Levi's Vintage Clothing

[roy6]

It is not entirely fair to make that comparison. Red Wing has always been in a niche market, while Levi's since the mid 20th century has been in the biggest mass market thinkable (within the fashion industry that is...). RW can afford to sell a top notch product at a premium price and keep its production local, because it's 'manageable'. Levi's simply cannot, it needs to compete with all other mass manufacturers. And that implies keeping production and logistics costs as low as possible. Outsourcing, even within the USA, is part of that logic. It's a small miracle LVC exists AT ALL. It is also no coincidence at all that the CEO is a former food industry boss, same logic.

If we were talking about Levi's full range that would be a good point, but we were just talking about LVC, which is as niche as niche can get, and quite separate from Levi's main profit generating lines. Levi's has even less excuse for producing LVC items non-domestically, as LVC has always had the vast resources of Levi's backing it and not too much pressure to generate profit.

I think any good marketing strategist could outline how LVC, even if it never made a dime, is an overall asset to Levi's, as it taps into "heritage", all the craze now, like no other brand can, keeps Levi's foot in the high-end market, and is potentially loads of good PR.

I think Marineau is maybe getting a bum wrap here- Levi's board made a mess of things for themselves and he was brought in to turn the company around and make it profitable so it could survive, which he did. If they had adapted to the times more adroitly a lot of the painful decisions of the early 2000s would never have been necessary, though probably outsourcing some of the main, highest-selling lines would have been inevitable, given the global race to the bottom in price and quality.

[Stratos]

If we were talking about Levi's full range that would be a good point, but we were just talking about LVC, which is as niche as niche can get, and quite separate from Levi's main profit generating lines. Levi's has even less excuse for producing LVC items non-domestically, as LVC has always had the vast resources of Levi's backing it and not too much pressure to generate profit.

I think any good marketing strategist could outline how LVC, even if it never made a dime, is an overall asset to Levi's, as it taps into "heritage", all the craze now, like no other brand can, keeps Levi's foot in the high-end market, and is potentially loads of good PR.

I think Marineau is maybe getting a bum wrap here- Levi's board made a mess of things for themselves and he was brought in to turn the company around and make it profitable so it could survive, which he did. If they had adapted to the times more adroitly a lot of the painful decisions of the early 2000s would never have been necessary, though probably outsourcing some of the main, highest-selling lines would have been inevitable, given the global race to the bottom in price and quality.

You have a point marketing strategies-wise but it is easy to make that analysis with hindsight. Remember LVC was only launched in the late nineties, then a very dark period started and authenticity/nostalgia was probably not very high on their priorities list when they decided to kill off the Valencia Street production.

And look on the bright side: LVS IS good quality, the raw denim IS made in the USA (most of it anyway...) it IS still Levi's, it IS widely available and it IS reasonably priced. Ok, they 've had their flaws and glitches, but who hasn't. Don't dwell too much on nostalgia, LVC is just a repro, no matter if the jeans are 555's or not (consider that even 555 missed the point by miles a few times, cf the '37 201's...). If you want real nostalgia, start collecting real vintage.

[colgems1966]

You have a point marketing strategies-wise but it is easy to make that analysis with hindsight. Remember LVC was only launched in the late nineties, then a very dark period started and authenticity/nostalgia was probably not very high on their priorities list when they decided to kill off the Valencia Street production.

And look on the bright side: LVS IS good quality, the raw denim IS made in the USA (most of it anyway...) it IS still Levi's, it IS widely available and it IS reasonably priced. Ok, they 've had their flaws and glitches, but who hasn't. Don't dwell too much on nostalgia, LVC is just a repro, no matter if the jeans are 555's or not (consider that even 555 missed the point by miles a few times, cf the '37 201's...). If you want real nostalgia, start collecting real vintage.

i would disagree with a couple of your statements;1) it is still levis--sort of. it is during that shift. then it becomes something else depending on whose contract they're working on at that time. i don't have a huge problem with this, but it's not better than if they were made in a levis factory by dedicated 501 craftsmen many of whom had 20+ years or more on the job. 2)it is good quality-- i have LVC made in all the various locations. i would argue that while quality is decent, it is not as good as 555 or 554. prices in the secondary market reflect this. is there anyone who would choose a 4170 501 over a 555 given the choice? 3) it is widely available--compared to some obscure brands yes, but they have relatively few brick and mortar retailers and no website, catalogue or anyway to see the complete line. inexcusable from a company with levis resources. 4) it is reasonably priced--no. i love LVC, it is the main jean i wear but these are things that i feel could be improved on.

