Levi's Vintage Clothing

[horriblyjollyjinx]

From looking at originals, I would say that up until mid-50s the pockets were very inconsistent in shape. If you were making a replica of a 40s pair, there's really no way to say how the pockets should be shaped because they're all quite different from eachother.

But from around mid to late 50s they get more consistent but there are of course huge inconsistancies if we compare to today's manufacturing.

I do find that late 50s and actually even up until late 60s the shape is quite similar. Often when I look at vintage Levis the first thing I judge from is the backpockets, and a lot of the time the jeans turn out to be 60s when I expect them to be 50s.

by the way, backpockets on jp LVC 47 and 55 are shaped different from the EU ones. I like the 55 but I think it is not perfect, and different from a majority of 50s originals.

[airfrogusmc]

Horrible actually I know a guy that has some NWTs late 40s and early 50s 501s and the profile of the LVC 47s is wrong. He had a pair of 1955 LVCs still NWTs from a few years back and the cut and denim was so close to the LVC 55s it was scarey. 47 were to slim and low.

Well here from Levis own archives. Original 1947s. Check the boxy profile. Much different than LVCs 1947s.

And the 47s agianst 55s which have a far more acurate cut as compared with origianls from the period.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

So what size are those original 47s pictured? that's right, you don't know so you can't judge the cut since you don't know the proportions of waist and length.

The 47-55 comparison says nothing since it's all a matter of sizing and not cut. We all know they're sized differently but it's besides the point.

I have measurements from originals and have seen tons more in person. The LVC 47 cut-wise is not bad.

[Paul T]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this debate started because it was alleged that "the '47 lvc has the wrong weight, cut (tailoring/fit), colour, stitching and inconsistent denim grades." compared to SC.

The shape is certainly open to debate (although plenty of contemporaneous photos show Levi's wearers demonstrating what looks like a lower rise, and less antifit then the SC). But the rest is bull, exactly along the lines hjj mentioned. And before anyone mentions the stitching, late 40s originals can be found with both orange and yellow - and that's before you account for the different ageing of different examples.

[airfrogusmc]

So what size are those original 47s pictured? that's right, you don't know so you can't judge the cut since you don't know the proportions of waist and length.

The 47-55 comparison says nothing since it's all a matter of sizing and not cut. We all know they're sized differently but it's besides the point.

I have measurements from originals and have seen tons more in person. The LVC 47 cut-wise is not bad.

They're both 38/34s. You can get a real good idea of proportion by the waist and the leg width. Its not rocket science. And the 47s are cut slimmer and lower than originals form the same era. I've seen it with own eyes.

[Leonard Leroy]

Yo I like the color coming out in my 55s.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

They're both 38/34s. You can get a real good idea of proportion by the waist and the leg width. Its not rocket science. And the 47s are cut slimmer and lower than originals form the same era. I've seen it with own eyes.

I asked you the size of the originals that you use to say the reproductions are off.

You have nothing to base your statement that the LVCs are too slim on.

[Paul T]

Pics or it didn't happen, Leonard! (And I hear you wear your 55s WAY skinny,

like this? )

[airfrogusmc]

I asked you the size of the originals that you use to say the reproductions are off.

You have nothing to base your statement that the LVCs are too slim on.

You can't SEE. Look at the proportion. I've seen 55s and 47s RAW next to the same era NWT raw origianls and the 55 LVCs were alomst exact where the 47s were smaller. THe waist the thighs were uch trimmer as was the rise and not in the same portortion as the 55s. DIFFERENT. Cut slimmer just like ever pair of LVC 47s is slimmer and in different proportion than the same size LVC 55s. The thighs, seat, waist and rise are all slimmer on the 47 LVCs. THey have a different profile SLIMMER.

[rnrswitch]

Yo airfrog, what book is that with the pics?

[Leonard Leroy]

Pics or it didn't happen, Leonard! (And I hear you wear your 55s WAY skinny,

like this? )

Waaaaaaay skinny. Hah. But ya, they fit like that pretty much. I've been boot tucking them into vietnam era GI combat boots.

I think the high rise of them is very versatile, and I don't know if I could go back to a low rise anything.

