Levi's 201 - 2002 vs 2007

[Paul T]

For a lot of LVC fans, the 201 is one of the best reissues they've ever produced. Mostly this is because of the denim, which is slubbier than the 501, and a slightly greener colour. When they designed the RED jeans with over-sized rivets etc, they were heavily influenced by the 201 fabric, which looks great on the originals, and the repros. Plus, when LVC produced the 201, they took real care.

I was lucky enough to squirrel one pair of the original reissue, made in 2000 (not 2002). I've been owed a pair of jeans by Levi's for ages, then when I went in to get a pair of 1955s - which looks great, worn small, as skinny jeans - I weakened and got the new 201s instead. Then I can actually wear them rather than keeping them in a cupboard.

It was the 201s that LVC fucked up around 2006. I thought the new ones look good. In fact, when I got them back and compared with the old ones, which bear the 555 code and were made in the old Valencia St factory in San Fran, they were pretty much indistinguishable.

The fabric on the new ones is great. In some lights it looks cleaner - the white (weft) thread on the 2000 jeans looks slightly more ecru, maybe, but not consistently, it could simply be because the old pair are, well, older.

The 201 was apparently one of the most popular of the current reissues, but it's being discontinued for next season, and it's not known when it will return. SO if you like them, now is the time. These are very anti-fit jeans, when you look at them on the floor you'll see the legs are very splayed - much more so than the 1933 jeans. You need to size down, I bought my actual waist size, hopefully the waist will stretch back out, and the thighs won't be too baggy. But these will not be slim fit.

Here is the front view. 2007 version on top. The photo exaggerates the colour difference. In the flesh the blue is almost indisinguishable, but the inside is a different colour:

And the back, newer jeans again on top. Same applies to colour, because there's more light on the newer jeans.

Note one big difference between these and the 501: the pockets are much closer together, perhaps a bit larger too. Recently I've been alternating between these and my 1901 jeans, and the differences in shape are quite distinct. The 1901 are a straight leg, but the whole seat area is narrower in shape - ie the 201s flare out more from the waisband, so the legs feel fuller .However, the 1901 reissues are sized a little larger.

You might be able to see some difference in the fabric here. 2007 are the lower pair.

But they both look exactly the same here, 2007 on left...

Old tag, just so can check against the fakes:

new tag:

These will be my new project - I would have liked to do my SC1880s but they're too small. I'm swimming against the tide of skinny jeans, for a change...

By the way, Cinch have distressed 1933 (and maybe 1937, didn't look close) 501s on sale. Not bad everyday jeans. £60.

[jubei]

whoa momma... I love Paul T LVC photo threads!!! +rep for you sir!

And your idea about wearing 1955's tight is intriguing... I suppose that that was how all the greasers wore their jeans, huh? (i.e. undersized, high waisted and shrank to fit those suckers) I thought I was done with anti-fit jeans, but I just might give that a try if I can find some 1955's on the cheap. maybe at the upcoming SuFu Swap meet in BiG?

[ExileOnMainSt]

how anti fit are the 201s? I always wanted a pair, 9.5 hem type anti fit?

[tweeds]

9.5 hem is anti fit?

very nice. it's a pity all the LVC that comes to singapore is either overpriced or lacking variety (only the '47 and '66 501 are available in raw i believe)...else i would be sorely to add a pair to the meagre collection.

[cheep]

these are 55s in a size 29, which im pretty sure is the pre shrink size(?) i forget, i sold them long ago

[Aquaphor]

Paul T, can we see some pics of the fit??

[Paul T]

I, er, don't have a mirror! Really... but I might soak these soon and take them out for the summer, in which case I'll ask the missus to photograph them, however deranged that might seem to her... but for the time being, these are reasonabkly high rise, but not ridiculsouly so, the bum doesn't bunch up but rather hangs down straight; they're quite wide around the thighs, but then the leg is absolutely straight.

[rome1]

As always, very informative Paul.

[rnrswitch]

Paul, those jeans are beautiful. I just picked up a No 2 jacket (dry), which I believe has the same buttons and denim. It would look great with those jeans.

[M.O.A]

i love your threads.

so much information

[Charlie Delta]

...in which case I'll ask the missus to photograph them, however deranged that might seem to her...

You would expect the missus to be a bit used to denim geekism by now.

After you've written an amazing book about it an'all......

[7887]

Can you guys help me out, I am trying to see if these are real or not, the seller seems legit, but the tag looks different than the 2002s that Paul T has, here is the link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/LVC-LEVI-1929-VINTAGE-201-BUCKLE-BACK-JEANS-28x34-29x32_W0QQitemZ300117891634QQihZ020QQcategoryZ11483QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

Thank you guys!

[Paul T]

Look perfect to me. The type on the inner tag will change slightly from year to year - different codes etc - but it looks essentially the same, very different from any fakes.

