Welcome back, Ned! I hope you and your wife had a terrific time! 
As for your question, I don't know. On the official website there are only "boyfriend" jeans in the women's corner. There are some on ebay, though.
I have one thing to add to the comparison: The leg from the knee downwards has a slimmer fit, almost like a slight taper.
I have one thing to add to the comparison: The leg from the knee downwards has a slimmer fit, almost like a slight taper.
that sounds really interesting, i like the idea of that
Now I'm confused about the 2003 cut... I picked up a new pair of STF 501's, with an 1107 date code. As I understand it, with that date code, these should be 2003-cut jeans. However, this pair has a double felled inseam and v-shaped rear pockets. To make things even more confusing, I found a pair of used 501's with an 1106(!) date code that also have a double felled inseam and v-shaped rear pockets. All the recent-vintage single-felled 501s I have date from early 2003 to late 2005 and have large squarish rear pockets. The new 1107 are still raw, so I can't say anything about their fit, but the used (1106) double-felled 501s do not fit like the single-felled 501's I have--the double felled 501's have a snugger fit.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Except for the new "501" waist band tag, these jeans could pass for the newest cut (mid-2008) 501's. Could it be that Levi's started to change to the newest fit as early as 2006?
Cam, your post confuses me, too! 
Is it possible that the snugger '03 jeans are irregulars? Jeans that turned out with an odd cut from the factory, with wrong parts put together (v-shaped pockets)? Seamstresses do have a difficult time as they may sew 501s for a few weeks, then making Nike sweatpants and another three weeks later they may sew for another brand.
I don't believe the two pair are irregulars. It's the double-felled inseam that confuses me most. It appears that Levi's switched from the single inseam to the double sometime in 2006. Same with the rear pockets, and, apparently, the overall fit.
Another thing--the rear pockets on these are higher and don't sit down on your hamstrings like they do on the single-felled 2003's.
Before I speculate any further, it would be nice to know if anyone has any single-felled 501's made after 2005, but before July, 2008.
STF have (almost) always been double felled in the inseam. the single was only a rare batch and quickly went back to double felled. pre-shrunk are single felled. this is my understanding at least
It's my understanding that the STF 2003-cut 501's (boxy top block, "anti-fit" seat, wide legs) are characterized by single stitched inseams and large squarish rear pockets. I was under the impression that this cut was produced from early 2003 to around May of 2008, when it was replaced by the new "universal" cut that is characterized by v-shaped rear pockets, double stitched inseams, and a slimmer fit. However, the 1106 and 1107 pair I have seem to contradict these time frames.
Unless someone has a better explanation, I'm going to assume that the "universal" cut was actually available in the US sometime in 2006, and that the "anti-fit" 2003-cut was a limited-time affair, available for only ~3 years.
What's more, there are, evidently, some minor year-to-year differences within the 2003-era 501's as well. I have 501's made in 2003 with blue stitching around the button holes, and 501's made in 2004 with gold stitching.
Too bad LS isn't any good at answering these sorts of questions.
It's the double-felled inseam that confuses me most. It appears that Levi's switched from the single inseam to the double sometime in 2006. Same with the rear pockets, and, apparently, the overall fit.Another thing--the rear pockets on these are higher and don't sit down on your hamstrings like they do on the single-felled 2003's.
I have seen pictures on ebay some time ago that clearly showed a 2003 model that had the smaller, v-shaped rear pockets, too (0194 dark stone, though).
As my only experience with the '03 model are studies of pictures on the net, some tried on pairs of (European) jeans and occasional visits to the Levi's store to have another look at them, I cannot say much. What I found out about the European models is that there are single and double felled inseams around as well es different coloured stitching on pockets and yoke seams. Anyway, this doesn't give a hint about US 501s.
What's more, there are, evidently, some minor year-to-year differences within the 2003-era 501's as well. I have 501's made in 2003 with blue stitching around the button holes, and 501's made in 2004 with gold stitching.
Let me make a guess here: There evidently have been a lot of complaints from long-time 501 customers after the change in fall of 2003. I reckon the complaints never stopped and gave LS&Co quite a hard time, having them make constant changes as to satisfy customers but still not to lose their face and go back to the beloved '93 cut. There may not be a clean changeover at all, the '03 model may have evolved over the time. I'd say the new, universal cut is clear evidence that the "anti-fit" was despised by customers, as it has been around for a mere five years. Look at the '84 and '93 model, which were essentially the same, this style has been for some 20 years around before a change.
Too bad LS isn't any good at answering these sorts of questions.
Exaxtly. Last week I found a job description on the net for a job at LS&Co's customer service. One does only have to have a basic interest in fashion. There is no knowledge of Levi's current or vintage products needed! 
test
I went to have a look at our European 501s today. To compare the '03s and '08s, I randomly took 34x32, folded and put them onto each other. I realised the leg width being identical from the knee downwards! Now that surprised me, as I have done the same a few weeks ago with 30x32s and the '03s leg was wider on the entire lenght. This confused me until my girlfriend (a tailor) explained to me that for larger waist sizes only the seat and thigh would be considerably wider, otherwise the lower leg would be too loose and the pants wouln't have a good shape.
As far as the pockets are concerned, over here the '08s did have the square back pockets as usually the '03s had. The styling is very radical, used, light fraying, the "dirty" look, very colourful stitching. The denim has the "stripy" look, an extreme version of the old, ring spun denim.
