Difference between 1944 and 1947 LEVIS 501s?

[Silversurfer]

Can someone tell me the difference between the 1944 and the 1947 Levis? I am already aware of the printed on arcs on the 1944s, but any other difference as far as the cut, rivets, etc?

[witts]

44s ass hangs down LOW! and sticks out like fuck when theyre nu!

[rnrswitch]

I think the 44s don't have back pocket rivets due to war time conservation of copper.

[JohnW]

1944s have a straighter leg, which is a fuller cut than 1947s, but not what you'd call loose.

they also have a longer rise (12.5" I think), and like witt said, a baggy ass

1944s

http://www.rakuten.co.jp/hinoya/141935/141937/191259/

1947s are slimmer in the seat and leg whith about an 11/11.5" rise. they taper very slighly from the knee

http://www.rakuten.co.jp/super-rag/427211/565881/

http://www.rakuten.co.jp/super-rag/427211/507234/

I like the denim and colour of 1944s when unwashed, but am too skinny to get away with wearing them. to me, 1947s just look better, and the denim also has a nice colour - a more indigo blue colour compared to the dull grey/blue of 1944s.

[jake431]

Not to throw a wrench into this thread, but how do the '55's compare to the '44's and thd '47's? Are they sort of frankensteinien - ass of the '47 and legs of the 44's?

-Jake

[witts]

na the 55s are nice! ive got em in my cupboard, they fit nice, not to baggy to slim either, just a nice slightly baggy cut

[jdavis]

just to add to the wartime levi's cosmetic details..

- steel rivets instead of copper, but given a copper wash

- no rivets on change pkt

- painted arcuates due to cotton rationing - arcuates separated as pre 47

- pkt lining often light shirting material instead of heavy cotton due to cotton rationing

- donut buttons to conserve metal

the 55s were baggier than 47s and the 44s. from what i've heard, the 47s were only slightly trimmer than the 44s

[krucial]

how is the ass on the 55's? how long is the rise?

[JohnW]

the rise is longer than on 1947s - it's about 12 inches. they're kind of 'full cut' in the thighs, and again, taper slightly from the knee. they're quite similar to 1944s, but with a less 'boxy' look

Maybe it's because I'm really skinny, but the ass sticks out on my 1955s so much to the point that I'm going to have to sell them on.

I had some pre-washed 1955s that were fine though, prewashed lvc tend to be a lot smaller in the leg and waist than unwashed ones that you shrink them down yourself.

I'm a 30/34 in 1944s, 31/34 in 1947s and 30/34 in 1955s but I only wear 1947s in LVC now, unless I can get my hands on some 1971 501s

Edited by JohnW on Sep 4, 2005 at 01:32 AM

[dmashita]

and how does the 1870's and 1937's compare to the 1947 in rise and fit? and what size should i get if i'm about a 30 in nudie and 29 in apc?

thx.

[docdoom]

Quote:

just to add to the wartime levi's cosmetic details..

- steel rivets instead of copper, but given a copper wash

- no rivets on change pkt

- painted arcuates due to cotton rationing - arcuates separated as pre 47

- pkt lining often light shirting material instead of heavy cotton due to cotton rationing

- donut buttons to conserve metal

the 55s were baggier than 47s and the 44s. from what i've heard, the 47s were only slightly trimmer than the 44s

--- Original message by jdavis on Sep 3, 2005 05:24 PM

is it true that there were only 4 buttons on the fly instead of 5?

[Paul T]

This is SO complicated! BUT I am hoping to get a complete breakdown of all the specs from a LVC pattern maker for a project I'm working on.

I'd say the 1944 cut is not too dissimilar to the 1933 or 1937 cuts. It's the detailing that makes them all look different. Wide-ish leg, straight, with a reasonably shaped ass. They are all cut pretty big for their size. I have the 1937 and the 1944 in front of me and they look very different - 1937, with its cinchback looks much more vintage. The 1944 repros are quite plain looking (althou they have beautiful shirt fabric for the pocket linings).

remember the weights vary too. Pre-1920s jeans have lighter wieght denim, 9oz (haven't checked), then 12.5 oz thereafter, altho repros tend to be nominallly 12 or 13oz.

The pre 1870s, 1880s or 1900s jeans are all more anti-fit. Which means the ass is generally bigger. However, if you wear slightly low on the waist, the ass kinda hangs straight down and looks pretty good, not baggy. But if the sizing is only a little big, you will look like Crusty The CLown.

1947 is different again, but is much more suited to a skinny fit. The legs are straight and narrow - and I would say that in LVC repros, the 1947 jeans seem to be cut a little smaller. Most people say they're the definitive postwar cut and I would agree, and they're definitely the most popular LVC repro right now - whereas a few years ago it was probably the cinchback jeans that most people went for.

I don't know the 1955 jeans first hand, never tried em on, but word is they're a bit baggier while the 1960s jeans, if true to the original, should be a definite drainpipe.

Lastly, one crucial thing I've noticed with a lot of recent LVC is that the distressed jeans seem to shrink. A LOT. The 1937 Indigo Heart repro, with an initial 36 waist, shrinks down to 32!

[dnnsmanace]

How much are dry 47 501s.

[Pripyat]

What japanese brands (sugarcane, denime, samuri, etc...) make a 501 '55 cut? Any pictures? -Thanks.

[jake431]

Quote:

$165, I believe.

With shipping, the Sugar Cane 1947's are $179 but it's worth it.

--- Original message by miguel on Oct 3, 2005 07:14 PM

That price of $179 - can you provide a link to the site that offers that price?

-Jake

[rnrswitch]

historypreservation.com