Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Rivet Head]

Answer this question:

If you could make three suggestions to the "brass" at LVC, what would they be? Mine are as follows:

1. Shift all production to the US

2. Move away from the pre-distressed stuff and offer more "deadstock" finishes (especially in the non-denim pieces)

3. Make another Stanley Mouse sweatshirt!!!

Stanley's mom ran a store called the Mouse House into the 90's here in Livonia, MI. I remember in the 80's they still had lot's of killer sweatshirts and tees for sale...if I knew then, what I knew now.

[Shorty Long]

Yeah...I've seen original Mouse sweatshirts go for $800+ on ebay. The LVC piece wasn't airbrushed, but it was a cool image nonetheless.

Stanley's mom ran a store called the Mouse House into the 90's here in Livonia, MI. I remember in the 80's they still had lot's of killer sweatshirts and tees for sale...if I knew then, what I knew now.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

1. the should have the SPRING BOTTOM back!!!

2. made an ecxact repro of the beautiful 1890s 201s

3. bring back the very very nice 551zxxs

[Dr_Heech]

You picked up some Sugar Cane 47s recently, didn't you? How do you think they compare to the LVC 44s and 47s shapewise?

I've got a pair of LVC 44 and 55s and a pair of SC 47s, all size 38, and the fit is very different between all of them. All I have are photos to compare to, but to me it looks like the Sugar Canes have the 40s shape and porportion more right. BUT, I like the fit of the LVC's better since they've got more room at the waist but are slimmer through the leg.

The Canes are more true to a 40's cut IMHO, with the 44's a VERY close second. I love them both for many different reasons. Although I've owned/worn two pairs of 44's in the past, I dont have a current pair which are worn. Hoping to pick up a pair tomorrow, and will probably get a 34/34 or 34/36 as I already have the 2005 model (striped shirt pockets) in a 36/36.

Cant get enough of these SC47 - really well made and details to drool over!

Sorry, the Lvc 47's dont even come into the equation for me personally.

.

[Dr_Heech]

Answer this question:

If you could make three suggestions to the "brass" at LVC, what would they be? Mine are as follows:

1. Shift all production to the US

2. Move away from the pre-distressed stuff and offer more "deadstock" finishes (especially in the non-denim pieces)

3. Make another Stanley Mouse sweatshirt!!!

1. Agreed, also reopen the Valencia street factory (why not..eh?)

2. Agreed 100%

3.Keeping to the above,

- Make an 1899 506xx, a proper proportioned 1922 501xx with that gorgeous cone denim that's used on the '15's, and make a 1962 558xx jacket (or 71205, if it's after 1966)

4. Read through all the Levis vintage thread on Sufu !!

(i know that's four)

.

[roy6]

Answer this question:

If you could make three suggestions to the "brass" at LVC, what would they be? Mine are as follows:

1. Shift all production to the US

2. Move away from the pre-distressed stuff and offer more "deadstock" finishes (especially in the non-denim pieces)

3. Make another Stanley Mouse sweatshirt!!!

1. Make the sizing consistent*.

2. Reestablish their connection with Aero (or another high-quality leather workshop- Langlitz? Eastman?).

3. Shift all production back to the US.

* I recently talked to a friend who worked at LVC some years ago and mentioned the sizing thing. She said something along the lines of "Oh, that's on purpose! We want the customer to get a vintage-style fit." I see what she means, but LVC doesn't get mildly under or over-sizing right. They're way to extreme. What's wrong with making a 32W jean that actually won't fall off of or tourniquet the waist of an actual 32W individual?

[runormal]

* I recently talked to a friend who worked at LVC some years ago and mentioned the sizing thing. She said something along the lines of "Oh, that's on purpose! We want the customer to get a vintage-style fit."

Interesting, as I was actually wondering that same thing, was their intention: customer should buy their tagged waist size, shrink them in the tub, and however they end up - either big/tight/etc - is how the designer/LVC intended for the jeans to fit for that year's model.... still think that is asking the customer to put a lot of faith in their sizing, especially at 225 a pop - better to size them correctly and let the customer decide what their fit preference is.

[Shorty Long]

Nice suggestions. However, I think Levi actually sold the Valencia St. factory, but someone will have to confirm (disgusting if true, isn't it???)

Some additions...

1. re-release the "WWII" 506 jacket.

2. Get the minor, easily fixable details right on the jeans (e.g., a decent cinch buckle on the 1915s!!!, as well as "flattened" rivets...as well as the paint color on the arcuates on the 1944s...shout out to he Dr. on that one!!!).

1. Agreed, also reopen the Valencia street factory (why not..eh?)

2. Agreed 100%

3.Keeping to the above,

- Make an 1899 506xx, a proper proportioned 1922 501xx with that gorgeous cone denim that's used on the '15's, and make a 1962 558xx jacket (or 71205, if it's after 1966)

4. Read through all the Levis vintage thread on Sufu !!

(i know that's four)

.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

btw, the ss ´10 44s got orange painted arcuates again...

