Levis Vintage Clothing jeans sizing
Printed From: denimbro
Category: Denimbro
Forum Name: Brands
Forum Description: specifical
URL: http://www.denimbro.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=773
Printed Date: 26 Mar 2026 at 5:56pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Levis Vintage Clothing jeans sizing
Posted By: setterman
Subject: Levis Vintage Clothing jeans sizing
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 7:18am
|
Sizing has always been an adventure with LVC's jeans, and LVC threads have always been dominated by sizing questions. To attempt to cut down on questions, I'm starting a thread dedicated to just jean sizing. I'll start with the current models, and how we believe the actual waist measurement compares to the tagged measurement. If anyone has additional information to add, or corrections to make, please give them. Please remember, when purchasing raw LVC jeans, be sure to get the actual waist and inseam measurement from the seller. If they're unwilling to provided them, move along, there's plenty of retailers willing to check that for you, including any of Levis flagship stores in the US. Expect the waist to shrink up to 2", but generally it can easily be stretched back to the pre-wash measurement and even 1" beyond if need be. Expect the inseam to shrink 2 to 2 1/2" (this is down from the 3" of a couple years ago). Generally, your best, historically correct fit (for STF models), will come from buying a jean that's actual waist measurement is 1" bigger than your actual waist size. 1890 501XX (info needed) 1920s 201 waist is true to tagged size. 1922 501XX waist is 3" bigger than tagged size. 1933 501XX waist is 1" bigger than tagged size. 1937 501XX (info needed) 1944 S501XX waist is 1" bigger than tagged size. Jeans made 1 to 3 years ago, will be 3" over tagged size. 1947 501XX waist is true to tagged size, to 1" over. 1954 501ZXX waist is true to tagged size, to 1" over. 1955 501XX waist is true to tagged size to 1" over. Jeans made 2 or 3 year ago, will be 3" over tagged size. 1966 501 waist is 1" bigger than tagged. 1967 505 (sanforized) waist is true to tagged size. 1978 501 waist is 1" bigger than tagged size.
------------- I got a rocket in my pocket and roll in my jeans |
Replies:
Posted By: Maynard Fried-San
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 8:48am
|
1915 - I have 2 pairs, both of which the waist measures 4" bigger than tagged size. 1937 (from a few years ago) - on both the waist is/was 2" bigger than tagged. |
Posted By: Dr_Heech
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 10:10am
 Good idea setterman.
^Am away from my stash atm, but will contribute if I can.
My miniscule sizing-experience with Lvc runs with the stuff made in the old Levis factorys (555 and 554) so any help needed, shoot me a pm.
Damn those '22's are big.
|
Posted By: hoggreaser
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 2:38pm
|
Great concept thread. Perhaps also button code / guestimate year of manufacture would also be useful if people are posting their respective info. Anyway... my inconsequential input based on try on, but not purchase (Son of Stag, 2013): I am generally a size 34, waist actally measures 35" to 36" depending how fat I am on the day. LVC '44 size 33 button code 4170 - raw felt how I'd want it to fit post soak/wash, so I would say probably only +1" over tag. Felt smaller than raw tagged 33 FC1101 and FC0105. Apologies for useless info.
