The sizing issue myth

[Roughwear]

and no import duties in the UK when brought in by the 8th AF!

 

[Robman]

Having made various points here I must say that I think Andrew's avatar looks like the "usual" fit of a wartime A2 from my observations of photos. Just my opinion.

Also I do agree with the others as well as Platon on one major issue regarding custom work on repro A2s......for the most part and I don't mean to be cruel......they never look quite right. I have learned over time to go with standard and it works best.

On me and my shape, the Aero A2s work well in my suit size. Yes yes yes I know the epaulets are longer than on the originals but it works well on my more modern shoulders and I don't get the droopy shoulder look and the jacket is comfortable to wear.

Mileage varies per customer.

 

[derleicaman]

Over the years, I have owned at least one example if not several A-2s from the usual suspects. I'm sure I'm leaving some maker out, but I can recall Aero, G&B, ELC, US Authentic, LW, RMNZ and Good Wear. I currently have six GW and one RMNZ in the stable. Two in goat and the rest in HH. It has been a steep and not inexpensive learning curve. I have purchased mostly used, although a few of them have been new. I have never had one specifically made for me. Several have been test jackets from John as I am lucky to be close to his size. When I'm not happy with the fit, I sell it on for someone else to enjoy. Same policy as Scott.

Not to criticisize certain makers, but I have had a problem with some of the makers fits, or rather their interpretation of how an A-2 should fit. I do find it helpful to get measurements for a prospective jacket, and compare this with what I know fits me. I don't understand a policy of not providing measurements for a prosepctive buyer. You better have a great return policy to go along with that policy.

Some contracts are more forgiving and are an easier fit. One of the best places to learn about the various contracts is John's web site and the Acme depot is helpful. Reading the forum here is tremendously helpful as well. Of my jackets, the GW Rough Wear 27752 is very comfortable for me and the GW Dubow 1755 has the best fit of all. I do enjoy experiencing the different fits and leathers of the various contracts as they are all unique. This is something you don't get with a generic or "improved" design of the original WWII versions that some makers provide. I'd rather experience the different patterns as they were originally made. It's all part of the fun!

A few things I have learned:
- The A-2 jacket is generally shorter and boxier than other jacket styles. They were designed to be comfortable in the seated position as when seated in the cockpit while flying a plane. You don't want a longer jacket for this use. Also, remember that men wore their pants much higher on the waist back in WWII days than they do today. Low rise jeans are a real problem here. I like my A-2 to cover my belt buckle, but much longer and the jacket just doesn't look right. Too short doesn't look quite right either.
- Jackets with collar stands are generally less comfortable than those without. The collar stand makes the collar come into contact with your cheeks/chin more readily.
- Goat is generally more comfortable than horse right out of the box. It wears better than horse, but does not develop the same character as horse. Horse takes some breaking in and can benefit from mild hot water treatment. Not a soaking in the washer, but application of hot water with a spray bottle. Then wear it for a few hours and it will more readily conform to your body. John's newer horse shows great character and is almost fully broken in straight out of the box. His newer goat shows more variance and character than the French hides, which were almost too perfect and regular with larger pebbling in the grain.
- If you're buying new, ask the makers for their suggestions as to sizing. Get a test jacket to try out for size. It's a big investment, so why not.

 

[Skip]

what about shearling jackets?

I'm on the lookout for an M-444 and trying to work out, given the extra bulk of the shearling, whether to go up a size. Being 6'3'' and a 39 chest I'm normally a 40 but need 25 in the sleeves. I've seen a few 42's lately but the sleeves are stated as 24/24.5 which may be a little short. So should I look for a particular maker, or go for a 42 anyway, or 44 which may swamp me in the chest?

 

[Dr H]

My experience is limited Matt, but the sleeves of my original Links Irvin appeared unfeasibly short (even for me :roll: ) when measured from shoulder to cuff. However, the sleeve actually sat a little off the shoulder (the shoulder construction is necessarily less trim than the summer jackets). When worn it was perfectly fine.
If possible, go by the US convention of measuring shirt sleeves: centre of nape to end of sleeve cuff.
For instance, that AN-J-4 was measured from the sleeve (my fault); measured in total it might have been more likely.
Cheers
Ian

 

[Dr H]

Andrew, it would be interesting to see a photo of you with only a t-shirt on.

.....

I bet you would, you cheeky devil you.

Be careful Andrew - Stranger Danger!
I've heard some awful tales of this interweb thingy. :geek:
Your pupils might be able to give you some advice about not revealing too much online.

 

[Skip]

My experience is limited Matt, but the sleeves of my original Links Irvin appeared unfeasibly short (even for me :roll: ) when measured from shoulder to cuff. However, the sleeve actually sat a little off the shoulder (the shoulder construction is necessarily less trim than the summer jackets). When worn it was perfectly fine.
If possible, go by the US convention of measuring shirt sleeves: centre of nape to end of sleeve cuff.
For instance, that AN-J-4 was measured from the sleeve (my fault); measured in total it might have been more likely.
Cheers
Ian

So in the case of that AN-J-4 the sleeves may be measured as 24 but fit and sit like a 25 ? Thanks Ian, that makes sense, I'll give it a test.

