LVC Levi 501 1901 fit

[triniboy27]

Hey all,

So I'm looking for a pair of buckleback jeans and I guess I'm limited to 1901, 1933 and 1937 501's...just wondering if someone could give me an idea of the fit of the 1901's in comparison to Nudie RRDS and APC Rescues.

I'm a 32 in the Nudies and a 29 (!!) in the APCs..

Any help would be much appreciated!

[tm1210]

Think they're looser than both you named. They also don't have any belt hoops.

[hahnstch]

it's probably looser in the thigh/crotch area but definitely slimmer towards the opening (i'm comparing 1901 to nudies)

[Paul T]

Legs are pretty straight. I don't see a real taper. Fairly antifit around the ass. It's a good cut, but depends on whether the size is right, it can look baggy, specially with one pocket, so I'd say you should really try before you buy.

[hahnstch]

paul, 1901 has two backpockets, i think you must have mistaken it with 1890 or 1879

[triniboy27]

Thanks everyone...unfortunately, the only way I can get these is probably thru ebay so trying 'em on isn't an option...

Also, the pair that I'm currently watching is 34 x 32 unwashed...

given that i'm normally a 32 x 28 - 30 (depending on the rise and how high/low on my hips I wear 'em), would these be too short once washed and shrunk?

[sybaritical]

The 1901 is more of a collectors oddity IMO. They're great looking jean and the denim is really nice, but I'm sure the lack of belt loops would grate in the long run if you intended to wear them out regularly.

As far as the sizing goes, I remember when the deadstock 1901's flooded London a while back the guy in American Classics was spitting chips cos so many people bought them back to him cos they hadn't shrunk down at all after their first rinse. I bought a pair of 33's about that time from Cinch (Levi's boutique outlet) and when I asked about them, the guy there agreed the sizing and fits weren't all that great.

[Paul T]

Whoops! Yes, I was thinking you meant the current reissue. I have a pair of both the 1901 deadstock, since washed, and the Indigo Immortal distressed version. I think they're both terrific and among thje better LVC product of the last few years. The deadstock is a very rich indigo dye; I've washed mine twice, and they've stayed very dark and high contrast with light wear coming through. THey will also be among the last Valencia-made jeans. They're not quite as oversized as, say, the 1933, althought they've noticeably more antifit, you have to wear them fairly low. I will try and post the actual size they shrink to later, because they don't shrink as much as some jeans. DO you mean you normally buy a 32 shrink to fit, ie a circa 30 waist? If so, the 34 tag size WILL be too big...

Edited by Paul T on Nov 8, 2005 at 09:03 PM

[triniboy27]

Nope - I mean I normally take a 32 or so in preshrunk jeans...so I assume that the 34 will shrink to a 32 waist size..but i guess I'm more concerned about the length..if it shrinks past 28-29, then I'll be screwed.

And PaulT, could I trouble you to post some pics of you wearing the deadstock?

Thanks.

[damnIam]

My 1901s shrank from a 38 waist to a 36 waist after 1 cold water rinse.. I like em. Remember, fashionable they ain't. The fit is not antifit or shapely. They are work pants...and they look like it. The no belt loop thing is a bitch after you have had them on all day..you will be grabbin at them after about noon. The little belt buckle on the back is a joke. Snapped it the first time I tried to tighten them. Replace it immediately and save the damn thing for posterity because if you try to use it...it will break. Finally, these jeans are thin. I mean like khaki pants thin. They are 11oz I believe and after a wash they are as soft as butter and great for a hot day.