Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Foxy2]

they look fine to me - I think the waist will give in further with more wear, but the "nut cracker" aspect will probably stay as front & back rise and thighs might not stretch enough...

[Ciabatta]

Looks like you’re wearing pants that are a size too small for you. 

[bartlebyyphonics]

i concur. if u like nuts cracked, persevere, if not, let it go, let it go...

[jeffrx]

Yea, I've decided to get rid of them.  Thanks for the feedback and for talking me down off the ledge.  

[mandel9000]

On 21.9.2017 at 6:13 AM, propellerbeanie said:

Here's a pic of mandel.

Thanks for stepping in, propeller! I've been away for a while, but was actually thinking about taking full-fit pictures of a few of my favourite jeans. I think the 55s might be it for me at the moment, basically great on all counts. If I could change anything, not taking into account historical accuracy, I would make the rise 0.5" higher and the leg 0.5 slimmer. But that's no biggie, I love them just as they are. 

[jewellben]

On 03/10/2017 at 6:02 PM, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

but removing of the cinch and suspender buttons would be authentic

 

Whats the best way to remove the suspender buttons? I wear my 33 with a belt and these buttons kill my hip bones

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

using pincers

[propellerbeanie]

These aren't my photos, but looking at these '47s makes me want to try wearing another pair. If I do, hopefully it's not too slim for me. I found these pics on a website, which also has fade photos of other LVC jeans.

Here's the link: http://denim-gallery.heavy.jp/world-collection/levis-501xx-501zxx-505l.html

[kicks79]

Some iphone fit pic of my 76s. I'll take some close-ups when there is some evolution to show.

 

 

 

[alvin_cheong]

Any place to get the 76s?

@kicks79 is that a new pair you tried on?

 

@propellerbeanie  those 47s pics is too attractive, making me wanting to get a pair.

[kicks79]

These are my 76s that I copped a few weeks back. One hot soak and three or four weeks wear. 

MIght still be available on the US Levis site depending on where you live.

[alvin_cheong]

@kicks79 your recommendation for the 76s would it be to stay true to size or up size?

[kicks79]

I went true to size. However, this is the first pair of levis 501s I've had in years.

After one hot soak, they have shrunk around .5" in the waist but stretched back out again. I can tell you more after the first machine wash.

@propellerbeanie might be able to help more.

Edited October 12, 2017 by kicks79

[free2hear]

[some sort of poll..]

Based on your experience/preference which pair(s) would you buy, and why, from this batch: 1880, 1890, 1901, 1915, 1922 201, 1933 and 1937? All reasons valid, vanity included .

[jeffrx]

Grabbed a pair of 1954s in the same size as the ones that were too tight.  The 1954 cut fits perfect.  I'll get a pic up at some point.  Very happy with these. 

[Paul T]

3 hours ago, free2hear said:

[some sort of poll..]

Based on your experience/preference which pair(s) would you buy, and why, from this batch: 1880, 1890, 1901, 1915, 1922 201, 1933 and 1937? All reasons valid, vanity included .

I have actually worn all of these bar the 1915 and 1937.

I don't know the new 1915, but the old ones were terrific. That would still be a strong contender for the best, as I think the new fabric is good. But I do love the 1901. With all of the earlier ones, especially, you have to resign yourself to a ridiculously long wear-in process.

1880 - great, unusual shape. Still jonesing for the natural indigo version
1890 - lovely drainpipe cut. Mine are 10 years old, worn maybe 6 summer and still only just starting to wear in. One back pocket is a pain as the front pockets are shallow and money drops out. New Cone fabric for these looks terrific. Perfect for the beach.
1901 - great all-rounder.
1915 - good rep but I haven't worn
1922 201 - the old Kurabo fabric was amazing, very natural -indigo like, as in very turquoise with lots of greeny midtones and a bastard to wear in. Very wide, almost sailor-pants like.
1933 - somehow my least favourtie LVC, mostly on account of the fabric which I found too baby blue; although I did wear these as a new parent and hence had to wash a lot due to baby sick (and worse)
1937 - good fabric and a good cut means these have to be some of the most enticing cinchback models.

