Jump to content
prince_boys18

Levi's Vintage Clothing

Recommended Posts

Agree @bartlebyyphonics  The triple pleat blouse is a perfect case in point but sadly the rigid version is just too steep for me. Yours and Paul's look great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI: The 1880's Overalls are deeply discounted on the Levi's Website, in both rigid and distressed versions. 34, 36, 38 are available rigid, and 28, 34, 36 in the distressed finish. For some reason they are not in the LVC section, nor have I *ever* seen them there. I guess they've been "hidden" on the site in a way, in that you can't get to them via a search of the LVC category. They are marked down nearly 50 percent to $300, and there's 30 percent off of that price with the current sale. To find them, go to the list of additional 30 percent off sale items, and sort by highest to lowest price. That's how I stumbled across them by accident.

I thought there was a guy here who mentioned he really wanted them, but that he couldn't pay $600 for them. Well, here they are at about $230 delivered. Still expensive, but I'm not sure they'll ever be a whole lot cheaper.

Edited by 428CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news: the above sale has been increased to 40 percent off sale items, with code SALE40. This sale is live on the site now, but hasn't been generally advertised yet, so go now if you want to get something. Rigid 1880's are still available in 34 and 38, for $180 plus tax.

Bad news: customer service will not price match this time, so if you already bought something during the 30 percent off sale, you are S.O.L. It's in the fine print. I guess they learned their lesson from the Black Friday and Green Monday sales (during which I retroactively price matched twice, and got almost $70 back from them)!

Edited by 428CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about boxy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a front and back pic of my '66s. It was probably a bit too sunny outside, so they're not really as light in real life. Have been wearing them since mid-October, and they've gone through two washes. They've developed nice roping and seam puckering.

IMG_20180104_123250-01.thumb.jpeg.b1c9cf9a78ea20137e6c58430b957594.jpeg

IMG_20180104_123358-01.thumb.jpeg.e3cbae7213ee75b1c5017fe0ec3c8e55.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Nice. Classic, simple fades so far.

Did you soak the jeans before ever wearing them? In other words, have they been wet two times (the two washes you mentioned), or three times (the washes plus the first soak)?

I got mine about a month after you. I've only put three weeks of solid wear on them so far (still dry). I can't wait till they are faded, as I like the fit so much.

Edited by 428CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@428CJ I did an intial hot soak and hot machine wash to shrink them, and I did a cold machine wash (with detergent) before Christmas before they were really dirty. I'm not a huge fan of high contrast fades, but rather more "vintage" looking ones. I really like the fit as well, but I haven't managed to take any pictures of me wearing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a second 1976 501 36x34 which differs slightly to my first one. Tight is 0.8 cm narrower and hem 0.5 cm. Waist and inseam are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ushokmwn said:

I bought a second 1976 501 36x34 which differs slightly to my first one. Tight is 0.8 cm narrower and hem 0.5 cm. Waist and inseam are the same.

Wow, almost 1cm discrepancy in the same size is a helluva lot if you ask me. Shame on you, Levi's quality control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Outdoorsman said:

Wow, almost 1cm discrepancy in the same size is a helluva lot if you ask me. Shame on you, Levi's quality control.

Not sure if this is supposed to be sarcasm because I'm pretty sure that a little variance in the same size is within tolerance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, propellerbeanie said:

Not sure if this is supposed to be sarcasm because I'm pretty sure that a little variance in the same size is within tolerance. 

Of course it's sarcasm.

Probably undeserved, though. I didn't get the feeling that the poster to which he was replying was complaining, but rather, that he was just reporting.

Edited by 428CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wasn't complaining at all. The one I already had is quite a loose fit so a tad trimmer leg would not have bothered me. But I probably didn't measure hem and thigh right. After a very long, very hot soak it now has exactly the same measurements as the first one after soaking. If I can find another voucher code while Levi's still has them on offer with the White Oak denim, I may get a third one.

Do you know who makes the trousers? Levi's doesn't own factories any more as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ushokmwn I was just teasing a little, didn't mean to come across rude. my apologies. It's always great if people share their opinions and real-life measurements :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

Long time lurker, first time poster here - seeking some advice with some LVC jeans.....I currently own some 1955 501s so not totally new to this, but also not totally happy with the fit of those jeans so before investing in another pair I thought i'd come speak to the experts here to get some advice. I'm slightly bigger bummed than the average gentleman and have fairly chunky thighs, which isn't necessarily a problem because I like wider/straighter fitting jeans (I guess you'd call it a 50s fit?), so I can normally buy wider fits and even size up to get the correct fit in the upper block but the seat and thigh measurements of the jeans are naturally more of a consideration. 

