Why do some jean brands have their labels at the waist?

[wisernow]

Not all but several jeans like Levi's, have their label on the waistline. They also have loops for a belt.

I assume the label is supposed to remain visible.

If one wears a belt then the label gets hidden under the it.

Why put a label at such a location? Or am I not supposed to wear a belt? I don't think the latter is correct because we do have wide belts that are suitable only for the big loops on jeans.

[Bijou Drains]

I've seen cases where the belt goes under the label.

[mhendo]

Why not have them at the waist?

I can't claim to know exactly what the manufacturers were thinking, but i quite like the fact that i can wear a pair of jeans without being forced to advertise to the world what brand i'm wearing. I generally prefer my clothing to have no visible labels at all, because when i pay for a shirt or a pair of pants, i shouldn't be obliged to act as a walking billboard for the company that i've just given my money to. If Levis moved that large rectangular label to a more visible place, i would be unlikely to buy the product.

Also, it's not like Levis have no visible label at all. My pairs of Levis jeans all have a small red tab on the back right pocket that identifies the brand. It's small enough to be unobtrusive, so it doesn't worry me too much. I've thought about cutting it off before, but have never bothered.

As Bijou Drains says, i have also had pairs of Levis in the past where the belt could go under the label, although i never wore it that way. On my current pairs, you can't do this.

[TheChileanBlob]

A slight hijack: When I was in elementary school in the 1970s, there was a rumor that Levi's would give you a free pair of jeans for 100 Levi's tabs. You had to protect your butt at all times or someone would would stick a pencil through the tab and rip it off. I lost mine at a chorus rehearsal when I was trapped on the risers and couldn't defend it.

[Infovore]

Regarding Levi's labels, I always wondered why they advertise the size (length and waist size) right there on the label. Naturally this doesn't occur on women's Levi's, but it does on men's. Do men just not care? I'm assuming they don't, because I see plenty of them around (including those in rather large sizes). I would think that large men wouldn't be any more interested in having their waist size announced to the world than women would, but maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry for the hijack--just always been curious about this.

[mhendo]

Well, it seems to me that the label is somewhat moot. If you're a large man, people can probably see that, whether or not the label is visible.

also, as this recent thread suggests, many men simply don't care that much if the world knows what size they are.

[Harmonious Discord]

I don't want the label visible. It can go under the belt or inside the pants to hide it and I'd be happy.

[obfusciatrist]

Originally Posted by winterhawk11

Sorry for the hijack--just always been curious about this.

I don't care. You can tell I'm fat by looking at me. If you're interested enough in whether I'm a 44 inch waste fat or a 40 makes no difference to me but if you spend that much time trying to read my butt I may take it the wrong way and assume you're interested.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by winterhawk11

Regarding Levi's labels, I always wondered why they advertise the size (length and waist size) right there on the label. Naturally this doesn't occur on women's Levi's, but it does on men's. Do men just not care? I'm assuming they don't, because I see plenty of them around (including those in rather large sizes). I would think that large men wouldn't be any more interested in having their waist size announced to the world than women would, but maybe I'm wrong.

What obfusciatrist said. You can see I'm fat by looking at me. What difference does it make what the exact measurement is?

Do women really go around looking at the size labels on other people's clothes? Why do they care?

[This_Just_In...]

Originally Posted by winterhawk11

Regarding Levi's labels, I always wondered why they advertise the size (length and waist size) right there on the label. Naturally this doesn't occur on women's Levi's, but it does on men's. Do men just not care? I'm assuming they don't, because I see plenty of them around (including those in rather large sizes). I would think that large men wouldn't be any more interested in having their waist size announced to the world than women would, but maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry for the hijack--just always been curious about this.

Its so that when I'm in the store and remember I could use a new pair of pants I can check my size by twisting my neck around and looking down.

Much better than having to drop my pants in front of everyone.

As far as anyone else seeing it - I've never really worry about it.

[Maggie the Ocelot]

Re: the OP:

Also, not everyone wears a belt. If your pants fit properly, you really don't need one.

[flano1]

yeah. what they all said.

I can never remember what my current size in anything is.

I am a male chasing down 57 years but I still think that I am 27 y.o; tall and lean, of course.

Even my feet seem to have got fatter. ( or the sneaky shoe manufacturers have changed their sizes without telling me).

I am constantly asking my SO, " Will this fit me?". Her reply is usually a snort of derision.

[Apex Rogers]

Originally Posted by Oni no Maggie

Re: the OP:

Also, not everyone wears a belt. If your pants fit properly, you really don't need one.

If fashion is of no concern. Sometimes a belt can add to an outfit.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by winterhawk11

Regarding Levi's labels, I always wondered why they advertise the size (length and waist size) right there on the label. Naturally this doesn't occur on women's Levi's, but it does on men's. Do men just not care? I'm assuming they don't, because I see plenty of them around (including those in rather large sizes). I would think that large men wouldn't be any more interested in having their waist size announced to the world than women would, but maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry for the hijack--just always been curious about this.

