LVC Fall 2007 US Collection

[Paul T]

Ah yes, see what you mean. There are originals with shallower symmetrical arcuates like this, but you're right, it would look far prettier, and more 'period' with a deeper arcuate. The arcuate on this year's jeans looks way better.

Yes re the yoke stitching. It should really be one pass with a single needle, I reckon, like this. Note also the chunky rivets on these.

[Crackerhead]

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!

Hahahah. Word.

And as far as wear, it looks like you've gotten plenty of tough wear out of your 1873 repros in the past few years, with minimal fading, and they're still holding up.

From what I understand, denim weight is different than denim durability. Wasn't there a thread on here a while back about denim weight being independent from denim durability? Or am I thinking of something else?

[electrum]

Wow! Now them is jeans -- such wonderful fading. I'm curious to know if your pair was rigid when new? I know this board is probably tired of me harping about "rigid" all of the time, but I like rigid jeans and none of the LVC I've purchased were what I'd call rigid. There's nothing better than a truly stiff pair of jeans that take several months to break in. Then, after the first rinse, they show unique fade marks that you just can;t get with a pair of soft/flimsy jeans -- isn't that what this denim thing is all about? So I need your help setting me straight on this rigid issue I'm having with LVC by giving me your thoughts about what process (if any) is used to produce that stiff and shiny finish that I'm familiar with in a rigid denim and why LVC is marketed as rigid, yet delivers soft? I'm obviously missing something here since it appears I'm the only one complaining, so any insight you can provide me with is much appreciated.

Many thanks!

[Paul T]

If you really want to go for stiff, shinier denim, look for Sanforized jeans - perhaps the current Lee repros, by Edwin. But there are several models of LVC, including the 201 and the 1947 501 LVC, which are just as stiff as deadstock originals that I've looked at. Stiffness is laregely a product of starch, plus sizing; some models might be singed to eliminate the fluff, which gives a smoother shinier finish; Sanforized jeans, which are pressed in rollers, tend to be shinier - this was one of the reasons I liked the Lee Euro repros so much.

I'm sure my 1873 jeans - on which I thought the fading was way too bland - were the same as yours. Because they're an early pair of jeans, the fabnric si lighter in weight. I tend to only soak brielfy because I like crisp new jeans, and this accentuates a high-contrast fade, at the risk of secondary shrinking at your first hot wash. You could also add starch during your first soak - search here for more info.

More and Lee and various repros here (I THINK this thread includes some of the Edwin repros): http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=36311&highlight=Lee+Euro

More on the 501 models here: http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=34010

And the 201 here: http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=32894

[airfrogusmc]

Ah yes, see what you mean. There are originals with shallower symmetrical arcuates like this, but you're right, it would look far prettier, and more 'period' with a deeper arcuate. The arcuate on this year's jeans looks way better.

Yes re the yoke stitching. It should really be one pass with a single needle, I reckon, like this. Note also the chunky rivets on these.

Or like the 1886s they did a few years back. Heres a photo of mine

[Charlie Delta]

Paul, the pair you just posted are not repro´s right?

The look amazing!

And the current `1963´s` look very similar to the pair that we´ve dubbed the 1890´s around here. The ones I also have.

[Paul T]

Not repros. And sadly the owner is no longer around to tell us about his washing technique and whether he did sqiat thrusts etc. THe pic's been posted before on here - they arrived at the Levi's archives quite recently, I believe.

I don't know whether they post-date the Nevada jeans or are an alternative model. But what's really irritating is that LVC still don't do a straightforward replica of these, or the Nevada model. Instead, for the last five years or so they've only done generic early jeans with a mix of features. Yet, a couple of years ago, they did an accurate repro of the early cotton duck pants. Go figure.

And yes, you're right, the current jeans look like an 1890s repro. Except that they have the pre-1886 patch.

[Charlie Delta]

Pic on mine raw, also with the old style patch.

Really very similar, mine have a 5 button fly though,

also the arcuate is different and mine seem to have a wider backpocket.

[Paul T]

Ah yes, your are the same jeans as my old ones (they did them in both natural and synthetic indigo versions - the synthetic were probably better). These were supposed to be 1873 jeans, too. Yet Allen's jeans have the earlier yoke stitching, combined with the later 2-horse patch... there's no logic to it.

AFAIK, the Nevada Jeans of 2001 or so are the only accurate early repro.

[electrum]

Following is a link to an Ebay listing offering some interesting LVC pieces from a N.C. factory that manufactures for Levi's. There's a pair of 1880xx listed as "LSEMA spring '08 prototype' that looks neat ,and a '47 501 that appears to have very narrow leg opening than normal. Any of you guys have thoughts about if these are legit? My guess is they are irregulars offered by an employee of the factory:

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZpost50modern

[Paul T]

They were mentioned by Mopar-JJ in an earlier thread. The Taylor Togs factory in North Carolina has occasional sales, and these were bought from one.

The 1873-ish repro does look interesting, would love to see if they do it with natural indigo denim, pliers pocket and those hand-stitched suspender buttons.

[Shorty Long]

Hey Paul, saw you on CNBC the other night. Nice job!!

[Paul T]

haha, thanks, first I knew was when I got a couple of PMs on this board. I think they recycled an interview I did a couple of years ago. I'm told you couldn't see what jeans I was wearing (or was that the interview I did butt-naked from waist down..).