My current pair of 501s, as pictured below, are a 34x36 and have been rinsed once at 30 deg when I first got them, but aside from a bit of English rain, haven't been wet since. Judging by the current length of the legs there may be some more shrink in them yet, and I'm planning to wash them again soon but doing so blind and pretty sure it wont sort the issues I have with the fit. I like the fit from around the knee downwards but I find them a bit too snug around my upper thigh and bum and would rather a profile something like the red line in the attached pic. They are still a touch roomy around the waistband and I often need to tighten my belt to keep them in the right place, so I'm not sure about sizing up any further but have considered that as an option, and I suppose i may have to in order to get the fit I want. Likewise, I have also considered the 1966 501s for a more tapered fit and a perceived larger seat and wider fit at the top of the leg, but the measurements i've found haven't really clarified that - they seem to be narrower at the bottom rather than wider at the top and the lower rise might not be good for me? so I would potentially still need to size up and have the waist issue again. I have also considered orSlow 105s as I have a couple of other pairs of orSlow trousers which I like the fit of - some US Army Fatigue Pants and some 2 Pocket Cargo pants, and i'm all ears if anyone has any other suggestions!!

Any advice would be massively appreciated - whether to either size up, try the 1966s or try some other jeans altogether.

Thanks a lot!

 

Capture.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm. Tricky one. I own both 66 and 55 and would say the 66 top-block, and general sizing around the bum, is trimmer. I wonder if the 44, worn probably true to size, might give a better graduation from top-block to knees, although they will have more of a straight leg look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

welcome

i am no expert but have found the roomier seats, high rise and wider draping legs in those models that may be suspended; 1933 and earlier... (thread experts pls correct me if i am wrong) but these often have a less heavy denim...

agreeing with paul T; 1944 has huge rise and thus generous seat but narrow thighs / slim profile

i am a big fan of the pre20th century cuts...

happy hunting

Edited by bartlebyyphonics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, awells said:

Hello!

Long time lurker, first time poster here - seeking some advice with some LVC jeans.....I currently own some 1955 501s so not totally new to this, but also not totally happy with the fit of those jeans so before investing in another pair I thought i'd come speak to the experts here to get some advice. I'm slightly bigger bummed than the average gentleman and have fairly chunky thighs, which isn't necessarily a problem because I like wider/straighter fitting jeans (I guess you'd call it a 50s fit?), so I can normally buy wider fits and even size up to get the correct fit in the upper block but the seat and thigh measurements of the jeans are naturally more of a consideration. 

My current pair of 501s, as pictured below, are a 34x36 and have been rinsed once at 30 deg when I first got them, but aside from a bit of English rain, haven't been wet since. Judging by the current length of the legs there may be some more shrink in them yet, and I'm planning to wash them again soon but doing so blind and pretty sure it wont sort the issues I have with the fit. I like the fit from around the knee downwards but I find them a bit too snug around my upper thigh and bum and would rather a profile something like the red line in the attached pic. They are still a touch roomy around the waistband and I often need to tighten my belt to keep them in the right place, so I'm not sure about sizing up any further but have considered that as an option, and I suppose i may have to in order to get the fit I want. Likewise, I have also considered the 1966 501s for a more tapered fit and a perceived larger seat and wider fit at the top of the leg, but the measurements i've found haven't really clarified that - they seem to be narrower at the bottom rather than wider at the top and the lower rise might not be good for me? so I would potentially still need to size up and have the waist issue again. I have also considered orSlow 105s as I have a couple of other pairs of orSlow trousers which I like the fit of - some US Army Fatigue Pants and some 2 Pocket Cargo pants, and i'm all ears if anyone has any other suggestions!!

Any advice would be massively appreciated - whether to either size up, try the 1966s or try some other jeans altogether.

Thanks a lot!

 

Capture.PNG

You already have what I would push as the ideal cut for your body: the 1955. What is your exact problem with it?

Don't go with the '66; it's lower rise with more taper in the thighs, so they will exacerbate your problems.

The '44 is straight and a bit slim; if you don't like the '55, then you definitely won't like the '44.

You might like '33's; they have a dungaree-like feel to them, with very relaxed fitting legs...but they don't look anything like a regular, modern jeans cut. They will stand out from other jeans (which the wearer may or may not like), and are not as versatile stylistically.

You also might enjoy Wrangler 31MWZs. They're very similar to an LVC 1955 in fit, but they are perhaps even looser in the butt and rear thighs. They are available in a sanforized rigid finish. You could buy about eight pair for what a pair of LVCs costs.

That said, I am surprised you have problems with the 1955's. The reason the 1955 is such a great fit for guys with big butts and thighs (like me) is that it fits all of that stuff in the pants without issue, but also has a drawn in waistband in comparison. In other words, they are the very definition of a post-war relaxed fit jean: a "straight-sided bell," if you will.