[airfrogusmc]

Yo airfrog, what book is that with the pics?

Its a book that came with my 1917s.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

You can't SEE. Look at the proportion. I've seen 55s and 47s RAW next to the same era NWT raw origianls and the 55 LVCs were alomst exact where the 47s were smaller. THe waist the thighs were uch trimmer as was the rise and not in the same portortion as the 55s. DIFFERENT. Cut slimmer just like ever pair of LVC 47s is slimmer and in different proportion than the same size LVC 55s. The thighs, seat, waist and rise are all slimmer on the 47 LVCs. THey have a different profile SLIMMER.

A 38x27 would look wider cut than a size 28x36 which is why I ask you to provide the size of the jeans in the Levi's book.

Without the size it is impossible to have any idea of the proportions of the original, no? :eek:

When looking at pics from the era, the 501 seems to be all over the map in regards to how full or slim it is. Its appearance is a product of the wearer's body, height and waist size and thigh width etc, and how they were sized, tight to stretch out or loose to wear with a belt.

The same person can wear 4 different sizes, making the jeans look completely different. I can wear sizes 28" through 32" for example.

I can replicate this 1950s look that Paul posted perfectly with my Ooe or LVC 47(I even have blue 50s suede shoes like that!)

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1711179&postcount=307

In the thread at ringxring I have provided measurements of an original, that is cold facts without any personal judgement involved.

If you insist I can also ask Ooe for measurements of their original 47-51 501.

[airfrogusmc]

The leg circumference and the waist circumference should remain in some kind of reciprocity. Thats what I'm talking about not the LENGTH thus the PROFILE or that should though not in perfect reciprocity should remain fairly constant and reflect the proportion of the jean. Thus a jean with a wider leg will have a boxer profile than a thinner leg which the LVC 47s has. Take the 55s for instance which are very consistent with originals from that era. On the 47 LVCs I've owned in the same size as the 55s I've owned the 47s have been consistently narrower in the leg waist rise and I mean narrow the waist is say 2 inches smaller the thigh 10 % slimmer than if you'd down size the 55 in the same proportion. On original era LVCs they are consistent with a fuller cut than LVCs 47. The proportion and profile of the 47 LVC is slimmer.

[electrum]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this debate started because it was alleged that "the '47 lvc has the wrong weight, cut (tailoring/fit), colour, stitching and inconsistent denim grades." compared to SC.

The shape is certainly open to debate (although plenty of contemporaneous photos show Levi's wearers demonstrating what looks like a lower rise, and less antifit then the SC). But the rest is bull, exactly along the lines hjj mentioned. And before anyone mentions the stitching, late 40s originals can be found with both orange and yellow - and that's before you account for the different ageing of different examples.

I'm a novice and have no idea what is correct or not correct and don't really care as long as the jean suits me. So I'm in no position to debate this. All I said is that from what I read on this board and other denim boards since 2007, is that many denim heads seem to think that not only the lbvc '47 is wrong (weight, fit colour or whatever), but other classic Levi's replica's are wrong too, and that some competitors versions are better. Personally, I get tired of reading it because it confuses me. The response to my post that started this debate shows that all anyone still has to offer is more of the same, i.e. their own opinion without providing any factual reference material to back up those opinions. The point of my post was to question why Levi's cannot provide a detailed list of the actual specs that went into the original vs the replica -- after all they're the ones with the archive material. My question was more of a rhetorical question, that wasn't meant to stir up so much confusing debate. It was more of a passing thought that I think it would be cool if Levi's would provide that type of historical info. Maybe they do, but I haven't seen it here or anywhere else. No big deal folks...

[Paul T]

QUick answer:

How much info do you need? There is a huge amount available in various books, including airfrog's there is a breakdown on my website, info on hff's site. Of course if you post on a board like this you'll get conflicting opinions, and disinformation, what do you expect? Levi's have given out huge amount of info, and we even have soemone like Lynn Downey who regularly replies to one-off queries from people on this board. How many other companies do that?

Of course one or two of Levi's competitors will spread information that their cuts are more accurate, their denim is better, that they have the original LEvi's looms and Levi's don't. That's the nature of competition.

