Levi's Vintage Clothing

[mpukas]

mpukas, one thing to keep in mind for Japanese companies is that fortunately/unfortunately they are making jeans for the domestic Japanese market first, so sizing is necessarily smaller and not always a perfect "repro" of sizing specs. In particular, the aforementioned IH and TFH fall under their own umbrellas and are likely less subjugated to reproing, and focus largely on just making jeans how they want (if that's a fair statement). Still, interested to see someone wear/break in the new LVC's; Please volunteer!

Aho, I completely understand with what you've said, and I agree. I'm aware the Japanese folks are generally of smaller stature than westerners, and the cut of their garments usually reflect that. It also seems to me that they generally wear their jeans a little looser than westerners, which makes pocket use (front and back) easier. However, that doesn't really explain why they cut their pockets so high and tight. Maybe it's an aesthetic/design thing, making the thighs look longer...? IH doesn't have much of an excuse, with Giles being a big bumbling Brit, LOL, but then again he's at the mercy of Boss Man Haraki-san. 

[mpukas]

...Still, interested to see someone wear/break in the new LVC's; Please volunteer!

Aho - I'd love to try a pair of these 1976's, but at $285, there're so many other choices to consider... 

 

Just as an example - Roy's latest offering, RS00, is/was the exact same price. What you choose if you were given $285 to spend on one and only one pair of jeans? 

[keybladehero]

I believe the 1976LVC and Roy RS00 have pretty different fits....so if I were you I pick the one that fit me better

[nycsurfer530]

Aho, I completely understand with what you've said, and I agree. I'm aware the Japanese folks are generally of smaller stature than westerners, and the cut of their garments usually reflect that. It also seems to me that they generally wear their jeans a little looser than westerners, which makes pocket use (front and back) easier. However, that doesn't really explain why they cut their pockets so high and tight. Maybe it's an aesthetic/design thing, making the thighs look longer...? IH doesn't have much of an excuse, with Giles being a big bumbling Brit, LOL, but then again he's at the mercy of Boss Man Haraki-san.

I definitely get this. My TCB's have a fine pocket opening however my natural indigo studio's have front pockets that are completely useless because I literally can't fit my hands into them.

[Paul T]

this may have already been discussed but LVC have a new limited edition jean coming out for SS17. it will be based on a 1976 or 78 model and will be called the Mirrored Jean due to it's unique details, and it will be left hand twill. sorry my details are a little vague but I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in all the pieces as I'd be interested to have what I've heard confirmed in more detail.

Cone had a very old loom in reception on display called the Model X. They are always looking for more vintage looms, as the bulk of the original ones were scrapped, so they decided to look at this one and see if they could get it working. They happened to mention to Levi's that there was still denim actually on the loom; they were instantly, "deadstock Cone denim? Let's use it in some new jeans?"

THen when Cone had a better look they realised it was left hand twill - which is synonymous with Lee. Levi's have never made a 501 with left hand twill. Levi's decided that the only way to make it feel right is to do a 1978 jean that is a mirror image of the 501.

By the way, deep pocket fans; best jeans for this are definitely Roy. He has lovely deep pockets, often with cotton duck linings, which I've always really liked. mpukas, roy does make great jeans.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Paul T

[Maynard Friedman]

Like others, I think the stated measurements of the new 1976 model look perfect for me although I still have way too many jeans already to commit to another pair. My only concern, from a historical/integrity perspective is whether Levi's really tweaked the cut of the 501 that much between 1976 and 1978 to arrive at what is reflected by the (rather unloved) LVC 1978 model. Is the LVC 1976 an accurate interpretation of the cut at that era and the 1978 was simply designed to fall more within the (lower-waisted) style of what LVC thought was generally popular with the public whenever it was released in the 2000s and therefore fill a niche and sell better? Or is it the reverse and the 1978 model was a fair representation and the 1976 model is being released to meet the current (2016/17) demand for higher-waisted, fuller-thighed 'lifters jeans' (cf Left Field Charles Atlas cut)?

Perhaps I'm being too cynical and both are accurate but it'd be interesting to hear the views of others.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Maynard Friedman

[Capsicum Fried Meat]

Thanks for sharing the story Sir Paul. Always good reading.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

@maynard

cynical speaking i guess it´s just a new thing that fit´s right in the todays market of tapered jeans, the high rise only is a womens mainstream thing. levi´s needs to make money, and needs normal people also to buy their products. they could have just modify

the 1978 to, make em accurate to the period, but instead, the brought a hole "new" thing out. there are other jeans missing to me as vintage fan, such as the knappave or 1873 to stand out more from the current collection. bur these aren´t top sellers... well just my point of view. another thing is, if you watch how the prises have increased for vintage 1970s 501s, it´s only clever to do a repro.

maybe LVC brings out an "engineered" or a "1996 1937 201xx repro" repro next season.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Sympathy-For-The-Denim

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

left W30 1978 repro, to right W35 original vintage.

 

[aho]

On 1/3/2017 at 7:45 AM, Paul T said:

They do look greencast to me, but my guess is that they're more likely to be synthetic indigo. There was a lot of variation in the dye-jobs at the time, I can't begin to understand it all, and the guru of such matters, Ralph Tharpe, couldn't quite say what process was used when or why one pair looked different to another. Cone had to have used natural indigo at some point but I couldn't say when.