*If* those are '55's in the photo you posted, then they appear to be downsized; you need the next size up in my opinion.

The rule of thumb for guys like us is to ignore waistband size, and size the pants for the thigh and butt fitment. Cinch up your belt or have a tailor deal with the waistband (and any desired taper) later if you need to.

Edited by 428CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 428CJ said:

You already have what I would push as the ideal cut for your body: the 1955. What is your exact problem with it?

Don't go with the '66; it's lower rise with more taper in the thighs, and will this exacerbate your problems.

The '44 is straight and a bit slim; if you don't like the '55, then you definitely won't like the '44.

You might like '33's; they have a dungaree-like feel to them, with very relaxed fitting legs...but they don't look anything like a regular, modern jeans cut. They will stand out from other jeans (which the wearer may or may not like), and are not as versatile stylistically.

You also might enjoy Wrangler 31MWZs. They're very similar to an LVC 1955 in fit, but they are perhaps even looser in the butt and rear thighs. They are available in a sanforized rigid finish. You could buy about eight pair for what a pair of LVCs costs.

That said, I am surprised you have problems with the 1955's. The reason the 1955 is such a great fit for guys with big butts and thighs (like me) is that it fits all of that stuff in the pants without issue, but also has a drawn in waistband in comparison. In other words, they are the very definition of a post-war relaxed fit jean: a "straight-sided bell," if you will.

*If* those are '55's in the photo you posted, then they appear to be downsized; you need the next size up in my opinion.

The rule of thumb for guys like us is to ignore waistband size, and size the pants for the thigh and butt fitment. Cinch up your belt or have a tailor deal with the waistband (and any desired taper) later if you need to.

Thanks for all the advice people....^^ this is what i'm leaning towards. Previously owning raw or selvedge denim, non LVCs...I haven't pre-soaked them and these 1955s have certainly given me a better idea of the level of shrinkage to expect (despite obviously reading up before hand)...still find it difficult to try on for size and then buy a size up confidently....what's your approach 428CJ? and if I wear them in for 6 months or whatever, will I still get the same amount of shrinkage after the first wash as I would if I washed them straight off the bat? any tips here would be great also!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey @awells no problem

the advice of @428CJ seems pretty mint!

the 1933 etc advice was aimed at your 'red line'; but as noted - that does go into vintage territory that can be hard to wear with other garments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, awells said:

and if I wear them in for 6 months or whatever, will I still get the same amount of shrinkage after the first wash as I would if I washed them straight off the bat? any tips here would be great also!

Just soak or wash them first. Don’t be silly. Waiting to soak only guarantees that your cuffs will be in the wrong spot and any wear on the thighs and behind your knee. Also your pants won’t fit. 

 

Edit: if that’s what you wanna do - go for it. I’ve just never understood the thinking behind it and have never thought it provided any difference quality of fading. 

And I agree with sizing up on the 55. 55 sounds like your best bet. ‘37 would prob be good too but they’re not available this season. 

Edited by erk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where can I find measurements for 1880's Overalls Rigid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cool_hand. i can tell when i have received my pair, which a found at the 50% levi´s sale, at least for w32 l32... also i had seen em in a shop an the looked like beeing true to size, such as the 1915s, 1890s come.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim I have a pair of new (unwashed) 1915 34/34 here and they measure 36" waist so I would not describe as TTS. The 1880's Overalls look like similar denim to the 1915 so if they fit similar I'd be interested to know?

Why have you referred to them as 1890s? Typo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/01/2018 at 4:56 PM, awells said:

Thanks for all the advice people....^^ this is what i'm leaning towards. Previously owning raw or selvedge denim, non LVCs...I haven't pre-soaked them and these 1955s have certainly given me a better idea of the level of shrinkage to expect (despite obviously reading up before hand)...still find it difficult to try on for size and then buy a size up confidently....what's your approach 428CJ? and if I wear them in for 6 months or whatever, will I still get the same amount of shrinkage after the first wash as I would if I washed them straight off the bat? any tips here would be great also!

if they are 55 they look a great fit IMO I take the same size as you but never got on with my 55 but may take another look having seen your pics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

you are right cool hand, i have both the current 1915 and the current 1890, the 1915 in W30 measures around 31" and the 1890 in W30 are tts...

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim Apparently the 1880s in rigid are TTS so I probably need to size up to a 36. Next question: does anyone know what the shrinkage is like on these? They are described as Non-stretch 8 oz. selvedge denim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ enjoyable video, cusswords, thanks

Edited by lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Luisa via Roma (US)
    Brand - 125 x 125