Levi's Vintage Clothing

[houndsbucktooth]

well right now they look very "thug" on me. i think they may have to go back. i mean i don't need a skinny jean but i do want something that is a bit more form fitting.

with a front rise of 15 inches i doubt they will shrink enough, or have you noticed that the rise changes dramatically?

on the plus side i do really enjoy the color, the 9oz denim is nice, would be a great weight for summer, and the length is great for a 5 inch cuff at the bottom. and the cinch and suspender buttons are cool, VERY cool.

the down side is the legs are very wide and the rise is huge.

[Rivet Head]

well right now they look very "thug" on me. i think they may have to go back. i mean i don't need a skinny jean but i do want something that is a bit more form fitting.

with a front rise of 15 inches i doubt they will shrink enough, or have you noticed that the rise changes dramatically?

on the plus side i do really enjoy the color, the 9oz denim is nice, would be a great weight for summer, and the length is great for a 5 inch cuff at the bottom. and the cinch and suspender buttons are cool, VERY cool.

the down side is the legs are very wide and the rise is huge.

These pants were intended as workwear, so they are supposed to be comfortable/loose fitting vs. form-fitting. IMHO, it would be odd to have a wide leg jean that was so.

[Rivet Head]

well right now they look very "thug" on me. i think they may have to go back. i mean i don't need a skinny jean but i do want something that is a bit more form fitting.

with a front rise of 15 inches i doubt they will shrink enough, or have you noticed that the rise changes dramatically?

on the plus side i do really enjoy the color, the 9oz denim is nice, would be a great weight for summer, and the length is great for a 5 inch cuff at the bottom. and the cinch and suspender buttons are cool, VERY cool.

the down side is the legs are very wide and the rise is huge.

These pants were intended as workwear, so they are supposed to be comfortable/loose fitting vs. form-fitting. IMHO, it would be odd to have a wide leg jean that was so.

[houndsbucktooth]

These pants were intended as workwear, so they are supposed to be comfortable/loose fitting vs. form-fitting. IMHO, it would be odd to have a wide leg jean that was so.

I realize that it was intended as work wear, but i did not realize the rise would be as different as it is. I agree they would make much better work wear then every day, man on the street wear. i was hoping to make it a cross over but i am not sure i have the abilities to do so.

[houndsbucktooth]

These pants were intended as workwear, so they are supposed to be comfortable/loose fitting vs. form-fitting. IMHO, it would be odd to have a wide leg jean that was so.

I realize that it was intended as work wear, but i did not realize the rise would be as different as it is. I agree they would make much better work wear then every day, man on the street wear. i was hoping to make it a cross over but i am not sure i have the abilities to do so.

[Paul T]

I would normally say go for it with these - they are such lovely, unusual jeans.

But.. if they're your first LVC, it's a bit like going with something weird like a Ciitroen Light 15 as your first classic car. You might be better off with an MG for driving round town. For which read a pair of 47 - or better still a 55, worn true to size.

DO post photos either way please, we've only seen the samples here, not the produciton versions.

[Paul T]

I would normally say go for it with these - they are such lovely, unusual jeans.

But.. if they're your first LVC, it's a bit like going with something weird like a Ciitroen Light 15 as your first classic car. You might be better off with an MG for driving round town. For which read a pair of 47 - or better still a 55, worn true to size.

DO post photos either way please, we've only seen the samples here, not the produciton versions.

[houndsbucktooth]

Thanks Paul that was sound advice. Yes theya re my first LVC.

so 55 you say.....

[houndsbucktooth]

Thanks Paul that was sound advice. Yes theya re my first LVC.

so 55 you say.....

[superBobo]

The "thug" feel of wide cuts goes away nicely if you roll them to a shorter length, and give them a soak to get away from the dark, shiny denim. Im not sure how the 1917s look, but I love the 33s and 37s (aswell as Lee 101s from the same era), all very high rise, but not "thuggish" at all if worn right.

[superBobo]

The "thug" feel of wide cuts goes away nicely if you roll them to a shorter length, and give them a soak to get away from the dark, shiny denim. Im not sure how the 1917s look, but I love the 33s and 37s (aswell as Lee 101s from the same era), all very high rise, but not "thuggish" at all if worn right.

[houndsbucktooth]

Well i am already have a 5 inch cuff on them.

the thug is less in appearance of the wash but more impart to the excessive rise in ratio to where i wear my jeans.

[houndsbucktooth]

Well i am already have a 5 inch cuff on them.

the thug is less in appearance of the wash but more impart to the excessive rise in ratio to where i wear my jeans.

