Rough Wear Question

[Robman]

The 23380 RW (which is not as often seen as the 18091 and 27752s) seems to be a more of a chocolate shade of brown ala 27752, and less of a caramel shade.

Would I be somewhat correct in this statement? I throw this to the experts here.

 

[khiattP-51]

Robman,

I won't claim to be the absolute expert. But, in my experience, I think you are correct. At first glance, the 23380 and 27752 are very similar. The biggest difference besides contract number is the seperate "Property Of..." tag. I suspect this was the smallest of all Rough Wear orders and was made with supplies which carried immediately over to the next 27752 contract.

-Kevin

 

[Swing]

Robman,

I won't claim to be the absolute expert. But, in my experience, I think you are correct. At first glance, the 23380 and 27752 are very similar. The biggest difference besides contract number is the seperate "Property Of..." tag. I suspect this was the smallest of all Rough Wear orders and was made with supplies which carried immediately over to the next 27752 contract.

-Kevin

I agree, the 23380s I've seen tend to be closer in color to the 27752 than the earlier, light shaded contracts. Don't know if 23380 is the smallest of the RW contracts, but I think it's safe to guess that it's smaller than the two contracts that it fell in between, 1401 and 27752, which is kinda odd. Fourth contract with a company, war closer than ever, and they get a smaller contract...? But, RW was probably still working on 1401 (along with contracts for sheepskin garments) when they got contract 23380. Maybe there were at max production in late '41 and couldn't handle much more, and that's why 23380 was smaller? And when they got contract 27752 in spring of '42 they had expanded and could handle a bigger contract? IIRC, in ELC's old liturature from close to 10 years ago when their 27752 first came out, the 27752 contract was for 50,000 jackets. That's not a small order.

~Swing

 

[Miles_Archer]

Just as an aside I was looking at a 27752 the other day at a NYC vintage store and it was as light if not lighter than any 1401 I've seen. Caramel/russet.

 

[Andrew]

Just as an aside I was looking at a 27752 the other day at a NYC vintage store and it was as light if not lighter than any 1401 I've seen. Caramel/russet.

Cheap Jacks?

 

[Robman]

Thanks gentlemen, I was curious.

Miles, Thank you too. I on occasion have seen on ebay 27752s that are a caramel color and initially thought that it was a faded version of the original but I do remember a while back seeing one with close ups of the inner pockets showing the same lighter color.

Possibly since a large contract they used whatever hides they could find to finish it??

 

[Grant]

Robman,
I'm no expert either but I too have seen both 27752 and 23380 originals in lighter shades - one in NYC and the other in Petaluma, CA.

Grant

 

[Robman]

Thanks guys for the replies. I asked on the old forum but obviously can't access it now.

I guess one thing is for certain with originals...there absolutely are no absolutes when it comes to colors, zips, etc!

 

[Roughwear]

My nr mint 23380 is certainly a very similar shade to the 27752 contract and is also slightly darker than my original Star. There was always some variation in the colour of jackets of the same contract.