Levi's Vintage Clothing

[beautiful_FrEaK]

thank you very much!

it's such a struggle to buy online...

[rnrswitch]

I've been buying 501 stf for decades and never had a pair shrink more than .5 in W, so I always buy my true hand-measured waist size raw which allows me to wear unwashed for many months w/out looking like I'm wearing oversized clown pants. After 1st hand-wash and line dry, I get a perfect snug comfortable fit with room for some stretching. I once followed Levi's advice and sized up 2'' on a piar of '44 Levi's Japan lvc. After a 1-hour hot soak, they shrank only .75. Now I'm stuck w/a nice pair of jeans I can't wear because they're 1.25 too lrg. My point is that only you know what your size is and how you like your jeans to fit whether it's loose, tight, etc. If you try to apply some formula to buying raw stf jeans sight unseen w/out knowing the actual measurements or trying them on, then it's going to be hit or miss getting the right size and fit.

The STFs shrinkage can vary quite a bit depending on the denim used. I have seen STFs from the states that shrink the normal 1.5 to 2in, but seen Mexican made STFs shrink close to an inch. Hopefully LVC are a little bit more consistent with respect to model.

[telluride11]

I've been buying 501 stf for decades and never had a pair shrink more than .5 in W, so I always buy my true hand-measured waist size raw which allows me to wear unwashed for many months w/out looking like I'm wearing oversized clown pants. After 1st hand-wash and line dry, I get a perfect snug comfortable fit with room for some stretching. I once followed Levi's advice and sized up 2'' on a piar of '44 Levi's Japan lvc. After a 1-hour hot soak, they shrank only .75. Now I'm stuck w/a nice pair of jeans I can't wear because they're 1.25 too lrg. My point is that only you know what your size is and how you like your jeans to fit whether it's loose, tight, etc. If you try to apply some formula to buying raw stf jeans sight unseen w/out knowing the actual measurements or trying them on, then it's going to be hit or miss getting the right size and fit.

well said. that's what bugs me the most. nice denim and everything is nice, but i hate walking on eggshells with jeans. i'd rather wear some shit $40 levis that fit me right out of the box instead of the ice sculptures that are proper-fitting raw jeans. smh

[blm14]

I find that if I try the jeans on BEFORE they shrink and they essentially fit nicely at the waist raw then they fit OK afterward too...

I mean, buy on the tight side, but for me the difference of three-quarters of an inch means wearing a belt versus not. Hardly the end of the world.

[telluride11]

edit: it doesn't especially bother me, and it's fine that not evertything comes easy, but what with it not being available even at the HQ store in sf, i mean.. idk

[electrum]

Sorry don't know offhand as these were something of a one-off, suggest you PM airfrog, he has several pairs and will probably know.

Thank you Paul, I'll check him out.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I find 555s and the old 37 201s to be way hyped. I've seen plenty of 555s and theres nothing that stands out compared to other factories and later years.

There are some off years but the 555s are by no means a gold standard to which everything else should be compared.

It would actually make more sense to buy the later ones, like this spring's, as they are more likely to be accurate.

I came across another 37 201 just a few days ago and passed again, they're not at all special.

As far as the denim goes, I'd guess 12.5oz unsanforized.

[Leonard Leroy]

Leonard, i know how you feel. I'm waiting for the summer to wear my 55, short legs won't look so bad with loafers...

The length isn't bad at all on me, its a 34 now, and I roll em up high anyway. It's just that they slimmed up a bit through the leg.

[electrum]

''well said. that's what bugs me the most. nice denim and everything is nice, but i hate walking on eggshells with jeans. i'd rather wear some shit $40 levis that fit me right out of the box instead of the ice sculptures that are proper-fitting raw jeans.''

No ice sculptures here -- these are ready for the briar patch and viper pit everyday. 44 Levi's Japan lvc. Although very light w/ an extremely loose weave, I swear to God they're indestructible. The denim is dull and funky w/ a very grainy and crinkled texture w/ a craggy coarse/rough hand, saturated w/ true deep indigo colour (lost little indigo in hot soak, water was barely cloudy) -- neat and unusual stuff! 1st and 2nd fotos illustrate this very well. T oo bad my interpretation of the whole shrinkage/fit thing got all screwed up. Note tag is 31, yet actual was just under 33 and only shrank .75. I later find out the Japanese use cm measurements which might account for the odd measurements. (?)

[electrum]

[electrum]

[electrum]

[telluride11]

good stuff. i guess it's not so much waist size that i'm particular about as it is thigh size.. i just don't want shit to go from a '33 to a '47 all of a sudden. nothing worse than prematurely retiring some jeans

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

great pair! the us version always uses two tone yoke stitche which isn´t authentic, don´t why they always reproduced that failure, the japans do it better...

