Jump to content
johnmc

Vintage Denim?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Duke Mantee said:

I think it’s a very sound theory - logical

Thanks bud. It's been a long time coming. Had the details nailed down for a while (plenty more pairs seen but not photo worthy) Only saw those first deadstock pair the other day with that feature so very helpful in rough dating. Just added some more info about the 1942 ticket (and pocket flasher).

Only the one pic showing the inside bartack position which is slightly higher but better than those miniscule pics from the 501XX book. 

Edited by Dr_Heech
..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, unders said:

@Dr_Heech I’ve been thinking why Levis would stitch the belt loop under like that. The best I can come up with is maybe, for a while, they (either some machinists or the whole firm?) thought it would be stronger and give some support for the cinch when tucked through the loop (per some of your photos). Almost like a seat for the cinch. Would explain why it’s that loop alone.

Probably talking out of my arse, but it’s the best I got :blush:

Ps, I picked up the Ed Cray book a few weeks ago after seeing it you recommend it to another forum member. Brilliant stuff. 

Yeah you're probably right about that mate. Wonder if it was a customer led thing like the hidden rivets? Think it was a brief experimental thing (only one factory making 501's at that time), may have not even lasted more than a year but who knows for sure(?)

Yeah that Ed Cray book is great for early stuff (pre 1900) and lots of info on quality control issues in the 1960's and the depression era stuff. Great value read, nice pick up.

Edited by Dr_Heech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unders said:

@Dr_Heech I’ve been thinking why Levis would stitch the belt loop under like that. The best I can come up with is maybe, for a while, they (either some machinists or the whole firm?) thought it would be stronger and give some support for the cinch when tucked through the loop (per some of your photos). Almost like a seat for the cinch. Would explain why it’s that loop alone.

The discussion I had with some of my Japanese friends was that almost exactly - more space for the cinch and/or belt.

Re the Guarantee Ticket, is it possible to match one with each major development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Duke Mantee said:

Re the Guarantee Ticket, is it possible to match one with each major development?

Bit of a grey area l guess as the oldest unwashed pair with a guarantee ticket seem to be made after 1928. But it makes sense that they were following (at that time) the dating on the tickets going on from 1873. In 1922, when they added the belt loops, they either kept the "F/o 35 years" ticket on the jeans until 1927 or put "F/o 50 years" ticket on but without the 1927 copyright date in the left hand corner (?)

Is that what you meant?

 

 

Edited by Dr_Heech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dr_Heech I was think more along the lines of does each ‘For Over (insert years)’ more or less match each step forward in the 501. I think it’s vaguely approximate so I’m wondering what made you focus on the 1922/27 ticket? I’m glad you did because I’ve always felt the history/timeline has unnecessary gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Duke Mantee said:

@Dr_Heech I was think more along the lines of does each ‘For Over (insert years)’ more or less match each step forward in the 501. I think it’s vaguely approximate so I’m wondering what made you focus on the 1922/27 ticket? I’m glad you did because I’ve always felt the history/timeline has unnecessary gaps.

The only reason l was focussed on the 22/27 ticket was first and foremost because of my obsession/interest in the first belt loop model. But those ds pair with the weird loop gives us a date or timeframe to work within. 1942 is roughly F/o 70 years for definite, so F/o 60 must be 1932 at the earliest.

What gaps in their timeline/history do you find unecessary in particular?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps unnecessary wasn’t the best choice of word but certainly I think turn of the century is in flux (as you’ve pointed out) and when you track the changes that give more definitive dates (belt loops, red tab, leather patch etc) it seems that it’s always slightly out of sync with the guarantee ticket. Your original focus was on a change that was maybe 5 years out (1922/1927), but that got me thinking about was is an acceptable time difference between a change/addition v. the guarantee ticket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here’s the NRA code cover and sample text Doc was using to triangulate dates - November 17, 1933

46071632-8CDB-4343-99F5-CE88ACC115A0.jpeg

Edited by Duke Mantee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the registration of the red tab as a trade mark - Levi’s themselves saying it has been in use from September 1936

BEAEE34E-0ACD-4520-8CE0-B121AE99A54C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And an example of the type of change (and therefore to me a gap or disconnect) in the timeline where this guarantee ticket from 1966 changes the ‘Patented May 20th 1873’ to ‘Since 1850’ immediately changing all the ‘For Over XX Years’

4477D7C8-1BBC-47CF-A84A-81EFEC2FFE8C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In the 501XX book it states that the starting date of Ls & co 'changed' from 1872 to 1853, hence "F/o 100 yrs" and "F/o 110 yrs" are off date wise.

