Hey all!
I'm planning a post coming up that will be a round up or summary of how the cut and style of the jean has changed over the years and especially more recently. It's pretty easy to find historic info about them, especially because of the LVC line, but the newer changes are a bit harder to track. Please help me out if you have any info about changes to the jean style/cloth/manufacturing within the last 10 or 20 years. Thanks!
Here are the changes in fit and style of the 501 as far as I know. Ignored are the pre-1978 jeans (all LVCs and original big E), simply because I am most interested in the 1980ies to 1990ies period and one can even learn from ebay about vintage 501s easily. Please note that this information has been gathered from years of research and personal experience and it may not be correct.
1978 to 1983/84 (probably 1985): It may have to do with the switch from selvage to non-selvage (1983). I only heard about a change in fit. I never had my hands on a pair from this period. But I think LS&Co used black bar tacking and single felled inseam until 1985, so I am not sure about that.
1993: Again, I only read about this change in fit (relyable source, though). The thigh got wider or tighter, I believe it got wider, as I once had late-80ies 501s that had a trimmer fit. There might have been even a slight difference in fit between the European and US models, I cannot confirm this, though.
2003: The anti-fit. Lower waist line, especially in the back. Looser thigh and bigger leg opening. Larger front pocket openings, larger back pockets. Different watch pocket design. Different batwing design on back pockets, sewn with a brighter thread. There have been used single and double felled inseams, I don't know when they used what as I don't have much experience with the post-2003 model and European and American models differ. Perhaps Steve has an answer here.
2008: Trimmer fit. Trim thigh, man, they fit like 517s now! The change happened sometimes in summer. This has been confirmed by a saleswoman in a Levi's store (Austira) and Steve wrote about it somewhere in the comments section. It has to do with the "501 unbuttoned" campain and I heard that the 501's cut is the same worldwide. I have two pairs from July '08, the prewashed one has broader belt loops, the STF has the usual ones. I don't know why, in Austrian stores some had wide loops, some not.
Thanks for the info Klaus, that certainly gets me started. I just got a new pair of 501's but i don't think they are the new 2008/2009 fit which is supposed to be similar to the 1947's. They feel about the same but are unsoaked. Have you ever been able to buy vintage raw denim or has it always been soaked before you got it?
Have a look at the inside tag, the four-digit number should tell you the production date (e.g. 0305 is March 2005).
I once had an LVC 1901 501XX. I bought the NWT and shrunk them in the tub, but put them on the line for drying. They were 9 or 9.5 oz denim if I am right.
So apparently mine are 0608 which i bet is before the style change. I think they aren't making the 38's in small waist sizes in the new ones, just from what inventories I've seen online.
I tried on the 2003-mid2008 style 501s today. The fit is awful, I haven't missed much in these five years....The best fit still is the 90ies fit, IMO, the new, slim cut is okay, too. I'd say if you wear the new 501s true to your body size (without letting them hang low), the thigh can be a little tight, though.
In a post from me on the blog page of the site I mentioned the 4 digit manufacturing date, as well as the care tag changing mid-08. My two most recent pair, dated 0508 and 0708 both show the new care instructions of machine wash Cold, tumble dry Medium. All my prior pairs show wash Hot, dry Hot. My guess is the care tags changed with the construction/fit change. And Ned, you might check Amazon.com for your size, as they sell STF from multiple Internet stores.
So it seems that the change in cut happened with May 2008 production dates or earlier...
What a pleasure to stumble on to this site and forum! Great articles and a nice FAQ, Ned!
I wanted to carry on a bit with what Klaus had to say about the different post-selvage 501 cuts. I don't have any hard data to support any of this either, it's all just anecdotal.
~'85 to '93? (post-selvage) cut: Overall, a slim cut. Tapers through the thigh to the knee, then straight to the cuff. Cuff opening 8" (shrunk).
~ 93 to mid-2003 cut: Try as I might, I can't distinguish any difference between this cut and its immediate predecessor. V-shaped rear pockets with shallow arcuates. Cuff opening 8" (shrunk). I consider this cut to be the best fitting jean ever made! Wish this one was still being produced. 
