Aero 16160

[jschare]

I'm on a roll here. I had gone 50 years without owning an original and now I've purchased my second one in a week. This one I purchased from Silver Surfer. A big thank you Victor for your willingness to part with it. Here are some pics he sent me. I'll post my own when I get it. It looks like it might have been worn in the CBI because of an outline of a blood chit. Now to do some research on the original owner...

 

[rrackleyadams]

That jacket is just amazing...and I love how the old patch stitch marks tell a story of their own (multiple squadrons, lots of action). The square patch on the back and the shield shaped shoulder patch likely places this in the Pacific (to your point)...good luck on digging up some history!

 

[jschare]

Well, here is a 70 year old beauty... The jacket, not me...

 

[Roughwear]

It fits you very well indeed and is in great shape for a 74 year old A2.

 

[Peter Graham]

Another stunner. The grain on that jacket is beautiful. It's nice to see someone appreciating originals for a change.

 

[Roughwear]

Another stunner. The grain on that jacket is beautiful. It's nice to see someone appreciating originals for a change.

I totally agree Peter and wish there were more posts like this on original jackets.

 

[jschare]

What's really interesting with this jacket compared to my Star is the thickness of the leather. The leather on this Aero feels thinner than the leather on my Star. I don't know if they were made this way or if it has occurred over the 70 years the jackets have been in existence...

 

[Roughwear]

The difference would be due to the original thickness of the hide used on these two jackets, not to over 70 years of age!

 

[dujardin]

nice one

great catch

i like the patina

 

[Anonymous]

Great jacket. Congrats.

I have an original Aero 18775 of which the leather is thicker than that of my Star. Also, I 've seen RW 27752 in excellent condition of which the leather was considerably thinner than that of another 27752.

I guess it's safe to say that thickness was all over the map. Don't you think fellas?

 

[Roughwear]

Agreed Platon. It all depends on the thickness of the original batch of hide. Several tanneries were used to supply each maker so it was to be expected that leather varied significantly in thickness even within the same contract. This is certainly true of the jackets in my collection and the others that I have owned/handled.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Andrew.
Do you prefer the lighter or the heavier jackets?
As usual I can't decide and so I d like to have both.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Fantastic-looking jacket and great fit! I love this contract but your original confirms that the earlier GW 16160 I had was all too faithful to the pattern. I loved the thin, pliable hide but couldn't tolerate the sloping shoulders--which of course was no fault of the jacket's. Enjoy!

 

[Silver Surfer]

from my experience handling original a-2s, it would seem that most of the pre war and early war a-2s were made of premium preferred hides [mostly hh], ie: a softer supple hand, and smoother grain. when all hell broke lose for the us, lots of hides were needed and everything and anything went into production. by 1942 many but not all contracts were made of heavier, grainier hides. as we all know, for the most part originals are often smaller then the tagged size. yes guys were smaller back then, but many originals have shrunk sometime by a size, two, or more, both vertically, and horizontally. it would stand to reason that the cellular structure of the hide would have contracted three dimensionally as well, thus making the hide thinner. hides are tanned with liquids, and oils, and though cured and dried when they are used in production, they continue to dry over time, so that these many years later we have some that are dried out to a point that they crumble when handled. of course a lot of this is also due to poor storage conditions. as an aside, i have always wondered why spiewak a-2s, almost each and every one, have been riddled with dry rot. could it be that they were rushed in the tanning and curing process, not completely dried, so that the hides were already destined for a short life? btw: those of us who own originals, have come across originals that are the full size as tagged, and the hides feel and wear like they are like five or ten years old. but, these jacs are exceptional, and at this point rare birds. as to repro preference, i used to like thick chunky hides, but i now prefer the thinner, drapier hides.

 

[CBI]

this thread makes me begin thinking about acquiring another original "wearer"

 

[Andrew]

Well, here is a 70 year old beauty... The jacket, not me...

I felt the same reaction to this post as the other guys (all who've owned originals) and I think it's your expression of joy that's infectious. Nothing like handling an original item of kit infused with history and especially when you can wear it- even if it's just in your own home. Good luck with any detective work. If you can find out anything about it it's so rewarding, but I'm sure the patch/ stitch marks are a definite tell tale of CBI