Levi's Vintage Clothing

[airfrogusmc]

Lookin' good - where did you get the buttons from?

The back buttons are old metal buttons and the ones for the front suspenders are off my 1880s which cinch up nicely.

[roy6]

^Thanks AF, looking good.

[robbie]

pardon me if this has been covered elsewhere, but the denim on those 1878's seems similar to the denim on the cone/roy contest jeans. Are they as similar as they appear?

[colgems1966]

quick question, when ordering from cultizm from the US, does the price get discounted 19% because we do not need to pay VAT?

that's right Kit. you don't pay the VAT and it reduces the price. if you register and log in it will show the reduced price so you know what it'll cost you.

[airfrogusmc]

pardon me if this has been covered elsewhere, but the denim on those 1878's seems similar to the denim on the cone/roy contest jeans. Are they as similar as they appear?

From what I understand the 1878 denim is Japanese. It is different from the denim on my 1880s which I think is the same as the denim on my 1901s. The 1878 denim is darker and has a rougher hand.

[kit99bar]

thank you colgem!

airfrog, those look gorgeous! How they should have come stock!

[Dr_Heech]

Want to add how good they look Allen, especially with the additional buttons.

(actually managed to rep you too!)

.

[king*stink]

Them 1878s are looking good

[ranonranonarat]

just curious but do the 47s come in an inseam 30"?

[setterman]

1878s for Roy.

Really neat jean. I'd like to see some pix of them on someone though, to see how wearable the style is.

[marineabilly]

Not the best fit pics, but here are some from caliroots

[roy6]

I suspect AFs fit is a little bit better than that...

[setterman]

I suspect AFs fit is a little bit better than that...

Yeah, I'd like to see a pair that have been soaked, and see how they look with modern clothing. I'm thinking they're not so old tyme that they won't look okay with a t-shirt or sweat shirt.

[roy6]

^Yeah, I'll bet they'd translate far better than most early model LVCs. Especially without a giant honking boot like the Caliroots model- looks weird with slim legged jeans.

[airfrogusmc]

^Yeah, I'll bet they'd translate far better than most early model LVCs. Especially without a giant honking boot like the Caliroots model- looks weird with slim legged jeans.

They are trimmer than most early LVC repros.

I'm going raw with these as long as I can stand'm.

My 1901s which have I think the same denim as the 1880s I am wearing raw. The 1880s I gave a soak to and they've been in water several times. I will get about 6 or so months on the 1901s and I will photograph both so you can see how a soaked pair compares to a raw pair with Japanese denim. I prefer the wear'm raw method.

[ramoer]

I received my 1915 Cone model but I found the fit just too big. I have been wearing 45's, 54s, and 67s. Was difficult wearing such a baggy jean, since I'm only about 5'9" and it just makes me feel shorter. I sent them back for the 1878's. They looked unique and a slimmer fit, we'll see how they are when they get here.

[jewellben]

Not the best fit pics, but here are some from caliroots

they look like "nappy jeans" in the caliroots snap

[Paul T]

I received my 1915 Cone model but I found the fit just too big. I have been wearing 45's, 54s, and 67s. Was difficult wearing such a baggy jean, since I'm only about 5'9" and it just makes me feel shorter. I sent them back for the 1878's. They looked unique and a slimmer fit, we'll see how they are when they get here.

GOod luck. It's worth pointing out, for reference, that when people here say these are slimmer than than the 1930s jeans, this only applies if you size down - annoyingly, they seem to be made substantially oversize. Too late now for you, I know, sorry. With most LVC, always best to go by measured size, and in general size up by one inch.

[Stratos]

I received my 1915 Cone model but I found the fit just too big. I have been wearing 45's, 54s, and 67s. Was difficult wearing such a baggy jean, since I'm only about 5'9" and it just makes me feel shorter. I sent them back for the 1878's. They looked unique and a slimmer fit, we'll see how they are when they get here.

I'm sorry to hear that, the 1915's are actually quite nice jeans but you need to go true to measured size to get a decent fit, just like the 1880's, '90's and 1901's...

[ramoer]

GOod luck. It's worth pointing out, for reference, that when people here say these are slimmer than than the 1930s jeans, this only applies if you size down - annoyingly, they seem to be made substantially oversize. Too late now for you, I know, sorry. With most LVC, always best to go by measured size, and in general size up by one inch.

Paul, I appreciate your help and repped you. Unfortuately, its just tough to know whats right for myself without actually trying the jeans on.

[ramoer]

@stratos no doubt they were hard to return. I'm just unaccustomed to that fit, who knows maybe it would have grown on me..

[robbie]

Stumbled onto some early 70's (?) 501's today, can anyone shed some light

in terms of value, specifics on what year etc?

They remind me a lot of the 302's that Paul T's son is wearing. They look a lot like them.

The tags say '66, but they're little 'e'. I posted pictures of the interior tags. The top button is stamped '6'.

Anyhow, any insight would be appreciated.

-rF

[colgems1966]

wow Robbie that's confusing. the 0117 on the back patch first made me think 66-68 but you said they were little e. the 1 in front of 501 on back patch throws me. are the inside back pocket tops single stitched or chain stitched? that would narrow it down some. i'd like to know myself when they were made. good find.

[robbie]

the back pockets are chainstitched

[colgems1966]

the back pockets are chainstitched

then they were made after 1976. we've narrowed it down to 76-83. i've never seen a back patch like that used that late in produduction. a real oddity and i still wonder about the 1501 on the back patch. they are 100% legit though. i have no question about that. too many other little details are spot on.

[roy6]

Doesn't that ticket say "for over 125 years...our xx blue denim overalls have been before the public"? I think Sansome determined xx started in 1875/76. 1875 + 125 = 2000.

[attackwithstones]

the back pockets are chainstitched

If you don't mind disclosing, how did you stumble onto them?

[robbie]

Roy- I thought a similar thing. I was a little thrown by the paper tag saying 1966, but remember that STF's had tags that read 1993 until the most recent cut update.

As far as where I found them, I shop all over. People I know, know I am looking and tip me off if they've got jeans/boots.

[Sansome1877]

I would guess that the over 125 years is being added to the 1850 date, that would make it older that 1975?

[colgems1966]

they are definately from the late 70's- early 80's. look at the care tag. levis changed those in the mid to late 80's. levis quit single stitching interior back pockets in 1976 and quit using selvage and chain stitching the cuffs in the early 80's. as for the 1966 copyright, they were still using that flasher into the 80's i remember them from the time. they are originals and not repros. i just can't figure the back patch. i've seen the 0117 before but only on late 60's 501's. it's a fairly rare back patch.