|
Posted By: Dr_Heech
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 11:46pm
Button codes 1996-2002 = 555 (The factory on Valencia street, San fransisco) 2002-2003 = 554 (San Antonio made: Last US owned Levi's factory) 2003-2004 = briefly: '643M', also 'R' (Taylor Toggs) 2005-2006 = BLANK (although some US only stuff still carried the 'R' for a year) 2007 = 233M ...? 2010 = 4170? If helpful. Setterman will know more. Oh and the 1915, 1917 and 1927 models all measure 3" over tagged size( e.g: size 34 measure 37", size 36 measure 39". |
pigswill wrote:Posted By: setterman
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2013 at 6:29pm
|
Didn't bother to add button codes because they're more confusing than the sizing (I have stuff from 2007 with 643 on the button Doc). Current production can be "337", "R" (on my '47s made within the past two years) and "4420" (on the most recent batch of '78s). 337 has been in use at least the past two years. ------------- I got a rocket in my pocket and roll in my jeans |
Posted By: hoggreaser
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 1:13am
| I thought this thread would have had much more uptake than it has. Where is everyone? There's been numerous talk of 'recent' LVC purchase. Slightly surprising given the LVC popularity on this forum. |
Posted By: setterman
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 6:11am
|
Honestly, all I'm looking for is confirmation on the current 1890 and 1937, and that's enough info. Would be a mess to try to compile sizing information for every model made by the different factories over the years. Just looking to create a foundation for people who want to buy models that are currently in production. You're looking to buy something older, you're on your own! ------------- I got a rocket in my pocket and roll in my jeans |
Posted By: erk
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 7:22am
| this is a good idea, but I don't know how much help this is actually going to offer since sizing tends to vary so much from season to season. my 1944s from this season were only 1" oversized. |
Posted By: setterman
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 7:38am
|
Thanks erk. It seems like they're moving everything to 1" over tagged (smart move). ------------- I got a rocket in my pocket and roll in my jeans |
Posted By: Dr_Heech
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 11:56am
| One day the tagged sizes will match the actual sizes. Fingers crossed. |
Posted By: Maynard Fried-San
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 11:58am
| The sizing is fine, they just put the wrong patches and tags on, honest! |
Posted By: Joseph Hill
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2013 at 8:19am
| I would think that it might be more important to know general shrinkage rather than typical over/under sizing, as you said most sellers will measure for you. My 201s didn't budge at all after a few washes (and even a short stint in the dryer once), but it seems other models are more like Shrinky Dinks. |
Posted By: jewellben
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2013 at 3:56am
|
Posted By: maxamillionmose
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2013 at 9:00am
|
setterman - Might be too little too late, but when i get back home to the U.S. around nov/dec I'd be happy to fill in the sizing info that's missing in your list. I will measure 1890s, 1937s, and pantaloons too. I have most year models in various years of production if you need anymore specs. from memory, I think the 1890s measure two inches above tagged waist size, and spot on to tagged length. a tagged 30x36 measures 32x36. I have several pairs and I also remember one or two pair coming up short in the inseam by 1/2" to full inch. So somewhere between 35 and 36" inseams. Hope that bit helps for now. I'll check in again when i'm back home. ------------- everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth |
Posted By: Rocket Russo
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2013 at 8:22pm
|
Hi Bro's, I am looking to grab a pair of LVC only buckle backs but am interested in a pair with a slimmer knee to hem. I was looking at the 37's on Cultizm which look to be a lil slimmer. Also any sizing help would be great as well. My 47's which were 18in flat are now 19in after a few weeks of wear. I am currently carrying a bit of a gut so not sure if thats going to play a part with a higher rise jean ------------- I live for Brooklyn but would die to protect her |
Posted By: maxamillionmose
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2013 at 8:34pm
|
^ you might like 1878 pantaloons. They are tapered with slim knees tapering down to a slimmer hem. They aren't for everyone, but they're one of my favorite jeans out there. you might be able to get away with a size 34 in them since they fit large. size 34 measures about 18 across the waist. ------------- everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth |
