Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Mongmeohotdau814 19]

 

I found a 1954 ebay for a good price (as far as I know),

but did not understand it has the same as the Rigid version?

 the seller said it a one wash, it is like I bought a Rigid version size 31 or are not?

hum !!!

Anybody have any suggestions?

[VivaMarlon 27]

For those in the US, "REVOLVR" has a few sizes in the 1947 and 1954 at about 40% off original price ($156), I just went ahead and bought a pair.

[Mongmeohotdau814 19]

 

thank you brother, size in 1954 was out of stock, but 1947 was left enough,

if i was a 31 size in 1954 i would go for 31 in 1947?

Anyone who has measurements can give me a reference before going for them

[VivaMarlon 27]

I just received the pair that I ordered and I noticed something interesting, the tag says 1954 at the top, but in the description it says "These 1947 501z Jeans have a zip fly and a narrow, tapered leg."

Has anyone noticed that before? Also, the patch is different than what I've seen on other pairs of 1954s.

 

Edited June 2 by VivaMarlon

[bod 108,674]

My tag is the same, typo obviously got missed in proof reading!

Edited June 2 by bod

[bod 108,674]

Leather patches change from production run to run, yours look the same as mine and I think it’s one of the nicer ones of late.

Edited June 2 by bod

[awells 0]

Would anyone be able to shed some light on the actual process behind the ‘new rinse’ models of the LVC jeans? I realise this topic has been covered in some detail but I couldn’t find an exact explanation from a quick search and a description I saw on the following page has thrown me off a little:

 

https://www.americanclassicslondon.com/products/levis-501xx-1966-rinse

 

“This is 501 is versatile fit, these jeans have been through a one wash process which has removed the shrinkage from the jeans. These are labelled true to size so no need to size up if you are a 32 waist and 32 leg, buy accordingly or for a true 60’s slim Jim cut try one size down.”

 

From the above, it sounds as though these jeans are manufactured exactly as a raw pair would be, but given a soak just before they leave the factory? I would assume there is more to it or perhaps a different story altogether?

 

Most importantly, I would assume that these jeans will not shrink in future but I would also be interested to know if I could expect the same fades from a pair like this as I would from a raw pair that I pre-soak at home myself? 

 

Thanks a lot!

[julian-wolf 399]

^ Whereas the rigid versions are all manufactured in the U.S., I believe that the rinsed and distressed versions are often made in Turkey or elsewhere. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.) Beyond that, the process should be as you described.

[Paul T 1,822,648]

Julian is right, washed/rinsed is normally from Turkey. The fades should be pretty good... but there have been some with a resin wash designed to fade more quickly.

 

[jewellben 30,910]

I bought some 54 new rinse from Cinch on Monday (Waiting for them to be hemmed as the 32" leg is TTS and I need 33") The denim is cone but they are made in Turkey, I went for these as a change from raw to remove the risk of thighs being too tight post washing like my raw have gone and the denim is quite hairy. 

I also found out why the 37 are not available in 36" leg and its due to limited amount of remaining cone denim so LVC decided to not waist on longer leg lengths I was informed. 

[VivaMarlon 27]

Maybe this question is better suited for the "general questions" thread, but with regards to not wasting material on a longer leg, I've always wondered why it's so common for many of the companies we love to only offer one or two different lengths. Being a shorter guy, I always have to get my jeans hemmed, was this common practice in the earlier days of denim? Regardless of where I purchased them, I always take my jeans to Self Edge cause they do a great job and I'm in the area regularly, just something I'm curious about.

Edited June 8 by VivaMarlon

[Foxy2 6,605]

a few things have changed:

• less tailors being available to hem or shorten pants/jeans
• people being bothered about going to get them hemmed/shorten
• fashion trends and preferences about longer legs and stacking

most brands have developed their approach to this problem based on the sales figures and what they perceive to be the customer's or retailer's preference. optimizing and minimizing the available options will help to streamline production, inventory and cost.

jeans might also have had the specific issue of un-sanforized denim in the past - you had to add extra length to compensate for the expected shrinkage...

