I like that pair anyway.  Compared to the earlier, Valencia St versions.  The arcuate is definately more representitive of those early models for a start (also the originals only has three fly buttons, not four I believe).  I think overall, the 1873 model has improved gradually over the years  

Here's a pair from 1998, notice the shallower arc.

 

 

 

 

 And what are the various released version of this model- a raw natural indigo version from both 1998 and 2007, a washed version from 2000 (pictured below) and was there a raw synthetic indigo release from 1999 or 2000? That sounds familiar…

There was also a distressed wash around 99/2000 and another like the one you have pictured, from the same time with the patches, but some of them were tan leather or corduroy I think?

 

Just noticed the 2006 ones you posted haven't got the flattened rivets like the 1998 ones.

 

As a side note, gave my '47s another wash today hoping they'd lose another inch in inseam.  No such luck, they're stalled out at 32" (tagged 34).  I guess I'm going to have to pay to have them hemmed.  

I just stared at the patch for some twenty minutes, whilst some 'expert' told me how the patch was reproduced from several scraps which came from several pairs.. etc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I didn't buy them in the end, as when I returned to the shop two weeks later, I was swayed by the release of the '33 model, and the added safety of beltloops). 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Bob, We'll get to the '33 eventually, but for now any thoughts on the 1873?  What did you think when it was first released?

This is the Calico jean, until the Nevada jean this was apparently the oldest denim pant Levi's had in their archive. The image is from pabloTs book. Levi's dated this at about 1890.

This is the boys duck pant that Levi's had in their archive at that time. (photo from BOON vintage) Levis dated this at around 1880.

LVC 1873 model is based on the Calico (the oldest levi pant the designers had seen in 1998, when this was created) with details walked backward in time based on other garments (like the tag from the boys duck pant) and documentation of other details.

Or so I understand it. Si or no, Sansome?

The 2007 LVC 1873s. The fit seems exactly the same as the 1890- I have one of each in the same size, I'll measure them and compare tomorrow.

The point of this thread is to discuss how accurate the various models are, but for the 1873 that isn't really possible, as this isn't really a repro. It's more of an educated guess what a 1873 Levi's denim pant might have looked like based on later models.

 How close might it be? Until someone documents a 1873 Levi's jean and posts really good pictures of the details, impossible to say.

 

 I'm not sure what the far left duck pant is, but starting with the second one in from the left- "1873 watch pocket, then a 1873-74 watch pocket, far right watch pocket from early 1891."

 The LVC 1873 pant, modeled after a archived c.1890 pant, does not have the correct small coin pocket riveted up on the waist band.

1873 crotch stitch (right) and 1891 crotch stitch (left). The LVC 1873 has the later stitching, where the stitching does not go under the rivet, as in the earlier pant.

1873 cinch strap (above) and 1891 cinch strap (below). The LVC 1873 has the later detailing with larger cinch base and rivet.

There are some more details Sansome sent me, but the gist is that the details of the LVC 1873 match that of a Levi pant from around 1890, as Sansome said earlier.

You're entirely welcome.

 So close!

 Maybe next year?

My Lvc '1890' repros from 2005 have hammered rivets that just say L.S.& co, would those details be accurate to 1893--- ? 

Sorry, they say L.S & Co - S.F. and they have the thinner dashes in between.  Here's a pic -

 

 

Yes, the 2005 edition had these rivets, hammered at time of manufacture, with 'inpure' nickle metal suspender buttons (actually they look like they just had a splash of enamel paint applied) -

 

 

Beautifull details, especially the pocket arc -

 

 

The two-horse patch would've had the 'Lot 501XX W/L' underneath the 'Every garment guaranteed' or not? 

 

 

Watch pocket is lower than waistband -

 

 

And the waistband is a two-piece with no selvedge -

 

 

 

The kurabo denim is a slightly greener cast than other editions.  Tagged 34/36, measures 36/36.

 

 

Fyi my 1890's also have blueline selvedge

 

 

Leather washer on inside of back pocket rivets and right front pocket side seam connection ONLY.

Half selvedge outseam. Front part has selvedge, rear section is overlock stitched, though the rear section also has the black guide line at the proper distance from the sewn edge.

 

 

 

Really great thread Mike.