[Joe E Taleo]

haha, thanks, first I knew was when I got a couple of PMs on this board. I think they recycled an interview I did a couple of years ago. I'm told you couldn't see what jeans I was wearing (or was that the interview I did butt-naked from waist down..).

Ah, very cool. I tivo-ed the Levi's thing, I'll have to take a look for you. Also I really enjoyed your book!

[cldpsu]

too bad levis store doesn't have the 1947's... The stores near me never have 38 inch inseams. Is it still true that, according to cultizm, the waist runs 1 inch smaller than tagged? I normally wear 32's in stuff like slim jims and tht's a snug fit at first. I was thinking about getting 34's i guess.

[Paul T]

too bad levis store doesn't have the 1947's... The stores near me never have 38 inch inseams. Is it still true that, according to cultizm, the waist runs 1 inch smaller than tagged? I normally wear 32's in stuff like slim jims and tht's a snug fit at first. I was thinking about getting 34's i guess.

Yes, they are snug. A nominal 34w 1947 is likely to be 33. It will shrink down to circa 31, and end up, with stretching, at 32 - at the most!

[Paul T]

too bad levis store doesn't have the 1947's... The stores near me never have 38 inch inseams. Is it still true that, according to cultizm, the waist runs 1 inch smaller than tagged? I normally wear 32's in stuff like slim jims and tht's a snug fit at first. I was thinking about getting 34's i guess.

Yes, they are snug. A nominal 34w 1947 is likely to be 33. It will shrink down to circa 31, and end up, with stretching, at 32 - at the most!

[whatuknowaboutthat]

too bad levis store doesn't have the 1947's... The stores near me never have 38 inch inseams. Is it still true that, according to cultizm, the waist runs 1 inch smaller than tagged? I normally wear 32's in stuff like slim jims and tht's a snug fit at first. I was thinking about getting 34's i guess.

I've seen LVC 47's in inseam 38. Might even be able to get you a pair. also waist runs 1 inch larger for some versions and some production years it seems like they are TTS

[Shorty Long]

How many of these pieces were actually spotted in US stores this season???

Has anyone seen the lineup for the new 07 A/W Levi's Vintage Clothing collection? I have the hangtag from the new season and it looks like the US is getting a large variety of fits in shrink-to-fit denim, different from the offering in Europe. Also coming is a complete women's line from their "Lady Levi's" line introduced in 1934.

Here's a list from the booklet:

1937 Hacienda Vault I 501 Jean

1937 Timberman Vault II 501 Jean

???? Vault Coat (Rafter)

1873 Vault 501 Jean (Deadstock)

1933 501 Jean (Deadstock)

1947 501 Jean (Deadstock)

1966 646 Jean (Deadstock)

???? Chambray Shirt (Deadstock)

???? Batwing Tee (Black)

1967 Type III Jacket (Deadstock)

???? 505 Jean (Deadstock)

1915 J-Mark Chino

1967 606 Jean (Customized Deadstock)

Vault 501 Jean Harriet (Lady Levi's)

1950 Hi-Rise 501 Jean (Lady Levi's) (Deadstock)

1947 Customized 501 Jean (Lady Levi's) (Deadstock)

1967 Customized 606 Jean (Lady Levi's) (Deadstock)

???? Batwing Tee (Lady Levi's)

???? Customized Type III Jacket (Lady Levi's) (Deadstock)

Let me know if anyone is interested in pics.

[Paul T]

I've seen LVC 47's in inseam 38. Might even be able to get you a pair. also waist runs 1 inch larger for some versions and some production years it seems like they are TTS

Do you know what versions, or what years? Are we talking 47? Do tell.

I only know what the staff at Cinch in London tell me, and what I've seen over the last four or five years, but I've not seen any 47 LVC that run bigger than tag size. SO it would be good to get more details if that is the case.

[Pink That Dream]

they had a pair in the levi's store in nyc pre-christmas, forget if it was soho or 14th street. i don't remember the waist size, but it was definitely 38 inseam.

and i think the only ones on that list i've seen are the timberman and hacienda 501's. everything else atleast from the nyc stores is all spring 2007, as if fall 07 never happened?

[Pink That Dream]

hey also, does anyone have experience with the '66 646? also from spring 2007. i got a few pairs, in a couple different sizes, not sure which ones to keep for myself. i know they're sanforized, they say 3% shrinkage (although on levi's website still claims rigid 646 10%) can anyone verify this?

also does anyone know if the "studio worn" are the same tagged size as the rigid? i.e would the 31 x 32 deadstock version fit the same as the stuidio warn after wash/wear?

[old viking ring]

Just saw a 32x38 pair of 47's at the Torrance, CA store and I know The Beverly Hills store has some 34x38's as well. I am thinking the BH store has more LVC stuff than I have seen at other stores, just haven't gone there in person yet.

[bruised]

Yes, they are snug. A nominal 34w 1947 is likely to be 33. It will shrink down to circa 31, and end up, with stretching, at 32 - at the most!

this is wierd. i have a pair of 47's from 2003 in waist size 32. after 2 years they are about 34 now. and now i have a pair of 47's from 2006 in size 30, and they are like bearly 30.5 inches after 2 months of wearing. seems like these are undersized?