LVC Fall 2007 US Collection

[electrum]

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.

I'd say they were 'limited' or 'special' editions -- had to be. Like I said, they were not marketed as "1947" reproductions. All I know is that I had a pair of self-edge 501xx with button fly, leather patch and hidden rivets. What makes you so sure that something like that didn't exist in the late '70s? That was a long time ago, maybe my mind is playing tricks on me but I don't think so. Perhaps the guy posting on this board who claims to have contact with the Levi's historian can confirm this with her. Otherwise you'll just have to take my word for it.

[Crackerhead]

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.

Yeah, I'm looking at one right now, too, and it definitely doesn't say that anywhere on this oilcloth tag. This is a Fall 2007 model (which got a real oilcloth tag finally, and not just a reproduction made of thick card stock, though I've got one of those from my first pair, and it also says nothing about the denim weight.) So it was likely a typo that may have been quickly corrected, and not manufacturing discrepancy, since all the STF '47 501's are made from the same Cone Mills denim.

[Bijan]

Uh, Paul T would know whether or not those jeans existed- he's written a book on denim. Maybe you bought some deadstock pre mid 50's? late 60's to 84 501's, even though they were shrink-to-fit, were labeled 501 on the tags, not 501XX.

[Shorty Long]

The 1863 501s are on the website now...

http://www.levisstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2769578&cp=2068573.2068693&parentPage=family

[Dex_star]

wow $501 for deadstock.. I thought that price was only for vault washes

[rnrswitch]

I'd say they were 'limited' or 'special' editions -- had to be. Like I said, they were not marketed as "1947" reproductions. All I know is that I had a pair of self-edge 501xx with button fly, leather patch and hidden rivets. What makes you so sure that something like that didn't exist in the late '70s? That was a long time ago, maybe my mind is playing tricks on me but I don't think so. Perhaps the guy posting on this board who claims to have contact with the Levi's historian can confirm this with her. Otherwise you'll just have to take my word for it.

I believe Paul T is the one who has contact with the Levis historian.

[lilldavid]

Identical in every respect to the 501® jean dated 1863 that resides in our vault. This original has a boxy waist that cinches in back, suspender buttons and a button fly. Four-pocket construction. The Dead Stock finish is made of red-selvedge denim in a rigid, dark blue indigo. If home laundered will shrink approximately 3-4" in the waist and length; please order accordingly. Country Of Origin: Imported

Dear Levi's,

Why do you insist on calling them 1863 when your first riveted overalls came in 1873?

Why do they come with red selvage when neither of the "Nevada" & "XX" jeans from Amoskeag dont?

Shouldnt the coin pocket be stitched on to the waist band?

[Paul T]

Too right. I reckon, though, that it's the website copy rather than the jeans themselves that are fucked up, and that they are in fact a plain blue-line selvage.

But the fact that a Levi's employee doesn't know the date when his company was effectively founded, is pathetic...

Re the coin pocket... I'm not certain. It is possible that Levi's have come across a pair of jeans earlier than the Nevada. But it looks to me as if the yoke is double stitched, when I'm pretty certain it should be single stitched. This looks like a missed opportunity, as I'm certain a dry repro of the Nevada jeans would be a big seller, they're such cool, quirky jeans with fantastic detailing.

Overall, these look too like the crappy pair of repros I bought around 2001, in natural indigo denim, which were about the worst jeans LVC ever produced. If you look here, you can see the double line stitching, which is wrong for the date - all early Levi's just had a single line on the yoke, which looks totally different.

[electrum]

Seriously -- he actually wrote a book about denim? I've read many of his posts and it's obvious the dude knows his denim. If he didn't write a book, maybe he should think about doing so. I know I'm not always right. That's why I'm here, to educate myself and to share my LVC experiences -- however different they might be from someone elses. I'm open to any info, suggestions and corrections. Anyway, all I can say is my experience with LVC really sucks. I'm paying a lot of coin for a product that I have no idea what it is. Seems like Levi's is promoting the stars and delivering dirt. I mean come on, it's like they're saying, 'Hey, as long as it has the Levi name, we can sell it for mega bucks. No one's going to care if it's called an 1863 or 1873 or if it's listed one day as 9oz. then listed 10.5 oz the nxt. Let's forget about continuity and quality because we have everyone convinced that is how they were made in the old days. No one will question what they're made of because we just won't list the ingredients.' That's the msg. I got from Levi's. Am I pissed? A little. Do I hate Levi's? No. Am I disappointed? Hell yes! I think PaulT and others on this board should go work for Levi's. They can do a hellavu job helping corporate pull themselves out of the malaise they seem to have fallen into. Otherwise the Levi Strauss Board of Directors is going to run the company into the ground.

