Nice condition WW2 A-2 jacket Perry

[jacketimp]

I've seen examples like this before and I'm not suggesting there is anything suspicious but it always amazes me that there can be so much inner wear and so little outer wear.

tell that to the high bidder, pete!

 

[Silver Surfer]

ive looked at this one several times, and i do not understand the flap over it. it is clearly a super example of a goat perry. period. seems to me that there are a bunch of guys with to much time on their hands.....or something.

 

[TankBuster]

I have to agree. Nice jacket, and there are a million different reasons as to why
the lining is ripped in a couple of areas. The great originals will hold their value,
and likely increase. It's the mediocre stuff that may see a decline in my opinion.

 

[Peter Graham]

ive looked at this one several times, and i do not understand the flap over it. it is clearly a super example of a goat perry. period. seems to me that there are a bunch of guys with to much time on their hands.....or something.

What flap ? Terribly sorry that I thought it interesting that there was a contrast between the inner and outer wear. Of course it's a beautiful jacket. Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands.

 

[TankBuster]

ive looked at this one several times, and i do not understand the flap over it. it is clearly a super example of a goat perry. period. seems to me that there are a bunch of guys with to much time on their hands.....or something.

What flap ? Terribly sorry that I thought it interesting that there was a contrast between the inner and outer wear. Of course it's a beautiful jacket. Maybe I've just got too much time on my hands.

I skipped over that part of the post. (too much time on your hands) Apologies Peter!
Guess I need to pay more attention to what I'm agreeing with!

 

[Robman]

Which one came first, the 16175P or this one?

 

[deeb7]

Which one came first, the 16175P or this one?

Both contracts are from the same fiscal year, but the 16175 P came first.

 

[Anonymous]

ive looked at this one several times, and i do not understand the flap over it. it is clearly a super example of a goat perry. period. seems to me that there are a bunch of guys with to much time on their hands.....or something.

THAT WAS MOST HELPFUL THANKYOU a real gem of a post :roll:

Jeff

 

[TankBuster]

Whoever listed this jacket, took some really great photos.
The quality pictures alone will get some extra money out of this jacket.

 

[Roughwear]

Which one came first, the 16175P or this one?

Both contracts are from the same fiscal year, but the 16175 P came first.

David, can you let me have the evidence to back this up as I always believed the goatskin contract came slightly earlier, but am happy to be wrong on this.

 

[deeb7]

David, can you let me have the evidence to back this up ...

Perry 42-16175-P Contract A-2 (40)

Perry had two contracts, and this one was the first, the second being W535-AC-23377.
United States Flight Jackets ... John Chapman.

W535-AC-23377 appears first on the Acme Depot list merely because all the contract numbers are grouped together.

 

[Roughwear]

David, can you let me have the evidence to back this up ...

Perry 42-16175-P Contract A-2 (40)

Perry had two contracts, and this one was the first, the second being W535-AC-23377.
United States Flight Jackets ... John Chapman.

Thanks, but how does JC know?

 

[Anonymous]

Whoever listed this jacket, took some really great photos.
The quality pictures alone will get some extra money out of this jacket.

Jeff you are so right with the pictures telling the story ,take this members post on VLJ


[quote="Here's the new Aero

[/quote]

Looking at the photos of Andrew wearing the jacket does not show the fine grain seen in the close ups of the jacket (great set of photos).When presenting a jacket on ebay with pictures is should make the person looking at the jacket think I want that jacket .Not a picture of a jacket uncropped hanging on a door looking like everyone elses jacket showing how untidy his house is in the background .I think John Chapman of GW does an excellent job of photgraphing his jackets nothing is left to the imagination and no dissapointments on arrival.Better pictures mean more interest and more bids and sellers who dont do this can only blame them selves for the final price realized .

All the best Jeff

 

[TankBuster]

Agree 100%. I love the shots of a nice A-2 jacket hanging on the back of some
closet door, and on a wire hanger no less. I have to agree that Chapman is the
master of photographing jackets.

 

[deeb7]

Thanks, but how does JC know?

Well he's handled quantities of these jackets, deconstructed some, and studied them in detail. I guess that you could ask him directly.

The two contracts appear to be from the same 1942 fiscal year, and both have the collar stand pattern. We must be talking only a matter of months ....

Perhaps you could give reasons for your opposing view?

 

[Roughwear]

Thanks, but how does JC know?

Well he's handled quantities of these jackets, deconstructed some, and studied them in detail. I guess that you could ask him directly.

The two contracts appear to be from the same 1942 fiscal year, and both have the collar stand pattern. We must be talking only a matter of months ....

Perhaps you could give reasons for your opposing view?

I have sent JC a PM. I have no hard evidence at all David, just assumed the goat contract was first, partly because some had the Crown which more often used on earlier contracts (such as RW 1401, Aero 21996) whilst I have only seen Conmars on the hh order!

 

[Roughwear]

David, JC actually makes two contrasting comments on the Perry contracts. From his earlier CD is the one you quoted and from his GW website: They had one earlier and smaller contract that was mostly made using goatskin .

Am I correct in assuming the contract numbers were issued in sequence with the larger numbers being awarded after the smaller ones? So the Cable W535ac23382 came after the Perry W535ac23377. The next Cable order was the 42-10008-P and according to John this came later because it has the Property AAF statement on the label which the earlier contract does not have. The Perry 42-16175-P is a higher number than this second Cable contract so it must be later than the 23377 goatskin contract.

 

[deeb7]

David, JC actually makes two contrasting comments on the Perry contracts. From his earlier CD is the one you quoted and from his GW website: They had one earlier and smaller contract that was mostly made using goatskin .

So he does ... now he's in BIG TROUBLE !! :lol:

Am I correct in assuming the contract numbers were issued in sequence with the larger numbers being awarded after the smaller ones? So the Cable W535ac23382 came after the Perry W535ac23377.

Andrew, the numbers are sequential, but I've always assumed that the groups of consecutive numbers were orders given to different makers at the same time. The two contracts above are both from a group of seven.

The next Cable order was the 42-10008-P and according to John this came later because it has the Property AAF statement on the label which the earlier contract does not have. The Perry 42-16175-P is a higher number than this second Cable contract so it must be later than the 23377 goatskin contract.

Quite possibly ... I've also tried to work it out by interpolation, but then, both Perry contracts have the Property AAF statement, so I don't think that it's enough.

 

[jacketimp]

Thanks, but how does JC know?

I have sent JC a PM. I have no hard evidence at all David, just assumed the goat contract was first, partly because some had the Crown which more often used on earlier contracts (such as RW 1401, Aero 21996) whilst I have only seen Conmars on the hh order!

andrew,

have you heard from mr chapman ?

update, please.

 

[Roughwear]

Imp, Mr Chapman is a busy man and I'm sure he will reply when he has time!