~ 2003 to mid-2008: Slouchy, boxy fit. Fuller seat. Large square-shaped rear pockets with deep arcuates. Wider throughout entire leg. More of a constant gradual taper from thigh through the knee to the cuff. Cuff opening 8.75" (shrunk). On my slimmer frame, this cut looks very poor. The legs drape off me like two concrete forming tubes. However, the fuller size, overall, of this cut is more accommodating to downsizing. I've had passable results downsizing this jean to get narrower legs, but it's still not a fit I would go out in.
~ mid-2008 to present ('47-inspired, "universal cut"): Still not sure that this isn't just a rumor, so I went out and bought two new pair at the ranch store that have the features that conform to what I'm hearing about the new cut. I plan to shrink them this weekend. I'll have more to say about them after that. Here are some photos of the new jeans.
http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47backtagsjh4.jpg
This photo shows the new retail tags. Might be useful for those trying to make a positive ID on this cut. The paper "shrink-to-fit" tag is a new color. The clinging strip with the repeating jean size has also changed. Rear pocket style is unchanged from '03 version.
http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47waisttagnb1.jpg
New tag in waistband.
http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47caretagsv5.jpg
New care tag. Date is 0808. I also found 0708's with the same new tags, but I decided to buy the newest pairs I could find.
http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=patchesni7.jpg
Left: New patch / Right: '03 Patch. New patches don't have XX. However, the 0708 pair I just mentioned did have the XX. There are size differences in the "TRADE", "MARK" and "SAN FRANCISCO, CAL." letters.
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=inseamsuc4.jpg
Left: New double stitch inseam / Right: Single stitch '03 Inseam.
Great post Cam! thanks so much for the kind words and the great info! I too have a pair of the new universal cut but still haven't shrunk them. so far they don't seem too different to me, but that all changes with the shrink! Let us know how it goes, and welcome to the forum!
Welcome, Cam! What a great, great post! Thanks a lot for the info! 
The selvage jeans ran until 1983, this makes me believe that the change happened in '84. Maybe not. I had a pair from the late 80ies or early 90ies. They fit a little slimmer than the ones I bought later on, but they were bought used from a friend and were my only pair from this period, so I cannot say if they all fit like this pair.
I consider this cut to be the best fitting jean ever made! Wish this one was still being produced. [:(]
These could have been my words. I totally agree.
The new "1947" cut: According to LS&Co, the "XX" on the tag will be disconinued. They will use leftover tags with the "501XX", so some may still have them.
Thank you for the pictures, too. Single/double felled inseams did change repeatedly, Steven wrote that somewhere in the blog. I thought the back pockets from '03-mid-'08 were a little bigger than the recent. The yoke seems to be not as high, either.
A good way to see the differences in cut is to fold the jeans in half and put them together at the waistband (same sized jeans, of course).
Cam, do you know anything about the student fit 501s? 
Thanks for the warm welcome and additional information, guys!
I gave my new(0808) 501's their first soak and dry last night, and they're definitely a new cut. With just an initial soak, the legs are significantly slimmer than the legs of a well worn and laundered pair of '03's, and even narrower than a well-worn pair of '93's! Compared to the '03's, the rear has been lifted, with pockets placed closer to the bottom of a much narrower yoke. On the '03's, the rear pockets are so large and low that the bottom of the pockets line up with the crotch! On the '84's, '93's, and the new cut, the bottom of the rear pockets is two or more inches above the crotch. I hadn't noticed before, but the pockets have returned to the smaller shape and size of the '93 pockets, even though they retain the deep '03 arcuates. The 03's had a relatively short rise that tended to exacerbate its looser legs by pulling the crotch in and creating a sort of bow-legged effect. The new cut appears to have elongated the rise, creating a lower crotch that seemingly eliminates this effect. It's still a bit early to give the new cut my stamp of approval, but in the early stages, things look very promising.