[free2hear]

38 minutes ago, Paul T said:

I have actually worn all of these bar the 1915 and 1937.

I don't know the new 1915, but the old ones were terrific. That would still be a strong contender for the best, as I think the new fabric is good. But I do love the 1901. With all of the earlier ones, especially, you have to resign yourself to a ridiculously long wear-in process.

1880 - great, unusual shape. Still jonesing for the natural indigo version
1890 - lovely drainpipe cut. Mine are 10 years old, worn maybe 6 summer and still only just starting to wear in. One back pocket is a pain as the front pockets are shallow and money drops out. New Cone fabric for these looks terrific. Perfect for the beach.
1901 - great all-rounder.
1915 - good rep but I haven't worn
1922 201 - the old Kurabo fabric was amazing, very natural -indigo like, as in very turquoise with lots of greeny midtones and a bastard to wear in. Very wide, almost sailor-pants like.
1933 - somehow my least favourtie LVC, mostly on account of the fabric which I found too baby blue; although I did wear these as a new parent and hence had to wash a lot due to baby sick (and worse)
1937 - good fabric and a good cut means these have to be some of the most enticing cinchback models.

Great info @Paul T. The 37's seem very appealing. Did you ever fiddle with adding belt loops to some of the older models? (i'm not a suspender guy..) Also, any theory about the 1915's being so cheap at levis uk at the moment?

[Maynard Friedman]

Unlike Paul T, I have only worn the 1915 (old model) and 1937, again, exclusively as summer jeans due to the lighter weight of the respective denims.

The 1915s are like the 1890s in that the front pockets are shallow and the coin pocket on mine was so small as to be almost unusable. The lack of belt loops wasn't an issue as I sized accordingly to ensure they wouldn't stretch out too far in the waist beyond what the cinch could handle. I thought the cut was relatively slim for a pre-war model, stovepipe as Paul mentions is probably a good description. The denim is fantastic, dark and crocks well once you've given them a decent amount of wear. I only retired them because the knees wore through - a combination of thin denim and having very young children at the time.

I picked up my 1937s for a song on eBay some years ago. They were washed and had been worn a couple of times with no sign of fading. The reason they were cheap was because the cinch had been cut off, in good ole-timey western fashion. I removed the cinch straps entirely, rivets and all and had them tapered and (chainstitch) rehemmed at the Levi's shop in Regents Street. They are still a full, high-waisted cut but I'm much happier with the slightly slimmer hem. In terms of denim, these also seem to have that royal blue hue that Paul mentioned (on the 33s) so I'm trying to be more frugal with washing to avoid the dreaded dad-jean scenario. The 1915 denim is definitely nicer.

Finally, I'm not sure what Levi's cinch buckles are like these days, but my experience of them (and with Lee) is that are completely useless, they don't work and break easily due to a poor design so you'll need to replace them from the outset.

[free2hear]

3 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I removed the cinch straps entirely, rivets and all and had them tapered and (chainstitch) rehemmed at the Levi's shop in Regents Street. They are still a full, high-waisted cut but I'm much happier with the slightly slimmer hem.

In terms of denim, these also seem to have that royal blue hue that Paul mentioned (on the 33s) so I'm trying to be more frugal with washing to avoid the dreaded dad-jean scenario. The 1915 denim is definitely nicer.

Definitely agree with functional alterations that pleases you better, some good ideas here Maynard. Can you be more specific about that dad jean stuff? Is it about color?

[propellerbeanie]

@alvin_cheong I should be able to help a little bit with the sizing of the '76s. Best to note that sizing is pretty subjective, but I'll try my best to describe what's up with my pair. 

I'm not too sure how long I've been wearing my '76s, but I've had them since February/March of this year, and I've washed them four times. I'm confident in saying that all the shrink has disappeared, and you can find the initial pre-wash and post-wash measurements by clicking here.

