New Old Peacoat

[Atticus]

I love stumbling across deals. I don't buy much outerwear nowadays, but last night I was prowling eBay and found this rare bird. Its a 1965 peacoat in big-boy size 50...only the second such peacoat I've ever seen. One can occasionally find modern Sterlingwear jackets in size 50, but pre-1967 peacoats in size 48 or 50 are damned uncommon.

There was a $55 BIN and a half dozen watchers. I figured something must be wrong with the jacket. A rip? A paint stain? Moth damage? But after looking it over and reading the description twice, I couldn't find any red flags. I couldn't figure out what the hell the watchers were watching for, so I hit the button.

Not sure how much interest in peacoats there is on this board, but, like G-1s, the older ones fetch steep prices...especially in the larger sizes. And like G-1s, older peacoats are of a much higher quality than the newly issued ones. Sometime in the late sixties, peacoats began being made from a lighter, less dense wool and lost the corduroy lining in their pockets. They also lost the full lining in the coat, itself. Nowadays, issued peacaots are light, flimsy, half-lined shadows of their pre-Vietnam forefathers. They remind me of the stiff, cowhide, dynal collared G-1s that are shadows of C-series and older jackets.

Here's two of the seller's photos.




AF

 

[watchmanjimg]

Looks like a great score! I have a few peacoats of assorted vintage although I haven't worn them since I lived up north. Where does the 1965 date come from? To me the label suggests earlier manufacture.

Well done in any case!

 

[Atticus]

Hi Jim. There is a fellow over on the Dark Pages who is very interested in peacoats. He's compiled a "how to date a peacoat" thread that is fairly thorough with respect to the older jackets. It has many photos of coat details and their tags. Turns out that the 1965 peacoat was the only one who's tag had this particular format. It was also the last peacoat with the black stripe around the sleeve at the cuff.

I mentioned that I've only seen two pre-67 size 50 peacoats. The first one I ever saw is also a 1965 and it now lives in my closet. So when I stumbled onto this one, I knew exactly what I was looking at and I didn't hesitate in pulling the trigger.

AF

 

[SuinBruin]

Great score. I love the old kersey peacoats -- I have an 8 button WWII model and a 6 button version from the '50s. I would have worn them a lot more this winter if it hadn't been so mild here.

 

[Rutger]

I think the peacoat is a very stylish coat with character.
The one thing stopping me from buying one is having to go yet again through the process of buying-fitting-rejecting until "the one" has been found.

 

[Atticus]

Great score. I love the old kersey peacoats -- I have an 8 button WWII model and a 6 button version from the '50s. I would have worn them a lot more this winter if it hadn't been so mild here.

As I grow older, I find myself more interested in vintage cloth outerwear and less interested in nylon and leather. Most vintage nylon is too short to be attractive on my older (read: fatter) frame and leather is just plain cold. I now wear deck jackets and peacoats more than anything else of military origin. I also have taken a liking to vintage service station jackets.

AF

 

[watchmanjimg]

Hi Jim. There is a fellow over on the Dark Pages who is very interested in peacoats. He's compiled a "how to date a peacoat" thread that is fairly thorough with respect to the older jackets. It has many photos of coat details and their tags. Turns out that the 1965 peacoat was the only one who's tag had this particular format. It was also the last peacoat with the black stripe around the sleeve at the cuff.

I mentioned that I've only seen two pre-67 size 50 peacoats. The first one I ever saw is also a 1965 and it now lives in my closet. So when I stumbled onto this one, I knew exactly what I was looking at and I didn't hesitate in pulling the trigger.

AF

I definitely can't blame you for grabbing this coat without hesitation. Had it been in my size I would have done the same although the likelihood of my ever wearing it is slim. Those of you who know me are aware that this fact has never stopped me before.

Getting back to the label and vintage of the coat, I've reviewed the thread you reference and am not entirely convinced of its accuracy. The original poster looks to be a member of this forum as well, and in fairness he seems to indicate that his information stems from anecdotal observations. One of his depicted examples, stated to date from 1966, bears a label reading "DSA-1-XXXX." As has been discussed many times in various forums dealing with military items, the "DSA-1" prefix is associated with FY 1964-65. "DSA-100" with no date code was used the following year, and beginning with FY 1967 the labels read "DSA-100-67-XXXX" and so on until the Defense Supply Agency was redesignated Defense Logistics Agency in 1978 (whereupon the labels read "DLA-100-XX-XXXX").

