Full Count Denim Thread

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

2 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

Difficult to explain, but the bottom part of the belt loop is folded under, then tacked. I think this is to accommodate the cinch strap.

When l went to Soas to check out the various '1922' models, this was a feature on one pair they had.

 

 

[Maynard Friedman 570,720]

Cheers fellas, makes sense now.

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

2 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Cheers fellas, makes sense now.

I’m assuming that is what Doc was talking about.

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

4 hours ago, MJF9 said:

@Dr_Heech what was your verdict on the FC 22s overall?

The 2 pairs l saw in Soas (back in 2019?) were tagged 1900 and 1955's. When l enquierd why they weren't tagged 1922's, the staff member told me it's to differentiate the 2 different weights of denim used in the model (?????) .. so l was put off by the lack of knowledge to start.

They looked ok, lazer clean stitching and all the nods to the earlier 20's models but the back belt loop bugged me....

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dr_Heech

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

6 hours ago, Duke Mantee said:

 

Cheers Duke, that is indeed what l was talking about.

Not enough knowledge about the origins of this feature, why it was changed, how long it was produced before changing it back to normal.. etc, etc .

They same thing with the reverse yoke seam in the late 1930's. They are just two features that aren't discussed openly (with any clarity) by Japanese collectors on lg /YouTube etc, so little conclusion can be drawn from them.

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dr_Heech
Usual reason

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

@Dr_Heech Doc - was the belt loop bartacked on those particular jeans you were referring, can you remember?

Edited October 10, 2020 by Duke Mantee

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

31 minutes ago, Duke Mantee said:

Doc - was the belt loop bartacked on those particular jeans you were referring, can you remember?

Bartacked as a belt loop would normally be, but flipped at the bottom ( for a little more flexibility?) - but to get that effect you would have to bartack the bottom part of the beltloop then pull it to the top of the waistband and then add the second bartack. If you get what l mean?

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

3 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

Bartacked as a belt loop would normally be, but flipped at the bottom ( for a little more flexibility?) - but to get that effect you would have to bartack the bottom part of the beltloop then pull it to the top of the waistband and then add the second bartack. If you get what l mean?

Yes - I understand.

The reason I asked was to define why it was done.

I think if it is bartacked, then that’s Levi’s work to allow for a bit of adjustment on the cinch/belt. If it wasn’t bartacked then I think it could just have been a simple repair job.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Duke Mantee

[H...crimper 714]

I have the 1955 jeans with the weird detail. 

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

Thanks @H...crimper when l first saw this detail l was put off buying them. Since that time l have seen a couple of original pairs, like the one's Duke posted above (sure @Flash has some photos in his denim library?)

Another early short lived 'improvement',  which, for some unknown reason to us at this point in the convo, was reversed.

Yours look good, never tempted to unpick the arcs?

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dr_Heech

[Maynard Friedman 570,720]

I think they look better with the Levi-esque ‘proprietary’ arcs. I’m wearing a pair of FC 1101s right now and I wouldn’t unpick the ends.

Edit: I just looked again at the photos of those 1922s on the previous page and the back centre belt loop does indeed appear to be inverted. Good spot Doc.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Maynard Friedman

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

Yeah l guess everyone to their own Martin, was just interested to hear his opinion as that's probably the original intention of the back pocket design.

You ever unpicked a pair of leviesque to make them more 'accurate'?

[H...crimper 714]

22 minutes ago, Dr_Heech said:

Thanks @H...crimper when l first saw this detail l was put off buying them. Since that time l have seen a couple of original pairs, like the one's Duke posted above (sure @Flash has some photos in his denim library?)

Another early short lived 'improvement',  which, for some unknown reason to us at this point in the convo, was reversed.

Yours look good, never tempted to unpick the arcs?

To be honest I think the full count arcs look ok.

[Maynard Friedman 570,720]

I haven’t done it Charlie but probably would if I didn’t like the look of them as they stand, e.g. if I had a pair of those Warehouse with the Levi’s arcs AND the upside down arcs - they are simply made to be unpicked.

[H...crimper 714]

While I’m in the mood here are some more Full count arcs. 

[H...crimper 714]

Some Duck digger arcs. 

[Broark 16,881]

It's a shame FC got rid of the arcs and changed up their whole image / branding.
I feel like the SPI on the new jeans is off too (I could be wrong about this). Glad I have a couple of the old pairs.
Feels like they've fallen to the wayside a bit since they made the change, at least in this community.

[Flash 251,509]

@Dr_Heech 

Just have this pic saved 

 

[H...crimper 714]

7 minutes ago, H...crimper said:

Some Duck digger arcs. 

whoops to put these in the Wearhouse post

[Geeman 3,737]

55 minutes ago, Broark said:

It's a shame FC got rid of the arcs and changed up their whole image / branding.
I feel like the SPI on the new jeans is off too (I could be wrong about this). Glad I have a couple of the old pairs.
Feels like they've fallen to the wayside a bit since they made the change, at least in this community.

I still think FC are still relevant,  some nice tops and shirts coming out, just taking some time to get used to the new fit tweaks and the loss of arcs and tab. 

I'll buy FC jeans again at some point as the xx fabric is great. 

Still rather have the tab and arcs though and I'm not  massive pocket arcs fan. FC and SDA are the only ones I really like. 

I have a pair of TFH that I bought just for the pioneer denim and he arcs still bother me a bit. 

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

59 minutes ago, Flash said:

@Dr_Heech 

Just have this pic saved 

 

Thanks mate. Looking at this photo still can't tell if it is intentional  (ie made in the factory) or is a home made alteration?

Guess we'll never know(?)

[Flash 251,509]

Looking at the back of the waist it does look a bit of a homemade “ get the misses to do that “ job , I haven’t got the xx book at hand to take a look at that so is it the same ? 

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

I don't think there's one in the 501XX book. Think l've only seen pics of 2 pairs of og's, apart from your pic posted here and Duke's photo.

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

The pic was from the 501xx book Doc - #10 jeans

In fact #8 ~ #10 all have the same belt loop detail (but not before or after) which makes it somewhere from late 20s to mid 30s I think

Edited October 10, 2020 by Duke Mantee

[Dr_Heech 568,543]

Well spotted @Duke Mantee - my eyesight is definitely overdue for a test 

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

Lol - but to be fair, only #10 show it with any clarity

[Maynard Friedman 570,720]

Just checked myself Duke and was about to post the same thing. I think 8 & 9 have it too as there’s no visible bartack.

[spidereye 14,100]

Lucky me..last pair of W36 keep it and need to loose weight..curently I wear W38 .

I love the details on this 1922 model..cinch back hardeware is amazing

The arc is a bit different from 20th anniversary same model.

[Duke Mantee 14,792]

12 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

Just checked myself Duke and was about to post the same thing. I think 8 & 9 have it too as there’s no visible bartack.

Yep, just as I said a few posts up. I think on close inspection you can see how the belt loops are finished.

Actually, for all the 501xx book is lauded, I think it is as much coffee table decoration as it is serious resource. The photographs and text could be a lot more precise.

[Flash 251,509]

Lovely book indeed but as far as info goes it wasnt great  , denimbro's vintage threads had it beat hands down 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Flash