Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Maynard Friedman 565,110]

I don’t think it’s supposed to be a freehand sewn look on the LVC 66, it’s simply a shallow, albeit asymmetric arcuate, sewn with the twin needle machines that had been in use since the 1940s. It seems that LVC may have varied it slightly from previous runs of 66, using artistic licence, although it’s quite possible they are basing it on a pair in their archives. I think they also want it to look significantly different from other post-war models so each cut has its own unique identity.

[lee porter 154]

It’s a Levi jacket on eBay at the moment Paul t I don’t know how to get the link here or a picture it says made in Hong Kong and has the capital e 

[Paul T 1,823,297]

22 minutes ago, lee porter said:

It’s a Levi jacket on eBay at the moment Paul t I don’t know how to get the link here or a picture it says made in Hong Kong and has the capital e 

Just paste the URL here?

[julian-wolf 1,273]

The ‘60s arcuates are sewn on a double-needle machine—no amount of “freehanding” will make the two rows of stitching look closer or farther from each other.

edit: New page, got beat to it

Edited September 30 by julian-wolf

[Pedro 278]

16 hours ago, julian-wolf said:

The ‘60s arcuates are sewn on a double-needle machine—no amount of “freehanding” will make the two rows of stitching look closer or farther from each other.

 

Obviously.

Thats my point.

Edited October 1 by Pedro

[Flash 245,269]

What exactly is your point ? 

[Pedro 278]

On 9/30/2019 at 12:59 AM, Maynard Friedman said:

I don’t think it’s supposed to be a freehand sewn look on the LVC 66, it’s simply a shallow, albeit asymmetric arcuate, sewn with the twin needle machines that had been in use since the 1940s. It seems that LVC may have varied it slightly from previous runs of 66, using artistic licence, although it’s quite possible they are basing it on a pair in their archives. I think they also want it to look significantly different from other post-war models so each cut has its own unique identity.

I thought the very asymmetrical arcuate was intended to suggest the freehand of the pre-47’s ?

Isn’t  it varied more than slightly from various runs of 1966? Can someone post photos of genuine 1966 back pockets to refresh my memory that they have always looked like this? 

All I meant was the even double-needing spacing was part of the same era as other advancements that resulted in symmetrical arcuates and far more equal vertical spacing so to me it looks like some kind of cheap knock-off that floods the marketplace and resulted in the many articles “How to Spot a Fake” (a mishmash of years).

Maybe I misunderstood and the photo was not an LVC line? If it was LVC then I thought the whole point was to remain authentically detailed to a specific year production. I mean its a 1966 and it looks as false as if they had chosen to paint the arcuates on ala the 1944 war years.

But I mean come on guys. You are Levi true believers. Have you ever met a Levi you haven’t liked? Jaja. The further Levis falls into disgrace, the more this board clings to the corporate giant and treats it as some kind of prophet and any criticism becomes blaspheme. 

This is from Levis website:

1. In 1947, double-needle machines were first used in the company’s factories to stitch the Arcuate design. This meant that the design of the stitching became uniform, nailing the diamond-shape that we still see today.

https://www.levistrauss.com/2018/11/15/happy-75th-anniversary-arcuate-5-facts-pocket-design/

 

Edited October 1 by Pedro

[Pedro 278]

17 minutes ago, Flash said:

What exactly is your point ? 

My point is the arcuate looks hideous Flash. I thought I made that quite clear in the earlier post when I said, “This arcuate looks hideous”.

Put your handful of stones down Buddy. You are not in church and nobody is insulting Jesus. 

 

[Flash 245,269]

Who has a handful of stones ??? 

Only reason I ask is because your posts were confusing . You started out talking about a late 60's Levi's arc and then compared them to a 30's 501xx all while using the term "freehand" to describe what I assume you thought LVC were trying achieve with the 66 arcs ?

 I actually agree with you that the arcs are not the best shape and look more like mid - late 70's arcs 

[Pedro 278]

Yes I did think Levis was trying to give those 66’s with the asymetrical arch a similar appearance to the freehand pre-47’s.

when I see a diamond mated to non-uniform arches, then it just looks incorrect to my memory when we were still finding STF ‘66s on the store shelves.

 

 

Edited October 1 by Pedro

[Pedro 278]

I really need to stay off the Levis forum.

I feel like a faithful spouse of nearly 50 years who just learns the love of his life who he has always been loyal to is turning cheap tricks down on the corner for spare change.

Levis is dead to me and there are plenty of Asian brides more deserving my attention who have kept their values. 

Edited October 1 by Pedro

[Flash 245,269]

So you think all pairs post ww2 501's had symmetrical arcs ? Because they were all over the place 

Edited October 1 by Flash

[tigerstrom 2,201]

This is from a pair of 501xx from around 1966. I guess that the shape of the arcurate varies a bit depending of who have sewn them.

Taken from the book 501xx a collection of vintage jeans.

[Pedro 278]

3 hours ago, Flash said:

So you think all pairs post ww2 501's had symmetrical arcs ? Because they were all over the place 

Well Flash, in answer to your friendly non-argumentative question, yes, having been alive and wearing and seeing many other people wearing 1966 STF back then, I do not ever recall seeing one back pocket look as unbalanced and high centered as the one in the photo that introduced this topic.

 

[Broark 8,310]

It seem like you’re the one who’s looking to start an argument? And I think people here don’t worship LVC as much as you think. I only own a pair because I got them for 80 bucks BNWT. I think people like what Levi’s used to be as opposed to what they are now.

