink only 1.5" in the waist they will measure 34.5" - that's not a 36" waist.

 

It is very confusing though, and somewhat lame of LVC to not have them tagged the size they will be after soaking - so like you say, if you want a 34" waist you buy a tagged 34 but it actually measures larger (by the amount of shrinkage you will get after a couple of soaks/washes).

[mf051404]

What I'm saying is it depends on which year it was produced (and possibly where it was produced)...to give you an example I have a very old 1947 LVC (Made in U.S.) I say it's very old because it doesn't have the "LEVI'S VINTAGE CLOTHING" stamp on the pocket bags which the new releases have...it is tagged 32 but when I measured after washing (it was thrifted) it was just 30 so I'm guessing the original pre-soak size was indeed 32, managed to stretch it out back to 32 again (wore it while it is damp) I posted photos of it a few days up this thread.  My friend has a recent LVC release and was tagged 32..measured about 33.5 pre-soak and shrunk to 32 (which is actually the tag size)...Definitely there are discrepancies in sizing, and it seems to me that it is because of the date of manufacture (and possibly also factory location)

Edited July 25, 2014 by mf051404

[Cucoo]

Does anyone know what denim they use for the pre-washed version of the 1947? It's not made in USA and certainly not specified as Cone; and retails at around £45 cheaper?

 

I do have a rinsed '47 that came with a tag saying Cone, but it also came with the completely nonsensical "this jeans are STF, here's how to size up" tag, so I guess it's entirely possible the Cone tag was also lying. It's made in Turkey, AFAIK all LVC non-raw (including denim shirts) is made there now. At least the sizing is consistent with the tagged size in this case.

 

Regarding the stupid STF advice on washed denim, I have no idea how LVC can continue to just not care. People going by the tags end up with massively oversized jeans. You'd think there would be complaint after complaint.

[cool_hand]

I prefer to buy Raw denim but it makes you consider buying the pre-washed with LVC as at least with the sizing you know what you're going to end up with.

[Paul T]

according to this online seller LVC 1947 will def shrink 2" in the waist:

 

http://www.oipolloi.com/levis-vintage-clothing-1947-501-rigid

 

but according to this blog they don't shrink at all in the waist:

 

http://denimhunters.com/2012/07/stfnyc/

 

which one is correct?

 

and these guys say they shrink just under 2 sizes?

 

http://scout.rawrdenim.com/brands/levi-s-vintage-clothing/denim-jeans/levi-s-vintage-clothing-1947-501-rigid-raw-denim-jeans

 

 

I find it really weird when people make a simple issue so complicated.

 

Raw Levi's have always been labelled as shrinking two inches. For a trimmer fit, you're always safe sizing up by one inch, because you will always get one inch of stretch. For jeans with big thighs, you can allow more stretch.

 

The denimhunters dude sounds like he has only bought one or two pairs of raw - and doesn't know that soaking is not the same as washing. Cone denim shrinks, and always has, the presence of a few bloggers or whatever doesn't change a historic truth.

 

Last time I checked, washed and rinsed 47, 55 and 66 models still used Cone fabric. There was a brief period where this wasn't the case, when they used Italian denim, maybe from Legler. They still have the "this will shrink two inches" blah, becasue that's what old Levi's always had, and they assume the customer is smart enough to know that washed/rinsed jeans won't shrink any more.

[cool_hand]

Tell me where I can buy a size 35" raw LVC 1947?

 

BTW: my LVC 1947's 36 tag measured 37".

Edited July 25, 2014 by cool_hand

[setterman]

Just a heads up, guys -- I'm posting a couple pairs of LVC denim (size 34 1955s from 2009 and size 36 1954s from 2010) in the market. 

 

PM me the measurements on the '55s please.

[ThomasK]

Anyone interested in a 78 501 size 36/34? They are from the first run with the "new" 78 denim from one or two years back. 

[501XX4EVER]

Anyone interested in a 78 501 size 36/34? They are from the first run with the "new" 78 denim from one or two years back. 

 

Can you post the measurements?

[xchen]

is there any difference in denim used between '47 501 rigid and '47 501 rough rinse? happened upon a few pairs of rough rinse at deep discount and was wondering why the retail price difference between the two exists if everything is the same except the one wash process.

[Maynard Friedman]

They will probably be made in Turkey, oversized and use a different denim rather than simply be a washed version of the rigid variety. I think this is true for all the washed LVCs.

[mf051404]

I have both raw and rough rinse 1947 in the same size and I can say there are obvious differences.  The raw which is made in US has a somewhat thicker denim, has a shorter rise, much tighter in the thigh and knee area causing a  slight "bell" cut but I prefer the backpockets on these, they look more "classic".  The rough rinse made in Turkey has a longer rise, has a "looser" feel around the thighs and knee (similar to the straight cut of the modern 501's of today), and backpockets seem a bit bigger (but not much), the denim is somewhat lighter (and more loosely weaved in my opinion), they are more comfortable for me.  I like both though.

Edited August 9, 2014 by mf051404

[xchen]

just checked and they are made in turkey. I suppose i can live with that for the price I paid. denim is definitely still unsanforized, right?

[mf051404]

just checked and they are made in turkey. I suppose i can live with that for the price I paid. denim is definitely still unsanforized, right?

