Levi's Vintage Clothing

[roy6]

Do the child's duck pants that are shown in Paul's book have a readable patch? I am curious about the origin of the patch design on the Oldest OIdest and other early models. Was this based on an original or just invented?

The 1908 catalog puts XX starting in 1878. I add the 35 year

ticket from 1878 and it puts you at 1913, says for over 35 years add two more years. In 1915 levi says that they started looking for other denim sources. The 35 year ticket no longer has 9 oz Amoskeag it says american denim, Linen thread is also off the ticket. If this math is correct that would put the 20 year ticket to 1898?

Labeled as being from the 1920s, copyright (lower left) reads 1927, label reads "FOR OVER 50 YEARS". Since this had to be made post 1927, say 1928, that would date XX origin (if this is what the oiltag specifically refernces) to c. 1878, confirming 1909 catalog.

From a deadstock pair of WWII jeans, dated between 1942-1946, label reads "FOR OVER 70 YEARS". If 1878 is used, that would seem to actually date these jeans to post 1948. ???

(All images from Boon Vintage Magazine vol. 1 1990s)

[entertainment!]

Thanks Roy. Love the handwriting of the numbers.

[Dr_Heech]

Great post dude, would rep you but gotta spread!

.

[airportlobbytx]

I'm torn on the direction that LVC is taking. If the price goes up as much as some of you have guessed, I doubt I'll buy much. But right now I'm really pleased with the availability, both locally in brick and mortar, and online. I've been able to pick up a few pieces on sale, a rarity in the past. Also, the fit of the shirts suits me ideally.

A few things - new 66s (USA), a chambray pop over, and a western shirt. Also my 2005 or 2005 47s, for reference. I'm a bit worried that I won't be able to really soak the 66s (last pair on deep discount) b/c they fit pretty perfectly now, but, oh well, discounter's dilemma - I have quite a few pairs that have never been washed. Having said that, I'm sure I'll drop a hamburger patty on them the first wear.

[roy6]

airportlobbytx, I really like the sunset popover. How did you size that, and how does it fit?

[airportlobbytx]

I'm a 40L, I bought my normal size - a L. It fits fairly similar to a RRL L, a bit slimmer, with narrower arms. 19" shoulders, 22" chest.

It's great - I think it may be on sale at some online retailers (I bought it in town). Of course, the second time I wore it, I sat on a janky chair that ripped the tail. Have to try to fix it now.

[roy6]

Of course, the second time I wore it, I sat on a janky chair that ripped the tail. Have to try to fix it now.

= distressed. Some people pay good money for that sort of thing.

[airportlobbytx]

= distressed. Some people pay good money for that sort of thing.

That's what I tried to sell to the gf (it was a gift from her). "Hey, now it really looks like a conductor's shirt. Not much appeased.

Anyone know - Are the 37s (assuming still made) the slimmest bucklebacks?

[dr.house]

Anyone know - Are the 37s (assuming still made) the slimmest bucklebacks?

I dunno exactly, but I think so. Eyeing a pair too

At least they're the first with a red tab.

Edit: I've checked Paul T.'s 501 FAQ's:

"The LVC 1937 is a slightly trimmer fit than the 33, although there's considerable sample variation - again, many apparent differences in fit are simply the fact that the 1933 seem to be made slightly bigger. "

[erk]

That's what I tried to sell to the gf (it was a gift from her). "Hey, now it really looks like a conductor's shirt. Not much appeased.

Anyone know - Are the 37s (assuming still made) the slimmest bucklebacks?

My pair of 37s are very wide, much wider then my 1915s. So I'd venture a guess and say the 37s are the slimmest cinch back with belt loops. It seems the 1890-1917 are the slimmest but lack belt loops n

[ThomasK]

Are the prefinished LVC pants sized true to tagged size? thx!

[ethandesu]

Hey all - I have to ask the advice of more knowledgeable LVC maniac's than myself. I have two pairs of LVC's to sell, and I am wondering what the models are, and what I should list them for on the 'bay.

First pair is an unwashed red selvedge 5 pocket. Cinch back, belt loops and suspender buttons. Exposed rivets, single needle arcuates and a union label stitched under the leather patch. No red tab. They are 36/34 unwashed. Have been worn a few times, but the cut never quite worked for me at this size - I am probably closer to a 38 - so they have a little wear at the back of the hem but that's all.

Any advice or info is greatly appreciated!

desu

[ethandesu]

Second pair - These are a washed 38/36, but have been hemmed to approx 29" on the inside leg. I am about 6 foot and these fall clean on me with a pair of chucks, no turn up.

The denim is heavier than most LVC I've worn, with a decidedly blue/green tint to the cloth. 5 pockets, cinch and buttons but no loops, exposed rivets on the back pockets and skinny single needle arcuates. Blue selvedge rather than red, these had a patch of lighter denim glued on the left leg which I pulled off, but still have and can stick back on. Have been washed by me, but not really worn - they are about an inch bigger than the other pair in the waist, and a nice sort of saggy ass anti fit. Were these raw I'd keep em and wear em, as I love the cut.

desu

[Paul T]

First pair is 1933. I think second pair is 1901 , on my mobile, can't see too well, I (or someone else) will correct if I'm wrong, don't recognise the wash

[dr.house]

Are the prefinished LVC pants sized true to tagged size? thx!

They run slim, at least a half size smaller.