Actually, there's a broader spread of great repros around than there ever has been. Terrific jeans from Warehouse, beautiful customised jeans from Ooe, more choice on old Lee repros and even items like Boss Of The Road, a wider choice of natural indigo jeans, and LVC producing really obsucre models from the 200 and 300 range. I'd rather see more photos and stories of people waering these jeans and breaking them in, rather than the same old hoary stories.

[The Clerk]

Paul,

What is the LVC 200 and 300 range? Sorry if this seems a dumb question...

[Paul T]

These are more obscure Levi's old-time budget models (so not a dumb question). Check out Dr Heech's wonderful 213 series jacket a couple pages back. (Dr, sorry haven't answered you wastband Q< haven't had time to look properly, now I'm getting behind on me dayjob)

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1746623&postcount=918

airfrog's 209 overalls

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1102761&postcount=18

and the 333 jeans pictured here:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=14314&page=150

[airfrogusmc]

A 38x27 would look wider cut than a size 28x36 which is why I ask you to provide the size of the jeans in the Levi's book.

Without the size it is impossible to have any idea of the proportions of the original, no? :eek:

When looking at pics from the era, the 501 seems to be all over the map in regards to how full or slim it is. Its appearance is a product of the wearer's body, height and waist size and thigh width etc, and how they were sized, tight to stretch out or loose to wear with a belt.

The same person can wear 4 different sizes, making the jeans look completely different. I can wear sizes 28" through 32" for example.

I can replicate this 1950s look that Paul posted perfectly with my Ooe or LVC 47(I even have blue 50s suede shoes like that!)

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=1711179&postcount=307

In the thread at ringxring I have provided measurements of an original, that is cold facts without any personal judgement involved.

If you insist I can also ask Ooe for measurements of their original 47-51 501.

Also wanted to say that the original raw NWT late 40s 501s and the original mid 50s raw NWT 501s were not that much different in measurements and profile. The 47 LVCs were smaller and slimmer NWT RAW as compared with those originals. So what you're saying is the 55s are wrong and the 47s are right? I've seen it with own eyes. He had several pairs of LVC 47 and LVC 55s and the LVC 55s were consistent with his originals NWT RAW late 40s and mid 50s where the 47s were smaller in the waist (at least an inch smaller in tagged size) lower in rise and the thigh circumference smaller where the LVC 55s where consistent with both the original late 40s and mid 50s. The original mid 50s did have an offset belt loop hat the LVCs didn't have.

[blm14]

I believe that the 2005 CMF homme 1947 repro is by far the most accurate.

[Dr_Heech]

For reference... ©1929 Levis 213 pleated blouse/jacket from 1999:

The neck tag:

And for further reference, For those of us who are interested, the inside info label and button back:

[Dr_Heech]

Also wanted to say that the original raw NWT late 40s 501s and the original mid 50s raw NWT 501s were not that much different in measurements and profile. The 47 LVCs were smaller and slimmer NWT RAW as compared with those originals. So what you're saying is the 55s are wrong and the 47s are right? I've seen it with own eyes. He had several pairs of LVC 47 and LVC 55s and the LVC 55s were consistent with his originals NWT RAW late 40s and mid 50s where the 47s were smaller in the waist (at least an inch smaller in tagged size) lower in rise and the thigh circumference smaller where the LVC 55s where consistent with both the original late 40s and mid 50s. The original mid 50s did have an offset belt loop hat the LVCs didn't have.

A spot on observation.

Back in the 1980's and early '90's, I used to see dozens of pairs of Original Levi's 501's made after the war, up until early to mid fifties, and there is literally NO difference in cut. Lvc, IMO have got it wrong with the 47's, but the 55's are more similar to originals made from the 1950's. However, there did seem to be more early, post-war pairs with yellow stitching (Not faded orange) as I recall.

Lvc Wartime 501's aren't too bad in reference to original cut though (..is this more confusing now?).. as the '44's are originally slimmer, which I thought was more to do with material conservation. Maybe there was a gradual change for the first few (post war) years, which may account for some slimmer 501's? But the bottom line is: They're not originals - they're repros, so wear 'em and enjoy them.

Anyway, I'm happy with my 1955's only 'coz I'm not skinny enough to fit into the 47's !!

