B-15 jacket with epaulets ?

[bombs away]

Hello,

What do you think of this one ?

http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-FLIGHT-OFFICER ... C294%3A200

It looks like an original B-15 jacket, but I've never seen one with epaulets !

Tim.

 

[watchmanjimg]

It may be an original B-15, but the epaulets were clearly added subsequent to its manufacture. They could have come from an overcoat or field jacket.

 

[dujardin]

helloooooooo,

for me and my ''souvenirs'', those epaulettes comes from an M43 field jacket, buttons too.

byeeeeeeee marcel

 

[Peter Graham]

If I'm correct the star on the epp indicates a Brigadier General so if all the insignia is original this could be a very historic jacket. Can anyone make out the nametag ?

 

[watchmanjimg]

I've asked the seller. Hopefully he'll respond and we can research it further.

 

[watchmanjimg]

The seller responded this morning, claiming to be unable to make out the letters. I decided to research the 101st chain of command during WW2 and within 30 seconds found this picture of the legendary General Anthony McAuliffe:

I then had another look at the Ebay listing and sure enough, the name looks like McAuliffe. Certainly this jacket would be of tremendous historical importance, if genuine. However, I'd bet vital parts of my anatomy that it is not. Additionally, the jacket in the attached photograph appears to be a B-10 rather than a B-15. What say the rest of you?

 

[rich]

Just as an observation, IMO the auction jacket might not be the same one as in Jim's photo - in the colour shot, the
AIRBORNE flash sits within the top width of the screaming eagle. In the b/w photo you can see it's flush, even allowing for distortions in the cloth etc. There's also a thickness to the epaulette which doesn't seem to be there in the b/w.

But maybe he had more than one jacket?

 

[watchmanjimg]

I'm pretty sure the jacket in the photo is a different jacket (B-10 rather than B-15), but more importantly I have serious doubts that the jacket on Ebay could have belonged to such a personage as McAuliffe and no one has any idea. I don't claim that the seller is misrepresenting the jacket, but I can't imagine it really belonged to Anthony McAuliffe.

 

[Atticus]

I'd be interested in knowing how big a man was General McAuliffe. Its hard for me to imagine that a healthy, early-middle-aged American general was a size 36, as is the jacket in question. I realize that folks were smaller in those days, but a WWII size 36 (modern size 34?) is a very, very tiny jacket.

AF

 

[watchmanjimg]

I was curious about the same thing. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find his vital stats, although he appears to have been dwarfed by the 6' 1" Patton in one picture I found:

 

[Peter Graham]

Nice detective work Jim. I think you're right. The period photo looks like a B-10. Geoff, in my experience of owning original B-15's I've found them to run very large so a size 36 would probably fit a modern 38 or maybe 40. Judging by the photo with Patton, he looks about a size 38/40. The plot thickens !

 

[watchmanjimg]

Thanks for the kind words, Peter. Based on the photograph it's not hard to believe that McAuliffe may well have worn a size 36 jacket, particularly as this was a very common size during the WW2 generation. We know the jacket in the photos I posted was a B-10, so it appears obvious that the Ebay jacket is another one altogether. These photos have been around for over half a century, so there's been plenty of time to copy the original jacket.

 

[rich]

I didn't pick up on the B-10, sorry guys.

 

[rich]

So is anyone going to bid...........?

 

[bombs away]

Hello,

Nice work Jim !

Look at this other big sized pictures.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/346 ... 9f79_o.jpg

You can see the jacket (a B-10 as noticed) but the way the name plate is sewn is very close to the one on the B-15 from ebay. Very close, not exactly the same, but clearly hand sewn as on McAuliffe's B-10.

We could have a nice historical jacket here...

Tim.

 

[watchmanjimg]

I'm happy to have helped shed light on this, but again I think the historical significance of an original jacket owned by McAuliffe is too great to go unnoticed for over 60 years. Do any of us honestly believe such a jacket would end up on Ebay without the seller trumpeting its provenance from the rooftops? With a single word Anthony McAuliffe became a central figure in WW2, so I can't imagine anything he owned would have escaped recognition before entering the collector's market. A jacket like this would likely have been as desirable the day after WW2 ended as today.

 

[dujardin]

I'm happy to have helped shed light on this, but again I think the historical significance of an original jacket owned by McAuliffe is too great to go unnoticed for over 60 years. Do any of us honestly believe such a jacket would end up on Ebay without the seller trumpeting its provenance from the rooftops? With a single word Anthony McAuliffe became a central figure in WW2, so I can't imagine anything he owned would have escaped recognition before entering the collector's market. A jacket like this would likely have been as desirable the day after WW2 ended as today.

i agree 200% with you.
i can't believe a jacket with such an historical valor finish his days on ebay.
NO NO NO....

and why not a jacket with nametag such as Boyington ?????

byeeeeeeeeeee marcel

 

[Peter Graham]

These photos have been around for over half a century, so there's been plenty of time to copy the original jacket.

I think that's exactly what has happened. Someone has copied the jacket from the same photo Jim has posted except using the wrong jacket !

 

[Maverickson]

Good work Jim. I too am wondering why this seller is not singing this jacket's praise. It must be an intentional facsimile and not to far off from what I am attempting to do with my Father's jacket.

Cheers, Dave

 

[Peter Graham]

I too am wondering why this seller is not singing this jacket's praise.

Dave, the seller is not a dealer in militaria and probably does not have a clue about what the jacket is intended to represent.