[jewellben 30,910]

5 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Maybe this question is better suited for the "general questions" thread, but with regards to not wasting material on a longer leg, I've always wondered why it's so common for many of the companies we love to only offer one or two different lengths. Being a shorter guy, I always have to get my jeans hemmed, was this common practice in the earlier days of denim? Regardless of where I purchased them, I always take my jeans to Self Edge cause they do a great job and I'm in the area regularly, just something I'm curious about.

Its quite rare I need to hem even on a 36" leg but on the few times I have thankfully the Levis store on Regent St London provides chain stitching for free if you time it right. I've also used Rivet & Hide and Son of a Stag for non LVC

[428CJ 181]

Welp, over the past few months, I finally purchased the last two pair of LVCs I wanted to have: '33's and '76's. I was waiting for sales, hopefully before the end of the Cone Mills denim supplies. Decent enough ones finally popped up. Now it's time for a few solid decades of break in.

Here is what I've collected:

1880 (x2 - 34's and 36's)

1915's (x2 - 36's and 38's)

1933

1944

1955 (x2 - 34's and 36's)

1966

1977

[428CJ 181]

14 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Maybe this question is better suited for the "general questions" thread, but with regards to not wasting material on a longer leg, I've always wondered why it's so common for many of the companies we love to only offer one or two different lengths. Being a shorter guy, I always have to get my jeans hemmed, was this common practice in the earlier days of denim? Regardless of where I purchased them, I always take my jeans to Self Edge cause they do a great job and I'm in the area regularly, just something I'm curious about.

The availability of a wide variety of hemmed inseams is indeed something that came about in fairly recent history in the clothing industry. I'm not sure exactly when; maybe mid '50's to early '60's (someone here will know when). Jeans, just like dress pants, used to come in just one, or maybe a handful, of lengths. The thought was that you'd have the retailer or a tailor hem them for you after you bought them. Not everyone did this, hence the relatively common use of healthily tall cuffs. The trend of modern jeans companies doing roughly the same is actually a nod to the past, not something new. Even some lower-end jeans companies still do this on women's jeans. For instance, Lee women's jeans come in a variety of waists, but only a few lengths: S, M, L...and sometimes P (petite) and SP (super petite).

Edited June 9 by 428CJ

[ushokmwn 10]

Many models at the Levi's online store are no longer available or only in certain sizes. Maybe these are their last pairs in White Oak Cone denim.

I just ordered a 1966 with a voucher I received for signing up to their newsletter. The voucher said it would give 10% off but actually reduce the price by 20 %! German Levi's store, half an hour ago.

Edited June 9 by ushokmwn

[bod 108,674]

The UK site has few glaring mistakes:

Rigid 1978 listed as 1969 606 dark wash

Rigid 1944 listed as 1947 rigid - so theres two instances of the '47 just to make it confusing for shoppers

Rigid 1937 listing clicks through to what is described as 1937 dark indigo wash using product images which look like a 1947

The colour option for 1937 rigid clicks through to 1937 velzy wash

Someone needs a boot up the arse!

[ushokmwn 10]

^ Same situation in their German shop. I would go by the description and not by the pictures. The 1969 has the pictures of the 1976 and all sizes but even the US shop has only some sizes of the 1976 left.

Recently I read about EU tariffs on "typical" US products (Levi's, Harley Davidson etc.) as a reprisal for possible US tariffs on steel. Might be another reason to get a pair now.

[VivaMarlon 27]

10 hours ago, 428CJ said:

The availability of a wide variety of hemmed inseams is indeed something that came about in fairly recent history in the clothing industry. I'm not sure exactly when; maybe mid '50's to early '60's (someone here will know when). Jeans, just like dress pants, used to come in just one, or maybe a handful, of lengths. The thought was that you'd have the retailer or a tailor hem them for you after you bought them. Not everyone did this, hence the relatively common use of healthily tall cuffs. The trend of modern jeans companies doing roughly the same is actually a nod to the past, not something new. Even some lower-end jeans companies still do this on women's jeans. For instance, Lee women's jeans come in a variety of waists, but only a few lengths: S, M, L...and sometimes P (petite) and SP (super petite).