Also from 1937 onwards, most (but not all) are pairs that have the guarantee ticket and a dated pocket flasher, so not too much hopping around. More connected.

Edited by Dr_Heech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I’ve got that bit out of the book - but there’s still dates of 1872, 1873, 1950 and 1953.

I’m just trying to join the dots about the changes and trying to understand the logic of the guarantee ticket dates ... not something I’d paid an awful lot of attention to until now, apart from that little query tucked away in the recesses of my tiny brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 2:58 AM, Dr_Heech said:

Bit of a grey area l guess as the oldest unwashed pair with a guarantee ticket seem to be made after 1928. But it makes sense that they were following (at that time) the dating on the tickets going on from 1873. In 1922, when they added the belt loops, they either kept the "F/o 35 years" ticket on the jeans until 1927 or put "F/o 50 years" ticket on but without the 1927 copyright date in the left hand corner (?)

Is that what you meant?

 

 

Is there a F/O 40  and  F/O 45 year ticket out there? The best evidence we found so far- for XX starting in 1876, is when we found a crispy/perfect guarantee ticket in a 1896 trash dump (with only 1896 newsprint) this ticket had F/O 20 years…Jump ahead to a 1914 article that showed a guarantee ticket with F/O 35 years (this still fits with the 1876 XX time line) then we have in LD book a guarantee ticket with F/O 35 year, but now without the linen thread and Amoskeag denim…We know now that in 1915- Levi changed over to Cone denim and no more linen thread…In my time line, 1916 should be the year they switch to F/O 40 years and if they are still on a accurate count, in 1922 they should go to for over 45 year…So when and where the years get wonky is not known to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I think we’re agreed upon is that at some point in the early 20th century (possibly pre-1920), Levi’s found a hole in the space-time continuum or broke the speed of light and slowed down time. Or sped it up. Or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We can’t rule out this possibility^^^
I took a look at the page before, I didn’t see a 40 or 45 ticket, and the deadstock 30’s pair with over 50 years is definitely off in the time line I lay out…I’ll ask a Japanese friend of mine that’s seen  a little bit of everything, I’ll ask if he’s seen a 40 or 45 ticket.

A F/O 17 year ticket surfaced  a year ago- this fits my theory that the XX changed its pocket bag stamp in 1893 to say for over 17 years the standard…and now we have a ticket to go along with that- who knows, when we get another 60 tons of rock moved on our 6 year project- I hope to have more answers.

Edited by Sansome1877

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my friend has seen both 40 and for over 45, but he hasn’t seen that many- he’s seen a bunch of over 50.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sansome1877 said:

So my friend has seen both 40 and for over 45, but he hasn’t seen that many- he’s seen a bunch of over 50.

 

Has your friend ever seen a "For over 50 years " without the 1927 copyright?

Never seen a For over 40 or 45 years, wonder why they haven't surfaced more often??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Dr_Heech said:

Has your friend ever seen a "For over 50 years " without the 1927 copyright?

Never seen a For over 40 or 45 years, wonder why they haven't surfaced more often??

I suppose it’s one of those things, why anyone from that time period kept the ticket Vs just throwing it into the trash is a head scratcher…It sounds like an unusual amount of for over 50 years tickets- it might suggest that’s when the first flub in the timeline was?

Edited by Sansome1877

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet there might be a for over 50 year without the copyright date, shouldn’t it be for over 50 years on my timeline- so 1926 should be when it changes to F/O 50

great depression comes along and Levi says F it and runs with the F/O 50 for 10 years? Who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sansome1877 said:

I bet there might be a for over 50 year without the copyright date, shouldn’t it be for over 50 years on my timeline- so 1926 should be when it changes to F/O 50

great depression comes along and Levi says F it and runs with the F/O 50 for 10 years? Who knows

I think my original point was to try and nail down the weird back belt loop model 501, when it was made at least.  The presence of the "F/o 60 years " on that deadstock pair with that belt loop feature at least nails it down roughly (in a Levis dating system kinda way). I know from visual research that it occurred after the Levis registered trademark patent of 1928 but before the Nra era, when supposedly all Levis garments sported an NRA tag . Speaking to a couple of Japanese denim collectors l'm reassuringly told early 30's. 

The trouble is after the depression Levis slowed down production from c.1930-33 and amassed a large amount of completed garments (this was to keep people employed until the recovery of the economy amongst other things). It supposedly took a few years to shift it all too until the dude ranch thing really took off. 

