Vintage Denim?

[Broark]

19 minutes ago, Maynard Friedman said:

@Broark and @Dr_Heech should know, they were the moderators who oversaw the entire culling 🤣

To be fair I was kind of voluntold to be a mod there with zero inside info as to what was actually happening.

[Dr_Heech]

Yes @Broark l was clueless to the issue until it was too late. Glad l got away from all the complaints and other bullshit, l would never be a moderator again after that episode. Shame, as denimbro was a great buzz before all the hoo ha.

 

[AlientoyWorkmachine]

Anyone care to elaborate on what happened over there? I was never much on it/only lurked.

[Dr_Heech]

5 hours ago, AlientoyWorkmachine said:

Anyone care to elaborate on what happened over there? I was never much on it/only lurked.

Not in this thread. If l get a chance after work, I'll explain it in the Denim blunders thread. 

Edit. Sent you a dm instead. 

Edited September 10 by Dr_Heech
To clarify

[shredwin_206]

Paging @buler & @Dr_Heech

Just a random thought haven’t seen too many old photos but back in the day with type 1s were people typically leaving the bottom button buttoned or un buttoned? I’ve always left it unbuttoned to it kind of splays when you sit down and doesn’t bunch up all weird? 

[Dr_Heech]

On 9/12/2024 at 7:03 PM, shredwin_206 said:

Paging @buler & @Dr_Heech

Just a random thought haven’t seen too many old photos but back in the day with type 1s were people typically leaving the bottom button buttoned or un buttoned? I’ve always left it unbuttoned to it kind of splays when you sit down and doesn’t bunch up all weird? 

Your guess is as good as mine mate. I always thought that leaving just the bottom button, or sometimes more than one button undone (leaving the top buttons done up) was a more modern styling thing. As the type one was designed to be paired with a pair of 501XX as a two piece overall, whether whilst working down the mine or as a horseback rider, l would assume it was less common.

 

[Edit] just goes to show what l know if you look at @bulers post below.

..Me? With my 506XX repros l'm either button all the way up but leaving top button undone(too tight) or bottom two buttons done up only @shredwin_206 when l'm out for a casual walk 

 

Edited September 17 by Dr_Heech
To edit! wtf

[shredwin_206]

For sure. Just was surprised when I went lookin at vintage photos most were worn open and not buttoned at all. 
Just haven’t located many showing any type 1 buttoned up back then 

[buler]

@shredwin_206 I'll try to dig up some of my photos. I've seen quite a few with bottom not buttoned. And usually they have the very top buttoned. Just the opposite of what I find comfortable.

So, I've dug thru a ton of my saved photos. It seems the unbuttoning of the bottom or just buttoning the top was mainly (not always) a early thing. Mostly seen in late 1800s/early 1900s mining and workers photos. This is just my observation. And the majority of the photos it is being done with the gingham "blouse", more so, than the duck and denim jackets. Again, this is just what I'm seeing.

I'm curious as to why one would do this. Especially the buttoning of just the top button. I'm guessing on the gingham blouses/jackets, you would unbutton to alleviate the chance of popping the stitches and losing the button(s). The gingham being a lighter duty fabric than duck/denim. For any of the fabrics, my guess on unbuttoning the bottom is for comfort while sitting on a horse or in a buggy. Just my thoughts.

Edited September 13 by buler

[Maynard Friedman]

^ This is how I wear mine, I’m a traditionalist. Now I’ll wait for the usual hecklers to ask me to show them the fit pics…

EDIT: fantastic photos @buler, thanks for sharing them.

[Dr_Heech]

There's some corkers in there @buler - especially love that second photo down, l've seen it before but that looks so much like a Late XX/early 506XX - and the guy wearing the shield shirt next to him.  Awesome image.

[Dr_Heech]

Bought this for my son. He wanted a sherpa levis jacket for a while, after being introduced to the type 3 as a boy,  but had to have lower pockets/hand warmers. Got a nice clean example in a mid blue with some crocking on sleeves starting. Looks like 527 factory code (another EL Paso plant??) and manufactured in February 1988. 

Got it for a reasonable price but after postage and duties it felt like l'd bought it from a vintage shop, although it still came in under 100 quid which not bad l suppose.

Anyway it fits me comfortably over a tee so there's always that option if he gets bored of it 😁

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:13 PM by Dr_Heech

[buler]

45 minutes ago, Dr_Heech said:

There's some corkers in there @buler - especially love that second photo down, l've seen it before but that looks so much like a Late XX/early 506XX - and the guy wearing the shield shirt next to him.  Awesome image.

@Dr_Heech yes, I probably posted most or all of those on denimbro. I didn't save all of those. Should have.

[smoothsailor]

I like the look of the unbuttoned bodem and buttoned top. But I doubt those fellas where going for a “look”

could it be that it didn’t serve anything, to button up the bottom. Since they wore bibs or at least high rise pants. They wouldn’t get any warmer with the button buttoned. But on the the top you can gain something 

[willi]

36 minutes ago, smoothsailor said:

I like the look of the unbuttoned bodem and buttoned top. But I doubt those fellas where going for a “look”

could it be that it didn’t serve anything, to button up the bottom. Since they wore bibs or at least high rise pants. They wouldn’t get any warmer with the button buttoned. But on the the top you can gain something 

I would gamble that they were going for a look. I worked blue collar for 10 years before I went white collar. Everyone wore double knee carhartts and extra tuffs but we were very stylish. All of the most stylish guys I've known were from that time in my life. Something about truly collaborative work, being part of a team brings it out in guys. Just a hunch from me but I bet that's never changed. When guys get together we like to dress.

