LVC Fall 2007 US Collection

[Crackerhead]

The new ones are Sanforized, just like their predecessors, and just about all LVC zipper jeans.

Huh. I guess that's good to know, then. Maybe the 10% shrinkage warning on the tag was a misprint. I was also mislead, because last season's 606's in the "Jasper Dark" finish were described by Levi's on their website as having "subtle shrink-to-fit cracks. So I assumed they were STF. Any info on this, Paul?

[Guest ilikeskating]

i think the jasper dark finish ones were slightly predistressed

[Paul T]

Crackerhead, do you mean the long brown stick-on tag?

For certain I would check with your dealer; the catalogeu normally states the denim source, and if it's Kaihara, it will be sanforized.

I don't know of one orange-tab repro that's not preshrunk, and it would count to me as a major fuckup if the new ones aren't. Although most of the previous reissues have been washed, they have still been specified as Sanforized/preshrunk (you'd have problems with the zipper if not).

[Crackerhead]

Crackerhead, do you mean the long brown stick-on tag?

For certain I would check with your dealer; the catalogeu normally states the denim source, and if it's Kaihara, it will be sanforized.

I don't know of one orange-tab repro that's not preshrunk, and it would count to me as a major fuckup if the new ones aren't. Although most of the previous reissues have been washed, they have still been specified as Sanforized/preshrunk (you'd have problems with the zipper if not).

Yeah, the zipper fuckup with shrink-to-fit is a good point. No, they did not come with the brown warning tag. It's just that the hang tag states they will shrink 10% when washed, which is the shrink-to-fit rate. So it was probably just a misprint.

[Crackerhead]

Okay, I got some pictures yesterday of the Deadstock 1967 606's on me. They look stupid with the shoes - Those Minnie Mouse shoes are what I wear in the house. They look killer with my chucks, though. I'll get some more detailed pictures later.

As far as the fit, it's really square and slim. Pockets sit super high front and back. The yoke is almost nonexistent. They also sit quite low - perhaps lower than the original? In the lookbook, they were labeled as "customized deadstock." What the hell does that mean? There was no labeling to indicate it on the jeans when I got them. The denim is stiff as all hell and feels reallly heavy as well.

[Charlie Delta]

Don't know how to say it exactly, but those look very promising if they get alot of wear in them.

Fit needs to relax a bit, but I'm sure it will.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

first of all crackerhead, these are fantasic, I wish these would be part of the LVC europe collection :/ I´ve got some 606 from the year 2004 but just rinsed, these have higher waist than yours. actually costumized means that the owner did some alteration

on the jeans, in the case of yours, the yoke has been reduced... one thing, I would wear em much shorter, like the strokes and ramones did...

[hysteric]

I thought customized meant levis changed them from the originals to make them more modern, usually slimmer or lower rise... no?

[lilldavid]

they look really low... are the backpockets as big as the 505's? kinda looks like it

[Crackerhead]

I got some close-up pictures of the jeans, too. You can actually see a fade spot already coming through where the coin pocket is, where I had my chap-stick resting. I've only worn them twice. I have a feeling they're going to look beautiful very soon.

[Duconos los Grecos]

I wasn't really impressed with the jeans in the "try-on" session pictures -maybe because I was too distracted by the shirt!!

But the latter pics show great detail. They appear obviously preshrunk, and will take a long time to fade if they're anything like the originals. I like the lemon stitching; I wish LVC would use the lemon thread in the same places on their 501 repros....

I would guess the "customized" notion relates to the fact the waist is WAY lower than original.

I have a freak model of seemingly the same jeans, which I showed here:http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=30295

[electrum]

Thanks for the pics Crackerhead -- neat threads. Although I'm not down on the '60s narrow taper through to the ankle style, the jeans look great. The full length outer seam stitching is a slick touch and the denim appears tough and no rivets- wow. The large back pockets, colorful stitching and low and shallow rise w/the sharp silhouette kinda remind me of the Levi's Asia products that are so popular in Japan i.e. Orange Package and Green Package. Curious to know where you bought yours w/out defects and how much you paid since the pricey '73s and '47s I got direct from Levi were both defective?

[Paul T]

THey do look GREAT!

I like the customised cut, altho personally I like the small back pockets you get on a lot of the 600 range jeans.

I think these were made in Europe too, and whereas the Euro-501s (made in Scotland) looked horrible, the orange tab jeans normally looked great. I've alwasy liked the bar-tacks throughout look, whcih fo course they did to save money...

[Crackerhead]

I think these were made in Europe too, and whereas the Euro-501s (made in Scotland) looked horrible, the orange tab jeans normally looked great. I've alwasy liked the bar-tacks throughout look, whcih fo course they did to save money...