As far as l'm aware, the oldest unwashed pairs of vintage Levis 501's were all manufactured after 1928, don't suppose you know of any collectors who can beat that date-wise?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I hear, 2 years ago a 20’s deadstock with tags showed up in Pakistan- it was in a bail and sold fo something like 30 something K, now that I think about it, probably more like 4-5 years ago. Never got a chance to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.4848974bfb8e4086f55b7af7de11761d.png

 

26 year ticket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.7332110efbf3c1d01d13729446544207.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, buler said:

image.thumb.png.7332110efbf3c1d01d13729446544207.png

Another thing I’ve overlooked, but I have no doubt the old archivist knew about this- so is this the copyright being made in 1926, and are the claims that the oil ticket has been in continuous use since 1892- are these claims being made in 1926? If the claims are true and everyone thought the first ticket had F/O 20 years…This could be the main reason why it’s thought that XX started in 1873

But now throw in the 17 year ticket, this now puts its start date to 1875/76?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Had these jeans since the early 1990's, they belong to the gf, Mrs_Heech. 

Back then l was a thriftermaniac when it came to old Levis, so a brief encounter with a second hand vintage clothing shop in Oxford (it was a college art galleries trip from Cheltenham) found me these. They were marked at 20 quid. I offered 15 and the deal was done. Obviously they weren't 501's; Looked more like a lady's cut but saw the 2 tone stitch, big E and gripper zipper so thought eff it. Later on showed them to the gf and she tried them on; perfect fit everywhere but the waist was too big. At the time she was a fashion student and was pretty handy with sewing machines (which was ideal for me with my barrage of trashed Levis to repair :D) so unpicked them in preparation for taking them-in at the waist. But the trouble was that the sewing machines at college weren't industrial enough so the idea was shelved. Later on a small square, about an inch by an inch and a half, was cut out at the top back of the jean to repair another pair of dark 501's at the time. Later 2 of the back (extra on this model) belt loops were liberated, for why l have no idea. They have been in a bag under a wardrobe ever since.

Took them out for photos thinking they were deadstock, as they are so dark and they still have the white cotton stitching on the waistband from the tag, but now l can see that they were briefly worn.

They have details typical of the late 1960's imo. Number 8 top button, later nylon big E tab (black with red letters), single stitch waistband with V stitch and corresponding, albeit small, L stitch. Gripper zipper so pre 1969, 2 tone stitch throughout and the number 8 behind the button. No rivets but that olive-green/black bartacking stitch on the pocket corners, front and back. Also there's a stamp on the pocket-bag (?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

20210515_135900.jpg

20210515_135952.jpg

20210515_140021.jpg

20210515_140038.jpg

20210515_140044.jpg

20210515_140112.jpg

20210515_140121.jpg

20210515_140146.jpg

20210515_140308.jpg

20210515_140355.jpg

20210515_140530.jpg

20210515_140550.jpg

20210515_140625.jpg

20210515_140719.jpg

20210515_140731.jpg

20210515_140806.jpg

20210515_140827.jpg

20210515_140924.jpg

20210515_141002.jpg

20210515_141029.jpg

20210515_140937.jpg

Edited by Dr_Heech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^Recently learned that these are called Levis 606 'Superslims', a ladies cut from c.1967-73. They were a replacement for the jacron- patched ladies super slim model 341N fron c.1958-66.

With it's batwing Levis design on the pocket flasher, this NOS pair is from c.1973.

 

 

20210515_064241.jpg

Edited by Dr_Heech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beautiful specimen dr. heech, and kind of scarce, especially with the single needle inseam and 501 style outer seam (how is that construction called btw?) and that black tag. a predecessor of the orange tab line, that feature double felted in and outseam simple bar tacks.  I just wonder what makes your sure those 606s are ladies jeans rather than unisex fit? over the years on from 2003 they had been part of both men and women LVC collection every now and than. these were the jeans young folks would have worn in the 60s before, along with the famous 646 and 607, bell bottoms become state of the denim art... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sympathy-For-The-Denim said:

beautiful specimen dr. heech, and kind of scarce, especially with the single needle inseam and 501 style outer seam (how is that construction called btw?) and that black tag. a predecessor of the orange tab line, that feature double felted in and outseam simple bar tacks.  I just wonder what makes your sure those 606s are ladies jeans rather than unisex fit? over the years on from 2003 they had been part of both men and women LVC collection every now and than. these were the jeans young folks would have worn in the 60s before, along with the famous 646 and 607, bell bottoms become state of the denim art... 

Thanks sympathy. 

The seam is called a busted seam I believe (?)

You're probably right about that unisex element - neither the 351N or the 606 state ladies cut. My conclusion came from trying them on and finding little room for the old meat and veg (hey it's not an exact science) so there you go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now