Levi's 501 - a visual guide

[jyoni]

Guys I've tried a search but there is alot to weed through. Indulge me on a simple question: do LVC use polycore threads, or full cotton?

[Paul T]

Good question. I believe the later year models use polycore but I'm not certain about the early ones, I shall ask when I have a chance.

Edit: I did ask. All US LVC are polycore. They go to great lengths to get the right colour, but I think they made a decision on cost and wear grounds. I do think this is a shame as one some models, for instance th 40s and 50s jeans, how the Polycore fades is a big part of the look.

I've updated the dimensions for 2009 produciton,.

1927, 1944, 1955, 1978 and 1983 are all very oversize. This is really irritating and there is no good rationale for it; there's no reason you would want 78 or 83 jeans to be hugely baggy, for instance.

[TheJonesBoy]

I just bagged some 1966 for £90 which are the 2009 (the button has 233M stamped on it).

Thing is, I got the same size as I have in 1947 501 (nothing stamped on the back of the 47's button) - the 47's I shrank to fit from a 34 x 32 (I'm actually a 33 x 30). The 47's are the same size post-bath shrink and worn about 20 times (warm, 1 hour, left on to dry before being hung for a day) as the unshrunk 66's. Waist smaller than post soak 47's (actual measurements are 18" wide for 47's and 17.5" for the 66's) and the same length (31").

So beware out there, seems they've changed them and sizing down will be the death of you!

I can't decide whether to send back the 66's or just do a cold short starch removing soak followed by a load of squats to keep the waist bearable (in the hope 5-6 months of wear will see them stretch out pending that first cold wash/dry)...

[501cult]

Well, the 1966 cut was quite slimmer than the 1947, so I'm sure they are reproduced correctly, LVC usually are very precise about this.

My advice would be: keep them and wear them tight in the waist, that was the 60's look anyway!

[mikedbt5]

Havent posted in a while , thought it appropriate to post tese beauties which appeared on Marvins today .

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.marvins-jp.com/&ei=9MyLSsDxM5zLjAfo0IXlCw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMARVINS%2BJP%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1R2ADBS_enGB341

Link not copying properly - go to WHATS NEW

[Dr_Heech]

Havent posted in a while , thought it appropriate to post tese beauties which appeared on Marvins today .

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.marvins-jp.com/&ei=9MyLSsDxM5zLjAfo0IXlCw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMARVINS%2BJP%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1R2ADBS_enGB341

Link not copying properly - go to WHATS NEW

I haven't gone on this site for ages. Love the early 1920's 501's. Go to 'denim pants', first couple of pairs of '1922 501xx's' are early ones, as they have the plain fly buttons. Great to see that.

Lvc take note!

[Paul T]

Do post your favourites on here for reference before they get sold, Dr!

[TheJonesBoy]

Just doing a catch up here. The 47's I have are a bit too tight in the waist (post Xmas blowout!).

Just for kicks I did a ten minute tepid soak whilst wearing the 66's.

They have come out perfect. I stretched whilst wet and sat in them until almost dry (air dried indoors). The waist is looser than the 47's - odd as it was tight to start (as in they appear to have stretched a bit!). The thigh is definitely far looser than the 47's which are of course last season's.

Of course I did an hour soak with the 47's and ten minutes on the 66's but they feel similar post soak & dry. These 66's are superb. Loving them. They are quite different denim-wise to my 47's which are a bit more 'fluffy' than these.

[illumin8em]

Just doing a catch up here. The 47's I have are a bit too tight in the waist (post Xmas blowout!).

Just for kicks I did a ten minute tepid soak whilst wearing the 66's.

They have come out perfect. I stretched whilst wet and sat in them until almost dry (air dried indoors). The waist is looser than the 47's - odd as it was tight to start (as in they appear to have stretched a bit!). The thigh is definitely far looser than the 47's which are of course last season's.

Of course I did an hour soak with the 47's and ten minutes on the 66's but they feel similar post soak & dry. These 66's are superb. Loving them. They are quite different denim-wise to my 47's which are a bit more 'fluffy' than these.

.

.

These look like they are gonna fit real nice. Curious what they will be when dry

[TheJonesBoy]

I'll post a fit pic. I re-wet the legs yesterday and stretched them a touch as they were the right length with no cuff and I sometimes like one small turn up.

Tried the 47's on again - they are like spray on. I was hoping to be able to judge the difference between 66 and 47 but the only conclusion is that you can't do that unless you get the 47 and 66 from the same season I guess it's not like for like (ie Levis seem to have sized up a bit this season - making buying the LVC a bit of an unknown).

One thing I would say is that the legs went up about 2" with a short "jeans on" soak but the waist - even if very tight when totally raw - doesn't shift more than you'd want if they are on you when they are wet and when they dry. If I'd have gone to a 36 x 34 (my only other option) I think they'd be loose and very anti-fit. Not what I believe is a "60's" look.

[edmond]

http://www.oki-ni.com/Mens-Jeans/Levisr-Vintage-1955-501-Rig-Jean/invt/lev0007ind

ehhh are these the 55's 501 i should be looking for?

[Paul T]

Yes. Email them to check on the sizing. Old ones are made true to size, I would buy your actual waist size. New stock are made bigger (see 1st page of this thread).

