Levi's Vintage Clothing

[bluegoldblues]

Great post paul, the 1922 is a model I have always been fond of due to the cinch/belt loop combo. Whats the asking price in cinch?

Has it only just been released?

[Dr_Heech]

Thanks for posting the 1922's Paul.

Despite the price, they dont seem too bad, and the fabric looks great even from your iphone pics.

However, you are right about the pocket shapes.

Also the two-horse patch looks smaller and the suspender buttons are very close together - two (inaccurate) details which were sadly first introduced on the 1915 and the 1917's.

Mind you, they're much nicer at first glance than the awfull 1927's.

I dont understand why Lvc have this wonderfull fabric (1915's and now the 1922's) and yet still get the most basic of details wrong.

I wont go into an electrum-style rant, instead will wait until august when I can get up to London to take a look for myself.

What colour(s) were the stitching do you know?

.

[Maynard Friedman]

My 1915s are tagged W30 L34 and measured 34/35 raw and after 3 washes are 32/32.5

I think the sizing on mine is an anomaly. Also the coin pocket is annoyingly undersized. Nice jeans though and I think the indigo is fading quickly.

[Dr_Heech]

Start a non-501 visual guide than, you lazy tart.

It is sad that this thread has come down to this . . . .

Mind you, Roy's pantaloons could go on there

.

[setterman]

I dont understand why Lvc have this wonderfull fabric (1915's and now the 1922's) and yet still get the most basic of details wrong.

They really don't care that much about getting it right...? "It's close enough. $250 for a reproduction of a vintage jean and we muffed at least three simple details? Eh, no one will notice."

If you've got an original piece you're copying, it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult to get the proper pocket shape and placement, tag size, and button spacing. Disappointed to hear there are short comings with the 1922. In spite of them, I'm still interested in the model though. Does anyone have any pix to compare the reproduction's back pockets to an original?

[bluegoldblues]

[roy6]

It is sad that this thread has come down to this . . . .

Mind you, Roy's pantaloons could go on there

.

Also, 201s, 333s, 646s, 505s, balloons and cihinos. Think of all the glory you'll be missing, Paul.

Nice post of the 22s. I never have seen much about the 27s- How did they go wrong?

[Dr_Heech]

Also, 201s, 333s, 646s, 505s, balloons and cihinos. Think of all the glory you'll be missing, Paul.

Nice post of the 22s. I never have seen much about the 27s- How did they go wrong?

Well apart from sizing (my 36" tagged measured a whopping 39.5!) there was the crime of forgetting to put the top row of stitching on the back pockets. Unforgiveable.

On my replacement pair, one leg hem was curved and measured nearly an inch more on one side.

(also cheap feeling patch, funny shaped back pockets and elongated cinch buckle strap..)

Had a row stitched on my replacement pair.

To me the 1927 were a real disappointment, considering they were based on the 'heath' 501 (albeit in a raw state) which they have in the archives.

Thought that a 1922 replica would never happen because of these, how wrong I was.

.

[devilish]

Interesting to see how the cinch on these 'crowds' the patch but that was seen by some to be a error on the 555 201's (leather patch version) and that it's further away on the latest 22's.

[Dr_Heech]

Interesting to see how the cinch on these 'crowds' the patch but that was seen by some to be a error on the 555 201's (leather patch version) and that it's further away on the latest 22's.

I have this book and to me they look like juniors' sized 501's, which would account for the close proximity of the patch and cinch.

.

[airfrogusmc]

Well apart from sizing (my 36" tagged measured a whopping 39.5!) there was the crime of forgetting to put the top row of stitching on the back pockets. Unforgiveable.

On my replacement pair, one leg hem was curved and measured nearly an inch more on one side.

(also cheap feeling patch, funny shaped back pockets and elongated cinch buckle strap..)

Had a row stitched on my replacement pair.

To me the 1927 were a real disappointment, considering they were based on the 'heath' 501 (albeit in a raw state) which they have in the archives.

Thought that a 1922 replica would never happen because of these, how wrong I was.

.

Agree Doc. Mine were also funky. White stitching and bazaar archs and missing stitches

[devilish]

'I have this book and to me they look like juniors' sized 501's, which would account for the close proximity of the patch and cinch.'

That would explain it.

[Shorty Long]

Thanks for the info Mr. T...by the way, what about the from pocket bags on the '22s? Are they as shallow as the pockets for the '15s?

[entertainment!]

