Levi's Vintage Clothing

[berkel]

where can i get LVC 1937 ? (online shop is for sure)

[setterman]

Unionmade has the new 37s. Be forewarned, they start 2" smaller than tagged.

[jilla82]

edit: thanks

Edited March 10, 2013 by jilla82

[vintagerebel]

Can anyone tell me what these are?

I was going through some old stuff and found them. I have no idea where I got them. Ive been into denim for about 10yrs, but im not as serious about it as some of the guys here...I keep 2 pairs in rotation and keep it moving.

They're big E's, but there arent any tags anywhere to be found in the pants...So I have no clue what they are.

Thanks

They are original Levis from 1966, no concealed back pocket rivits, the leatherlike waistband patch is the type used from 1960 to 1966, so I reckon this pair is one of the first with bartack's instead of the concealed backpocket rivits, and one of the last with this type of 501xx waist patch,,, i'd say they are definatly from 1966...

[min2max]

@jilla82:

Knock knock...

Who's there?

Moe.

Moe who?

Moe pictures, please!

[jilla82]

haha.

I posted some more pics and some people msg'd me and said they are OG 66's.

So my question was answered.

Thanks

[min2max]

OG 66 is a rare find, we want mo pics to admire them!!

[satchelbmoore]

^especially in that condition!

[Dr_Heech]

Here ya go -http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/vtg-Levis-501-XX-Big-E-Selvedge-Jeans-36x33-actual-33x29-1966-67-/190809997700?pt=Vintage_Men_s_Clothing&hash=item2c6d298184 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/vtg-Levis-501-XX-Big-E-Selvedge-Jeans-36x33-actual-33x29-1966-67-/190809997700?pt=Vintage_Men_s_Clothing&hash=item2c6d298184

[jilla82]

Here ya go -http://www.ebay.co.u...=item2c6d298184 http://www.ebay.co.u...=item2c6d298184

Yup...gave them to my buddy and told him deal w/ all those messages.

[min2max]

holy moly..bet you didn't realize you were sitting on top of gold!

this really confirms LVC got those 66 arcuates wrong, although i heard they made them less flat in the new batch..

[rosenkruez]

What's the general consensus on the sizing for 66 501? Same size as 47? Size down?

[Paul T]

Buy your actual waist size, as measured, for a Steve McQueen style fit. The wasit will stretch out, and thighs shouldn't be too tight.

Re the arcuate - they do vary widely. But the old 66 arcuate was deifnitely exaggerated and too flat. The new ones I've seen ([pictured on loomstate) look much better to me.

More fit info:

http://supertalk.sup...a-visual-guide/

Yup...gave them to my buddy and told him deal w/ all those messages.

Good luck with the sale. I sold a pair of 502 from the same era for a lot less than that.. but don't ask, don't get!

Edited March 15, 2013 by Paul T

[bod]

^ Took that advice a couple of years ago, +1 for a slimmer fit .. spot on. Did the same again for a new pair recently and the denim/cut changed and were a lot slimmer post soak.

[dr.house]

I've tried the 1978 501- great cut and fantastic denim: fat and hairy, feels a lot more japanese than cone.

[ThomasK]

They are 2" oversized, right?

[Paul T]

I've tried the 1978 501- great cut and fantastic denim: fat and hairy, feels a lot more japanese than cone.

Still is Cone, though. It's just that many Japanese manufacturers are fixated on hairy denim as a sign of quality because it's associated with the later Levi's, the last ones you could buy as vintage. Hairy, in the old days, was a sign of shorter-staple cotton.

[Sugar Mountain]

Off topic, but nice to hear you on Radio 4 this morning Paul. Cool start to my day.

[setterman]

They are 2" oversized, right?

Unionmade doesn't have the raw '78 listed anymore, but I could swear that when they did a few months ago, they were 1" smaller than tagged at the waist.

[ThomasK]

caliroots, for example, shows the new run as being 2 inches oversized.

edit: They now adjusted their measurements, but not for good, it seems. They are now tts. dr. house is right, they ae about 1 inch bigger than tagged.

Edited March 24, 2013 by ThomasK

[setterman]

Yeah, and the washed ones unionamde is carrying are showing TTS, so caliroots may be right.

Lets see:

'22s 3" over tagged

'33s 1" over tagged

new '37s 2" under tagged

'44s 3" over tagged

'47s 1/2" to 1" over tagged

55's 3" over tagged

'66s 1" over tagged (though 2013 production might be TTS)

'78s possibly 2" over tagged

That's easy enough for shoppers...

[ThomasK]

The 55 is not that huge anymore, is it? I think they changed that after fw09.

[setterman]

My 4170 button code 55s I wore in the cultizm contest were 3" over. They would have been made in late '09. AFAIK, the '55s still run big. Not seeing any measurements online though, and actually it seems like there's fewer stores stocking that model nowadays. Surprising, because to my mind the '55 and '44 are two of LVC's best models.

[Paul T]

Off topic, but nice to hear you on Radio 4 this morning Paul. Cool start to my day.

Was that Will Gompaertz? GLad I made the cut, must have been cleaning my gnashers when that was on...

I think I'll do some measuring at Cinch soon and post it all here and on my site.

[Sugar Mountain]

Yup, they had two Bowie quotes from you I think. I only caught the tail end of it as I turned the radio on.

[dr.house]

They are 2" oversized, right?

Nope, this pair runs like 33", tagged size 32".

Still is Cone, though. It's just that many Japanese manufacturers are fixated on hairy denim as a sign of quality because it's associated with the later Levi's, the last ones you could buy as vintage. Hairy, in the old days, was a sign of shorter-staple cotton.

Yeah I know and I like it, it's the first real hairy LVC I've seen.

[dr.house]

Historical incorrectness on the 78's: selvage seam at the coin pocket.

[jewellben]

My 4170 button code 55s I wore in the cultizm contest were 3" over. They would have been made in late '09. AFAIK, the '55s still run big. Not seeing any measurements online though, and actually it seems like there's fewer stores stocking that model nowadays. Surprising, because to my mind the '55 and '44 are two of LVC's best models.

My 2011 1955 measured as Raw:

Tagged 34*36

Actual

Waist – 17â€

Front Rise – 12.75â€

Back Rise – 16â€

Thigh – 13â€

Knee – 10.5â€

Hem – 8.75â€

Inseam – 35.37â€

[ThomasK]

just edited a post above... dr. heech is right, they are about 1 inch bigger. Sorry for bringing in a bit of confusion. The denim feels really nice and thick and quite starchy. I hope they bring them in more often from now on. Paul T, some measuring shure would be great, as sizing seems to be consistent at least for the last 3-4 seasons.

This video surfaced on some blogs a few days ago. Seeing this I wonder how exactly the XX group is organized now? Did they just take all the people and bring them to SF or is there something going on in Amsterdam as well?

http://vimeo.com/36725130

Edited March 24, 2013 by ThomasK

[ColdsnapBryan]

Are 44's suppose to be a slim fit? I've got this pair of size 34, waist is fine but they feel tight around the hips / thigh.