Jump to content

Levi's Vintage Clothing


Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting, propellorbeanie! They look great. (propellorbeanie posted the standard 76 earlier. Which look true to size, like mine).

I do plan to head into Cinch and try and get photos of the deadstock fabric jeans next to the left-hand versions and the standard 76 model.

My pants are pretty much true to size (like my 66 pair were, unlike werd's). So I have to have a serious think about whether they'll fit ok - there's a good chance they will, and I do handily have a piece of wood cut to stop waists shrinking - depends on how much room there is about the seat and thighs.

Yup, all the little mirror details, like the buttons and even rivets, are very cool.

These photos are bit dark, but they actually give a good impression of the deadstock fabric, which is very stripey, with lots of weft showing, which I very much how I remember that era of denim. Not very hairy.

 

DSC02842_zpszhajdzih.jpg

DSC02845_zps6c2sxfb7.jpg

DSC02846_zpspsnqnigh.jpg

DSC02847_zps6p4srsmf.jpg

DSC02851_zpsvewp0a6k.jpg

Edited by Paul T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cool_hand said:

Mirror Jeans just arrived. Yep, they're going to be to small if you go for your usual waist size. I ordered a 34/34.

Waist 34 1/4"
FR 12 3/4"
RR 15"
Thigh 12.5"
Knee 9 3/4"
Inside leg: 34.5" / 34 1/4"
Opening 8.5"

There were no measurements for these online so I took a chance they would be sized for shrinkage. The last pair of LVC I purchased were the 1915 (34/34) which came up a 36 waist. Based on propellerbeanie's post-soak measurements these will lose 2" in the waist. How different is the RHT to the LHT?

I thought the denim would be a little more interesting – it looks just like the picture on Caliroots, quite light - would expect it to darken once soaked. My pair are missing the swing tag and the card size label that sits next to the leather back patch, maybe they didn't make these labels/tags for the Mirror version? Made in the USA. The mirrored fly doesn't work for me - maybe if you're left handed it will work? It just might be the Achilles heel in the design. Anway to small so will need to go back and I think I will look to size-up in a standard RHT pair.

Damn, LVC's inconsistent sizing strikes again! One would think that your 34/34 LHT would have the same measurements as the 34/34 RHT. Just from your measurements, it doesn't actually seem proportionally the same as mine, but then again, there is typically a margin of error... Maybe the LHT ones don't shrink that much at all, so your presoak/wash measurements are close to what the RHT post soak/wash measurements will be (if that makes sense)? 

Although a bit gimmicky, I still think the mirror jeans are a cool limited edition item. My friend said he wants to buy one to keep in mint condition then maybe 100 years from now, a Japanese man will find them and remake them stitch for stitch LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

proppellerbeanie: I don't know if the LHT is the same size as the RHT or if the shrinkage is the same, there is little information out there? I would expect shrinkage.

Paul T: if you go to Cinch any chance you could measure the waist of a standard 1976 in size 34? Thank you.

I've sent the jeans back this morning but I took some photos first. IMO the denim looks lighter than the original deadstock.

IMG_6108_zpsor5kdk2u.jpg

IMG_6111_zps65sii2ha.jpg

IMG_6110_zpsrapj2qab.jpg

IMG_6112_zpsllw2ivwy.jpg

IMG_6113_zpswvjlqfiw.jpg

IMG_6114_zpsnxkj61u8.jpg

IMG_6115_zpsaqob4emt.jpg

IMG_6116_zpskzr2mryt.jpg

IMG_6117_zpsmscftpyd.jpg

IMG_6118_zpselzumpuz.jpg

IMG_6119_zps96dyffra.jpg

IMG_6120_zpstrtoo96l.jpg

IMG_6121_zpsjbmi2n2f.jpg

IMG_6122_zpsizo70kqq.jpg

IMG_6123_zpsg2br7r1q.jpg

IMG_6124_zpsnbc4htbz.jpg

IMG_6125_zpsuvxfuvdv.jpg

Edited by cool_hand
add pictures
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cool_hand You're right that there should be shrinkage. I'm just waiting for someone to take the plunge (no pun intended) and soak the mirror jeans so we can see the results. Hopefully Paul T or someone else will be able to check out the RHT 34/34 and see what the waist is on that.