[Flash 245,269]

4 minutes ago, Pedro said:

Well Flash, in answer to your friendly non-argumentative question, yes, having been alive and wearing and seeing many other people wearing 1966 STF back then, I do not ever recall seeing one back pocket look as unbalanced and high centered as the one in the photo that introduced this topic.

 

Well they were about , not all as extreme as the lvc were talking about but they certainly weren't all symmetrical . 

 

[SmokeStackLightning 438]

I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume all of the arcs and styling are exageratted to better differentiate between the years and models. 

[428CJ 282]

On 9/30/2019 at 1:43 AM, Pedro said:

Well the wash helps it a little but the spacing between the two arcuate lines is too uniform to match their desire for a freehand look by their making the arcuate so mismatched between left & right of center. They are trying too hard to make it unique and it looks like a 2nd grader who still lacks spacial awareness and balance.

Huh? That first sentence is confusing.

The spacing between the two arcuate lines is set by the spacing of the double needles on the sewing machine used. 

Not sure they are "trying" to achieve a freehand look so much as basing the arcs off of an example of the real deal in their archives.

I'm also not sure where being washed or not comes into play.

[428CJ 282]

10 hours ago, Flash said:

So you think all pairs post ww2 501's had symmetrical arcs ? Because they were all over the place 

Exactly.

Different people, different factories, pockets made ahead of time en masse. They are all over the place in both depth, symmetry, and height on the pockets.

I am sure LVC just based the design off of one particular pair, or noticed a trend among the jeans of that era, from their vault.

They are obviously shallower than most, but they don't seem like an extreme aberration, or like they are trying hard to look "freehand" to me.

Edited October 2 by 428CJ

[Maynard Friedman 565,110]

Reading this thread encouraged me to revisit my 501 book to check out the uneven post-WW2 arcuates. Looking at the pairs represented though, I’m still surprised that LVC decided not to use an offset back belt loop for the 55 model, that would have been perfect.

[propellerbeanie 842]

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think LVC repros are truly stitch-for-stitch. It's not like they're going to develop variations within the same fit in order to represent how the constructions may have differed back then. The current '66 arcs are most likely an exaggerated version of something from the archives or maybe it's an outlier that they chose to base the '66 off. Like @SmokeStackLightning said, it probably also helps differentiate the LVC lineup.

[Pedro 278]

@propellerbeanie

Huh? Its LVC. Its supposed to be a faithful reproduction by definition. Or atleast an honest attempt (thats why we allowed them to jack the price 500%). Otherwise, whats the point? We just spent decades reveling in the subtle differences between model years. Now we are saying “cool beans, I like that Levis is not just giving us the same old 1966 because it was getting so boring”.

;-)

Have we now just become apologists for Levis? Enablers of their single need for profit? Jaja.

 

Edited October 2 by Pedro

[Flash 245,269]

I'm not sure anyone is apologising for Levi's , pretty sure the most of us know that LVC have been phoning in the the reproduction aspect of the line and just trying to capitalise on the " vintage look " . If they were a proper reproduction brand They wouldn't use that ugly poly thread and would just go with cotton thread 

[Pedro 278]

@Flash

Amen.

[jake431 57,646]

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

@Flash

Amen.

So, what are you saying, @Pedro? You just agreed with Flash, who basically articulated the opposite of what I understood to be your point - he said we aren't expecting "stitch for stitch", but you earlier said we should. What would make you happy from LVC that you aren't getting?

[Maynard Friedman 565,110]

Here are some original 60s jeans from the Levi’s archive, from the book ‘501: The Evolution of the Jean’. It’s not easy to see (due to the resolution of the photo in the book) but the jeans have shallow, asymmetrical arcs, although not as exaggerated as those on the recent LVC 66 model. They may, however, be a basis for that particular aesthetic.

[propellerbeanie 842]

@Pedro I think you're making up scenarios in your head if you think we've been trying to apologise for Levi's. If I've learnt anything from your last posts, it's borderline impossible to have a constructive conversation with you when you just rant, condescend, and contradict yourself.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim 198,960]

hi there,

i am pretty sure  that the exaggeration of the repro arcuates comes from the photo itself, for the jeans is not shot plain but slighly bulked up which causes that effect by an perspective view.

i just wonder why we discuss the authenticity of lvc on such thing such as arcuates, while they even can´t manage to do the right fit / patterns.

thinking of '66 and '37 to me the bigger bummer is the extreme short button fly, which never haven been that short expect for sizes smaller than w30.

both to me look more like early ugly 00s hip fitting jeans, which is a shame since they could be so nice with a higher front rise / button fly.

Edited October 3 by Sympathy-For-The-Denim

[Paul T 1,823,297]

I've sat down in the design department at Levi's, looking at a new set of 60s jeans that they bought recently. I suggested to them that the shape of the LVC '66 back pockets is exaggerated - a little over square without enough taper from top to bottom - and the arcuate was over-flat. That was inherited from previous designers, for sure.

Just read some of the previous debate, which we've visited here before. There were a good number of original jeans with similar arcuates. Pockets especially varied from factory to factory, arcuates even more so.  LVC chose a more distinctive look, an outlier maybe, to make the 66 very different from the 55 (Levis' Japan did the same for some of their models). For my money, it's the pocket shape that's dissatisfying, just a little too square.

Obviously, first time around they meant to make the 66 jeans more distinct from the 55. I thiknk the current team know that. But my guess is they've got a lot on their plate (including the company float) and that tweaking existing cuts is low on their priorities.

I still love my '66 though. Will update them here after their next wash.

Edited October 3 by Paul T

[Broark 8,310]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, check out the arcs on these vintage 50's from BerBerjin.