The Twisted Truth: Leg Twist

Superfuture reader maxbit posted the following question: I just bought my first pair of vintage Levi's 501 jeans. They fit perfectly, with one caveat: The jeans seam twists on one side. So much so that the side sam is in the front at the bottom of the right side. I'm just curious what causes this and more importantly, are there any fixes?

Although maxit doesn't like the look, many do. 
AS the look of vintage jeans has become more prized, so has the phenomenon of leg twist - a property of older twill fabrics that was originally seen as a drawback or irritation. 

Pre -70s jeans suffer from Leg Twist, to differing degrees. Leg Twist is simply a natural adjustment of the fabric, which tends to follow the direction of the weave as the fabric moves or shrinks after washing. Stefano Aldighieri, who was Director of Fabric & Finishing at LS&Co. explains it thus: “Levi’s denim were mostly right hand twills; the twill line rises to the right. During the weaving process you basically ‘force’ the fabric to be straight, perpendicular to the selvage, but at the same time you give it this direction in the construction. You lay and cut the fabric; in the early days LS&Co. patterns were cut straight along the selvage. When you wash the garments, the fabric will try to follow the direction of the weave and will pull in that direction.... hence the twisted legs, the result of the movement of the fabric. Because Lee started to use left hand weave denims, their legs would twist the other way.” 

As Stefano points out, Leg Twist is much more noticeable on jeans than on other fabrics because of the construction, with the selvage edge used on the outseam. 

Leg Twist was eliminated in the 1970s by skewing (which contorts denim to its after-wash shape) - and later revived with Levi’s Red and Engineered twisted seams jeans!

What's intriguing abut Leg Twist is that is seems to vary so much between different examples of vintage jeans. I've seen it more often on early 1970s Levi's - although, of course, I've worn more original '70s Levi's and, sadly, only one original pair of '50s. Some vintage jeans have marginal leg twist, but on the odd example, you can have the seam on the left leg rotate so it's almost on the front of the jean. So what are the variables that would cause leg twist, some but not all of the time? I asked Ralph Tharpe, who oversaw the development of many of Cone's finest fabrics and now oversees the Artistic Fabric Mills in the US, what causes so much variation in leg twist. 

"That's a good question. I think partly it has to do with the type of seam that's sewn on the inside. I think the way the jean is sewn when the operator is sewing the jean, when she sews up the right leg and down the left, if she's pulling too hard coming down the left, then she's accentuating what the fabric want to do and making the skew worse. It can be really, really bad. 

"I also have another theory, which I've never been able to prove. When I started working at White Oak I was in the quality area, and we were grading loomstate denm. They had a defect they call long sides. Long sided means one side of the denim was stretching out or was longer than the other. Maybe this was something wrong with the loom, maybe the crank arms weren't adjusted exactly the same on both sides, so the pick is going in slightly at an angle. If that were the case, and again this is totally theory, than if that were the case the skew the fabric wants to move to would be really accentuated. On the other hand, if the pick is in the opposite direction it would be reducing the skew. Anyway - it's just a theory."

So, leg twist is a product both of fabric movement, and the garment construction. 

I didn't ask Ralph whether it's possible to alter jeans after they're sewn to eliminate the leg twist as, in practical terms, it's impossible. You just have to live with it, taking comfort from the fact it's a mark of cool, old jeans. 

When my LVC '47, both pairs, started showing heavy leg twist  after their first wash, I was pleased. But plenty of people will comment that I'm twisted already.

How to size 1947 and 1955 Levi's 501... for Julian

1947 501, tagged 34, on the left, 1955 501 tagged 32 on the right. The waists have shrunk/stretched to similar sizes, but the 1955 jeans, as you can see, are still more generous around the seat.

Over at the superfuture website, I and the 1947 501 have become a standing joke; because there have been periods when I get one PM a day asking how to size them. Today, a friend who is blissfully free of SuFu asked about sizing the 1947, so I thought I'd return to the subject.

It's pretty simple. For the 1947 501, size up by one inch, going by measured size rather than tag size (because a pair of 1947 tagged 32 might come out a different size, depending on when it was produced). So if you're buying online, get your seller to measure the jeans by putting them flat, stretching them a little so that both front and back line up. For the 1947, that measurement, raw and unwashed, needs to be one inch bigger than the actual measurement of jeans that fit you well around the waist.

Levi's recommend you to size up by one 'size', ie two inches. But one inch is better for most models, as it allows for the jeans shrinking two inches in the wash - but it also accounts for one inch of stretch.

That's it. Some people obsess about how you shrink your 47 before you wear them - but most methods end up the same, after a wash or two. For mild shrinking, cold soak briefly; for maximum shrinking, put them through the washer, inside out, no soap, at 95 celsius. (Don't put them in the dryer, it will leach out resins and take some indigo with it). Don't add salt; don't add vinegar. Save those for your fish and chips, they have no effect on denim. 

For 1955 501, the issue is pretty different. The '55 is a distinctly different cut; it has more of a shoulder beneath the waistband, more generous thighs, and most crucially, it's bigger across the seat. Hence for the 1955, you should buy your actual waist size; then once you've soaked the jeans either put a piece of wood in the waistband as it dries, wear the jeans as they dry, or be prepared for a tight waist for the first couple of days of wear. Doing so will give you a classic, vintage fit. Buying actual size in the 1947 won't normally work because the thighs  and seat will be too tight.

The difference between the sizing for both pairs shows some of the subtleties of jeans design. The 47 and 55 are classic cuts (some people reckon LVC's take on the 1947 exaggerates the slimness of the 47, but no matter) which serve as a model, or shorthand, for countless pairs. Hence I know my Studio D'Artisan 103XX are a 47 cut - slimmer thighs, a straight line down from the waistband, whereas other models, like some classic Sugar Cane, have that higher rise, and that distinctive shoulder associated with the 55.

My main pairs came 34 raw (for the 1947) and 32 raw (for the 55). Compare them side by side and you'll see how, despite being nominally smaller, the 1955, on the right, is actually bulkier despite having a waist that started out slightly smaller.

What this photo doesn't really show is the difference in denim between the two pairs - both on the LVC reproductions, with denim made by Cone, and on the original. For fabric nerds, the two manifestations of the denim are as distinct as the shape. 


What about other Levi's? That's a story for another day; eventually I'll transfer all the info I've written on the evolution of the 501 design, and fitting,  to this site. For the time being, bear in mind that LVC models from 1901 and earlier use Japanese denim, made by Kurabo, rather than the American Cone denim, used for the models from 1915 on (2017 update - many earlier repros now use specially-developed Cone fabric). . The Japanese denim shrinks less. Ah well, time to check my SuperFuture inbox.