In fact it's hard even now to generalise how natural indigo fades simply because it's so variable; but for the natural indigo Levi's I've seen, I would guess they faded much more slowly, or rather simply crocked less -  hence you get more lap fades, but fewer whiskers. Inoue's pair does have reasonable whiskers, so again I'd guess it's more likely synthetic. I'll get Volvo to ask him what he thinks!

 

I was just reading a Japanese instagrammer who reported that the dyeing on the 20's era Levi's wasn't as deep, and therefore faded faster, or at least, much easier. I do wonder where they get this information from if even Ralph couldn't answer with confidence, or perhaps it's all observational? I have to say though, the 22's era has provided some of the most beautiful blue's in my opinion

Edited January 5, 2017 by aho

[mandel9000]

21 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

the current (2016/17) demand for higher-waisted, fuller-thighed 'lifters jeans'

I'm no lifter, but more options with a full(er) thigh is certainly good for us women who are into non-stretch unisex cuts. That said, most repro models (or vintage jeans) fit that bill. I haven't tried all the LVC 501 iterations but still quite a few, and they all fit more or less well except for the 1947, where the thighs were way too slim for me. Not to mention my grand failure in the Denime 66-tour, where measurements sounded good on paper but I just couldn't button them (although that was because of the seat being narrow, not the thigh). 

In other news, I just bought a brand new triple-pleat blouse for cheap from someone who mis-sized. When I got it yesterday I didn't think it could possibly shrink down enough for a good fit, but a warm wash later it's perfect! The patch though...especially after shrinkage. I'm leaning toward getting rid of it - yay or nay?

[chicote]

I kind of look how the fabric looks bunched around a shrunken patch, although I agree that the patch itself is pretty unsightly. I'd vote to keep it on, if only for a little bit, and see if you like how it turns out.

[setterman]

23 hours ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

left W30 1978 repro, to right W35 original vintage.

Can't find the raw measurements for a size 30, but post wash front rise is supposed to be around 10".  So I'd assume those raw size 30 are around 10.5", and those size 35s look to be a good 1.5" to 2" bigger.  My size 38s shrank to 11.5", making them the same size or 1/2" shorter than a vintage pair that's three sizes smaller (probably more like 4 considering LVC vanity sizing and the 38 starting with a 39" waist.

Maynard, I have no doubt the 1976 is a more correct take on a late 70s 501.  LVC probably realized they blew it with the pattern decisions for the 78, and rather than correct them and cause confusion with two different fits (old and new stock) in stores called the 78 , they made their corrections and called it the new jean the 1976.      

The 76s look nice, measurements look good and suit the current popularity for regular fits, and if it's the same denim used in the 78 it's IMO one of LVC/Cone's best.  That price tag though.   I like the variety and offerings LVC offers, but IMO is a middling brand and they're charging a price that currently is reserved for the top of the market.  For example, they want $285 for the 1976, while Mister Freedom's Lot 654 made of vintage cone denim is $300, and Warehouse's 1101 is $185 with the current exchange rate.  The 76s, and the entire raw LVC 501 lineup, is falling at the wrong end of the pricing scale, and should be in the $180 to $200 range.    

[Broark]

11 minutes ago, setterman said:

 The 76s, and the entire raw LVC 501 lineup, is falling at the wrong end of the pricing scale, and should be in the $180 to $200 range.    

And I myself would probably buy a pair if they were in that price range, just to have some LVC in the collection.

[beautiful_FrEaK]

On 4.1.2017 at 4:38 AM, Broark said:

I will say the measurements on the 1976 model at Union Made look pretty good.

Here's a link to the aforementioned 1976 Mirror Jeans, I think they look pretty interesting and fun.

And as someone who's left handed I think it'd be cool to have the coin pocket on the left hand side!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulandwilliams/29249599133/in/album-72157674273246635/

 

The price is probably also mirrored.

So make those 285 $ for standard LVC to 582 $

[Maynard Friedman]

We all know with LVC (even with raw jeans) that a bit of patience will reap dividends and that initial price isn't always what you have to pay.

[aho]

1 hour ago, setterman said:

That price tag though.   I like the variety and offerings LVC offers, but IMO is a middling brand and they're charging a price that currently is reserved for the top of the market. The 76s, and the entire raw LVC 501 lineup, is falling at the wrong end of the pricing scale, and should be in the $180 to $200 range.    

I'm neither retailer or pricing/market strategist, but I do wonder how much Levi's actually makes on LVC. I've always considered it a loss leader, but I can understand why they'd want the higher mark up, though niche buyers would know their are lower priced alternatives, which is exactly the reason I haven't purchased LVC in quite some time. Of course, I have a soft spot for Levi's though, and admittedly worked a retail job there at one time. It's hard to be a big company, try to lead industry innovation, yet have all these smaller departments and (anecdotal) poor management structurally. From an internal standpoint, I think we overestimate how much money they can pour into LVC, which is truly a labor of love. They can only do so much just to scrape by as a niche product/small department in a larger whole, whereas repro brands are niche but focus solely on repro and are therefore able to maximize cost to quality ratios.