[phr]

could we all agree that the 1955 LVC shrinks the same way the cheap 501 stf's do?

[phr]

could we all agree that the 1955 LVC shrinks the same way the cheap 501 stf's do?

[ChuckO]

Houndsbucktooth, check out the fit pics on this forums page 304 for the '37's. If your looking for jeans with some old school character these have it with a fairly modern fit.

Here's a link to it:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=14314&page=304

[Paul T]

could we all agree that the 1955 LVC shrinks the same way the cheap 501 stf's do?

No.

10char

[ChuckO]

Sorry not LVC but real vintage levis from the '50s. These look to fit like the '54. Picture from Pauls "Some distressed Jeans" thread which is full of amazing pictures.

[electrum]

Well i am already have a 5 inch cuff on them.

the thug is less in appearance of the wash but more impart to the excessive rise in ratio to where i wear my jeans.

I can't decide between the '01 and '17, was considering both, but not sure about the '17s asymmetrical pockets mentioned on repeattofade blog. Does your pair have the irregular back pocket feature? Also, what's the finish like on the denim, is it crisp and lustrous or flimsy and dull, oh, and what the hell is "thug" ? Thanks in advance...

[phr]

No.

10char

then why are the sizing directions on both styles

the same?

[houndsbucktooth]

I can't decide between the '01 and '17, was considering both, but not sure about the '17s asymmetrical pockets mentioned on repeattofade blog. Does your pair have the irregular back pocket feature? Also, what's the finish like on the denim, is it crisp and lustrous or flimsy and dull, oh, and what the hell is "thug" ? Thanks in advance...

all the pockets seem to be the same, the only pocket difference i have noticed is that the front ones are shallow. barely fit the iphone in it. i guess in 1917 they did not carry iphones to the mines.

the finish is nice actually the color is a bit less indigo then i was thinking but over all it is not flimsy or dull.

and thug is in regards to the amount of fabric i have hanging down in my crotch. the front rise is over 15 inches and the back rise is almost 20 if i recall. i can do some squats for sure but i will never get a butt that big. lol

[houndsbucktooth]

if the above pic is similar to a 55 fit then count me in.

did i hear/read correctly to order the 55's true to size?

for instance if i wanted a 36/36 (two or three inch cuff) what size do you recommend?

[markus]

I had same fitting problem with my 20 201. My sister did some sewing work on them and now they are perfect. A little bit boot-cut to preserve the selvege on the cuffs, but the fit is slimmer now in the upper area.

[superBobo]

^^this is just crazy to me. You get 20s style work wear, and change the cut because you dont like 20s style workwear?

[markus]

No, I like the old fit, but the 201cut was a little bit to much. My mistake was to size up from W30 to W32. I think it is now similar to a shrunk W30 201. Compareable to my 33 501

[jstavrin]

I just did the initial cold soak for my LVC 1947s, but I'm wondering how much more they'll shrink with a hot soak? I like the way they fit around my legs, but they're a bit loose in the waist and way too long (seems like I should get all the shrinkage out before I get them hemmed).

[radical_radish]

if the above pic is similar to a 55 fit then count me in.

did i hear/read correctly to order the 55's true to size?

for instance if i wanted a 36/36 (two or three inch cuff) what size do you recommend?

I bought my 55s from a few seasons ago true to size and the fit is perfect - just gave them a short cold soak so far.

[simontuntelder]

I bought my 55s true to size, but if you want a slimmer fit, you can always size 1 down from your true waist size. I think it was Paul T who mentioned that these jeans could be worn almost as a modish-slim-fit if you sized down a couple of sizes.

[Rivet Head]

^^this is just crazy to me. You get 20s style work wear, and change the cut because you dont like 20s style workwear?

A-FUCKING-MEN!

[electrum]

all the pockets seem to be the same, the only pocket difference i have noticed is that the front ones are shallow. barely fit the iphone in it. i guess in 1917 they did not carry iphones to the mines.

the finish is nice actually the color is a bit less indigo then i was thinking but over all it is not flimsy or dull.

and thug is in regards to the amount of fabric i have hanging down in my crotch. the front rise is over 15 inches and the back rise is almost 20 if i recall. i can do some squats for sure but i will never get a butt that big. lol

15 and 20 inch rise, yeah, that is some unusual 'thug', that along w/ your description of the 'very cool' buttons, cinch and colorful lightweight denim, it seems that these '17s differentiate themselves from similar models like the '01 and 33s. If you can, try to post some detail fotos -- sounds like they are a cool LVC variant worth looking into. Thanks....