It's possible that they used unsanforized denim in the production...but they have already been pre-washed/pre-soaked (whatever is best term for the "pre" process)..so they will no longer shrink (according to most)...

[xchen]

I understand there won't be any shrinkage but unsanforized denim ages differently than sanforized. Already breaking in a pair of sanforized cone RRLs so trying to go for some variety. Appreciate everyone's info.

[Slago]

 

 

http://www.ebay.it/itm/LEVIS-VINTAGE-CLOTHING-LIMITED-EDITION-1937-BANNER-JEAN-NO-TWO-ALIKE-32-/161388878725?pt=US_CSA_MC_Jeans&hash=item259386db85

 

 

http://www.ebay.it/itm/LEVIS-VINTAGE-CLOTHING-LIMITED-EDITION-BANNER-JACKET-NO-TWO-ALIKE-MED-/161388893662?pt=US_CSA_MC_Outerwear&hash=item25938715de

Edited August 9, 2014 by Slago

[Broark]

Those belong in the world's ugliest jeans thread.

[501XX4EVER]

 

 

http://www.ebay.it/itm/LEVIS-VINTAGE-CLOTHING-LIMITED-EDITION-1937-BANNER-JEAN-NO-TWO-ALIKE-32-/161388878725?pt=US_CSA_MC_Jeans&hash=item259386db85

 

 

http://www.ebay.it/itm/LEVIS-VINTAGE-CLOTHING-LIMITED-EDITION-BANNER-JACKET-NO-TWO-ALIKE-MED-/161388893662?pt=US_CSA_MC_Outerwear&hash=item25938715de

 

As George from Seinfeld would say, "Sweet fancy Moses".

 

Edited August 9, 2014 by 501XX4EVER

[Maynard Friedman]

I understand there won't be any shrinkage but unsanforized denim ages differently than sanforized. Already breaking in a pair of sanforized cone RRLs so trying to go for some variety. Appreciate everyone's info.

In what way does unsanforized denim that has been washed age differently to sanforized denim other than the fact they are simply 2 different denims?

[ThomasK]

Can you post the measurements?

They are true to tagged size, measuring 36 inches in the waist (waistbands not aligned) and 34 in length. They are NWT. I haven't even tried them on yet. 

[xchen]

other than the fact they are simply 2 different denims?

Precisely that. There's a certain look to a faded Sanforized denim. I'm not sure how to describe it but it's just different. If I can come up with a picture that shows what I'm talking about I will post back.

[xchen]

An old post from Kiya where he explains it much better than I could.

Another great thread...

A few quick notes on the differences.. I can very easily tell the difference between denim that has and has not been sanforized.

During the process of which the denim goes through, the fabric is put under extreme pressure and therefore is compressed.

This compressed nature is partially the reason Imperial, Nudies, Iron Heart, and APC have a slight sheen to them. And is the same reason that Flat Head, Real McCoy's, and Sugarcane do NOT have a sheen.

Keep in mind, what i just said is from personal experience and being around denim for years, whether or not it's scientifically true is up for discussion.

I prefer non-saforized denim for a variety of reasons.. a few being that i believe the fading on non-sanforized denim is more interesting, the post soak hue of indigo on the denim is far deeper on non-saforized denim, and i like the ritual of soaking/measuring/watching closing before my initial wear of a new pair.

I'm sure that if you had 2 rolls of identical fabric and put one through a sanforization process you'd see the characteristics Kiya describes more obviously.

I thought cone mills was a good company to compare Sanforized vs unsanforized because even though they produce hundreds of varieties of denim there seem to be more similarities than differences in the characteristics of the various white oak denims I've personally handled.

[Maynard Friedman]

I think the average Joe could tell the difference between loomstate and sanforized in the raw state (as I agree the 2 are totally different beasts) but probably not after 12 months of wear and multiple washes. It was the difference in the ageing process that sparked the original discussion after all and not the difference when raw. Have a look at the Ande Whall contest thread for some good aged pairs and see what you think.

[mf051404]

My question about whether the Rough Rinse version of the 1947 will shrink or not upon soaking has been answered.  Then I stumbled upon the issue of whether I should soak it before the breaking-in period or I can leave it as is and just beat the hell out of them.  Thoughts please.  Thanks!

[ironheartfan123]

sounds like it has already been rinsed so soaking may not be necessary

[mf051404]

It's because of this post why I'm asking:

 

this doesnt answer your question, but it relates to the topic

i had a conversation with Kiya at SE once about sanforized denim and how it fades. Many people dont pre-soak their sanforized jeans because they dont shrink anyway, but Kiya explained to me there is actually a benefit to soaking sanforized denim before wearing: exposure to water helps denim fibers to "open up" and this will allow the denim to break-in/fade better (true for any raw denim, sanforized or not).
of course, sanforized jeans that are not pre-soaked will still fade just fine- however this isnt recommended since wearing raw denim for a long time (months) and never washing/soaking them damages the denim and causes it to become weak.

i imagine comparing how sanforized vs unsanforized denim fades is hard since different brands use different cotton, different dyes, different construction, and dye the threads a different number of times. there's a lot of variables, unless you can compare within one brand like SDA-203 vs SDA-103.. that'd be interesting

 

found in this thread: http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php/topic/24805-fading-and-initial-colour-characteristics-of-sanforized-vs-unsanforized-denim/