That said, I can appreciate Levi's slowly trying to make more "quality" products. Anyone notice a recent trend in more interesting fabrics on slightly higher priced shirts (non-LVC or Made and Crafted), etc? I frequent the "sale" section of their site weekly, and if you're a stranger to Levis they'll often have 30-40% off sale prices every season+. Recently picked up the Nisshinbo Mills Sawtooth Western for almost 1/4th the original price...

[setterman]

33 minutes ago, aho said:

I've always considered it a loss leader, 

Why?  The Japanese brands seem to be able to turn a profit in pretty niche market.  Why wouldn't LVC, a world wide brand, with the Levis name behind it, not make money?

Figure the jeans cost $40 to produce, wholesale in the $80 to $100 range, stores try to sell them at the required $260 to $285 MSRP, and when they clear them out they sell them for $130.  If you can't make money selling reproductions of vintage Levis, while the Japanese have at least a half dozen brands that can and have done so for the past 15 to 20 years, something's wrong with your business model.     

Speaking of stores, when in a local (if 90 miles away is truly local!) shop recently, I asked them about the various brands they carry, and why.  They mentioned they'd considered LVC, but after Levis sent them a couple inches thick legal agreement they decided it wasn't worth the hassle.  

[aho]

^More of a personal impression than anything backed by actual numbers; I've just never felt LVC sold well and certainly not at the scale of say standard issue 501's, 511's, etc. Indeed, people are buying, and they keep producing otherwise they would've nicked the line long ago. I  honestly appreciate the dedication to brand history, and though not perfect and definitely competing against lower priced alternatives, I think most of the issues we have against the line are results of internal organizational/brand cultural limitations despite the size and scope of Levis as a whole. 

[Paul T]

LVC has always been a loss leader, however around the time they moved to Amsterdam they were told they needed to pay their own way and prices were hiked. Since then the dpt has moved back to SF and I would be pretty sure it is still a loss leader - if only because the company has such large overheads. So I would guess the situation is as it was when I first discussed it with them, they produce LVC as it epitomises the company's cultural history. And because it's cool stuff and people are enthusiastic about it.
 

[setterman]

50 minutes ago, aho said:

^More of a personal impression than anything backed by actual numbers; I've just never felt LVC sold well and certainly not at the scale of say standard issue 501's, 511's, etc. Indeed, people are buying, and they keep producing otherwise they would've nicked the line long ago. I  honestly appreciate the dedication to brand history, and though not perfect and definitely competing against lower priced alternatives, I think most of the issues we have against the line are results of internal organizational/brand cultural limitations despite the size and scope of Levis as a whole. 

Yes, obviously nothing resembling the scale of the standard 501.  But, if Instagram is any indication of it's popularity, there's over 35,000 photos under the levisvintageclothing hashtag.  This is thousands to tens of thousands more than the other brands we see here.  I think the brand is bigger, as are it's revenues, than we give it credit for. 

 

[bod]

On 21/12/2016 at 6:16 PM, Paul T said:

This is my first ever LVC 66, so I'm looking forward to the next six months as this is reputedly one of the best Cone fabric repros.

 

 

Paul, whats the post soak/wash waist and thigh measurements on these?

Edited January 8, 2017 by bod

[Paul T]

HIya, I stretched out the waist as they dried, so they were 32 inches before, 32 inches after. Thighs, measured six inches below the crotch, are 10 inches across (or a total of 20 inches in diameter).

[bod]

Cheers I have a new pair of 32x34 to squeeze my fat arse into at some point.

For buying and sizing reference I recently measured up two raw pairs:

32w = 16.5" and 33w = 17.5"

Inseams 0.5" under tag size

Heres my old 66's from about 2010 

Edited January 10, 2017 by bod

[Maynard Friedman]

My 'customised' LVC 1937s. I removed the cinch and then had them tapered at the LVC flagship store in London (Regent St). They've been worn for 2 summers in rotation with other pairs and shorts!

 

[bod]

Love those arcs

[Maynard Friedman]

LVC 1915, were my summer jeans for a few years prior to the 37s. Unfortunately a combination of lightweight denim and having young children caused the knees to wear through quickly and I don't like the repair I had done so they no longer get any leg time. Shame...

 

[bod]

Heads up to anyone in the US who hasn't noticed.. 1966 rigid on sale at $129.00 on levis.com

[aho]

And also the Type 1 size XS and M at $189...They have a BOGO code too. Picked myself up the type 1 for kicks.

[Paul T]

By the way, I checked, and those who thought the 1915 denim had changed are right.

 

Apparently the first version (which I liked a lot, and which was closely related to the Roy contest jeans) was deemed to be slightly too heavy. LVC have gone through and made the actual weights more consistent, and this move was part of that. I don't know what similarities or difference there are in the look, apart from the lighter weight, but it is definitely a new recipe.

And for those who care about such things, here's a story on the fella designs the yarn for Cone. Cone are still about the only denim mills who design their own yarns from scratch, other folks will simply buy in yarns from spinning plants.