Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Dr_Heech]

Airfrog and Paul. Re: 1886 (501)XX and not always trusting Lvc models...

Thanks Allen for the photo assistance,

I'm just convinced those jeans in the illustration are (501)XX's, as it's advertising the two horse patch (plus..If you look at the print/illustration, the chap on the left has got a pair on with the larger,centrally placed patch!)

Yeah Paul, I agree with you re: Lvc model variation and inaccurracy - just look at the back pockets on the 1927's from last year, and also the 1873's with the double stitch yoke.

It's just great to have a place to debate and discuss.

[Paul T]

What Lynn Downey thinks, and what seems to make snese, is that there are two entirely different models: the workwear jeans, which has become called the Nevada; and the XX, which becmae the 501. The Nevada seems to have disappeared around 1890, and is essentially the same jean, and cut, as the rust-coloured cotton duck pants.

At one point, Levi's thought the NEvada was the first model, and changed into the XX; now they think there are two parallel models, because they bought another pair of jeans a couple of years ago which they think is the earliest XX; this had the early patch, on the right, normal 501 back and watch pocket and the single line of stitching at the yoke. Levi's think these jeans, and the NEvada, are both around 1880, and as yet this pair seem to be about the earliest jeans they have.

AS far as I know, the XX always seems to have had the leather patch on the right; but the current XX repro, the Oldest Oldest, has it in the middle.. I think this is an error, likewise I saw a similar error on either the Oldest Oldest or Nevada, which had the wrong back pocket... which shows someone at LVC is confused, too.

AS for those 1886, the watch pocket and central patch would tell me they are the workwear model. But I could be wrong, it's five or six years since I was in the archives and there might well be new info I'm not privy to.

I'm very interested in all those early models... I would love LVC to do a natural indigo version with the correct detailing; when they've done such a good job on the 300 and 200 series, or even the cotton duck jeans, iit seems bizarre they haven't nailed an early version.

[Paul T]

i", sure Lynn won't mind my posting this info; I was asking her about the earlist pair of XX that they found a couple of years ago:

SO do the [XX acquired in 2003] pre-date the Nevada? When do you think they're from? WHat other distinctive details do they have?

THIS IS THE "XX" - THE OLDEST PAIR OF 501 JEANS, DATING TO c1879. THAT MAKES THEM THE OLDEST JEANS IN THE WORLD. WE ACQUIRED THESE IN 2003. XX WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME FOR THE 501; IT DIDN'T GET ITS NUMBER UNTIL 1890. IT'S POSSIBLE WE WERE MAKING THE NEVADA STYLE AT THE SAME TIME, BUT OF COURSE WE HAVE NO RECORDS, THANKS TO THE EARTHQUAKE AND FIRE. I WOULD SAY THESE ARE CERTAINLY CONTEMPORARY TO THE NEVADA, AND A DIFFERENT STYLE. TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORK PANTS.

In which case you would say that the nevada's unique features (pocket shape, hem, ruler pocket, centrally-placed leather patch etc) come from the fact that it's an alternative model to the 501? I WOULDN'T LIKE TO SPECULATE ABOUT THAT SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL RECORDS. BUT I THINK WE DID WANT TO OFFER A VARIETY OF STYLES FOR THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORKWEAR CUSTOMERS. I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY RECORDS TO TELL ME WHAT THE THINKING WAS BEHIND THE CREATION OF THE NEVADA. REMEMBER, THAT'S OUR NAME FOR THE JEANS, SINCE THE PAIR WE BOUGHT ON EBAY WAS FOUND IN NEVADA. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS ORIGINAL NAME OR LOT NUMBER WAS. WE HAVE SINCE ACQUIRED 2 OTHER PAIRS OF THIS STYLE.

(PT: one of these is the Knappave, which Lynn refers to as the "Capri Pants' - these are the cut-off pair).

Lev's have aquired another early XX pair in the last couple of years; this was the pair on which the 'XX' was visible on the leather patch.

[Dochunter]

Could anyone give me some adivce about where I could find the LVC 517's? I have a pair that I found a Ebay a while back and I totally loved and were destroyed the other day. Unfortunately, Ebay doesn't have any in my size.

Thanks.

[Johnnylazar]

Call on of the Levi's stores and ask them to look it up. I think there are a few stores that actually still have a couple. What size are you by the way??