@Klaus -- Unfortunately, I don't know anything regarding the specific cut of the student fit 501's. I used to wear them as a boy, referring to them as 701's (are these the same thing?). I've also run across a few pairs in the thrift stores. To tell you the truth, I always thought that 701 was just a designation for a 501 below a 30" waist, but now I see that my assumption was probably incorrect because there is an overlap in the standard 501 and student fit waist sizes. Is this fit no longer in production? I'm sorry I don't have any info on these.
On the other hand, I got a bit obsessed today and decided to scrutinize my '84 (post-selvage) and '93 501's to find the differences between the two cuts. I think you're right, Klaus, the 93's appear to have been eased a bit in the legs. Also, the rear of the 80's cut is fuller and lower (much thicker yoke) than the '93 cut. The length of the rises, however, are the same.
I did a little measuring on the back pocket sizes. The mid-'08s and '93s have the same pockets size (shrunk finishes). The 0708 STF has much longer back pockets, about half an inch and is out of proportion, but I think that they calculated the shrinking process and pockets will be quite different afterwards.
Cam, your post is again valuable information. Thanks! The student fit seems to be a slightly slimmer fit 501. Yes, sizes do overlap, that made me frown at first, too. And sometimes they apparently called the jeans 501 and at other times 701. I'll try to get my hands on this cut to see what's the deal. Same with the '84/post-selvage model, if I find a decent pair I can make a comparison.
Inspired by Cam's photos I made some pictures myself, I hope posting them will work. 
First, a minor detail: The '84s and '93s have blue threat around the button holes, the '08s used orange threads. And the new ones have a more yellow arcuate, watch pocket top stitching, belt loop, fly and hip stitching.
I tried on a pair of '07s in the store yesterday, they don't fit me very well and I am really happy to have skipped this model. The low back pockets don't look too good, the lower leg is very wide, it's almost like wearing boot cut jeans as opposed to the '93 model.
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn287/mufi3/PICT0097.jpg
Here you can see that my 0708 stonewashed (most right) have wider belt loops (15mm). Sorry about the metric measurements...The 0708 STF has the usual ones, as the middle one, which is a mid-90ies model and has 10mm loops, too.
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn287/mufi3/PICT0098.jpg
Watch pocket comparison (from left to right): 0708 STF, 0708 stonewashed, 2000 STF, mid-90ies STF. The '93 model had a straight, spade-like watch pocket, then, around '00 they changed it to a more V-shaped one, but still kept the same cut of the jeans. The new ones are like the V-shaped, too. The stonewashed 501 has put the watch pocket lopsided, my guess is that albeit the US shop and paper tags, they were European/Asian issued or irregulars - more hints are the wide loops, the cardboard tag which is 10mm shorter (!) than the usual, lower set arcutate and 31 1/2 inseam (should be a 32" - probable shrunk too much).
great posts guys!
Klaus, I noticed also in your photos the difference between the bar tacking on the belt loops as well. It looks like again the STF's have the more rugged construction.
Ned, I had a look at the bar tacking on the loops, the prewashed one's is a little less then the STF's. I mailed LS&Co about the differences yesterday, let's see what the (hopefully) say.
There's no point in asking LS&Co about anything. I got a response that didn't even come close to what I asked.
Looking on ebay for the new cut didn't bring me anywhere. I found a store where the owner sells dozens of 501 each and every day, but she doesn't even know that the cut has changed. She is very kind and called LS&Co and here's a summary of what they told her:
Start of 2004: The seat got wider.
In 2007: The leg opening got bigger as Americans have got bigger feet!? (Oh my God!)
There is NO new, slimmer cut.
I'm lost for words. Are there only idiots working there? This again show that places like this forum are so important to exchange information.
yeah and it would be way easier for them to just publish this info instead of us all guessing and working it out from our own experience and observation. there is clearly a demand for such info!
There is a demand for such info, Ned, and a need, I would say! Imagine being an owner of a clothing company. You change the cut and fit of your flagship product, which is known all over the world, without telling. I would never do that in respect of my customers and of course from an economical standpoint. LS&Co take their success for granted, but they shouldn't forget that even the most loyal customers one day'll have enough.