[chris_n]

well i´d love to get me pair of the 47s if they´d use the denim of 44s...

actually i also like skintight jeans sometimes and it makes me angry that there is no chance to get authentic repro of the 1966 606s, the always are customized with stupid low waist :/

@runormal

it´s the kaihara denim, i used to have pair aswell, the faded like hell and very beautiful with many vertical lines... looking forward too to see em in a few month...

i've seen a few 66's and knwo waht you mean, but my 67's have quite a high waist... i wear them slouched. pics today later on today when the sun is nice

[erk]

1. Make the sizing consistent*.

2. Reestablish their connection with Aero (or another high-quality leather workshop- Langlitz? Eastman?).

3. Shift all production back to the US.

* I recently talked to a friend who worked at LVC some years ago and mentioned the sizing thing. She said something along the lines of "Oh, that's on purpose! We want the customer to get a vintage-style fit." I see what she means, but LVC doesn't get mildly under or over-sizing right. They're way to extreme. What's wrong with making a 32W jean that actually won't fall off of or tourniquet the waist of an actual 32W individual?

The purposely oversized idea is so pointless. People wore the early jeans over their other pants, who the hell is gonna do that now? And I don't think people in 1915 wore pants that flat out didn't fit them, and that's the outcome I would've had if I had gotten a 34 instead of a 32. Like Roy said they are way too extreme and imagine what it'd be like I you followed the advice on that brown sticker - they'd be 1915 clown dungarees.

We have also seen what happens to jeans with minor fit adjustments. Likethe 1947. They're only an inch undersized, but people end up with fits that look waaay too skinny even for downsized 40s 501s. Not to mention crotch blow outs.

And what's up with the new 55 sizing? If this business of purposeful missizing is true, what business does a 1955 fit have being 2-3 inches oversize?

[setterman]

And what's up with the new 55 sizing? If this business of purposeful missizing is true, what business does a 1955 fit have being 2-3 inches oversize?

I've got no problem with jeans being two to three inches oversize (seems like that's how most MIJ jeans are). You know they're going to shrink down to tag size and stretch out a little from that. No big deal, and probably makes life easier for non-denimhead customers. The problem is when that oversize isn't consistent through out a model, or entire line. That's when sizing becomes an issue. I don't care if LVC measures tagged size and shrinks from that, or starts out a couple inches big and shrinks to tagged size. Just be consistent from model to model, season to season. It shouldn't be that hard to do!

[setterman]

I've been looking at the 1936 Type I LVC from the new collection and asked the guys from Cultizm what the measurements were. Here's a big surprise:

Size M

Chest: 24â€

Shoulders : 19.25â€

Length: 25â€

Shoulder to cuff: 26â€

Size L

Chest: 26â€

Shoulders : 21â€

Length: 26.5â€

Shoulder to cuff: 27â€

They are HUGE! In past, I've bought a L and it had pretty much the same measurements as the M.

Thanks for the heads up on the sizing of the current Type I. I assumed an XL would be too small, but after seeing these numbers I contacted cultizm, found that an XL should be plenty big, and ordered one today. Hope to have it by Monday or Tuesday.

[erk]

I've got no problem with jeans being two to three inches oversize (seems like that's how most MIJ jeans are). You know they're going to shrink down to tag size and stretch out a little from that. No big deal, and probably makes life easier for non-denimhead customers. The problem is when that oversize isn't consistent through out a model, or entire line. That's when sizing becomes an issue. I don't care if LVC measures tagged size and shrinks from that, or starts out a couple inches big and shrinks to tagged size. Just be consistent from model to model, season to season. It shouldn't be that hard to do!

Consistency is a huge problem. But you say that the sizing on the 1955s is like mij jeans, that's fine but that's not how they advise you to size them. All levis despite what year they are, all have brown stickers on them that advise you to size up two inches. That would provide you with a terrible fit whether or not they shrink to the size written on the leather patch.

[setterman]

All levis despite what year they are, all have brown stickers on them that advise you to size up two inches.

Yeah, they gotta lose or change that tag.

[chris_n]

i sized 2 up tagged size on my 47's and what do you know, they fit?

setterman, which pair of LVC jeans did not absolutely fit you after going by the brown sticker sizing instructions? i am baffled.

[erk]

i sized 2 up tagged size on my 47's and what do you know, they fit?

setterman, which pair of LVC jeans did not absolutely fit you after going by the brown sticker sizing instructions? i am baffled.

The 1947s are one of the few models that would actually fit after using the sticker's sizing advice.