[Dr_Heech]

There was no market yet for premium jeans, vintage nostalgia did not exist yet either.

... High end high designer denim didn't happen until the late eighties, the vintage craze happened in the nineties.

Interesting to note that Levis joined in the fifties revival, in the early-mid eighties, which was responsible for those beautifull adverts with the Sam Cooke soundtrack harking back to vintage nostalgia (ironically, this was when the selvedge on regular Levis disappeared).

This is when I started to collect/wear Levis. I soon realised alot of other people were too, and quickly learned the Big E/hidden rivets/yellow stitching details to determine this vintage. The vintage craze was there, it was just a little unknown worldwide. It was the Japanese that started to go crazy and buy up any vintage that pushed the price up of a pair of hidden rivet levis from £20 in 1985 to £50 in 1988 (and then £200+ by 1989!!)

Remember LVC was only launched in the late nineties, then a very dark period started and authenticity/nostalgia was probably not very high on their priorities list when they decided to kill off the Valencia Street production.

Levis, as always, were way behind, as the height of the craze (which was around 1992) which was when all the good stuff disappeared, generally due to pickers at source having the 'knowledge' and getting inside a bale when it was opened, before even getting to wholesale - Levis just sat on their laurels. They waited until 1996 (well actually '94) to produce vintage repros and cash in on the market. By this time, generally, consumers' tastes had changed (take 'grunge' for example)

IMO the 555 stuff will go up in value because it is wearable heritage.

But you are so right, if you want nostalgia, collect real vintage.

.

[silencejoe]

what the hell is this guy thinking to selling this for us 3000 O_o...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Levis-Vintage-Clothing-1886Nevada-clot-neighborhood-lvc-/140521308636?pt=US_CSA_MC_Jeans&hash=item20b7b901dc

[Stratos]

what the hell is this guy thinking to selling this for us 3000 O_o...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Levis-Vintage-Clothing-1886Nevada-clot-neighborhood-lvc-/140521308636?pt=US_CSA_MC_Jeans&hash=item20b7b901dc

There's a Flemish saying that goes: 'the price is what the fool wants to pay'

[Maynard Friedman]

i would disagree with a couple of your statements;1) it is still levis--sort of. it is during that shift. then it becomes something else depending on whose contract they're working on at that time. i don't have a huge problem with this, but it's not better than if they were made in a levis factory by dedicated 501 craftsmen many of whom had 20+ years or more on the job. 2)it is good quality-- i have LVC made in all the various locations. i would argue that while quality is decent, it is not as good as 555 or 554. prices in the secondary market reflect this. is there anyone who would choose a 4170 501 over a 555 given the choice? 3) it is widely available--compared to some obscure brands yes, but they have relatively few brick and mortar retailers and no website, catalogue or anyway to see the complete line. inexcusable from a company with levis resources. 4) it is reasonably priced--no. i love LVC, it is the main jean i wear but these are things that i feel could be improved on.

Is the quality really better or is that simply a perceived notion because it has the 555 factor and all that entails - i.e. made in a real Levi's factory in San Francisco and therefore somehow closer to the originals than the current offerings made in outsourced factories? It seems that there is a 3-tier hierarchy of authenticity and desirability for Levi's, namely: (1) vintage, (2) Valencia St LVC, (3) other LVC.

Re the quality of 555 501s being better than other LVCs: The quality of vintage 501s might not be better than the quality of LVC repros but the price would still be higher due to rarity and desirability. If the 3-tier hierarchy assumption above is correct, then quality may have nothing to do with a differential in the secondary market prices between Valencia St LVC and other LVC.

[Denimdart]

Is the quality really better or is that simply a perceived notion because it has the 555 factor and all that entails - i.e. made in a real Levi's factory in San Francisco and therefore somehow closer to the originals than the current offerings made in outsourced factories?

