Levi's Vintage Clothing

[denimjunky]

Should I go TTS on a 1947 Rigid?

[erk]

Should I go TTS on a 1947 Rigid?

I'd go one or two up. Thats in measured size though. The thighs are very narrow and will be uncomfortable/destructive to the crotch.

I can't remember what the new 47s are measuring out to though...I'm pretty sure they're not undersized anymore...anyone out there know?

[Paul T]

I'd go one or two up. Thats in measured size though. The thighs are very narrow and will be uncomfortable/destructive to the crotch.

I can't remember what the new 47s are measuring out to though...I'm pretty sure they're not undersized anymore...anyone out there know?

I'm hearing conflicting stories; last I heard they were bang-on true to size. in which case sizing up 1 inch is best policy. But (here I go again) definitely worth checking.

[josh mullen]

The most recent pair I bought was not undersized. I believe they were 1/2" over tag, but then the larger sizes have usually been okay. It's been the smaller sizes -- anything under 36 -- that have been slimmer than their tagged size would indicate.

[Stratos]

Even the 36's, I have a measured size 35 and they hardly fit me dry, let alone shrunken...

[erk]

I'm hearing conflicting stories; last I heard they were bang-on true to size. in which case sizing up 1 inch is best policy. But (here I go again) definitely worth checking.

The most recent pair I bought was not undersized. I believe they were 1/2" over tag, but then the larger sizes have usually been okay. It's been the smaller sizes -- anything under 36 -- that have been slimmer than their tagged size would indicate.

uh oh...what a pain.

all I know is my 1955s were 2 inches larger then tag

my 1915s from last year were 2 inches larger then tag

my brothers 1944s were 1 inch larger then tag.

anyone else have any other input from this season?

[devilish]

My '2010's were just barely TTS but definitely on the slim side. I haven't soaked them because of this, the waist would probably be fine but the thighs would be too tight for sure. Like Paul T said get actual measurements if possible.

[Paul T]

uh oh...what a pain.

all I know is my 1955s were 2 inches larger then tag

my 1915s from last year were 2 inches larger then tag

my brothers 1944s were 1 inch larger then tag.

anyone else have any other input from this season?

I think the dimensions on thevisual guide are still pretty much correct, 47 & 66 TTS, 44 usually two incehs over, although I have heard the new 55 aren't as ridiculously oversized.

[grooveholmes]

Paul is right: +1 on the visual guide. My new 2010 '47s in size 34 measure exactly 17" pulled tight.

[erk]

Paul is right: +1 on the visual guide. My new 2010 '47s in size 34 measure exactly 17" pulled tight.

cool. then denimjunky should go 1 up then. go for it!

[roy6]

Thanks for the Japanese catalog PaulT. Do you know if LVCJ ever made any entirely new jean models that LVC Euro/US didn't produce?

[dr.house]

I sized up one (my real size 32", tagged 33") on the 47's. Still quite snug, they shrink a lot! Buy in a trusted store and get actual measurements on those. And denimjunky, you're looking for a nice LVC (your first pair), right?

I know your pain with the 66, go for a pair of 55's and you'll get happy.

[denimjunky]

Thanks a bunch. I went for size 1 up. Ill keep you guys informed how it goes.

[denimjunky]

So can anyone nail down the deal on the rough rinsed? Are these cone? I know its 14 oz and selvage but...how come its so much cheaper?

[dr.house]

Thanks a bunch. I went for size 1 up. Ill keep you guys informed how it goes.

Calves don't stretch! Check the actual measurements of the jean! They'll shrink 2 inches waist- and 3 inches inseamwise.

[denimjunky]

Dont all non-sanforized denim stretch back to their original size if put to enough strain?

[Stratos]

Not the '47's...really,

[denimjunky]

Shit, I bought it from a Ebay seller and it turned out to be cultizm.

Anyways Im gonna trust Paul T advice here since he seems to be to most "wandered" person in the subject.

[tropicalbird]

Dont all non-sanforized denim stretch back to their original size if put to enough strain?

Yes. It won't stretch more than it's original size, no matter how hard you try.

[Paul T]

Thanks for the Japanese catalog PaulT. Do you know if LVCJ ever made any entirely new jean models that LVC Euro/US didn't produce?

The 502 for one, as I mentioned, p[lus I think the 503B - there will be others.

So can anyone nail down the deal on the rough rinsed? Are these cone? I know its 14 oz and selvage but...how come its so much cheaper?