Normally, we just don't care. I can't speak for overweight guys, but I imagine they realize that it's already quite evident that they're big, and that they're wearing Levi's, and someone seeing the numbers isn't going to change that. It's not like an onlooker's going to specifically look for it, and then, seeing it, say to themselves, "Well! I thought for sure this was a 44-waist pair, but whaddya know it's only 40. This man must not be quite as fat as I thought." Another factor might be that the vast majority of younger men never wear tucked shirts with any kind of jeans, so where the label is, is irrelevant. Finally, the most important factor in the case of Levi's may be tradition. Until the 1930s or so (IIRC), they had no belt loops at all; instead, there were suspender buttons of much the same styling and appearance of the closure at the top of the fly. Occasionally in very old movies you'll see someone wearing Levi's like that.

Notwithstanding all that, I do remember a Seinfeld episode in which Jerry had needed to go up a size in the waist. Since this troubled him, he somehow effaced the original number on the patch and wrote in his old size. Remember, though, it was a show about nothing, and in the very first scene ever between him and George Costanza, they discussed the comparative importance of the third and second shirt buttons.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by wisernow

Not all but several jeans like Levi's, have their label on the waistline. They also have loops for a belt.

I assume the label is supposed to remain visible.

Only until the customer buys them. After that, the jeans company doesn't care.

[Countrypolitan]

Originally Posted by Oni no Maggie

Re: the OP:

Also, not everyone wears a belt. If your pants fit properly, you really don't need one.

If you're all hips, no waist like me, then one is mandatory or your pants fall down.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by TheChileanBlob

I lost mine at a chorus rehearsal when I was trapped on the risers and couldn't defend it.

Yeah, I lost mine at band camp.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Only until the customer buys them. After that, the jeans company doesn't care.

I've been buying Lucky brand jeans for several years, and I notice that the leather patch is a lot easier to remove than the one on Levi's. (Or at least, based on the Levi's I owned years ago.) That's not to say it will fall off in the wash, but it would be a lot easier to remove, if I wished to.

[Chronos]

Also, not everyone wears a belt. If your pants fit properly, you really don't need one.

But then how would I carry the holsters for my utility tool and cell phone? You don't expect me to go out in public not fully equipped, do you?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Finally, the most important factor in the case of Levi's may be tradition. Until the 1930s or so (IIRC), they had no belt loops at all; instead, there were suspender buttons of much the same styling and appearance of the closure at the top of the fly. Occasionally in very old movies you'll see someone wearing Levi's like that.

To elaborate on this, remember that Levi's were the first of their kind. Other companies like Lee, which emulated the originals, would naturally tend to follow suit. Wrangler is an exception, since they put their patch on the back pocket.

For an amusing description of the famous Levi's patch, search Google Books for Ruggles Of Red Gap, written in 1914. It's believed to be the first description in literature of:

...the placard he had allowed to remain on the waistband of his overalls, boastfully alleging their indestructibility, my sympathies flew back to Mrs. Effie. There was a cartoon emblazoned on this placard, depicting the futile efforts of two teams of stout horses, each attached to a leg of the garment, to wrench it in twain.

The speaker is Ruggles himself, a sort of family butler or valet, bemoaning the the attire of Cousin Egbert, who's gone out West and more or less gone native. I demurred from mentioning this earlier, but on reconsideration I think it's the actual answer to the OP.

(Keep in mind that 'overalls', specifically waist overalls, was the terminology used by Levi until about 1960. They didn't start using the word 'jeans' until about 1960.)

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Oni no Maggie

Re: the OP:

Also, not everyone wears a belt. If your pants fit properly, you really don't need one.

You don't need one, exactly. But even if you don't wear your jeans baggy intentionally, they usually stretch out a bit as you wear them between washings, and the belt helps keep them in place. It may not seem like much if they only slide down your waist a tiny amount. But if you do tuck your shirt in, it may make a difference in whether the shirt looks like it fits or not. The belt also helps to keep them from gapping out, especially in the back when you sit down.

That said, I do omit the belt anyway sometimes, because I like the way it looks without them.

[Omar Little]

To answer the OP: Tradition. Levi's, the oldest denim pants (dungarees) producer in the US, has always put the label in that location. Levi's jeans also use to include rivets at all of the stress points. The rivets have slowly seen a disappearance. Most jeans now have extra stitching on these points. In the early 1900's cowhands requested the rivet at the crotch area be removed because it would heat up when they were crouched in front of the campfires in the evening, causing considerable distress. In the 1950's schools all across the country requested that the rivets on the back pockets be removed, as they were causing desk chairs to become more quickly scratched and damaged.