Levi's Vintage Clothing

[setterman]

14 hours ago, propellerbeanie said:

Here are some impressions after wearing these jeans for a few months since I wore mine while I was in the European summer for around 3.5 weeks. Under sunlight, you can see streakiness and subtle slub, but under incandescent lights, it kinda looks plain.

Yep, at this point the fading kinda disappears under indoor lighting, but outdoors you can see their promise of results a few more months down the line.  The slub, streaking, and how they're fading reminds me a lot of the LVC 66s.    

[Hendsch]

9 hours ago, mpukas said:

@Maynard - 34x34 (added to original post) 

 

My actual crotch length from nads to floor is about 32". I'm about 5' 11.5". I like an inseam length of around 33" so there's is some stack, but not too much, and I then have the option to cuff on occasion. I normally don't cuff. I also don't like my pants to ride up above my ankles when I sit. I'm not into the high water look,  maybe with boots, but I can't pull it off like @Hendsch does. I wish these were about an 1" longer... 

 

A note on measuring - I've tried measuring the waist three ways (with many different jeans, not just these 1976 501's): 1) just lying them flat, with the front lower than the rear, and tightened sideways; 2) matching the front waist to the rear, and tightening sideways; 3) the IH way, with the jeans folded sideways and the front button to one side, tightened sideways; I've found that all three methods give similar measurements, no significant differences. 

Ah, thanks! 

[propellerbeanie]

Hey, does anyone know when LVC changed the patch on the 1955 501? In the first pic, you can see four notches on the patch, but in the pic below, there are no notches.

I've had a skim through some photos of 1950s 501s, and I've seen both appear. If I've been looking at the right stuff, then I believe I've also seen jeans where some patches only have three notches. Maybe @Paul T will know, but do you know any reason why they were there in the first place?

Thanks =)

[Foxy2]

I don't think these are notches placed there on purpose - the patches might have been damaged during storage, transport or assembly...

if the patch has been attached with a fully automated machine it is possible that the separating/sorting device can damage a patch.

[Maynard Friedman]

Both of those pairs also seem to be missing the 'PXR-8(?)' code at the bottom right of the patch (shown below) that older models have.

EDIT: look how 'white oak' is spelled as 'wite oak' in propellerbeanie's second photo (above). Thai fakes? 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Maynard Friedman

[Cucoo]

I've only noticed subconsciously that newer LVC patches seemed to look different, maybe tidier for lack of a better word, hadn't really noticed those notches before because I didn't directly compare. Interesting.

[propellerbeanie]

Hey @Foxy2, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean that the machines they used to produce the patches automatically created these notches and that it wasn't a design choice (back in the '50s)? If you see the Instagram post below, that's my mate's LVC '55s although I'm not sure what the production date is. You can see the notches at the top, and the bottom ones are most likely not visible due to the bottom of the patch being slightly folded upwards.

If anyone knows, I was also wondering which font for the lot number, waist, and length is correct i.e. whether the number 1 is supposed to have the short horizontal line at the bottom (second pic), if the number 4 should have all the lines connected (second pic) or have a gap (first pic), and if the Xs should have little horizontal lines at the top and bottom.

From pictures that I've seen, it seems like they number 1 and the Xs should have horizontal lines, but I'm not too sure about whether the number 4 is supposed to have all the lines connected. I never took notice, but thanks to @Maynard Friedman, I'm also interested in knowing whether the "PXR-8" code is supposed to be there and what it means.

I know peeps might say "well what do you expect from Levi's", but these things kind of bother me. I know that from reading other forums that Levi's does less faithful reproductions of their own products than their Japanese counterparts, but don't y'all have a whole archive at your disposal? 

[Foxy2]

From the initial pictures the notches weren't that prominent - the follow-up pictures indicate that the notches are part of the design  or added later to the patch.

possibly for a stacking and separating device that feeds an automated patch setting machine.

[Cucoo]

7 hours ago, propellerbeanie said:

I know that from reading other forums that Levi's does less faithful reproductions of their own products than their Japanese counterparts, but don't y'all have a whole archive at your disposal? 

I'd guess that's not because no one at Levi's cares, but because they still make jeans in an industrial way. If some detail is too expensive or too much of a bother to reproduce they might just leave it be instead of hiring a bunch of Japanese artisans

[Paul T]

the model number and size imprints vary a lot on originals. I think they must have used a variety of machines/type to print them over several years in different factories. I always think the card they use seems to vary across different originals.