Well it is a fine line IMO, but my 555 501 1944, compared with my 1954 USA jeans or my 501 1947 made in Turkey, the 555s seem to just have the edge, but it is very subjective.

[Paul T]

Re the quality of 555 501s being better than other LVCs: The quality of vintage 501s might not be better than the quality of LVC repros but the price would still be higher due to rarity and desirability. If the 3-tier hierarchy assumption above is correct, then quality may have nothing to do with a differential in the secondary market prices between Valencia St LVC and other LVC.

I disagree with some people who think the 555 quality is better - there were terrible errors with some Taylor TOgs versions, like wrong arcs on the 201, but there were also those inaccurate 555 37 201.

My 555 55s, from Pomata, are perhaps worse-made than some of the later versions - no stagger on the yoke for a start. But, in that respect, they feel a little more authentic, because you'd get those errors back in the day, too.

FWIW, I still think keeping Valencia St open would have been a better long-term financial move (and as roy6 points out, Marineau was facing a short-term debt crisis). Its value as a museum, etc, is significant. I know some people at Levi's think so and wish they were still sewing there.

[colgems1966]

Is the quality really better or is that simply a perceived notion because it has the 555 factor and all that entails - i.e. made in a real Levi's factory in San Francisco and therefore somehow closer to the originals than the current offerings made in outsourced factories? It seems that there is a 3-tier hierarchy of authenticity and desirability for Levi's, namely: (1) vintage, (2) Valencia St LVC, (3) other LVC.

Re the quality of 555 501s being better than other LVCs: The quality of vintage 501s might not be better than the quality of LVC repros but the price would still be higher due to rarity and desirability. If the 3-tier hierarchy assumption above is correct, then quality may have nothing to do with a differential in the secondary market prices between Valencia St LVC and other LVC.

i own quite a few pairs from all the different sources that produced LVC while they are all good IMO the 555 and 554 are noticably better constructed. i.e. the sewing, the way the pattern is set, the rivets stay on etc...now some of the price difference is a heritage/collectability issue but i think the difference in quality is due to 555/554 being sewn in levis factories where those employees had a great of experience sewing 501's in some cases decades where the outsourced stuff often shows mistakes which is probably due to lack of experience. also lots of things began to slip by quality control that would not have at a levis factory. like my LVC 517's (R back button stamp) the sewing on the fly is sloppy and showed an aborted stitchline (which i picked out) and then a second shaky one. yet they were not sold as seconds. i love them just the same but i doubt you would see this on 555's.

[Paul T]

[colgems1966]

I disagree with some people who think the 555 quality is better - there were terrible errors with some Taylor TOgs versions, like wrong arcs on the 201, but there were also those inaccurate 555 37 201.

My 555 55s, from Pomata, are perhaps worse-made than some of the later versions - no stagger on the yoke for a start. But, in that respect, they feel a little more authentic, because you'd get those errors back in the day, too.

FWIW, I still think keeping Valencia St open would have been a better long-term financial move (and as roy6 points out, Marineau was facing a short-term debt crisis). Its value as a museum, etc, is significant. I know some people at Levi's think so and wish they were still sewing there.

i own the 37' 201 and the quality is top-tier. the issues you're speaking of are design issues and not attributable to quality of materials or quality of construction. they were sewn as they were designed. for all it's flaws i love this model. when i finally got it to fit, it fit great and since they are such a slim cut the buckleback seemed out of place (hated that style of buckle anyway) so i removed it rivets and all. what i got fit and appearance wise was almost a single arc 47'.

[Stratos]

i own the 37' 201 and the quality is top-tier. the issues you're speaking of are design issues and not attributable to quality of materials or quality of construction. they were sewn as they were designed. for all it's flaws i love this model. when i finally got it to fit, it fit great and since they are such a slim cut the buckleback seemed out of place (hated that style of buckle anyway) so i removed it rivets and all. what i got fit and appearance wise was almost a single arc 47'.

Well, then you got a pair of jeans that is a total dud, since real '37's are baggy and high rise and nothing like '47's...

I find the 555 discussion boring, it's like two people fighting over who has the best xerox of an antique book...

