Levi's Vintage Clothing

[erk]

They’ve landed

1955 in 32x34 raw measurements

W 16.75

Th 12.5

In 33.75

Kn 9.5

Hm 8.25

Fr 12.75

Br 16

[propellerbeanie]

My 31x34 from around a year ago had measurements that were slightly bigger than your 32x34! 

[SmokeStackLightning]

Propeller beanie is a fantastic username. I don't know how to tag people on mobile otherwise I would. 

I didn't fully realize how large the back pockets on the 1966 were. I think the post shrink fit will be good and will be a great warm weather/work jean, but the back pockets are big. Just something I'll deal with and get over. 

I'm a Flat Head fan boy and I can see where the inspiration for both the 3005/3009 comes from with this pair, so I'm happy none the less. They are both a very loose interpretation of the 1966 but the comparisons are there.

[NonJazarenko]

Hello--

Has anyone tried on one of these Type III Mash Up Corduroy Truckers? Accounting for the apparent slim fit I sized up from my usual when buying one, and while mine fits better in the sleeves than nearly every photo I find online of store models who look to be wearing skimpy jackets, I still have the sense that it's too snug. I don't own any Type III or slim-fitting trucker jackets, so maybe I'm just not accustomed to the fit.

Returning mine for yet another size up would not be an option as these are sold out, and I won't pay the ridiculous triple retail they're commanding on the popular auction site. That said, I do love the colors. Trying to determine if it's just a question of getting used to a slim fit that is foreign to me.

Each one of these guys looks like his cuffs would go half-way to the elbows if he were to reach straight out or up, but maybe that's the intended fit. I have to figure that stylists know the best fit for jackets they're trying to sell. May I know your thoughts?

[erk]

A vintage cut type 3 is gonna have a shorter body and shorter arms than a modern jacket. I’d say if it fits you in the shoulders and body then keep it. I feel like the first pic posted is how the jacket should fit. The other two are on the small side. 

[NonJazarenko]

Hello erk--

Thanks for opining. When these were semi-available a few weeks back, I contacted a bunch of LVC stores to inquire about the fit; about a half dozen who'd actually tried them on all reported true-to-size. If I were to go up one size (again, not an option at this late stage) that would make it the only garment in my closet in that size.

I agree with you that the last two pictures look smaller than the first. (The last guy looks like he's wearing his little brother's jacket--who decided that's the correct size to be demonstrating to prospective buyers?)

At any rate, I would say mine fits me similar to the first guy, only my sleeves look to be @1 inch longer. Understanding that it's a shorter body as you point out, my main concern is across the shoulder blades. I took a few pictures of the back and here below is the most unflattering: I'm a little bit leaning forward, and for whatever reason the sides are flapping open slightly. The shoulders feel ok at rest like this, but if I were driving or folding my arms in front, I would feel the "pull" across the shoulders. It isn't to the point of restricting movement, but I wouldn't want it to be any tighter...

Thus to my main question: is this slimness I'm describing the intended fit of the Type III cut? If I were to size up there would be an extra 1" across the shoulders, but an extra inch in the sleeves as well that I don't feel I need.

If I do stick with this, it seems it would be a situational jacket to be worn only with a t-shirt or a light, collarless long sleeve tee. Any collar-type shirt with cuffs would be too bulky. Again, is that standard with the Type III?

Thanks again to you (and anyone else) for reading through and weighing in.

[erk]

I think that looks fine. I would not try for a larger size. Keep it!

[501XX4EVER]

Just in case anybody wants a definitive explanation of the major difference between a 50's cut and a 60's cut, it would appear that it's roughly five grand, give or take.

50's cut.

60's cut.

[erk]

initial feelings after returning to LVC. 

1. It kinda makes a difference when the back pockets have the arcs and the tab says Levi's - even if the tab wont shrivel up and fray like on the TCB. 

2. much stronger taper on the LVC, rise is higher. Probably a more flattering silhouette. 

3. The fabric is awesome. Really drives home how much of a loss it is to be without cone mills. 

4. $285 is way too much for a pair of jeans. $170ish is just fine. Makes me wonder if they'd do better to sell them for the old $170 of yesteryear and just sell more jeans. Are there really enough suckers out there to pay the $285 full retail?

5. I shoulda bought a 1947 too. 

6. The buttons still look bad. But I think thats an environmental regulatory issue though...if I remember correctly. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by erk

[propellerbeanie]

54 minutes ago, erk said:

But I think thats an environmental regulatory issue though...if I remember correctly. 

What do you mean by this? I agree that the buttons are notified fantastic.

[erk]

I feel like there was something about a California regulation about zinc or something. Maybe Paul t can shed some light. Also could have dreamt the whole thing. 

[Pedro]

3 hours ago, erk said:

initial feelings after returning to LVC. 

1. It kinda makes a difference when the back pockets have the arcs...

3. The fabric is awesome. Really drives home how much of a loss it is to be without cone mills. 

4. $285 is way too much for a pair of jeans. $170ish is just fine. Makes me wonder if they'd do better to sell them for the old $170 of yesteryear and just sell more jeans. Are there really enough suckers out there to pay the $285 full retail?

 

I have similar sentiments as yourself.

$285 is crazy high. The value is just not there when my pocket bags look like this compared to SC at $160. (Levis on left. SC41947 on right.)

I too wonder how a post-Cone Mills denim world will be to live in. Sort of like “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy is my fear.