[Paul T]

I find 555s and the old 37 201s to be way hyped. I've seen plenty of 555s and theres nothing that stands out compared to other factories and later years.

There are some off years but the 555s are by no means a gold standard to which everything else should be compared.

THat's a good point, the 37 201 are after all, as far as I know, toatlly inaccurate.

That said, Pomata's jeans, the cache of 1955 from 2001 or so, like Leonard's, are special - very hairy denim. I'm wondering whether that might simply reflect a different batch of cotton.

[MrBurns]

can I get any information on these? thanks

http://www.endclothing.co.uk/casual/levis/levis-orange-tab-605-skinny-rigid-jean.html/

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

can I get any information on these? thanks

http://www.endclothing.co.uk/casual/levis/levis-orange-tab-605-skinny-rigid-jean.html/

don´t no why they are called 605, cause actually these are repros of the 1960s 606 superslim, it was the skinniest fit levis offered in the period, these

actually became popular with the hippie and mod scene, later the ramones wore em to death... i like these a lot!

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

btw. I´ve listed a decent pair at the bay:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=320342362266&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=011

[Paul T]

They're a repro with revised cuts. Denim looks authentic, lots of horizontal striation just like the originals. They're much less purist than the LVC repros and going out thru a different channel, I think.

[MrBurns]

Thanks for the replies. Purchased them. Will do a fit picture probably.

[electrum]

I find 555s and the old 37 201s to be way hyped. I've seen plenty of 555s and theres nothing that stands out compared to other factories and later years.

There are some off years but the 555s are by no means a gold standard to which everything else should be compared.

It would actually make more sense to buy the later ones, like this spring's, as they are more likely to be accurate.

I came across another 37 201 just a few days ago and passed again, they're not at all special.

As far as the denim goes, I'd guess 12.5oz unsanforized.

Thanks for the sound advice from you as well as Paul. Yeah, I'm definitely considering several models from s/s09, namely the '01, '17 and '47. Being a weight junky I like the 1978 with 14oz. denim too. The 1917 is one I've been waiting for, but it's listed as Kurabo denim rather than Cone. (?) Funny thing is, last yr Levi's Japan marketed their '17 version as Cone Mills under the Jp. vernacular "Corn Meals". This is the Levi's marketing story behind those jeans: About ten yrs ago, LS&C hosted the Oldest Levi's in Japan contest. Someone dug up a pair of original 1917s and won. To honor this rare find, Levi's decided to reproduce an exact replica for the Japanese market. They determined the denim was Cone, and together with Cone Mills located the original loom, spent years refurbishing it and finally in 2008 reproduced the 1917501xx 'Corn Meals'. I was going to get a pair, but at $385 I said screw that it's another one of those bs Levi's hype stories to jack the price of an average jean. What I don't understand is, why would Levi's now produce the same model using Kurabo denim after going through so much trouble to produce the same model in Japan using Cone Mills denim? It makes no sense unless they;re using the Kurabo denim as a pretense to jack the price here.

[Shorty Long]

I'm just disappointed that Levi didn't use natural indigo for the 1917s, especially given this snippet concerning their promotion of the jeans:

"Levi´s® Vintage Clothing Rigid 1917 501 JEAN

In the price list these are called "Waist Overalls, 2 hip pockets". They were still made using natural indigo denim from the Amoskeag mill and had a plain selvage. The 1917 price list describes this jean as "XX No. 1 Indigo Dyed" and the cost is $17.50 per dozen wholesale.At point of sale, these jeans had a label hanging from one of the suspender buttons. It featured a facsimile of the award we received at the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition for the riveted waist overalls."

The 1917 is one I've been waiting for, but it's listed as Kurabo denim rather than Cone. (?) Funny thing is, last yr Levi's Japan marketed their '17 version as Cone Mills under the Jp. vernacular "Corn Meals"

[erk]

they probably didn't do them in natural indigo because nobody wants to pay that ridiculous price for a pair of levis. it is kinda lame they talk about the natural indigo in the marketing line and don't use it on the jeans, but whatever. the market for natural indigo (much less people who even know the difference between natural and synthetic) is a very very small niche market.

regardless, I'm very interested in the 1917s and the 1927s. But I don't think i'll be buying any denim for another 2 years.

[Shorty Long]

Exactly...I don't neccessarily have a problem with them not using natural indigo, but why trumpet the fact that originals WERE made with natural indigo denim when you're selling the repros???

[erk]

most of what Levi's does is a mystery to me.