THe Rough Rinse are now their entry level LVC, cheaper than the raw - Cone fabric,sewn in Turkey.

[colgems1966]

Shit, I bought it from a Ebay seller and it turned out to be cultizm.

Anyways Im gonna trust Paul T advice here since he seems to be to most "wandered" person in the subject.

i bought 2 prs. of 47's 4170 in my normal size. they were slightly snug. i wore them both in a warm tub to soak. wringed them out while wearing them and wore them dry. they both ended up fitting great.. they shrank where they needed to and stretched where they needed to. i disagree that they won't stretch beyond new. wearing mine damp and allowing them to dry on me allowed the waist and seat to stretch out some and become more comfortable. from then on i washed them cold when needed and let them dry naturally and they stayed the same size. for anyone who has raw STF that is snug at first i highly recommend this method, it has never failed me. even my 37 201's which were tight esp. in the hips it worked out fine. they stretched where they needed to and are very comfortable now. not tight at all.

[Paul T]

It's good to have a range of approaches, that's what makes denim interesting. The 47 is the one jean where I would suggest getting measurements before you buy actual size, as pre 2009 production is one inch undersized.

Here's a 47 and 55 sizing guide.

[dr.house]

Dont all non-sanforized denim stretch back to their original size if put to enough strain?

Of course. This works waistwise, but not calvewise. As mentioned before, LVC 47's got a small top-block (if you want a vintage look, size up 2 or 3 or go for Sugar Canes 47's I ). If you prefer 'em trim, one size up seems to be a good deal.

[colgems1966]

i'm thinking the notorious smallishness of the 47's might not be as severe in the bigger sizes. i bought 38/36 same size as all my lvc and after soaking them on and wearing them dry as i mentioned earlier they are comfortable. while they are slimmer in the leg than my 55's,66's etc...they definately are not a skinny jean. they don't look undersized just trim. in fact they fit very similar in the leg as my 38/34 505's which are sanforized.

[dr.house]

^ He's a 32" IIRC.

[neakal]

Paul is right: +1 on the visual guide. My new 2010 '47s in size 34 measure exactly 17" pulled tight.

My Jeans size 34/30

I bought recently LVC 501 1966 tag size 34/34 , which measure in waist 36" I measure like this url

http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41

In my experience with LVC raw buy exact waist size wash it normal on 30 c , do not use dryer, by 3rd or 4th wash the inseam will stop further shrinkage and waist shrinked it will stretch back again to size you get when you buy it.

I bought first LVC 501 1966 in 2009 (4170 top button) size 36/34, that jeans look more like extra relaxed jeans on me even after 3 washes on 40 c and drying in dryer. Then I bought size 34/34 and they are my best, this year again I bought same LVC 501 1966 tag size 34/34 but it has bigger back pockets then i bought in 2009 I dont know why may be Paul T can tell us.

Yesterday I ordered LVC 501 1947 34/34 from CONTEXT Clothing, let us see what happened. I was always afraid to buy 1947 it will either big in size 36/34 or 34/34 will to tight on waist when washed.

According to visual guide if 66 and 47 waist are same then there will be no problem.

Just one question for you ,does your jeans came with white tag printed MADE IN USA in blue ink?

[Paul T]

I am not sure about why the pocket size changes. It could be partiuclar to a certain size - Levi's use several different pocket sizes depending on the size of jean, so they can look proportionally different from one example to another.

thanks for letting me know 66 was oversized - which season was it? Raw?

Yup, going for your actual waist size is fine with the 66, the thighs and topblock are significantly bigger, rather like the 55. Again, dimensions are on the visual guide.

[neakal]

I am not sure about why the pocket size changes. It could be partiuclar to a certain size - Levi's use several different pocket sizes depending on the size of jean, so they can look proportionally different from one example to another.

thanks for letting me know 66 was oversized - which season was it? Raw?

Yup, going for your actual waist size is fine with the 66, the thighs and topblock are significantly bigger, rather like the 55. Again, dimensions are on the visual guide.

Paul lvc 66 size 34/34 from 2009 (4170) and lvc size 66 from 2010 (4170) has bigger back pockets, from front everything same. I will post pictures of back pocket differences of size.

It was 2009 and even this one from 2010 are oversize.

But refer to how I measure waist here is link, http://blueingreensoho.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=41

[Shorty Long]

Are any shops in the US carrying the 2011 s/s collection?

[roy6]

^Union Made is getting it, but I don't think it has arrived yet. They usually ship to Barney's before the other US retailers.