Lvc raw leg lengths messed up

[cleanlines]

I posted up a couple of weeks ago about how my new 1947 Lvc's had not shrunk in the leg length when soaked about 5 times. Well heres the thing : All the leg lengths this season, certainly on 47's and 55's, are 2 inches longer than tagged. So if you buy a 34/34 and expect them to be 32/32 after soaking they wont be. They will be 32/34 as the original leg length would be 36". Hope this makes sense.

[nairb49]

for real?

this is actually confirmed, or just a hunch based on what you have?

nairb49

[cleanlines]

This is definitely confirmed as i've had 2 shops measure all their stock and its the same on every single pair. Any ideas as to why levis have done this or is it just a big fuck up ?

[Shorty Long]

Quote:

This is definitely confirmed as i've had 2 shops measure all their stock and its the same on every single pair. Any ideas as to why levis have done this or is it just a big fuck up ?

--- Original message by cleanlines on Feb 23, 2006 01:33 PM

are you in the US?

[cleanlines]

Uk

[Shorty Long]

i haven't heard about this problem here in the US...are all LVC produced in the same place?

[Paul T]

I've mentioned before that the wrong pocket design was used on the 201 repro. The waist sizing on LVC has varied from year to year before so I've learned to always check the actual wiast measurement, not just the tag size; now I guess we'll have to do the same for leg length, too.

[sbrguy]

i just got lvcs the other day in the u.s. and they are marked as 32 lenght and they shrank down to 29.75 in lenght.