I can somewhat understand why LS would want to keep this sort of information close to their vest. I suspect that 99% of the folks who wear 501s in this country have no clue that LS plays with the fit every decade or so. It's difficult to predict what the public's reaction would be if changes to the 501 were broadly publicized. However, given LS's tenuous position in the marketplace these days, it's hard to see widespread publicity of these changes as being anything but a lose-lose situation for LS. Either the announcement is greeted with apathy, suggesting a desperate attempt by a rapidly fading brand to stay relevant, or, worse, profitable, or else things snowball into the kind of widespread backlash that alienates loyal and potentially new customers alike--think, "New Coke".
Cam, these are valid points. But not publishing fit changes and not giving proper information when specifically asked about them by single customers is a different thing.
Here are some back pocket pictures, the lady who sells 501s on ebay sent them to me. She really got into the fit change thing, being worried about giving wrong information about the jeans to her customers. She took the pictures and measurements. Pocket width at top, pocket side lenght and top of pocket to tip of spade. All measurements in centimeters as she is German, the jeans are prewashed ones. 1 inch = 2,54 cm
Here is a picture of the 2003 to mid-2008 style:
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn287/mufi3/researchblackold2.jpg
And here are the new back pockets, looking great again:
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn287/mufi3/researchbluenew5.jpg
The measured jeans' size was a 33 waist.
It's good that the pocket flasher changed, this will make it easier to distinguish the different models for ebay buyers. At the moment the new design is almost impossible to find on ebay, though.
Cam, these are valid points. But not publishing fit changes and not giving proper information when specifically asked about them by single customers is a different thing.
I agree. LS should be able to give accurate answers to simple questions about their jeans.
It's interesting to compare the arcuates on the rear pockets and note how they have become progressively deeper over the past three decades. In the 70's and early 80's they were almost horizontal. In the late 80's they started to sink. In the 90's they deepened. And in 2000's they've fallen to a true "v".
I've seen some European arcuates and they were radical! Some are so low on the pockets that the pockets almost seem bare. And a lot of the 501s over here don't have denim fabric, it's somehow woolly. The stitching is rather colourful, being almost red and neon yellow on some models.
And a lot of the 501s over here don't have denim fabric, it's somehow woolly. The stitching is rather colourful, being almost red and neon yellow on some models.[8O]
The 501 model seems to be a radical, youth oriented model over here. Mind that I don't go looking into our stores, maybe a few times a year a look at our Levi's models only to regret it afterwards. You'd have a hard time looking for rinsed or stonewashed "classics", they are all artificially aged, painted, treated, destroyed. The way I described the fabric is inaccurate, it isn't wool, of course, but it looks somehow like the thicker, wooly dress pants my grandfather used to wear. The stitching is done in the weird colours I described, sometimes the thread is thicker, like thin wool, especially on the arcuates. The familiar copper/orange thread isn't used too much, looking at some pockets, they look like children's jeans with very colourful orange, yellow and white arcuates, with a little "glittery" look. There is a regular fit jeans model which could be had in normal colours, but the 501 styling is extreme. There might be some more decent washes in some stores, but they are the minority.
Here is a picture of men's and women's 501s. The stonewashed is the women's model, both pairs are from 2000, Mexican made and their actual measurements are 29x31. The women's pair has a higher rise and slightly wider hips and thighs, but nothing earth shattering. (jeans are folded and put together exactly at the waistline)
When putting on the women's 501, as an experienced wearer of the '93 cut I recongnize the difference, but it really isn't that much. From an objective standpoint it fits probably even better since I have athletic thighs.
