08 Lvc

[stanier]

Hmm, just observationally, my '44's on the label sewn to the jeans says "made of selected ten ounce american denim".

My 47's don't declare a weight, but are certainly thicker than my '44's and '37's. I have '47's from '03, '06 and '07 and I'd say the denim weight is the same across all years I have.

Consequently, reading some of the posts above leaves me confused!

Cheers all!

[airfrogusmc]

None of my US LVCs have ever had anything on the jeans stating weight. Sometimes the booklets have weight of what the originals were. My 44s 47s and 55s were all about the same weight. My 33s were 10 oz, my 37s were all heavier and my 20s 201s blue/green line were also heavier. In the 12, 12.5-13 raw range. Somewhere in there. 14 or so after full shrinkage. The 1886s are were around 9 oz raw and my 1905 209 overalls are heavy also. But I don't remember any of them having weight on any of the tags. All were USA made.

[amills2]

With people starting to find the Spring 08 517s in stores, has anyone spotted the "Beaten Blue" orange tab men's vest that is in the booklet/catalog? Anyone know any specifics about the vest (model/year of repro), or even a retail price?

I only ask because I know LVC stuff can be hard to find and harder to find in-stock or in the right size. I plan on breaking my rule of only buying LVC under $100 and shelling out for this kickass vest, if I can find it. It should look awesome with the '66 deadstock 646.

I've been checking the website daily and called a few stores, but no luck. I did actually call Levi's (whatever the number for US corporate is, someone from the website gave it to me once when I asked too many LVC questions) and got ahold of someone who apparently had access to more detailed pictures than show up in the catalog... she told me that the vest had a buckleback, but that was about the only info I could gather on it.

Thanks, all.

- Alex

[Crackerhead]

With people starting to find the Spring 08 517s in stores, has anyone spotted the "Beaten Blue" orange tab men's vest that is in the booklet/catalog? Anyone know any specifics about the vest (model/year of repro), or even a retail price?

I only ask because I know LVC stuff can be hard to find and harder to find in-stock or in the right size. I plan on breaking my rule of only buying LVC under $100 and shelling out for this kickass vest, if I can find it. It should look awesome with the '66 deadstock 646.

I've been checking the website daily and called a few stores, but no luck. I did actually call Levi's (whatever the number for US corporate is, someone from the website gave it to me once when I asked too many LVC questions) and got ahold of someone who apparently had access to more detailed pictures than show up in the catalog... she told me that the vest had a buckleback, but that was about the only info I could gather on it.

Thanks, all.

- Alex

Called Levi's about this, too... Retail price $250. Strangely enough, the production finish (beaten blue) is supposed to be a light indigo shade with a super soft hand (hence beaten.) So I guess they only show the (raw) prototype in the booklet. They said the Levi's stores probably won't carry this, but once it's out, they'll have info on who does (maybe Barney's.) Hope that helps.

[Crackerhead]

None of my US LVCs have ever had anything on the jeans stating weight. Sometimes the booklets have weight of what the originals were. My 44s 47s and 55s were all about the same weight. My 33s were 10 oz, my 37s were all heavier and my 20s 201s blue/green line were also heavier. In the 12, 12.5-13 raw range. Somewhere in there. 14 or so after full shrinkage. The 1886s are were around 9 oz raw and my 1905 209 overalls are heavy also. But I don't remember any of them having weight on any of the tags. All were USA made.

Some of the more recent LVC 1947 501's (I had one from 2007) had "10 oz. denim" printed somewhere on the dollar bill patch...

Which is clearly a typo.

[Sympathy-For-The-Denim]

If anybody interested I´ve got the vest in rigid denim, new never worn but a sample garment, it´s an S and fits 38" and yes it got a buckle. these had been introduced in 2004... watch at the lvc catalogue thread

[Paul T]

Some of the more recent LVC 1947 501's had "10 oz. denim" printed on the dollar bill patch...

Which is clearly a typo.

Yes, sounds like they sewed a 1901 oilcloth patch to the 47 jeans by mistake. Which would be the most obvious reason for the '10oz 1947 jeans' story.

It would be hard for the wrong denim to be used given that the 10oz blue-line fabric comes from Japan & is probably more expensive than the Cone product.

[electrum]

The bottom line is no one knows what the actual weight is because Levi's does not list the weight, if the weight was listed we wouldn't be discussing the issue right now -- there'd be no question. It's obvious to me that Levi's is either targeting different markets by producing different styles and weights (of the "same" jean), or they;re cutting corners where they can to be competitive, or a combination of both. That way (it seems) Levi;'s can produce whatever they want, turn up the marketing hype and let the consumer's imagination decide what is or is not. I think Levi's needs to at least list the weight if not all of the ingredients on all of their premium products like their leading competitors do -- hell, how difficult is that. I't's BS for a consumer to pay a high premium for something that they have no idea what they are paying for. Many on this board are so focused on the nostalgia, history and romanticism behind the Levi Strauss name that you've lost sight of the ambiguity and inconsistancy that is so evident in the current LVC product line.