After further investigation, I've come to the conclusion that the 2003-2008 period is a mess. There seems to be no consistency among the various features of the 501 model during this period. Especially STF vs. pre-shrunk. I've found pre-shrunk 501's from 2006 that have single stitch inseams and a loose fit, but v-shaped pockets.
I've found pre-shrunk 501's from 2006 that have single stitch inseams and a loose fit, but v-shaped pockets.
So the '03 shrink-to-fit model has a tighter fit than the pre-washed? If I could rely on that, I could live with the big back pockets and try a pair. My girlfriend is willing to try STFs if the thigh isn't too tight, so I recommended the '03 model. After your post I'd rather let it be, though.
So the '03 shrink-to-fit model has a tighter fit than the pre-washed?
No, unfortunately, they both share the same loose fit. The difference I was pointing out in this specific pair of pre-shrunks was only in the style of the rear pockets--square versus v-shaped.
No, unfortunately, they both share the same loose fit.
Ah, I misunderstood you, Cam. (I probably wanted to, lol). I was just hoping for a difference between the STFs and the preshrunk models. The 2008 model shows differences, too.
The 2008 model shows differences, too.
In the fit or just the details? Because I want to get a pair of khaki 501's (pre-shrunk), but I want to be sure that they have the same slim fit as the '08 STF's (well, actually, '06, I believe now). I'd try them on and see for myself, but no store around here carries khaki 501's, so I'd have to order them online.
My '08 STF has the old, narrow belt loops that we all know. It seems that all the prewashed models do have the new, broader loops. There is a picture somewhere in this thread. Also, the watch pocket is sewn lopsided onto the preshrunks. These are minor appearance details. The striking thing are the back pockets. The STF's pockets are way longer than the preshrunk's! Now I was thinking that perhaps after the shrinking process the pockets will be shorter, so that's why they are longer first. But I don't think they will shrink that much and I have never seen such a difference in the '93 model. I'll provide some measurements if I find the time.
I cannot compare the fit as the soak will take place in warmer weather.
The forum here is great I have learned a lot about 501 XX's. I have been wearing them since the mid 90's and have noticed over the years how the cut and fit has slightly changed from time to time. I just purchased two new pairs one black and one blue. The black pair was made in Mexico and my normal size I buy in XX is 33, 32 these new black however are a bit longer even after shrinking I should have went with a 31 inseem, they were made in Mexico. The waist and seat fit great on the new black pair I will just have to cuff them when I wear them. I have yet to shrink my blue pair they were made in the Dominican Republic like my last blue pair.
Welcome jmkapla! Glad you are here!
Im lovin' my brand spanking new pair of 501 STF's and on a cursory glance, i can't help but be awed by how much they resemble the 1947 jean. Which brings me to the point i want to make about the ever changing style of the 501 STF jean. I mentioned in another post that i had no idea why i had lost my interest in 501 STF jeans back in the late 80's but now it is clear. Part of the reason was because of a taste aberration on my part - namely Marithe Francois Girbaud but the primary reason for 'gettin out' was due to the style of the 501's at the time. The fit was slim and the waist seemed too low. What irked me even more, however, was the placement and design of the rear pockets. They were way too small and placed too high up on the rear and the arcuates were not deep. The only reference i had at the time was the occasional photo of the vintage levi's that were hot in japan and this influence had somewhat filtered into Vancouver. I was not a denim head by any means but i knew what i liked. Flash forward 20 odd years and LS& Co have outdone themselves with a bang up job on their latest offering - huge, low slung pockets with a deep arcuate, straight, semi wide legs and opening. WONDERFUL!! One last word to you Ned: why dont you like all CAPS?
Having now a pair of preshunk 501s in the lightweight "dark aged", I can tell the difference between my new shrink to fits (no XX on the tag sadly and the preshrunks. The preshrunks seem to fit a little better in the rear, slightly higher and wider back pockets and a bit more fit in the theighs. The back yoke is also not as low on the preshrunks. I wish the STFs were like these except still maintain the thick denim
I am new on that excellent forum.
What I found out last days, unfortunately, levis 501 style can be different even in the same season.
I have 2 pairs of dark 501:
- Marlon, coded 501.0162 (rinsed dark indigo), 2010, size 32x34
- Med Dimension Dry, coded 501.0782 (dry, dark indigo), 2010, size 32x34
You can find both of them on eu.levi.com, bought in autorised Levi's store.
The different is in front pockets shapes and in coin pocket size (sic!).
Front pockets in 501.0782 are so tight and small for my big hands, where in 501.0162 are fine and comfortable.
Width of coin pocket in Med Dimensional Dry 501.0782 is 3,5 inch.
Width of coin pocket in Marlon 501.0162 is 4 inch.
To be honest with you, Levi's is unpredictible. They can not keep the same style, as they said they would do (both models based on 1947 edition).
I thought that every, each model is precisely described, specified in Levi's company in order to give specification for factories around the world.
PS. Sorry about my poor English...
I've worn button=fly 501's for years. But lately, they don't seem to fit as comfortably. Specifically, the inseam does not fit snugly against my crotch, but rides down an inch or so and chafes on my thighs. Has there been some change to the cut? Or is it just my mid-life changes that I'm feeling?
I dunno if this forum is still allive. But is it true that the old 501s were higher in the waist?
Because I just bought some brand new ones, and I wish they were higher. I have a hard time believing these were the kind of pants physical workers like gold miners used.
You must log in to post.