Thanks for the pictures as well. Cool how they have a tag in the pants with a backwards number 298. I'm guessing you received the 298 pair out of the 501 that were made. Do you plan on getting the size available size up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame they didn't come with a swing tag or some kind of certificate with the number 298/501. Maybe the ones sold in store do? As mentioned in my initial post I struggled to get on with the left-hand fly button so I will probably get the standard RHT version of the jeans - and size up to a 36 if the RHT fit TTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cool_hand said:

It's a shame they didn't come with a swing tag or some kind of certificate with the number 298/501. Maybe the ones sold in store do? As mentioned in my initial post I struggled to get on with the left-hand fly button so I will probably get the standard RHT version of the jeans - and size up to a 36 if the RHT fit TTS.

Should have a standard pair in size 36 by Monday or Tuesday and can get you measurements.  After all the talk the last page or two, I hope they're not too small.  I'm going off Unionmade's measurements, and my experience with the 1978.  

Edited by setterman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, Lee use left-hand denim although theirs was Sanforized. And yes, Cone did supply Lee at various times. I don't know if they were supplying them in the 70s but there is a possibility this denim was destined for them.

Propellerbeanie, your pants are likely the same colour, the photos of details I showed were 1 1/2 stops underexposed in order to show the stamps on the rivets/buttons. But I am pretty certain I can get to Cinch for comparison shots next week. As long as I master page-numbering formats in the thesis I have to submit tomorrow :(

 

Edited by Paul T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure hope it's the same denim used in the '78s, or they may be going back to Levis!

i sold the '78s off a while back, so don't have them around to reference. But, I remember them feeling more "right" than any other lvc denim. Like the jeans I had when I was a little kid (early 80s). They felt like they shrunk up into a tighter weave (especially after going through the dryer), and felt like the yarns fluffed up more giving the denim a more dense, thicker,  and heavier feel than the rest of the LVC line up. They were very hairy compared to other lvc, and while I didn't put much wear into them, what I was seeing (mostly from the dryer) looked very era appropriate. 

while they can produce nice fades, most of the lvc line up has felt "off" to me. But I really liked the '78 denim, closely followed by the '44 denim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

many thanks Paul T thanks for clearifying that Lee  topic.

speaking of sanforized denim, it´s interesting that the denim of cool hands mirror jeans are just to shrink about 5%, rather than 10% for most rigid LVCs

 

how do you know the LHT denim of the mirror jeans shrinks only 5%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cool_hand said:

how do you know the LHT denim of the mirror jeans shrinks only 5%?

Close to the bottom of the first care label image that you posted says "Shrinkage in wash approximately 5%." Maybe they did actully use different patterns for the LHT jeans haha! 

Also, I looked up the RHT 1976 jeans and came across this site http://www.joenet.co.jp/smp/item/levi-26408-0000.html

I'm not sure how they measured theirs and how accurate their measurements are... I'm guessing from the size 31/34 that they did it BiG style. A size 34 waist would then be around 36".

Side note, but how do you post hyperlinks on these forums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unionmade also measures the 1976 RHT 34 as 36 so it does appear the pattern for the Mirror Jean is different from the standard 76. 5% shrinkage is approximately 1.5" in the waist and leg but usually, the leg shrinks more than the waist. What does LVC usually put on their labels? My 1915 have no mention of shrinkage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cool_hand I currently own the 1915, 1933 and 1947 along with the new 1976. It does seem that they mention shrinkage of approximately 10%, which is at the bottom of the longest care label. I'm about to go out of my house, but I can take some pics later if you'd like. I'd have to look at my prewash measurements, but I think the '76 RHT shrank the most in the waist. Not a bad thing though because I usually like my jeans to start at 30" so that they can stretch to 31". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard 1976 arrived today.  Most pleased I've been with a pair of LVC in quite a while.  Denim appears to be the same used in the 1978, and prewash dimensions are what I was looking for.  

36x34

Waist, 37 1/2" (this is guesstimating, they measure 37", but some width is lost at the ends because the stiff denim doesn't lay flat)  

Front Rise, 13 1/8"

Back Rise, 16 1/4"

Thigh, 13 3/4"

Inseam 34"

Leg Opening, 8 3/4"

IMG_6369.JPG

IMG_6372.JPG

IMG_6374.JPG

IMG_6376.JPG

Edited by setterman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice. I've still got my 1978, so I can take pictures for comparison and measurements of my 1976 when they get here tomorrow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still damp after a warm gentle wash and 15 minutes in the dryer. Looks like they shrank pretty hard.