I'm currently busy with a few things, but I can measure my jeans later tonight to show you how much they stretch out. I can proudly say that I have sized them perfectly to my liking because I can comfortably wear them with or without a belt. I'll edit this post in a few hours time with some extra details!

[Maynard Friedman]

11 hours ago, free2hear said:

Definitely agree with functional alterations that pleases you better, some good ideas here Maynard. Can you be more specific about that dad jean stuff? Is it about color?

It's a combination of the lighter colour, loose cut and lighter weight denim. I find it's harder to get defined (rather than general) wear on these and consequently if they are washed too frequently, I think they're likely to develop that all-over fade so beloved of my demographic. As this is entirely appropriate for me, I don't know why I'm worried about it, perhaps I should simply embrace the Clarkson look!

[bartlebyyphonics]

agreeing with maynard

i think this is the info you are looking for free2hear:

https://www.heddels.com/2015/04/complete-guide-dad-jeans/

[spoiler: contains normcore based irony]

 

edit: also recently saw a colleague in the new 1915s: looked pretty solid; less flowing than I though the 9oz would be [but give it 6 months, I guess]. Would go for those if not waiting on some over-sized tcb 20s which I will be dad-jeaning anon

have experience of the 555 201 [great jeans, super wide] and the 'first jeans' [the early kurabo denim version from early 2000s that is imprecise replica of 1870s-ish?] - the single back pocket on the really early versions combined with the lighter denim can make them feel very pyjama-esque

edit (2): agreeing with maynard again: the hard-ware on the cinchs on lvc in my experience pop in a few uses... found myself stitching the cinch fabric together...

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by bartlebyyphonics

[Paul T]

Re the 'dad' 1937. I am certain that if you worked them hard, they'd look at least as good as the jeans below. I recall it's one of Allen Little, the yarn designer's, favourtie fabrics alongside the 1955 and 1915.

here's some - literally - quick and dirty pix of my main cinch Levi's. 1901 top left; 1922 201 right; 1890 botttom.

These are all the older Kurabo versions, so only give a rough approximation of how the new versions look. But from what I've seen, they are going for the same look with the Cone fabrics, as obviously they're based on the same originals.

I've also added a pic of one new Cone fabric, from the 3-pleat jacket, which I think is the same as the 1880 (and maybe 1890) synthetic indigo jean. Very green. Note how the fabric is very open with lots of weft showing. Again, it's hard to wear in.

For all these jeans except the 201, I would wear them for maybe three months in the summer. If you wear them, waiting for them to wear in, it will never happen. The 201 I wore in more regular style, and this is probably 9-12 months wear. Looking at them again, I think it's incredibly beautiful fabric, real greens in the mid tones, they are fabulous jeans. You can see the same greeny colour in the 1890, too, while the 1901 is a much blacker colour.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Paul T

[Paul T]

here you have the 1890, the 1901, and the 1922 201 all in order, plus a lap pic of the 201.

The 1890 I'm still working on. They've been my main summer jeans for perhaps the last five years. They are great to mooch around in in sandals. I think they'll end up with as dramatic fades as the 1901, but a much greener cast overall. You can't really see from the flat pix but these are disticntly less baggy than the 1901, which are in turn distinctly less baggy than the 201.

Maynard's right about the cinch. On each of them, I swapped the buckle ( I only had one so I think it went from one pair to the other). The 201 hardware is different and gave me no problems.

I didn't mention the 1880s; I had the first Kurabo natural indigo version but I bought too big, and ruined them by trying to shrink. You always need your actual waist size on these. On the upcoming TCB contest I have down-sized on the waist in the hope that they're proportioned much like the orginals, and it will be fascinating to wear in a Japanese take on this look. The Roy contest jeans, some here might know, have a related yarn to the old 1915 - and that's perhaps the best Cone fabric I've ever worn, and for me is better than any Japanese fabric I can think of off-hand, as it looks great at every stage; new, barely crocked, obviously worn, and knackered. The new version is lighter in weight but I don't know if it's the same warp yarn, but my guess is it will be great.

All the front pockets are shagged, you can probably see.