Before I knew much of anything at all about denim, I worked at UNIQLO and that was actually the first place I saw that did only one or two different lengths. They also offered a free hemming service if the jeans/pants were over a certain price, unfortunately this wasn't too popular as a large percentage of shoppers were tourists who wouldn't be able to come pick their jeans back up at a later date, just an interesting note on that.

It would be nice to not have to hem my jeans all the time, but my cuffs would be unreasonably tall seeing as I'm only 5'5" (1.67m).

[428CJ 181]

7 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Before I knew much of anything at all about denim, I worked at UNIQLO and that was actually the first place I saw that did only one or two different lengths. They also offered a free hemming service if the jeans/pants were over a certain price, unfortunately this wasn't too popular as a large percentage of shoppers were tourists who wouldn't be able to come pick their jeans back up at a later date, just an interesting note on that.

It would be nice to not have to hem my jeans all the time, but my cuffs would be unreasonably tall seeing as I'm only 5'5" (1.67m).

There is a way to triple cuff in order to fold in a huge excess of length, without making the cuff too ugly.

Example: I am 5'11". When cuffing, I cuff somewhat high, at about 29"–30", regardless of inseam. If you are 6" shorter than me, let's say 3 inches of that is in your inseam, as opposed to in your torso. Thus you probably want to cuff at 26" for a high cuff, and maybe 28" for a lower riding cuff. I'll use the midpoint of 27 inches, and assume your pants came with 10 extra inches of inseam.

With the 10 extra inches, you don't need to fold up a huge 5" double cuff, nor do you need to roll your factory hem all the way in to the interior of a triple cuff (which will make it hard to get a sharp cuff). Instead break the 10" into three sections, with one of the sections being a bit shorter than the other two. For 10" excess, the sections could be 3.5" + 3.5" + 3". The first cuff is made at the last number plus the middle number: 6.5". The second fold is made at the first number: 3.5". Important: The second fold is made 3.5" *up from the first fold* (through the layers of the first cuff, not at the point where the factory hem now sits).

What happens is that you get a meaty, four-layer-thick 3.5" triple cuff, but the factory hem stays loose and at the top of the cuff (yet hidden by 1/2"). It doesn't end up buried inside the cuff. It's a neater and looser cuff than a straight end-over-end triple cuff that tightly buries the factory inseam deep inside the cuff.

3.5" is still a damned healthy looking cuff, but it's not totally ridiculous like 5". Also, you might not have 10" of excess length, plus you might want to ride your cuffs a bit lower – two things that would shorten that 3.5" cuff.

Edited June 9 by 428CJ

[Maynard Friedman 564,012]

 

[jewellben 30,910]

right silly question time apologies in advance - anyone know from experience how much if any the hem on a 44 and the latest 37 will shrink with a good hot soak/wash? I've not worn jeans this wide for a while and they are both currently 9" in their raw state

[Maynard Friedman 564,012]

I think about 1/2 inch, i.e. to 8.5”.

[bartlebyyphonics 2,517]

@jewellben

'37 (top - soak & 1x wash) & '44 (bottom - soak & several washes)

after wearing the tcb50s and their monster hem (c.9 1/2") these now seem dainty...

 

Edited June 13 by bartlebyyphonics

[jewellben 30,910]

@bartlebyyphonics   many thanks for this

[VDC 81]

My 555 LVC Type 2

[Paul T 1,822,648]

How great to have that "Made In San Francisco" tag.

 

[VDC 81]

My LVC duck. Worn 15 times, no washes

 .

[bartlebyyphonics 2,517]

^ top stuff!

[MJF9 1,057]

Nice pieces @VDC.