36x34 1976s

Waist, 36" after stretching. At one point looked like they were under 35"

front rise 12"

back rise 15"

thigh 13 3/8"

inseam 31.5"

leg opening 8 1/2"

Of note, the right leg didn't twist at all (like both on the 78s), but left leg twisted a fair amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@setterman Very nice ;)

I too found that the right leg didn't twist at all. The denim is quite hairy, which is a characteristic I like to have in my jeans. It gave my '76s an initial softness that reminded me a little of my Roy RS05 jeans (but obviously not like dat Supima softness).

You got some crazy front and back rise shrinkage! Is that typical for size 36 jeans?

Edited by propellerbeanie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Losing an inch in back rise is normal, but front rise is usually 1/2 to 3/4".

not sure why they're marketing this jean as "slim". Waist is the only narrow part about it. And thankfully it's already starting to stretch. Any smaller, and I couldn't wear these. Tag says expect 2" in waist and inseam shrink. I say expect 2 to 2 1/2".

 

 

IMG_6435.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got mine in. 34 x 32 tagged. Actual measurements (BiG) as follows:

 

Waist - 17.5

FR - 12.25

BR - 15.75

Thigh - 12.5

leg opening - 8.5

I've attached some pre-soak fit pics. Will update with dry, post soak in a bit.

Also, the bag is a nice touch; it's the least I expect for $199 USD :D

 

IMG_0138.JPG

fullsizeoutput_825.jpeg

IMG_0140.JPG

IMG_0141.JPG

IMG_0142.JPG

IMG_0154.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaaand, just as it says on the tag, these only shrunk 2 inches. I'm a little surprised, as every other pair of STF Levi's I've owned has shrunk 3 inches, without fail. The soak was hot,  but not all that long (maybe 5 minutes or so?) I am hoping subsequent washes shrinks the inseam a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheJPdude said:

Aaaand, just as it says on the tag, these only shrunk 2 inches. I'm a little surprised, as every other pair of STF Levi's I've owned has shrunk 3 inches, without fail. The soak was hot,  but not all that long (maybe 5 minutes or so?) I am hoping subsequent washes shrinks the inseam a little more.

I don't  think a 5 minute soak gets all the shrinkage out of them. I would wash them but that's just me ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd give them a gentle wash, or let them soak for a half hour. They probably have a little further to go, but I wouldn't expect the inseam to shrink 3". 2.5" is the most I've seen out of lvc the past five or six years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, setterman said:

Yeah, I'd give them a gentle wash, or let them soak for a half hour. They probably have a little further to go, but I wouldn't expect the inseam to shrink 3". 2.5" is the most I've seen out of lvc the past five or six years. 

Oddly, all of my recent LVC have shrunk 3" on nose (all from 2015 production) They've been 33/34 waist too. 

 

I'm not going to cry about chasing half an inch, though. I've been more of a 'wear as raw as possible without letting water touch them' kind of guy, and I like the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheJPdude said:

Oddly, all of my recent LVC have shrunk 3" on nose (all from 2015 production) They've been 33/34 waist too. 

 

I'm not going to cry about chasing half an inch, though. I've been more of a 'wear as raw as possible without letting water touch them' kind of guy, and I like the results.

Thought I might chime in, but my '76s shrank 2.5" after the first hot machine wash. Given that you like to wear them "as raw as possible", doing that method to shrink them would probably be out of the question. I've found that subsequent cold machine washes have still made my '47s shrink a tad more than 3" in the inseam, so maybe there's hope that your '76s hasn't arrived at it's final length. I, on the other hand, would prefer if my '76s don't shrink anymore since they started at around 33".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, propellerbeanie said:

Thought I might chime in, but my '76s shrank 2.5" after the first hot machine wash. Given that you like to wear them "as raw as possible", doing that method to shrink them would probably be out of the question. I've found that subsequent cold machine washes have still made my '47s shrink a tad more than 3" in the inseam, so maybe there's hope that your '76s hasn't arrived at it's final length. I, on the other hand, would prefer if my '76s don't shrink anymore since they started at around 33".

That would be nice if they shrunk a little on the inseam. I'm 5'8", but all torso, so my natural inseam is something like 27". This is the first pair of LVC that I've purchased to a 32" length in hopes of letting the original chain stitch hem do some beautiful roping.

 

I was just comparing the '76 to my '78, and I'm surprised they didn't use the lemon yellow stitching this time around. It's a small detail, but I quite like seeing the yellow against the shade of indigo here. Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...