They shouldn't have been made in Europe. The tag says Made in USA, and there's an "R" pressed into the back of the button.

[Paul T]

I'm talkin about the original production, as opposed to LVC.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

Indeed Paul T, one-two times these europe 606s came across me at ebay.co.uk, but these weren´t exact the same as the US models, I guess they had been produced in the 1990s aswell as the european version of the 646s which were actually more bootcuts than flares...

[electrum]

LVC products do not live up to the marketing hype. The Rigid 1873 501 I purchased were not exact museum quality reproductions as far as quality and craftsmanship. They had numerous manufacturing defects, did not fit and were not rigid. The over all appearance looked contrived. Then I purchased two pair of the Rigid 1947 501's. The first pair was 12.5 oz. denim, had numerous defects and were about 2 sizes smaller than tag size. The second pair were 10 oz. denim, had a better quality patch and had no defects. These too were about two sizes smaller than tag size. Neither pair were truly rigid.

Being an educated buyer, I believe that Levi's does not seem to live up to their claim that LVC are "exact reproductions of the original." If that is true, then why are they selling the same style jean in (as many as) 3 different weight denims, different style leather patches along with irregular sizes and defects? I've found that certain Levi non-LVC import jeans purchased for $30 are better quality than any of the LVC I've seen. Perhaps Levi's should stick with what they're good at and famous for -- selling high quality jeans at affordable prices to the masses.

It would be great if Levi Strauss offered 'low end' imported non-self-edge versions of their vintage styles at affordable prices. Less overhead and higher profit margins for a fascinating historic style offered to a wider market would improve their sales significantly.

[airfrogusmc]

Well I gotta disagree a bit here. I think a few years back LVC was having some real problems. I have a couple pairs from the 07 line up and they are VERY NICE. Much nice say than the stuff from 02-06 with the exception of my 1886 from 05 which are AWESOME. The 47s I have from this year are SO MUCH nicer than the ones I had from a few years back. The other ones I had were about 10 oz these 07s were 12 raw. I also have quit a few 555 pairs which are all very nice. My 33 555s ROCK. 10 oz tough as nails and great fade. I think LVC has straighten some of the issues they were having out anyway from the three pairs I have from this year that would be the case.

[Crackerhead]

LVC products do not live up to the marketing hype. The Rigid 1873 501 I purchased were not exact museum quality reproductions as far as quality and craftsmanship. They had numerous manufacturing defects, did not fit and were not rigid. The over all appearance looked contrived. Then I purchased two pair of the Rigid 1947 501's. The first pair was 12.5 oz. denim, had numerous defects and were about 2 sizes smaller than tag size. The second pair were 10 oz. denim, had a better quality patch and had no defects. These too were about two sizes smaller than tag size. Neither pair were truly rigid.

Being an educated buyer, I believe that Levi's does not seem to live up to their claim that LVC are "exact reproductions of the original." If that is true, then why are they selling the same style jean in (as many as) 3 different weight denims, different style leather patches along with irregular sizes and defects? I've found that certain Levi non-LVC import jeans purchased for $30 are better quality than any of the LVC I've seen. Perhaps Levi's should stick with what they're good at and famous for -- selling high quality jeans at affordable prices to the masses.

It would be great if Levi Strauss offered 'low end' imported non-self-edge versions of their vintage styles at affordable prices. Less overhead and higher profit margins for a fascinating historic style offered to a wider market would improve their sales significantly.

I'm curious to know how you were able to tell the exact weight of the denim on your two 1947 501's. They don't come with any special tags stating the weight. Or is there another way of telling?

Also, rigid simply means unwashed denim, be it sanforized (pre-shrunk), or shrink-to-fit, so there's no way they could've been anything other than rigid, unless you bought the jeans in a finish other than the deadstock finish. I know LVC made a "rinsed" finish of the 501 one or two seasons ago. Maybe those were the ones you bought?

And if you measure the waistband of the 1947 501's with a tape measurer, you will notice that they measure EXACTLY what the leather patch states, just as they did in the 1940's. (Thought that was common knowledge among the LVC crowd.) Most of today's jeans measure quite a bit bigger (2-3 inches) than the tagged size states. This explains why the '47 501's seem to fit slimmer than normal jeans.

Lastly, you've got to take into consideration that Levi's were hand-assembled in 1873, as well as 1947, as are the vintage-clothing reproductions of today. Therefore, every pair will be unique, have its flaws and idiosyncrasies. That's the beauty in handcrafted denim. And who's to tell if today's reproductions don't live up to the originals, when the originals, in some cases (such as the 1873 Vault Piece) don't even exist? How many original deadstock 1947 501's have you been able to compare against the reproductions?

