cheers ollie

someone needs to design them a proper website
http://yellowrat.blogspot.co.uk

Oliver, what is the rear rise on those 32's that you ordered? I'd definitely consider a pair if the rear rise was adequate enough. I tried a pair of the recent LVC 519's and the rear rise is disappointingly short.

I just measured and unless I'm doing something wrong, I got 11.5" on the front rise, which is far better than LVC - old or new. Strangely, they doesn't feel that high though. They're obviously pre-shrunk so I don't expect much if any shrinkage but I'm going to hand wash in cold water and air dry to be safe. The actual measurements are reading more impressively in real life than the website's chart.

If the LVC bedfords are the typical five-pockets, the measurements fall short of Yellow Rat. See the size chart for current production here: http://www.endclothing.co.uk/sale/levi-s-vintage-clothing-519-bedford-pant-51860-0016.html

I used to own the original 519's and liked them a lot but the rise was still only 11.25" on the first reissues so these still fare slightly better. I also dig the non-riveted understated look of the Yellow Rats more. No ornamental stitching on the rear pockets (which also aren't as large as the LVCs) they're a more subdued look which I think is a lot cooler. The measurements still fall a touch short of what I like but in all fairness, the guy claims they're a near identical replica of the 1963 White Levi's in fit, so I'm guessing the cut was similar even back then. I'd just prefer an extra half an inch. I think the 33's should solve that without compromising in other areas.

I'm a bit confused by the sizing chart for those YR 5 pockets - e.g. Size 33 shows a waist size of 35", size 34 waist size 36" etc.....

I was also told over the phone that the sizes jump incrementally by 0.5 of an inch.

If 32 measures 16.5" than 33" should measure 17" (with at least a half inch stretch due to the nature of the fabric).

17" x 2 = 34"

So waist would seem to measure one inch above the tagged size.


EDIT: I re-measured from the rear seam to side seam (rather than just folding in half and running the tape across the side) and 32 measures a solid 17" so 32 = 34.

By that logic...

33 = 35"

34 = 36"

35 = 37"

36 = 38"


Makes sense to me; what's your issue with those numbers?

Last edited by Oliver (2015-03-31 15:21:12)

Ugh, I'm a rock in a hard place with these pants! I want to try them out, but I have a 30" waist and I know that the rise of the 30's will be far too short. Might be worth it to try the 32's and if the rise is adequate, just bring in the waist.

It still bewilders me that there are SO few sources for casual pants - be it 5 pockets or something else - with a high rise and tapered leg.

The only thing I don't understand is why the rise fluctuates from size to size rather than remaining constant. Only negative point against these pants. If the size 33-34 rise were standard across the board, these would be thee five pockets to own and a forum favourite/classic for sure!