Which are better - Sugarcane 1947 or LVC 1947 501s?

[jake431]

The subject pretty much says it all - if I can only get one pair, which should it be? I know this has been touched upon elsewhere but I would like to see it in one thread. Are they really equivalent pants - is the styling the same?

Thanks,

-Jake

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Well, I believe there are several SC 1947's, but the standard one is pretty much like the LVC's I guess. I would go with the Sugarcanes because they just seem to fade in a better way and have deeper color.

tally-hoo

[giantreptile]

go with what you can find, go with what you can afford, go with what looks good, and finally go with what's original: levi's.

[jake431]

Quote:

go with what you can find, go with what you can afford, go with what looks good, and finally go with what's original: levi's.

--- Original message by giantreptile on Oct 11, 2005 08:41 AM

Ironically, I will be able to find the sugarcanes (http://historypreservation.com/hpassociates/detailpop.php?uniqnum=127) EASIER than the LVC 1947s. And most likely, at $179, they will be cheaper. But - are they as good? Better? Worse? That is my only real concern.

-Jake

[giantreptile]

you can get LVC 1947 at www.aeroleatherclothing.com. you have to deal with twisted seams on sugarcanes versus minor twisting on LVC.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

some pics for you to make a more informed decision

http://denim-gallery.heavy.jp/sugarcane_m41119.html

http://letgoasyoulike.fc2web.com/denim.htm

levis:

http://denim-gallery.heavy.jp/levis_502.html

fading depends on wear and washing of course, so no picture can be an accurate way to tell how your jeans will look but out of these pics I prefer the Sugarcanes.

tally-hoo

[Paul T]

I'm looking at a brand new pair of LVC 47s right now. BEar in mind they are sized A LOT SMALLER than previous LVCs if you're buying on-line. They are also not as dark denim as some previous LVC.

Fade on those Sugarcanes do look great, high-contrast, I for one would want to check them out. But if this were my first pair of 1947s, I would try out the LVC first, as they are still the nearest thing to the original article... and really, given Levis' seeming lack of commitment, I wonder how long they're going to be avai;able for...

[wild_whiskey]

Canes, hands down.

[jake431]

Re LVC 47 sizing - ALOT SMALLER? Meaning what - are they like modern 501's?

Hands down Canes why?

Thanks,

-Jake

[giantreptile]

on raw LVC '47, go two inches on waist, three on length. I can see why people like '47 sugar canes, but levi's stitching is more elegant. sugar canes has to do weird stitching in order to get around the tradmarks; in the end it kind of looks sloppy. it's a copy of an original, plain and simple (baizilla says i should cheer up). for the beauty of sugar canes, i would recommend their more premium models (okinawa, hawaii, etc). in that case, there is no comparison.

Edited by giantreptile on Oct 11, 2005 at 12:55 PM

Edited by giantreptile on Oct 11, 2005 at 12:56 PM

[Paul T]

34" tagsize 47 rigid are a full 2" smaller than LVC 2001 '33 rigid with a 34" tagsize. likewise the 1937 jeans seem to be 2" smaller than their predecessors.

[jake431]

Quote:

34" tagsize 47 rigid are a full 2" smaller than LVC 2001 '33 rigid with a 34" tagsize. likewise the 1937 jeans seem to be 2" smaller than their predecessors.

--- Original message by Paul T on Oct 11, 2005 12:54 PM

Okay - if I get a pair of tagged 36, they'll shrink down to a 34 waist, yes? Or are they smaller even than that?

-Jake

[giantreptile]

sugar canes shrink down to what's on the tag

[Paul T]

Previous 34" waist (as indicated on the leather patch) LVC were made a bit oversized, over 35" waist unwashed, so shrunk down to 33". Current LVC are slightly undersized, so a tag wasit size of 34" is more like 33" and will shrink down to 31". The current 1937 repros, washed, tag size 36", measure 33" max.

Edited by Paul T on Oct 11, 2005 at 01:35 PM

[trinket]

Are the Canes lower rise? ... they have one less button in the fly.

_trinket

[Corbin Law]

They are both very nice jeans, but i think canes are a bit better. it comes close though

chwa?

[bufo]

Quote: levi's stitching is more elegant. sugar canes has to do weird stitching in order to get around the tradmarks; in the end it kind of looks sloppy. it's a copy of an original, plain and simple

I thought Sugarcane's weird backpocket stitching was made so that it would unravel nicely as you wear it not just to avoid trademarks. Also, LVC 1947s are COPIES of the original Levis just like the Sugarcanes. I'm not sure why people keep getting this confused.

[bufo]

and this topic has been discussed before.

http://superfuture.com/city/supertalk/index.cfm?page=topic&topicID=3887

How come in the past several weeks I see people asking the same questions and discussing topics that have been beaten to death. Seems like people don't know how to search.

[rnrswitch]

The backpocket is not the only difference on the stitching. The LVCs have a much deeper goldish stitching on almost all of the jeans. The Canes seem to alter between a deep gold to a lighter yellow/gold stitching around the cuffs, backpocket, front pocket, inner leg, and maybe some other parts. The great thing about the canes is that they are a heavier denim. I think 14 oz for canes, compared to 13 oz for LVC. It's a close choice for me, but i would go for the canes i believe. It seems easier to get the canes these days than the LVC.