 

[ButteMT61]

Andrew, it would be interesting to see a photo of you with only a t-shirt on.

.....

I bet you would, you cheeky devil you.

Be careful Andrew - Stranger Danger!
I've heard some awful tales of this interweb thingy. :geek:
Your pupils might be able to give you some advice about not revealing too much online.

Anthony Weiner?
Named oh so perfectly too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal

 

[airfrogusmc]

To just make one comment and I agree with Robman and Andrew and one thing I don't know that has been raised in this post is the fact everyone that was in WWII were products of the great depression and were for years under nourished so many had undersized frames and the fact is we have been getting larger because of modern nutrition.

 

[Otter]

That is the excuse I keep making!

 

[les_garten]

I believe that bodies have not changed much. I believe that the statistics changed, I mean the distribution of the population.
In other words, I guess that in WWII most people wore 36 up to 40 rather than bigger sizes whereas nowadays it's the opposite and most people wear 42 to 46. In that sense the bodies have changed.

Regarding shoulders to chest ratio, we must check with some anthropologist.

You might want to look into this since you are so wrong on it and you make jackets.

Darwin showed how fast environmental factors can change evolutionary patterns. So this is nothing particularly new.

People in affluent societies(where resources are plentiful) are getting much bigger in Bone mass. Much taller, much larger muscle mass.

 

[Anonymous]

People in affluent societies(where resources are plentiful) are getting much bigger in Bone mass. Much taller, much larger muscle mass.

Thank you. I believe I addressed this ealier.
Although more people tend to be larger these days, sizes have not changed. It is the average size of the people that grew bigger.
Someone whose chest measures 36 inches will still wear size 36.
Inches have not changed.

For example, if you go to a store in USA and ask the salesman which size business suits are the best sellers he may say 44 and 46.
If you go somewhere in Europe the answer for the same question could be 40 and 42.
It means that the majority of people in USA are larger, but it doesn't mean that they have to make suits bigger in the USA in order to fit them. Neither it means that a 46 size US person who comes for shopping in Europe won't fit in a 46 size suit because people in Europe are smaller (the majority). Sizes are still the same.

 

[Jeff M]

People in affluent societies(where resources are plentiful) are getting much bigger in Bone mass. Much taller, much larger muscle mass.

Thank you. I believe I addressed this ealier.
Although more people tend to be larger these days, sizes have not changed. It is the average size of the people that grew bigger.
Someone whose chest measures 36 inches will still wear size 36.
Inches have not changed.

....

I wonder about that.
I was a size 44 in high school...as I am now.
I was very active in sports in high school....weighed 165 lbs max.
Subsequently took up other activities to stay in shape, weights, bicycling. Always been a size 44, but my body mass has changed with more bulk across the chest/arms/shoulders. I can barely fit into my old lettermans jacket...which is a size 44.
Tried on a friend's son's letterman's jacket he got last year...size 44...fits perfectly. Clothing design/measurements have evolved to meet the modern body type.

People are just proportioned differently than they were even 20-30 years ago.
I believe back 70 years ago, your standard size 44 airman was on the average taller and had less bulk than a size 44 man does today. Especially if talking about a 40-50 year old fellow who is carrying around some extra poundage.
Sticking with "vintage" measurements with a design like a G1 doesn't matter as much as the bi-swing back compensates for the extra muscle mass.
With an A2, this can be quite noticeable. Hence all the talk about an A2 being a "vintage" size 44 as opposed to a "modern" size 44, and the frequency of folks "sizing up" when it comes to A2's.
Just take a look at the photos of completed jackets at the Goodwear web site.
John and I wear the same size jacket. Both with chest sizes around 43 1/2".
Many, if not most, of the jackets you see him modeling are "size 46", which fit him well.
The vast majority of my GW's are also size 46's.

On the GW page showing people how to take their measurements for their custom fit, he includes a measurement around the shoulders, and asks for your height and weight, and arm length and not just your chest size. (Mark Fisher (Superior Flight Apparel) asks for the same measurements.)
There is a reason for this.
http://www.goodwearleather.com/pages/sizing.html

 

[zoomer]

Had I been drafted at 18 or 20yo, I'd have worn a 38 or 40 myself.
A quarter century and 70 lbs later, I take a 44 suit or a 46 A-2.

About that class pic: I see some epaulet droop here and there, so Nick is not 100% right on that issue (not that he should expect to be 100% right, of course).

 

[les_garten]

People in affluent societies(where resources are plentiful) are getting much bigger in Bone mass. Much taller, much larger muscle mass.

Thank you. I believe I addressed this ealier.
Although more people tend to be larger these days, sizes have not changed. It is the average size of the people that grew bigger.
Someone whose chest measures 36 inches will still wear size 36.
Inches have not changed.