[Dr_Heech]

1942 Levis 501xx showing how beautiful the war denim is when faded, and the arcs look just like the pocket design on my FW1942's 😁 

Pics via Berberjin

 

[Dr_Heech]

Found this pic on lg by accident, and of course had to share. Shame it was the only image.

Vintage 501XX sz 32x33 made sometime between c.1940 until c.(April)1942 in Nos condition.  Click on image twice for clarity but it's the reverse yoke model which came after '1937' buckleback 501, but before the 1942 buckleback 501. Copper riveted on the two horse patch and also on the pocket flasher (dated 1937) and the guarantee ticket. First deadstock pair I've ever seen and a thing of beauty,  just wish there were more detailed shots of them.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:37 AM by Dr_Heech

[indigoeagle]

Do we know why the yoke was switchted around that time from right on top (like the 1937 versions) to left on top (which seems to have been the standard for all models afterwards at least the WWII models, 47s and 50s)?

[rbeck]

No clue how old it is but I snagged this vintage Rustler jacket yesterday for a song. I dig the slim fit, and it sits right where I like my jackets to. 

I really like the shade of blue and the wear it's got. Always loved the hand warmer pockets on these Rustlers too.

[Dr_Heech]

13 hours ago, indigoeagle said:

Do we know why the yoke was switchted around that time from right on top (like the 1937 versions) to left on top (which seems to have been the standard for all models afterwards at least the WWII models, 47s and 50s)?

There doesn't seem to be any reasons why they switched from right over left panels, to left over right panels on the back of the top block, if that's what you're asking? They seem to switch backwards and forwards over the period 1937- 42, which is strange considering only one factory before 1943.

The yoke, from underlapped to overlapped, and then back again, as l've just explained, changed in around 1940 and returned to normal in 1942. Nobody seems to know the reason for that change either.

 

 

Edited Monday at 04:22 AM by Dr_Heech

[indigoeagle]

1 hour ago, Dr_Heech said:

There doesn't seem to be any reasons why they switched from right over left panels, to left over right panels on the back of the top block, if that's what you're asking? They seem to switch backwards and forwards over the period 1937- 42, which is strange considering only one factory before 1943.

The yoke, from underlapped to overlapped, and then back again, as l've just explained, changed in around 1940 and returned to normal in 1942. Nobody seems to know the reason for that change either.

 

 

Ah, there were two switches?
I thought it was just one.
Or are there two versions for 1937 jeans: both right over left (what LVC, FW and TBC a.o. or doing) and also left over right?

1922 FW

1937 FW

 

1942 FW

1945 FW

 

1947 FW

1951 FW

 

 

[Dr_Heech]

Yes there were two different things happening, the yoke switch (as already described) And the switching of the left over right/right over left back panels.

The yoke switch around has now been roughly estimated c.1940- April 1942.

Whereas the back panels switch around several times between 1937 and 1942. I have a few images but they're on my defunct laptop unfortunately, of levis 501's made between 1937 and 1942 which show variation in the back panel set up. So in the examples you've shown of the FW models, the FW37 and the FW42's have both types of back panel set up you would expect to see within that time frame. It's one of those weird anomalies that l almost didn't want to accept as it was confusing the hell out me and l couldn't date it exactly 😁

Now l understand it is just a feature of that time frame with no real explanations as to why(?)

Maybe they were just experimenting with things as there were a few short lived experiments that didn't stay long, for example - the understitched rear belt loop which was a feature on pairs made in and around 1935/36, when the '1922' 501 was replaced by the '1937' model. We still don't know why or what that was all about but there's plenty of speculation. 

 

 

[indigoeagle]

Ah, thanks.
I didn't get it then. I thought the "layering" order of the panels is the yoke switch, but they are two things.

What is the yoke switch then?

Edited Monday at 10:46 AM by indigoeagle

[Dr_Heech]

1 hour ago, indigoeagle said:

Ah, thanks.
I didn't get it then. I thought the "layering" order of the panels is the yoke switch, but they are two things.

What is the yoke switch then?

Lvc 1937 at the bottom, Csf 1941 in the middle and FW42's at the top. Both the repro 37 and 42 models have the standard yoke set up, whereas the pair in the middle do not.

The standard yoke set up is what we are used to seeing on 501's made from December 1942 up until the present day which sees the bottom panels overlap the top ones, like on the lvc 37's and FW42's shown.

The non-standard yoke set up is the csf 1941 pair in the middle. It sees the top panels overlapping the lower ones, a feature which just about 99% of the denim pants manufacturers used in their jeans construction at the time, only levis waited until c.1940 to do it, then flipped it back c.April 1942. 

 

Hopefully cleared all that up now 🙃

 

Edited Monday at 11:55 AM by Dr_Heech
To sort image out!

[indigoeagle]

7 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

Hopefully cleared all that up now 🙃

 

Thanks 🙏
Got it now.

So we have left/right and top/bottom (yoke). Cool