No more LVC for me, I'll stick with the low end Levi stand by's. Maybe I'll get lucky and find a pair of the earlier LVC issues on Ebay -- At least I'll know what to look for thanks to the info I found on this board.

--Later

[lilldavid]

Seriously -- he actually wrote a book about denim?

http://www.amazon.com/Denim-Cowboys-Catwalks-History-Legendary/dp/1845131118/ref=pd_sim_b_img_2/002-5229287-4784005

[Paul T]

Electrum, I feel your pain. Like you, one of the first time I bought LVC, I bought a natural denim 1873 pair - and they were shit. It's a classic mistake, to go for the most upmarket model for your first buy, only to find they're not right for one reason or another (incidentally, I'd like to see proper pix of the '1863' pair, as they do sound like those natural indigo 1973s).

The better LVC are still the standard by which other jeans are measured. The denim comes from Cone, who have been making it for Levi's since the 1920s. While I love Samurai and Sugarcane vintage-inspired models, I still think the 201 models, for instance, linked below, take a lot of beating.If any reissues can measure up to the ones we fondly remember from 20 years ago, when the world was young, these will...

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=32894

[electrum]

...(incidentally, I'd like to see proper pix of the '1863' pair, as they do sound like those natural indigo 1973s).

Following are links to images of the '07fall LVC 1873's I purchased in Sept., and then returned. Sorry for the limited views, I don't have a digital camera and had to rely on a friend to take these for me. These are all of the shots I have. The defect (fig.34.jpg) is on the lower left of the rear pocket. Note the thumb-size lump of excess material under the pocket is sewn over causing the irregular stitching pattern -- a big knot on your ass is not very comfortable. The snags in the denim that I mentioned in an earlier post turned out to be natural spurs in the denim rather than defects -- something that was pointed out to me by another poster on this board. Again, the indigo had a striking brackish seawater blue/green hue that these images do not quite capture. The denim had a herringbone pattern and was very flimsy. They were in no way rigid and had a very soft hand as if they been through a couple of washes. The over all appearance of the jean seemed to me a bit contrived, i.e. with its shiny stamped metal cinch buckle and flimsiness, it looked more like a modern retail jean rather than something one would find in a 19th century trading post. For me, the only thing these jeans have going for them is the indigo tint and the style of course.

levistag12.jpg

levispocket34.jpg

levispocket23.jpg

[Crackerhead]

Note the thumb-size lump of excess material under the pocket is sewn over causing the irregular stitching pattern -- a big knot on your ass is not very comfortable.

Aah, the beauty of the single-stitch. I think I'm going to get me a pair of these.

[theshonen8899]

Those look really nice.

Pretty pricey though...

[Paul T]

Be prepared for a year, say, before the first wash to get a decent fade in them.

These look to be identical denim to the 1873 natural indigo reissue mentioned before ( you can see it on the 501 visual history thread, nmight be on here too). Last time around, they started out at $380 in the UK, but ended up at $100 in the Levi's Regent St store. Though hardly the debacle suggested, they're a disappointment.

[Crackerhead]

Well, I just picked up a pair of the 1873 jean from Levi's in Beverly Hills today, and find them fantastic.

I'm most happy with the colour, which as mentioned, is a light greeny blue. The denim, being 9oz, is extremely lightweight, and has a soft and smooth handle, and doesn't have any of the stiffness of later Levi's jeans, though it is a shrink-to-fit denim. Though it can't be seen so well in the pictures, the denim has quite a bit of streakiness The selvage line is plain white with ecru bands woven in. All the stitching is done via single-stitch method, which creates irregularities along the pocket edges, yoke, arcuate, and hems, and gives the jeans quite a bit of character. They look and feel hand assembled.

Overall, I have no gripes. The only thing I noticed was that the leather patch bears the phrase "Renewed March 16, 1875" in reference to the rivet patent. Because Levi's doesn't even have a jean in their possession that dates back to 1873, I find it acceptable that they did their best to not "make up" any details, and chose to apply a later patch design.

Because I do not have the luxury of time travel, as Electum does, I can't vouch as to whether or not they would look at home in a 19th century trading post). I am nevertheless very pleased.

About the fit, the thighs and top block are much wider than expected! Fit and detail pics to come when there's more sunlight.

And a color comparison showing these next to my deadstock 1947 501's.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

indeed these look very nice, but no at that price :/ and unfortunately we haven´t these in Europe... about the softness I reckon that these were tumbeld, once I read that Levi´s did this with dry Capital Es which I own one of and these are dry but not stiff at all...

[Paul T]

II'm pretty certain these are essentially similar to the last 1873 jeans in natural indigo.

