Nickb123
Well-Known Member
Appears to be a contractless LW Foster 55J14. Prototype?
-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
55J14 Prototype?
- Thread starter Nickb123
- Start date
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
Yep- that's right. It's the Top Gun 1 jacket too! Or the prototype of it. It has the same label (slightly different font) as my original Star 55J14 prototype and the same straight puller Conmar zipper. My Star prototype varies a lot in pattern but label and zipper are the same.
Foster:
Star:
Foster:
Star:
Spitfireace
Well-Known Member
Definitely transitional jacket. Nice to see!
mulceber
Moderator
Either way, they're awesome jackets and the real deal. Definitely worth grabbing.
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
My 2 cents thinks that it could be one of the contract over runs that they put different labels on and sold in the PXs .
mulceber
Moderator
Very possibly. Also could be an addition to a couple of the contracts from around the Korean War broke out - basically the Navy going "oh shit, better order more jackets!" and then having to take whatever zippers they could get and simplify the spec. label. Just a guess though.
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
Silver Surfer
Well-Known Member
going to list one for sale tomorrow. its a size 42.
Pilot
Well-Known Member
I agree with Jan and Pavel, no prototype, but maybe jackets given to the surplus markets where the half of the contract labels have been cut off..
several collectors in Japan mentioned the same when seeing those…
Anyway, great jackets! especially in large sizes.
several collectors in Japan mentioned the same when seeing those…
Anyway, great jackets! especially in large sizes.
Last edited:
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
These are probably not PX jackets IMO. They have official GI labels and the straight puller Conmars between both the Foster and Star contracts. The Star looks exactly like the FECs of that time but have an official BuAero label. They are a weird anomaly but I think JCs guess that they are some early prototype is closest to the truth. Why would the Foster and the Star have the same zip and the same label? I see no evidence of cutting off or anything. I do have a Star GI with the bell shaped Conmar which has a folded over label. Maybe that was PX. These jackets are a different creature. IMO
That being said it's all vain conjecture- so everybody's right!
Last edited:
mulceber
Moderator
There are a number of problems with the “prototype” explanation though:
1. The last AN-J-3A, made by Foster, is pretty much identical to their early 55J14s - same pattern, same zipper, frequently the same color of liner. Heck, a lot of them even have a USN stencil.
2. The first 55J14 contracts came literally a few months after the last AN-J-3A contract.
Between these two points, it really seems like the 55J14 was just the AN-J-3A with a new name slapped on it. So there’s no reason why they would have needed a prototype.
3. These G-1s with the weird label survive in way too great a number to be a prototype. They’re one of the most common 55J14s that you see pop up on eBay. If they were a prototype, I would expect them to have made a few, maybe a dozen, MAYBE as many as a hundred jackets.
1. The last AN-J-3A, made by Foster, is pretty much identical to their early 55J14s - same pattern, same zipper, frequently the same color of liner. Heck, a lot of them even have a USN stencil.
2. The first 55J14 contracts came literally a few months after the last AN-J-3A contract.
Between these two points, it really seems like the 55J14 was just the AN-J-3A with a new name slapped on it. So there’s no reason why they would have needed a prototype.
3. These G-1s with the weird label survive in way too great a number to be a prototype. They’re one of the most common 55J14s that you see pop up on eBay. If they were a prototype, I would expect them to have made a few, maybe a dozen, MAYBE as many as a hundred jackets.
ZuZu
Well-Known Member
I've only seen a few of these with the plain contractorless label. I didn't know they were so common- do you have examples to show? Same label- same Conmar straight puller? On 2 different contractor jackets? OK- if you say so.
It's all hot air- desultory typing on the keyboard until we get some paper. The FEC label in the beginning was almost the same but it said Flying Equipment Company. Their label evolved as the Star jackets evolved but I don't know of any Foster PX jackets- were there some? Paper- ads, spec sheets, something...
Erwin
Well-Known Member
Like @Pilot mentioned a very good and logical evidence can be found via Japanese collector's websites where a conclusion was made that 55J14 jackets with no contract on the label were made for private distribution. Any test/prototype would not have specification for already accepted contract, for example see Natick Labs labels and compare with approved test jackets with already assigned name and contract I'd.
Late 40s/early 50s straight pullers of Conmar zipper also should indicate a civilian destination - not test or prototype jacket.
This makes sense in my opinion any officially issued jacket needs contract Id, like per mil-spec. 55J14 ...Star Sportswear example - non contract on the label:
Anyway I'd like to see here any full mil-spec for any early G1 jackets ( for this question 55J14 one) this would clearly confirm any doubts regarding how contract markings should look and if jackets without contract I'd on the kabel could pass the inspection - personally I don't think that this would be possible.
Late 40s/early 50s straight pullers of Conmar zipper also should indicate a civilian destination - not test or prototype jacket.
This makes sense in my opinion any officially issued jacket needs contract Id, like per mil-spec. 55J14 ...Star Sportswear example - non contract on the label:
Anyway I'd like to see here any full mil-spec for any early G1 jackets ( for this question 55J14 one) this would clearly confirm any doubts regarding how contract markings should look and if jackets without contract I'd on the kabel could pass the inspection - personally I don't think that this would be possible.
Erwin
Well-Known Member
I assume that a prototype for USN flight jacket label from early 40s should be a bit similar in design to this rare gem:
however with no contract number correct me if my assumption is wrong folks!
Like I indicated previously, any label on the test/experimental jacket shouldn't have contract Id like listed in mil-spec....you can find contract I'd or contract no but this is related to test contract number, which is always different than via mil-spec contract I'd...
Based on the information from various labels, I'd not call this "civi" jackets a prototype or test run jacket without any valid reference.
however with no contract number correct me if my assumption is wrong folks!
Like I indicated previously, any label on the test/experimental jacket shouldn't have contract Id like listed in mil-spec....you can find contract I'd or contract no but this is related to test contract number, which is always different than via mil-spec contract I'd...
Based on the information from various labels, I'd not call this "civi" jackets a prototype or test run jacket without any valid reference.
