Levi's Vintage Clothing

[SmokeStackLightning]

My worries are sending the pair in, paying roughly $55, and them being gone and or being replaced with something else. 

I don't want something else, I want a 1976 33/34... would Levi's get me that? Who knows. Their emails certainly don't give me confidence with that issue.

So my apprehension is I feel warranted in regards to sending them away and hoping for the best. I never asked for a refund or replacement pair, just a button replacement as I have mentioned before earlier. I first emailed Levi's before even reaching out to BTS, as I entirely felt it was Levi's issue from the beginning.

I really can't blame the retailer on this one, as I mentioned earlier to anyone watching this thread. They have tried their best and got the corporate answer I basically have. 

I'm not bashing them, I'm bashing and disappointed in LVC. Why do they have to go to Australia, even though they were made in the US? Why can't I get a simple button? 

I'm calling the repair store tomorrow after work, and will update with what they say. I probably shouldn't care so much at this point, a button is a button, but I am curious on what they say with this. 

[peter1]

I kind of see a molehill here. I'd just take them to any tailor shop and replace the button. Or DIY. Anyway, you got them on deep discount, right? So paying $10-15 for the fix is no biggie. I'd be  too impatient to wear them to ship off somewhere.

[SmokeStackLightning]

Indigo Proof beat Levi's to the punch. $15, can't beat that price with a stick. 

Operation molehill button complete.

I'll be glad to have a Cone Denim jean that fits well, as the 1966 back pockets were far too large for me and I sold them off awhile back. 

[Pedro]

Edited:

Way to go. Is the new button a Levis?

could you snap a pic when it arrives?

Edited February 16, 2019 by Pedro

[SmokeStackLightning]

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

Edited:

Way to go. Is the new button a Levis?

could you snap a pic when it arrives?

Not a Levi's but very similar. I can snap a picture and a fit picture post soak.

[428CJ]

On 2/16/2019 at 6:57 PM, SmokeStackLightning said:

Not a Levi's but very similar. I can snap a picture and a fit picture post soak.

Sounds like it's already done. But I was going to mention that Levi's offer some repair services now, through a handful of Levi's shops. Perhaps if you were to call one up, you could mail some work in.

[vexed_wear]

Hi guys,

 

Does UK Levi's website usually hold a discount for LVC stuff towards the end of the year?  Thinking about buying more pieces.  

 

Thank you,

 

 

[Maynard Friedman]

Yes, there are normally a number of sales/discounts that run continuously from just before Black Friday into early/mid-December.

[vexed_wear]

17 hours ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Yes, there are normally a number of sales/discounts that run continuously from just before Black Friday into early/mid-December.

Thank you Maynard. That’s great to know.  Got myself a 1937 on discount last year.  My first pair of proper Levi’s. Thoroughly enjoy it.  

[vexed_wear]

Hi guys.  I’m looking to buy the LVC 1953 type 2 jacket and wondering how much does it shrunk after machine wash and dry spin?   Many thanks !

[428CJ]

15 hours ago, vexed_wear said:

Hi guys.  I’m looking to buy the LVC 1953 type 2 jacket and wondering how much does it shrunk after machine wash and dry spin?   Many thanks !

The rule of thumb with jackets is that they shrink about 1 size.

Wash cold your first wash, just in case. Then, if it can tolerate more shrinkage, you can wash warm for your next wash.

[vexed_wear]

19 hours ago, 428CJ said:

The rule of thumb with jackets is that they shrink about 1 size.

Wash cold your first wash, just in case. Then, if it can tolerate more shrinkage, you can wash warm for your next wash.

Thank you for the tip : ]

[428CJ]

13 hours ago, vexed_wear said:

Thank you for the tip : ]

You are welcome.

I should point out that by "one size," I meant one letter size, not one numerical size. In other words, if you want a medium when all is said and done, then buy a large. I didn't mean that if you want a 42, you should buy a 44. (If you wanted a 42, I'd buy a 46).

