Levi's Vintage Clothing

[crownzip]

Those 1873 Duck pants look great except it looks like Levi's wrote the size in with what looks like a felt tip pen (aka Sharpie) - doubt they had those back in '73.

[erk]

@Seb

which levis are those

cinch + hidden rivets

555 1937 201

[Guest Selvage Seb.]

@Seb

which levis are those

cinch + hidden rivets

LVC 1937 201xx

[Dr_Heech]

Does anyone know why levis originally labelled them the 201xx, rather than 501xx?

[blm14]

lack of give-a-shit?

[Guest Selvage Seb.]

Does anyone know why levis originally labelled them the 201xx, rather than 501xx?

The 201 denim was supposed to be the budget version over the 501, they're made out of different denim, more hairy. The 501 are more smooth and are/were considered as the best denim made by Levis.

Don't ask me though what the excact differences are between those two..

But I do know that I love the texture of the 201 fabric

[Happy Hooligan]

okay, since we're asking about numbers... do the different numbers (models) of levis jeans mean this or that?

I know about the 200 series such as 201's are there others?

the 333's would be the 300#'s

I don't know any 400#

Lot's of 500#'s, 501, 505, 527, 560 etc...

I don't know any 600# except maybe there was a woman's back in the early 80's if I remember

And there are 700# from the 70's.

Are there 100#" or 800# and up?

Is there rhyme and reason to this or is it just numbers?

[Happy Hooligan]

oh and a heads up on 1966 LVC on the actual US levis page on the sale section...

[DrMoBueno]

okay, i have a question for the knowledgeable folks of this thread.

behold.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://item.rakuten.co.jp/frisbee/10001542/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlot%2B00125-0005%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhi3EOj1523aRdzN5x-hxwpuKB3zMg

now, to my untrained eye, this appears to be the flawed version of the 1873. but they're calling it the 1886! do they not know what they're selling, or am i noobing it?

asking because, i just bought a pair, and i'd like to know what i have.

THANKS! (paul t, allen, heech)

[almostnice]

^apart from the different japanese inner tag poking out it looks exactly like my pair of the 1873 "first blue jean",made 12/99 (same as Cotton Duck owns)

[DrMoBueno]

sure looks like it, except the interior tag has an 0808, kinda makes me think it's aug 08.

[jpsmith98]

Question for the LVC gurus:

Which model of currently available LVCs with suspender buttons are the slimmest fitting? I know none of them are slim slim, or even straight slim, but which are the least baggy?

[erk]

Question for the LVC gurus:

Which model of currently available LVCs with suspender buttons are the slimmest fitting? I know none of them are slim slim, or even straight slim, but which are the least baggy?

I think those would be the 1890s or 1901s from fit pics I've seen. maybe anything before 1920?

[Dr_Heech]

Question for the LVC gurus:

Which model of currently available LVCs with suspender buttons are the slimmest fitting? I know none of them are slim slim, or even straight slim, but which are the least baggy?

I would hazzard a guess at the 1915's. Unless you can trawl ebay and find the 822 stamped top button 1873 from 1999, they are a slim fit early model.

[Dr_Heech]

okay, since we're asking about numbers... do the different numbers (models) of levis jeans mean this or that?

I know about the 200 series such as 201's are there others?

the 333's would be the 300#'s

I don't know any 400#

Lot's of 500#'s, 501, 505, 527, 560 etc...

I don't know any 600# except maybe there was a woman's back in the early 80's if I remember

And there are 700# from the 70's.

Are there 100#" or 800# and up?

Is there rhyme and reason to this or is it just numbers?

There was a 401, a 336 and the 701, which were lady levis of the 30's and 40's.

[Paul T]

Question for the LVC gurus:

Which model of currently available LVCs with suspender buttons are the slimmest fitting? I know none of them are slim slim, or even straight slim, but which are the least baggy?

Ha, very good question. Some of this is a question of relative size, as some are made bigger than others.

The 1890 are quite narrow, but definitely tapered, so that gives a very specific effect. The 33 and 20s 201 are among the widest.

For me, if you want something slim, I would go for the 1901 or the 1937 and downsize.

You can get more clues from these dimensions, as shown on the 501 visual guide thread:

1901 501 W34, R13, L31.5, Lo8.75, St22.25, TH10.5

1922 201 W34, R11.5, L 32.5, Lo10, St20.5, Th11.25

1927 501 W35, R13, L32.5, Lo9.5, St 21, Th11

1933 501 W33, R12.5, L31 , Lo 9.25,St20.5 , Th 10.75

1937 501 W32.5,R13, L31.75, Lo9, St 20, Th10.125

Main clues here are the size of St, Seat, and Th, THigh,. from these, it would seem that the 37 and the downsized 1901 would indeed be narrowest . as intimated earlier, there is a big difference in shape between the 1901 and 1890 - the 1890, apart from being tapaered, has a very high rise which gives a very specific look.

okay, i have a question for the knowledgeable folks of this thread.

behold.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://item.rakuten.co.jp/frisbee/10001542/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlot%2B00125-0005%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhi3EOj1523aRdzN5x-hxwpuKB3zMg

now, to my untrained eye, this appears to be the flawed version of the 1873. but they're calling it the 1886! do they not know what they're selling, or am i noobing it?

asking because, i just bought a pair, and i'd like to know what i have.