The 501 model seems to be a radical, youth oriented model over here. Mind that I don't go looking into our stores, maybe a few times a year a look at our Levi's models only to regret it afterwards. You'd have a hard time looking for rinsed or stonewashed "classics", they are all artificially aged, painted, treated, destroyed. The way I described the fabric is inaccurate, it isn't wool, of course, but it looks somehow like the thicker, wooly dress pants my grandfather used to wear. The stitching is done in the weird colours I described, sometimes the thread is thicker, like thin wool, especially on the arcuates. The familiar copper/orange thread isn't used too much, looking at some pockets, they look like children's jeans with very colourful orange, yellow and white arcuates, with a little "glittery" look. There is a regular fit jeans model which could be had in normal colours, but the 501 styling is extreme. There might be some more decent washes in some stores, but they are the minority.
What you describe about these jeans is too radical/trendy for me as well. I don't care for those exotic details. Some of the back pockets on those European Levi's look downright goofy, especially the super-long pockets. And what is with the watch pocket being placed above the waistband seam? Strange. I also don't want anything beyond a rinsed indigo look when it comes to new jeans. I prefer to naturally fade and distress my jeans. Actually, I'm starting to form a real aversion to strategically distressed denim. Even wiskering and localized fading that is 100% natural is starting to feel affected. In fact, with my newest pair of STF's, I've decided not to wear them in their semi-raw state for a prolonged period of time as one normally would to produce those sorts of wear elements. Instead, I'm going to wash these jeans more frequently to produce more subdued fading.
Nevertheless, it does appear that at least a few European and Japanese models are available in passable finishes, and, I have to admit, those jeans really intrigue me. If they weren't so pricey, I'd satisfy my curiosity by importing some of them.
Here is a picture of men's and women's 501s. The stonewashed is the women's model, both pairs are from 2000, Mexican made and their actual measurements are 29x31. The women's pair has a higher rise and slightly wider hips and thighs, but nothing earth shattering. (jeans are folded and put together exactly at the waistline)
When putting on the women's 501, as an experienced wearer of the '93 cut I recongnize the difference, but it really isn't that much. From an objective standpoint it fits probably even better since I have athletic thighs.
Thanks for the comparison. I've been curious about this for some time.
Some of the back pockets on those European Levi's look downright goofy, especially the super-long pockets. And what is with the watch pocket being placed above the waistband seam?
Yeah, they can be seen everywhere, they seem to be popular as a lot of guys wear them. I admit to be rather a traditionalist, but when a garment's function is affected by styling, why would anybody like to wear it. What I have in mind are back pockets on the thighs, low waistband so the lower back is exposed to wind in winter etc. This doesn't make any sense to me, as in the first place we people wear clothes to be protected from the elements. 
I also don't want anything beyond a rinsed indigo look when it comes to new jeans.
For me stonewashed jeans are acceptable, too. I have liked them always, as long as they are an even, factory produced fade. I'm sometimes too 80ies, I know. There is something wrong about artifically fade jeans, in my opinion. It's somehow like betraying the guys who wear their jeans for years to get them that way. I really hate the finishes with whiskers, sandblasted thighs and butts or even green (!) overdye. This is too extreme for me.
Instead, I'm going to wash these jeans more frequently to produce more subdued fading.
That's what I do. I prefer a more subtle, less contrasted fading on my jeans.
Nevertheless, it does appear that at least a few European and Japanese models are available in passable finishes, and, I have to admit, those jeans really intrigue me. If they weren't so pricey, I'd satisfy my curiosity by importing some of them.
I had a look at the Japanese models, too. Some are okay looking, I couldn't understand what the text said, though. 
If you are interested in something specific from Europe I perhaps will be able to get it for you.
Thanks for the comparison. I've been curious about this for some time.
...when a garment's function is affected by styling, why would anybody like to wear it. What I have in mind are back pockets on the thighs, low waistband so the lower back is exposed to wind in winter etc. This doesn't make any sense to me, as in the first place we people wear clothes to be protected from the elements. [:?]
Exactly.
If you are interested in something specific from Europe I perhaps will be able to get it for you.
Thank you for the offer. Unfortunately, they really are too expensive for me at the moment.
thanks for the comparison photos! are women's 501's still sold new? we were at the store the other day and didn't see any. I have a feeling this is a ebay only kind of thing.
You must log in to post.