[airfrogusmc]

I'm very interested in all those early models... I would love LVC to do a natural indigo version with the correct detailing; when they've done such a good job on the 300 and 200 series, or even the cotton duck jeans, iit seems bizarre they haven't nailed an early version.

Hey if they offered that I'd buy a pair. My 20 201s, my 1905 209 coveralls and my 1911 333s are just killer. The denim on both the 333s and the 209s are just incredible.

Paul do you know if the Denim on the 1886s that I have is Japanese?

[Dochunter]

Call on of the Levi's stores and ask them to look it up. I think there are a few stores that actually still have a couple. What size are you by the way??

My old pair was a 32 that stretched quite a bit. I think I might be able to swing a size 30, but 31 might be better. I'm about a 32 true waist.

[mikedbt5]

I am going to be putting my 506xx Valencia St repro from yr 2000 on ebay on Tuesday 14th . However if anyone here is interested please pm me . Its a size 44 , pit to pit = 23ins , top of collar to waist at back - 25ins , shoulders - 19ins . I am willing to accept £80 , what i paid for it approx 2yrs ago or might go for a swap . Need to be v good condition (no pre distressed) LVC W34 L31/32 501xx 1944 , 1947, 1966 or 1967 (505) . Unfortunately I just havent wore this jacket and I am not really a collector as such but I can alwys do with more jeans !! No marks or rips /terars at all , bought as and still is one wash condition .

[Dr_Heech]

AS far as I know, the XX always seems to have had the leather patch on the right; but the current XX repro, the Oldest Oldest, has it in the middle.. I think this is an error, likewise I saw a similar error on either the Oldest Oldest or Nevada, which had the wrong back pocket... which shows someone at LVC is confused, too.

I'm very interested in all those early models... I would love LVC to do a natural indigo version with the correct detailing; when they've done such a good job on the 300 and 200 series, or even the cotton duck jeans, iit seems bizarre they haven't nailed an early version.

First point: Thanks Paul, you've confirmed a couple of mysteries for me re: the "oldest/oldest", which is why I wouldn't buy a pair. And I always thought the 1873 Duck were different from the 501xx, but the 1873 1st jean ARE correct? Apart from the two stitched yoke and the four button fly, rather than three? The Lvc people are confusing US too.

This leads me to the second point..

I also love the earlier models made between, 1873-1936 particularly. They've done a fantastic job on the 1917's, but a half-arsed job on the 1927's? Why would they put two rows of stitch on the top of the rear pockets on the 1917's, but not the 1927's... Then put them back on the 1933's!???! (..and the 1929 201's, for that matter). I asked Lynn (Downey) about this, but all She could tell me was the two row's of stitch replaced the earlier one row around 1922 (Her guesstimate), due to fact that they didn't have any jeans for the changeover year. But what about the "Homer" jean, they could have checked that for reference (I since have..TWO rows, just like the repro?) Looking forward to those 1915's... I think...

[airfrogusmc]

I agree the 27s are not as nice as the 17s. The 1915s should be interesting.

[Happy Hooligan]

I noticed that my 1937's are showing quite a bit of fuzz now...

Anyone else notice this on their 37's?

[erk]

yeah, the denim is pretty hairy. I really love the way the denim looks.

these are some pics I took of mine about a month ago. I dont have any new pictures but they are definately more hairy now.

[electrum]

Yeah, mine had a slight fuzzy hand when new also. Now that I've been wearing them for a couple of wks, the fuzz is becoming more noticeable. It's wonderful denim - I love it. If you look back through this thread during the past week or so, you'll see some fantastic eye candy of hard worn '37 denim that looks really good. I can't wait to see how mine develope after some serious wear. Will post progress pics after about 3 mos wear....