[Shorty Long]

This article indicates that the factory is still in Levi hands. I'll see if I can get the lowdown.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-04-09/business/17540027_1_levi-s-san-francisco-jeans-plant

**edit

It is out of Levi hands and now a Quaker K-8 school

http://www.sffriendsschool.org/Our-Home/our-home.html

[electrum]

The purposely oversized idea is so pointless.

I agree Erk, the size disparity between actual vs tag on the '15 is so screwed up I can't imagine it being intentional, especially when the difference varies anywhere from 2-4 inches for the SAME tag size from one retailer to another. I thought that might change this season for the '15, but unfortunately it's the same.

Oh, fwiw in addition to my long standing 'no ingredients' gripe, I have to add 2 more to my list of wishes to Levi's brass.

2. Agree with Sympathy, 1890 201 raw would be too cool along with other obscure models like 333 every now and then. Sometimes it gets a little old seeing same line up every season.

3. Issue a handmade flagship limited edition replica museum piece of an early model (like the '90 201) each season that is an exact replica with every detail indistinguishable from the original, i.e. stitching, indigo dye, organic un bleached cotton, metal alloys, denim finish, weight, cut, manufacturing techniques and even authentic hang tags/oilcloth patch. The cost would probably make producing something like that impractical, but I think it's doable if limited to like 100-500 pair -- I'd pay high premium for something like that. Hell couldn't be much more labor intensive than pre distressed stuff. anyway one can only dream....

[setterman]

i sized 2 up tagged size on my 47's and what do you know, they fit?

setterman, which pair of LVC jeans did not absolutely fit you after going by the brown sticker sizing instructions? i am baffled.

First pair of LVC/raw denim I bought were a pair of 55 from 2007. Bought a size 42 expecting them to shrink to a 40". After multiple hot washes and trips through the dryer, I gave them to a friend because they didn't shrink down enough for me. My current 55s are a size 38. After some experience with various brands I've learned that the tag size doesn't matter, I need something measuring between 40 to 43" raw, that will shrink down to 38" (for a slimmer fit) to 40" (for a relaxed fit).

[chris_n]

wow, sorry those 42's didn't work out. i can't vouch for LVC's larger sizing quirks so you have a point there.

[Joseph Hill]

Answer this question:

If you could make three suggestions to the "brass" at LVC, what would they be? Mine are as follows:

1. Shift all production to the US

2. Move away from the pre-distressed stuff and offer more "deadstock" finishes (especially in the non-denim pieces)

3. Make another Stanley Mouse sweatshirt!!!

I'd just switch #3 to consistant sizing. Too large, too small, just right don't matter as long as it's the SAME every time. The rest gets more into the territory of geekdom where nobody is ever completely happy anyhow, and could be varied over the seasons to try to push the most buttons.

This article indicates that the factory is still in Levi hands. I'll see if I can get the lowdown.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-04-09/business/17540027_1_levi-s-san-francisco-jeans-plant

**edit

It is out of Levi hands and now a Quaker K-8 school

http://www.sffriendsschool.org/Our-Home/our-home.html

Vastly better than my fear that it would be a condo complex for neuveau riche hipster f**s.

[roy6]

Interesting, as I was actually wondering that same thing, was their intention: customer should buy their tagged waist size, shrink them in the tub, and however they end up - either big/tight/etc - is how the designer/LVC intended for the jeans to fit for that year's model.... still think that is asking the customer to put a lot of faith in their sizing, especially at 225 a pop - better to size them correctly and let the customer decide what their fit preference is.

I think that that is their goal, but it doesn't work out in practice. Maybe they could do a dual tag- one with an actual waist measurement and a second, suggested "vintage fit" guide, like "size up two for a vintage style fit" or something along those lines.

333 clown pants, sized as directed by LVC (a 34W, I'm a 32). Actual waist size after washing (and drying in the machine!) =35".

[almostnice]

Oh roy,how cuddly!

ever thought of giving your belly a shave?

[Rivet Head]

Sausage, schnitzel and beer will make those pants fit better!

[almostnice]

what he said!

come to Hamburg and i will stuff you,roy.

[joelz]

oh god this thread took a turn for the hilarious

[Shorty Long]

quick question for those that have purchased s/s '10 501s...does the red tab "LEVI'S" have the circle "R"???

[chris_n]

1967 606 orange tab from 4-5 seasons ago. rise neither high nor low, blocky top to a very fitted hem.

shirt pulled up to show rise

these jeans hold a special place in my heart but the denim on these is nothing to write home about. made in USA non-selvage --what i believe is to be era correct for this model. no leather patch --or patch of any kind for that matter. OH, and flat felled seams on both inseam and outseam. lovely

fit is awesome.

[ChuckO]

I'm a little late to the size party but my 47's marked 36x34 measured 38x34 and so are probably an authentic fit. I have some room in the thighs. I think my 55's were sized similarly.

Sugarcane has two 47's now. A skinny, summer weight and their regular.