I think fardin beat me to the last pair of Lee Hair On Hide at Oki Ni. Oh well,.,,

[edmond]

thanks paul your the best! true to size coming my way!

[edmond]

hey paul how about sizing on those lee's?

[Paul T]

Can't you wait untl I've decided??? You gonna do a Fardin on me? Downsize by two inches in the main,

TO be clear, on the 55, with old stock, which are made right, buy em acutal size. I take 32, I wear 32. The cut is wide enough that this works perfectly, not too baggy. The current range are THREE INCHES OVERSIZED! SO I would go one below, ie is you're 32 wasit, buy a 30, it will measure 33, shirnk to 31, stretch to 32. Best still, email them to check acxtual measurements!

My apologies for LVC crapness. The jeans are good, will take longer to wear in than those Sammies....

[edmond]

hmm yeah got it... so i already ordered a 34 which is my size how do i know if theyre old or new im assuming theyre old cause theyre on sale eh?

for lee's ill get a 32 right? cause these dont shrink? how come they same theyll shrink 5%???

[Paul T]

Yes, a 32 fr the Lee. Yeah, they all shrink a bit... definitely an inch in the leg on mine.

For the Levi's, I would email them to make sure. Quite a few of those jeans on sale are 2009.

[edmond]

god damn motherfucker!!!!

[neakal]

Paul

If i have to make choice of buying either LVC 1955 , LVC 1947 , which one I should go , My size 34"/31". I already have LVC 501 1966 , 1978, 1983 and LVC 505 1967 .. All LVC 501 are 34"/34" except LVC 505 which is 34"/32". Please specify which size should I go for LVC 1955 and LVC 1947.

[TheJonesBoy]

I'd go 47. Mine (2008/2009) are much tighter post shrink than the 66 (2009/2010) despite both starting out as 34" x 32". My 66 shrank a little shorter than I wanted so I re-wet the legs and stretched them back out another 1/2" - 1".

The colder the bath you sit in the less they'll shrink - pull the leg length whilst damp to keep them short - stay longer in warmer water to get them lose more length (and go tighter).

For the record both mine fitted in the waist raw before sitting in the bath - ie I didn't size up 2" at all in the waist.

[HAZARDkid]

how should i size on a '66 501 from 2010 season just the general up 2sizes so if im 32 grab a tagged 34?

[TheJonesBoy]

HAZARD - I sized actual size. Usually a 34" bought a 34". They fitted raw, warm soaked them to bring the legs up to be just on the shoe (small cuff for that Mod look). They can't shrink smaller than you if you keep them on whilst they dry!

I've always been nervous of sizing up as I don't wear belts.

[HAZARDkid]

HAZARD - I sized actual size. Usually a 34" bought a 34". They fitted raw, warm soaked them to bring the legs up to be just on the shoe (small cuff for that Mod look). They can't shrink smaller than you if you keep them on whilst they dry!

I've always been nervous of sizing up as I don't wear belts.

ohh they said that a size 34' will measure a 34' so i was assuming they'd shrink to a waist of 32 after hotsoak. I wasnt planning to wear them while they dry or maybe i should, i was planning to get 90-100% of the shrinking done before wearing

[TheJonesBoy]

I sat in warm bath, they shrank at least 1.5" possibly 2". You can pull them longer whilst wet if the legs go too short for you.

I wore mine until almost dry and also did a few stretches in them. The only down side was the knees have gone a bit baggy from the bending.

I wouldn't risk soaking and drying without having them on IF you buy to fit when raw / unsoaked / washed.

I dropped a pint of Guinness on mine so have quickly soaked (read laid them unworn in a cold bath and then removed and hung to drip dry) once but they still fit nice after a few months of daily (sedate nothing too hectic) wear. I expect they will shrink again when warm washed and can't currently decide if that should be in the washing machine at a 30 degrees gentle wool cycle or another dip in the bath.

I love my '66's far more than my '47's as the '47's feel a bit too skinny in the leg (they are two seasons ago when I think the sizing wasn't as roomy as they appear to be made now) and will buy more if they hit sales (at £170+ I'm not in the game!).

[2fast4you]

so the most tapered 501 should be th 54 not the 66 or 47 true?

thanks

ps: great topic !!!

[attackwithstones]

Yes, 54's are the slimmest of the 501's when it comes to leg openings. Next would be the 66 and then the 47.

[gululv]

Thanks a lot for the guide, very helpful! I bought a pair of LVC 501XX from my friend some time ago, I'm trying to figure out what year, it looks like it's 27 or 33. Will try to get a new pair, since these are among the few jeans I've had that are wide enough in the thighs for me to keep a long time. Even Sugar Cane 1947s ripped after about nine-ten months. So could anyone please identify these?

[gululv]

<p>Thanks a lot for the guide, very helpful! I bought a pair of LVC 501XX from my friend some time ago, I'm trying to figure out what year, it looks like it's 27 or 33. Will try to get a

[Paul T]

Post pics and we should be able to tell. THey're very similar jeans but the 27 is much rarer and, from memory, the stitching is quite different.

[Maynard Friedman]

They look like 33s, the stitching on 27s is almost a white colour.