For example, if you go to a store in USA and ask the salesman which size business suits are the best sellers he may say 44 and 46.
If you go somewhere in Europe the answer for the same question could be 40 and 42.
It means that the majority of people in USA are larger, but it doesn't mean that they have to make suits bigger in the USA in order to fit them. Neither it means that a 46 size US person who comes for shopping in Europe won't fit in a 46 size suit because people in Europe are smaller (the majority). Sizes are still the same.

A guy with a 40" Chest today ain't the same as a 40" chest'd guy in the 30's and 40's or earlier for that matter. The arms, legs, abs, and neck attached to that chest are more robust. You can have a 40" chest that gets that way with thin bone, and a guy who gets to a 40" chest by thick bone and muscle. I "think" that the Anterior-Posterior measurements are thicker for men today. We're more Barrel chested.

People are bigger all over. I'm not talking fat here. They're fat too. I'm talking bones and muscle. Leg, arms, necks, etc. Makes the fit of clothes different.

 

[Anonymous]

A guy with a 40" Chest today ain't the same as a 40" chest'd guy in the 30's and 40's or earlier for that matter. The arms, legs, abs, and neck attached to that chest are more robust. You can have a 40" chest that gets that way with thin bone, and a guy who gets to a 40" chest by thick bone and muscle. I "think" that the Anterior-Posterior measurements are thicker for men today. We're more Barrel chested.

People are bigger all over. I'm not talking fat here. They're fat too. I'm talking bones and muscle. Leg, arms, necks, etc. Makes the fit of clothes different.

I generally do agree that men today are bigger, but think that increase in size is too minimal to affect the fit of clothing. I am working on producing some evidence.

For the time being I can quote a 1994 dated official document that states the following:

Anthropometric data and apparel sizing is an important component of apparel quality. Apparel can not be top quality unless it fits the potential wearers satisfactorily. In the United States, current sizing standards rely on body measurements data that were gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the late 1930s.

 

[tater]

The idea of "big boned" is actually real. People are not fat because they are big boned, however. Their bones respond to the increased loads on them and grow to support what they need to support.

The reality is that the population of real interest to us for flight jackets is maybe 16-25 years old for the most part. Height is likely slightly larger now, and commensurate chest size to scale with whatever average height is vs 1930s-40s. There are considerably more fat people in that age range now than there were even when I was in that age range in the 1980s. I remember in my HS growing up, there were maybe 4 kids that were fat in a class of ~350 kids, and they were made fun of pretty ruthlessly. One in my class was actually obese that I recall. The others wouldn't even be considered "stocky" these days.

 

[Jeff M]

From the Centers for Disease Control, re; average USA body size of US citizens from 1960 to 2002;

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcar ... butfat.htm

"The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002."

The average HEIGHT of a population is difficult to change....and a strong indicator of how well the nutritional and health needs of a population were met.
Going back to the 1940's I suspect you'd find the average mean body weight/height and mass were even lighter/smaller.
If you are making a jacket for a size 40 person based on the formula used back in the 1940's, you are basing it on a different "average body".

As the saying goes however...the proof is in the pudding.
If it fits, it fits.
If not, not.

If aiming for a market of 18-26 year old folks who would meet the physical standards of those who served in the armed forces in WW2 and were raised in the depression when one of the main public health concerns was poor nutrition, I could see sticking to those original measurements.
If aiming for folks who are over the age of 30 (or 40 or 50 or 60) who have the expendable income to buy a "luxury" item like this and were raised in the time of plenty when one of the major health concerns was a progressively sedentary life style and obesity, I'd probably adjust the measurements accordingly

 

[regius]

There was no "perfect" wartime fit. Just look at these newish A2s. You can see a whole range of fits and many blouse around the stomach.

http://www.goodwearleather.com/photos/Proper_A2_Fit.jpg

This is SUCH AN INVALUABLE PICTURE!!! this is the picture that explains everything!!
For those of you who are concerned with the so called WW2 "tight" fit, please pay attention to one common thing in this shot, the very fact that all of these men have their A2 zipped up and hooked is the testimony to two facts:
1. they have much smaller deltoids and pec development (top skinny)
2. the criteria of fit when these jackets are issued to them is they have to be able to hook it up at the neck, but unless we get a balooned repro nowadats, how many of us can comfortably hook our jacket up??

additionally, look at the front dip of these jackets, some of the even have the point of the front hem all the way down their crouch! When is the last time your carefully selected A2 repro goes down that far? For me, only the off the rack size 46 GW jackets may do, and that's why I like these GW jackets. I don't have to wait for a year and they fit me perfectly, perfect shoulder, arm and chest (sure, chest can go down two inches, but so do these men's jackets).

The WW2 fit is a fit that look like in this photo.

 

[les_garten]

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the late 1930s.

Citing the Government ain't helping your case.