More significantly, these fade so differently to other jeans; fewer whiskers and honeycombs, instead you get fades over the pocket bags and on the thighs. Which I really like. Faded areas come out very green - although it is complicated by the fact that these are, to be frank, pretty dirty.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Paul T

[Maynard Friedman]

Some great looking pairs there Paul. Like your cinchbacks, my 1937s (sans cinch) are summer wear only and will take some time to get to that level.

I have a pair of raw Warehouse 415s stashed away (rebadged 700s), which are a 1937 cinchback model in Warehouse's 1000XX denim (14 or 14.5oz) which will be a little heavier for warmer weather. When their time comes, I'll be customising them with some press-on Levi's suspender buttons that I received in a nice little box from the good folk at LVC some years back.

[free2hear]

4 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

I don't know why I'm worried about it, perhaps I should simply embrace the Clarkson look!

In an ideal world we should be driving convertibles all year round (in Portugal we do..), be allowed to punch a few idiots that daily cross our paths (in Portugal we don't...) and our jeans would never achieve the dad jean dreadful aesthetic heights that you so kindly explained and also thanks to @bartlebyyphonics for the "hilarious" link. That would be part of a truly Clarksonian existence, but, unfortunately, that's not how civilization works.

@Paul T Your encyclopedic knowledge about lvc is a wonder to have here. Re your " For all these jeans except the 201, I would wear them for maybe three months in the summer.", in Portugal you can wear summer jeans for 9 months, that's part of the rational to buy one of the older 501's. But (one of) my problem(s) is wearing the same jeans every day, just love variety and I must assume that it would take years to achieve any kind of those looks that your photos so clearly demonstrate, which after all is not so problematic because I like them dark.

Eventually I'll find my "older" pair, and you paul and maynard are giving me good headaches about what pair (I think I would be happy with only one pair of those older models', or just another rationalization) to choose from. The 1915's seem tempting but the smaller waist they have is a 28 and I have one of the current STF's in W28 and though different their cut is I'm not sure if I could wear the 15's without a belt, perhaps the cinch is of help and they would shrink a bit but I'm hesitant and based on my previous experiences the belt "reassures" me. There seem to be no measures online for the 15's, even the helpful cultizm measurements page seem to have disappeared under the revamped site, and I'm afraid Levis UK will not be too helpful with detailed measurements. Does anyone have any info regarding the 15's measurements in smaller waist numbers?

[bartlebyyphonics]

good luck with the search

re: belt security... sharing images from denimbro user buler's astonishingly good archival picture sharing over there; some examples (most not dated I believe, but put somewhere between 1890 to 1910)

belt wearing on no-belt-loop trousers did occur (by no means the majority, but gives historical precedent...)

 

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by bartlebyyphonics

[Maynard Friedman]

I have owned 2 pairs of the older 1915s, both tagged 30W and measured 33" and 34" raw respectively, so beware as they were oversized. I already knew this as I was able to try some on first but if I hadn't, I would simply (and mistakenly) have bought my usual size 32.

[Paul T]

Good advice from Maynard, as ever. Worth adding, tho, I do know that the current LVC designer has been making a concerted effort on the patterns so that the sizing is accurate throughout the range, and it would be logical if that were the case with the 1915, as it has been revised with the new fabric. I should add also that the new designer, Paul O'Neill,  tends to wear the stuff (not sure if his predecessor does) and does seem to sweat the detail.

unfortunately I don't know the new people at Cinch too well, in the old days I could go in and get measurements for all the jeans, can't really do that now, it's always obvious you're asking for a friend who's going to order on-line!

 

 

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

maybe Paul T, you know something about the rigid 1880s natural indigo and when they will be in stores?

i just wonder since they are represented at fw2017 lookbook and also on instagram... look so promising.

@1890s the current production run is true to size, if not slightly smaller (and smaller than all other W30s of then current lvc run, not unlike the 1937s 201xx),

these where the only LVC in W30 (apart from 201xx) that I couldn´t wear just right from the start.