So, let me get this straight : The 2010 duck pant (without the yoke) is more accurate of the 1873 original - the massive pair you mentioned pictured in 'The Jeans' Vol 1 (Jap denim bible c.'96), and the 2000 duck pant is based on the childs pair from the archives?

 

 

Probably harder to define an exact time when those details were used?

 

The duck coat -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(now sold)

 

  I think I asked Sansome about these models and he said IIRC that he's never found recognizable pieces of any garments similar to these.

 He's in the desert now, but maybe his campsite will have cell reception. If not I'm sure he'll elucidate when he gets back home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The repro vest from 2001 is rare, I've only seen three on ebay since they were made.

Here's one, shame it's a small (comes with the book too) -

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130814814832?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649" rel="nofollow - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/130814814832?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

 

 

 

Attack, I can totally empathise with you.  No shame - happens to us all, I may also be putting a few things up for sale after chrimbo, including the duck stuff, just so's I can pay the bills :(

 

Here's a pic of the collar -

 

 

Both pockets have the arcs -

 

 

 

 

 

 

IIRC the one pocket denim version of this popover (1880/1890?) has the label placed half on the collar, unlike this one - not sure which is correct without looking at pics of the originals.

 If It wasn't labeled such, I would have thought it was a rigid LVC repro. All of the details of the original that you can see are exactly like the repro. Looks like practically deadstock.

 Eerily good repro.

I don't remember all of the details, but IIRC the seller was from Japan, the jacket was identified as a Levi's jacket, and it sold to the United States. I suspect it went to Levi's, as LVC released a version of this in 2011. The rivet fronts on this jacket were blank, I believe the leather tag was illegible. 

This garment or one very like it was being sold in 1879- these images are from a 1879 catalog that Nonriveted and Sansome have images from.

This was made in a small batch (I hear 110) last year from the special duck LVC had Cone make up to match the Hunting jacket they have in their archive. They also used this on the no-yoke 1873 duck pant batch and on the 1901 duck jumpers from three years ago.

 The sew on buttons are nice, and are actually sewn on securely for a change. Some distinct differences from the LVC Japan 1874 duck jacket pictured here earlier in pocket placement, collar shape, front seams, and overall cut. The cut of this one is more like the 1873 jacket- a wide torso with room to fill the interior game pouches, and very short sleeves (to keep your cuffs farther away from the blood?) as opposed to the trimmer, longer sleeved LVCJ variant.

 I suspect the LVC prime jacket is probably closer to what an original would look like, but the LVCJ version is a much better modern cut and very wearable.

 

What do you suppose the mini-pockets were intended for on the above jacket?  They seem rather specialized (and important enough to have two of them).

cigs

 The Knapave has details that agree with the Harris's oldest Levi's, whereas the "Oldest Oldest" looks like it would fall somewhere later than the "Knapave" model but earlier than the LVC 1890.

 Or so I think.

 Nonriveted & Sansome- take it away!

Have to remember the time and place this garment would have been worn.  How, and what time of year we hunt today wouldn't apply, because hunting seasons are a 20th Century invention.  When this garment was worn, if game was needed, it was shot.  And I assume it primarily would have been worn in very western states like CA, NV, AZ, NM (warm more often than cold).  And the people buying it didn't have the money to afford multiple purpose built hunting garments like today.  When we look at it today, we see a garment best suited to hunting grouse, quail, rabbits, and ducks. But it's owner back then would have worn it for hunting anything.  Also remember, big game (deer, bear, moose, elk) were hunted differently back then.  The standing hunting we do now in the east has only come into vogue in the past 20 to 30 years.  Before that, you were on the ground, putting on drives with a group of guys, and in some places using dogs for certain game like bear.  I don't think they had the cover in the American west to hunt quite that way, but they would have gone out in groups (not the romanticized single or pair of hunters we see in old ammunition and firearms posters).  They would need to get close to their prey (less than 200 yards, preferably within 100), but being quiet clothing wouldn't have the emphasis put on it today (that's mostly for archery hunters anyways).  All that being said, those two little pockets wouldn't be used to carry anything precious or that your life depended on since they don't have a flap to secure them.  Best bet is they were used to carry a tobacco pouch (whether chewing or smoking).