[jewellben]

Did anyone on here get a bargin - they look like 555 to me

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Big-E-Levis-501-selvedge-jeans_W0QQitemZ130492592502QQcategoryZ11483QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3911.m7QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D3%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D7661786838549289997QQautorefreshZtrue

[airfrogusmc]

i own the 37' 201 and the quality is top-tier. the issues you're speaking of are design issues and not attributable to quality of materials or quality of construction. they were sewn as they were designed. for all it's flaws i love this model. when i finally got it to fit, it fit great and since they are such a slim cut the buckleback seemed out of place (hated that style of buckle anyway) so i removed it rivets and all. what i got fit and appearance wise was almost a single arc 47'.

But I think the point Paul was making is they are not accurate. The denim is wrong (to heavy and wrong weave) the cut to trim and these were really a fictional jean. More of a 501 than a 201. I have owned a couple pair over the years.

Probably LVCs best efforts as far as accurate are their 1955s, 1944s, I really like the 1905 209 coveralls, 1911 333s, the 1920s 201s, the 1880 501. These are all pretty accurate.

Not saying the others are bad jeans, just some are looking something as accurate as possible. I love my 1947s from early 2010 but they are cut to trim (better than some of the earlier LVCs but still not accurate).

[colgems1966]

Well, then you got a pair of jeans that is a total dud, since real '37's are baggy and high rise and nothing like '47's...

I find the 555 discussion boring, it's like two people fighting over who has the best xerox of an antique book...

well i will grant you they're not historically accurate but we were talking about quality. i have 2 prs. of 4170 37' 501's and historically accurate or not the 201's are higher quality and have nicer (although wrong) denim. i also have the 20's 201 555 and they are accurate (as any they made, except the buckle) and well built. the 37 201's are from the very beginning of the line and i think they had to sort some things out.

[bluegoldblues]

Right, I am not trying to provoke an argument with this but am looking for advice

I'm obviously a vintage purist and have a few dead stock 60's levis which were made by cone im guessing?

They tend to be very stiff and 'hairy' compared to modern day cone denim...

Can anyone help me..is there anything out there that is close to this? white oak? japanese? Momotaro is the closest iv seen so far.. Looking for that hairy, thick, stiff denim that you find in old denim that obviously produces the classic fades.

Does LVC have anything like this?

Late 60's 501's

[beautiful_FrEaK]

mhh...Sugarcane'S 66 model maybe?

Dr-House could help you there as he made a comparison between LVC '66 and Sugarcane '66

[setterman]

Does LVC have anything like this?

When it was available, Cultizm described the 1978 501 as hairy.

The current LVC 66s aren't hairy at all, raw or washed.

[josh mullen]

My LVC '66 are actually hairy, but it took a while for them to become so. Nothing like my wh 800s, but hairy nonetheless. The '66s were also by far the stiffest, heaviest-feeling LVC/Cone denim I've had. I'm not crazy about how low the rise is, so I seldom wear them, but the denim is my favorite.

setterman -- I know you've a pair, how do you feel about them?

[setterman]

My LVC '66 are actually hairy, but it took a while for them to become so. Nothing like my wh 800s, but hairy nonetheless. The '66s were also by far the stiffest, heaviest-feeling LVC/Cone denim I've had. I'm not crazy about how low the rise is, so I seldom wear them, but the denim is my favorite.

setterman -- I know you've a pair, how do you feel about them?

Denim wise, they're they darkest, stiffest, heaviest pair of LVC I've owned. To me the denim is typical Cone... flat and uniform. Kinda uninteresting when new, but I expect they'll come alive like my 55s with wear and washing.

Was a little worried about them being to slim when I bought them, but other than a hair less rise than I prefer I'm pretty happy with the fit. The waist didn't shrink up a helluva lot, and there's plenty of room in the thighs. A friend of mine said they're the best fitting/looking pair of jeans I own. I'm looking forward to giving them some wear this summer.

Other than the lack of back pocket rivets, I don't understand why the '66 doesn't get more love on sufu. Worn small, it's going to give the fit all the "size down guys" are looking for.

[roy6]

I've had a '44 & a '37 from LVC Japan that both had identical-looking thick, dark, hairy denim that was almost painful to break in. I think the US made 1915s should have a similar character too?