THose slots are definitely there on the originals - they were in different places on the two deadstock 60s jeans I've owned and have keptpix for - they are actually notches on the outside of the outline, sometimes they come out as a slot with the outside edge intact (sorry, hard to explain, I really need to sort out another pic host so I can post photos). In the ones I have, a 66 pair have slots tops and bottom right, a 69 pair are top left and top right. Both have very different main print, too.

I do speak to my friends at LVC about inaccuracies; overall, they're looking at an overall package of how authentic something is, it costs a lot to make the fabric and jeans in the US, so they accept some compromises (for instance, on the non-rayon red tag). There are inaccuracies that bother me - on the upside, for instance, they take far more care over the fabric than many other repro makers, designing the yarns from scratch where others simply buy in existing ones.

 

[Paul T]

I'll try this. Should show what I mean about the slots.

[Maynard Friedman]

Some good points Paul, here's the patch on my son's late 60s pair, not too dissimilar from your own.

 

[Paul T]

Yeah, looks like those are slots to position the patch on a punch which cuts them out; how the punch falls will affect how much of the slot is visible. The size/model type is different too - a smaller font on my pair, they probably used a simple lead type which might well have varied from batch to batch.

[propellerbeanie]

@Paul T, thank you for the info! Yeah, I see what you mean by the slots with the edge of the patch still intact, and that's the first time I've seen something like that.

Repro or not, I have to agree that I've found LVC's fabric to be really nice. I'm really liking the '76 and '55 denim! It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when they decide to make certain compromises/decisions. 

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Quick fit pic of my new LVC '47. I'll definitely gonna wash them again as they barely shrank 1" in the waist and not even 2" in the inseam. So I expect more shrinkage to come which I wanna get rid off rather now than later.

 

[bod]

1" flat or around the waist?

[beautiful_FrEaK]

Around the waist. So only 0.5" flat measured. I soaked them and afterwards washed them on hand setting. I guess I need to ne harsher

[bod]

You do indeed, get those hands scalded!

[bartlebyyphonics]

^^ 

agreeing with bod

[different model and fabric, I know, but to share experience...] with my recent lvc '44 needed a lot of washing before proper settling in... initial very hot soak then 40 degree wash removed some length and not even all starch, only with another 30 degree wash and hot spin in a dryer did final length shrinkage and starch removal seem to happen. width-wise shrink seems pretty minimal on mine

[propellerbeanie]

Does anyone know if Paul + Williams is still doing the photos for LVC's collections? If so, do you know when they usually upload the album's because there's nothing there for the current FW17 stuff.

[Paul T]

I had a bunch of photos of my 1966 after their first wash. But photobucket ate them.

 

Here's a quick pic of how they look now. In real life, this is some of my favourite LVC fabric. I remember the old Cone fabric was very blue; this is greyer, which I prefer. A good amount of subtle greeny grey mid tones which don't really come out here - overall what's great is that the indigo is really holding up on the legs etc. Maybe it's more flexible than most other denims I've worn, as the crotch hasn't blown out yet and there are few broken threads in the honeycombs.

Definitely a good Cone denim, alongside my other favourites of the 44, the 55 (and probably the '76).

 

Putting them on the floor to photograph I see they are pretty filthy with muddy stains. So I'll leave them a few weeks till their next wash.

[johnnyryall]

Hey guys, if any of you LVC experts care to help me it would be greatly appreciated!

I've lost more money on raw denim than I'd care to admit so figured I'd come here for some input...what I'm looking for is a LVC cut that best resembles Marlon Brando's in the wild one...I know, an overused model but to me it's the perfect cut-anti-fit enough to accomodate bigger thighs while still having a fitted seat and high rise. The most flattering silhouette that isn't slim-fit, imo. I've tried the 47 but the thigh is just too slim for the look I want, especially since I'll be washing fairly often to achieve subtle fades. ANY suggestions would be appreciated! 

And if it helps my waist is 32'' (1'' below belly-button) while my upper thigh measures 21.5''

[jake431]

34 minutes ago, johnnyryall said:

Hey guys, if any of you LVC experts care to help me it would be greatly appreciated!

