Levi's Vintage Clothing

[Dr_Heech]

1 hour ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Does that link show photos of the original or the repro? 

To be clear, the belt loop issue relates to the method of attachment AND the placement?

To me at least, it looks like the repro with poly stitching and shiny rivets.

Yes and yes.

Let's hope more photos surface so we can take a closer look(?)

Edited March 27 by Dr_Heech
To edit obvs

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

@Dr_Heech

I would have thought the photos show the originals, but maybe its a sample garment from the LVCs LVC archive  

the pair in the link feature flattened an slightly oxidized rivets, they appear to be washed once, the cloth patch show subtle fading, while the jackets button show some wear and some brownish tint next to the button, which could be just dirt or rust from the metal parts. the yoke panels aren't meeting perfectly well, a detail that sugar cane reproduced just recently I guess...

and since these are early 1920s repros,  when belt loops first appeared with in the Levi's range, it's not unlikely that there had very early versions been made with such details, maybe the pair is a original sample from the era and thus never seen before...

anyways I am not an LVC influencer 😀

Edited March 27 by Sympathy-For-The-Denim

[reubensangwich]

11 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

Where is the archive specimen ??

From your link, I can only see images of the already discussed repro and a few pics of an og 213 jacket - where Interestingly the buttons are different from the repro jacket, so the artistic license already kicking in imo.

Lets be clear, that belt loop feature was only used on the rear centre beltloops of 501XX jeans circa 1935/36. Even the way the belt loop is constructed looks way off for any vintage pair of levis so l'm still not convinced in the slightest. 

Assuming those photos are of the original piece, is it possible the belt loops were added by a tailor? It could explain the issues with construction and location, although tucking the belt loops into the waistband as they are is probably not a very viable option for an already constructed garment.

 

[Dr_Heech]

@Sympathy-For-The-Denim you could be right- obviously the jacket in that link is original, but the jeans l'm still not sure about. The rivets were made round-topped rather than dimple topped from c.1926, the suspender and fly buttons were plain until 1927/28 as well as chainstitched hems and selvedge. The beltloops don't look after-market but they are highly unusual in terms of construction, placement and the way they are attached. Could be a custom Taylor job or special customer request maybe? The repro 213 shows a pocket flap that wasn't attached until c.1927 but only single stitching was used until 1936 at least. The repro stitching looks twin needle. 

Anyway,  800 pairs of whatever that will go straight into storage in denim collections around the world. 

 

 

[Edit] Just glad l have a pair of Valencia St factory made 201's, the best imo

Edited March 27 by Dr_Heech
To edit obvs

[airfrogusmc]

I like the 213  jacket. I have a recent Japanesse made 53 type II and it is really nice. Has fuzzy denim a lot like my cone made 1955 501 have. Dr H, I to have a 555 Valencia St made 20s 201s and I agree they are really nice. 

[bod]

Another month, another wash

[PrettyBoyTony]

Hello! Looking for some advice. Bears have restocked and now have a size 34 in the Levis 66 cut. Wondering if others have any experience with shrinking these made in Japan LVC? The waist is suppose to shrink 5 cm and lenght 8 cm. Does that sound about right? Also does the rise shrink much? Raw for a 34 is showing as front rise 11.5 inches and 15.3 inches back rise. I wouldn't want them to shrink much in the rise really. Also hem is just over 8 inches. Does this change much too? I'm quite used to looser cuts now so wondering if I should size up to a 36 instead. I know the 66 is supposed to be a slimmer cut but don't think I could go back to slim tapered again. I love the look of the fabric though and miss having arcurates on back pockets so thought I'd give these a try.

[Hopethisoneisnttaken]

4 minutes ago, PrettyBoyTony said:

Hello! Looking for some advice. Bears have restocked and now have a size 34 in the Levis 66 cut. Wondering if others have any experience with shrinking these made in Japan LVC? The waist is suppose to shrink 5 cm and lenght 8 cm. Does that sound about right? Also does the rise shrink much? Raw for a 34 is showing as front rise 11.5 inches and 15.3 inches back rise. I wouldn't want them to shrink much in the rise really. Also hem is just over 8 inches. Does this change much too? I'm quite used to looser cuts now so wondering if I should size up to a 36 instead. I know the 66 is supposed to be a slimmer cut but don't think I could go back to slim tapered again. I love the look of the fabric though and miss having arcurates on back pockets so thought I'd give these a try.

I’ve nothing to contribute with regards to the model or the sizing, but I too share your yearning for the arcs, and also the 66 cut in general. But cannot wear slim tapered whatsoever sadly. 

[airfrogusmc]

Question has anyone picked up the new limited edition type I 213 jacket? Look pretty good to my eyes and I'm thinking of it. They only made 800.

My experience with LVC is usually about 10% shrinkage. 

[PrettyBoyTony]

I guess regardless of the cut does 5 cm shrinkage in the waist and 8 cm in lenght sound about accurate for STF 501s LVC?

[NilsLW]

@PrettyBoyTony Yes, modern LVC are pretty short in inseam, they should shrink to around 78 cm. Tried a pair of LVC 66s for a while but they were not for me so I returned them (bought them one wash so I wore them post shrink). My issues were that they were too short and the silhouette was too tapered, this can be fine if there is some stacking but the small leg opening was really exaggerated by the fact that I had no break over my shoes. If there was a L36 option I would give them another chance.

[PrettyBoyTony]

55 minutes ago, NilsLW said:

@PrettyBoyTony Yes, modern LVC are pretty short in inseam, they should shrink to around 78 cm. Tried a pair of LVC 66s for a while but they were not for me so I returned them (bought them one wash so I wore them post shrink). My issues were that they were too short and the silhouette was too tapered, this can be fine if there is some stacking but the small leg opening was really exaggerated by the fact that I had no break over my shoes. If there was a L36 option I would give them another chance.

Thanks @NilsLW!  What about the waist did they shrink the 5cm as Bears is saying? Also is the denim quite stretchy?

[NilsLW]

@PrettyBoyTony That seems plausible, I believe LVC shrink around 8-10% just like old 501s did. And I can’t remember how stretchy the denim was. You can always go for the 1955 if you want a more straight cut, imo the back pocket placement is also a bit better on those.

[PrettyBoyTony]

7 hours ago, NilsLW said:

@PrettyBoyTony That seems plausible, I believe LVC shrink around 8-10% just like old 501s did. And I can’t remember how stretchy the denim was. You can always go for the 1955 if you want a more straight cut, imo the back pocket placement is also a bit better on those.

@NilsLW great that's helpful. I've already got some 50s TCB and Denime so was looking at the 60s for a bit more versatility. As versatile as another pair of indigos are lol