[airfrogusmc]

Paul aren't those 555s from March of 2000? I have a pair of 555s and also a pair from like 03 maybe 04 (to lazy to pull'm outta the closet and check the leg tag) with the double needle arcuate and I gotta say the new 201s look AWESOME. Much nicer then the double needle ones I have from 03/04.

[Paul T]

Yes, you're right, the old pair are March 2000. I hadn't checked the pix when I wrote the thread... they were NOS when I got them, found for me by V, the brilliant manager at cinch, back in the days when ALL the staff knew what they were talking about!

[airfrogusmc]

My 20s 201s (555) ROCK. Actually thinking about getting a pair of 201s from this year after seeing yours. Would you say they're almost as good as the 555s?

[Mr Black]

I have a pair of raw 555 201's, 34 x 34 hidden away. May be persuaded to part with them for the right offer.

[Paul T]

My 20s 201s (555) ROCK. Actually thinking about getting a pair of 201s from this year after seeing yours. Would you say they're almost as good as the 555s?

yes, they have a similar greeny-grey tinge to the denim and I'm iking the way they're wearing compared to the 1933s. The 555 have a slight cast to the weft which this year's don't have but that's the only difference I can see.

[partytaco]

just purchased a pair of 555 201's and I will agree that these are the nicest of all the LVC line jeans I have seen. The denim is amazing and has almost the same iridescent quality I have seen in the aizome dyed Jomon but with more of greenish cast instead of the red of the Jomon. Nice details with the copper plated rivets, black-enamelled buttons, linen patch, etc... A new favorite.

[airfrogusmc]

P.T. yeah those 201s are sweet. Gotta love the blue line denim.

[hysteric]

I just received some 201's from cultizm and, after I hot soaked them for about 3 hours pretty much all the black paint has come off the suspender buttons and the button fly, is this normal?

[Paul T]

It's not particularly normal. I cold-soaked mine, and had not paint loss, but I did pick up a heavily distressed pair cheap, and most of the paint had survived.

But surely the paint loss makes them look a older and more blue-collar, and it not entirely a bad thing, right?

[hysteric]

Yea I wasnt to upset with the looks, just thought it was kinda odd, they do look more vintage-like especially since the button fly is copper and the paint is kind of on some and not others

[superBobo]

Just bumping this thread..

Still no wear pics of the 201s?

I really like how they look, and feel I perhaps should get them before they´re gone after Pauls praise...

Just a bit confused about the fit. I wear 33s and 37s in a 34x36 (pre soak) and my normal jeans size is 32... should I get these in a 32 or 33 to avoid extreme hip flaring? Or will the seat be too slim (perhaps not likely, hehe)?

Is the rise lower than on the pre 47 501s?

[Paul T]

Wear pix end of February...

if your 1933 jeans fit you well in a 34 wiast, the same will probably be true of the 201s. However, my 1933s were very slightly baggy (they were made oversize) so I decided to downsize; although the waist fits reasonably snugly on the 201 they are still full around the thighs. By being a bit snugger, before the first wash, they should give a better fade than my 1933s did. I think the rise is much the same as the 1933 jeans.

[hysteric]

focused on my 1001xx and s5000bk's so I havent had a chance to wear these, as for fit I had a 34/34 in the 37's which i had to sell because the inseam shrunk to about 30.5-31 and looked rediculous, so I decided to get 36/36 in the 201's, they are very full in the legs and im sure sizing down or true to size before wash couldnt hurt. Ive found the rise a bit higher than my 37's.

[markus]

Hi, is the color gone or has it just changed to a very light grey. In my case it was light grey after hot soak. I brushed them with a nailbrush and soap and they got back the black colour. Also in the dryer of the wash mashine, they will get back their black color.

[Paul T]

I've been asked to post photos of how the 201 wears in.

I've worn mine for five months or so, I need to repair the hems before they're washed, so the best I can do is to post them in their unwashed state. You still get a good idea of the dusty, greenish look they have:

And a close-up:

Lastly, a comparison of the 201 at five months, unwashed, with the 1947 in the same state. The denim on the 47 is itself quite coarse and grainy compared with the 55 - hence you can get a clue as to how coarse and greenish the denim on the 201 is - which comes, naturally, from the fact the original jean was made of cheaper fabric than the 501.

The one thing I can't say at this stage is whether you wll get streaky slubby wear after the first wash. You should, as that was LVC's intention when they designed the fabric, but I won't be able to report on that for a few months...

[Paul T]

And now, just for reference, I thought I'd add the photos of the 1890s 201 that sold on eBay a few weeks ago. I think the final price was $36,000. (In what looks like bad news for the seller, though, I noticed the purchaser has been kicked off eBay. That price did look like a good one considering the much rarer Nevadas only fetched $42k).

Even though these are 1890s jeans, and the LVC are a '20s repro, you can see the details are pretty spot-on - the short stitch length, bright stitching colour and especially the coarse, green look of the denim.

[slowdownarthur]

Great pics of your 201s Paul, thanks for posting...

now I'm jonesing for a pair (even though I just started breaking in a pair of Lee 101 1934s)