Levi's® Vintage Clothing
1950's 701 Women's Jeans
About this Style
The Levi's® 1950's 701® is the first five-pocket jean crafted especially for women. It was originally introduced in 1934 and was featured in a "dude ranch" photo shoot for Vogue magazine. Like the 501® of the time, this early version of the 701® had a cinched back, curved top block and wide, straight leg. By the 1950s, it had lost the cinch back, but still maintained its distinct high-waisted fit.
- High rise
- Slim fit
- Straight leg opening
- 100% Cotton
- Non-Stretch Denim
- Zip Fly
- 5-pocket styling
- Wash And Dry Inside Out With Like Colors; Liquid Detergent Is Recommended
- Imported
Compare Similar Styles
![]() | ||||
1950'S 701 $194.98$278.00 | 312 Shaping Slim $69.50 | Low Pro Lightweight $79.50 | 724 High Rise Straight $69.50 | Ribcage Full Length $98.00 |
Slim fit | Shapes Through The Hip And Thigh | Relaxed through the hip and thigh | Slim through the hip and thigh | Slim through the hip and thigh |
High Rise | Mid Rise | Mid Rise | High Rise | High Rise |
Straight | Slim | Straight | Straight | Straight |
Zip Fly | Zip Fly | Zip Fly | Zip Fly | Button Fly |
Reviews
Customer Images and Videos
Filter Reviews
Rating
Height
Weight
Body Type
Language
1 to 8 of 8 Reviews
1 – 8 of 8 Reviews
Highest to Lowest Rating
Southern IL
Weight120-140
Body TypeHourglass
5 out of 5 stars.
Gift From The Denim Gods
5 years ago
These are the closest thing to denim perfection that I’ve ever put on! The waist is where it should be (at the smallest part of the waist), the material is above-par and exceptional (even for 100% cotton), and the legs are flatteringly cut leaving enough room for athletic curve, but just slim enough to maintain ‘neatness’.
They do gap the tiniest bit at the waist, but are high enough rise that a belt can remediate that easily. This fit and rise needs to come in at least a dozen different colors and leg openings. I’ll most definitely need to order that dark wash soon. You know— where ever I revived from paying as much as I did for the echo wash.
5’8”. 140-ish. 25 (waist), 38 (hips). These are never going in the dryer! My only criticism is that I don’t think that the inseam is a true 32 inches. maybe 31, or so.
Why are these jeans pictured on models that they don’t flatter? These are much better in real life!
They do run a size small. In the echo color, at least.
Q: Size Usually Worn
A: 26
Q: Size Purchased
A: 27
Yes, I recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950's 701 Women's Jeans - Echo
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
Chauvin, LA
Weight140-160
Body TypeCurvy
5 out of 5 stars.
An Awesome Jean!
5 years ago
Okay so I read the reviews and took a chance on these! WOW! Great fit....rugged denim jeans that I so loved from a long time ago! I just got them and I ordered the crop version today! I will buy more if they get more colors. Perfect high rise women's jean! Love it!
Q: Size Usually Worn
A: 32
Q: Size Purchased
A: 32
Yes, I recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950's 701 Women's Jeans - Echo
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
JAX, FL
Weight120-140
5 out of 5 stars.
PLEASE BRING THESE BACK!!1
6 years ago
It’s impossible to find a pair of nice jeans to fit my “apple” bottom! I have a smaller waist & a wider hip..and need a high rise. These fit perfect!. You can make them in stretch material & I’d be just as happy....it’s not my fault my Gramma was a 50s beauty who passed her shape to my mom who passed it to me!! Help me out here!! Thanks Levi’s!
Yes, I recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Royal Flush
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
Hickory, NC
Weight120-140
4 out of 5 stars.
What I've been looking for...sort of
6 years ago
Bought 2 washes in this jean, Rigid and Queen Majesty. I'll describe my shape as slender curvy and I love that there are again some high waisted pants on the market. I was never a huge fan of the low waist. I ordered the same size in both washes. The Queen Majesty fits perfectly, but I found the Rigid to be uncomfortably tight in the waist and the rise. It also wasn't as flattering, due to the fit. I'm not sure if the difference in fit is due to the difference in the fabrics. The Queen Majesty has much more "give" than the Rigid. I don't know if, as another reviewer wrote, I need to wash them and wear them wet? I don't really have time in my life for that. I'm going to order the next size up in Rigid and see how they fit. I'll follow up when I get them. Also, I didn't notice when I ordered the Queen Majesty that it has a darker "stripe" down the outside of the leg, just an fyi.
Yes, I recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Queen Majesty
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
3 out of 5 stars.
Viel zu kurz
6 years ago
An sich gute Jeans. Design, Qualität und Material überzeugen, aber bei fast 1,80m viel zu kurz. Auf dem Foto wurde sogar das Bein umgekrempelt. In dem dunkelblau fällt sie deutlich länger aus.
Translate with GoogleNo, I do not recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Queen Majesty
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
St. Paul Minnesota
Weight120-140
3 out of 5 stars.
Not as advertised
6 years ago
Fit is great! Which is why I’ll be keeping these but I probably wouldn’t have ordered them to being with if I knew they were gonna be COMPLETELY different from photo.
No, I do not recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Queen Majesty
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
Dublin, Ireland
Weight140-160
2 out of 5 stars.
Good quality jeans but not as seen in the picture
6 years ago
I bought these jeans recently and received them today. Before purchasing I had googled 701s and saw that there was a darker denim line down the side in some styles. I didn't like that style so I double checked that these were not the ones I was ordering. Unless the jeans in the picture are different, it shows no indication that there is a clear darker denim line down the side. When they arrived alas there was a darker denim stripe down the down of the leg which is 100% NOT in the picture. Will be returning these as soon as possible sadly as they look great in the images.
No, I do not recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Queen Majesty
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big
London
Weight100-120
2 out of 5 stars.
Great fit .... misleading photos.
6 years ago
I bought these jeans as I loved the description of the fit and the great vintage wash.
The fit was fabulous! Unfortunately the jeans had a styling detail were on the outer leg ran a dark denim panel about 3 inches wide. This is a major design feature which wasn’t described or shown on the website. If I had seen this detail I wouldn’t have purchased the item. Subsequently I ended having to return them.
No, I do not recommend this product.
Originally posted on 1950'S 701 Women's Jeans - Queen Majesty
Fit, 4.0 out of 7
Very Small
Very Big