[electrum]

For the first time, I was watching AxMen, a series on the History Channel the other day and noticed something interesting. The series chronicles the competition among several logging crews in the Great Pacific North West. I saw that many of the workers were wearing LVC jeans. I thought wow, these dudes work in one of the most dangerous and unforgiving environments and depend on LVC to withstand the hazards and workload. It was difficult to distinguish what models they were wearing, but one pair looked like either a '01 or '33 having buckle back, exposed rear pockets rivets and suspender buttons. All of the workers appeard wearing suspenders. Of all the work wear available like Dickies, Carhartt, RedWing or even regular Levi's, these loggers are going with what they obviously know are the best jeans for the toughest conditions -- LVC. I mean these dudes aren't pretty boys who are going to drop $200 of their hard earned dollars on a pair of expensive jeans because they want to look cool. I nstead, They're wearing LVC because they are a tough, practical and dependable necessity. I think this is a true testament to Levi's timeless appeal as the worlds best workwear. Check it out, it's pretty cool to see Levi's classics serving in action like they did over 100 yrs ago. Btw, I bet these rough-neck loggers are pretty pissed now that Levi's is no longer selling lvc here in the states.

[Dr_Heech]

Paul,

I wonder if you can shed any light on the different waistbands on the Lvc jeans, as you have more knowledge on the two types of early jeans that I suppose Lvc is attempting to portray. Obviously I know you cant trust the repros for accuracy, but there are similarities (..and discrepancies). These three:

1890 501XX from 2005, 1901® from 2004, and the 1917's.

The outside of the early 501 2-piece waistband:

And the inside:

The 1901:

And the 1917 501 becomes one piece:

My interest here is the bottom single stitching, which can be seen as "dropped-off" the waistband from the inside. This is apparent on the 1890/1901's but disappears on the 1917's.

Is that just a 501/XX feature? As the workpant type (duck/knappave/nevada/oldest-oldest jean and the 1886's), all have selvedge?

Actually, I've just been looking at the latest 1890 and 1901 on the DOSHABURI website and they both have neither !

[Case]

Got some LVC 1947 501's sz 32x34 for sale in the supermarket.

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?p=1746651#post1746651

[ChuckO]

yeah, the denim is pretty hairy. I really love the way the denim looks.

these are some pics I took of mine about a month ago. I dont have any new pictures but they are definately more hairy now.

This denim looks exactly like my '47's I got a couple of months ago.

[electrum]

Speaking of historic details/ accuracy, what I never could figure out is why Levi's has so much trouble making an exact replica of their own jeans that they have historic records and samples as guides for models like the 1947 501? When I first discovered LVC, I read here and elsewhere that the '47 lvc has the wrong weight, cut (tailoring/fit), colour, stitching and inconsistent denim grades. The majority of experts on these boards say, if you want an exact '47 replica, buy Sugar Cane. I can care less about historic accuracy of minor details. As long as I like the jean, I'm happy -- and I was never happy w/ any of the 3 pairs of '47's I got from Levi's. Being a bit of a weight whore, I was disappointed to find out that I'd have to buy some queer brand called Sugar Cane to get not only the original 14.25 oz. weight, but the right fit '47. I thought hell if everyone seems to think Sugar Cane makes a better '47 than Levi's can, that's pretty screwed up, so I almost closed the door on LVC altogether. I can understand why pre 1906 quake/fire models are difficult to replicate -- the historic records do not exist. However, that does not explain why they can't accurately replicate a relatively modern model espectially their "iconic" '47 when they should have historic records and samples as guides. Seems that any post 1906 model should be very easy to replicate , right? What's the road block here, bad management?

First point: Thanks Paul, you've confirmed a couple of mysteries for me re: the "oldest/oldest", which is why I wouldn't buy a pair. And I always thought the 1873 Duck were different from the 501xx, but the 1873 1st jean ARE correct? Apart from the two stitched yoke and the four button fly, rather than three? The Lvc people are confusing US too.

This leads me to the second point..

I also love the earlier models made between, 1873-1936 particularly. They've done a fantastic job on the 1917's, but a half-arsed job on the 1927's? Why would they put two rows of stitch on the top of the rear pockets on the 1917's, but not the 1927's... Then put them back on the 1933's!???! (..and the 1929 201's, for that matter). I asked Lynn (Downey) about this, but all She could tell me was the two row's of stitch replaced the earlier one row around 1922 (Her guesstimate), due to fact that they didn't have any jeans for the changeover year. But what about the "Homer" jean, they could have checked that for reference (I since have..TWO rows, just like the repro?) Looking forward to those 1915's... I think...

[setterman]

If they're wearing LVC on Ax Men (and I noticed in one of the commercials it looked like one of the guys was), it's probably part of a sponsorship deal from Levis. I can't see a logger spending $200 jeans.