[airfrogusmc]

Paul,

What is the LVC 200 and 300 range? Sorry if this seems a dumb question...

Heres a couple more photos of the 1905 209 coveralls

1911 333s

[airfrogusmc]

Couple more of the 209s

[Dr_Heech]

Airfrog,

Those 209 overalls are gorgeous ! Is the denim similar to the 201's?

[Paul T]

I believe it's identical. Takes a lot of wearing in but is a lovely rich green cast. The detailing - like the elastic, complete with Levi Strauss legend, is absolutely amazing.

Note, also, the gorgeous purple stitching on the 333.

[Dr_Heech]

I believe it's identical. Takes a lot of wearing in but is a lovely rich green cast. The detailing - like the elastic, complete with Levi Strauss legend, is absolutely amazing.

Note, also, the gorgeous purple stitching on the 333.

Amazing indeed. Not sure about the 333's though. Dont get me wrong, they look great, but aesthetically, I prefer a yoke. But those 209's - straight out of 'Grapes of wrath'. Wish I could get away with the dungaree thing (picture a man having an eighties nightmare)

Worth buying just for the label and elastic suspenders though, let alone the denim!

[ChuckO]

The leg circumference and the waist circumference should remain in some kind of reciprocity. Thats what I'm talking about not the LENGTH thus the PROFILE or that should though not in perfect reciprocity should remain fairly constant and reflect the proportion of the jean. Thus a jean with a wider leg will have a boxer profile than a thinner leg which the LVC 47s has. Take the 55s for instance which are very consistent with originals from that era. On the 47 LVCs I've owned in the same size as the 55s I've owned the 47s have been consistently narrower in the leg waist rise and I mean narrow the waist is say 2 inches smaller the thigh 10 % slimmer than if you'd down size the 55 in the same proportion. On original era LVCs they are consistent with a fuller cut than LVCs 47. The proportion and profile of the 47 LVC is slimmer.

This is where the trouble arises I think. Either the legs were MUCH skinnier on smaller waist jeans which seems highly probable or they had different cuts going at the same time maybe the "boys" dept. sold one cut and the mens sold another. I've seen too many pictures like the one Paul referenced of those young guys to believe all jeans were cut somewhere in the "55" mold from the 40's to the mid 60's. There are an awful lot of those skinny jean pictures from pre-1960.

I think there's a predisposition on the part of people who are into "authenticity" to want to squeeze these fit's into absolutes. That works for LVC's sub-branding needs and it gives the "authenticity" folks a lot to argue about but clearly there was more variability in Levi's cuts than that.

[partytaco]

i have actual vintage Levi's in the same size from both the 47 (single sided red tab, outseam stitch extends to the bottom of the rear pocket, rear belt loop attaches on seam) and 55 (every garment guaranteed paper patch) period and while the difference is minimal the cuts are different. The 47's have a slimmer leg, narrower hem and a longer seat. The difference doesn't show up as much in the measurements as it does when they are worn.

Here are measurements for both if anyone wants to compare vs an LVC of the same size. These were taken after a wash, unstretched.

47

waist 33.5"

front rise 12"

rear rise 16.5"

hem 8.5

55

waist 33.5"

front rise 11.5"

rear rise 16"

hem 9"

Lvc Wartime 501's aren't too bad in reference to original cut though (..is this more confusing now?).. as the '44's are originally slimmer, which I thought was more to do with material conservation. Maybe there was a gradual change for the first few (post war) years, which may account for some slimmer 501's? But the bottom line is: They're not originals - they're repros, so wear 'em and enjoy them.

Anyway, I'm happy with my 1955's only 'coz I'm not skinny enough to fit into the 47's !!

[airfrogusmc]

Heres mine and these 47s are consistant with both other pairs I've owned with the exception of the middle pair being even trimmer all were tagged 38 waist. Same as you washed unstretched. Both LVC..

both tagged 38/34

waist

47s 36

55s 38

front rise

47s 11.5

55s 12.5

upper thigh 4" down from crotch

47s 22

55s 24

back rise

47 16 1/4

55 17 1/2

bottom leg opening

47s 15

55s 17