THANKS! (paul t, allen, heech)

Yup, as you suggest, these are essentially he smae as the 'First Blue Jean' or '1873' mode, which is also available in natural indigo. The arcuate on this pocket looks slightly different though, more like the 1890. Here's the '1873':

The 1873 did of course actually depict a jean from later, because there's double stitching on the yoke - the first Levi's had single stitching there. The patch also mentioned a later patent date.

The fabric on these looks great. Calling these 1886 is certainly more accurate than calling them 1873, although 1885 might be less confusing, as 1886 is famously when they brought in the two horse patch.

Yours, the trainspotting correspondent.

[Lendo]

pretty excited that farinelli's will be carrying most of the lvc line come next year.

they're only a short drive from me, looking forward to seeing some of the pieces in person.

[DrMoBueno]

thanks, paul t, very much appreciated.

i'll rep you when i can...

[ThomasK]

Got my 47 from cultizm today...didn't know they com with the back and the 501 evolution book. that's real art. Great!

[ChuckO]

LVC 1937 201xx

Sorry if I missed this if it came up before but the '37 201 had a leather patch instaed of cloth or is that a mistake?

By the way Seb, great job on those jeans!

[airfrogusmc]

1937 201 LVC I think was a fictitious jean. It has a leather patch and is made out of red line selvage not #2 denim. Great jean. I had two pair at one time.

[Paul T]

AFAIK, the 1937 '201' is very similar to the 1937 501 - the fabric is probabyl slightly different. I think it's Seb's pic that showed how good they can look worn undersized. Seb?

[Logikal Retro]

If I'm in between a 33-34 waist and want to be able to sag a little bit, would going with a 33 for 67 505's be a better bet? Would 34's stretch too much?

Anybody have a leg opening measurement for 33 or 34? Thanks.

[Dr_Heech]

Does anyone know why levis originally labelled them the 201xx, rather than 501xx?

Sorry, going on the various responses, maybe I should have made the question clearer.

They are obviously an early 1937 501xx repro (and nothing like a 201), with the wrong buckle and shallower (than you would find on originals) arcs. But why would levis vintage clothing put '201xx', instead of 501xx? Around the same time you had the 1955 501xx + the 551zxx, but none of these titles were altered. It is a minor thing i know, but i just wondered if anyone could shed any light on to the thinking behind that decision?

[Paul T]

Sorry, going on the various responses, maybe I should have made the question clearer.

They are obviously an early 1937 501xx repro (and nothing like a 201), with the wrong buckle and shallower (than you would find on originals) arcs. But why would levis vintage clothing put '201xx', instead of 501xx? Around the same time you had the 1955 501xx + the 551zxx, but none of these titles were altered. It is a minor thing i know, but i just wondered if anyone could shed any light on to the thinking behind that decision?

I hae asked a few people but never got the whole story, although several confirmed it was really a 1937 501 repro. Essentially, my guess is that some marketing idiot thought the range would sound more diverse with a 201 name rather than another 501.

One thing I don't know is when the 201 as discontinued. I think I go have a printout somewhere with the detaisl but it's in a messy overcrowded cupboard that I daren't approach for fear of being crushed.

I have been wearing my 20s 201 over the last few weeks. These are about the toughtest to-wear-in jeans I have ever owned. After 8 months wear, they look more like I've had them for 8 weeks.

i suspect the originals faded slowly too...

[Dr_Heech]

I have asked a few people but never got the whole story, although several confirmed it was really a 1937 501 repro. Essentially, my guess is that some marketing idiot thought the range would sound more diverse with a 201 name rather than another 501

Thanks Paul, along the lines of my thinking too.

It's a shame, because apart from the crap buckle (..but hey, at least it's functional!) and the 201 bit, they are a great pair of jeans - really tough and hard wearing. Shame there's no yellow thread though.

My 1929 201's are still sitting in a suitcase, along with two pairs of 1937 201xx's - Still got plenty of others to wear, so they'll just have to wait!

Oh, I've got a pic of a pair of 1937-1941 Levis 201 from one of my japanese mags. I posted it on the 201 thread some time ago.

Lastly, interesting to note that the early one pocket pair of 201's from 1893 in your book have a leather patch, yet the pic you just posted of the 1890 201 has a linen patch - any thoughts?

[ChuckO]

Seb's sure came out amazing.

[almostnice]

I went bad today.Had a look at Urban Outfitters,even bought a lovelely flanell shirt,discounted of course,their prices are mad.They had this LVC book thats coming with certain pairs ,for decoration only.not selling a piece of LVC anyway.I had my 2 year old son with me,so I gave it to him to have something to play around with.After I paid this book somehow went into my bag aswell,so if I got nicked I would have my son as an excuse.Not feeling bad about it at all,the book is great!

[Paul T]

Bad man! If it makes you feel better, Urban Outfitters are notorios for sellin Thai Levi's as the real thing, for hugely hiked prices.

Dr H, I did ask Lynn about the patch on those jeans- I THINK she told me the patch was discoloured - I suspect she might have been fobbing me off as it was part of a huge numbers of queries when we were close to finalising the book Those are interesting jeans, as they're definitively dated to 1893 (the owner dided in them, hence they're called the Dead Man Pants) and they also have the single yoke stitching. THe originals look very bland and unworn. I've been meaning to get the transparencies back so I can look at them under a loupe and see if there is any detail on the patch.

[almostnice]

I can top that.They sell "vintage Levis" for the hefty sum of 179,- here.nothing more than second hand run off the mill 501s,but labelled vintage the hipsters cant hold their money back.