[rnrswitch]

Or they are just in to nice denim. But, for the most part people in that line of work don't care about denim.

[civicex]

There isn't a real solid opinion on accuracy in the 1947 models in LVC vs Sugar Cane.

When people point to accuracy in LVC vs SC, they usually point to the 1955 501's. I've done quite a bit of research, and there's no definitive answer on which 1947 model is more accurate.

As of now, the general consensus on the 47's is that the SC model has a larger anti-fit rise than the LVC collection. Otherwise, they're pretty similar.

Speaking of historic details/ accuracy, what I never could figure out is why Levi's has so much trouble making an exact replica of their own jeans that they have historic records and samples as guides for models like the 1947 501? When I first discovered LVC, I read here and elsewhere that the '47 lvc has the wrong weight, cut (tailoring/fit), colour, stitching and inconsistent denim grades. The majority of experts on these boards say, if you want an exact '47 replica, buy Sugar Cane. I can care less about historic accuracy of minor details. As long as I like the jean, I'm happy -- and I was never happy w/ any of the 3 pairs of '47's I got from Levi's. Being a bit of a weight whore, I was disappointed to find out that I'd have to buy some queer brand called Sugar Cane to get not only the original 14.25 oz. weight, but the right fit '47. I thought hell if everyone seems to think Sugar Cane makes a better '47 than Levi's can, that's pretty screwed up, so I almost closed the door on LVC altogether. I can understand why pre 1906 quake/fire models are difficult to replicate -- the historic records do not exist. However, that does not explain why they can't accurately replicate a relatively modern model espectially their "iconic" '47 when they should have historic records and samples as guides. Seems that any post 1906 model should be very easy to replicate , right? What's the road block here, bad management?

[airfrogusmc]

The US made 1947 LVCs that I 've owned and seen are cut to low, back pokcets are to small, legs are narrower and the cut in general is to slim as compared to originals.

[rnrswitch]

I also think the '47 is kind of the gateway vintage denim for the LVC brand. It is meant to appeal to more people and for maybe this reason Levis chooses to produce a more modern fit.

[Paul T]

There isn't a real solid opinion on accuracy in the 1947 models in LVC vs Sugar Cane.

When people point to accuracy in LVC vs SC, they usually point to the 1955 501's. I've done quite a bit of research, and there's no definitive answer on which 1947 model is more accurate.

As of now, the general consensus on the 47's is that the SC model has a larger anti-fit rise than the LVC collection. Otherwise, they're pretty similar.

Agreed.

We've been here before. LVC 47s have the correct weight, and always have. From memory, they're 13 oz, which equates to roughtly 14.5 in a sanforized or preshrunk jean. They are made slightly undersize, probably to replicate the fact that bikers etc would downsize their jeans in the late 40s.

Someone somewhere started a story that 47s were being made in 9oz, this is either a myth or the wrong oilcloth guarantee tag was sown on.

I have been accused by, IIRC, Electrum before of being a LEvi's stooge - but I've called out every LVC jean that I think is inaccurate, and I think the 47 is still the definitive replica, adn I haven't seen any errors on them in the last 8 years. A couple months ago I thought the new fabric was inferior to the old, but I was wrong.

Incidentally, Cone take great care to match the precise denim to the year for LVC replicas - the denim on the 47 is different to that on the 55, which is different to that on the 66. The only problem I've found with the 47 denim is that the fabric is more prone to thread breaks than other LVC.

I am not saying that all of LVC, including the 47, couldn't be improved. But most of the criticisms cited above are bull, bar the issue of the rise and waist (Airfrog might be right baout the pockets, they can vary with the size of the repro and the original, I blieve they had three different pocket sizes and I don't know enough to say for definite).

[airfrogusmc]

Speaking of historic details/ accuracy, what I never could figure out is why Levi's has so much trouble making an exact replica of their own jeans that they have historic records and samples as guides for models like the 1947 501? When I first discovered LVC, I read here and elsewhere that the '47 lvc has the wrong weight, cut (tailoring/fit), colour, stitching and inconsistent denim grades. The majority of experts on these boards say, if you want an exact '47 replica, buy Sugar Cane. I can care less about historic accuracy of minor details. As long as I like the jean, I'm happy -- and I was never happy w/ any of the 3 pairs of '47's I got from Levi's. Being a bit of a weight whore, I was disappointed to find out that I'd have to buy some queer brand called Sugar Cane to get not only the original 14.25 oz. weight, but the right fit '47. I thought hell if everyone seems to think Sugar Cane makes a better '47 than Levi's can, that's pretty screwed up, so I almost closed the door on LVC altogether. I can understand why pre 1906 quake/fire models are difficult to replicate -- the historic records do not exist. However, that does not explain why they can't accurately replicate a relatively modern model espectially their "iconic" '47 when they should have historic records and samples as guides. Seems that any post 1906 model should be very easy to replicate , right? What's the road block here, bad management?