[Spiraltoy]

Got these lvc 1933(?) a while ago. They’re quite strange. I’m wondering if anyone has any info on them? I get that they’re from the first half of 2004. Looks like they where tapered and patched up at Levi’s?  Picture heavy, sorry.

 

Number 1339 out of 1690.

Some mends by Levi’s(?) and some made as needed when worn?

Top button and suspener buttons marked R.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Spiraltoy
Additional info.

[Paul T]

Around that time LVC did quite a few customised jeans, they are quite likely designed as a pair of customised Boyfriend jeans - that was A Thing for them at that time 

 

[Spiraltoy]

Cheers Paul! Knew you’d come to the rescue!

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

@spiraltoy, i remember these, being one of ther first so called "vault" pieces, not unlike the famous homer jeans. the tapered legs for sure weren´t done by the factory though. these are 1901s btw, since they lack the beltloops.

 

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

its the 1901 denim devotee

[VivaMarlon]

Anyone own either a '55 or '66 (or both)? Thoughts? Recommendations?  I know this is the last season to be using Cone Denim and want to get at least one last thing.

[428CJ]

2 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Anyone own either a '55 or '66 (or both)? Thoughts? Recommendations?  I know this is the last season to be using Cone Denim and want to get at least one last thing.

I own both. I have a relaxed fit '66 pair, and a relaxed fit '55 pair and a tight fit '55 pair.

If your body profile is straight/skinny (very little hourglass shape), then the '55's are a good match. If you have more of a figured/hourglass shape, the '66's are a good match to your form.

The key feature of the '66's is the drawn in waistband. They are as if you took a pair of most other 501's, and then tailored the waistband in 1-2 inches.

A slightly more pronounced taper than older styles is also a feature of the '66's. But they don't look like what most people would call "tapered jeans."

The most prominent differentiating feature of the '55's is the wide leg opening, i.e. they're relatively straight from the knees down.

The '55's also have a closer waistband-to-hip ratio. I.e. If you had a pair each of '55's and '66's with the same actual measurement on the waistband (not the same tag size), then the '66's would be looser in the hips. Or, as another way of looking at it, if you get hips that fit the same, then the '66's will have a tighter waistband.

Either pair looks good regular size, upsized, or downsized IMO.

If I had to choose one, it would be the '55's. They are more classic and distinctive looking, and a much harder silhouette to find made these days. The '66's just look like a really nice pair of 501's that are pretty much modern style.

 

[VivaMarlon]

Thanks for the info, I think I’m definitely leaning towards the ‘55 now. What I really like about the ‘47 is the straight silhouette. When you say you have a “tight fit” pair, do you mean that you sized down? 

How does it compare to a ‘47? Is it just wider throughout?

On that subject, I’ve read that the LVC ‘47 is an inaccurate reproduction of an original 1947 501, anyone have any idea why that may have been? If the whole purpose of the (sub)brand is to create accurate reproductions of a time period, why attempt to modernize it? 

[Paul T]

4 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Thanks for the info, I think I’m definitely leaning towards the ‘55 now. What I really like about the ‘47 is the straight silhouette. When you say you have a “tight fit” pair, do you mean that you sized down? 

How does it compare to a ‘47? Is it just wider throughout?

On that subject, I’ve read that the LVC ‘47 is an inaccurate reproduction of an original 1947 501, anyone have any idea why that may have been? If the whole purpose of the (sub)brand is to create accurate reproductions of a time period, why attempt to modernize it? 

I love both the 55 and 66. At this time,given the Cone issue,  one key difference is the fabric. they're both nice, but different. Personally, I prefer that of the 55, it's grainier and less blue. For a slimmer cut, buy your 55 an inch smaller than you would the 66, the seat is generously cut and the waistband will stretch.

Re the 47; there's no such thing as a perfect reproduction, because you're reproducing a range of jeans, and also trying to get a different character where the originals changed graudually, there's a likelihood you'll always impose some kind of aesthetic. I wouldn't call the 47 modernised; it's more engineered as if the user bought a particular size and stretched it etc etc. You can see photos of people wearing jeans from that period that look like the LVC cut. In any case, it's pretty successful, as most other manufacturers copied that LVC 47 outline, it's become definitive.