The USAF was kind enough to go a step further than the DSA number in certain cases. See below:

This example shows not only the DSA number indicating FY 1964-65, but provides an actual contract date.

Here's an L-2B from a 1966 contract. The "DSA-100" script without a date code is evident:

Finally, a label from an MA-1 produced pursuant to a 1967 contract. Now the 2-digit date code is present, just like one of the peacoats in the Hat Lounge thread. Of particular interest is the contract date within the 1966 calendar year despite the date code reflecting the 1967 fiscal year:

I can't imagine why Navy peacoats would follow a different labeling scheme than pretty much every other military item.

 

[Atticus]

Jim, you raise an interesting point. I also doubt the military used a different coding system to denote the date of manufacture on Air Force jackets than it did on Navy jackets.

Here's the tag from a 1960 Ownbey MA-1, the tag from a 1961 Skyline MA-1, the tag from what appears to be a 1958 peacoat, the tag from what appears to be a 1962 peacoat and the tag from my newest purchased peacoat. The last photo is from my other older peacoat that I purchased a couple of years ago. Most of the coding on all six appears to follow almost the same format. So I wonder where does that leave my peacoat? Older than 1958 or younger than 1962?













AF

 

[watchmanjimg]

Geoff, this is just the sort of discussion I was hoping to stimulate. I believe the "DA-36-243" prefix on the labels is the key. The language does not appear on '58- and '59-dated examples but is shown on the label of the '60 Ownbey MA-1 and subsequent garments including some of the peacoats (with or without two-digit date codes from the early 1960s). Accordingly, I contend that garments incorporating this language probably range from 1960 to sometime in 1964, when the "DSA-1" language was adopted.

 

[Smithy]

Nice score AF, looks good. One thing is, how are those sleeves? Hope you don't mind my saying but they look a touch short though might be just the photos.

 

[Atticus]

Jim...I was beginning to think it unlikely that my peacoats are 1965 vintage. This is the tag from one of my A-2 deck jackets. Obviously, it was issued by the same US Navy that issued my peacoats. Yet its coding system seems to follow the format outlined by you in your post above, ie, FYs 1964-1965 being denoted by DSA-1 XXXX.



My guess is that my peacoats are older than 1958 or they are contractor's overruns. What argues against the "overrun" theory, is that I've only seen one such tag that didn't have the owner's name and service number printed on it. While size 50 peacoats are rare, those tags appear about as often as do other tags from that era, but in smaller sizes. In fact, one of my two peacoats with this style tag has the owner's name and service number, albeit blacked out.

AF

 

[Atticus]

Nice score AF, looks good. One thing is, how are those sleeves? Hope you don't mind my saying but they look a touch short though might be just the photos.

Smithy, the seller mentions in her auction that the model is a tall, long-armed man. The new peacoat is still in transit, but my other coat, exactly like it, fits me like a dream. Well...perhaps a tad loose in the middle, but the arms are spot on.

AF

 

[Atticus]

Accordingly, I contend that garments incorporating this language probably range from 1960 to sometime in 1964, when the "DSA-1" language was adopted.

Yes...I agree that's this is a possiblity, too...except I would say younger than 1962 and older than 1964.

AF

 

[Smithy]

Nice score AF, looks good. One thing is, how are those sleeves? Hope you don't mind my saying but they look a touch short though might be just the photos.

Smithy, the seller mentions in her post that the model is a tall, long-armed man. The new peacoat is still in transit, but my other coat, exactly like it, fits me like a dream. Well...perhaps a tad loose in the middle, but the arms are spot on.

AF

Good to hear buddy, you're in for a treat then!

I've got a soft spot for peacoats, they're a versatile coat.

Looking forward to some pics when it arrives,

Tim

 

[Atticus]

I just noticed this and it may be another clue to my pea coats' age: Evidently, peacoats didn't come in long or short sizes before 1962. At least I can't find a peacoat tag stamped with a long or short size any younger than 1962. Beginning in 1962, and going forward to the present, all sizes are stated in long, short or regular.

Both of my coats are just plain size 50.

AF