Lvc experts please help

[cleanlines]

I have a pair of 1947's and have now tried shrinking them 3 time to no avail. They are a 34/34 and feel tighter but the length hasnt shrunk at all and the waist maybe slightly. Have tried cold and hot soaks in the bath and also drying on a hot heat. Whats going on here is this normal ? Any explainations ?

[nairb49]

strange, how long did you soak for?

usually, soaking for a few hours in cold water and then hot drying should shrink them the max amount. ie. 3 inches length and 1.5-2 inches in the waist...

brand new etc?

nairb49

[cleanlines]

They've now been soaked for a total of 6 hours i reckon and dried twice on full heat. This is brand new raw denim. They do feel tighter around the thigh. Its the length thats doing my head in. They havent shrunk at all in the length and i need them to shrink 2 inches. At the moment they are way to long. Have i got a case for returning them and getting a new pair ?

[BumbaClot]

i was told this season's 47s were mostly recalled because they did not shrink properly.

Has anyone here washed their 47s with a similar result?

[Shorty Long]

i have a pair of '44s from this autumn's line and they shrank right down...i haven't tried the new '47s

i would imagine, however, that this would have been brought up before if it was a widespread problem.

[nairb49]

weird that they would shrink everywhere but not the length...?

nairb49

[mcflip]

could be worse... hemming or cuffing isn't the worst thing in the world.

[Paul T]

Mine shrank a minimal amount, although they've only been given a quick soak. The cuffs are bigger than I'd ideally like, but I have to live with it... don't think you have a case for taking them back. you do get lots of varying shrinkage even across the same model LVC, but sadly I don't think you have a case for taking them back. It's part of the lottery of life.

If you're really bothered, get someone like denim doctor (search the archives) to shorten them.

[cleanlines]

Well i did manage to change them and guess what the new pair are exactly the same !! No shrinkage in the leg length whatsoever. Surely this must be deemed a "faulty" batch of 1947's

[Jim Cissell]

Yes - that shrinkage issue is exactly one of the concerns I was worried about. I'm interested in loading-up on a few pairs of the LVC 47s, but am very wary since learning about last season's smaller fit problems, and now this one's lack of correct inseam shrinkage.

Hopefully someone (Paul T?!) will offer the inside scoop on this latest production run...

Thanks,

Jim

Jim Cissell

[Meth Huffer]

re: 2006 LVC 47-501's

i bought mine marked 36 x 34 (dry, unwashed measurements were exactly that). after a full soak and completely dried, the final measurements came out to almost exactly 34 x 31 if not a little smaller.

the only complaint i have is that the cut is way baggier then i expected from a 47. even after the shrinking, they fit like an APC rescue.

Edited by Meth Huffer on Feb 17, 2006 at 08:20 AM

[Paul T]

Don't know about the difference w earlier and latest run. my 34-34 1947s from last fall have had one soak and the leg length is still 33. I would be surprised if one batch shrinks significantly less than others and would like to know more.

One crucial factor is that actual sizing varies between different models. For instance, my 33 501s are way baggier than the 47s. But a significant part of the difference is that the 33s are simply sized way bigger, maybe two inches more at the waist. So wahtever Levi's you get, call the store and ask for the actual pre-shrunk measurement of the waist.