14.25 raw weight for 1947 501s is not acurate.

[erk]

I was under the impression that the only difference in cut is how the 1947s are sized. And even that isn't true anymore because LVC apparently changed the sizing on the 47s. I dont get where you get this problem with the weight of the 47s, I thought that the weight is accurate.

(paul and airfrog already got this.)

[horriblyjollyjinx]

There isn't a real solid opinion on accuracy in the 1947 models in LVC vs Sugar Cane.

When people point to accuracy in LVC vs SC, they usually point to the 1955 501's. I've done quite a bit of research, and there's no definitive answer on which 1947 model is more accurate.

As of now, the general consensus on the 47's is that the SC model has a larger anti-fit rise than the LVC collection. Otherwise, they're pretty similar.

This is just another myth like the 555 one. I highly doubt that SC 1947s are more accurate than LVC 1947s. I have in fact compared measurements from a pair of original 1947s given by a seller on ebay and LVCs and they are spot on.

I have also seen a lot of 40s-50s Levis in Japan and for example I looked at Ooe Yofukuten's early 50s pair and compared them to my Ooe 01XXs, which are very close to LVC 47s, and they matched up very well.

People just want to believe that a small Jap brand would beat out the huge American corporation because it would be a good story.

That's not to say that LVC is perfect because it certainly isnt. My biggest problem with LVC is usually the denim.

For example the 47s are often lackluster and I find Cone denim in general to be alright but not good.

What's funny though is that what everyone on this board is most interested in though is whether that buttons are stamped 555, if the denim is made by Cone and if the jeans are sewn in the US. These are completely superficial things that say nothing of the quality of the reproduction.

I also have never seen original 40s-50s Levis with backpockets slanted as much as on the LVC 1947s, it seems to be exaggerated to make the 47 more distinguished.

But once again, the most important thing on this board is a stamp and that Cone made the denim, not the quality of it.

(side note: I personally have 555 551zxx and 555 201s and while I didn't quite swallow the whle 555 thing I did give it the benefit of doubt before learning more. )

So, what I want to say to people reading this board that have not been around long enough to be able to judge for themselves is that there is an incredible amount of bs, misinformation, hype, myths surrounding Levi's and LVC and denim in general.

So take everything with a HUGE grain of salt, except what's said by Paul T and perhaps some others which is very balanced.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

on the note of LVC 1947 authenticity, go here for a little read

http://ringxring.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13

[Paul T]

Very interesting thread.

I was told by one guy at Levi's that pocket sizes and shapes weer never that consistent, as the simple jigs were prone to wear. THey were constantly trying to get back to the 'original' shape from the 60s onwards.

None of this defence of LVC says that they can't be improved; apart from errors cited before (201 pockets, 1901 leather patch etc tc ect) there is the hugely irritating one of inconsistent sizing, whcih has changed yet again recently. I personally would have no problem seeing them made in Japan, if it helped fix this problem.

[civicex]

I was told by one guy at Levi's that pocket sizes and shapes weer never that consistent, as the simple jigs were prone to wear.

A LOT of people forget this fact about old denim; vintage 501's weren't 100% consistent from pair to pair, even with the tagged size.

If we're having issues with different factories/years making different products, it would have surely been an issue nearly 60 years ago.

The process of turning denim fabric into assembled jeans has always been a hand made process. Cardboard templates are set over lengths of denim fabric and are cut out, and these pieces are sewed together to make a completed product.

Sure, there are some advances today, but the process of cutting and assembling completed jeans is essentially the same process as it was back then.

There will always be some variation in the completed product from human error. Some cuts will be cut slightly differently, thus affecting the finished product. You'll have variation in results even within the same factory, and even with the same workers.