Lastly, I am ready to be stoned by this community for what I am about to say but I am going to freehand sew some Levi-esque arcuates on my newly acquired as-yet-unworn Sugar Cane 1947’s. As previously mentioned, I have worn STF since atleast 1970 and a pair of jeans just look so wrong without the back pockets arcuate. 

I love what the Levi brand and arcuate symbolizes. The historic origins of American ingenuity, textile inventiveness, and the fact those denim dungarees made the harsh work environments safer for labor. I love all these things every time I see that arcuate but Levi’s has lost the script IMO and companies like SC are honoring the traditions Levi has lost.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Pedro

[kicks79]

So it seems that I didn't have the whole picture and there will be a whole line up of 501s for next season:

1890, 1915, 1933, 1944, 1947, 1954, 1955, 1966 and 1976  

The 1880 triple pleat blouse, Type 1,2 & 3 denim jacket are also back.

All in cone denim.

Including these tributes to cone mills a 1955 501 and Type 2 jacket made from all the different years of cone denim. 

Not sure what i think about the above though? 

[Pedro]

17 minutes ago, kicks79 said:

So it seems that I didn't have the whole picture and there will be a whole line up of 501s for next season:

1890, 1915, 1933, 1944, 1947, 1954, 1955, 1966 and 1976  

All in cone denim.

Including these tributes to cone mills a 1955 501 and Type 2 jacket made from all the different years of cone denim. 

Not sure what i think about the above though? 

I am going to take out a second mortgage on the house to participate in this one.

My 1933’s are all threadbare now.

That 1955 501 is fascinating but only if it comes with a diagram identifying each year denim in the pattern. (What year is the left front leg in that dark ink?)

Thank you very much for communicating this news because I had no interest in the 1947 and 1954 so was giving up on LVC in a post-Cone existence. 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Pedro

[kicks79]

You mean the darker of the two legs? I believe that leg is 60s denim. The other side is 70s denim.

 

[VivaMarlon]

Personally seems more like a collector's item than something to wear.

[kicks79]

Agreed, there are only 150 of them apparently. 

[Pedro]

1 hour ago, kicks79 said:

You mean the darker of the two legs? I believe that leg is 60s denim. The other side is 70s denim.

 

Yes the side without the watch pocket. 

I agree those pants would be more of a collector's piece. 

What would be more practical is if they created a 6" x 8" fabric sampler book of the various years of denim with a shared binding. Such a book and a magnifying glass would make for some cool evenings.

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Pedro

[beautiful_FrEaK]

If anyone is interested in these LVC western shirts in size L, just PM me for details.

Made in Portugal 

[Thanks_M8]

Those mix-n-match 55s look gorgeous, kinda reminiscent of the SDA salesman jeans.
Would be interesting seeing all those denims age together side by side. 

[The Clerk]

So look what came today... '55s in a 30 and 31 waist. Not as massive as I had thought. Here compared with 1915s well worn, 1947 soaked but unworn then the 31 waist then the 30 waist. Not sure which  will give the best fit.... May have to keep em both....
 

[The Clerk]

Actually scrub that. I now I'm not quite at my fighting weight at the moment, but the 30" pair are snug in the waist and that's before a soak... They may have to go back 

[Maynard Friedman]

^ Better get another 31 to replace them then!

[The Clerk]

Yeah, might well do that. Though I'm tempted by a 54 for a slightly narrower fit, if I can put u with the zip....  Is it pretty much the same denim?

[Maynard Friedman]

You would think it would (or should) be - the story is that Levi’s only introduced the zip to appease the East coast market - and would the denim have changed between 1954 and 1955? However, you’ll need an expert rather than a Levi’s pettifogger such as myself to confirm. Calling Paul T ...

[Cucoo]

16 hours ago, kicks79 said:

So it seems that I didn't have the whole picture and there will be a whole line up of 501s for next season:

1890, 1915, 1933, 1944, 1947, 1954, 1955, 1966 and 1976  

The 1880 triple pleat blouse, Type 1,2 & 3 denim jacket are also back.

All in cone denim.

Including these tributes to cone mills a 1955 501 and Type 2 jacket made from all the different years of cone denim. 

 

Not sure what i think about the above though? 

The jacket at least looks like something you can wear, the pants are just gimmicky.

I have a pair of '47 incoming, 160€ with the recent 30% site-wide discount is alright. I returned a size 30 around last year because it was too snug before shrinkage, went with a 31 this time and I hope they'll fit...

I already have the 66 and 76, and like most around here I like the 76 the most. Might have to get another pair as long as it's true that the full line up will be available in Cone for the foreseeable future.

[The Clerk]

Maybe I'll stick with a second pair of '55s and just taper the leg a little. Get a button fly and keep the legendary denim.

[heyson]

Are the items available on the website now mad from cone denim? How can you tell?

[NonJazarenko]

Any thoughts on the made-in-Italy Shorthorn suede sherpa jacket? I picked one up with a 40% off coupon, though I'm over the barrel on keeping it or sending it back. Fits me perfectly in the shoulders & sleeves, and a bit roomy in the body which I prefer for this type of jacket. Still, it's a big chunk of change. (Picture courtesy of Nordstrom's)

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by NonJazarenko

[Fooleo]

Those cone memorial jeans are interesting. Just picked up a pair of old (2010ish?) Engineered Garments jeans which are also made from 4 different kinds of deadstock Cone denim. From the pics above it looks like they're cut in almost the exact same combo too. Wonder if it's a bite or genuine coincidence....