[bluegoldblues]

any pics?? iv had 2 pairs of LVC and both are thin and shiny in comparison.

does anyone know what type/name of denim?

Where's Paul T when you need him!

[colgems1966]

Right, I am not trying to provoke an argument with this but am looking for advice

I'm obviously a vintage purist and have a few dead stock 60's levis which were made by cone im guessing?

They tend to be very stiff and 'hairy' compared to modern day cone denim...

Can anyone help me..is there anything out there that is close to this? white oak? japanese? Momotaro is the closest iv seen so far.. Looking for that hairy, thick, stiff denim that you find in old denim that obviously produces the classic fades.

Does LVC have anything like this?

Late 60's 501's

the lvc/japan 1966 501 look exactly like that. they are the darkest, hairiest jeans i own. so dark they look almost black when new.

[dr.house]

The LVC 66 is a bit more hairy, but not much. The modern fabrics used by LVC are flat and clean (and the most hairy Conedenim I know is used for the beautiful ROYxCONE). And yeah, beautiful_Freak is right, Sugarcanes 66 model looks a lot more like the old jean in the pic from bluegoldblues.

[airfrogusmc]

well i will grant you they're not historically accurate but we were talking about quality. i have 2 prs. of 4170 37' 501's and historically accurate or not the 201's are higher quality and have nicer (although wrong) denim. i also have the 20's 201 555 and they are accurate (as any they made, except the buckle) and well built. the 37 201's are from the very beginning of the line and i think they had to sort some things out.

But thats you there are many that are looking for something as close to accurate as possible. I have a pair of 555 201s that are really nice (changed the buckle) but the ones from 2 years back IIRC where ever bit as good. I do think that as Paul has said in much earlier posts that the cone denim is now right on many of the years being reproduced. I've owned 3 pairs of 1947s from all different years and the ones from early last year are the best 1947s I've owned.

[roy6]

Is the quality really better or is that simply a perceived notion because it has the 555 factor and all that entails - i.e. made in a real Levi's factory in San Francisco and therefore somehow closer to the originals than the current offerings made in outsourced factories? It seems that there is a 3-tier hierarchy of authenticity and desirability for Levi's, namely: (1) vintage, (2) Valencia St LVC, (3) other LVC.

Re the quality of 555 501s being better than other LVCs: The quality of vintage 501s might not be better than the quality of LVC repros but the price would still be higher due to rarity and desirability. If the 3-tier hierarchy assumption above is correct, then quality may have nothing to do with a differential in the secondary market prices between Valencia St LVC and other LVC.

I think that's exactly right on. I haven't found the quality of non-555 items to be significantly different from 555 items.

There was something significant that Marinea said in that sfgate interview:

"We've had to go from a company that was a self-manufacturer to a creator, marketer and distributor of apparel."

The 555 items (and those made in other Levi's-owned shops) are made by Levi's the clothing manufacturer, non-555 are made for Levi's the marketing and distribution company That will always be significant to fans.

[Paul T]

For hairy jeans.... actually, I'm not sure. My 1999 55 are very hairy. But hairiness isn't necessarily a mark of quality, rather it's a mark of short staple cotton.

I've said my thing on 555 vs later. I don't think there's proof in either direction, but as roy6 and others have said, there's more resonance to those older jeans.

[grooveholmes]

Yeah, I've never heard that hairy denim is better quality. Like most folks, my preferences tend to change from season to season. My PBJs are hairy but I like the slubiness of Amoskeags I have. I think that's why I spend so much annually on jeans. It all comes down to preference with most nerds. This thread has been death to my wallet.

Just bought a pair of 55s from someone on the cheap. They're USA-made, but they have those rusted buttons like the rough rinses. It also has the silk screen LVC logo on the pocketbag, so it's gotta be recent. I'm a bit thrown here. Factory code is 337. Ideas? I'll post pics when I get a chance.

[bluegoldblues]

What I'm getting at is that there is a clear difference in denim quality in todays stuff and the denim from back then..from what I can see the 60's stuff was hairier and more stiff and all round feels like a better quality product. I am curious as i want to own a pair of jeans like this with out having to pay over $1000 Was production different back then? Cone denim can't of changed there production that much over the years...