[Paul T]

Thanks for the sound advice from you as well as Paul. Yeah, I'm definitely considering several models from s/s09, namely the '01, '17 and '47. Being a weight junky I like the 1978 with 14oz. denim too. The 1917 is one I've been waiting for, but it's listed as Kurabo denim rather than Cone. (?) Funny thing is, last yr Levi's Japan marketed their '17 version as Cone Mills under the Jp. vernacular "Corn Meals". This is the Levi's marketing story behind those jeans: About ten yrs ago, LS&C hosted the Oldest Levi's in Japan contest. Someone dug up a pair of original 1917s and won. To honor this rare find, Levi's decided to reproduce an exact replica for the Japanese market. They determined the denim was Cone, and together with Cone Mills located the original loom, spent years refurbishing it and finally in 2008 reproduced the 1917501xx 'Corn Meals'. I was going to get a pair, but at $385 I said screw that it's another one of those bs Levi's hype stories to jack the price of an average jean. What I don't understand is, why would Levi's now produce the same model using Kurabo denim after going through so much trouble to produce the same model in Japan using Cone Mills denim? It makes no sense unless they;re using the Kurabo denim as a pretense to jack the price here.

Around 1917 both Amoskeag and [/i[Cone produced denim for the 501. ONly Kurabo have the expertise in producing natural indigo denim AFAIK - but of course that comes in at a lot more $$$. I am happy with synthetic indigo for these early versions, which should still give as 'original' a look, but would like to see a more greencast look as on the originals.

WOuld love to see a link for the Corn Meal versions. I agree some of those LVC natural indgo are ludicrous prices, but I suspect they are still loss-leaders when you consider the work that's gone into them.

THe 1917 do look very exciting but I haven't seen the production version in the flesh yet... any day.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

THat's a good point, the 37 201 are after all, as far as I know, toatlly inaccurate.

That said, Pomata's jeans, the cache of 1955 from 2001 or so, like Leonard's, are special - very hairy denim. I'm wondering whether that might simply reflect a different batch of cotton.

It's correct that some 96-99 denim was very dark and hairy, that's nice if you like it. I have the 555 551zxx from 98 and the denim is darker than any current LVC, maybe except the 55.

But is it accurate? None of the deadstock Levi's, no matter from which decade, look like those 555s.

There's a myth surrounding and romanticization of all things old and elusive. Goes for LVC as well. It's even part of the hype of vintage Levi's or anything.

I think people shuld be aware though, because the 555 hype is out of hand.

Oh, almost forgot, I have 555 20 201s too, and they look pretty much exactly the same as the recent ones to me.

Even if there's a different, how do you decide if it's a good or a bad one?

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Thanks for the sound advice from you as well as Paul. Yeah, I'm definitely considering several models from s/s09, namely the '01, '17 and '47. Being a weight junky I like the 1978 with 14oz. denim too. The 1917 is one I've been waiting for, but it's listed as Kurabo denim rather than Cone. (?) Funny thing is, last yr Levi's Japan marketed their '17 version as Cone Mills under the Jp. vernacular "Corn Meals". This is the Levi's marketing story behind those jeans: About ten yrs ago, LS&C hosted the Oldest Levi's in Japan contest. Someone dug up a pair of original 1917s and won. To honor this rare find, Levi's decided to reproduce an exact replica for the Japanese market. They determined the denim was Cone, and together with Cone Mills located the original loom, spent years refurbishing it and finally in 2008 reproduced the 1917501xx 'Corn Meals'. I was going to get a pair, but at $385 I said screw that it's another one of those bs Levi's hype stories to jack the price of an average jean. What I don't understand is, why would Levi's now produce the same model using Kurabo denim after going through so much trouble to produce the same model in Japan using Cone Mills denim? It makes no sense unless they;re using the Kurabo denim as a pretense to jack the price here.

As far as I know, Levi's Japan isn't 'Levi's'. The Japanese make the product under a license, they pay to use the Levi's name. As such, there's not much coordination or communication between the two.

Btw, the jp 33 looks like the EU 17, and the jp 33 looks like the EU 17.

33<=>17

[Paul T]

There's a myth surrounding and romanticization of all things old and elusive. Goes for LVC as well. It's even part of the hype of vintage Levi's or anything.

I think people shuld be aware though, because the 555 hype is out of hand.

I don't think there's a myth, apart from when eBay sellers use the legend to try and hike up the price. Airfrog talked about 555 a lot at the start of this thread - mainly because Taylor TOgs had messed up, including putting the wrong pocket on the 201. There's a little residual excitement here, partly cause pomata found a batch which he sold at around half the price of a current pair. I'm looking forward to seeing Leonard wearing his in, as long as he can still squeeze into them.

Yup, myth and romance is a big part of fashion - don't see anything new or profoundly wrong about that, apart from when you're paying a lot more to get it.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I think with 555 it´s more about the thing that they are produced in that old factory, where eveything started... but also if you don´t mind, the lack of accuracy these are great quality jeans, you know people spent much more moeny for japanese repros which are more unaccurate. and if you say the 37s 201xx are only typo, those are great 501s