Levi's Vintage Clothing

[tropicalbird]

Don't believe anything on that site. It is haphazardly written (at best), full of inconsistencies, and nothing but lies. The writer is a fraud and horrible person.

+1

Yea Paul T only tells Levi's fairy tales, his book should be on conspiracy/sci-fi shelf

[setterman]

I've just copped a pair of 1915's so I'm not in the market, but I wonder when these will show up on Cultizm. (If the only change is belt loops then I'm all for them.)

A while back someone mentioned that cultizm wasn't going to stock any of the raw early jeans (pre-1933) anymore because they aren't selling well. I don't expect them to stock the 1922.

[Madder_Lake]

A while back someone mentioned that cultizm wasn't going to stock any of the raw early jeans (pre-1933) anymore because they aren't selling well. I don't expect them to stock the 1922.

A pity. I'm sure that the sales will lift with the addition of belt loops.

[ranonranonarat]

just came back from a week ago to hear the news about LVC. does anyone else think that it will then be easier down the road for them to remove certain "unprofitable" models from certain years, quite easily? absorption into the mainline sounds to me like it will do more bad than good and end up diluting the XX line instead..

[Lex2]

I don't believe it would dilute anything. They've got far bigger issues to think about, like grow the Denizen business; leverage their full distributorship (including marketing the vintage line); and try to catch up with the competition. I doubt premium selvage reissues would really impact the bottom line very much compared to the more mainstream pants (both Dockers and Red Tab). When Levi's thinks premium they're probably trying to compete with the likes of 7 for all mankind and other similar brands who seem to have gained a foothold in the two billion plus "premium" market.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Lex2

[setterman]

A pity. I'm sure that the sales will lift with the addition of belt loops.

You'd think, but with all the people that participate on sufu I don't know of anyone other than myself that has picked up a pair of the 22s.

Tough to gauge a market just through sufu, but I wonder if there's been an over all decline in interest for pre-wwii or pre-depression style denim (regardless of brand).

[grooveholmes]

the issues definitely start at the top-- with leadership. the way i see it, they could have attempted to tackle the competition/market issues either way: 1) they could have left things the way they were and still tried to incorporate the premium products into their main line or 2) do what they just did. it's fair to argue that levis xx should never have been a "separate" (i.e. based in europe) entity in the first place, but by choosing the latter road, levis just looks like f*cking morons by wasting a lot of people's time and resources over the course of a few years. to me, it just appears to be like a lack of cohesive vision from the leadership, which is nothing new for large companies, esp. levis.

Edited December 11, 2011 by grooveholmes

[Lex2]

If we're talking premium, they've got a long way to go. Menswear account for about 70% of their sales, which means a small percentage of the remaining 30% would be "premium" womenswear. I remember reading that this niche market accounts for about two billion dollars in sales in North America, which really means that Levi's is way behind in this segment, considering that they only make about four billion a year in revenue (Dockers, Red Tab, Denizen, and Premium combined). A market lead squandered since about the mid eighties, when they made over 7 billion a year in revenue. Again, what's in a name? Most girls I've asked wouldn't be caught dead wearing Levi's, be it premium or otherwise. Best thing to do is perhaps spin off another line under a totally different name, or focus on their core market and ignore premium altogether.

[jewellben]

other than myself that has picked up a pair of the 22s.

Talking of which - how are they breaking in Setterman?

[grooveholmes]

lex--interesting observation. i only care about lvc and a little bit about m&c. if they want to create another "premium" line that focuses on women to close the gap in that billion dollar market, fine, whatever. they could have done that without doing a 180 on the levis xx tip. as far as i know levis xx was their premium (or "elevated") line, for both men and women. from the looks of things, they basically said, "hey thanks for your time but this little experiment/soiree is over" before they even had enough time to develop/market/generate interest. it's the fast money, aggressive approach to business. to the nerds like us (pocket change to them) and the levis xx folk (expendable), it comes across as a "f*ck you very much-- this isn't going to bring us money now". this approach sometimes works, but for a brand that touts its heritage and tradition, it looks like floundering incompetence and impatience. i'm not sure what dissolving the "independent, creative, entity" accomplished except to save some short term cash. i'll reserve total condemnation of levis until more info about the future of lvc trickles out.

[Shorty Long]

I have a pair of 22s, but they're still on the self.

[Maynard Friedman]

A pity. I'm sure that the sales will lift with the addition of belt loops.

I'm not sure whether the loops will lift things or just help hold them up...

[no-svg]

For me this is a very good info.

In my European Union country I could not buy any LVC product.

Of course I could buy in the Internet... but because of my experience regarding poor sizing repeatability, I gave up.

3 pairs of 1947's, the same size, from the same year - and 3 significantly different real sizes.

Now, I hope, I will find LVC in regular Levi's Stores soon.

