sizing question for lvc 1947's

[mr. shivers]

please dont flame me, i just have seen lvc threads, but not any answers on this particular question. ok so they shrink 2 inches in waist, and 2 inches in length. do you guys wash these immediatly after buying them so they shrink up to your size, or do you wear them in first? also how do the 1947's fit, i am normally a size 29 in most jeans, but i am a size 30 in levis skinners. so should i get like a size 31 in the stf's?

[poly800rock]

i'd think so, but LVC shrinking vaires from year to year.....you can't base anything off the skinners, them things ride so fucking low

[Louis]

sizing in the LVC for waist and skinners i would say is pretty similar, ive tried on the 47's they were a bit snug but not as snug as the skinners. and yeah they do ride really low which kinda sucks.

im a size 32 in skinners and tried on the 32x34 LVC 47's of last year and they fit really well so hopefully that gives you some kind of idea

[superBobo]

Im a 32 in most jeans, got a 33 in 47s, which after a 2 hour soak fits really nice, pretty tight but still some room.

[chronoaug]

Im a 32 in most jeans, got a 33 in 47s, which after a 2 hour soak fits really nice, pretty tight but still some room.

I'd probably just size up 1 being how thin you are, and give them room to stretch.

[Denim Phenom]

I wear a 31 in Sugar Cane 47s/66s and a 32 in SD-103. I tried on a pair of 32 and I couldn't button them. The 33s were a really sung fit so I would have to go with the 34s.

[batorizer]

i wear a 30 in skinners and got a 30X34 in lvc 1947's. If i could, I would have gotten a 29 for a trimmer fit and because of stretching, but don't blame me if the 29's don't fit; I like slimmer fits

[mr. shivers]

but if i get a 29 wont they shrink down to a 27? or will they stretch back out with wear?

[toufu]

but if i get a 29 wont they shrink down to a 27? or will they stretch back out with wear?

it will always stretch out

i say get your final stretch out size

all my denim stretches out to a final 16 inches across (true waist 30-31)

so i got a 32 in lvc 47's and shrunk it down, in the end it stretched back to 16 inches across

[twistedtrees]

it will always stretch out

i say get your final stretch out size

all my denim stretches out to a final 16 inches across (true waist 30-31)

so i got a 32 in lvc 47's and shrunk it down, in the end it stretched back to 16 inches across

Yeah, but how long does it take to stretch back out. I don't want to wear uncomfortably tight jeans for more than a week or two, much less a month or more.

[Paul T]

Yeah, but how long does it take to stretch back out. I don't want to wear uncomfortably tight jeans for more than a week or two, much less a month or more.

Exactly. Consensus is that you can expect most LVC to shrink dwon an inch for tag size if you include the effects of stretching. Any more than that is at your riskj, specially with the 47s, which are made undersize - nominal 34W is likely to measure more like 33 before shrinking.

You could take that risk with a pair of 55s, which look great worn small; they'll look slim, like the 47s, but with a boxier fit.

[cheapmuthafukr]

i agree with paul.... the 47s are undersized. i bought a pair of washed in a size 30 and the waist must have been 27"! the denim ripped when i finally got them buttoned.

i also think the 55 look better sized down than the 47... the boxy top is more suited for that.

[amadoriv]

Yeah, but how long does it take to stretch back out. I don't want to wear uncomfortably tight jeans for more than a week or two, much less a month or more.

You'll be comfortable with them after they stretch out. The waist streches to the tagged size, and the seat stays relaxed. get your normally tagged size, soak them inside out cold, and wear them damp to commence the stretching.

[Paul T]

You'll be comfortable with them after they stretch out. The waist streches to the tagged size, and the seat stays relaxed. get your normally tagged size, soak them inside out cold, and wear them damp to commence the stretching.

I have three pairs of recent 47s, all nominal 34 inch waist, which were in fact 33 inch waist. Are u saying that a 33 inch waist will stretch out to 34 after it's washed? Are you sure they're not stretch jeans?

[Miles]

Have to echo Denim Phantom and CMF here.

I comfortably wear a 30 in SD-103, and recall some serious ball burstage trying to squeeze into 32s in the LVC-47 -- pre-shrink. It would seem the LVC 1947 runs very, very small.

[addict]

I usually wear 29, but 28 for nudies, so if go with 47's, I should definitely get a tagged 31? thx.

[Miles]

If you glean anything from this conversation it is:

1) All denim is different. Kiya or Gordon I'm sure can reel off times when people have tried on the same exact jeans (size, model), and they fit completely different. So to the poster above, "definite' is not a word that should be used here.

2) LVC 1947 seems to run small. For me, it was by about 2.5 sizes. Most people say 1-2 sizes. I've had success in LVC 1947 shipped from with What Comes Around Goes Around (in New York). You can always have them mail you what you think will work best, and then send it back if it doesn't work out. Of course, I'm sure most places that sell LVCs would carry the same policy.

[ian]

from what i've experienced, the waist shrinks about 1.5" and the length shrinks a good 3 inches on the first initial soak. i usually wear a 32-30, and i got a 34-34 in lvc 47's... the first initial soak got rid of of a lot of shrinking, but the main area that didn not shrink was the seat. it took another 2 soaks later on to get it down to "not so diaper butt" status. so if ur planning on soaking, follow the instructions on the tags...