[dr.house]

My pair of 37s are very wide, much wider then my 1915s. So I'd venture a guess and say the 37s are the slimmest cinch back with belt loops. It seems the 1890-1917 are the slimmest but lack belt loops n

What are the slimmest bucklebacks? Maybe 1915? I know it's not authentic, but I'd like to have a pair of the old ladys fitting slim straight. Thanks in advance.

[Paul T]

Mmm... cehck the dimensions on the Visual Guide thread. The Clerk has a pair of 1901 downsized, they look great - pretty slim; as erk above says, the 1915 are probably slimmer still. Beautiful jeans but dodgy pocket shape. Both those shapes are straight-leg and will look better downsized than the earlier pairs, like the 1890s, which are slightly tapered.

I popped into Cinch last week, lots of great stuff, but I still get really irritated that they have their weird, narrow pockets style on the 1890, 1901 and 1915 now. I hope they correct it soon or i might have to get all electrum on their ass.

Mike, I will post your pics, just trying to revive the dead laptop they're on, will do so by tonight.

[prochek]

some older (2005-2006?) 1901 has a blueline selvage. One of many mistakes Levi´s made. Check the wash care label.

[Shorty Long]

I popped into Cinch last week, lots of great stuff, but I still get really irritated that they have their weird, narrow pockets style on the 1890, 1901 and 1915 now. I hope they correct it soon or i might have to get all electrum on their ass.

Is this the new Fall '10 collection? Or holdovers from the Spring?

[dr.house]

Mmm... cehck the dimensions on the Visual Guide thread.

Thanks Paul and sorry, where can I find this thread :confused:

[rob1031]

I just bought a pair of LVC 1947 for 130 pounds! Happy to have got them before the big price rise.

Just a question about the button factory numbers - I know all the other ones, 555, 4170.... but these dont seem have any numbers on the buttons. I see from 2009 they have 4170, but maybe these are even newer? Any idea where these are from?

(sorry I gues this mightve been asked but my computer cant seem to do the "search this thread" function for some reason!(

[airfrogusmc]

My pair of 37s are very wide, much wider then my 1915s. So I'd venture a guess and say the 37s are the slimmest cinch back with belt loops. It seems the 1890-1917 are the slimmest but lack belt loops n

My 15s are slimmer than my 17s. Both tagged the same size. The old 555 37 201 was small. I usually wear a 38 waist and the two pairs I had were both tagged 40 and were trimmer than any of my other LVCs that were tagger 38 with the 47s being the exception. But the 1937 501 was cut similar to my 1933s.

[airfrogusmc]

I just bought a pair of LVC 1947 for 130 pounds! Happy to have got them before the big price rise.

Just a question about the button factory numbers - I know all the other ones, 555, 4170.... but these dont seem have any numbers on the buttons. I see from 2009 they have 4170, but maybe these are even newer? Any idea where these are from?

(sorry I gues this mightve been asked but my computer cant seem to do the "search this thread" function for some reason!(

Look on the leg tag for year but this year is marked 4170.

[airfrogusmc]

Mmm... cehck the dimensions on the Visual Guide thread. The Clerk has a pair of 1901 downsized, they look great - pretty slim; as erk above says, the 1915 are probably slimmer still. Beautiful jeans but dodgy pocket shape. Both those shapes are straight-leg and will look better downsized than the earlier pairs, like the 1890s, which are slightly tapered.

I popped into Cinch last week, lots of great stuff, but I still get really irritated that they have their weird, narrow pockets style on the 1890, 1901 and 1915 now. I hope they correct it soon or i might have to get all electrum on their ass.

Mike, I will post your pics, just trying to revive the dead laptop they're on, will do so by tonight.

Paul, the last photos I saw of the 33s they too seem to have the longer pocket shape. That would really be a shame because the older ones had the pocket shape and the arcuate nailed.

[rob1031]

Look on the leg tag for year but this year is marked 4170.

Ah, thanks for that - it seems that where I got it, the vintage stuff wasnt selling, so this actually seems to be old stock?

It says:

47510.01.17

S1 06

643M

I see on the visual guide, 643 means a non-levi' US factory. How would one tell if its from Taylor Togs or some other factory (just asking since one of the factories that have 643 is TT.

Maybe this old stock is worth something? Could stock up to sell on ebay or sufu? There are also '33s, '47s and i tihnk one more cut.

[Maynard Friedman]

Ah, thanks for that - it seems that where I got it, the vintage stuff wasnt selling, so this actually seems to be old stock?

It says:

47510.01.17

S1 06

643M

I see on the visual guide, 643 means a non-levi' US factory. How would one tell if its from Taylor Togs or some other factory (just asking since one of the factories that have 643 is TT.

Maybe this old stock is worth something? Could stock up to sell on ebay or sufu? There are also '33s, '47s and i tihnk one more cut.

I think S106 means they're from Spring 2006.

[airportlobbytx]

Thanks Paul and sorry, where can I find this thread :confused:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

[erk]

Dr house,

I strongly recommend the 1915s. I have a measured waist of 35 and I got a 32w which measure 35 raw. Normally this works pretty well for me, like the sc47 and lvc 1937 but the 1915 does has pretty slim thighs. I think the fit looks good on my pair but I think if I could do it over I'd get a 33 for more comfort.

[airportlobbytx]

I never knew that people downsized on LVCs, although I should have guessed. I've always upsized at least one inch over my real waist.

[erk]

I never knew that people downsized on LVCs, although I should have guessed. I've always upsized at least one inch over my real waist.

I only go tts like that on wider cut models. If I had gone one up on my 37s they'd be falling off my ass. And I got a smaller size on the 1915s cause the waist band measures 3 inches larger than tagged.