or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › ***The official LVC thread***
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

***The official LVC thread*** - Page 65

post #961 of 1162
Are the 33s the most baggy of the pants?
post #962 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by forex View Post

I like the fit of 66 after soak, If 47 is too slim, it may not work for me. 66 was too baggy before soak but has shrunk a good amount. I don't want too slim of a fit.

66 is tapered. Roughly the hem is about the same size as the 47, but the 47 is much tighter above the knee. Perhaps the 54? 54 is also tapered, but slimmer than the 66. Sizing up with the 54 you may get what you want.
post #963 of 1162
I'd agree w/ this.^^ I've been of the opinion that the 54 or 66 is the "slimmest" cut per se, while the undersizing of the '47 makes it traditionally the tightest fit (if you can understand the difference of what I'm trying to express).
post #964 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by gululv View Post

Are the 33s the most baggy of the pants?

37´s are baggier. The even earlier models are generally even baggier (eg early 201´s, the late 1800s models). Love the 33s, very antifit and light weight denim, my favourite summer pants for the last 7 years or so.
post #965 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperBobo View Post

37´s are baggier. The even earlier models are generally even baggier (eg early 201´s, the late 1800s models). Love the 33s, very antifit and light weight denim, my favourite summer pants for the last 7 years or so.

Given this I always thought it was funny that the 1878 Pantaloon was such a slim & tapered fit; especially seeing has how the denim overalls as they were called, were literally worn over the work pant. However, I do have to note that the 1878 was never originally released, but rather created for LVC from an archival pattern that was found.

Speaking of slim LVC fits, we recently got the 1978 501 in the shop (little "e" red tab, sulfur as opposed to nat. indigo dye, slight taper) and I'm still trying to figure out how much I really like them. At first they were a little weird because I wasn't used to seeing the hairy cone mills/sulfur dye combo (though I'm not sure if LVC uses nat. indigo dye at all anymore?), but i must admit, they're growing on me quite a bit.
post #966 of 1162
IS there any online retailer that has reliable measurements of a good selection of LVC? I know Unionmade has some, but they aren't super helpful and in fact a couple seem off--the hem of the '67 505 for example. (please correct me if I'm wrong).

thanks in advance.

EDIT: I meant '67 505
post #967 of 1162

Can anyone tell me how LVC 605 jeans fit compared to Levis 510 or 511? I usually wear a 33 waist 

post #968 of 1162
This thread languishes...

Anyone have first hand experience w/ the hemming/tailoring service at the Levis' Union Sq. store in SF (in the LVC section)? Curious...
post #969 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboy_oboy View Post

This thread languishes...
Anyone have first hand experience w/ the hemming/tailoring service at the Levis' Union Sq. store in SF (in the LVC section)? Curious...

I'd be completely confident going to LVC for hemming. You'd think (hope) that the people who make the product would know best practice...
post #970 of 1162

I recently came to possess a pair of 1947 501 STF in 33w38l. They have only been hot soaked, and they shrunk down to about a 30"w36"l. Right now, I can get into them fine, and they fit perfectly (except for the length). Since they were just soaked and would seem to be at their smallest, would it be advisable to get the next size down to accommodate stretching, or should I keep them as is?

post #971 of 1162
^ depending on how hot/long that soak was, they will likey shrink a bit more w/ the next couple soaks. not as much as the first, but they will shrink. Also, stretch happens more the tighter they are...
post #972 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by JugglEvan View Post

I recently came to possess a pair of 1947 501 STF in 33w38l. They have only been hot soaked, and they shrunk down to about a 30"w36"l. Right now, I can get into them fine, and they fit perfectly (except for the length). Since they were just soaked and would seem to be at their smallest, would it be advisable to get the next size down to accommodate stretching, or should I keep them as is?

 

did you happen to measure the 33w before the soak.  i had heard to allow for 2 inch, but 3 sure sounds like a lot

post #973 of 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by dusttruffle View Post

did you happen to measure the 33w before the soak.  i had heard to allow for 2 inch, but 3 sure sounds like a lot

I purchased them from someone who bought a tagged size 33x38 (didn't measure actual) and hot soaked them and they got too small for them and just were put into storage. I did my own additional hot soak and then tried them on.

 

Also, at its current "30 inch waist", it stretches well enough to fit my ~32" waist perfectly when worn at proper rise height. The 30" is measured without me pulling on the waistband at all.

post #974 of 1162
Anyone with evo pics? I'm thinking it's time to retire my 47s for upcoming cold and they only just now showing wear.

Really tough pair of jeans and i've grown to love the fit, and i'm interested in seeing how some of your pairs' progress.
post #975 of 1162
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › ***The official LVC thread***