[donkaiser]

im wearing my 47 for about 4 months no wash. i normally wear W32/33. my lvc is 34/34. they fit pretty good although they seem very huge if you are not wearing them. With a belt you shouldn't have a problem. i just love them and since it's a gift from my gf i do love them more haha. I'm not very active just wear them everyday to go out so tear and wear are not that pronounced yet.

I will try to keep them unwashed for another 2 months and see.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

...infact the 1947s are the only jeans on mother earth which measure TRUE to tagged size, all other jeans, if you take the 1955s or Lee repros, Diesel etc. are oversized... so if you thought you´re a skinny W30, forget it!!! Your a damn W32-33! HAHAHA! Sorry for being a little expressive but I´m right!

[airfrogusmc]

...infact the 1947s are the only jeans on mother earth which measure TRUE to tagged size, all other jeans, if you take the 1955s or Lee repros, Diesel etc. are oversized... so if you thought you´re a skinny W30, forget it!!! Your a damn W32-33! HAHAHA! Sorry for being a little expressive but I´m right!

I've owned several pairs still have one and all the ones I've owned have measured 1 inch smaller than the tagged waist size when RAW.

[Paul T]

No, we're obviously all in denial for the waists we had when we were 17!

[intermission69]

hi there,

can anyone do me a favor by taking a pic of the selvage line, i saw a 1947 at my local levis and thought that the selvage line looks abit diff as compared to apc's.

[airfrogusmc]

No, we're obviously all in denial for the waists we had when we were 17!

Ha ha yeah aint that the truth but still the tape measure doesn't lie. These and the 37 555 201s usually run smaller than the tagged size.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I´ve just measuered my raw 37s 201xx to have a 82cm waist circumference, it is tagged W32 and what is 82 : 2,54? 32! so it is true to size...

[airfrogusmc]

Both pair of my 555 201s measure 39 and were tagged 40 when raw. The only other pair of LVCs that measure smaller where my 47s and they all have measured 37 inches (waist) when raw tagged 38. All the other are either to tagged size or bit larger.

Lets see I have now 1886s, 1905 209 coveralls, 2 pairs of 20s 201s (1 pair 555), 33 501s (555),37 201s (555),37 501s, 47 501s and 55 501s. I have thinned the herd I had allot more.

[modual]

Why would levis size there lvc jeans so you have to buy different sizes depending on the year of the jean ? Surely from a marketing / sales point of view this would be counter productive as it would put customers off buying the brand. I have Lvc 44, 47, 55 and 66 all in the same size of tagged 32" and they all fit. Yes the 47's and 66's are trimmer including the waist but i believe this is because they are meant to be worn this way.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

This is really is strange, because they have no problem with the length, most of the time a L32 is 32" long...

@airfrogusmc: I rember having a 555 47 which really run smaller that newer 47s, yes.

I´m not telling that you´re all wrong, why should I? I only wanted to mention that usually the most jeans are oversized... maybe the companys try to flatter us with small sizes!? ...and please don´t tell we aren´t vain like a peacock

[kristoffersen]

A lot of different opinions here. I went with the Levi's experts (Paul T and airfrogusmc) and ordered a 32 (my true waist is 30), hoping that they shrink to around 29/30 and stretches about 1 inch. Hope I don't have to swim in them...

[Paul T]

Why would levis size there lvc jeans so you have to buy different sizes depending on the year of the jean ? Surely from a marketing / sales point of view this would be counter productive as it would put customers off buying the brand. I have Lvc 44, 47, 55 and 66 all in the same size of tagged 32" and they all fit. Yes the 47's and 66's are trimmer including the waist but i believe this is because they are meant to be worn this way.

This IS a real source of confusion. But it's not entirely crazy. We know that the 501 shape, and even sizing, varied throughout its production - it does seem a fact that 60s 501 WERE undersize in the waist, as far as one can tell (because there will be both huge sample variation, and variation in washes, etc). The 1947 does seem to be an extreme case, though, in that it's so different to other LVC, most of which are made oversize.

We have debated it before, and I guess either LVC have decided that those models were sized smaller, or else they decided that their 40s customers wore their jeans smaller! And there is a kind of sense in which this works: take me, waist 32, normal LVC size W34. For the 1901 jeans, which I like to wear loose, the size after shrinking is maybe 33. For the 1947, size after shrinking, with a little stretching, is just under 32. I couldn't get that effect by buying different sized jeans, because both models are not available in 31 or 33 waists.

In fact, it's the two inch sizing gap, the fact I can only have 30, 32 or 34 waist, that irritates me just as much as the inconsistency. I couldn't buy a pair of 505s, because the 32 was too small, once you got a llttle shrinking, and the 34 too big. The 33 would've been fine, but they didn't make one. Having such sizing policies might have made sense in 1873, but it seems a bit crude today, when Lee, Samurai and everyone else does it...

(Oh, and a reminder, there's a description of sizing variation etc on the 501 visual guide thread at http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?p=599607#post599607 ). I've updated this with an intro on general 501 sizing and shrinking, and added more info on specific jeans, too.