Edited December 11, 2011 by no-svg

[kayodic]

1947 501xx size 28/34, i have only 4 buttons fly...

presoak measurement (inch)

waist 27.5

rise 11

thigh 10

LO 8

inseam 34

postsoak measurement (soaked in warm water for 1.5hours)

waist 27

rise 10.5

thigh 9.5

LO 7.5

inseam 31.5

not the best quality picture, lighting is not so friendly during winter.

[no-svg]

Kayodic, these '47 look great on you.

[bluegoldblues]

LOL!

http://youtu.be/96y9wyP6Tec

[grooveholmes]

They look great, k. Just out of curiosity, what other models had you considered and what made you pick the 47s?

[kayodic]

thanks no-svg and groove...

it's simply because of the antifit. 47 is slimmer than 44 or 55. my friend picked it up for me at lvc sample sale, he thought that 47 is the most flattering fit for women though i also wanted 201 (i always wanna try suspenders ). oh well, i was not there but i was lucky enough that my friend still got a pair for me.

[roy6]

Whats up with that type III jacket video? From the '30s? $350? People in Las Vegas must be suckers.

[aho]

^lol thanks for finding the clip...mentioned it in the jackets thread but gave me a good laugh...

[bluegoldblues]

just caught the new episode of Pawn Stars...They had a Type III Jacket brought in they claimed was from the 30's....errr say whattt??

was this jacket exact: http://bluegoldblues...xx-levis-jacket

lol

LOL I know! and its not even an old type 3 like the one on the link! The pawn stars one is a small patch type iii late 60's at best, early 70's more likely! Gotta love the $350 valuation too! I wish!

[robbie]

Whats up with that type III jacket video? From the '30s? $350? People in Las Vegas must be suckers.

LOL!

http://youtu.be/96y9wyP6Tec

was it even big E?

[setterman]

Talking of which - how are they breaking in Setterman?

Wearing them a three to five days a week. Some creases, whiskers, and combs setting in, but only the slightest loss of indigo. they're going to take some serious committed wear to fade and be a multi year project. They're currently splitting time with my 66s and Warehouse 1001XX (and LVC 37s thrown in once every week or two).

[no-svg]

Any idea what year could it be?

[/img]

Edited December 11, 2011 by no-svg

[no-svg]

What year are these jeans? Any idea?

Fake or original?

[Lex2]

the issues definitely start at the top-- with leadership. the way i see it, they could have attempted to tackle the competition/market issues either way: 1) they could have left things the way they were and still tried to incorporate the premium products into their main line or 2) do what they just did. it's fair to argue that levis xx should never have been a "separate" (i.e. based in europe) entity in the first place, but by choosing the latter road, levis just looks like f*cking morons by wasting a lot of people's time and resources over the course of a few years. to me, it just appears to be like a lack of cohesive vision from the leadership, which is nothing new for large companies, esp. levis.

With regards to management one major issue is that they've had a pretty high turnover of senior level executives in the past three to four years. The last time I checked three in the senior management team were relatively new (appointed late 2010), and they were responsible for global Levi's, Dockers, and Denizen brands. I think two or three of the board members were relatively recent additions as well. If they cannot even retain good staff at the senior executive levels then it doesn't bode well for the long term, particularly in terms of trying to grow the business and implementing long term goals. And I don't believe they've even figured out who they are trying to compete with, and are trying to be all things to all the people. That fact, coupled with a debt of about 2 billion dollars as of last year, adds a lot of pressure to add more revenue to service that debt. And these days with the economic downturn access to capital is getting more and more difficult, so I can understand why they're trying to consolidate in order to service that debt at the expense of lower income. Unfortunately the apparel industry has a low barrier of entry and you see a lot more efficient players in the market who are turning out great products at a much lower cost, without the associated historical baggage that Levi's has (for better or for worse).

[Lex2]

thanks no-svg and groove...

it's simply because of the antifit. 47 is slimmer than 44 or 55. my friend picked it up for me at lvc sample sale, he thought that 47 is the most flattering fit for women though i also wanted 201 (i always wanna try suspenders ). oh well, i was not there but i was lucky enough that my friend still got a pair for me.

Good choice of jeans, kayodic. It does look very good on you. I would certainly recommend the 201 as well (if you can find a pair that is). But if you want to try suspenders there are also some (non Levi's) selvage options which you may want to check out.

[wgmds]

was it even big E?

second 41.

[roy6]

LOL I know! and its not even an old type 3 like the one on the link! The pawn stars one is a small patch type iii late 60's at best, early 70's more likely! Gotta love the $350 valuation too! I wish!

$350 was just the amount he gave the seller! Talked about it being worth $500!!!! Would go for about $80 on ebay.

[grooveholmes]

In a way, his stupidity is genius. He gets free publicity on that show and some other ignorant schmuck who's seen it will snatch it up (if it hasn't already). I suppose someone should buy some of those off of eBay, fly out to Vegas, pawn em off there, get some extra scratch, and boom, you're eating lobster, watching Celine dion, and playing baccarat at the mirage.