I've lost more money on raw denim than I'd care to admit so figured I'd come here for some input...what I'm looking for is a LVC cut that best resembles Marlon Brando's in the wild one...I know, an overused model but to me it's the perfect cut-anti-fit enough to accomodate bigger thighs while still having a fitted seat and high rise. The most flattering silhouette that isn't slim-fit, imo. I've tried the 47 but the thigh is just too slim for the look I want, especially since I'll be washing fairly often to achieve subtle fades. ANY suggestions would be appreciated! 

And if it helps my waist is 32'' (1'' below belly-button) while my upper thigh measures 21.5''

I'd guess the 55 model. Maybe sized down one.

[johnnyryall]

1 hour ago, jake431 said:

I'd guess the 55 model. Maybe sized down one.

Ok thanks! I'm getting mixed measurements from the sites that carry it...Do you or anyone else know a site w/ an accurate chart?

Edited August 22, 2017 by johnnyryall

[kicks79]

Denim black market!. How much is that pair worth? $50k? Def in the hands of a private collector. 

 

[Paul T]

13 hours ago, johnnyryall said:

Hey guys, if any of you LVC experts care to help me it would be greatly appreciated!

I've lost more money on raw denim than I'd care to admit so figured I'd come here for some input...what I'm looking for is a LVC cut that best resembles Marlon Brando's in the wild one...I know, an overused model but to me it's the perfect cut-anti-fit enough to accomodate bigger thighs while still having a fitted seat and high rise. The most flattering silhouette that isn't slim-fit, imo. I've tried the 47 but the thigh is just too slim for the look I want, especially since I'll be washing fairly often to achieve subtle fades. ANY suggestions would be appreciated! 

 

The 55 seems the right choice (the 66 would work too). You will need an actual 32 inch waist, as measured. I think current producition is true to size but check with your seller.

http://loomstate.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-size-1947-and-1955-levis-501-for.html

(47, 33 waist as measured on left, 55, 32 waist as measured, on right).

Edited August 23, 2017 by Paul T

[johnnyryall]

4 hours ago, Paul T said:

The 55 seems the right choice (the 66 would work too). You will need an actual 32 inch waist, as measured. I think current producition is true to size but check with your seller.

http://loomstate.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/how-to-size-1947-and-1955-levis-501-for.html

(47, 33 waist as measured on left, 55, 32 waist as measured, on right).

Love the color of that 55! The 66 might be what I'm looking for...i think bridging the gap of the two styles? Do you know how much larger the thigh is compared to the 47? heddles scout is giving me 21'' and union made 22.5''

[Paul T]

Sorry, can't get to my 47 for a bit as I'm supposed to be working, but this suggests almost exactly 22.5" for the 66. This was a 32 inch waist, measured 32, which stretched back to 32, two washes so far. I think the 66 is a bit lower rise than the 55.

[propellerbeanie]

How do I size for the '44 501? For reference, if I were to size my current LVC jeans so that I wouldn't need a belt (i.e. so they're not deliberately oversized), these are the following sizes I would get:

• '33 size 31
• '47 size 32
• '55 size 30
• '76 size 31

I've been thinking that the size 31 in the '44 501s will be the right choice, but I'm unsure due to the discrepancy in waist measurements across different websites. 

[bartlebyyphonics]

On 26/08/2017 at 10:04 AM, propellerbeanie said:

How do I size for the '44 501? For reference, if I were to size my current LVC jeans so that I wouldn't need a belt (i.e. so they're not deliberately oversized), these are the following sizes I would get:

• '33 size 31
• '47 size 32
• '55 size 30
• '76 size 31

I've been thinking that the size 31 in the '44 501s will be the right choice, but I'm unsure due to the discrepancy in waist measurements across different websites. 

can't give definitive answer but the cultizsm measurements are the most accurate to the 44s i have. my size 36x34 soaked and twice washed they have lost about a cm of most of the listed measurements there (ie front rise now 33cm, hem is 23cm, inseam 82cm - mostly only real shrink in length) but waist (measured front and back aligned) is around 48cm. if going for a true 36 i would have gone 34 but wearing baggy these days (and the thighs on 34 felt a little restrictive for my current tastes)  

good luck with searching and expanding lvc collection 

 

http://www.cultizm.com/shop_content.php?coID=140