[Paul T]

I have seen problems with LVC particularly a couple of years back, and have written about them on this board. We've also discussed what looks like an inferior new leather 2-horse patch, and at various times decried the lack of TLC invested in LVC. But your experience doesn't ring true. The 2007 rigid 1947 501s I've seen (I own a spring pair) plus the couple of others from the last two years are consistent in both denim weight and sizing.

The peculiarities of LVC sizing, ie that 47 jeans are made slightly undersize for a slimmer fit, are well known. I simply don't understand what you mean by the fact the jeans weren't rigid.

Sounds to me like you paid a ludicrous amount of money for the 1873 jeans, without seeing them first, and you're suffering buyer's remorse that's now being tranmogrified into brand hatred!

[airfrogusmc]

Gotta agree totally with Paul. I have a new pair of 1947s and love them. Never liked the ones from a few years back. These are as good as any LVCs I've seen or owned. Maybe LVC is finally getting it. Anyway the pairs I've had 3 I think from 07 seem to bare this out. I'm talking USA made LVCs. Every bit as good as the early 555 stuff maybe even better because I think they are using the correct weight denim now and the correct weave for the years being repro-ed. Not sure if that was the case in the past.

[lilldavid]

LVC products do not live up to the marketing hype. The Rigid 1873 501 I purchased were not exact museum quality reproductions as far as quality and craftsmanship. They had numerous manufacturing defects, did not fit and were not rigid. The over all appearance looked contrived.

What do you mean by that they did not fit? that they are really baggy in the ass? thats how they are supposed to fit. Remember they are 19th century work wear.

What do you mean by not rigid? I remember in a previous post of yours you compared them to the rigidity of regular STF. Of course they aren't as stiff. First of all the weight of the denim is 8 or 9 oz as opposed to 13.5 oz. They're supposed to look like they were woven on a 19th century shuttle loom. The point is they would be wrong if they weren't softer than regular STF.

Oh, also I remember you mentioning something about snags in the denim, Do you mean warp knots? Many of the members think very highly of the warp knots on their jeans just check this thread: http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=27063&highlight=rogue+warp+knot+gallery

Sorry to ramble like this, just thought you shouldnt write these off as shit by the wrong standards. I do agree with you that 500 USD is a lot of money though...

[electrum]

What's up CrackerHead,

Answers to your questions/concerns:

1.) I'm curious to know how you were able to tell the exact weight of the denim...?

Well, the 1st pair I got from Levi's online store list the weight on their website as 12.25oz. The 2nd pair from Lex Ave store in NY had 10oz. printed on the white promo tag stapled to the right rear pocket.

2.) ...rigid simply means unwashed denim.

Rigid means rigid -- stiff, hard, solid, unbending. Every rigid Levi jean I've purchased (regardless of weight) outside of LVC, whether self-edge or not were all stiff as surfboards -- that's what I expect and appreciate when I buy rigid jeans.

3.)... you will notice that they measure EXACTLY what the leather patch states.

1st pair of '47s waist measured 29.5'', tag was 31''. 2nd pair waist measured 30'', tag was 32''.

4.) Levi's were hand-assembled in 1873, 1947...every pair...will have its flaws.

Yes, but in those days they were manufacturing thousands upon thousands af pairs by hand under horrible working conditions. LVC are 'limited reproductions' selling for an extremely high price. Quality should be exceptional.

5.) How many original deadstock 1947 501 have you been able to compare against the reproductions?

I've been buying nothing but Levi's my whole life. Around '79 or '80, I bought a pair of rigid Levi's "original 501xx" for around $25-30. They had hidden rivets, self-edge, button fly and leather patch and weighed 14+oz.. Although they were not marked 1947, they were the same style jean. I can remember they were far superior to the current LVC and yes they were rigid -- extremely stiff. More recently, a friend of mine has a pair of Sugar Cane 1947501xx repro's -- considered by many to be the most accurate '47 Levi repro . They weigh 14.25 oz. raw (a weight Levi's doesn't even offer for their '47!). They are rigid almost coarse on the surface yet very soft inside. She wore them for 3 months before they began to loosen.

[airfrogusmc]

What's up CrackerHead,

Answers to your questions/concerns:

1.) I'm curious to know how you were able to tell the exact weight of the denim...?

Well, the 1st pair I got from Levi's online store list the weight on their website as 12.25oz. The 2nd pair from Lex Ave store in NY had 10oz. printed on the white promo tag stapled to the right rear pocket.

2.) ...rigid simply means unwashed denim.