Beyond the fact that these might be a junior pair, the text says '22-'36 so I don't think we can use this pair as a reference. They are more likely to be from the late end of that period than the beginning.

One thing that bugs me on the 22s from Cinch is that the rivets aren't flattened. We know LVC can do that, so why don't they? And I know that we can flatten them ourselves, but we shouldn't have to.

That said, I might be picking up a pair.

[ItsJustNC]

LVC Jacket 70505-0217. Modded to have Vegetable-Tanned elbow patches.

[Paul T]

The 1922 did look very different from the 27, especially the fabric. The 27 had that royal blue tinge, just like the 33.The fabric on the 22, altho different in hue, looks very like the 15. And the stitching colour ot the 22 seemed a more accurate mid orange than the 27, which was too pale (some late 20s and early 30s pairs do have pale, yellow stitching, but this was exaggerated). As Airfrog's pics show, the 27 had the missing line of stitching, those on the 22 look much better. There are, incidentally, two lovely pairs of 1922 jeans on marvin's at the moment - they do show how the pockets in this period are assymetrical, but I think the LVC ones are nonetheless a little too long.

Lastly, correct, that youth's pair aren't much good as a guide - they exaggerate the sizing of the pockets etc - and I suspect they are indeed late 20s or early 30s. But entertainment is dead right about the rivets. Yes, you can hammer them yourself, but while this is quite therapeutic, it doesn't look as good - especially compared to the ones on the Pantaloons, which have that lovely tooling mark.

Oh yes, one piece of gossip. I heard the 1915 weren't too popular in London - but the Pantaloons have sold well!

Early 20s original, photo courtesy Marvin's. Bottom right pic shows the assymetry of the pocket really well, note how the bottom left edge is shorter than the bottom right.

[entertainment!]

^I almost bought a pair of the pantaloons just for the rivets. I've never seen that tooling mark before on any reproduction rivets, but from looking at pictures of vintage Levi's with flat rivets, it seems like it was more common than not.

[ItsJustNC]

Thanks for the rep Heech.! Anyways.. Here are the pics your asked for.! Nothing special really. Just a plain pair of Uniqlo S002.

[Dr_Heech]

No worries NC.

It was a close up of the leather pocket/tool thingy I wanted to a pic of (if ya dont mind) - just out of curiosity really.

.

[Dr_Heech]

@Paul

Looking forward to seeing those Lvc '22's in the flesh, and those 1920's 501's on Marvin's are absolutely awesome, thanks for posting.

...must spread.

.

[ItsJustNC]

No worries NC.

It was a close up of the leather pocket/tool thingy I wanted to a pic of (if ya dont mind) - just out of curiosity really.

.

Just a month in China did this..! HAHA.!

You mean this.?

[Dr_Heech]

^Yep. Many thanks!

.

[Maynard Friedman]

A couple of questions to the boffins:

Is the 1966 the last model to have XX on the label and therefore the last to be known as 501XX, so that from 1978, were they just plain old 501s.

Was the pull-off section on the back label only introduced from 1983 onwards?

[killer b]

paul said earlier in the thread that the pull off section was from '73ish.

[Dr_Heech]

A couple of questions to the boffins:

Is the 1966 the last model to have XX on the label and therefore the last to be known as 501XX, so that from 1978, were they just plain old 501s.

Yes it is, it coincides with the hidden rivets disappearing. Back in the 80's when you could still get plenty of original 50's and 60's 501's, jeans dealers and collectors called hidden rivet Levi's - 'XX's' for that very reason.

But there is a transitional model - 501XX501, which was a 1967 issue and only around for one year apparently.

.

[Maynard Friedman]

Thanks Charlie and killer b.

Just checked my Lightning vintage denim guide and it seems that the tear-off card tag was indeed introduced from 1970 onwards.

[Paul T]

It was introduced at different times on different models. I'd be interested to see a Big E 501 with the stock-control tag, though. Are there any photos of one in the Lightning guide?

[colgems1966]

my raw 71 517's had the tear off tag.

[Dr_Heech]

It was introduced at different times on different models. I'd be interested to see a Big E 501 with the stock-control tag, though. Are there any photos of one in the Lightning guide?

There's a really good one in the vintage lightning book (where the 1922's pix came from that entertainment! posted).

Will endeavour to take a pic 2moro unless someone beats me to it.

.

[airfrogusmc]

Paul thanks for posting those early 20s.Gotta spread but would rep if I could. I think I might pick up a pair of 22s.