Posted By: indigo_eagle
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2013 at 1:31am
|
I would have mentioned the 1915s, too. They're slimmer than expected. Though, right, the 1878s are very slim. And the waist is huge. I got the 34s and they're too big for me. I'll sell if anyone is interested. But- I've already hot soaked them and I put some suspender buttons on. |
Posted By: Rocket Russo
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2013 at 8:11am
|
I'm not a fan of the 1878's, they require altering of silhouettes & looks which means spending more money. I need to stop wasting time and just buy one of the other years. ------------- I live for Brooklyn but would die to protect her |
Posted By: Denimetc
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 4:03am
|
Made a very impromptu purchase of the 1878 pantaloons as Levis outlet had them in sale for 50€. Got a size W31 rigid that is a bit loose in the waist unsoaked. Here are the pre-soak measurements for 31/36 Waist 16,5 inches (2 inches over the tagged size) Inseam 36 Front rise 12,5 Thigh 11,5 Knee 8,7 leg 7,4 I will update the post when I have done the first soak. One can discuss the authencity of 1878 but I got to say that they are really nice fit. The waist is so high that with a proper sizing they stay up nicely with only a cinch. Bit of a diaper look on my skinny backside though. ------------- Too much Denim - too little time... |
Posted By: killer b
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 4:06am
| yeah, they look pretty but the fit is a bit adventurous for me. I'd get a pair at €50 though! |
Posted By: Demonito
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2014 at 9:59pm
| Ok if in getting a ww2 what size should i look for? I wear a 34 on mr freedoms |
Posted By: maxamillionmose
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 9:57am
|
^ what sort of fit are you looking for in the 1944 501s? and are you a true 34? what does your waist measure where a pair of high rise 501s would sit? (the 1944 501 has a pretty high rise relative to the model years following it) And do you plan to wear them raw or shrink them from the get go? In my experience with mf jeans, most will end up right about at tagged size after shrinking, but because of the wide variety of deadstock denim used, some different lots of any respective jean will shrink more or less than even anticipated from design. So, depending on what you have, that's not too specific of a sizing reference for me to confidently give you an accurate enough recommendation. my waist measures at 31" where the 1944 501 sits. I have had two pairs. I had a pair of size 34 from a 2011 production run, that after aggressive shrinking, I was still swimming in, and then I got myself a pair of size 30, from a 2012 (i think) production run that I gave an initial warm soak get some shrinkage, and they fit nicely... waist right at a perfect relaxed fit (could have been tighter) roomy up top but no so roomy that they looked bad. They kind of have a loose sort of 'cowboy' silhouette on me comparable to mf buckaroos that are one size or more oversized and wouldn't shrink. Having said that, I recommend sizing down a size one to two sizes depending on how you want them to fit. ------------- everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth |
Posted By: Demonito
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 4:32pm
|
Yo im wearing a size 33 on the fullcount 1922, size 34 on the samurai s510xx And a size 34 on warehouse . I want a fitted top block bit with a straight leg silhoutte and yes will wear them raw. |
Posted By: Maynard Fried-San
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2017 at 8:28am
|
Anyone have any recent sizing experiences with the 1966s? ------------- Helixing my inner beanie |
Posted By: mybadgenes
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 12:33am
|
Do these measurements for LVC 1890 seem accurate on the Unionmade site? http://https://imgur.com/a/xB7yg" rel="nofollow - http://https://imgur.com/a/xB7yg I need waist 36 so was planning to buy tag size 36. However, after looking at this zi am thinking I should buy tag size 34? I am also writing to Unionmade. Not a lot of site have measurements for 1890. |
Posted By: mybadgenes
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 12:35am
|
Posted By: Denimetc
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 4:40am
|
They should shrink down to 36 in the first couple of washes/soaks. However, I don't know how consistent that shrinkage is. Also the fabric has been changing in recent models and they might have different shrinking characteristics. Always a gamble with LVC shrink to fits... ------------- Too much Denim - too little time... |
Posted By: Rhodes
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2019 at 8:34am
|