If i have time I'll post a comparison of the fabrics. Here's the 66, then the 55 (right) and 47. Note the bulkiness of the 55 top block and how much higher the rise it. It would say that's more of an obivous difference than the taper. The 66 has a mild taper, not obviously drastic. These are sized 32 for the 55 and 66, 34 for the 47. In real life, the differences between the fabrics are much more obvious.

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Paul T

[Pedro]

8 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Thanks for the info...

On that subject, I’ve read that the LVC ‘47 is an inaccurate reproduction of an original 1947 501, anyone have any idea why that may have been? If the whole purpose of the (sub)brand is to create accurate reproductions of a time period, why attempt to modernize it? 

I always wondered that as well.

Levis would have had an official pattern for the ‘47 even if individual jeans were variations of cut.

The Sugar Cane brand makes a 1947 that is described as being the “original” Levi pattern.

[428CJ]

11 hours ago, VivaMarlon said:

Thanks for the info, I think I’m definitely leaning towards the ‘55 now. What I really like about the ‘47 is the straight silhouette. When you say you have a “tight fit” pair, do you mean that you sized down? 

How does it compare to a ‘47? Is it just wider throughout?

On that subject, I’ve read that the LVC ‘47 is an inaccurate reproduction of an original 1947 501, anyone have any idea why that may have been? If the whole purpose of the (sub)brand is to create accurate reproductions of a time period, why attempt to modernize it? 

In an ideal world, 35's would be made. That would be my "normal" size. With LVC, I either need to go for 36 or 34. I go 34, wait forever to wash, so they get good and stretched out, and then wash cold for a tight fit (but not super tight). I go 36 and wear relaxed for as long as I can (I love the look and feel of upsized jeans), then I wash cold the first time to see how I like the fit. If I like it, I keep washing cold. If I want it more shrunk, I wash hot at the next wash.

 

FWIW, here are some measurements from a couple of the LVC models in question, and just for the hell of it, I included the few measurements I have taken from my '44's. Sorry that I haven't posted my size 36 1955 measurement, so you can compare them directly to the size 36 1966's. I have them written down somewhere on paper, but I never posted them here, so I don't have them handy to copy and paste. If I can find that paper, I'll post them for you.

1955 501's (34/34):

Waistband: 35.5"

Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends): 42.0"

Thigh, at crotch: 26.5"

Thigh, 2" down from crotch" 25.0"

Knee, at factory fold: 20.0"

Hem: 17.75"

Front rise: 13.0"

Rear rise: 16.5"

Inseam: 33.5"

1966's (36/34):

Waistband: 36.5"

Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends): 46"

Thigh, at crotch: 27"

Thigh, 2" down from crotch: 26"

Actual knee: 20"

Hem: 17.5"

Front rise: 12.5"

Inseam: 33.0"

1944's (36/36):

Waist - 38-1/2"

Inseam - 36"

Rise - 14"

Thigh 2" down – 25"

[Paul T]

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

I always wondered that as well.

Levis would have had an official pattern for the ‘47 even if individual jeans were variations of cut.

The Sugar Cane brand makes a 1947 that is described as being the “original” Levi pattern.

They almost certainly didn't have an "official pattern". The patterns often varied between factories, and the tooling and templates might wear or change at different times. Even things like the pockets aren't standardised between factories. Someone who attempted to go back to an "original" pocket shape in the 80s found that there wasn't really a definitive one.

Last time I was at Levi's I was shown a bunch of deadstock they've obtained recently in search of more "accurate" cuts. But even pairs from the same periodlooked significantly different. So in the end, whatever is done will be a judgement call.

[VivaMarlon]

3 hours ago, Pedro said:

I always wondered that as well.

Levis would have had an official pattern for the ‘47 even if individual jeans were variations of cut.

The Sugar Cane brand makes a 1947 that is described as being the “original” Levi pattern.