Rigid means rigid -- stiff, hard, solid, unbending. Every rigid Levi jean I've purchased (regardless of weight) outside of LVC, whether self-edge or not were all stiff as surfboards -- that's what I expect and appreciate when I buy rigid jeans.

3.)... you will notice that they measure EXACTLY what the leather patch states.

1st pair of '47s waist measured 29.5'', tag was 31''. 2nd pair waist measured 30'', tag was 32''.

4.) Levi's were hand-assembled in 1873, 1947...every pair...will have its flaws.

Yes, but in those days they were manufacturing thousands upon thousands af pairs by hand under horrible working conditions. LVC are 'limited reproductions' selling for an extremely high price. Quality should be exceptional.

5.) How many original deadstock 1947 501 have you been able to compare against the reproductions?

I've been buying nothing but Levi's my whole life. Around '79 or '80, I bought a pair of rigid Levi's "original 501xx" for around $25-30. They had hidden rivets, self-edge, button fly and leather patch and weighed 14+oz.. Although they were not marked 1947, they were the same style jean. I can remember they were far superior to the current LVC and yes they were rigid -- extremely stiff. More recently, a friend of mine has a pair of Sugar Cane 1947501xx repro's -- considered by many to be the most accurate '47 Levi repro . They weigh 14.25 oz. raw (a weight Levi's doesn't even offer for their '47!). They are rigid almost coarse on the surface yet very soft inside. She wore them for 3 months before they began to loosen.

I've seen late 40s and some mid 50s NWT originals and the 12 oz raw weight is right for those years. After full shrinkage that would bring them up to about 14 oz. It would be wrong for Levis to make them heavier if they're making an accurate repro. Hidden rivets hmmm I thought those went away in the 1966. The SC 47 is more accurate in cut than the 47s but the 55s are dead on in cut and weight to originals. The 47s are a bit trim compared to originals from the time period. As Paul T said they are sized small but proportioned correctly.

[bruised]

crackerhead!!! where did you get those? i want some!!

[lilldavid]

I've been buying nothing but Levi's my whole life. Around '79 or '80, I bought a pair of rigid Levi's "original 501xx" for around $25-30. They had hidden rivets, self-edge, button fly and leather patch and weighed 14+oz..

These are the facts as we all know them:

no hidden rivets post 1966

no leather patch post 1955

no 14+ oz before late seventies.

You must have got a pair of Frankenstrauss monsters! Congratulations!

[Paul T]

1.)The 2nd pair from Lex Ave store in NY had 10oz. printed on the white promo tag stapled to the right rear pocket.

What, on the oilcloth guarantee patch stitched to the pocket? I am looking at a 1947 one now. There is no mention of the weight.

And as other have pointed out, 12.5 oz has always been the standard weight for these jeans. Once shrunk, they're 14 oz. Which is probably the same as those super-heavy super-human sugarcanes.

I do agree with you that the sizing issues with LVC are irritating, namely that some models are made undersized, some oversized. But you only need to ask in a shop, or check out most of the LVC threads here, to find that out. it's certainly what I would do before spending $500 or whatever it was on repro jeans.

[electrum]

These are the facts as we all know them:

no hidden rivets post 1966

no leather patch post 1955

no 14+ oz before late seventies.

You must have got a pair of Frankenstrauss monsters! Congratulations!

Lilldavid,

Oh sure, during the late '70s throughout the '80s from time to time, Levi's sold a lot of interesting 'special edition' and 'limited edition' versions of their classic styles. Most were variations rather than exact repros of their classic styles. One of my favorite 'special edition' Levi jeans was a 13.5 oz. non-self-edge 501 STF with exposed rear pocket rivets and crotch rivet. They even produced a non-self-edge 501xx STF with the hidden rivets and card stock patch. although they were nowhere near the quality denim used in today's LVC, they were pretty neat and affordable jeans. I'd like to see Levi's produce similar products today.

[electrum]

PaulT,

Yes, it's the oilcloth tag. The weight is listed on the center banner below, 'Every Garment Guaranteed,' says, 'Exclusive xx Special 10 Ounce Cotton Denim.' I got those from the Levi's store in NY. The hangtag listed them as 2007 LVC. Now whether they were spring or fall, I do not know. The defective 12.5oz. pair that I bought from Levi's online were marked 2006. There is a big difference in quality between the two with the 2007 version being a perfect jean with plush denim. Yeah, you're right, the fk'd up sizing issue along with the irregularities is very irritating. Hell, I've spent nearly $100 on shipping costs returning jeans that shoud've been problem free.

[Paul T]

And what about your 1979 self-edge jeans with rivets and 14 oz fabric? WEre these one of those 'limited editions'? Because no such jeans exist or ever existed.