I am sorry to revive this thread but I have a question. I have a possibility of buying a 501 Levis Vintage Clothing 1915 or a 1917. Both are 34W. I am a 33/34 guy, my 33W normal levis 501 are tight, I am possibly now a 34, but my 34 501 is a bit large (possibly do to the model or cut). Do to the shrink to fit, I think that the W34 is right, but one post here says that the 1015 model is 4'' large then tag. |
Posted By: Maynard Fried-San
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2019 at 9:04am
|
My 1915s (from 2009 I think) were 4” larger than tagged. They were a size 30 and measured 34” raw. This may be an anomaly but I’d try to get the measurements before buying. Most of my other LVC models are size 32 and measure 34” raw, ie 2” over tagged size. ------------- Helixing my inner beanie |
Posted By: Rhodes
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2019 at 10:54am
|
Thank you. The 1917 model is 17'' +/-, 44cm wide, so a bit large for me. Only if with washes could shrink for my size, but I do not know. I bought a 1933 model 36W since I thought that it would shrink 2'' and so would be comfortable for me, but they still are large for me, so the reason of asking here for advice. |
Posted By: denimsince65
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2019 at 11:32am
|
501 sizing seems to become more of a nightmare as time goes on. Once upon a time, the "buy 2 inches up" seemed to be universal. And it worked. Sadly, not any more. This is exacerbated by some suppliers (Aero Leather comes to mind) who still offer the above advice on every pair of 501s they sell, even though it is bollox, and will guarantee a poor fit. I too, just like @Rhodes, have oversize 1933's for that reason. I get it that different batches of denim will shrink differently, but if uniform shrinkage cannot be assured, surely it is possible to add a care label with shrinkage advisories on each differing batch? Or, at least, tell your appointed retailers to stop giving spurious advice.... ------------- www.wabashtees.com |
Posted By: Denimetc
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 11:29am
|
I always used to buy rigid LVC that was tagged as my measured waist (W32). They were 1-2 sizes too big but the rationale was that they shrank to the tagged size after the first couple washes. I was pretty succesfull wit that. Recently bought a pair of new "one Wash" 1947 501's and they're perfect for me. Don't know if they measured and tagged after the "wash" or ... btw those are my first new pair of LVC's in years and have to say that I am pleasently surprised by the fabric and fit. ------------- Too much Denim - too little time... |
Posted By: bartlebyyphonics
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 11:35am
|
Hey: sorry: meant to reply the 1915 I have (which was bought last year) is tagged 36w and soaked, washed twice and worn measures 47cm flat (i.e. around 37" waist) have bought quite a few tagged 36 waist lvc in the last year, and all are in varying degrees shrinking but happily stretching to just over 36 (or more than - the '15 is prob. the baggiest) yet, yes yes, the earliest versions I have (first jeans & 201s) very much shrunk from tagged 38 waist to a 36 and seem to have stayed there... I think lvc has tried to have it that the current set ends up settling to the tagged waist, but aeroL's advice does not reflect that... also: happy to take a pair of errant 36w / 1933 off ppls hands...
|
Posted By: Bosstime
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2019 at 12:47pm
|
Hi Guys, This week i grabbed myself a first pair of Rigid LVC, a 1954 501XX. I already have a 76 and 54 pre-washed and i have those in a size 33. Good size for my legs and around the backpockets a 32 would be better i think but they wouldn’t fit around my waist. So i took the advice and went with a size 34 to size up. I shrunk them this morning and everything went well.. a great piece of raw denim! But i think a size 33 would have been better around my backpocket area.. there is some piece of denim just around there. In my waist it fits good, not to tight but a size 33 will be to small i think.. and in the length the are good as well. Is there something i can do to shrink them a tad more and ruin the raw denim proces? Already thanks i’m a newbie but i will stay cause i truly love Levi’s |
Posted By: Rhodes
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 4:08am
|
Halo, how are you guys? I bought new a LVC 501 1976 model, 33/32 tag, but I think it runs 1'' over, because it feels like a 34/33. I didn't wash it yet, so it could shrink to tag size. My dough is taking a bath with them or not.
 |
Posted By: Maynard Fried-San
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 4:41am
|
That sounds about right to me Rhodes as LVC generally shrink to tag size. ------------- Helixing my inner beanie |
Posted By: robroy
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 6:28am
| I’d say tagged waist size. The inseam is always a bit of a guess depending how hot a soak. And the waist can stretch back out where I’ve never gained back any length. |