I've been very interested in both the Sugar Cane 1947 and TCB 50s, which from what I've deduced seem to be more similar in terms of fit than the LVC '47 vs. '55?  The only thing really holding me back from purchasing the former two pairs currently is that LVC will no longer be using Cone Denim in the near future and I want to grab those before they go for good.

14 minutes ago, 428CJ said:

In an ideal world, 35's would be made. That would be my "normal" size. With LVC, I either need to go for 36 or 34. I go 34, wait forever to wash, so they get good and stretched out, and then wash cold for a tight fit (but not super tight). I go 36 and wear relaxed for as long as I can (I love the look and feel of upsized jeans), then I wash cold the first time to see how I like the fit. If I like it, I keep washing cold. If I want it more shrunk, I wash hot at the next wash.

 

FWIW, here are some measurements from a couple of the LVC models in question, and just for the hell of it, I included the few measurements I have taken from my '44's. Sorry that I haven't posted my size 36 1955 measurement, so you can compare them directly to the size 36 1966's. I have them written down somewhere on paper, but I never posted them here, so I don't have them handy to copy and paste. If I can find that paper, I'll post them for you.

1955 501's (34/34):

Waistband: 35.5"

Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends): 42.0"

Thigh, at crotch: 26.5"

Thigh, 2" down from crotch" 25.0"

Knee, at factory fold: 20.0"

Hem: 17.75"

Front rise: 13.0"

Rear rise: 16.5"

Inseam: 33.5"

1966's (36/34):

Waistband: 36.5"

Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends): 46"

Thigh, at crotch: 27"

Thigh, 2" down from crotch: 26"

Actual knee: 20"

Hem: 17.5"

Front rise: 12.5"

Inseam: 33.0"

1944's (36/36):

Waist - 38-1/2"

Inseam - 36"

Rise - 14"

Thigh 2" down – 25"

Thanks for all of this info! Sometimes I feel like all these details are so minor in the grand scheme of things but then I remember that it's really why we're all here.  I think I'll have to make my way out to the shop in Malibu to actually try these on, though being from Los Angeles, I'm sure you know that's easier said than done. (Though American Rag on La Brea has a fairly large selection of LVC as well).

Edited March 5, 2019 by VivaMarlon

[bartlebyyphonics]

viva the '44!

stovepipe fit yet with more space in the waist and seat than the '47...

[I should change the record, I know... but in light of above conversation...]

Edited March 5, 2019 by bartlebyyphonics

[Pedro]

1 hour ago, Paul T said:

They almost certainly didn't have an "official pattern". The patterns often varied between factories, and the tooling and templates might wear or change at different times. Even things like the pockets aren't standardised between factories. Someone who attempted to go back to an "original" pocket shape in the 80s found that there wasn't really a definitive one.

Last time I was at Levi's I was shown a bunch of deadstock they've obtained recently in search of more "accurate" cuts. But even pairs from the same periodlooked significantly different. So in the end, whatever is done will be a judgement call.

Really? 

I guess I thought that with the decisions to make the various modifications that each year is known for, (suspender buttons giving way to belt loops, rivets no longer being exposed, leg tapers, etc) that some concensus would have been reached on patterns to cut the fabric. 

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Pedro]

@428CJ

+1 on the Ideal World of 35W.

[428CJ]

@VivaMarlon

I found my 36" 1955 notes!

36/34 1966's left, 36/36 1955's right.

Waistband:

36.5" – 38" 

Hips (at point where pocket reinforcement top stitching ends):

46" – 44"

Thigh, at crotch:

27" – 27"

Thigh, 2" down from crotch:

26" – 26"

Actual knee:

20" – 21.5"

Hem:

17.5" – 18.5"

Front rise:

12.5" – 13.625"

Inseam:

33.0" (1 inch under tag) – 35.5" (1/2" under tag)

Leg opening,  both pairs measured at 33" inseam:

17.5" – 19"

As you can see, the '55's are a much more straight-profiled pair of jeans, everywhere. The waist is larger and the hips narrower – i.e. the top block is straighter. And even though they have the same exact thigh measurements, the taper of the '55's is dramatically less, even by the time you get to the knee.

Edited March 5, 2019 by 428CJ