[batorizer]

[amills2]

Crackerhead: Hmmm... interesting stuff on the vest. I was hoping it would be just like in the booklet (silly thought, I know), but the wash sounds kinda cool, I guess. The price doesn't, but I'm not surprised. Is it the norm for an LVC item like this be sold at Barneys (or other high end places)? I'd always assumed that the Levi's stores just sold out of the shirts and other rare items, which is why I never saw them anywhere.

Man, though, I so wanted that thing to be deadstock to go with the 646s.

Sympathy: Sounds cool.... I'll watch the LVC catalog thread, for pics I assume?

[cultizm]

I am not 100% sure, but I read several times that the LVC 1947 was adopted to the nowadays.

The original 1947 cut you could find in the 1947 sugarcane.

http://historypreservation.com/hpassociates/sugarcane_2.php

Best

Dejan

[stanier]

Anyone know if the white t-shirts of the '08 collection can be purchased seperately?

Any visibility on when the Type II jacket will be available? I think they are a part of the '08 collection?

Also what's the selvedge like on the 33's and 44's this year? Is the redline down the middle of the white portion, or up against the blue of the denim? Apologies if a bit of an anal question, I just prefer the redline down the middle of the white area!

[airfrogusmc]

The bottom line is no one knows what the actual weight is because Levi's does not list the weight, if the weight was listed we wouldn't be discussing the issue right now -- there'd be no question. It's obvious to me that Levi's is either targeting different markets by producing different styles and weights (of the "same" jean), or they;re cutting corners where they can to be competitive, or a combination of both. That way (it seems) Levi;'s can produce whatever they want, turn up the marketing hype and let the consumer's imagination decide what is or is not. I think Levi's needs to at least list the weight if not all of the ingredients on all of their premium products like their leading competitors do -- hell, how difficult is that. I't's BS for a consumer to pay a high premium for something that they have no idea what they are paying for. Many on this board are so focused on the nostalgia, history and romanticism behind the Levi Strauss name that you've lost sight of the ambiguity and inconsistancy that is so evident in the current LVC product line.

From what I've come to understand is that Levis in the past two years have made an effort (USA made) to get the right weights of denim (cone mills) for their repros (blue/green line 10 oz Japanese denim). . This may or my not have been the case in the past. I noticed that the LVCs from last year and from what I've seen of this years line up they certainly look to be a step up from the stuff from 03-05.

LVC clearly lists the denim and weight on this piece that Dejan (cultizm) posted last year. Oh the 209 coveralls are really nice!

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=22932&highlight=LVC+07

You notice they say 14 oz after wash on both the 55 & 47s that would be about 12.5 before.

[Paul T]

LVC have listed the weight in most of their catalogues I've seen. I've not seen a variation of more than half an ounce in the denim wieght listed, ie sometimes 1947 jeans are listed as 12.5 unwashed, sometimes at 13oz. I suspect the denim for the 47 has been the same weight since they introduced it, and that the only 'variation' has been the fitting of some incorrect oilcloth tags.

Fabric on the earlier model jeans has varied with the runs, as these come fom different suppliers including Kaihara and Kurabo, but they've stayed mostly consistent in weight. More details on the 501 visual guide.

[Crackerhead]

Yes, sounds like they sewed a 1901 oilcloth patch to the 47 jeans by mistake. Which would be the most obvious reason for the '10oz 1947 jeans' story.

It would be hard for the wrong denim to be used given that the 10oz blue-line fabric comes from Japan & is probably more expensive than the Cone product.

They surely must have sewn on the 1901 oilcloth patch. I remember the older 1947 501's having a paper dollar bill tag, and then they started being sold with a new oilcloth tag, with that misinformation about the weight printed on them. The old paper tags mention nothing about the weight.

[mikedbt5]

Yes, sounds like they sewed a 1901 oilcloth patch to the 47 jeans by mistake. Which would be the most obvious reason for the '10oz 1947 jeans' story.

It would be hard for the wrong denim to be used given that the 10oz blue-line fabric comes from Japan & is probably more expensive than the Cone product.

Came across a vintage site yesterday , see Vintage Levi..... post and interestingly picked up on these post war 1940s Levis with a 10oz patch . Thought this relevant , although not LVC , but shows Levis seemed to sell 10oz 501xx post war .