Mine looked great raw, but wouldn't shrink, and wouldn't wear. It bugs me that there has not been much of an attempt to make these an accurate repro.

[Crackerhead]

II'm pretty certain these are essentially similar to the last 1873 jeans in natural indigo.

Mine looked great raw, but wouldn't shrink, and wouldn't wear. It bugs me that there has not been much of an attempt to make these an accurate repro.

The arcuate on yours, Paul, look hokey. Is all the stitching double-needle on yours? Mine were assembled with single-stitching. As far as shrinkage, I'll see what happens. They fit fine right now, and I'm going to wear them for a while before soaking them.

[Paul T]

Me no understand - there are no photos of the arcuate here?!?

ON these earlier '1873' repros the arcuate was single-stitched, but the yoke has a double line of stiching where there should be one, as the new pair seem to have. I can't say that they're exactly the same, but they look similar. Are the rivets very square and flat-topped on yours?

If the fit is good I'm sure they'll be more successful than mine were, but make sure you keep washing to a minimum, just like they did in 1873...

[Ahlvahroe]

i guess i shoul have posted this here instead

i dont know if this has been posted but wow the website really misrepresents teh antifit on these jeans. true, ive never seen this pair in person but if they are anything like my 1890s they should have a saggier ass.

http://www.levisstore.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2769578&cp=2068573.2068693&view=all&parentPage=family

[Paul T]

Those are worn very undersized. And they've used someone with long legs.

If you look at these pants flat, the legs are very splayed - that tells you they will be very antifit and, in this case, baggy at the bottom of the ass. It's not necessarily unflattering, but given that the thighs as well as the legs are cut quite wide, I'd probably buy my true waist size, rather than sizing up.

[electrum]

...Because I do not have the luxury of time travel, as Electum does, I can't vouch as to whether or not they would look at home in a 19th century trading post)....

No CrackerHead, I'm not a time traveler. However, I do know that jeans in the 1800's were work clothes not fashion statements. Miners, farmers, etc., needed tough rigid jeans to stand up to the everyday hard labor needed for survival. These flimsy, soft and prim boutique jeans just don't seem to embody the agrarian era they are suppose to represent. They're pretty neat jeans though, if you want to impress the ladies or hang out at the nightclub. Just don't wear them while working in the shop or garage, they might get damaged and dirty. ; - )

[superBobo]

^^what have the rigidty of the jeans to do with how much wear they can take? Thats mainly because of how factory starched they are. Early Levis were made of rather light fabric, as opposed to later styles as you should know.

[hysteric]

I agree with bobo, these jeans are a light fabric, and Im sure workers didnt want rigid, scratchy jeans , didnt people wash them a few times to soften them up back in the day? Ive compared my s5000bk's to my 20's 201's and theres a huge difference in weight and stiffness. This doesnt mean I consider the 201's inferior because I know originals were much lighter and I can only assume softer/less starched.

[Paul T]

I can't quite see the logic of wanting a museum-quality repro, and then complaining that the fabric is the same weight as the original!

Incidentally, although I wasn't a fan of the inaccurate cut on my jeans, the fabric itself was absolutely wonderful - altho a pig to wear in. (This has been mentioned often on sufu, and is a particular problem with natural indigo denim, perhaps because it permeates deeper into the yarn and therefore chips off less easily.) The twill was nicely irregular, and best of all the weft is an unbleached fabric which gives a fantastic vintage look.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

I know this belongs to the market place but I thought it´s faster to people who are interested in, I´ve just listed my new, unworn 1996 551zxx 30/36 at the bay, unfortunately these fit much bigger than I expected, I should have sized down :/

I think these are sepcial because the arcuates look more crooked(what I really like) than on other 551ZXX which are on the bay in present, so here is the link:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320192472782

many thanks mates!

[Dex_star]

Whats the leg opening on them?

[Crackerhead]

Me no understand - there are no photos of the arcuate here?!?

ON these earlier '1873' repros the arcuate was single-stitched, but the yoke has a double line of stiching where there should be one, as the new pair seem to have. I can't say that they're exactly the same, but they look similar. Are the rivets very square and flat-topped on yours?

If the fit is good I'm sure they'll be more successful than mine were, but make sure you keep washing to a minimum, just like they did in 1873...

Sorry, Paul. I meant in this photo:

Those are your 1873 repros, right? The arcuate looks too consistant on these jeans - like it was stitched from a poorly designed template.

And I understand what you mean about the single stitching on the yoke - you mean one pass with a single needle, right? Because mine (obviously) have been stitched with two passes of a single needle on the yoke, creating a bit of unevenness between the two lines.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

the 551zxx got a 21cm or 8 1/2" leg opening